Happy Holidays Open Thread
by Rafael
Happy Holidays everyone!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or another holiday, I hope you get to enjoy it with your friends and family – preferably without any (further) weather-related travel shenanigans.
For all the passion the authors of this blog and the commentariat have put into this blog’s 600+ posts on California HSR, there are still some – not many ;^) – things between heaven and earth that are even more important. Way more important, in fact.
That said, sleighs and reindeer simply aren’t fast enough for the 21st century, so here’s a few tidbits for you to sink your teeth into:
- DoDo has put together an excellent summary of high speed rail projects under construction in Europe that are expected to reach completion in the next 2-3 years, in spite of various financing hi-jinx and planning delays. Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey and Russia are all upgrading their infrastructure, though it will still be quite a while before it all adds up to a pan-European network.
- Fresh off its pre-Christmas fiasco, Eurostar now faces the prospect of competition on the lucrative London-Paris route from a new low-fare service run by a JV between Veolia and Trenitalia. These developments are the direct result of EU directives (i.e. laws) to liberalize cross-border rail traffic that go into effect this month.
- For its part, Deutsche Bahn has long been interested in acquiring a stake in Eurostar but its own trains now meet the special fire regulations needed to run in the Channel Tunnel. No word yet on how they would fare in “fluffy snow”. Rumor has it there might be a new direct service from London to Frankfurt via Brussels and Cologne (~500 miles), but DB has yet to officially tip its hand.
- Unfazed by a recent terrorist attack, Russian railway operator RZD has begun commercial HSR service at up to 250km/h (155mph) between Moscow and St. Petersburg under the Sapsan (“peregrine falcon”) brand. Higher speeds will have to wait until a future upgrade to the legacy 3kV DC overhead catenary system and other components of the infrastructure. The fleet of eight Velaro RUS trainsets was specially adapted to 1520mm Russian gauge as well as the country’s harsh winter conditions and, extensively tested in a climatic wind tunnel (cp. picture at the top of the post).
- Governor Arnold “Pimp My Hummer” Schwarzenegger is looking to slash operating subsidies for California’s mass transit services by $1 billion as part of a larger effort to balance the next state budget. Roads, glorious roads.
- CHSRA is facing mounting opposition to its study of the Beale Street alternative to a station inside the Transbay Terminal Center building. Never mind that CEQA actually requires it to study a reasonable range of alternatives, which given the $2.8 billion price tag of the highly suboptimal DTX tunnel and train box arguably ought to include more than just the default 4th & King option.
- Denizens of Orange county, please mark your calendars. CHSRA will host a project-level Community Meeting in Anaheim next month, focused on communicating the alternatives analysis results so far, including the at-grade vs. bored tunnel issue in a short stretch south of Fullerton. Red County’s Cynthia Ward claims to be keeping an open mind, but is “very concerned” about protecting private property and “historic” buildings. Just how old is anything in Anaheim, anyhow?
She may not yet realize the large footprint of tunnel portal construction sites nor the risk of subsidence nor the joys of tunnel boom and ventilation fans nor the long-term impact of failing to also grade separate the busy legacy tracks. Clem has a useful post on the construction methods booklet that Caltrain’s Robert Doty has put together, outlining the general trade-offs between the various options. Highly recommended reading for the lay person.
Contrary to what Mz. Ward may “feel” the relative costs would be, a decision to tunnel in that stretch of suburbia without a substantial local contribution could easily create a financially ruinous precedent. How come it’s always the people who claim to be staunch fiscal conservatives who insist on spending oodles of OPM (other people’s money) when it comes to their own neck of the woods?
Location: Anaheim City Hall, Council Chambers, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Date/Time: Wednesday, January 20, 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
sleighs and reindeer simply aren’t fast enough for the 21st century,
From “An Engineer’s View of Santa” …… This means Santa’s sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, — 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second…….
Use Santa’s sleigh and you could get rid of the seats, passengers wouldn’t have time to sit down. It would make the commute to the remotest place on Earth to the Financial District in San Francisco possible. Literally for peanuts and some other fodder. Has an admirable safety record too. Only one accident, that unpleasantness when Grandma got run over by a reindeer. Though the official version of the story, by Elmo and Patsy, notes that Grandma had imbibed an astounding quantity of eggnog.
cp. picture at the top of the post
Fluffy snow occurs when the temperature is well below freezing. Fluffy snow doesn’t stick to things. Wet heavy snow does. It is not a picture of fluffy snow. Looks more like rime. Rime could happen in a warm humid tunnel. On the interior side of air filters that would stop snow. Doesn’t even have to go from vapor to solid to cause havoc vapor to liquid would be just as effective. Same as dew or the condensation on a frosty drink. On the delicate innards of a high speed train.
Rafael Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 2:23 am
The Velaro RUS has air intakes on the roof to avoid sucking in snow on the ground. Afaik it also has water-cooled permanent magnet synchronous motors attached directly to 50% of the wheelsets.
When are you folks going to fess up and acknowledge that the Reason Foundation research was right and all this is is a grandiose scam on the California taxpayers? This collection of political hacks that run your Authority missed their projections by miles, deliberately IMO. You and they have lied and lied and lied. This system you blindly support will NEVER be built — not even by Jerry Brown who has at least enough sense to see a turkey when he sees it. If we get Meg Whitman, she’ll cancel it — she’s already said so. You folks need to stop denying the facts and the growing public disinterest in this dog and acknowledge the fools you are.
Rafael Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Merry Christmas to you too. Why don’t you put the kettle on? Your teabags are itching to get wet and wild.
HSRforCali Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Do you have any proof that Meg Whitman is canceling the project? Links?
Truth be Told Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I replied to this before, so the children must be editing me.
The “proof” is that she simply told me so when I asked her about this sham at a campaign event.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Meg Whitman is against 600,000 jobs? That will not gain her any support in this economic climate!
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Meg Whitman has about as much chance of being elected as I do and the reason foundation is nothing but a bunch of right wing shills who only purpose is to support the views of wealthy california republicans.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
you know who need is willie brown not jerry brown. willie gets things done.
Andrew Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I was under the impression that Willie Brown got nothing done during his time as mayor, that he just rode the wave of prosperity that came with the dot-com bubble.
The future of the hsr is much shakier than a year ago. The problems that the japanese economy has had over the past 20 or so years might provide an idea of what is in store for the US economy. Ours is also a mature economy with an aging population and suffering from a loss of exports due to competition with China and 3rd world countries. And Japan does not have to deal with the high cost of defense and foreign wars plus it has virtually no steet crime by comparison to us. But Japan still had a persistently sluggish economy. That does not bode well for the US.
The CHSRA plan suffers from having the focus moved for political reasons to the eastern poorer and less populated part of the state. The current version of hsr is not revolutionary enough to be profitable. As it is the state lacks adequate funds to adequately subsidize existing urban transit systems. For instance why electrify Caltrain when it is cutting trains? Once the local pols recognize that the hsr will require an Amtrak type per passenger subsidy, enthusiasm for this project will dwindle.
Supporters of the hsr should be working on alternatives to the Prop 1A system as a fallback. It is even possible that Jerry Brown, who is not stupid, will have to cop to the faults of the current scheme. And there is the slight possibility that a more conservative republican might win the governorship.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
More from the the pessimists hoping for american failure. The economy is already turning around and people will be getting back to work by the end of next year, further, the additional speding that is still in the pipeline will give the job market a boost.
Spokker Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Don’t you have family to visit? It’s Christmas. You don’t have to be “on” all the time.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
already did. what, youre here. too. actually im home sick in bed today with a cold. so im bored to death. how many episodes of peoples court can you watch in one day.
Spokker Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Oh, I meant to reply to synonymouse.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
(oh. thats ok, I assume no one here likes what I have to say anyway ;-(
Spokker Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Can you get me a discount on Amtrak tickets?
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I can let you when and what discounts and specials to look for and how to get the best fares and other tricks.
we don’t get discounts per se, we just know what the latest marketing dept stuff will be.
you know, companion fares, kids ride free, various assorted regional partnerships ( car free santa barbara, various sports teams events, rail passes, blah blah blah) we have “passive” promos that we only use if the customer asks.
so to answer your question. maybe.
like last month seniors got an additional 35 percent off their 15 percent off fares for a total of half off on tu0th on ccjpa. there’s stuff like that all the time but its generally not advertised.
another reason I suggest people not freak out about future hsr fares, because its going to be the same with those.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
premier
Rafael Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
@ jimsf -
Sorry to hear you’re out sick. Get well soon.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
thanks, just the common cold, more annoying than anything else. good excuse to lay around without guilt.
now I hate to beat a dead horse, but in my boredom, I did some poking around the eurostar service and and discovered, that when it comes to meals, ( and I insist we have premier class with meals on chsr) well it turns out that, the trip from St Pan to Gre du Nord, only takes 2:21 which is 20 minutes faster than sf-la yet they still have full meal, and I mean look at this… I’m not sure what it says but it sounds delish) and these at seat, full meals are complimentary in both business premier and leisure select.
The business premier menu is: here! go ahead, go ahead take a look and tell me that doesn’t sound good. and of course, we’d make it with cali fresh ingredients. ( maybe rotating star chefs from h’wood and sf as a promo)
Then take a look here at the complimentary “leisure select” at seat meal selectionsnot half bad for 2nd class. huh?
If they can do it, we can do it. and there’s no shortage of stars, execs, pols, and others who will pay for it.
( I also couldn’t help but notice the st pan ad showed how it was not just a train station, but a huge mall with all your favorite stores! but I won’t bring that up ..tbt)
Im willing to compromise on the checked baggageon express. ( although I still think they’ll lose a lot of business)
but I think that bags and bikes on locals will be a must.
I I think we should remind not only naysayers, but chsra, of the addition off peak revenue generating possibilities ( mail, fedex, overnight baggage forwarding?, ups, shari’s berries, and light/medium freight (rental car repositioning? ) etc etc. lets get full use out of this very expensive investment.
If I were in charge of it, id pimp those trains out 24/7 and get em to carry anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down, for a price, to make full use.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
They don’t cook that stuff on board. There’s an industrial sous vide vat somewhere filled with plastic bags slowly cooking things to a precise amount. Which then gets thrown into another sous vide bat on the train or into a microwave. Better than airline food but it’s not white linen table cloths on the dining car either. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll put a sous vide’d steak out of it’s pouch and slap it into a railroad version of a George Forman grill for 3 minutes to brown it. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Pullman would be shocked. . . until somebody explains to them that it means not hauling around a kitchen, a chef, and a mostly empty car all of the time.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
The point is, you get meals at your seat on a three hour or less ride, so there is not reason whatsover to be against having meals on HSR. why do you care?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Because there’s life east of the Sierra Nevada. Places where people who actually ride trains on journeys of two or three hours between big cities have discovered that baggage cars and dining cars are not needed. You on the other hand think that the rest of the world agrees that Calofornina is so very very very extra special that Californians should have their every whim catered to. Well it’s my money that will be paying for those very very very special frills. That’s why I care.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I can see having a café car like they have on the Eurostar (basically you go and get mostly pre-prepared items and bring them back to your seat. A full dining car seems unnecessary for such short trips. Especially when you can almost certainly find better, and more variety of food, in the city center you are traveling from or to.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
no one is forcing you to buy the meals or ride in first class. the fact is that a good way to increase revenue is to provide premium service to those who are willing to pay a premium price. you are welcome to ride in coach and eat your tuna sandwich.
but if eurostar offers complimentary, at seat, full meals and full bar in both Business Premier and Leisure Select Classes, and if Thalys offers complimentary, at seat, full meal and bar service in Comfort 1 Class, then cahsr can and should offer the same thing in our first class. ITs not going to cost you anything. look first of all , california IS very extra special. and two, you are talking about a place where even after almost 40 years of operations, BART passengers still want to know why there isn’t a wine bar on board. Im not making it up.
A californian high speed train service is going to cater to the special needs and whims of the californian. It will or it will fail. I know this. so go eat your pringles and tuna and don’t worry about it ok? sheesh.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
of course there will be a cafe car/lounge car whatever for coach passnegers. Im talking about raking in the big fares in premium class. You don’t think George Lucas and Barbara Streisand are gonna ride in coach do you? I mean for real.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I dont like them either but they exist, en masse here.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I mean really, quick ship anything – you know, the hsr doesn’t go to far away from Harris Ranch, and the folks at Cut may like things really, really fresh….
oh no wait steak should be aged, never mind, we’ll send it on T11.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Japan’s problem is population decline: birth rates are low and the government won’t engage in policies that would encourage higher birth rates, such as child credits and tightly enforced bans on discrimination against working mothers; immigration is also low as the government won’t admit foreigners in, even though many Chinese people would gladly move in.
A few positive tidbits that came over the wire yesterday to share with your favorite xmas tree choo choo:
a new bill hr2847 will include one time investments aimed at creating more jobs and includes 48 billion more for transportation including 8.4 billion more for transit and 800 million additional for amtrak. it also makes rail eligible for 27.5 billion in highway finds and allows cash strapped agencies to use some of the money for operations.
The new lynchburg to washington dc train service (amtrak-vdot) has shattered ridership projections in its firth month of operation serving more than twice as many people as vdot expected.
Full meal service is being restored on the lakeshore with newly refurbished heritage dining cars.
and here’s a funny one;
President Signs Bill That Allows Gun-Slinging AMTRAK Passengers to be Locked in Boxes
Harry Houdini made a career escaping from locked boxes. So did David Copperfield and Doug Henning
“Synonymouse” writes “The future of the hsr is much shakier than a year ago. The problems that the japanese economy has had over the past 20 or so years might provide an idea of what is in store for the US economy.”
But Japan has managed to to build tons of rail lines (and highways and other infrastructure projects) in the past two decades. In fact, government spending on infrastructure has been one of the ways people have stayed employed despite slowed private sector growth in Japan.
Despite requiring government support for construction (capital costs), Japan’s railways manage to turn a profit, like the railways of many other developed countries. Higher speeds will allow CAHSR to charge higher ticket prices (up to 80% of airline prices, though I hope for less) than Amtrak, and also reduce costs by reducing by 70% the number of crews and trains needed to move the same number of passengers per hour. There will be no operating subsidy. Even Amtrak makes money off of the Acela and the Northeast corridor, and the Surfliner could probably be profitable with higher ticket prices, even at the current slow speed.
This is a perfect time for California to get people back to work building something worthwhile. HSR and the zero-emissions power plants built to power it will be of lasting benefit to our children and greatgrandchildren.
yes because the goal is to put people to work for the next few years, and as the private sector economy regains its balance and creates jobs, it can absorb the workers as they are done with the project. That’s the whole point.
And what naysayers conveniently forget, while we are short on money now, and are adjusting budgets accordingly, when the economy turn around, coffers become flush again the money is available as the bonds come due.
Its no different than starting a small business, you go out on a limb and beg and borrow to get your business up and running and get through the first five years, then as you begin to be successful, you generate enough to sustain and repay, and eventually grow.
In the case if transportation infrastructure the return on investment is almost immeasurable because nothing is more important in an economy than the movement and mobility of goods and people. Its the backbone.
mostrecent
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
btw tjpa is on sked and UNDER budget!
Here’s a link for you folks to chew on: http://hjta.org/california-commentary/wheels-coming-high-speed-rail. Merry Christmas from HJTA…let the recriminations and spinning and lying begin.
Rafael Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
We’ve already discussed this screed, no need to waste any holiday cheer on it.
Truth be Told Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
That was published Christmas Day, Ralph — what is it about you liberals that legitimate, fact-based criticism just eludes you? CAHSR is a bigger turkey than the one you had on your table.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
As near as I can tell it is verbatim copy of the editorial he published on Foxandhoundsdaily.com on Dec. 22. You can read it here. That copy of it was specifically referenced on this blog, complete with a link to it, on the 22nd. Currently it has 41 comments, you may like to take a few moments and read them. So people who read this blog are familiar with it. Which is why Raphael said “We’ve already discussed this screed”
Here’s a very positive outlook for china’s hsr
wu ming Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
interesting how the previous article’s quote of zhang jian about ticket prices left the punch line out
it cannot be overstated how huge this network will be. 3 hours from wuhan to guangzhou!
I hope we see such high quality ads with chsra and or tjpa these ads showcase and intrigue
Rafael Reply:
December 25th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Now might not be the best time to highlight how much Eurostar is at marketing than they are at serving their customers when they have a breakdown. People actually “get” the convenience of medium-distance travel by train, word of mouth is very effective. What they want is affordable rock-solid reliability, which includes appropriate customer care in the very rare event of a malfunction.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:48 am
In a Radio Monte Carlo broadcast about the Eurostar breakdown there was an anonymous call from a man who claimed to be a Eurostar maintenance engineer. He said his superiors had been repeatedly warned of a possible breakdown. because the cicuitry was 15 years old and needed to be replaced, as was done years ago on TGVs. According to him, they answered that it would take very unlikely weather conditions for any malfunction to happen.
I don’t know whether we can believe an anonymous caller. If he told the truth, then Eurostar management lied.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Eurostar management said the breakdowns occurred because of very unusual weather conditions, which is factually accurate. The fundamental problem of cooling fans sucking in dry powder snow that has accumulated in snowdrifts next to the tracks has been known since at least 1991, when similar conditions wrought havoc on what was then British Rail. They knew full well they were sailing close to the wind on Dec 18 but no-one on the Eurostar board has an engineering background. Christmas is the busiest – and most lucrative – time of year for the operator and they didn’t want to hear about technology risks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Eurostar management looked at the possibility of inconveniencing a few thousand passengers versus the costs of possibly but not assuredly avoiding that inconvenience. They decided that fixing it and then never having a weather event – I can see the headlines now “10 years after the upgrade nothing has happened!” and a long editorial about how wasteful Eurostar is – versus having to transfer passengers to an automobile shuttle when a third train breaks down.
They keep two diesel locomotives on standby to handle breakdowns. How many should they have? how much does that costs and how frequently would they use them? A once in every 20 year event happened. A few hundred passengers had to sit on a stalled train for a few hours then transfer to the automobile shuttle which was a bit dirty and cool. The horror of it all. . .
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
It’s Eurotunnel that has rescue locomotives standing by on either side of the Channel. Afaik, they’re electric.
Afaik freak weather conditions go, I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns beyond which technical mitigation doesn’t make sense. Northern France isn’t Norway, they haven’t experienced this particular set of conditions in many years. However, it is up to the operator to quantify the limits of the operating envelope and, to formulate alternate operating procedures for situations beyond that envelope. Those may include everything from additional visual checks to stopping and manually removing accumulated snow to cancellations.
In this particular case, passengers were indeed only severely inconvenienced. However, when high power electrics short out, fire is also always a possibility (cp. TGV electrical fire, Oct 1997). There is a service/escape tunnel and evacuation procedures, of course, but no-one has ever had to evacuate 2000 people trapped deep underground when a fire breaks out on one or more stranded trains. Anything that happens in a tunnel is more serious than the same incident above ground.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
They’re Diesel.
Not much use in having electric rescue locomotives that can’t rescue electric trains when the power goes out.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
He forgets that a few days ago he was arguing that the catenary went out and that they should install either a second set of catenary wires or third rail. That was shot down because he forgot that the tunnel is 30 miles long and serves multiple trains at a time. 30 miles a bit long for on stretch catenary at 25kV even if was only serving one train. 20 or 25 new substations to supply the low voltage third rail that the next generation of trains won’t be able to use wouldn’t be particularly useful either.
They did a pretty good job consider they had to evacuate 4 trains. He doesn’t want to admit that and will probably throw out a few more theories that will get shot down.
Nigerian national attempts to set the interior of an airliner on fire using a powdery substance carried on his person. He suffered burns but was unsuccessful thanks to the actions of other passengers. The individual was traveling from Lagos to Detroit via Amsterdam. It’s not yet clear at which airport(s) he was required to pass through security. The case has parallels with the shoebomber incident in 2001.
If you’re flying this holiday period, allow for additional time to deal with increased security at the airport. Also expect new permanent measures to deal with the threat of incendiary devices, these will make catching a flight even more onerous and humiliating.
wu ming Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:19 am
raphael’s gone yellow alert!
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Not by design, I assure you. WordPress just has a mind of its own.
Matthew F. Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am
It seems the knee-jerk reaction is: All passengers must remain seated and all possessions must be stowed an hour before landing. No more reading during final descent.
Since SF to LA and SD is about an hour, that pretty much means no more laptops, ipods, or bathroom trips on those routes.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It makes flying much less convienient… if it were not already.
As an aside… my holiday plans included a flight to Europe via New York’s JFK. Bad weather in New York resulted in my flight being cancelled. We were put on a later flight… it ended up being cancelled too. We ended up being placed on standy-by… on 2 efforts… via other cities…other airlines… but, as you see, I am here in America. Every alternate flight was full or over-booked. No seats were available… for days. This experience, plus my last one up to SF… I absolutely hate flying now. It was already convienient…
And now this Nigerian attempted to blow a flight… I might as well boycott all flights if I will be expected to keep my arse in the seat for something seemingly no one has any control over. If someone is intent on doing harm… they’lll find a way.
Andrew Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I’m sitting in the terminal at Kansai International Airport right now, I’m going to be departing for LA via Taipei in a few hours. Looks like I’ve got all kinds of security theatre to deal with when I arrive.
Im glad the passengers took action. Americans should show that they are gonna beat you senseless if you try to pull something and not just sit back and take it.
These people are nut cases. I think more an more, traveling americans will be emboldened to take action in such cases.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Like the people on Flight 93 who flew themselves into a field in Pennsylvania to prevent the plane from flying into a target in Washington DC?
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The passenger who took action was Dutch…
Howdy and happy holidays to y’all. As one of nearly 1,000 residents whose home value is impacted by the very possibility (longshot as it is) of the “Beale Street Alternative” in downtown San Francisco, I’d like to ask you to consider signing our letter to Medhi Morshed (Executive Director, CA High Speed Rail Authority) and Curt Pringle (Chair of the Board, CA High Speed Rail Authority) at http://www.change.org/actions/view/save_high_speed_rail_in_san_francisco to eliminate the “Beale Street Alternative” as technically and economically infeasible.
http://www.change.org/actions/view/save_high_speed_rail_in_san_francisco
You see, most of the folks in my Rincon Hill neighborhood (zip code 94105, basically) supported Prop 1A and want to see high-speed rail succeed. However, we’re in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to fears about losing our jobs and our homes … and while this ludicrous “Beale Street Alternative” is on the table, it is a disclosable item that means those of us who can no longer pay our mortgages and must sell our homes are being put in a worse position by the Board of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
The obvious alternatives are running 6 trains per hour at the Transbay Transit Center and, if demand actually cranks up in 2035, run additional trains to 4th and King. The Beale STreet Alternative is ludicrous because:
1) The anchoring of the Bay Bridge runs from one side of Beale over to Main Street – MTC isn’t going to allow any tunneling around the Bay Bridge anchoring.
2) Major wastewater and water pumping station infrastructure exist between Main and Beale at Bryant and along The Embarcadero.
3) Nearly 1,000 folks live at Watermark and BayCrest Towers right now … and the Beale Street Alternative would require our homes to be eminent domained – not to mention it would eliminate additional potential residences to house another 800 or so folks … San Francisco, despite the current real estate downturn, still has a lot of homeless and the City prioritizes adding housing.
4) The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is relying on development of high-rise mixed with townhome residential buildings on the current Transbay Temporary Terminal site to make the Transbay Redevelopment project economically feasible.
5) 2008 Prop 1A’s wording specifically says the northern terminus in San Francisco will be the Transbay Transit Center.
Please help us send a message the CHSRA by signing http://www.change.org/actions/view/save_high_speed_rail_in_san_francisco and passing it along to your friends to sign. CHSRA is turning supporters of high-speed rail in downtown San Francisco into enemies while our property values are impacted by this foolish talk of the “Beale Street Alternative.” IN a year when health, education, and other budget cuts will have to be made, the CHSRA Board is being stupid in creating enemies in my neighborhood …. Stop this foolishness now, eliminate the Beale Street Alternative – anybody without a political bone to pick can see it is infeasible. http://www.change.org/actions/view/save_high_speed_rail_in_san_francisco
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:33 am
and while this ludicrous “Beale Street Alternative”
More or less the one the MTC proposed in 1999? 6 tracks are marginally adequate for HSR service to Los Angeles and moderate commuter traffic between San Francisco and Peninsula. How many trains from Sacramento can be added to that when HSR and Caltrain are running at capacity? Where do the trains to Santa Rosa or Stockton go?
1) The anchoring of the Bay Bridge runs from one side of Beale over to Main Street – MTC isn’t going to allow any tunneling around the Bay Bridge anchoring.
Very likely sits on bedrock. You could remove everything around it all the way down to bedrock and it wouldn’t matter much. It might be ugly but it would be um um rock solid….
2) Major wastewater and water pumping station infrastructure exist between Main and Beale at Bryant and along The Embarcadero.
They also have a limited lifespan and need to be replaced once a century give or take a decade. How old are they and when are they due to be replaced. If they should have been replaced in 2003 is it much of a concern? If they are due to be replaced in 2012 that works out really well.
3) Nearly 1,000 folks live at Watermark and BayCrest Towers right now
They’ll lose their views of the on ramps to the Bay Bridge! The ones who are upside down on their mortgages might be eager to get their full purchase price for their apartments.
not to mention it would eliminate additional potential residences to house another 800 or so folks
Things can be built over railroad stations. Including housing. Office buildings. Malls. Hotels. Parking lots. Lots of things that can go over the station. … even bus stations…
4) The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is relying on development of high-rise mixed with townhome residential buildings on the current Transbay Temporary Terminal site to make the Transbay Redevelopment project economically feasible.
See above.
5) 2008 Prop 1A’s wording specifically says the northern terminus in San Francisco will be the Transbay Transit Center.
It says the northern terminus is the Transbay Transit Center. It doesn’t say the trains have to be wedged in under the buses between Minna and Natoma.
jamiewhitaker Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
You mentioned MTC … have you seen their June 2009 report on the California High-Speed Rail San Francisco/Silicon Valley Corridor Investment Strategy at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/rail/HSR_PeninsulaInvest_brief_6-24-09.pdf ?
In the report authored by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the City of San Jose, Caltrain Joint Powers Board, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transbay JPA, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, they’ve already figured out what the CHSRA apparently wants to spend millions and create enemies out of friends to figure out – the primary terminus in San Francisco will be the Transbay Transit Center with additional capacity at Caltrain’s 4th and King station. A simple step towards additional efficiency is making sure the electric engines Caltrain buys can run on the same rails as the high-speed rail trains.
I also have to say that you’re really underestimating the anger of BayCrest Towers and Watermark residents at the CHSRA Board and underestimating what eminent domain typically pays … as the Adolf Gasser Camera Shop owner what he’s getting for his prime piece of real estate at 2nd and Howard Streets …
It’d be nice if the CHSRA Board would show some dignity and hold a meeting in San Francisco to face me and my neighbors and explain why they haven’t already ceased consideration of the Beale Street Alternative. Quentin Kopp did show up at one of my Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association meetings .. about 20 minutes after it ended. He asked what sort of building he was in, and I had to explain that the property south of Folsom Street has been planned as high-density residential so that folks can walk, bike, and take transit to get around instead of driving cars … and he was in a 600+ unit residential building (The Infinity). Talk about lacking a grasp of reality …
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
It’d be nice if the CHSRA Board would show some dignity and hold a meeting in San Francisco to face me and my neighbors and explain why they haven’t already ceased consideration of the Beale Street Alternative.
They haven’t stopped considering it because wedged in under the bus terminal sucks for the other 29,999,000 in the state. It particularly sucks for the people in the Bay Area who don’t live on the blessed holy ground of the Peninsula. A larger station between Main and Beale gives them the capacity to one day send trains to Sacramento, Stockton, Calistoga and Cloverdale.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I live in the neighborhood next door to you 94103- too and Im right with you.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Jamiewhtaker- as you know, neighborhood residents in san francisco have a great deal of political clout at city hall thanks to our district elections and district supervisors. Your Supervisor, ( and mine) Daly, are firmly behind the tbt train box as the terminus for hsr, as are the rest of the board and the mayors office. It may well be the time in history the mayor and supes agree on something, certainly the only time in history that daly and newsom, arch enemies, agree on something. So you are already ahead of the game. I would get as many signatures as possible and much more importantly, get as many people as possible to show up for the next public speaker portion of both the BOS and TJPA meetings at city hall. I’ve watched how things get done in sf for decades and city hall absolutely responds to who whomever makes their presence known the most. and again, in this case, they all already agree with you.
Its important that you include all neighbors, not just the higher end tower residents, but neighbors of all income levels. You might even join forces with somcan (south of market community action network) they are well known to city hall already. I have already written to the BOS, mayors office and tjpa as well. The felling I get from tjpa is that they fully expect the trains to be in the train box. I’m not sensing any concern. But, its imperative you interact directly with city hall with a presence. That’ll wrap it up nice and tight for you.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Concur with Jim,
A plan of action must go beyond a petition for it to be succesful! petitions carry little weight… regardless of any laws or what-not. Butts in seats at meetings… speaking up… carry exponantionally more weight.
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
While I’m all for putting the train box in the basement of the Transbay Terminal, the problem is that the current proposals for *approach tracks* are simply *appalling* and non-functional, as documented elsewhere.
Why can’t someone propose something more sensible?
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
but tjpa is already working on obtaining the properties off 2nd st where the tunnel meets the throat.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I mean Im not sure where this beale street buzz is coming from other than its part of what chsra must to legally to show it studied alternatives, but I’m pretty sure its just for show, and of course, the media lemmings will run with any morsel tossed to them…. but its much ado about nothing because the reality is that the tjpa is moving along as if there’s no problem. Im sure that if there were a serious threat of pulling the trains out of the train box, we’d be hearing about it locally.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Did you really just put the same link four times in the same post?
my research also shows that the fares on eurostar between paris and london are wide ranging and very reasonable-
L39 – L260 and comparable to airfares on southwest between la and sf. and $105 for chsr is well within reason.
on real airlines the prices match even more when you consider business and first. $39 – $562 (united)
Pressure is mounting for CHSRA to include an HSR station east of Hanford in its environmental studies and ultimately, in the starter line. Rail Authority Regional Manager Thomas Tracy has indicated as many as 40% of all trains could stop at such a station, which would be located in what is currently open farmland.
Three potential sites are being considered, with room for at least 2000 parking spaces considered essential. No mention of any transit-oriented development near the station at all, nor of improved connecting transit linking downtown Hanford, Visalia and Tulare to an HSR station serving Kings and Tulare counties.
Note that AB3034 limits the total number of stations on the entire network, including any overlay through Altamont Pass, to just 24. The Authority’s plans already call for that number plus one in Redwood City, Palo Alto or Mountain View in the SF peninsula. A stop east of Hanford would be #26.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
hanford options from article
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:34 am
The central option near the 43/198 interchange would best serve Visalia and arguably even Tulare. That’s IFF there’s enough ridership to support a station in the area at all and IFF a way can be found to deal with the hard limit on the number of stations imposed by AB3034(2008).
wu ming Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:36 am
there’s around 500,000 in the greater visalia area, so it’s prob. enough for a station. whether it’s worth being one of the 24 or not is a different calculus. they should be expected to pony up transit connections and TOD if they want to beat out another candidate, though.
Well I don’t see a problem with putting one there since express and limiteds can still pass it by, but the total number is problem. what can be cut? Frankly I’d be tempted to cut a mid peninsula station and the industry station. or the university city station. and what about irvine according to the full map here, there are 26 when you include irvine. so two need to go.
Walter Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:17 am
SF: The SFO station be some other sort of connector. BART already goes there. For all of our counter-NIMBY fury, however, the peninsula deserves a station, probably in Palo Alto.
LA: LA clearly has a wealth of stations. Is Sylmar necessary? Or Norwalk? Both seem like commuter stations for those headed into downtown LA. HSR probably isn’t the best option for these people. Industry is questionable along the same lines.
SD: Murrietta is a questionable choice to begin with (their next-door neighbors, Temecula, have more than twice the population). Chopping University City is a poor idea. Maybe it should be relocated but having nothing between downtown SD and Escondido is a huge missed opportunity.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:52 am
I’d be careful with tossing out stations that have been part of CHSRA’s plans for a number of years. If Hanford were an obvious candidate for a station, it would have been included to begin with and the arbitrary limit in AB3034(2008) set at a different level. Fact is, it’s borderline and only being considered because of political pressure from Kings and Tulare counties (especially, the city of Visalia). Other than Madera, they are the only ones without a confirmed station. In an ideal world, this discussion would have been closed with the completion of the program level EIS/EIR, but politics is always the art of the possible and CHSRA depends on annual bond appropriations by the California state legislature.
The City of Industry stop is questionable, as its primary purpose appears to be bringing football fans to a new stadium in the area. However, the cities of Pomona and San Bernardino are both clamoring for a stop. Whether or not they could even get one depends primarily on which right of way CHSRA can secure for the LA-San Diego leg. The priority in the region is connecting Ontario airport, though doing that properly may require a station with express bypass tracks and possibly secure sidings for special shuttle trains featuring check-in and baggage handling that is integrated with airport operations. In addition, there will need to be a people mover between the HSR stations and the three terminals.
University City NIMBYs are looking to keep HSR out of Rose Canyon altogether and asking CHSRA to study alternate routes via the I-15 and/or CA-163 corridors.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:10 am
i was thinking this, at some point the system is going to expand. eventually it will go further east beyond SNB and further north beyond SAC to RDD. and then of course the limit will have to be amended so depending on how they play it, they can at a later date, redetermine the phases, and add “phase three” which could include additional stations on phase one, as well as stations on the 2nd and 3rd phases. its a big loophole on the 24 station limit. you just wait a while to make the switch, but you can quietly plan in the meantime.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
The 24 station limit refers to HSR in the “corridors” within California defined in AB3034(2008) and built using the bonds prop 1A(2008) made available. Future phase 3 extension to Redding or east of to Palm Springs are entirely beyond the scope of that bill.
However, stations on the starter line plus phase 2 spurs to Sacramento, San Diego and Irvine do count. So does the Altamont Corridor project, even if prop 1A(2008) bonds are only used for planning, not construction.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
yes but you mis my point – theres nothing to stop sacramento from proposing a bill to sudy a phase three, which includes addtional stations in phase one.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
IANAL, but I don’t think it’s quite that easy. Changing the limit of 24 for the bits of the network covered by AB3034(2008) basically requires an amendment of that bill, otherwise the legal basis for California HSR becomes inconsistent. IDK if such an amendment could be enacted by the state legislature acting alone, my guess is no. The state constitution explicitly requires a direct democracy component for bills involving new GO bonds and, going back to the voters for just this one thing isn’t going to happen. See Florida for details.
Basically, CHSRA is going to have to somehow live within the limit, at least until all of the AB3034(2008) bonds have been spent. At that point, a new bill could be introduced without jeopardizing already approved funding. In practice, CHSRA might have to structure the design such that certain stations (e.g. Hanford) are included only as unfunded future enhancement options.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Well the good news is that people are cleary clamoring FOR hsr not against it! so that should make everyone happy and from the comments ive read, seems the folks in the valley, are a far more down to earth and practical bunch of people than the people of say, atherton with their delicate sensibilities.
A lot of the folks who live in the valley, and like living there, still want to be connected to the rest of the state ( the exception is the northern sacramento valley) and they see the value of having quick access to the bay and la. They are also so used to getting the short end of the budget stick when it comes to spending. Its no wonder they are excited. I say, if they are going to show that kind of enthusiasm then give em a stop. They’l be appreciative and likely innovative when it comes to developing such a site with housing and retail etc. having spent a lot of time living in the valley, I am one of them as much as Im a san franciscan and those are good people out there who deserve some attention. Screw Palo Alto. I don’t want them on the train anyway.
wu ming Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 5:06 am
i would be willing to bet that folks in chico and redding would be thrilled to be able to get to SMF airport in a half hour/hour, respectively, and that more than a few would – cranky protestations of some aside – be pretty glad to have a way to get to SF or LA/disneyland in a fraction of the time that it takes today.
convincing the rest of the state to help build the extension will be the hard part. everyone loves to slam central valley folks for being anti-spending for the public good, but they’re more often than not cut out of a lot of new infrastructure projects (although major ag interests are huge beneficiaries of a lot of older water infrastructure public works); watch the coastal population centers protest if they get taxed or bonded to extend HSR that far north.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Right now and the foreseeable future, I cannot imagine HSR to points north of Sacramento. There is simply too little population.
I know… that is where I am from; Chico and I have family in Redding. I travel up there once a year or so… for holidays. About 100,000 people are in each of the urban areas. Not many. Yuba City, Oroville, Red Bluff are population centers too… but far too few people.
HSR infrastructure is expensive. Only if demand warrants frequent service should HSR be considered north of Sacramento, in my opinion.
However, I could see additional service beyond what is provided now…. perhaps a different technology that provides faster service at a reasonable cost.
Walter Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I just think that the way stations got assigned in LA is a little hard to follow. Sylmar but not Glendale? Industry over Pomona? Norwalk instead of…anything else? It seems like they went for even spacing instead of connecting to people.
This whole 24-station business is a drag. I agree that we shouldn’t chuck out long-standing plans on a whim. But perhaps the CHSRA should have been more careful in laying out the projected system map. In light of that restriction, these choices have serious implications.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Glendale is way too close to Burbank and LAUS; it would compete for the same passengers. Sylmar is further out, serving different parts of the Valley, plus Santa Clarita.
Both Sylmar and Norwalk are on proposed light rail extensions: there are proposals to send the Green Line further east to Norwalk station, and more farfetched proposals for a light rail line on Sepulveda whose northern terminus is Sylmar.
Ironically it’s Burbank, potentially the second busiest station in the LA Basin, that LA is making no effort to feed with local transit. The station area already has enough retail to justify light rail and possibly even a subway, but instead the plans are to extend the Red Line to Burbank Airport instead of Downtown Burbank.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
PLEASE extend the red line to BUR. for a direct link to hollywood without having to go all the way to downtown la. Ill never understand why they didnt make that a priority in the first place.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:02 am
BUR being the city or the airport?
jimsf Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:59 am
well the BUR amtrak metrolink stop is at the BUR airport so whichever you wanna call it. Ive used that connection before, I just hate that I have to go all the way downtown and then back out to hollywood.
jimsf Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 1:05 am
take it out bur blvd to hollywood way and up to the airport.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
That neglects downtown Burbank though…
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
glendale didnt get one cuz its right next to burbank. what about santa ana? they didnt get one either. they should have put ana-sna-irv and skipped norwalk and industry
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Santa Ana, Like Fullerton, seems like a very good location in terms of TOD, ridership, etc, however, both are quite close to Anaheim, geographically. CHSRA will have to decide which way it wants to distribute its stations.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
All of those stations – Santa Ana, Fullerton, Glendale – would make excellent S-Bahn stations. For HSR I’m not sure they’d work as well – they’d compete with the existing stations. The chosen stations for the LA Basin are a pretty good mix, except Industry, but they’d have to have better connecting transit. Upgrading Metrolink lines on the model of Caltrain would work. Changing subway and light rail construction plans to feed Burbank and Norwalk instead of extending the Gole Line further out to the boonies would be even better.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Norwalk seems questionable because it’s in the middle of a mostly industrial zone and there are no plans for TOD (contrast to Fullerton which is in a downtown area with more TOD apparently on the way). Norwalk does have the advantage of a potential future green line extension, however.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
… but everybody wants to be LA’s Newark, Jamaica or Stamford. They don’t want to be Marble Hill.
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Cut Norwalk, which has no logical reason to exist, especially since it won’t be on the San Diego mainline (improved Metrolink services will do nicely for Norwalk). I’d actually cut Anaheim and Irvine too, but that doesn’t seem to be an option right now.
I hate to say it, but cut Redwood City/Palo Alto too — if done properly, Caltrain runs can be timed for transfer to/from HSR at San Jose.
Don’t forget that it’s 24 *HSR* stops. We can have the additional stops on Metrolink/Caltrain/Coaster/BART etc./ if we provide well-arranged, short, timed connections.
hey how’d you get color?
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:36 am
dunno, WordPress just picked yellow all of a sudden.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I suspect it might have something to do with number of posts…. or it’s a warning. Har har.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I suspect it has something to do with number of posts…. or it is a warning system? Har har.
The new high speed line between Brussels and Amsterdam is evidently still beset by teething troubles with the signaling system, causing northbound trains to execute an emergency stop at the Dutch border if a southbound train passed through the area in the preceding 4 minutes. These incidents can take up to an hour to resolve, there are currently frequent delays on the Paris-Amsterdam HSR service.
No doubt this software bug will be fixed soon, but it’s clear that this particular ERTMS implementation was not adequately tested prior to start of commercial operations. The delays in getting the line opened were largely due to a technical specification that was in flux during construction.
For passenger rail in the US, the take-away is that tinkering with PTC implementations would be a bad idea. What’s needed is a single national standard based on something that has already been proven and fully debugged. ERTMS actually works perfectly well when it’s the only signaling system on a given line, allowing as many as 30 trains per hour (each way) to safely travel at speeds of up to 200km/h on one section of the Swiss national network. Yes, it might cost a few billion more and taxpayers might have to pay for that premium. However, the macroeconomic benefits of a highly reliable solution would accrue over many decades and massively outweigh this incremental cost. There’s a high opportunity cost to implementation delays and reduced ridership due to teething problems.
—
In related news, the HSL Zuid portion of the line in Holland is apparently emitting 3dB more noise (article in Dutch) than it was supposed to. Doesn’t sound like much, but it actually depends on the metric this refers to. For the objectively metric sound pressure, it means 41% more. For the computed metric sound power, it’s 100%. For the subjective (psychoacoustic) measure of perceived loudness, it’s just 23%. More on volume metrics here.
It’s not yet clear how the Dutch government will respond to the new findings.
Expect lots of confusion over decibels once California HSR gets into the nitty gritty of noise emissions and mitigation measures, especially since “journalists” in the MSM are notorious for quoting numbers without adequate context.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The new high speed line between Brussels and Amsterdam is evidently still beset by teething troubles with the signaling system,
… and here I thought ERTMS was supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, thoroughly debugged and totally reliable, stable and well behaved….. Maybe it’s because they are using version 2.3.4.5abc instead of 2.3.4.5abd as opposed to version 2.2.4.6 or version 2.3.3.2 or version 2.3.1.6 or version …..
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
ERTMS is a huge advance in that it increases feasible top speeds and reduces maximum headways. However, the project managers on this particular line insisted on tracking each and every tweak of the standard during the planning and construction phases. In the end, they got version 2.3.0d. In other words, they allowed the vendors – who were still haggling over the standard at the time – to turn their multi-billion euro project into an opportunity for racking up lucrative engineering change orders instead of freezing the spec at an appropriate point in time.
ECTS 2.0, which lies at the heart of ERTMS, has been deployed very successfully in lots of other places, e.g. Switzerland and Spain. There were teething troubles with GSM-R, especially in Italy.
What you are seeing now on the border between Holland and Belgium is the result of inadequate cross-border design and testing integration. They didn’t set up a single organization charged with building the line from Brussels to Amsterdam as a single project. Instead, bureaucrats in each country did their own thing.
anonymouse Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
How does ERTMS increase feasible top speeds compared to TVM? How does it reduce headways compared to TVM? For that matter it’s functionally identical to Amtrak’s ACSES, it just uses GSM-R to transmit movement authority information to trains rather than coded track circuits. You still need the track circuits for train detection.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
ERTMS is a huge advance in that it increases feasible top speeds and reduces maximum headways.
When it works, when it doesn’t work not so much.
In other words, they allowed the vendors – who were still haggling over the standard at the time
If the vendor’s SIG is still haggling over the standard it’s not a standard.
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
More accurately, ERTMS *will* be reliable, stable and well-behaved by the time *California* gets around to using it. :-) ETCS “level 1″ is completely reliable, and California should really just use one of the variations on that. ETCS “level 2″ is now reliable in Switzerland, Spain, and Italy, but in slightly incompatible verisons. I expect that they’ll have ironed those problems out by the time California actually gets into signalling (they have to build practically everything else first).
I wouldn’t reccomend that California be the first to try ETCS level 3, which likely won’t be ready by the time they’re building the system. :-)
Thalys also has a three hour travel time, at seat meals in first, and, comparable fares with london paris, la-sf and air fares. just a note to the naysayers…. ( no matter how you slice it, hsr is competitive with other mode, in today’s dollars and tomorrows.)
I joined the hanford thing, you can find it here facebook if you want to see what locals are saying…
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Yup, Thalys is why you can no longer catch a flight from Paris to Brussels. Once the signaling and noise problems are vanquished, I fully expect the modal split between Paris/Brussels and Amsterdam to shift toward rail as well. It’s just a shame they couldn’t iron out the kinks before the first Thalys trains were re-routed to the new infrastructure, no amount of meal service or WiFi on board is going to compensate for a public perception that the trains aren’t running on time. Europeans have higher expectations of their passenger rail infrastructure than Americans do, that’s why so many were so upset at Eurostar’s failures, frozen switches across the continent and other weather-related problems.
Predictably enough, there are now calls to make the additional investments needed to handle more severe winter weather, even if it only happens once in a blue moon. It’s purely an economic issue, railways in Norway and other nordic countries aren’t fazed by moderate frost or snow.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:47 am
@Truth be Told
HJTA stuff really does not get much traction here, does it?
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I should certainly hope not. Aren’t HJTA the ones who destroyed the state by lying to get Prop 13 passed (featuring the infamous 2/3 rule?)
Merry Christmas to you as well. If you read my entire post, you see that I have my reservations about the entire project. I have a hard time justifying the expenditure in a state where A) the existing rail system is already heavily subsidized, and B) we have no money and are closing schools. I also have my concerns about the Business Plan that HSR is using to determine the viability of the project.
The CHSRA uses the excuse that it is Federal Stimulus money, but the people of this nation forget that the Feds do not actually produce that money, they simply take it from us (by force) skim their own salaries off the top, and then give portions of it back to the right projects who have adequately kissed bottom, and expect us to thank them for their generosity. (actually first we borrow it from China, then we skim off the top…) But being Christmas and all, I figured I would spare our beloved Mayor the public gutting in my first post on the subject. Right now I am just reveling in the warm fuzzy glow of public disclosure that Anaheim is finally getting, when other communities have not only been notified, but involved in design input.
That said, your statement of “Just how old is anything in Anaheim, anyhow?”is pretty ignorant. Anaheim is the oldest city in Orange County, founded in 1857. The rail line runs directly through the heart of the locally recognized Anaheim Colony Historic District, which encompasses the original town boundaries. It also slices through the smaller National Register recognized Kroeger-Melrose District. The Enviro report confused the boundaries of both of those districts, and failed to list the historic train station (now a YMCA pre-school) as an impact to historic resources, despite listing it as a complete taking, with no mitigation listed. The Anaheim Historical Society is currently working on a letter disputing the report.
As far as the tunnel, I understand that there are issues with it. However, the At Grade proposal would literally cut my city, and the historic district, in half, with street closures, etc. We are already dealing with some issues to create a quiet zone for the Metrolink, the At Grade for HSR would be the kiss of death to our traffic patterns, and demand the loss of significant properties, both historic, and recently constructed RDA projects. If this project must be built, and I find that questionable given the sorry state our budget is in, I will accept nothing short of the tunnel alternative for our historic district, and I will fight with everything in my arsenal to see to it that HSR does not finish demolishing the historic district that RDA already tried to take out.
Hope you had a lovely holiday. Thanks for covering this very important issue.
Cynthia Ward AKA Colony Rabble
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Hi Cynthia -
we’re in violent agreement that federal dollars are not manna from heaven. However, they’re still the sum total of tax receipts from everyone nationwide plus a mortgage on the earnings of future generations. In that sense, it’s other people’s money even if the folks who would benefit most from spending more of it in a given community also chip in their fair share. Put another way: it shouldn’t be up to the locals alone how many federal dollars are spent how. How would a tunnel section in Anaheim increase HSR ridership or otherwise benefit the state or the nation?
Sorry if I came off as denigrating of Anaheim’s history. I had meant to ask it as an honest question, but I guess it came out the wrong way. Frankly, I just have a hard time thinking of anything that less than at least a century old as “historic”. The word is bandied about far too readily IMHO. It’s not possible to make an omelet without breaking any eggs at all.
As for the at-grade option, my understanding was that busy existing grade crossings would all be replaced by either deep under- or else tall overpasses. The notion that adding two railroad tracks would somehow divide the city makes no sense, there are already two legacy tracks there doing just that. OCTA is about to beef up Metrolink traffic volume between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel, at some point trains runs so frequently during rush hour the remaining grade crossings are closed so frequently they might as well not exist. I do agree that an at-grade option would require a careful study of noise and vibration impacts on abutting properties. Frankly, I would advocate it even if there were no cost advantage, just because of the safety issues presented by tunnels and the lack of grade separation for the legacy tracks.
Cynthia Ward Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Rafael,
While I am quite used to playing “the fairness game” with my kids (he got more fruit loops than I did) that argument holds no water in this situation. If the benefit to the majority is the only issue being considered, then you are advocating to sacrifice the few for the many. Frankly I take offense to the thought that my neighborhood is to be sacrificed for the benefit of the rest of the State. The existing Metrolink ROW runs very closely along private properties, including residences, (both historic, older, and newer construction) as well as businesses that employ our citizens in a time when jobs are scarce. The At Grade alternative aims to take anywhere from 35 to 50 feet (depending on who you listen to) along that ROW, which leaves a huge scar running through what are now intact neighborhoods. Running underpasses or overpasses through a traditional neighborhood pattern is intensely disruptive. Our areas was already ripped to bits for an underpass to accomodate the Metrolink line at Lincoln Avenue, and it took out a huge swath of homes and businesses, leaving behind something that looks like it belongs in a suburban subdivision, but is entirely out of place for its historic setting. Anaheim has already seen what new development mixed with transportation projects does to a traditional grid-pattern streetscape, and the folks here are not going to let that mindset expand into yet another destructive project, simply because it is for the good of the people (which is debatable). If you think the few have no right to demand something that is not offered to all, I ask you, what right does the majority have to demand this sacrifice by the few?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The notion that adding two railroad tracks would somehow divide the city makes no sense, there are already two legacy tracks there doing just that.
But acknowledging that pesky little detail would make the concern trolling less effective.
Cynthia Ward Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I tried to post this earlier and it does not appear to have gone through, so forgive me if I respond twice. Comparing the HSR system to the existing Metrolink line is truly comparing apples to oranges. The Metrolink line does create some traffic delays, which we deal with, but it does not alter the grid-pattern of our traditional neighborhood structure. The only area where it truly impacts the historic nature of the streetscape is at Lincoln Avenue, where ages ago our RDA Project Alpha created what we now derisively call the Norm Priest Memorial Underpass which allows Metrolink to run above Lincoln. This had been the original Center Street, and core of the community. This project took out a huge swath of historic homes and businesses, and left behind something that fits a suburban subdivision, but does not relate in any way to a historic urban streetscape. At Grade gives us nothing but more of the underpasses, and we know from experience these are disastrous for our community. They simply do not fit the turn of the century and early 20th century development pattern that exemplifies our Historic District. At Grade alsp requires expansing the ROW, taking out additional structures, and a public park, to accommodate the rail line.
In comparison, if Metrolink runs more trains (which is odd since they have reportedly cut routes) but if they do, it changes the delay at the crossings, but it does not change the infrastructure of the streetscape. These tracks sit VERY close to private properties on both sides. We would have kids who could not walk to their own schools a block away, we would lose affordable housing that was just built at taxpayer expense, and we would lose historic structures in the bargain.
Your argument that we cannot give to one community what is not being offered to all communities makes no sense to me. What right do you (or HSRA) have to slice my community in half in the name of “the greater good”? There is no mitigation listed for the At Grade alternative, we are simply supposed to let people we did not elect come spend tax dollars to decimate our community because some bean counter somewhere says it works?
TRUTH BE TOLD: I am well aware of who is in charge, and he and I have had our share of “animated discourse” on this subject. Someone I otherwise respect immensely, and would have followed into battle in a heartbeat, is now in charge of something that makes my blood boil. I know he has to consider all alternatives, but the Mayor of Anaheim needs to tell the Chair of HSR that the At Grade idea sucks, and how does he begin to do that with only one man in the room?! I do not believe that as Chair of HSR he is even legally allowed to take sides, so who stands up for Anaheim in this battle? Do not get me started.
In a nutshell, no my neighborhood is not going to roll over and take this crummy deal just because an unaudited study says it benefits a transportation system we cannot afford in the first place. Call me a party pooper, I will go down fighting on this one. You may not have my city, I do not care who it benefits. Period.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The property takes required to expand the right-of-way would be mostly industrial, a few houses, a SMALL park, and perhaps a few feet of parking lot here and there. Given the cost of tunneling, this seems quite reasonable. Now, when you factor grade separations into the picture, it’s a little bit different. There are a large number of street crossings along this section of track, and you’re right — under or overpasses would require a some property takes (though probably not quite as much as you might think). Actually, I’m wondering why an all tracks elevated option, similar to what is being proposed on the SF peninsula, hasn’t been studied for this area – if the tracks are above grade, the streets are unaffected (might even open up some passages that are currently blocked by the railroad).
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
They did look at an aerial option but rejected it. IIRC, it would have been limited to the HSR tracks.
See the Anaheim to LA Alternatives Analysis Report for details.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
The Anaheim NIMBY effort is starting.
http://www.redcounty.com/a-train-christmas/35163
There will be a meeting in Anaheim on January 20th at 5PM at Anaheim City Hall. I will definitely be there. While I oppose LA-Anaheim for other reasons, it’s not because of NIMBY concerns. In fact I hope that corridor is eventually upgraded to 110MPH with all of the grade separations it needs.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Apparently the poster here Cynthia Ward just convinced her sister to buy into a housing complex that was just built next to the tracks in Anaheim. This is what happens when you move near the tracks. There is a chance they may want to expand those tracks!
She opposes health care reform and doesn’t think it’s okay to build high speed rail because we already subsidize rail systems (no mention of automobile subsidies that foster a dependence on cars). She mischaracterizes the issue by claiming that the HSR project will result in whole neighborhoods being demolished (no, that happened when they built the Century Freeway in LA County, but that only impacted black people so no one cared).
She’s pretty much a typical Orange County Republican who has delusions of grandeur. I’m sure there are more of her kind to contend with in Anaheim.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Is it Cynthia that’s against HSR because the US already subsidizes rail? The poster who I saw make that argument in your link is a different commenter.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
“Cynthia Ward AKA Colony Rabble”
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Ive been to anaheim. its a mess. anything would be an improvement.
Cynthia Ward Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Anaheim is a large ciity, the 10th largest in the State. Where in the City have you been exactly? Have you been to the neighborhood that will be impacted by At Grade? Or are you basing your ignorant opinion on the ratty motels surrounding Disneyland when you were on vacation a decade ago? You know nothing of my area, and yet you presume to pass judgement on those of us who would stand and save what our governemnet has already tried to destroy once before? What a fabulously open minded bunch you are.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
First Anaheim NIMBY comes out of the woodwork. I knew it was going to be a Historical Society nut ;)
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
@ Cynthia -
We would have kids who could not walk to their own schools a block away,
Full grade separation, done properly, means preserving existing pedestrian and bicycle crossing topology. It doesn’t refer just to motor vehicles.
we would lose affordable housing that was just built at taxpayer expense,
It’s a $40 billion project. Some buildings, even recently constructed ones, are going to get demolished. There is a potential environmental justice issue here, but eminent domain proceedings anyhow require the acting agency to pay compensation at market rates. If it’s done right, alternate housing can be secured before the bulldozers move in. This isn’t China and that’s a good thing.
and we would lose historic structures in the bargain.
Not everything that’s old is automatically worth preserving, but buildings with exceptional cultural or architectural characteristics may well be. That needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Up in Sacramento, they were talking about moving the historic train depot several hundred feet rather than tearing it down.
What right do you (or HSRA) have to slice my community in half in the name of “the greater good”?
First, no-one is talking about slicing your community in half. It’s a canard, plain and simple. Full grade separation increases the safety and capacity of roads across the railroad right of way.
Second, your probably use freeways, roads, electricity, water, sewage and other infrastructure every day. All of that stuff gets built through someone’s community as well, sometimes after eminent domain proceedings. So yeah, the state and federal governments do have the right to build all kinds of infrastructure. Even private railroads like UP and BNSF still enjoy limited eminent domain rights that were delegated to them by Congress in the 19th century because they were deemed to perform a public service.
You may not have my city, I do not care who it benefits. Period.
Textbook definition of a NIMBY right there.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
When I-5 was widened through Orange County land was taken to do it. Businesses had to move. Cynthia, were you there opposing it back in those days?
By the way, <A href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/morven/1144854199/"here's Anaheim! We’ve got freight trains in the middle of the freakin’ street!
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Cynthia, you should visit New York and Chicago sometimes. Both cities have three- or four-track els that run through the neighborhood grid pattern without disturbing it, even though the structures are visually obtrusive and the trains are noisy. Tokyo has even wider els, which are integrated into the city and have retail underneath. Berlin both integrates els into the city and landscapes them to not be eyesores. Singapore has two-track els over arterials, which do not add to the difficulty of crossing; however, the arterials themselves have few crossing points, dividing the neighborhoods more than the els do.
Because those els are fully grade separated, kids can walk across fearlessly, and often those els unify neighborhoods instead of dividing them. They don’t even reduce property values – a study from New York shows that els double nearby property values because of the connection to the rest of the city; subways increase property values by a factor of 4-10, because they make less noise, but they’re also about 4-10 times more expensive to build.
Truth be Told Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Cynthia, please take comfort in the idea that this thing will NEVER be built. The business plan’s revelation that the Reason Foundation was right after all and the Authority had been lying all along will be followed in the coming months with even more lies and corrections to their initial — unaudited as you point out — claims. It always seems to happen this way, doesn’t it? Pringle willl look the fool that you’ve realized he is and someday soon, in 2010, all this foolishness will be quietly be canceled. The press will barely notice, but then they never saw through the original set of lies and obfuscation either. The Kool-aiders will go back to whining about other non-problems like global warming.
Whitman might do it. Heck, Brown could even do it as there’s nothing in it for him — he wouldn’t build freeways, so why would he need a boondoggle of a money-sucking train that’s a sop for every construction union in the state? Pringle’s termed out next year, and the new guy will figure all this out soon enough. The likely winner already owns an engineering firm, so he’ll see through this hoax, the gash it would create through your city and abandon it, and the ARTIC (but only after millions have been wasted).
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
you flat earth folks are the only one drinking the koolaid.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:29 am
They simply do not fit the turn of the century and early 20th century development pattern that exemplifies our Historic District.
The development pattern that was driven by having easy access to the city by railroad? The one that everything clusters around?
The only area where it truly impacts the historic nature of the streetscape is at Lincoln Avenue, where ages ago our RDA Project Alpha created what we now derisively call the Norm Priest Memorial Underpass
and
What right do you (or HSRA) have to slice my community in half in the name of “the greater good”? after a long rant about running things at grade.
Either grade separations are a bad thing or not grade separating is bad thing. It can’t be both. Or you don’t understand what grade separations are.
It really sad that this blog attracts such low grade concern trolls.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The area in dispute is a 1.5 mile section where the ROW narrows significantly. It starts here after North St. and continues to Vermont Ave. I sometimes watch trains in this area when I’m bored and because I’m a big homo, so I’m very familiar with the area. In fact I lived in Anaheim for two decades.
Anyway, let’s take a tour. Starting from North St. you can see the first property that will be taken, a lot that stores what I think are RVs. Very historic stuff here. All of the property that is slated to be taken is on the right side of the ROW and you’ll notice that many small streets have already been closed to through traffic, like Wilhemina. Notice the dumpy housing that is affordable probably because it is near the tracks. If trains didn’t run here, they might not be living there.
Further South at Sycamore we have metal polishing and a landscaping company. They will be truly missed.
Here is the area of contention, the Santa Fe Depot and the park. As someone who actually likes historic depots, I can’t imagine saving each and every one at all costs if it would halt improvements and advances in our transportation networks. Remember, these depots were abandoned in the first place when Santa Fe discontinued passenger service. It always hurts to lose park space, but perhaps concessions can be made to increase park space nearby.
However, we head South, it just gets more commercial and industrial here at Santa Ana St.
Houses exist on the big plot of land here now. They were *just* built, and now there is a chance that they will have to be knocked down again, haha.
In any case, there is noise and vibration now, and there will be noise and vibration is high speed rail is routed through here at-grade. People could probably afford a house here *because* of that fact.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Here is the facade of that depot. It’s nice enough as Spanish colonial architecture goes but hardly exceptional. Plus, it’s no longer used as a train station.
Citrus Park is arguably a more serious issue, the only large undeveloped site in the area appears to be at E Santa Ana/S Olive. Looks like it might be a landfill, though.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Btw, does anyone have access to SCRRA’s ROW maps in the area?
Truth be Told Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
What you need to be looking at, Cynthia, is your Mayor, who happens to be the head of the CHSRA as well, thanks to his cozy relationship with the worst Governor that California has ever suffered. Pringle cares not where this turkey cuts through his city — just that it eventually does as it’s his justification for building the ARTIC complex in place of a perfectly good existing train station with a load of free parking that only sees a few trains per hour now.
This RINO’s put his honor, political ambition and legacy ahead of common sense and fiscal constraint in supporting this new building — which has no other purpose than to host the “bullet” train which, by CHSRA’s own admission, is hemorrhaging ridership before it’s even built.
Anaheim recently had to announce (it was hidden in the local paper) that it could find NO private investment to assist in building ARTIC (despite their lavish presentations and outreach into the investment and finance community), and it’s cost was then all on the locals and the county transportation authority (which Pringle also conveniently sits on — he just scored a few million from your transit taxes for a monorail to connect ARTIC to Disneyland). Money follows smart ideas, and even Disney (your bread and butter) won’t touch this dog — and they stand to have the most benefit from it. Pringle’s irresponsibility in all this is compounded by this blatant conflict of interest and the only thing this skunk has left to do is admit it and and resign. He’s a disappointing sellout, but then perfectly matched to run a state agency which intends to build this fraud of a train system — and he doesn’t even have to live in Sacramento.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
more from the knee jerk party of no we can’t. keep it up and soon you’ll be a party of no one.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Disneyland management is doing battle with massive traffic and parking problems at their resort. They failed to invest in their own resort transportation and now everything is coming to a head. They have neglected smart transportation options and have relied entirely on massive parking garages and trams, which are simply not up to snuff. Many people who park do not take the tram because lines are so long and since it’s open-air it’s uncomfortable to take during inclement weather. Those who park in the overflow parking lots receive no transportation to the resort and have to hoof it just over half a mile.
That Disney won’t touch a project as being a sign that the project is bad is ridiculous. They’ve mismanaged their resort transportation for years.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The ARTIC to Garden Walk Monorail is still a pretty bad project though, haha.
Truth be Told Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Geez, you’re dense. Traffic and parking issues in Anaheim are the city’s — Disney only creates them and rarely, if ever, contributes anything to fix them as it’s the city’s obligation to polish their knob. When will you kids appreciate that Disney OWNS this city and its Republicans? Pringle has been their fart boy for years, and has poured millions into keeping the Mouse happy. He’s twice promised them a monorail for which they’ll not pony up one dime, but Pringle will get it paid from from sales taxes since he runs the transit authority’s finance subcommittee.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I certainly understand the value of terminal stations; however, the value of ARTIC always had me scratch my head. The terminus may very well be Orange County’s most dense area; however, it’s still an area dominated by auto’s. Not ped friendly at all. Density is relatively low to other notable areas in the state.
IMO, ARTIC would have greater value if it were not a terminal station… but a through station.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Anaheim’s density is 2,748/km^2. Santa Ana’s is 5,059/km^2.
If Anaheim had had Santa Ana’s demographics, it probably wouldn’t have gotten a downtown HSR stop.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The network is slated to be extended to Irvine in phase 2.
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The state would have plenty of money if not for one thing, which is the fault of HJTA:
- cutting taxes requires a majority in the legislature
- raising *any* taxes requires 2/3 in both houses.
So if there’s a STUPID STUPID tax cut (motor vehicle registration fee?) which causes the budget to become unbalanced, why that passes with a bare 51%. But when 66% of legislators try to restore the previous situation, they can’t do so.
Support majority rule. http://www.camajorityrule.com/
Nathanael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It does sound like they messed up the Anaheim analysis, and I certainly hope that a better analysis is done soon.
A lot of us are wondering why there is a rush to get to Anaheim — LA to Anaheim, as a stub, seems extraordinarily expensive and for relatively little return. Ask your local politicians?
To correct a misapphrehension, the rail system in California is not really very heavily subsidized compared to the alternatives — compare your outrageously subsidized road and highway system, getting over ten times as much in subsidy last I checked, which really is getting loads of money which could be better spent on schools. Of course we shouldn’t waste money (the T-Third in San Francisco and BART to San Jose have been described as very poor returns on investment repeatedly by transit planners), but this is nothing like that.
A good high-speed run up the Central Valley from SF & Sacramento to LA and San Diego will give a tremendous return on investment. In fact it will require no operating subsidies (because fast trains are *popular*), and the capital costs are much cheaper than highway or airport expansion, and also much cheaper than the cost of ‘doing nothing’: letting people sit, stuck in traffic, or of having people just cancel business trips.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Cynthia, why did your club allow this 250 to 500 foot behemoth to slice through Anaheim?
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
save historic anaheim treasures now!
Can one of you proponents help me out with the ridership numbers:
I am reading one report that says the yearly ridership is predicted to be 41,000,000 and I’ve heard train capacity is 500.
41,000,000/365 = 112,329 riders a day
112,329/24 = 4,680 per hour
4,680/500 = 9.36 trains per hour
Obviously this looks strange. Obviously not all of those 41M trips are the whole distance. Maybe some are for shorter trips and when the train stops at one intermediate station some people get off and others get on allowing for more people with less trains. Does anyone know how those factoring numbers are being added into the calculation?
As you guys have learned from my recent postings I think the whole thing is a scam but I ask this question out of curiosity because I do respect that you guys must have already looked at these basic numbers and know why they work out for you. So help me out please. How do they come to a ridership figure of 41,000,000 riders a year?
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am
CHSRA hasn’t disclosed exactly what assumptions went into their latest ridership model, documented on pp66 PDF of the 2009 Business Plan Report to the Legislature. Details such as e.g. the probability that a given seat will be occupied by two different persons on different, non-overlapping trips along the route of a given train are missing.
SNCF, Renfe, DB et al. use the inverse method of counting how many seats are full in certain representative sections of the route and then computing an average weighted by the length of each section. According to SNCF’s annual reports, the TGV network as a whole achieves approx. 75% seat capacity utilization, largely because of a low fare policy involving many discount programs. RENFE charges more but still manages 65%. Deutsche Bahn struggles to reach much above 50% on average, probably because its high speed trains rely on shared legacy tracks for a much larger fraction of total route length than those in France and Spain do. I don’t have numbers for Italy, but that country used to be more akin to Germany. Now that the gaps in the the Turin-Salerno backbone line have been filled in, I expect seat capacity utilization will rise.
Another point that you should consider is that HSR trains come in various sizes, from ~300 business class seats on a relatively short single-level consist (cp. Amtrak Acela) to upwards of 1500 on a full-length bi-level train with 3+2 seating in Japan. Since there aren’t any bi-level designs certified for operation at 220mph right now, CHSRA is assuming single-level trainsets less than 660 feet (200m) in length and equipped with 400-650 seats. If and when line capacity approaches saturation at around 20 tph (trains per hour and track), two such trainsets can quickly be coupled to form a single 1320 foot (400m) train with a single driver. The above does not mean strictly regional rail providers like Caltrain and Metrolink couldn’t purchase and operate bi-level HSR rolling stock with much lower top speeds but better acceleration if they wanted to. So far, neither railway has indicated that it does.
The mistake in your calculation is that you’re assuming 41 million annual trips each way. It’ll be a while before California HSR sees those ridership levels. Still, CHSRA is planning to run rather more but shorter trains right away, as that tends to be more convenient for passengers, yielding higher ridership. For example, in the network core between Fresno and LA, they do expect 9-10 trains per hour (each way) during peak periods totaling 6 hours in the fully built-out network in the 2030-2035 time frame.
If and when private investors come on board, they may decide that running fewer but longer trains right off the bat is more profitable, even if ridership is a little lower. Fewer trains would also mean fewer but longer noise events for owners of property abutting the tracks.
morris brown Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I see you got rid of your yellow —I would really would like my posts in red hi hi..
I thought they were still using the Cambridge, 50 variable model in a complex equation that reminded me of days when I was doing Quantum mechanics.
In an event, ridership projections have proven to be almost worthless, and in this case certainly have no credibility. I do note that the FRA, numbers of 22 million should be taken as a base point or reason.
Remember Kopp’s prediction of the BART to SFO ridership numbers.
In any case as I keep saying, they aren’t going to be able to match the any of the Federal Stimulus construction dollars with Prop 1A dollars, since they didn’t follow Prop 1A funding restrictions. I would expect the legislature to obey the law, even though the Authority seems to think they are completely above it.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
It wasn’t my yellow. I have no idea where the color came from, WordPress just did it by itself.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
now you’ve done it. everyone is demanding colors!
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
All shall have crayons!
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
for real, this dull gray background is the exact same color as my ticket office lobby. ugh. There must be a way for us to individualize our posts.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
The ridership numbers are not Kopp’s numbers anymore – SNCF endorsed the low-end estimates. SNCF has a history of getting projections right or underestimating them, using much simpler models than the 50-variable Cambridge study. I believe the variables used in SNCF’s study are the populations of the metro areas served, their income levels, the cost and time taken by each mode of transportation on representative city pairs and neighborhood pairs, and data about business and leisure travelers’ value of time.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
lets take the phase one, sfc-ana 14 stations.
use a low number like 4 trains per hour in each direction totaling 196 train per day. If each of those trains carries only 300 people per day total, regardless of city pair you still get 57,600 passengers per day on the system or 21 million per year. Thats phase one only and 4 tph ony, and not full trains. and say the average ticket price works out to 50 bucks per passenger thats over a billion per year in fare box revenue.
the infrastructure costs aside, it wont cost anywhere near a billion per year to operate.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Rafael, there is absolutely no reason to run 20 tph of short single-level trains, unless the train operators’ union has incriminating pictures of you. The frequency benefit of running 20 short tph instead of 10 long tph is next to nothing, while the operational problems of running trains at capacity and the higher labor costs are significant.
Higher ridership worth the trouble of pushing capacity if your trains already have 1,300 seats each, as the Shinkansen trains do, but if they’re at 400, you’re doing it wrong.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 10:03 am
SNCF figures 15tph is about as much as its Paris-Lyon high speed backbone line can handle with the current TVM signaling. SBB is running some of its lines at up to 30tph with ECTS 2.0 – albeit at 200km/h top speed.
We are in agreement that it may make a lot of economic and operational sense to switch to full-length trains and even bi-level rolling stock long before a given line actually saturates.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
well look at it this way in simpler terms to see what is realistic.
lets say you only start with la-sf trips and only 4 trains per hour in each direction. ( one departure every 15 minutes)
That means 8 trains per hour x24 hours and each train with 400 on board. thats
192 trains a day x 400 people per train = 76,800 passengers per day or
28 million per year.
keeping in mind thats only with 4 trains per hour each way on one segment. not the whole system.
If you double the tph, you wind up with 56 million per year. again, on one segment only. then ad the sac and san diego phase, and the intermediate city pairs and subtract trains that aren’t full and you still have a buttload of annual ridership.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
if you break it down by station average, 56 million per year / 24 stations you get 2.3 million per station per year or 6000 per station per day or 266 people per hour per station – average.
of course youll have more than that at SFC and LAX but less than that at HNF or MOD. but in the end, you can see that the numbers are totally within reason.
Just how old is anything in Anaheim, anyhow?
Well, Anaheim was founded in 1857, and its historic core (the ‘Mother Colony’) is full of hundreds of turn-of-the-century homes. Anaheim is near the top of the list in cities with Mills Act contracts (which offers property owners reduced taxes in exchange for commitment to restoration/preservation of a historic property). The HSR ROW edges the Kroger-Melrose District, a neighborhood of homes that’s on the National Register of Historic Places. I know that it’s a popular myth that Southern California is 100% post-1960 empty-headed suburbia, but there are indeed historic properties and neighborhoods alongside the ROW at this location.
When I attended a scoping meeting that CSHRA staff held in Anaheim way back when, they were adamant that all operations could take place in the current ROW, with no additional takings required (except for what would be necessary for constructing underpasses beneath the ROW). When the Alternatives Analysis came out, dismissing the possibility of applying for an FRA waiver out-of-hand based on CSHRA’s fanciful notions of how many tph they’d be running in the future, it wasn’t hard to feel a little lied to.
I would expect any tunnel construction in Anaheim to have a local contribution. But that aside, I think the situation here — short tunnel, narrow ROW — is significantly different from that on the peninsula, where they do have the space for multitrack operation, but are asking for miles and miles of tunnel anyway.
(As far as the noise of non-grade-separated legacy tracks, the crossings in this neighborhood were already slated for reconstruction so that this stretch of track can be designated a quiet zone, so it’s not an either/or choice.)
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“I would expect any tunnel construction in Anaheim to have a local contribution.”
Now we’re talking. Instead of spending $500 million on the ARTIC to Garden Walk monorail the City of Anaheim should preserve its historic areas instead. As someone who grew up around the Mother Colony House, Pearson Park and that whole area, I understand the importance of preservation, so pitching in money for a tunnel to save that stupid depot might be worthwhile.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Fair enough, if Anaheim is willing to spend some of its own money to preserve its history and/or re-purpose non-HSR funds to that end, we can talk about a tunnel for the HSR tracks. However, don’t equate a quiet zone with full grade separation: if OCTA goes ahead with beefing up Metrolink service frequency, there won’t be any bells and horns but there will be more frequent gate closures. Grade separations aren’t just for safety and noise reduction, in fact their primary purpose is to increase capacity for both rail and vehicular cross traffic.
I’m more familiar with Caltrain’s plans than Metrolink’s, so let me give you a numerical example from the SF peninsula. Caltrain currently operates 5 tph during rush hour and is looking to double that by 2025 in the wake of electrification. If the average gate closure lasts 90 seconds, 10tph (each way) would imply gates closed 50% of the time just when motorists need to cross to get to work.
Cynthia Ward Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
” if Anaheim is willing to spend some of its own money to preserve its history ”
Rafael, the point is Anaheim ALREADY spent our own money to preserve that area! The YMCA train station was a relocation and restoration by RDA from a previous transportation project. The alternatoves report does not list any mitigation for the building, it is simply listed as a taking, and dissapears from future discussion. Citrus Park, same deal. When we have already spent substantial funds to enhance this area, why should we spend more simply because you and yours want to run a train through it? You want the train, you build it without disturbing the hood. Why should we pay to not be bothered by a project you want?
Spokker Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Your city wants a train as well. Your stupid major is gung-ho about it. The OCTA is also involved in ARTIC. There are also people who use that corridor for something other than nostalgia and would like to see improved transportation options.
Who cares about that stupid depot? Jesus Christ, there are hundreds of those things across the country. Santa Fe abandoned it because they didn’t want it. It was turned into a goddamn pre-school. Are the boogers on the wall historical too? Go to Fullerton Station. It’s ten times as historical!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Because the state needs this train in order to thrive in this century. We cannot assume the status quo can last forever. The energy, economic, and climate crisis all means we have to make accommodations to be able to continue to enjoy the ability to travel, earn a living, keep the lights on, and draw water from your tap.
You currently draw electricity from dams built by drowning historical sites beneath Lakes Mead and Shasta (among others). So it’s a bit hypocritical to say we shouldn’t be “disturbing the hood” when such disturbances are essential to the way we live. That doesn’t mean we should just wantonly destroy things, and CHSRA does not appear to be suggesting that. They’re looking at ways of building this train that minimize the impact on the older part of the community, which is as it should be. But there may be some impacts, and those can be dealt with. Preserving a historical neighborhood shouldn’t mean we never, ever change any aspect of it.
Spokker Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Here’s the problem with people like you. You presume to talk for the entire community. You presume to speak for the entire City of Anaheim. Not everybody is like you. The only thing you can do is have your say and leave it be. All this bullshit about the train being built “Over my dead body!” is tiresome.
I’m against the monorail from ARTIC to the Garden Walk Ghost Mall. I put in my comments during the scoping period, made a few arguments online, and that’s it. It’s done. If it’s built then it’s built and I’m going to try to enjoy it in whatever way I can. I’m not going to sue. I’m not going to experience delusions of grandeur and scream, “This rail line is happening over my dead body! My community! Oh, oh, oh historical national register of places! Depots! Parks! We can’t be bothered!”
Everybody can be bothered. Everybody must deal with the annoyances and impacts of living in a city. If you never want to be bothered ever again and have everything just the way you like it, by all means, move to the woods.
I grew up in Anaheim. I now live one city over. I love Anaheim. Both my parents still live there and I drive, shop and visit Anaheim often. One lives off North St and another lives on Wilhemina. I am very familiar with these areas. Anaheim moving on up as a very strong middle-class Hispanic city. It’s also growing whether you like it or not.
I am for better passenger rail service in that corridor and my own area. Maybe not high speed rail, but 110 MPH operation and the grade separations necessary to make that happen. You do not speak for me or the other residents of Anaheim or North Orange County.
It looks to me that Prop 1A is popping more rivets than the Titanic. How can the CHSRA move the specified location of the TBT or add on more than the 24 stations enumerated.? How can some provisos be deemed sacrocanct and others expendable? If were the Altamont Pass crowd I would be screaming bloody murder and mobilizing the legal team.
More and more the CHSRA scheme resembles a statewide version of BART, albeit standard gauge, OCS, somewhat faster, but trying to run expresses and milkruns on two tracks It will be interesting to see how the lowest-bid contractor, like Veolia with Metrolink, handles operations.
BTW BART militants, discontent with their $100k compenstion package, were turning up their noses at New Years Eve ot. These guys would be perfect for the hsr.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
but trying to run expresses and milkruns on two tracks
Something which BART won’t do, even though it can. There are other systems of railroading besides BART. It is something railroad operators all over the world. For instance the Shinkansen manage to mix expresess, limiteds and local onto two tracks.
James Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Like if a BART local were to switch over to the other platform when entering a station, at the same time as an express went straight through and then the local leaves the station and switches back to the same line? Alternatively the express and local could be timed at some stations to stop and allow cross platform transfers? Local to express and express to local. Hopefully BART will be forced to make such improvements as population and ridership increase.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
BART is a subway on steroids. It doesn’t have any express bypass tracks anywhere in the entire system, so it can’t run anything but locals.
HSR will need express bypass tracks at selected stations to permit multiple service levels, except where initial headways are large enough to allow a train to brake, dwell and accelerate again while staying ahead of the express on its heels by at least the minimum prescribed headway until a station with bypass tracks is reached. Timetable engineers will have their work cut out for them, but as you point out plenty of railways around the world have figured out how to make this work.
The N700 shinkansen’s high acceleration capability would make it an attractive choice for semi-local and local service levels.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
My understanding was that most stations, especially those outside of urban areas, would have bypass tracks.
synonymouse Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
If the bypass track approach were that effective Caltrain would not need 3(or 4)tracks. Bypass tracks mean switches and “points” mean potential for trouble. If the hsr is going to need 4 tracks build 2 of them over the Grapevine. AS punishement send Fresno and Bakersfield traffic thru Palmdale even tho it is slower.
What’s a few extra billions if the whole idea is to make work? The total tab is certain to be way more than predicted – like the Bay Bridge.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
In existing HSR systems anywhere in the world, bypass tracks keep to the same ROW in order to minimize construction costs. What you’re proposing for the Grapevine is a cutoff, which does not exist yet in any real-world HSR. SNCF is proposing a Paris-Calais cutoff to cut travel time to London by 20 minutes, but it’s only in preliminary proposal stages, and it doesn’t involve any mountain crossings. Even countries that do HSR as makework, such as China, know better than to spend billions on cutoffs through the mountains instead of further extensions and local transit connections.
Switches and points do not cause trouble in well-run systems. Again, look at how it works in other countries. In France and Japan, the local HSR stations have tracks in SFFS configuration, so that the local trains slow down for the station and take the switch, and the express trains run through at full speed.
The purpose of HSR isn’t to screw Fresno and Bakersfield. It’s to improve transportation in California.
wu ming Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 5:36 am
the purpose of synonomouse appears to be to trash-talk the valley while it spreads FUD, though.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“Bypass tracks mean switches and “points” mean potential for trouble.”
While we’re on the topic of single points of failure, let’s also eliminate those pesky steering wheels from cars, shall we. Good grief.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“If the bypass track approach were that effective Caltrain would not need 3(or 4)tracks.”
I was not referring to the peninsula corridor, which will receive no shortage of commuter traffic in addition to HSR. Most of the HSR line will be two tracks, with four tracks at stations. This is the way HSR operates around the world.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I imagine HSR will have plenty of crossovers for trains to go around each other, and by pass tracks where needed on the long stretches where there’s room.
Once the bypass tracks and crossovers are in place, and the number and type of trains determined, ( express, limited and local) the whole mess gets dumped into a computer and like magic the thing operates itself, juggling trains as needed.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I suspect crossovers before and after each station would be the standard. Switches will be necessary to enable express traisn to bypass locals or regionals.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
It doesn’t have any express bypass tracks anywhere in the entire system, so it can’t run anything but locals.
Except for the places where they do. I’m assuming the track maps on Transbay Blog are reasonably accurate.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
There are sections with more than two tracks in the BART network, but they are used to multiplex multiple lines in the network core and for resilience in off-design conditions. BART doesn’t operate a single service that skips a single station along the route. It’s all locals, all the time.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Odd considering they capacity problems, complaints about how lengthy trips are etc. and have the tracks to do it with.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Not in most places. Downtown Oakland is effectively the only place with more than two tracks, and even then, you have to keep at least one of the three stations for transfers. Even there, the track setup isn’t really set up for bypasses. AFAIK, nowhere else in the system are there stretches of multi-track long enough for bypasses (certainly not at stations).
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Notice that there are no bypass tracks at actual stations – i.e. the place where trains actually need to pass.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
There are bypass tracks at the station, the ones at the platforms. Systems all over the world do it all the time. It’s usually in the context of A/B service or skip-stop or however they want to name it.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Trains can skip stops. Express trains can’t overtake locals, however.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
sure they can, they even do it on single track lines in some rare instances. There’s three and fours tracks in places, the locals can toddle along on the outer tracks while the expresses use the inner track or tracks. They don’t because BART must run local to every station all the time.
Andrew Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Bypass tracks and crossovers is exactly what BART should be working on, not expansion. If you could get from Dublin/Pleasenton to Montgomery in 30 minutes, then that part of the system might be worth riding.
Andrew Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Okay, now that I think about it, 30 minutes is unreasonable for that distance. But my point still stands.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
If you could use BART to get to most neighborhoods in Oakland and San Francisco, it would be even more worth riding. My modest proposal: take the people who insist on extending it further out into the sticks, throw them off of the Golden Gate Bridge, selling tickets to the executions to fund an extension under Geary.
What you’re suggesting is giving BART more of the advantages of commuter rail. While this is important, it’s even more important to give it the advantages of urban transit. Commuter rail doesn’t work too well when it doesn’t have an extensive network of urban transit to connect to (P.S. whoever came up with the idea of putting the bus terminal a block away from BART instead of on top of BART should be thrown off the bridge together with the BART-to-SJ boosters).
Andrew Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
BART already has the range be a good suburban commuter rail system, I’m of the mind that it should focus on doing that well and leave the urban bit to Muni and AC Transit. I know that those two aren’t shining examples quality, but they can be improved.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Good commuter rail never leaves the urban bits to others. S-Bahn and RER systems serve major neighborhoods; so do JR commuter rail networks. S-Bahn and RER systems also make sure to integrate well with local transit, serving neighborhoods that the U-Bahn and Métro neglects. In France and Germany the coverage of the subway leaves few inner city neighborhoods out, but in San Francisco Muni is not so comprehensive. Either Muni should build a subway under Geary, or BART should. I personally prefer BART because its platforms are longer and it would enable Oakland-Geary travel, which Muni wouldn’t, but either would be better than BRT.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
To do suburban rail well, BART must serve major urban neighborhoods, just like RER, S-Bahn, and JR networks. There’s very little ridership in suburb-to-CBD commutes, which is all BART can do right now.
One of the features of the RER and S-Bahns is that they make sure to function as express urban rail networks and not just commuter rail. You can get from the Left Bank of Paris to the Place de la Nation on the RER, or from Wannsee to Charlottenburg on the S-Bahn. Those systems are built to complement the Métro and U-Bahn so there’s no destructive competition, just better service.
In principle, if the Muni/BART transfers were nice, and Muni proposed a subway under Geary, it would be fine. But then there would be the question of why not to run Geary trains through to Oakland.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Because once you ran Geary trains to Oakland someone would have the bright idea to run them all the way to Stockton. …local.. stopping every 2 or 3 miles so the trip would take three hours….
jimsf Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:58 am
bart originally planned to do just that – to stockton. and there way of getting to sac is that they are part of ccjpa oh what a tangled web…..
Theres actually no reason to run bart out geary blvd. there arent any jobs out there so there wouldn’t be any commute pattern.
there is soon to be brt on geary as well with the option to convert to lrv later.
travel within sf is done by muni, and travel to and from sf to the east bay hasn’t much to do with the richmond district residents, who , dont want a subway, and for that matter, marin county has made it clear that they don’t want bart either.
a gear bart ext would be a waste of money.
The best bart ext would be
the sjc ext
the livermore to ace ext
east contra costa ext.
running a direct livermore-san jose line
and planning for the 2nd transbay tube in 2050.
Meanwhile they are investing in new rolling stock to increase capacity. they will replace the entire fleet with state of the art cars.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Adirondacker, Geary trains can short-turn near Oakland or Berkeley, or they can run to Richmond. And even if the BART people decide to run them to Stockton, it’s no worse than running trains from Millbrae to Stockton.
Jim, it doesn’t matter that the Richmond District doesn’t have many job, not when it has the highest residential density in the US outside New York. The gold standard for suburban rail should be the RER, which runs through plenty of eastern suburbs with no jobs; people use the RER to get from the residential centers east of Paris to the job centers downtown and west of Paris. I think California should have French quality transit, and not American quality transit. Don’t you?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Jim: The point of commuter lines is to take people from home to work. The stereotypical commuter line has one end with few jobs and lots of residences and the other end with few residences and lots of jobs. It’s the reason why people get on the line. The people on the crowded Geary buses are going somewhere, they aren’t riding the bus for the pleasure of hanging off the straps as the bus waddles along Geary Street. They are going from their homes on the western end to their jobs and shopping on the eastern end. Moving the Transamerica Tower out to 46th Ave might smooth out traffic on the line but wouldn’t go over too well. Especially with the people who commute from the East Bay.
Alon: Fast frequent service in the densely populated core makes sense. Geary Blvd. through downtown San Francisco through downtown Oakland to Berkeley or the southern end of Oakland would make sense. I’ve been on the Geary bus, wedged in like a sardine. It would be a great place for something faster and with more capacity than a bus. Californians for some reason want BART to go everywhere. Extending BART to Stockton would be like extending PATH to Philadelphia. Or the 6 train to New Haven. They suggest it with a straight face. They think BART to San Jose is a great idea. That’s like extending the 7 train to Deer Park or Allentown. All local all the time…. They don’t understand that the bus gets you to the metro station which gets you teo the RER station or the TGV station or the airport… Metro from Orleans to Reims sounds like a good idea to them…. BART is already the widest subway system on the planet and they want to make wider. I’m sure you’ve seen this, subway mapsto scale …they want to extend it…. Give them a new line and Oakland and they’d want to drag it to Reno.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The Transbay Terminal predates BART, and there’s not an inch of space on Market street.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The advantage of bart to sjc is the same as bringing hsr into sf, a single seat ride is just as important to a local commuter as it is to a long distance one.
Joey Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am
But BART is expensive, has capacity issues, and doesn’t allow for express trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 2:37 am
On the contrary: a single-seat ride is much less important to a local commuter, when the transfers are done right. Timed cross-platform transfers are functionally equivalent to having no transfer. Even untimed cross-platform transfers are convenient; one of the reasons for the RER’s success is the cross-platform transfer at Chatelet-Les Halles.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The importance to commuters is time. It’s why people wedge themselves onto BART trains, it’s faster than driving. It’s why Baby Bullet service is so successful. It’s why people change planes in Atlanta or switch from the local to the express on the NYC subway. . . Once Caltrain is electrified changing trains in San Jose is a needless annoyance, all it’s doing taking people from the train painted blue and gold and putting them on a train painted red and white or vice versa.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
veolia wont be operating hsr.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Wishful thinking on your part synonymouse, but I’m afraid that in spite of the back and forth, out loud, second guessing that goes on here, the rail authority is going to move ahead having already considered everything that gets toss around here. Rest assured they have plans, back up plans, scenarios, options and ideas, that no one here is privy too. Thats how things work here. The public will go on a goose chase trying to second guess the people in charge and ultimately, voila, there will be train and it will go places quickly and life will go on. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that heated public discourse among rail fans means anything. This blog is for fun, for us armchair quarterbacks but doesn’t amount to much more than that.
There’s no trouble in paradise i assure you.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
if you think being a transit operator is so great then apply for the job. but its none of you business to criticize what workers and employers legally negotiate for compensation.
Murphy’s Law’is stronger in the US than in Japan.
Im watching the news reports about this terror thing. You know I have to say we are going to have to suck it up and get really draconian about security measures period.
I propose”
NO carry on luggage period. of any kind. or if they do allow it, the size can not exceed that of a fanny pack for meds, or other emergency type items. and, it must be stowed in the overhead bins, and the bins shall be locked prior to departure and remain locked for the duration of the flight.
Full body scans and pat downs of every passenger, no exceptions.
No leaving your seat without and escort and a limited number of passengers allowed to leave seats at any given time based on plane size.
Flight attendants should be equipped with walkie talkie headsets and tasers and remain stationed in the aisles at intervals based on plane size.
essentially, marshall law in the air at all times.
Further, anyone who doesn’t cooperate should be made an example of so that would be terrorists know that we aren’t playin.
Im sorry but sometimes I still have to fly and Im not gonna blow up just because americans don’t like being inconvenienced.
Rafael Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“marshal law in the air at all times”
Newsflash: your government cannot keep you safe at all times. A terrorist has to get lucky once. Aviation security has to get lucky every time. What you’re proposing would turn every airline flying into and inside the US into ELAL and then some. Basically, people would all but stop flying altogether, i.e. the terrorists would have achieved their goal of damaging the US economy.
After they’re done with aircraft, they can move on to the next type of infrastructure, until we all live in a permanent police state. No thank you.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
For your information: El Al has none of the security ideas Jim is proposing. El Al’s onerous inspections are mostly racial profiling: a Hebrew-speaking Israeli Jew, like me, gets asked questions like “Did you pack your bags yourself?” but doesn’t go through more security than at European airports; anyone else, especially but not only an Arab, is at risk of strip-searching (I know personally a Chinese woman who got strip-searched). Even then, once said Arab gets on the plane, he enjoys the same freedom of movement as anyone else.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:54 am
And you seriously think that racial profiling is foreign to US practice? It may not be as blatant, but afaik none of the people who have attacked or attempted to attack US airliners in recent years was from e.g. Norway.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I’m not saying Israel is the only country that does racial profiling. I know of instances of this happening in both the US and the UK. But I don’t hear as many stories of minorities getting strip-searched at airports.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
The MSM in the US are “fair and balanced”.
Bungle Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Im totally against giving up any liberty of any kind. Im not one of those people. But there are exceptions and flying is one of them. Flying is not a right and an airline or railroad for that matter can refuse service and set rules. I know conductors who have put foul mouthed teens off of trains for using bad language in mixed company and I fully support that.
Its no different than seat belt and helmet laws that are in place so that society doesn’t have to pay your medical bills when your head gets smashed.
People’s public behavior has deteriorated to point Id never thought Id see. and when it comes to enforcing safety and order in dangerous situations Im all for it. A plane ride is not a joke. It may seem run of the mill, but think about what it involves. Safety is first and foremost and not just the safety of the passengers but the safety of the crew who has to take far more frequent risk as part of their livelihood.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I certainly don’t need a lecture on freedom and liberty.
Damnitt.
I don’t know if that’s within reason. Certainly dividing by 24 hours is a convenience that we both just did that we know throws things way off, and points to how weighted the distribution would be for realistic times.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Intercity rail doesn’t have the same travel peaks as urban rail. For example, Shinkansen service is largely the same frequency all day – there are only a few extra local trains heading to Tokyo in the morning and away from Tokyo in the evening. The KTX and THSR have weak peaks as well.
Dividing the number of daily passengers by 15-18 hours actually gives a very good approximation of hourly passenger volumes.
Does anyone think that we will really ever need more than one departure every 15 minutes from tbt or lax? I mean I just can’t see it. with a trainset being able to hold several hundred people I can’t imagine that kind of demand being present between now and at least 2050 and beyond. Thats a lot of capacity. I know that doubling that would offer more departure choices and shorter wait times but really, who can’t wait 15 minutes for a train? I don’t know it just seems like overkill.
personally I prefer my idea of 4 tph
8a Full Express on the hour, SFC-LAX
815a Local on the 15 All Stops
830a Limited on the 30 SFC-SJC-FNO-LAX-ANA
845a Local on the 45 All Stops
9a Full Express on the hour SFC-LAX
using this pattern 24 hours a day 7 days a week, with no weekend/weekday changes allows for an easy to remember, very reliable schedule that requires little thought or planning on the part of the passengers and should provide ample capacity for decades.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I don’t think many people are going to be traveling at night.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
They will if they get a red eye discount. remember there is a whole lower income class of people in cali, a huge number of people in fact, that will travel when they can get the best deal and my experience has been that most of the young people, the students and international students, prefer the night time departures. My over night bus from sf to santa barbara is often sold out. and while our last southbound departure down the valley is at 515p there is a parade full of folks who miss it, and or, show up between 515 and 1045 who want to head south down the valley.
so there will infact, be a night time demand.
I wonder if too many people here think only in terms of the typical urban professional lifestyle and are not aware of the rest of the people who live in california who subscribe to lifestyles other than that.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
There will be some nighttime demand. Certainly not as much as during the day, however, and certainly not enough to justify running an equal number of trains as during daytime hours.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
one train per hour from 11pm to 5 am. with the other slots to be used for overnight mail/light freight services.
wu ming Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 5:59 am
people fly at night, why wouldn’t they take a train at night? most of those trips will be shorter than the maximum system trip time.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Most people don’t fly at night; airports stay open overnight because they can shut down part of the capacity for repairs. For trains, two-track operation is vital, so track maintenance issues make it had to operate at night.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Maintenance is not needed each and every night and usually not on both tracks at the same time. Provided traffic volume is low enough, it’s perfectly possible to sustain operations at night. Trains do have to travel more slowly to keep the noise down, though, especially in built-up areas.
During the night, one local train per hour (each way) between SF and SJ/Gilroy plus another between Anaheim/Irvine and Sylmar/Palmdale might make sense, someone would have to do the ridership analysis. These trains would not turn a profit, their purpose would be to induce general consumer activity at night and, to help reduce alcohol-related deaths on the roads.
In addition, there may be latent demand for a nightly sleeper train (each way) between SF and Anaheim/Irvine and/or San Diego. The rolling stock would have to be stabled during the day or else feature a custom interior that is convertible to regular seating for daytime use.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Sleeping car service exists where the trip is long enough to get a night’s sleep. These are high speed trains and the longest trip is penciled in at 3:56 minutes.
Rafael Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
That time reflects non-stop service at full speed. China already operates sleeper services on selected HSR lines, at substantially lower speeds.
if youre using TGVduplex which hold 545 thats a round trip capacity of 38 million per year.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
A good rule is that 200m train sets can hold about 500, and 400m sets can hold about 1000. It’s pretty common to couple two 200m sets together anyway.
jimsf Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
you know a lot of us working folks do shift work. I get off at 11pm, so I’d certainly like to have a night option. You know run home, change catch the 1am train.
and lets not forget the fact that we will be able to party in sf and hollywood on the same night and still get home without worrying about DUIs! thats pretty cool if you think about it. Oh and they’ll do it. they will.
Joey Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Well it makes sense to have trains into the night, certainly until midnight or 1AM, but in any case, fewer people will want to travel after dark, so at the very least service frequencies would be reduced.
xps 500a
loc 515a
ltd 530a
loc 545a
xps 600a
loc 615a
ltd 630a
loc 645a
xps 700a
then every 15 minutes until 11pm then
xps 1100pm
loc 1200a
loc 100a
loc 200a
loc 300a
loc 400a
xps 500a
loc 515a
ltd 530a
loc 545a
xps 600a
I know that one of the issues about Caltrain going to lighter weight electric cars was the conflict with sharing track with the heavier freight trains running on the peninsula. One of the things considered to get around federal regulations is to only run the freight trains when Caltrain is not running, within a very short window when all the Caltrain runs have finished for the evening. Eliminating the freight trains is sometimes suggested but I’ve seen it counter’d with the environmental problems that would have to be taken in to account as those freight trains actually transport many truckloads of materials.
I was not aware that HSR would be on a different set of tracks than Caltrain and the freight trains.
Plus I thought that HSR needs down time for maintenance. Do they run HSR all night long on the other european and asian systems?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
They’ll have 4 tracks along the Peninsula. Later in the evening all of the passenger trains can use two tracks, the freight, there isn’t much of it, can use one track and they can do maintenance on the fourth track. Late at night passenger service could get by with one track.