CA4HSR Submits Altamont Scoping Comments
As Executive Director of Californians For High Speed Rail I have recently joined the “Authors” list here and will be posting news and opinions from Californians For High Speed Rail as we continue and expand our efforts to support, improve, and push forward California’s high speed rail network.
On December 4th, Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR) submitted the comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) for the Altamont Rail Corridor Project. Our letter focused on three key topics: expanding the scope to cover the Altamont destinations described in Prop 1A, station location criteria, and alignments/station locations to be studied..
CA4HSR Scoping Comments – Altamont Rail Corridor Project
To understand the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, it is important to know the background on how it has came about. From 2004 to 2008, the Bay Area was caught in a big fight over whether the Altamont or Pacheco Pass would be used to connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley. CA4HSR remained neutral in this fight. As a regional compromise, the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Authority picked the Pacheco Pass alignment but agreed to support a separate “Altamont Commuter Overlay” project separate from the High Speed Rail project. At the time the overlay project was more imaginary then real, as it had no funding for construction.
Up until early 2009, the Altamont Rail Corridor Project was more paper than real. However, two things changed the status of the project. First, President Obama had $8 billion inserted into the stimulus for high-speed rail and committed to ongoing funding of high speed rail (HSR) through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Secondly, the Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (the Altamont Commuter Express-ACE manager) were able to convince the FRA that the Altamont overlay would be “intercity” rather than “commuter” rail, thus qualifying it for national HSR funds. This means the former “paper project” from 2008 is now eligible to compete for up to $50 billion in HSR funding that may be included in the transportation bill re-authorization next year. Therefore, CA4HSR believes that the Altamont Corridor Rail Project is now a real project that has a fair chance of being constructed.
Californians For High Speed Rail is delighted by this progress and views the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s pro-active stance as a model for California transit agencies. ACE commuter service currently runs three one-way round trips a day, between Stockton and San Jose. The service is slow, and its capacity is limited due to its secondary position to Union Pacific. The Commission’s leadership wants to transform the existing ACE service into the leading passenger rail service in Northern California. The Commission envisions eventually running modern, electric multiple unit rail cars on passenger-only tracks from Sacramento and Merced to/from the Bay Area. The Altamont Rail Corridor Project, at full build out, will have the necessary infrastructure to allow California High Speed Rail trains to access the corridor. The current planning process will lay out how to incrementally construct new high-speed rail compatible tracks, as funding comes available, until the ultimate vision is achieved. This is exactly how transit agencies should think and plan ahead long-term. CA4HSR’s objections to the current scope are not that it is too ambitious, but that it is too limited.
Proposition 1A, which is funding the Altamont Rail Corridor Project EIS/EIS, defines the Altamont corridor as a “high speed train corridor” in Article 2 Section (B)(3). Specifically it reads, “Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor.” CA4HSR enthusiastically approves of adding San Jose to the scope of the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, but believes San Francisco and Oakland must be studied as well to meet the intent of Proposition 1A. We also reject the concept that future high speed service from Altamont can be provided to San Francisco and Oakland by utilizing BART service for large potions of the routes to the two cities by forcing patrons of the Altamont service to transfer to BART trains in either Livermore or Warm Springs. Rather, San Francisco should be reached via a new high bridge to replace the old Dumbarton rail bridge and the Peninsula. Oakland should be accessed by either a new Transbay tube from the San Francisco Transbay Terminal or by upgrading the current Capitol Corridor line from Union City/Fremont to downtown Oakland. CA4HSR’s letter includes five new alternatives through southern Alameda County that could accommodate efficient access to San Francisco and Oakland from the Altamont.
At this point Californians For High Speed Rail is not endorsing any one alternative but wants to insure that Northern California ends up with the best interregional rail plan possible. The region and the State have to opportunity to now plan for such interregional rail service. If you wish to join us in the effort contact us at: brian.stanke@ca4hsr.org The planning for Altamont Corridor Rail Project service has just begun and the more that people get involved, the more of an impact we can have.
About Californians For High Speed Rail
Californians For High Speed Rail is a grassroots, statewide coalition of high speed rail supporters advocating for the high speed rail project approved by California voters in November 2008. Founded in 2005 and re-launched in 2009, we exist to educate, inform, and organize Californians about ways they can help make high speed rail a reality in this state. Additionally, Californians For High Speed Rail also encourages sustainable development of the high speed rail system, promoting the building of stations in city centers and surrounding transit-oriented development, as well as developing and improving feeder transit systems.
Since there is no open thread this week, I’ll mention that at last week’s High Speed Rail Technical Working Group meeting for agency staffers, Reza Fateh of Caltrans District 7 announced that it was his District’s policy, cleared by HQ, that High Speed Rail shall not share any Caltrans right of way longitudinally (i.e., within the existing right of way). This was a bombshell announcement but he ran away soon afterwards, and the meeting proceeded as if nothing happened. But if it was true it would basically kill HSR. Someone should look into this.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Eh? I can only think of a few places where HSR could even conceivably use CalTrans ROW. That may limit options a bit, but for the most part, HSR is traveling along existing railroad corridors, not highways.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Joey -
CHSRA was hoping to use freeway medians for part of the LA-San Diego route. They may also have looked into using the CA-99 right of way in the Central Valley since UPRR isn’t cooperating. Well, it seems Caltrans a.k.a. the asphalt lobby isn’t interest in handing over it’s primary assets to a rival bureaucracy, either. Amtrak California services are managed by Caltrans’ Division of Rail, which isn’t party to HSR planning. The Governor recently rejected a bid to include upgrades to Amtrak California routes to “emerging HSR” status in the state’s ARRA application, giving precedence to CHRSA’s “express HSR” project instead.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Tempest in a teapot. If HSR needs Caltrans ROW medians, the state legislature can pass a law to that effect. Caltrans is a transportation department, not a highway department. Perhaps the legislature needs to remind them of that fact.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
District 7 is the LA and Ventura County district. That could affect some of the alignment choices for the LA-Ontario/San Bernardino section of the route. While I agree with Robert that the legislature could force Caltrans to comply, you’re going to have a hard time getting Angelino’s to ask their Legislature to give up freeway lanes (or potential freeway lanes) for HSR. The freeway alignments are, IMHO, aspirational at best. Perhaps we need a new acronym for Angelinos: NIMFY (Not In My FreewaY).
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
To be clear: I’m talking about the freeway alignments out of downtown LA, the ones down the 15 or the 215, if still possible, shouldn’t be as difficult to push through.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Right now, we’re not talking about taking lanes, but right-of-way. District 7 seems to want to preserve it for new lanes and not new rails, which is a different matter than taking away existing lanes.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Well I also said “or potential freeway lanes”. But one of the routes is along the 60, which has a median, but certainly not one large enough for two tracks. Any run down that median would have to be an aerial, lanes would need to be taken, or the freeway would need to be widened.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Or they could put the trains in the wide unpaved parts of the ROW to the side of the highway. It doesn’t look particularly straight. Why not use the existing Metrolink ROWs. There are two of them. Take your pick.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
One is single-tracked down the side/middle of the 10, with no room for a second track without taking homes or freeway lanes, nonetheless four tracks. The other (the chosen program alignment) is owned by our friends at UPRR. Several of the alternatives involve using the SCCRA ROW east of El Monte, the problem is getting from LAUS to there.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Matt, this development would at worst kill HSR to San Diego via the Inland Empire. The LA-SF and LA-Sac lines have no freeway components, thanks to Diridon.
What about using the station at SJC instead of constructing the people-mover?
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Actually, I think a people mover that goes from the airport to Diridon station (possibly extending to downtown too) would be the best solution. Though since it’s only a minor detour, you might as well have the Altamont/East Bay commuter line stop there as well.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:06 am
The Trimble route option with the SJC station is essentially what the Bay Rail Alliance suggested in its Caltrain Metro East proposal. That went nowhere because VTA bigwigs are BFFs with MTC, BART and BART contractors. Also, lots of people in San Jose pigeonhole rail services based on the status quo, i.e. they perceive Caltrain as antiquated, diesel-based and not particularly effective at bringing commuters to employers in San Jose. BART is considered modern, electric and ideal for just that purpose. CCJPA may also have perceived the notion of Caltrain-branded service in the East Bay as a threat to its bureaucratic fiefdom.
The people mover idea was cooked up because BART is only interested in VTA’s Newhall Yard near the Caltrain Station. It would run from there to the terminals, not from SJ Diridon. Of course running BART east of the runway would deliver more transportation value to John Q Public, but there’s no room for a maintenance facility there. The obvious alternative to splitting the BART line north of SJ Diridion, with spurs going to both the Newhall Yard and to the SJC terminals was either never considered or else too expensive.
There’s no way the authority is going to consider Dumbarton – if they did that would make Pacheco redundant. Altamont is going to be conceived as Stockton to San Jose and that’s it.
Brian Stanke Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
The Authority has already picked Pacheco, and won the legal fight over it. Californians For High Speed Rail isn’t asking them to revisit that a third time. We want them to move forward as rapidly as possible with that line, and say as much in our letter.
The question is, will the separate Altamont commuter/regional line cross the bay? There will be two electrified passenger rail lines on each side of the bay. Why have a diesel-only bridge connection that would force much of the potential ridership to transfer once or twice? Since we are going to have a Dumbarton rail connection, we might as well plan to do it the right way, with seamless high-frequency, high-quality service.
It is time to think outside of and beyond the Altamont v. Pacheco battle. That fight as over.
EJ Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 1:17 am
It doesn’t matter who’s asking what of whom. If you’re building an electrified, high speed direct connection from Tracy to the Peninsula, with a connecting line to San Jose, anyone who can read a map is going to ask why we need another expensive mountain crossing just to serve Gilroy.
This is California after all – legal fights are only won once the concrete is poured and the line is actually built. 50% of the voters can change any law they like, whenever they want.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:37 am
In terms of AB3034(2008), what CHSRA is proposing as the Altamont Corridor is actually an amalgam of two corridors defined in that bill: “Stockton and Modesto to Oakland and San Francisco” plus “Oakland to San Jose”. The bill allows prop 1A(2008) bonds to be used for planning and construction of HSR in corridors or useful portions thereof. That gives CHSRA a lot of leeway to pick and choose what it considers useful.
ACE is perceived as a service that brings commuters to employers in Silicon Valley, not SF or Oakland. A BART extension to Livermore, if it ever actually happens, would permit commuters from the Central Valley to transfer. ACE-on-steroids is supposed to serve the same commute function, only better. Lots of people feel there’s pent-up demand for rail transit because I-580 is so congested. CHSRA is studying Altamont as a full-fat HSR corridor because AB3034 doesn’t give it an excuse not to – though there’s is an out when it comes to actual construction funding. However, they have couched it as an extra-fancy commuter service, with no mention of using it to run direct trains between SJ and Sacramento or indeed, SJ and SoCal. Their agenda is hiding in plain sight: reposition Altamont to avoid canceling Pacheco Pass. It doesn’t much matter to them that commuters by definition don’t travel during the middle of the work day, leaving the infrastructure available for express trains to Sacramento and SoCal.
As for looking at the map, that may be a little decepetive. Getting HSR trains across the Bay at Dumbarton would require (a) reviving the spur through east Menlo Park, (b) constructing a new dual track fixed link (bridge or tunnel) across an admittedly not busy shipping lane and through a National Wildlife Refuge and (c) constructing new passenger-only tracks through either Fremont or Union City.
Don’t count on UPRR, they’ve turned down both BART and CHSRA before precisely because they are not sufficiently hard up for cash to sell any slice of its ROWs for the purpose of constructing tracks that would be off-limits to heavy freight trains. The company has shown no interest in operating light freight within California. Other complications include the fact that BART runs on an aerial in the UC/Fremont area, the high water table, the Hayward and Calaveras faults, the Quarry Lakes (emergency drinking water for 100,000 people) and opposition from Pleasanton et al. NIMBYs in the tony mid-peninsula seem to think that running non-compliant HSR trains at high speed in the Redwood City-Tracy portion would be a trivial exercise. Nothing could be further from the truth.
EJ Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I was responding specifically to the proposal in the letter that Altamont include Dumbarton. If you do that, you’ve basically built the Altamont alternative, and people are going to question why you need Pacheco.
Brian Stanke Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Dumbarton rail is still being pursued separately, as a diesel-only single-track connection. Just as ACE has decided to transform itself into the something far greater than the diesel-only single-track one-way service it is today, the Dumbarton service needs to be redesigned to fit the new post- Prop 1A and ARRA Act (stimulus) context.
If 15 years after Pacheco is built, a commuter/regional line is built that looks similar to the Altamont proposal how does that mean we should close down the operating Pacheco line? Of course not! I mean the ACE line follows one of the Altamont alternatives anyway. Building something similiar to one doesn’t mean not building/closing down the other.
One line serves SF and SJ on one line and provides access to the Salinas/Monterey/Santa Cruz area. The other provides intra-northern California trips and commuter service between the Bay Area and northern San Joaquin Valley.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
The SMCTA (San Mateo County Transportation Authority) forced BART to re-program $145 million in MTC funds for the extension south to Fremont Warm Springs (WSX) to the one out to SFO. Last year, SMCTA repaid part of that debt by re-programming $91 million in MTC funding from Dumbarton Rail to to the WSX. Some $54 million are still outstanding, until those have been repaid Dumbarton Rail is going exactly nowhere.
By then, the old and partially destroyed single-track bridge will be at least 110 years old and have languished without maintenance for 20. The structure is not up to seismic code and might not be worth repairing by that time. The good news is that any replacement would almost certainly feature dual tracks and run low above the water, as standard-speed operations are considered compatible with bascule sections across the lightly used shipping lanes. HSR would require either a tunnel or a a tall bridge that would be more obtrusive and expensive, even if built right next to road bridge instead of the location of the old one.
The bad news is that actually tearing down the old bridge and building a new one requires construction permits in a national wildlife refuge that is home to an endangered species. In other words, Dumbarton Rail may never get off the drawing board, even though county voters approved a sales tax hike to fund it.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I forgot to mention that Dumbarton Rail would have a better chance of getting built if it were leveraged to divert UPRR traffic and the STRACNET designation, effectively restricting the Atherton-Mountain View section of the Caltrain ROW to electric passenger rail traffic. However, that’s only relevant if tracks go underground there or HSR planners need the flexibility to implement elevation transitions with gradients well in excess of 1%. Tracks at or above grade would be more compatible with the anyhow low volume of freight rail traffic in the SF peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Is anything on the Peninsula still part of STRACNET?
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Only the entire Caltrain ROW.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The only maps I can find of STRACTNET have two lines headed for San Francisco from the east. Hard to tell what it is but they are both headed for Oakland. It isn’t the Caltrain ROW. STRACNET exists to move supplies from military depots to other installations and ports at the lowest cost. Suggest to the Department of Defense that they should spend a few billion building a bridge they don’t need to a port that is of marginal use to them, they’d probably find that the Port of Oakland is more than enough.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:00 am
“It is time to think outside of and beyond the Altamont v. Pacheco battle. That fight as over.”
I wish that were true, not because I favor the outcome but because renewed legal challenges are to the detriment of getting any true bullet train service at all going in California. Unfortunately, given the politics of the issue and the adversarial nature of CEQA law, it would be naive to think that no-one is going to file another lawsuit against CHSRA if the court-ordered revisions to the Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIS/EIR don’t result in a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts to Silicon Valley and south San Jose vs. those on East Bay communties, the DENWR and others in the alternative scenario.
The outcome in terms of the preferred route may well remain the same, but opposition to the project will only increase if CHSRA continues to be perceived as arrogant. That opposition has spilled over into litigation and may well do so again. On a project this complex, there are always i’s that weren’t dotted and t’s that weren’t crossed. While individuals and organizations have the right to sue under CEQA, even they concede it’s really a last resort. The objective should be a process that is perceived as fair.
Specifically, CHSRA has repeatedly gone through a lot of planning that many residents of affected areas are still unfamiliar with because the whole thing was a paper tiger prior to the passage of prop 1A(2008). They need to take the time to explain the portion of the process they have already implemented, including the rejection of certain alternatives (e.g. Caltrain ROW over 101 corridor) after only high-level study.
Explaining is not the same thing as opening various cans of worms all over again. There are hard-core opponents who will reject anything CHSRA does or says because they have a beef with the conclusions or with the people drawing them. A much larger group is concerned or even angry but probably amenable to constructive dialogue if they feel their concerns are heard and actually considered, as opposed to CHSRA merely going through the motions. It’s never easy to get people to accept the downsides of a project just because the upsides are even greater, but rational discussion of just those trade-offs offers the best chance of reaching consensus. The new PR firm CHSRA has hired could turn out to be a valuable intermediary in this context or, it could make matters worse.
What should be over at this point isn’t discussion of past decisions and why they were taken, but rather, the idea that HSR needs to be marketed to California voters. They’ve made their decision, now is the time for competent and respectful implementation. That requires a web site that is far more interactive (e.g. moderated forums + chat sessions with both CHSRA board members and senior consultants) and repackages existing content into a concise knowledge base. Bureaucrats love weighty tomes precisely because no-one else has time to read them.
A section on HSR vs. legacy rail technology would also be useful, especially wrt to safety, security and noise/vibration aspects plus construction methods and associated impacts. The web is far more effective than traditional public scoping meetings in bridging the knowledge gap between planners and the general public. Indeed, it should be used to prepare for and follow up on these relatively rare meetings, which are often at inconvenient times for anyone but retirees.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I’m with Brian on this: the Altamont vs Pacheco fight is indeed over, although the Planning and Conservation League refuse to admit that reality. They are almost certainly going to sue again once the revised EIR is submitted, and that may be tossed out of court outright since all but 3 of their claims were rejected by Judge Kenny.
However, those folks aside, the debate really is over, and it is indeed time to break out of the “one or the other” mentality. Both are going to be constructed, the question is how and with what endpoints.
Tony D. Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Robert,
At what point do the lawsuits end? Certainly, even if an EIR was perfect, someone isn’t going to like the project. I don’t think you can file a lawsuit “Just Because!” Also, at some point a judge will say “enough is enough” at the frivolous bull crap and see right through the nonsense.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Honest answer? The lawsuits end when PCL gets bored or exhausted of the fight. They are very smart at presenting their suits as not being frivolous, although I can hope that in this instance, a second lawsuit on the same EIR would not be received favorably by the judge, unless the suit is limited to the 3 items CHSRA was ordered to revise. Judging by their totally misleading public statements, PCL is setting this up as “CHSRA is going to start all over again on the Altamont v. Pacheco selection, so we can sue again if we don’t like their choices.”
The real solution here is to reform the CEQA process to provide better planning, preserving public input, but limiting the ability of these groups to sue over outcomes they dislike.
THE HSR route into San Francisco is up the Caltrain ROW..NO if and or butts about it WE passed prop1A and it was clear what was voted on..enough
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
What does this have to do with anything? Altamont will be built as as commuter overlay, if at all.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Last I checked, Altamont-via-Dumbarton would have leveraged the northern half of the Caltrain ROW for HSR anyhow. It would have generated exactly the same headaches for San Mateo, Belmont, Burlingame etc. as the preferred route through San Jose and Pacheco Pass does.
However, several of the Altamont-via-Dumbarton scenarios called for the HSR starter line to exclude San Jose or else to serve it via a spur branching off in the East Bay. Either way, NIMBYs along the southern half of the Caltrain ROW see these scenarios as a strategy for keeping HSR out of their cities, even though a majority of residents all except Atherton approved prop 1A(2008). However, a branch in the East Bay would have reduced service frequency to both SF and SJ. It was also competing for the WPML right of way with the BART extension, which is the backdrop for why plaintiffs in Atherton vs. CHSRA alleged that the route selection had been biased. Judge Kenny did not uphold that complaint.
Note that CHSRA also studied a number of Altamont variations that either failed to serve SF, required HSR construction between RWC and San Jose or called for a new fixed link between Oakland and SF. All of these were rejected.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
They wouldn’t have to build HSR to San Jose. Just like the people in Oakland and Walnut Creek and …. get “Let ‘em take BART” people in San Jose would get “Let ‘em take Caltrain” for a very long time until HSR goes to San Jose if it ever goes to San Jose.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
CA4HSR isn’t looking to undermine the selection of the Caltrain corridor as the HSR route from SJ to SF. Instead the goal here is to explore additional ways to bring HSR from the Altamont Corridor to Oakland and SF. It’s not about “either/or” but instead is about “both”.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
CHSRA has to study Altamont because AB3034 put the corridor on an equal footing with all others. However, iff Pacheco proves feasible, I’d prefer they hand further planning of the Altamont project over to ACE and/or Caltrans Division of Rail, even if the money for doing so continues to come out of prop 1A(2008). AB3034 explicitly prioritizes the HSR starter line for construction funding, which in plain English means all other corridors will get nothing beyond planning and preliminary engineering out of that bond measure.
Besides, there is no immediate need for two separate routes for getting from SF and Oakland to SoCal in a hurry. What CHSRA is proposing would deliver plenty of spare capacity for intercity travel for decades to come. Advocating “both” in the sense of constructing two routes could easily lead to “neither”. With money so hard to come by and so many other states vying for federal HSR dollars, California really does have to make a choice for one or the other. Don’t bloat the project!
If I counted correctly, CA4HSR is actually advocating six stations between Stockton and San Jose, a distance of around 86 miles. Accelerating like a bat out of hell to momentarily reach 150mph before you have to hit the brakes again doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the objective remains near-term relief for I-580 and Sunol grade (I-680) during rush hour, a single track dedicated to standard-speed passenger rail during peak periods would be a cost-effective way to achieve that. If the service proves popular enough, a manageable and affordable program of alignment rectifications and selected grade separations could eventually increase top speeds to 110mph in the CV and 90mph west of Altamont Pass. However, it would remain primarily a commuter rail service based on FRA-compliant equipment and co-operation with UPRR.
Passenger-only express HSR tracks through Altamont Pass would makes sense if they were integral to the HSR starter line. With bypass tracks at each station and high-acceleration rolling stock (e.g. N700 shinkansen at 2.6m/s^2), it would be perfectly possible to piggy-back regional/commuter rail onto that investment. For an analogy, consider that the UK government built HS1 with public money to upgrade Eurostar service between London and Paris but is now allowing Southeastern to run domestic trains from Kent into London, based on suitable rolling stock capable of 140mph. Similarly, the HSL line between Brussels and Amsterdam was built to support Thalys service to Paris but will also be leveraged for regional Fyra service using rolling stock with a top speed of 250km/h (155mph).
However, CHSRA has chosen to run the starter line through Pacheco Pass, which permits slightly better line haul times trains for the Bay Area-SoCal intercity market. Iff it can be built, that would mean an express HSR overlay through Altamont Pass isn’t going to get beyond the study stage for a very long time. Massive construction funds have already been committed to the core HSR network and BART to Silicon Valley.
I don’t see the need to do anything but upgrade ace service really. There is already service from sac to the east bay and san jose.with direct bart connections in two locations.
there is already service from stockton to the east bay via martinez and including a direct bart connection,
and there is already service from stockton to silicon valley via ace.
I don’t know why we need yet another system in place to duplicate whats already there in several forms.
The money would be better spent upgrading existing service adding frequencies, and increasing speed incrementally, while expanding said existing service.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Well, none of those you mentioned gets commuters from the Stockton-Manteca-Tracy region to LLNL or Silicon Valley quickly. ACE is useful but in its present form, too slow to provide effective relief for I-580 and I-680 at Sunol Grade.
Pressing the existing old SP right of way between Niles and Tracy (except Pleasanton) back into service for standard-speed trains would speed up ACE at a fraction of the cost of constructing fully grade separated express HSR tracks. Over time, a few short tunnels could rectify that ROW to increase top speeds through the passes. However, the more immediate drag on line haul times are capacity-related slow orders and delays on the single-track sections that UPRR uses to haul freight. UPRR might well be amenable to giving ACE exclusive use of a restored SP right of way during commute hours if in return, it gets to use it during the mid-day, on the weekend and/or at night. Such an arrangement could work if the SP ROW were rebuilt using slab track and ACE switched to FRA-compliant tilt trains (e.g. Talgo XXI) with EPA Tier 4 compliant diesel engines. One complication is that NCRY uses the north slope of Niles Canyon to preserve ye olde railroad practices for the benefit of tourists and rail fans. This includes the signaling.
Constructing a full-fat HSR alignment for the express purpose of encouraging long-distance commuting (and nothing else) makes very little sense in either financial or environmental terms. Note how CHSRA has assiduously avoided any mention of the obvious potential of the Altamont Corridor to also support direct trains between San Jose and Sacramento, never mind the Bay Area and SoCal. That said, the large number of stations CA4HSR are proposing for the Altamont Corridor is consistent with commute service, less so with intercity express HSR – unless each and every one of those stations has not two but four tracks dedicated to non-compliant bullet trains. That would be just as hard/impossible to implement in that corridor as in e.g. SF-SJ and Sylmar-Anaheim.
Note that the Pacheco Pass route will induce some long-distance commuting from Merced and Fresno into Silicon Valley, but that is not its stated purpose. North Santa Clara county tycoons may yet pressure CHSRA to burden the tender for operating the trains with a clause requiring a fee structure designed to keep residential and commercial real estate valuations artificially inflated.
Note how a station in Los Banos was explicitly prohibited because of concerns related to sprawl a.k.a. falling house prices in Silicon Valley. Few there actually give a rat’s backside about the grasslands in the San Joaquin Valley. In Northern California, what began as genuine environmental protection efforts has long since morphed into a real estate strategy. Witness how few qualms self-proclaimed environmentalists in Atherton etc. have about advocating HSR construction in a wildlife refuge in what has become a rear-guard effort to protect their own back yards and associated net worth.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 9:59 am
unless each and every one of those stations has not two but four tracks dedicated to non-compliant bullet trains.
For ten trains a day each way? The express from Stockton to San Jose leaves at 7:30, the local to San Jose can leave at 7:35 and be in San Jose before the next express to San Jose leaves Stockton.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
There’s scope for juggling the timetable, so strictly speaking bypass tracks might not be needed right away. However, unless ROW for them can be secured from the outset, they might never get built at all. That would permanently constrain capacity.
A big part of the problem is the rational desire to use proven, off-the-shelf but non-compliant technology for punctual express HSR service. That runs smack into FRA prohibitions on mixed traffic and UPRR opposition to anything that would require a change to freight operating practices.
Btw, no-one in their right mind would build express HSR infrastructure to support just 10 trains a day. That’s like buying a Ferrari just to run errands, a luxury only the super-rich can afford. California is a rich state, but not a super-rich one.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Well, it might be more than 10 trains a day when you look at the fact that faster, more efficient service attracts more riders. If you include the possibility of running commute services to San Francisco and Oakland as well, you may have a reasonable ridership market.
Still, if all that’s being planned is the standard one-way commute service to the Silicon Valley, then there is really no point in building dedicated HSR tracks through Altamont.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The capitols are running 20 tbd each way, although most of those riders aren’t riding the full trip. I think the Sacramento-South Bay market could support enough intercity traffic to justify the line, it’s actually a pretty heavily trafficked corridor, but it’s going to be close. Whether or not there are premium express services on the line and whether they are profitable depends I think in how much of a subsidy the commuter portions receive.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
For the record, however, I’m in favor of doing the required planning for this, and then shelving it and building a high speed connection from San Jose to Sac along a San Jose-Fremont-Oakland-Vallejo-Davis-Sacramento route, with possible future transbay connection through a new tube. I think that makes more sense than connecting via stockton/livermore.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I like that idea, but I think you might want to consider a transbay connection as part of the first phase (especially since we ARE talking in the long term here).
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Well, the BART ride across the tube is pretty short and other than it nearing capacity, an intermodal connection in Oakland should work fine. I think the main priority should be connecting San Jose and Oakland to the 80 corridor. my problem with the Altamont connection is that it skips Oakland/Berkeley, or at least splits the line and makes the route longer. While I think that existing ridership along the corridors is not always a good comparison, here the differences are pretty staggering: way more people are riding the capitols route than the ACE route, and the Capitols aren’t fast either.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“other than it nearing capacity”
That could prove to be a very serious issue in the near future…
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
@Joey: definitely, although they might be able to get away with a second BART tunnel and not a standard-gauge tunnel as well. Four new tracks across the bay would be best of course, transfers killing ridership and all.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Note that CHSRA is explicitly NOT billing the Altamont Corridor Project as a rival to the Capitol Corridor to Sacramento. This is about upgrading ACE, a service for long-distance commuting into Silicon Valley. Just because proponents have managed to finagle an intercity designation based on the length of the route doesn’t mean CHSRA is planning for intercity service with multiple service levels, all day long.
No, this is all about getting Silicon Worker bees who have been priced out of the residential real estate market there into their cubicles in the morning. The obvious alternative would be for employers to set up shop in the Central Valley, e.g. for data center operations.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Commuter rail operations run all day long on busy lines. Even in the US, there’s 2 tph service from New York to Stamford until about 10 pm.
Rafael Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am
If they run all day long, they’re more general regional rail services. My point is that ACE currently serves commuters only, with 3-4 trains westbound in the morning and 3-4 eastbound in the afternoon. CHSRA isn’t looking to change that service pattern, merely to speed it up and grow ridership.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Once bart goes to both livermore and san jose, people can park and ride at the altamont pass/580 and bart to sjc. I would hope bart would run a livermore san jose line, although I don’ think they plan too.. Im sure they are mulling it over….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It’s not connecting Tokyo to Osaka. How many train an hour will be running before two tracks is nto enough?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If they can’t get an FRA waiver: 1.
with all this already in place to work with it just seems like adding yet another redundant layer and another agency, and another route, would be overkill
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am
all this already in place
EJ Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Hmm, and after over a century of infrastructure investment, first railroads, then highways, no one’s found it necessary to build a direct, high-capacity link between Gilroy and the Central Valley…
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 1:32 am
not sure what your point is…
Spokker Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am
It’s not a direct, high-capacity link between Gilroy and the Central Valley. It’s a direct, high-capacity link between San Francisco and Los Angeles via the Central Valley.
also: FACTBOX-Highlights of $447 billion US spending bill
Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:15pm EST
Related News
Pakistan aid package set to focus on water, power
Sun, Dec 13 2009
UPDATE 1-Congress OKs bill to boost SEC, fund agencies
Sun, Dec 13 2009
$447 billon spending bill clears Senate hurdle
Sat, Dec 12 2009
CORRECTED – French builders to bid for 10 bln euro rail projects
Fri, Dec 11 2009
House passes $447 billion spending bill
Thu, Dec 10 2009
WASHINGTON, Dec 13 (Reuters) – The U.S. Congress on Sunday finished work on a massive bill that would fund dozens of U.S. government agencies through next September.
BONDS
By a vote of 57 to 35, the Senate approved the $447 billion bill, which boosts financial oversight and high-speed rail, encourages needle exchanges for drug addicts, includes aid to Pakistan, and advances other Democratic priorities. The House of Representatives passed it on Thursday.
Spokker Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am
How soon can I get the needles?
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
lol
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:15 am
Over a period of decades, I reckon proper oversight over Wall Street could easily save taxpayers enough money to build out all of the federally designated HSR corridors and also maintain the nation’s delapidated existing civilian infrastructure.
Prof. Elizabeth Warren, journalist Mike Taibbi and many others deserve a lot of credit (no pun intended) for exposing the still-ongoing socialization of risk for private gain. Bringing back the Glass-Steagall firewall between retail and investment banking would be good idea. It’s clear now that “too big too fail” has morphed into an explicit business objective for bankers. Economies of scale become diseconomies when they accrue only to a few. Forcing financial services companies to spin off parts of themselves when their balance sheet exceeds a certain dollar value would run counter to conventional capitalist philosophy and especially, to the ambitions of CEOs who write large checks to politicians seeking re-election. Afaik, Congress is not yet prepared to take its new-found religion on financial probity to this logical conclusion.
wu ming Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 5:54 am
the $17 trillion bank bailout would probably have been enough to convert the whole country’s long haul amtrak routes to full-on HSR, just for the hell of it.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Careful. A lot – not all – of the bailout was in the form of low interest short-term loans and loan guarantees that banks were at one point unwilling to make to one another. In this context, short-term meant anything up to 180 days. While some banks have gone belly-up regardless, most have not and these have already repaid most of those bridging loans. A large portion of the overall effort was directed at providing liquidity to the banking and insurance system as a whole at a time when all of it was in a cashflow crisis because one large sector – mortgage-related securities – had imploded.
Still, by the time all is said and done, hundreds of billions if not a small number of trillions of taxpayer dollars will have been spent staving off an even worse calamity. That’s not chump change by any means and would easily have been enough to pay for a vast program of job-creating civilian infrastructure projects.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
First, do you mean Matt Taibbi?
Second, there was very little socialization of risk in the bank bailouts. It’s now projected that the feds will recovery most TARP loans, losing only $42 billion on the whole process, and of those $30 billion will come from the auto industry. Another $30 billion come from AIG; on the other transactions, the feds made a net profit. Road socialism actually cost the feds more than financial anarchy.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Yes, sorry. I meant Matt Taibbi.
TARP wasn’t the only component of the bailout, merely the one that received the most attention in the mainstream media. The sums made available via the Fed’ discount window were much larger, but they were bridging loans and loan guarantees. The auto bailout was separate from TARP and the troubles in the two industries had different root causes.
“Road socialism” at least delivers public assets with a long life span, though “rail socialism” would arguably be at least as good an investment in many cases. The bank bailout was strictly a defensive strategy to keep the bursting asset bubble from destroying even the healthy parts of the economy. The recessionary impact is serious enough as it is.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Road socialism delivers public assets to people who don’t have to live near freeways.
But the GM bailout wasn’t even about public assets. It was about preventing GM from going bankrupt and having its assets sold to automakers that make cars people want to drive.
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I heard a pundit say a phrase I haven’t heard in decades, when referring to the big bank’s reluctance to start modifying mortgages and giving small business loans while reinstating obscene bonuses..
“windfall profits tax”
that should should send a shudder up wall street.
Rafael Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Not gonna happen as long as Wall Street writes large checks to help fund the re-election campaigns of members of Congress. You can thank commercial television for that, it’s their advertising rates that have undermined democracy in the US ever since the 1960s. By now, the country is more of a plutocracy with only the formal trappings of a democracy. Health care is another case in point: the vast majority of voters want a public option designed to curb corporate profiteering on the backs of patients, but campaign contributions to key US Senators are thwarting the will of the people for the benefit of shareholders.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Rafael, special interests dominated US politics long before television. For example, the Democrats failed to pass universal health care in the 1940s due to Dixiecrat opposition to a program that would cover blacks. And the “What’s good for GM is good for America” mentality came before most households had a television.