Bob Iger: "‘We’ve got some pretty exciting things that we’ll be announcing over the next few months"

[TP2000]

Last I heard was they changed the California High Speed Rail Business Plan. The train will not stop at Aneheim as originally planned. It will now end in LA instead.

Also, can someone explain the strange "inland" route of the HSR. Why does it start on the coast up north and then goes east inland before going south and then going west to the coast again? Would a more direct coastal route have made more sense?

No, the High Speed Rail still terminates in Anaheim. The entire project is a disaster however (SHOCKING! that a bloated government project could go so wrong!?! ), and it's doubtful it will begin construction this fall, much less finish. The news today was another big blow to the California High Speed Rail Authority, and now even Governor Brown is backing away from the thing.

But it still ends in Anaheim. Anaheim is building a massive new train station right now for it, although it will primarily handle just Amtrak and Metrolink trains since I highly doubt a bullet train will ever be built anywhere in California. Good thing the existing Anaheim train station is already one of the busiest in California, and thus a very busy station when ranked nationally with 600,000 passengers traveling through the existing (and ugly) Anaheim station annually, a chunk of whom are headed to Disneyland.

Compare that to the 145,000 passengers that use Orlando's Amtrak station annually very few of whom are WDW tourists, and consider that the Anaheim station is relatively close to Disneyland and would be connected via this new streetcar gizmo, and they will probably be able to save some face in Anaheim when their lavish new train station opens next spring without a bullet train in sight.

Anaheim Train Station - Opening 2014 (Bullet Train To San Francisco Not Included)

http://www.articinfo.com/

 

[donaldtoo]

You know what they need there? Monorails!!!

I'm thinkin' no. Not through the coastal-ish mountains and such. Think Cali. hwy 1. Flat San Joaquin Valley, then west, makes more sense logistically and DEFINITELY financially. Not to even mention rockslides and such.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm thinkin' no. Not through the coastal-ish mountains and such. Think Cali. hwy 1. Flat San Joaquin Valley, then west, makes more sense logistically and DEFINITELY financially. Not to even mention rockslides and such.

It was part of a running joke with Peter. Sorry, I tend to forget that not everyone is following all the threads here. I wasn't really serious.

 

[donaldtoo]

It was part of a running joke with Peter. Sorry, I tend to forget that not everyone is following all the threads here. I wasn't really serious.

Thank God! I thought you were losing my mind...!!!

 

[donaldtoo]

No, the High Speed Rail still terminates in Anaheim. The entire project is a disaster however (SHOCKING! that a bloated government project could go so wrong!?! ), and I would doubt the thing ever gets built. The news today was another big blow to the California High Speed Rail Authority, and now even Governor Brown is backing away from the thing.

But it still ends in Anaheim. Anaheim is building a massive new train station right now for it, although it will primarily handle just Amtrak and Metrolink trains since I highly doubt a bullet train will ever be built anywhere in California. Good thing the existing Anaheim train station is already one of the busiest in California, and thus a very busy station when ranked nationally with 600,000 passengers traveling through the existing (and ugly) Anaheim station annually, a chunk of whom are headed to Disneyland.

Compare that to the 145,000 passengers that use Orlando's Amtrak station annually very few of whom are WDW tourists, and consider that the Anaheim station is relatively close to Disneyland and would be connected via this new streetcar gizmo, and they will probably be able to save some face in Anaheim when their lavish new train station opens next spring without a bullet train in sight.

Anaheim Train Station - Opening 2014 (Bullet Train To San Francisco Not Included)

http://www.articinfo.com/

To heck with trains! That would make about the most AWESOME blimp hanger I've ever seen...!!!
Back to airships (sans Hydrogen ), I say...!!!!!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am with @TP2000 in thinking we may hear more about building at the Disneyland Resort before we do at Walt Disney World. With how long it's being dragged out I'm starting to think the Board is not keen on pouring a heap of money at Walt Disney World while NextGen is consuming funds like there is no tomorrow. It also makes me wonder if something has changed in the financial story of Cars Land. Is the steam wearing out? Did Disney again have unrealistic expectations? I know Disney can be slow to react and Stars Wars jumped in front of Cars Land, but it all just seems peculiar to me.

 

[PeterAlt]

No, the High Speed Rail still terminates in Anaheim. The entire project is a disaster however (SHOCKING! that a bloated government project could go so wrong!?! ), and it's doubtful it will begin construction this fall, much less finish. The news today was another big blow to the California High Speed Rail Authority, and now even Governor Brown is backing away from the thing.

But it still ends in Anaheim. Anaheim is building a massive new train station right now for it, although it will primarily handle just Amtrak and Metrolink trains since I highly doubt a bullet train will ever be built anywhere in California. Good thing the existing Anaheim train station is already one of the busiest in California, and thus a very busy station when ranked nationally with 600,000 passengers traveling through the existing (and ugly) Anaheim station annually, a chunk of whom are headed to Disneyland.

Compare that to the 145,000 passengers that use Orlando's Amtrak station annually very few of whom are WDW tourists, and consider that the Anaheim station is relatively close to Disneyland and would be connected via this new streetcar gizmo, and they will probably be able to save some face in Anaheim when their lavish new train station opens next spring without a bullet train in sight.

Anaheim Train Station - Opening 2014 (Bullet Train To San Francisco Not Included)

http://www.articinfo.com/

What news from today?

Any way, as a Florida resident who's state elected a governor who returned billions of dollars to the Federal government that was originally going to be spent building HSR from Tampa to Orlando but most of which most was handed over to California for its HSR project, I will be very ed if California does not succeed of if that money is wasted!

Something like $900 million of that was handed to Amtrak for improvements on their NE corridor, and a smaller amount has been given to NC, SC, and VA to grade separate RR crossings on the SE corridor. The projects in this paragraph will be money well spent, but both these corridors will need billions more if we're ever going to get a rail system comparable to the European one.

The smartest thing I've read about the California plan was that the commuter rail system for the northern cities will get improvements, including grade separations and electrification. Those improved tracks will be shared with HSR. Now, instead of doing the same with existing tracks south, it goes east and south on new tracks and back west again before meeting up with Caltrain. The smart thing to do would have been to improve the Caltrain tracks and electrify them as well and have those tracks be shared with HSR, like the plan is for the north.

 

[PeterAlt]

Re, today's HSR news... Just read it. Why is this thing so expensive in California? Is it the land acquistion and the cost of starting from scratch for new rails? Why can't they just upgrade the existing conventional systems incrementally like the rest of the nation?

 

[PeterAlt]

I am with @TP2000 in thinking we may hear more about building at the Disneyland Resort before we do at Walt Disney World. With how long it's being dragged out I'm starting to think the Board is not keen on pouring a heap of money at Walt Disney World while NextGen is consuming funds like there is no tomorrow. It also makes me wonder if something has changed in the financial story of Cars Land. Is the steam wearing out? Did Disney again have unrealistic expectations? I know Disney can be slow to react and Stars Wars jumped in front of Cars Land, but it all just seems peculiar to me.

They're shooting themselves in the foot if this is true. Comcast has basically declared war on Disney by upping their investments in USO. If the Board decides to "punish" WDW because they've invested unwisely in NextGen, this will not only hurt WDW but will also hurt the company as a whole. Comcast will take advantage of the situation and will have no mercy on Disney and may even up the investment even more, giving them (Disney) a 1-2 knockout. I'm holding out hope that the Board isn't that stupid.

 

[TP2000]

Re, today's HSR news... Just read it. Why is this thing so expensive in California? Is it the land acquistion and the cost of starting from scratch for new rails? Why can't they just upgrade the existing conventional systems incrementally like the rest of the nation?

The expense comes from heading over and tunneling through hilly terrain on both ends of the line, and crossing over several major earthquake faults throughout.
Tehachapi Pass High Speed Rail Tunnels north of Los Angeles

Add in lots of family farms and small businesses that must be bought out along the route, plus the usual union labor that has to be used for any California project, and it adds up very fast to $60 Billion in 2013 dollars for Phase One if it ever gets completed. But that's the cost for High Speed Rail only from Palmdale to San Jose.

Governor Brown lopped $40 Billion off the bill last year by cutting out the first 40 miles and the last 60 miles of the journey. So instead of taking a single train from Anaheim to San Fran, you'd take three trains. A Metrolink commuter train 40 miles from Anaheim to Palmdale, disembark and board a bullet train from Palmdale to San Jose, and then disembark in San Jose and board a Caltrain commuter train the last 60 miles to downtown San Fran. The California High Speed Rail Authority is claiming this counts because you would buy a single ticket, and the website and timetables would call it a single train number for ticketing purposes, but you would need to take three separate trains with a change in Palmdale and San Jose. The commuter trains only go about 60mph tops, so the whole trip would take about five hours. Seriously, that's the current plan.

The bond measure the voters approved in '08 very specifically said the trip from downtown LA to downtown San Fran must take no more than 2 hours and 40 minutes and be a "single seat" journey on the same train, no changes or transfers required. Which has everyone up in arms because it voids the law as it was written in the bond measure, which is the instrument through which California is receiving Billions of dollars from the Federal government for the system.

Interesting your comments about the Billions that California got from the Feds after other states declined their HSR plans. No one in the California media or on local talk radio has mentioned that embarrassing little factoid.

 

[PeterAlt]

The expense comes from heading over and tunneling through hilly terrain on both ends of the line, and crossing over several major earthquake faults throughout.
Tehachapi Pass High Speed Rail Tunnels north of Los Angeles

Add in lots of family farms and small businesses that must be bought out along the route, plus the usual union labor that has to be used for any California project, and it adds up very fast to $60 Billion in 2013 dollars for Phase One if it ever gets completed. But that's the cost for High Speed Rail only from Palmdale to San Jose.

Governor Brown lopped $40 Billion off the bill last year by cutting out the first 40 miles and the last 60 miles of the journey. So instead of taking a single train from Anaheim to San Fran, you'd take three trains. A Metrolink commuter train 40 miles from Anaheim to Palmdale, disembark and board a bullet train from Palmdale to San Jose, and then disembark in San Jose and board a Caltrain commuter train the last 60 miles to downtown San Fran. The California High Speed Rail Authority is claiming this counts because you would buy a single ticket, and the website and timetables would call it a single train number for ticketing purposes, but you would need to take three separate trains with a change in Palmdale and San Jose. The commuter trains only go about 60mph tops, so the whole trip would take about five hours. Seriously, that's the current plan.

The bond measure the voters approved in '08 very specifically said the trip from downtown LA to downtown San Fran must take no more than 2 hours and 40 minutes and be a "single seat" journey on the same train, no changes or transfers required. Which has everyone up in arms because it voids the law as it was written in the bond measure, which is the instrument through which California is receiving Billions of dollars from the Federal government for the system.

Interesting your comments about the Billions that California got from the Feds after other states declined their HSR plans. No one in the California media or on local talk radio has mentioned that embarrassing little factoid.

If California can not build HSR as promised, the state should return the money to the Federal government so it could be redistributed to states that need it and won't waste it. The NE corridor needs it the most.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Also, can someone explain the strange "inland" route of the HSR. Why does it start on the coast up north and then goes east inland before going south and then going west to the coast again? Would a more direct coastal route have made more sense?[/quote]

Terrain and land value. Inland is flat, with few mountains and faultlines to cross. The land is also much less valuable, so it's far less expensive to buy it up for rail. The neighbors, which are primarily farmers, are far less likely to complain about a noisy train than the vacation areas and coastal cities to the west.

I just took the Coast Starlight train from Emeryville in Oakland to LA. It was ok, but next time we'd fly or drive. It took 13 hours, wasn't nearly as scenic as I'd hoped, and was quite boring. We finally got to LA's Union Station on time (around 9:30 p.m.) but it took a whopping half hour for our checked luggage to get to us, which is far longer than most airports. The Amtrak staff was great, but the train itself seemed tired and a bit worn out.

A high speed train would be great, but is it worth the billions? I love the European trains, but America is very different in many ways:
1. We all have cars, fewer Europeans do.
2. Our cities, with parking ramps and wide streets and highways, are built for cars.
3. If the trainline goes down, the European work culture is more "Oh well, get to work when you can." Not here.
4. Our litigious society blocks and delays so much, with eminent domain taking years to acquire the land, environmental lawsuits clogging the system, and bureaucracy slowing down the simplest of initiatives.
5. We don't have a train culture. Except for big city commuters, few Americans are accustomed to trains.

Wisconsin wisely rejected the federal funding because everyone knew that disappointment, huge cost run-ups, and delays would make it all very unlikely to be completed as planned. The Federal money would be insufficient, and then the Wisconsin taxpayers would flip the bill for a system that the vast majority of us would never use, wouldn't be as fast or handy as initial plans predicted, and would then be subsidized by us or in large part scrapped. If California, with two great cities along the coast, can't make it work, few other states could.

 

[choco choco]

If California, with two great cities along the coast, can't make it work, few other states could.

The funny thing about this "two great cities" thing is that nobody knows what the demand is for a high speed train between the two. Who exactly needs to get to get up and down so fast, and why isn't the current plane system good enough?

I'm with TP2000 in that I think this thing will never get built. But I would go further and say I think it is a stupid idea. Between the two metropolis', there are EIGHT (8!) major airports. That's plenty to handle all conceivable intra-state traffic. The flight only takes 45 minutes - faster than any speeding train. If the inconvenience is that it takes too long to get from city center to city center, then the solution would be to better connect the city centers to each individual airport - a project that would increase public transportation options for the citizens within each city (therefore having a ridership that is more than just tourists and businessmen) and certainly wouldn't cost 68 billion. Why did they choose the most complex, expensive and benefit-light solution?

This is the same problem with the Anaheim streetcar. The purpose is to have an easy public transportation system around the Anaheim resort district that connects to the train station. For starters, there already is a public transportation system around this area. It's called the ART, and it's been highly regarded for many years. Why not ask them to expand service and service hours, and give them some funding to do it? The argument is that buses aren't sexy or "iconic" enough, which is hogwash, because London's double decker bus system is as iconic as they come. With good graphic design and high enough volume, the double decker bus system does everything the streetcar will do. Any tourist center with one of those "HOP-ON, HOP-OFF" tourist buses (and most of them get good business) will tell you this. And you won't have to tear up the street for years of construction or spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a street level train that will mess traffic up. Again, why did they choose the most complex, expensive and benefit-light solution?

 

[flynnibus]

HSR is simple.... interconnecting trains do not work without transfers to solid local transit systems.

It works in Europe and elsewhere because they have the local transit to interconnect.. and as Ralphlaw said.. the culture that embraces public transit. Most of the US has neither.

 

[lazyboy97o]

HSR is simple.... interconnecting trains do not work without transfers to solid local transit systems.

It works in Europe and elsewhere because they have the local transit to interconnect.. and as Ralphlaw said.. the culture that embraces public transit. Most of the US has neither.

And that so many here want to do it backwards only hurts future prospects. High speed rail and other big projects will not spur local systems into development, it will just make those projects a financial sinkhole and hurt all other efforts.

 

[unkadug]

Also, can someone explain the strange "inland" route of the HSR. Why does it start on the coast up north and then goes east inland before going south and then going west to the coast again? Would a more direct coastal route have made more sense?

Terrain and land value. Inland is flat, with few mountains and faultlines to cross. The land is also much less valuable, so it's far less expensive to buy it up for rail. The neighbors, which are primarily farmers, are far less likely to complain about a noisy train than the vacation areas and coastal cities to the west.

I just took the Coast Starlight train from Emeryville in Oakland to LA. It was ok, but next time we'd fly or drive. It took 13 hours, wasn't nearly as scenic as I'd hoped, and was quite boring. We finally got to LA's Union Station on time (around 9:30 p.m.) but it took a whopping half hour for our checked luggage to get to us, which is far longer than most airports. The Amtrak staff was great, but the train itself seemed tired and a bit worn out.

A high speed train would be great, but is it worth the billions? I love the European trains, but America is very different in many ways:
1. We all have cars, fewer Europeans do.
2. Our cities, with parking ramps and wide streets and highways, are built for cars.
3. If the trainline goes down, the European work culture is more "Oh well, get to work when you can." Not here.
4. Our litigious society blocks and delays so much, with eminent domain taking years to acquire the land, environmental lawsuits clogging the system, and bureaucracy slowing down the simplest of initiatives.
5. We don't have a train culture. Except for big city commuters, few Americans are accustomed to trains.

Wisconsin wisely rejected the federal funding because everyone knew that disappointment, huge cost run-ups, and delays would make it all very unlikely to be completed as planned. The Federal money would be insufficient, and then the Wisconsin taxpayers would flip the bill for a system that the vast majority of us would never use, wouldn't be as fast or handy as initial plans predicted, and would then be subsidized by us or in large part scrapped. If California, with two great cities along the coast, can't make it work, few other states could.

Two reasons immediately pop into my mind.
1.) Politics....just like the routes of most major interstates, certain cities want or do not want the route to come through their city and play politics to get the routes diverted.

2.) Earthquake fault lines

 

[jt04]

Over one month ago. Two more to go?

 

[ford91exploder]

Look I freakin LOVE trains but nearly all the HSR plans are BOONDOGGLE's, True HSR cannot share trackage with conventional trains because of the damage conventional trains do to the rail, For example on the Acela which I frequenly take to go to NYC, there is only one section where the train can operate at design speed and then only for a few miles,

A proper HSR system needs dedicated trackage with no grade crossings or extended bridging, The states properly declined the funding because they knew it was impossible to construct given budget constraints.

 

[Ralphlaw]

The funny thing about this "two great cities" thing is that nobody knows what the demand is for a high speed train between the two. Who exactly needs to get to get up and down so fast, and why isn't the current plane system good enough?

I'm with TP2000 in that I think this thing will never get built. But I would go further and say I think it is a stupid idea. Between the two metropolis', there are EIGHT (8!) major airports. That's plenty to handle all conceivable intra-state traffic. The flight only takes 45 minutes - faster than any speeding train. If the inconvenience is that it takes too long to get from city center to city center, then the solution would be to better connect the city centers to each individual airport - a project that would increase public transportation options for the citizens within each city (therefore having a ridership that is more than just tourists and businessmen) and certainly wouldn't cost 68 billion. Why did they choose the most complex, expensive and benefit-light solution?

This is the same problem with the Anaheim streetcar. The purpose is to have an easy public transportation system around the Anaheim resort district that connects to the train station. For starters, there already is a public transportation system around this area. It's called the ART, and it's been highly regarded for many years. Why not ask them to expand service and service hours, and give them some funding to do it? The argument is that buses aren't sexy or "iconic" enough, which is hogwash, because London's double decker bus system is as iconic as they come. With good graphic design and high enough volume, the double decker bus system does everything the streetcar will do. Any tourist center with one of those "HOP-ON, HOP-OFF" tourist buses (and most of them get good business) will tell you this. And you won't have to tear up the street for years of construction or spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a street level train that will mess traffic up. Again, why did they choose the most complex, expensive and benefit-light solution?

Exactly. The nice things about train travel are:
1. Scenery.
2. Few weather related delays.
3. Fewer security hassles.
4. You can board and alight close to the city centers.
5. More spacious.
6. Full dining options.

In my opinion, a high speed train connecting the cities would be popular, but will it be cost effective? What happens is that the system is usually subsidized by government and/or the ticket cost ends up being so high that few people use it. In Europe, the biggest plusses are the close proximity of the cities (and the governmental subsidy culture that runs rampant). Even with a mass transit culture, would that culture exist if not for the cities being so close to each other by comparison? Also the existing rail lines merely require upgrades for the next technology. Here, you start from scratch with land purchases.

I do wonder if the Chunnel is profitable, or if it relies on government subsidies to make financial sense. If they rely on subsidies, I wonder how happy the working class is to pay for tourists and the richer classes to Chunnel between London and Paris.

 

[flynnibus]

I do wonder if the Chunnel is profitable, or if it relies on government subsidies to make financial sense. If they rely on subsidies, I wonder how happy the working class is to pay for tourists and the richer classes to Chunnel between London and Paris.

The backbone of services like the Chunnel train are commerce transport.. not necessarily passenger. Same reason why frieght worked, but passenger travel (Amtrak) was such a cluster here. The chunnel company is profitable.. but took 15 years to get there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel