Palo Alto Reacts to 2009 Business Plan
Some of the most vocal critics of high speed rail have come from the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, including the staff of the city of Palo Alto. So it’s worth considering their reaction to the 2009 Business Plan, as reported in Palo Alto online:
Steve Emslie, Palo Alto’s deputy city manager who has been working with a coalition of Peninsula cities to track the progress of the controversial project, said the agency’s anticipation of private funds is one of the most problematic aspects of the new business plan. Emslie characterized the agency’s plans for private investments as “optimistic.”
“It really doesn’t give a lot of definition of where the private money will come from,” Emslie said. “I don’t think in the last 100 years there has been a public transportation system that actually made money without a lot of subsidy.”
The business plan bases its projections for private contributions on its assumption that the rail system, unlike most transit services, “is expected to generate significant operating surpluses.”
It’s unfortunate that Gennady Sheyner, who has a spotty record of covering HSR accurately, regurgitates Emslie’s claims without fact-checking them. Beyond the patent absurdity of the “last 100 years” claim – many passenger rail services, from streetcars to intercity trains, were quite profitable for the first half of the 20th century. Only after 1945 did some of these begin to lose money, as government spending shifted toward a subsidy of roads and automobiles.
Within the last 50 years or so – which Emslie tellingly assumes is the way it’s always been – many transit systems have indeed required ongoing subsidies to remain in operation. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, as the roads the city of Palo Alto owns and maintains are subsidized, as are Highway 101 and Interstate 280, as are the region’s airports.
The issue here is whether HSR can generate enough revenue to pay back investors as well as its own operating expenses. There is every reason to believe this will be the case. Every HSR system in the world generates operating surpluses, with SNCF, operator of France’s TGV system, and RENFE, operator of Spain’s AVE system, leading the way.
And of course, despite the hullaballoo over the possible increase in ticket fares for California HSR, what the new business plan showed is that HSR will generate a profit, even with tickets costing 83% of airfares instead of 50%. It may not attract as many riders, but what riders it attracts would be able to pay back the investors as well as the system operations.
The problem is that HSR should maximize ridership. And so in one sense I agree with Emslie that private investment is problematic – not because it isn’t likely to materialize or be repaid, but because the costs to the system, to our ability to move people away from roads and planes, to maximize our carbon reductions and oil independence, as well as possible financial costs to the state, are simply too high to pay.
Another Palo Alto-area reaction to the business plan worth watching is that of State Senator Joe Simitian. We’ve been critical of Senator Simitian this year, so his reaction to all this will be critical.
Of particular interest will be a town hall Senator Simitian, and HSR opponent Senator Alan Lowenthal, will hold in Palo Alto in January:
Simitian said the plan will be carefully reviewed by various legislators and committees in the coming month. Simitian also said he and Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, plan to hold a public meeting in Palo Alto on Jan. 21 to discuss the business plan and other high-speed-rail-related developments with area residents.
We’ll be sure to give you more information about this meeting as we get it.
It will be particularly interesting to see whether the full range of views on the Peninsula will be represented. Currently there are three broad sets of attitudes regarding HSR:
1. The “silent majority” of HSR supporters. These are among the 60% of area voters that backed Prop 1A in November 2008, people who want to see HSR built and don’t much care how it’s done or what it looks like. Their voice has been almost totally absent during this year, but they are out there, and deserve consideration.
2. Folks who want HSR built but care deeply about how it’s done. These are the “reasonable critics” who think that HSR is needed, but want it built in a trench, or in a tunnel. They might be supportive of some form of at-grade or above-grade solution, depending on the details. They play an important role in the discussion on the Peninsula, but tend to get shouted down by the folks in the third group.
3. HSR opponents and deniers. They don’t support HSR, either because they don’t understand it or don’t care about the need for it. Perhaps they prioritize their property values or their sense of aesthetics or their refusal to share their wealth with anyone else above the need for high speed trains. Some are OK with HSR, just as long as it doesn’t follow the Caltrain corridor. Whatever the reason, they are the most vocal people in this entire debate, and are willing to use the concerns of folks in group #2 and the apathy of folks in group #1 as leverage to try and reverse the outcome of Prop 1A’s passage.
The goal of HSR supporters should be to mobilize group #1, have a reasonable discussion with group #2, and find ways to neutralize the arguments and effectiveness of group #3.
That’s the task before us in 2010, at least on the Peninsula.
First of all no one even knows where palo alto is or cares what they think. Most californians have never even heard of palo alto. hear that PA? no one cares about you.
second, this talk of fares is ridiculous. How in hell can there even be a discussion on fares when a) its not built or up and running and no one can predict what type of economy we will be in 20 years from now.
2) as we often discuss, we don’t even know who is going to build it and we don’t know who is going to operate it so how on earth can we speculate on how much the operator is going to charge for a ticket. Isnt that going to be up to the operator?
I think , never mind i was gonna say something that would get me in trouble.
just chill everyone. not even the wizard of oz himself knows what the fare will be, nor what percentage of the price of asparagus it will be or whether it will rain on inauguration day.
Walter Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Jimsf, firstly–I agree that too much has been made of the fare “increases” in the business plan.
As a point of clarification, it’s not that people are angry or disheartened over $105 fares as opposed to $55 fares, $74 fares, $104 fares or any other particular price point. It’s more about the strategic direction that CHSRA has chosen, which seems to be putting profitability first in a way that will inherently reduce the number of trains as well as the number of people on them. This strategy can be easily (and not entirely inaccurately) construed as short-sighted or a generally misguided approach to transportation. It’s not that people were counting on a $55 ticket (debatable as to whether that was in 2009 or 2020 dollars), it’s that they were counting on a system that sought to cut oil consumption, decrease freeway congestion and provide affordable transportation between the state’s distant population centers.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I would agree with the “keep the fares as low as possible” sentiment if the CAHSR system were all we ever expected rail to be in CA.
So long as the funds are invested back into expanding the system and in improving connecting transit, I’d much rather see a self-perpetuating, self-funding rail system grow out of the initial public investment.
To not have to go back to voters to fund a spur to Long Beach, to Ventura, to Phoenix, or to Oakland, or a high speed Capitols, that’s worth paying a higher ticket price to me.
The CAHSR system is, even at phase 2, just a starter system for rail in CA and on the west coast.
Reinvesting that money into the system, instead of cashing in that investment in the form of further reduced auto traffic, or a noble goal of expanding transit access to those with lower incomes, is, I believe a long-term investment that makes more sense and can achieve more than building the thing and running it on a shoestring budget.
Maximize profitability, invest the proceeds into improving the system. The end result will be a larger system with more impact than a marginalized phase 1.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
which is why I support the state, in the end, deciding to go with an operator such as amtrak california, who can deliver a good public transportation system for main street, rather than a profit for wall street investors. Every dime that a wall street investor takes as profit is a dime that won’t go back into our rail infrastructure. And if the point of the railroad is to make profit rather than provide a public service, then the end result will be something that is operated like an airline, something that will treat customers like they are treated on an airline ( as ATMs) and where the pressure to increase dividends for investors will result, contrary to popular belief, not better service, but the tightening and cheapening of everything the CFO and board can think of in order to squeeze profits out of it before they ultimately run it into the ground and eventually failure, require a government bail out anyway.
why not forgo the charade altogether and turn it over to people who are in the business of providing successful, comprehensive rail transport in california already.
EVen if sncf and others make profits in europe, the US is not Europe. American business is notoriously inept, greedy, corrupt and short sighted if we put this thing in the hands of american business, they will destroy it as fast as you can say “sweat shop child labor.”
There are a lot of HSR supporters in Palo Alto too. I talk to them all the day. They’re just typically not as passionate as the other two groups.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
well they’d better snap to it.
Honestly, they are focal now because know once the federal funding rolls in, it’s over for their leverage. A lot of people will be calling for full support of the system from small buisnesses and coporations, to state and local governemts. The wheels will be set in motion. Palo alto will get an elavated structure, maybe a trench if their lucky, and that will be that. Honestly the real conversations should be happening in the cities that you know, have a STATION. The city centers that will promote TOD and density that is vital for how land use should be in a climate aware society. I also agree that the system should run at profitabilty until the system is at least completed with phase two.
Rafael Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
CHSRA hasn’t decided yet where the mid-peninsula station will be. At this point, though, I’d characterize the position of the city as neutral to hostile. Siting a station there would impact traffic flows etc. so unless those PA residents that really do support HSR speak up, it may make more sense to put it in RWC or MV.
Then again, CHSRA’s tally of stations is already at 24 plus the mid-peninsula station, with Kings and Tulare counties pressing for one to be added east of Hanford. AB3034 sets a limit of 24. Unless the law is changed or a station eliminated elsewhere, there may not be one between Millbrae/SFO and San Jose at all.
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I can’t visualize private investors being interested in the CHSRA scheme because it will not be profitable, unless money is extracted from taxpayers and given to these investors. Ergo, something like the bank bailout. The service will be too slow(thanks to Tehachapis and too many stops)to justify the high ticket price. The only market that can generate profits of any magnititude, SF to LA, will remain the property of the airlines.
Of course you could pull in riders with below market rate ticket prices, but once again at taxpayer expense. The airlines and others will rightfully howl.
I would love to see private investors on board as they would certainly object to the suboptimal routing.
Paul H. Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I don’t understand your ‘suboptimal routing’ argument. Please explain.
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
The proper route for a 220 mph hsr is I-5 and the Grapevine. 110 mph diesel trains would be the appropriate type of service for the 99 corridor at this juncture.
The route has been gerrymandered to assuage various political interests. Hardly a good basis for profitability.
Would that this project could be pulled off solely by entrepreneurs. They would simply ignore Hanford, Merced, Palmdale, etc.,etc. ad infinitum et ad nauseum.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
then what would be the point of building it at all?
Paul H. Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
So your willing to bypass *millions* of annual riders for the sake of profitability? That makes ZERO sense. Have you seen european cities roughly the size of Fresno and Bakersfield before and after putting a high speed rail line in them? Enormous economic benefit. 110 mph service for the Valley? The only place you can achieve 220mph in California is…. the CENTRAL VALLEY. You think by-passing the valley cities to shave 20-30 minutes is going to be a benefit to the State? Don’t think so.
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Fresno and Bakersfield would still get their hsr service via a branch to the I-5 line.
Paul H. Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Yeah that would cost the state more money than building it the alignment that its on now. Billions more.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:06 am
and when would that happen? before or after they’ve all moved into the poor house?
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Sounds to me like you simply wouldn’t want to be seen dead sitting next to someone who lives in the Central Valley. That’s flyover country and apparently, you want to keep it that way because you want to keep looking down on those people.
The rest of us here see HSR as a way to provide service to as many parts of California as possible, including especially those where there is effectively no competition from the airlines. Including Fresno and Bakersfield wasn’t a political decision, it was a commercial one. Palmdale had a political component, but the deciding factors were topography and seismic risk.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am
That doesn’t make any sense. HSR generates money by people paying fares, not by going in an exactly straight line. So private investors absolutely would choose to route the trains where the people are – Fresno, Bakersfield, Antelope Valley.
Further, they would shy away from unnecessary costs, meaning the numerous tunnels needed along the Grapevine route but not the Tehachapi route would be too expensive to justify construction.
The current routing makes sense from both a passenger perspective and a cost perspective.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
if you don’t go get those riders then no one will be on the train.
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
A straight shot at 220+ mph between LA and Livermore would be very successful and could support a healthy ticket price. The public is ready for a thrill.
They’ll find their way to Livermore initially; the urban extensions will come in their time. The noise and vibration levels will be established and acknowledged, not dissimulated, and and routes will be selected such that the environmental impact is minimized. I envision mostly along freeway alignments.
The idea would be to get a proof of concept system up an running ASAP. Minimal urban routing and minimal overlay with the UP.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:05 am
no. that’s not really the idea and actually the goal is to provide as much bang for the buck as possible. why should the central valley be left out in the cold again and again as they have been when they are more in need of this than either la or sf. further, there is nothing wrong with the travel times. the express travel times for la to sf for those that need it, are comparable with air with the added benefit of a higher level of service, frequency, comfort and amenities.
with the system as planned you get both a fast express trip if you want it and you get all the other trips in between which combined, will be the the bulk of the trips made ( rather than la sf xp)
If I just want to get from here to la, I can fly already, but what will entice me to take the train is that it will give me many more option of getting where I really need to go, like first picking up my freinds in fresno, so we can all continue on down to say, irvine, ( for a show in newport say,) or whatever you know? I mean the options and flexibility of the system as designed can not be beat.
There is also the fact that nothing would get built unless you get everyone into the act. If I lived in fresno I sure wouldn’t vote for a train for sfers to pass me by.
so the options aren’t 99 or 5 the options are 99 or nothing. thats a political reality and there’s no point in doing anything but dealing with reality.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:22 am
You think a train terminating in Livermore will get ridership? Have you ever ridden HSR anywhere in the world, or read much about running HSR? Or are you just a would-be US born and bred World Class Consultant who needs to hear nothing of Euro-communists’ and yellow Asians’ existing solutions?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Proof of concept is what the Central Valley test track between Merced and Bakersfield would accomplish.
trainsintokyo Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
You, sir, know very little about HSR routing and cost-benefit analyses, it seems.
Fortunately, people like you will not be in charge of determining anything related to HSR, so I’m not terribly worried.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
they shouldnt get one. the station should go to RWC. RWC is a far more working class city that deserves both the service, and jobs from resulting economic stimulus.
Caelestor Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:06 am
I think only one station should be built in RWC. Caltrain can spruce up service from that regional hub to everywhere else on the peninsula. Why does the peninsula warrant two stations? One is perfectly fine to serve the region.
Caelestor Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:11 am
So I need to log-in in order to submit comments? Alright then.
I think only one station should be built at RWC on the peninsula. Located in the center, it can effectively serve as the regional hub for the area.
Millbrae/SFO? Too close to San Francisco, and I don’t think people will take HSR to transfer to another train to the airport. Caltrain needs to offer expanded experss service.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:33 am
You don’t have to register to post comments, but it does make things easier.
Millbrae/SFO does make sense for an easy airport connection – SFO management is really, really keen on getting an HSR stop there for that reason. They see HSR as a boon to air traffic.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Fine, but to make it work SFO needs to do three things:
(a) figure out how to get the BART shuttle between SFO and Millbrae operating again, preferably without forcing passengers to queue up for a BART ticket. Instead, the HSR ticketing system should include an appropriate service fee for anyone who selects SFO rather than Millbrae as their final destination. This would be implicit for combo HSR-flight tickets purchased via an airline reservation system.
In practical terms, electronic tickets would feature barcodes (probably the newer 2D type) that uniquely identify the original purchase transaction. The code could be stored on a cell phone or printed on paper and presented to a reader device. Those would only be installed at SFO and at Millbrae, anyone traveling to other BART stations would need to purchase are regular BART ticket featuring a magnetic strip.
Alternatively, re-instate the courtesy Millbrae shuttle bus service or expand the AirTrain system.
(b) ensure HSR trains dwell long enough at Millbrae to allow passengers with bags to board and
alight, without blocking other HSR trains. That’s going to be tricky, because there are already five tracks at that station and there’s not enough room for four more.
(c) ensure HSR trains that stop in Millbrae have additional baggage holding and loading/unloading capacity, e.g. a staffed baggage car. Fully integrated check-in and baggage handling requires special sidings with secure platform areas at both the airport station and the origin/destination train station.
There’s still a huge gap between the intention to relieve congestion at SFO by leveraging the HSR network for (connecting) travel within California and, the nuts and bolts of making the passenger experience of the transfer convenient enough to attract that particular ridership. Some passengers can make do with just carry-ons but for everyone else, baggage handling is going to be an issue. Flying is bad enough these days, they will continue to use cars and shuttle vans if transferring to and from exceeds a fairly low hassle threshold.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
NJTransit and Amtrak get by with two island platforms and four tracks at the Newark Airport. NJTransit and Amtrak, not some competent operator in the mountains of Europe.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Most trains don’t stop at Newark Airport – for NJTransit it’s 5 tph peak, and for Amtrak it’s about one train per two hours.
Some CAHSR trains may not stop at Millbrae, but all Caltrain trains stop there.
Mind you, since the HSRA is already planning on 1.5-minute dwells at minor stations it may be enough for airport passengers. But Newark, which has very little connecting HSR traffic, is not the best example to emulate.
Joey Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
My understanding (based on example timetables) is that a fair number of HSR trains won’t stop there.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
You’re right, Joey, but most traffic on the Caltrain corridor by number of trains will be Caltrain traffic, and right now Millbrae is a baby bullet stop, where all trains stop no matter what.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Many trains do not stop at EWR. That doesn’t make them dissappear, they are still on the tracks. Maybe a better comparsion would be Seacausus where most trains stop and they get by with 4 platforms… Or Newark itself where almost everything stops and they get by with 6. Or Jamaica where everything stops and they get by with 8 platforms. The trains passengers use to pass from one island platform to another island platform dwell longer than the other trains.
Newark airport had 35 million passengers last year. Getting to Newark airport by automobile isn’t easy and parking is expensive. It serves Manhattan where almost nobody drives. San Francisco airport had 37 million passengers last year. Compared to getting to Newark Airport it’s easy to get to SFO by car. There are no tolls if you are coming from the Peninsula. Parking is cheaper than at Newark.
What other North American train station has access to mainline train service? BWI sorta does and Philadelphia though that’s a branch of SEPTA
How many platforms are there at other busy airports other places in the world?
Seems that Atlanta gets by with one island platform on MARTA. O’Hare has three tracks and two island platforms for the Blue Line of the L. Heathrow… has lots.. Haneda has an island platform and two tracks along with the monorail service. Charles De Gaulle has two stations on the RER and an LGV station. Only thing I could find without stretching my high school Latin to read French was a picture of one of the RER platforms, an island. LAX has buses. DFW has buses. Beijing has two stubs from the Airport line of the subway. I couldn’t find anything but I have a feeling it’s an island platform on each of the stubs. Frankfurt has an S-Bahn station which I can’t find out much about and a station that serves ICE trains. I was able to find that there “are about 10 departures an hour” and a picture of it that implies 6 platforms. Denver has buses. I was able to find that Campo de las Naciones: station on Line 8 in Madrid has an island platform which is unusual in the Madrid Subway. That implies to me that the subway stations at the airport get by with two side platforms at the airport stations. Hong Kong has express service every 12 minutes which comes out to 5 times an hour. Does five times an hour sound familiar? JFK like Newark has lousy highway access and serves Manhattan where almost no one drives. Airtrain gets by with how many platforms in Jamaica? How many in Howard Beach? You can get almost anywhere from Schiphol. How many platforms are there at Schiphol? I’m getting weary of finding that big important international airports have a few platforms for the trains…..
How many does SFO need? There will be two destinations North and South though I doubt they are going to have much traffic from the North unless Caltrain and HSR have the same fares. The passenger volume on BART has been underwhelming. Triple or quadruple the amount of air passengers currently flying between the Central Valley and SFO you might get 1000 a day. Certainly calls for at least 15 platforms….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Frankfurt Airport has a much higher rail modal share than Newark or JFK. Port Authority reports that Newark’s airtrain ridership is 1.93 million per year, for a modal share of less than 10% (this comes from an article called “AirTrain Ridership Sets Record”); JFK has 4.2 million riders, for a modal share of about 10%. At Frankfurt, the total rail modal share is 28% (link).
The non-stopping trains aren’t an issue, since the question is dwell times at airport stations. If they need to be higher than 1.5 minutes to attract air-rail connecting passengers then Millbrae needs to be configured with more platforms. Four is going to be enough for the tph count Caltrain projects it needs, but if Caltrain gets more traffic than 10 tph, it will need to use the HSR platforms, i.e. have compatible boarding height.
By the way: Newark Airport doesn’t get 5 tph outside peak hour. It’s not like JFK, which gets a train to Penn Station every 5 minutes for most of the day because of the connection to Jamaica. The equivalent of that would be extending PATH to the airport or the AirTrain to Newark Penn… but that would require NJT to give up airport passengers as windfall revenue.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I’ll use small words.
Newark is a very busy airport. Almost as busy as San Francisco. Some years it is busier.
Newark has many many passengers who don’t own cars. San Francisco has very few passengers who are carless.
Newark is very very hard to drive to. San Francisco is easy to drive to.
Many times driving to Newark involves a toll. Tolls across the Bay are cheaper than tolls across the Hudson. There are no tolls if you don’t cross the Bay.
Parking is expensive at Newark. Parking is cheaper in San Francisco.
Newark has 10% of it’s ground transportation handled by rail.
San Francisco will probably have lower percentages handled by rail.
San Francisco’s rail will be competing with existing BART services
San Francisco will probably have fewer passengers arriving and departing by conventional rail than Newark.
San Francisco will probably be able to handle fewer rail passengers using the same amount of platforms as Newark.
Frankfort is a very busy airport. Much busier than San Francisco.
28% of the people using Frankfort’s airport use trains to get there.
Frankfort has an S-bahn. BART is very much like an S-Bahn. BART goes to SFO.
54% of the people using trains to get to Frankfort’s airport use the S-Bahn.
Frankfort had approximately 15 million people use the airport train station.
If SFO gets 20% share split 50/50 between BART and conventional there will be 10% on conventional trains.
Newark handles similar numbers of passengers each year and has 10% of it’s passengers arriving and departing by rail. Newark advertises three trains an hour.
How many conventional trains an hour will San Francisco need at their airport?
Stepping off or stepping onto the train takes time.
It takes about the same amount of time from any train at the same platform.
If only one train an hour stops at San Francisco everybody who wants to take the train during that hour will be on that train.
If some of the trains passing through San Francisco stop there some fraction of the people who want to go to the airport will be on each train. They will get on and off faster because there will be less of them on any one train.
If all the trains stop at San Francisco’s airport there will be even fewer people on each train. How many platforms do they need if every train stops at the airport. If only a few people are geting on an off the train how much does that affect dwell time?
LAX serves many of the destinations SFO serves. SFO serves many of the destinations LAX serves.
Many people in the Central Valley use SFO to get places much farther away. Many of the people using airplanes from the Central Valley to places far way use airplanes to get to SFO where they change planes. Many if not all of them will switch to HSR. How many people will be taking HSR from the LA Basin to SFO when they can get similar flights from one of the LA basin airports? Does the super express between San Francisco and Los Angeles need to stop at SFO? Will anybody be getting on or off?
Caltrain will be running frequent service on the corridor. Some day it may become as busy as other suburban lines worldwide. Does the express to San Jose need to stop at SFO when there will be a local to Redwood City in three minutes?
The question is how many platforms do they need at SFO. How many do they need? Bypass tracks might be nice to have but I don’t see an need for more than 4 platforms until sometime far far in the future or cars are banned.
flowmotion Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
SFO/Millbrae does have a couple other key attractions, namely lots of parking and rental cars.
Assuming that HSR doesn’t usher in a car-free utopia, for the typical Bay Area suburban destination, Millbrae may be a more attractive stop than downtown SF.
Caelestor Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Of course, we could always build a tunnel from San Mateo to Brisbane that passes underneath the airport and provides direct access. CAHSR wouldn’t have to fix those slow curves in San Mateo County and could probably speed up the trip by 3-5 minutes too.
The downside? Money. Lots of it;
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Screw it. I say, build a base tunnel from Sylmar to SJ under the mountains. Altamont and Pacheco? A plague on both your houses.
Rafael Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Money isn’t the only issue. SFO is built on landfill, the water table is very high and there’s a risk of subsidence if a tunnel were to be constructed under multiple multi-story terminals and other structures including the runways. Compared to those engineering challenges, fixing the San Bruno curve – even if it involved moving the supports for I-380 – would be a walk in the park.
My point here was that HSR is probably only going to get 2 platform and no express bypass tracks at Millbrae. Perhaps CHSRA can afford to allow trains that stop there to dwell for e.g. 4 minutes rather than 2, since only passengers boarding in Gilroy, Fresno and Merced (later on, Modesto and Stockton as well) will really need HSR trains to stop at Millbrae. That implies e.g. 3 trains an hour serving that station might well be sufficient in phase 1. Note, however, that passengers with bags have to board and alight at their station of origin/destination as well.
Folks in San Jose, the mid-peninsula and SF might also want to use HSR to get to SFO, but they already have other choices: Caltrain baby bullets and BART, which also connects much of the East Bay to the airport.
The last mile issues between Millbrae and SFO matter for both HSR and Caltrain passengers. The infrastructure for a BART shuttle is there but languishes unused. Right now, you need to transfer 2-3 times to get from e.g. San Jose to the SFO terminals. There has been zero effort to integrate booking and ticketing, or even to minimize vertical transitions when transferring between HSR and BART at the station or to AirTrain at SFO. These details matter a lot to customers with bags and/or kids, but planners are still not thinking in terms of the overall customer experience. Without that, not even the low estimates for boardings at Millbrae will be achieved.
SFO and its runways are built on landfill, the water table there is very high. Tunneling would be extremely difficult and risky, because any subsidence would severely impact the terminal buildings and/or the runways. Compared to that, straightening the San Bruno curve would be child’s play.
wu ming Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:12 am
it would be a lot easier for stanfurd’s students/profs to have that stop in PA, but if the community really doesn’t want that convenient transportation and economic stimulus, they might as well give it to rewood city.
watch the NIMBYs of 2009 bitch for decades about how they pay hard-earned tax dollars for this HSR system that excludes them, once the line opens.
Caelestor Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I actually think that there should be only one station serving the peninsula. There are a LOT of stations currently projected to be built, mainly in the LA area.
Caltrain needs to improve as well in order to better direct passengers to the regional hubs.
AFter 45 years as an american I have to tell you, that even with obama the dems compete fustercluck and inability to so much as pass a bill stating the sun rises in the east, I still trust government to do a better job than american business.
.
wu ming Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 4:57 am
no kidding. talk about useless bureaucracies and death by middle manager.
Well here is an new twist. from the BBC
Thousands freed from Channel Tunnel after trains fail
More than 2,000 people spent hours trapped inside the Channel Tunnel after five Eurostar trains broke down due to cold weather.
The trains failed as they left the cold air in northern France and entered the warmer tunnel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8421875.stm
wu ming Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 4:57 am
that would be sort of interesting interesting if the CA HSR line went through a part of the state that got as cold as northern france, or had any deep tunnels that would create the same sort of atmospheric problems.
with europe full of these sorts of trains, one would expect to hear about this sort of thing all the time, no? and yet it’s news precisely because it is rare.
whereas multicar pileups on 80 going up to tahoe, or because of fog or dust on 5 are so banal as to be unworthy of print coverage.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Oh my goodness, that’s terrible. It sounds as if the entire OCS in the tunnel failed, perhaps as part of a cascade failure that may or may not have originated on a train. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had as many stranded trains and passengers for as long as they did.
However, I’d take early media reports blaming a rapid swing in ambient temperature as trains enter the tunnel with a grain of salt for now. It’s a well-understood phenomenon and in any case, it’s not particularly cold in France right now. All of the trains plying the Channel Tunnel (Eurostar, Eurotunnel, freight locomotives) have been operating in winter conditions for many years now, without any incidents of this type. Besides, Eurostar trains are built such that a single power car can pull a train out of the tunnel if the other power cars fails and only one of them is even active when a train enters the tunnel. The extremely long Eurostar trains can also be split in the middle if need be. The fact that none of this happened implies that there simply wasn’t any voltage on the OCS.
Unfortunately, the SNCF-operated Eurostar organization apparently did a terrible job of communicating what was going on, partly because its staff on the French side apparently doesn’t speak English (the reverse might also be true). For a cross-border service, that’s point blank unacceptable.
I expect there will be a thorough inquiry about this, especially regarding the extent of the electrical failure cascade, any remaining single points of failure and the lack of a solid plan for evacuating stranded trains quickly. There have been two tunnel fires in the past, so the need for proper scenario-based emergency response planning was evident. Fires aren’t the only disaster scenario, though they are the most serious one. Even minor glitches can easily become major incidents in a long tunnel, and the OCS failing completely is not even a minor glitch.
At the very least, the OCS systems for the two tunnel tubes ought to be totally independent of one another such that rescue trains can continue to operate in the other tube. Another remedial action worth considering is the installation of a second catenary wire above each track. This would always be in mechanical contact with all pantographs but electrically inert until and unless the first wire fails. Another option would be to install an electrically independent third rail and use that to supply emergency power. All of the Eurostar trains still have their legacy 750VDC third rail pickups anyhow. I believe the Eurotunnel locomotives do as well, but I’m not sure about that. Since third rail voltage is so low, trains would be limited to moderate power = very low speeds as they limp out of the tunnel. Still, even 10-20mph would be very much preferable to being stuck down there for hours on end.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Oh my goodness, that’s terrible.
The horrors of doing without air conditioning. At least they were warm.
It sounds as if the entire OCS in the tunnel failed…..The fact that none of this happened implies that there simply wasn’t any voltage on the OCS,
Odd how the automobile shutlle trains were used to get the passengers out. The shuttle trains use electricity.
It’s a well-understood phenomenon and in any case, it’s not particularly cold in France right now.
But it’s snowy in France. Once in a decade kinda thing. The UK has a whole two inches of slushy stuff and they more or less have closed everything down.
At the very least, the OCS systems for the two tunnel tubes ought to be totally independent of one another…
The tunnel is 30 niles/50 kilometers long. They run multiple trains in it at a time. The tunnel is broken up into pieces There’s transformer vaults along the way to step down the very high voltage to 25kV. Europe needs some foamers who can lovingly document where everything is in hundred page threads like the North Americans do.
Another remedial action worth considering is the installation of a second catenary wire above each track. This would always be in mechanical contact with all pantographs
As soon as a pantograph touched both of them they would no longer be inert. Not particularly cheap to do and doubles the chances of a pantograph fouling the catenary or vice versa.
Another option would be to install an electrically independent third rail and use that to supply emergency power. All of the Eurostar trains still have their legacy 750VDC third rail pickups anyhow.
I doubt the next generation will have third rail pickups. 60 miles of third rail would be very very expensive to install. Especially the new vaults for the converters, ones that would have to be installed every few miles. Someone decided that it would be very very expensive to do this which is why it wasn’t done when the tunnel was built.
The Pennsylvania Rail Road’s GG1 locomotives entered service in 1934. They served the on what is now part of the Northeast Corridor. It snows along the Northeast Corridor. During the blizzard of 1958 they failed. Fine snow was able to get past the air filters and into the electrical parts shorting them out. In other words it took 24 years before they found out the locomotives had a design defect.
I suspect what happened in the Channel Tunnel was that the trains picked up a fine layer of snow. They then entered the warm tunnel where the snow melted. Either they shorted out the power electronics or the controls or both. Since they were without air conditioning I’m leaning towards “shorted out the power system” which then tripped the train’s main circuit breaker(s). Leaving the catenary available for the car shuttles to come in and pick up passengers.
The automobile shuttles spend lots of time in the nice warm tunnels. They don’t travel very far outside of the tunnels. They don’t pick up much snow. What little they do pick up melts harmlessly. So they used empty automobile shuttles to get passengers out. . . it’s melted snow fouling the train’s electronics.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am
So we’re back to the “wrong kind of snow” nonsense? How come the Germans, the Swedes, the Japanese and others manage to design and build trains that can operate in much more severe winter conditions but the French/Brits have to resort to wimpy excuses? At the very least, they ought to now put Eurostar trains through some stress tests in a low temperature wind tunnel, e.g. the one at Rail Tec Arsenal in Vienna.
Btw, I heard it took several hours for the Eurotunnel rescue trains to arrive.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am
The Swedes etc don’t run trains through 30 mile long tunnels that are hovering at 100F/40C. When and if they have problems because of snow everyone thinks “It’s winter, snow causes problems” and gets on with their lives.
It doesn’t have to be the wrong kind of snow in places where it doesn’t normally snow. It just has to be snow. Tends to float into places rain doesn’t go. Then melt into places that aren’t designed to get wet.
Just because the train has popped it’s main circuit breaker doesn’t mean you dispatch a rescue train immediately. They have to determine that the train is truly broken down. Then decide that they have an empty shuttle train available. Then find a crew for the empty shuttle train. Probably have to scare up extra personnel to be on the shuttle train too. Unless you are suggesting that to avoid inconveniencing passengers once every 15 years they should have a set of crewed trains on standby. … and it was an inconvenience not a disaster or even an emergency.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Where’s the damn battery back up on these trains? our electric buses in sf have been fitted with batteries so when the the trolley poles pop off the wire, which happens constantly, its cool cuz sparks light up the night sky and people ooh and aah, the battery kicks in so that the bus can move out of the intersection and out of the way.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 12:40 am
How far away is the nearest “intersection” when you are in a 30 mile long tunnel? How big is the battery that can haul a train that far?
jimsf Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I don’t know how big but its seems they would have thought of a back up for such power failures.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Was it a power failure? Or did the trains short out, tripping their main circuit breakers? If the electronics in the drive system have shorted out having a battery with you means the main circuit breaker to the battery will trip just like the one connected to the catenary did.
They did think about it. a vanishingly small percentage of their annual ridership was inconvenienced by the extraodinarily rare break down. Transferring some of the passengers to another train and using rescue locomotives to haul the rest out, worked.
…. why don’t Amtrak trains in California carry around two cars full of batteries for when the locomotive breaks down? The wheels on diesel trains are driven by electric motors. If they dragged around two cars of batteries all the time, when the generator or engine on the locomotive broke down they could switch to battery power and get the passengers to the next station. Shouldn’t cost more than 10, 15, 20 million dollars a train…..
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 7:58 am
The latest news is that Eurostar is running test trains in the same conditions but has been unable to replicate the breakdown. The mystery remains.
A Euro-MP, Dominique Baudis, who happened to be travelling on one of the stranded trains, said Eurostar had responded with “scandalous inertia” and added that he would demand a public enquiry by the European Commission.
Meanwhile TGVs are running normally in far more severe conditions, especially in the alpine regions with heavy snow, -15°C (5°F) temperatures and plenty of tunnels. The drivers have just been instructed to reduce top speed, causing some delays. Most of the delays are in fact due to railway stations being overwhelmed by a crowd of people who left their cars at home because of the snow. Which shows rail is the safest option when driving gets tricky.
Something you don’t hear in France: “why should I pay taxes for a train I’ll never use?”.
Never say “never”.
Rafael Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Eurostar claim to have licked the problem of powder (as opposed to wet) snow with new snow shields on the intakes for cooling air. Curiously, I’ve seen reports the rear locomotive was more affected than the one in the front.
In any case, the problem in this particular case appears to have been a combination of cold temperatures and accumulated powder snow. Afaik, Eurostar trains are based on air-cooled asynchronous electric motors, the power electronics and transformers are probably cooled via a water or oil circuit and radiators. Not sure about that, though. Either way, the systems are presumably fully sealed to prevent rain or melt water from ever making contact with the live components. Rapidly melting snow could cause mechanical damage as blocks of it fall off at 100mph. It’s not clear if a previously inactive (i.e. cold) traction system was switched on as the trains entered the tunnel.
In addition, there are batteries on board for ride-through and hotel loads. If the terminals on those were cold when the trains entered the tunnel, it’s possible the high humidity there caused condensation to form, shorting out the subsystem and possibly, the entire train and OCS.
In any event, the only way to get a handle on these gremlins is to test the system under controlled conditions, i.e. in a climatic wind tunnel. That’s not something Eurostar can do ad-hoc, though.
Their biggest failure by far has been grossly inadequate preparation for efficiently informing, supplying and then evacuating thousands stranded passengers in the event of a breakdown inside the tunnel. Ensuring adequate reliability engineering and disaster recovery planning happens is the responsibility of senior management, pure and simple. Operations staff clearly didn’t know what to do. If you’re going to run trains at 15 minute intervals during the Christmas period, you need to anticipate that you’re going to have 4-6 trains in the two tunnel tubes at the same time. It didn’t help that all communication between management and drivers had to go through Eurotunnel while the trains were stuck, but mostly it appears to have been a case of Eurostar simply not having its own ducks in a row.
Spokker Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Private companies do it better. I was once stuck for two hours on a Disneyland ride. Hooray!
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:11 am
If 10 fully loaded 747s suddenly fell out of the sky and nobody was hurt, the pilots would be hailed as heroes and the whole event would be proclaimed as a miracle (especially if they hit a flock of birds and the pilot had to land in the Hudson).
Five Eurostars stop, two full trains are successfully evacuated, three others are successfully towed out of the tunnel with passengers on board. What happens? Passengers are interviewed about their “ordeal” which involves the air conditioning going out, no deaths, no overflowing toilets, plenty of water, light snacks.
Oh and Morris posts a link to it because something bad happened on a train somewhere. It’s going past your house buddy, sorry.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:30 am
You’re right to point out that in this case passengers were merely inconvenienced, their lives were never at risk. Nevertheless, thousands of people were trapped underground for 10-12 hours, which is unacceptable. The Eurotunnel train that was used to evacuate stranded passengers has a grand total of 2 restrooms, which is obviously inadequate for that number of people and that length of time. Stuff happens every once in a blue moon, but how an operator responds to mitigate the knock-on effects is telling.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:46 am
They weren’t trapped underground for 10-12 hours the BBC article is referring to the time it took them to get towed back to Calais, board another train, and finally arrive in London. That’s not 12 hours in a tunnel. That’s a delay. Like at the airport.
Spokker Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If I were like Morris I would go to a car enthusiast forum and post a link to a news article every time a motorist’s car broke down.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Id rather be stuck in the tunnel than have to land in the hudson river I think, if given the choice.
while we’re on the subject of disasters and HSR, there was just a 6.8 earthquake here in taiwan two hours ago, although the epicenter was on the less-populated east coast so the magnitude along the line varied from 3-5 on the richter scale. as the japanese design intended, the train stopped, no derailment, no injuries, just another temporary pause in service. no big deal.
sure would suck to be crossing a fault like that in a tunnel when something like that hit, though. kudos for CAHSR for playing it safe and planning to cross CA’s faults at grade.
i don’t mind the goofy noses or cat ears, as long as the system’s quake-resiliant.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Note that the much longer Seikan tunnel in Japan does cross an active fault deep underground. Other tunnels on dry land in that mountainous country also cross active faults.
An ambitious project to dig a tunnel (2+1 bores) under the Straits of Gibraltar would also be subject to seismic risk. Italy just constructed a series of HSR tunnels through the Apennines mountains. The town of L’Aquila was struck by an earthquake just last year. On the plus side, the shake intensity well below ground is less than that at the surface, a consequence of the physics of wave reflection at free surfaces.
Still, tunnels crossing faults remain problematic, especially wrt repairs to damaged tracks after the event. Redundant systems plus procedures for rapid evacuation are essential not just in the event of a fire or an earthquake but also in less catastrophic scenarios.
Jimsf,
“second, this talk of fares is ridiculous. How in hell can there even be a discussion on fares when a) its not built or up and running and no one can predict what type of economy we will be in 20 years from now.”
I think we can predict pretty well the type of economy we are going to have in twenty years. Look at the students in the schools and their performance levels. California is in big trouble. Those students are going to be producing wealth (or lack thereof) for the state. Will industry make up for their shortcomings using immigration from Asia like we do now? I kind of doubt it because hi-tech is leaving for lower taxed and better educated populations.
And your point about most Califonians having not heard of Palo Alto kind of speaks to my point of these disappointing demographics.
Paul H. Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 2:56 am
You think we can predict pretty well the type of economy we are going to have in twenty years? And that prediction is that the economy will be worse off than it is right now because of performance levels in high schools? California is in trouble right now, so what do we say of the people who are running the government and businesses right now? Your argument is ill-informed to say the least. California will be fine, and we won’t be losing hi-tech anytime soon, that’s my prediction. Want to know what California has that no other economy in the world has? The BEST universities. Bar none. Your argument that our poor education numbers in high school is the sign that we are getting dumber as a population is not correct in any measurable way. It means that high schoolers are less interested in how high school’s teach its students. The kids that are graduating college right now are the most informed and smartest of any previous generation. A college degree now days is supported with much more high quality education than even 10 years ago with the wealth of technology, the internet, and the information generation. It is true however that our society makes it easier for ill-educated and ill-informed people to go about their lives with no major consequences, which has been one of the biggest downfalls we have in this society and it needs to be resolved. I mean, we let W drive this country into a tailspin, thats pretty damn hard to do, and even he (with the help of congress) pulled it off.
I wish they’d put hsr all the way up the valley. or even regular rail up the valley. I have to go to mrv now, and to get there I have to get up way to early (now) schlepp up van ness to the rental car place, spend the 39.95 … plus taxes, fees, and insurance, (total, 8 zillion dollars) then drive in the tule fog for 3+ hours one way. and then back, having to stop for gasoline, ( how much does that stuff go for these days anyway?) then sat. night traffic christmas week traffic back into the city.
ugh. I could take the ‘trak for free, but I’d have to take the bus xfer, plus the return sked is too early. If only there were a train to up there it would be so pleasant. I mean a regualr train would be fine, and a high speed train would cover that distance in about (140 miles) an hour, which means I could have slept for 2 more hours.
even regular service would get me there 3 hours – equal to driving. but nooooooo, I have to go through all this rigamarole.
wu ming Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
MRV=redding?
driving in tule fog sucks, you have my sympathies.
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am
MRV = Maryville
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
MRV marysville. as in mary murphy, if you will all refer to page 79 in your california history books and remember we’ll be building missions out of sugar cubes this week….
This is real blight: http://inourpath.com/photo45.html#photo
http://inourpath.com/photo46.html#photo
That same intersection today. No development. No improvements. No increases in land value. No “Highway Orientated Development.”
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=success+%26+imperial&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.411029,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=E+Imperial+Hwy+%26+Success+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+California+90059&ll=33.929427,-118.249076&spn=0.001329,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.929479,-118.249279&panoid=AZI9HmV0QVnZbV6iqZiGGA&cbp=12,177.02,,0,4.75
On the Peninsula everybody is bending over backwards to placate those with concerns. There are special workshops. There will be special mitigation measures. There won’t even be any local emissions. If a high speed rail station is built in Palo Alto, nearby residents will likely see their property values rise. There was no such benefit for the poor residents of South LA. The Century Freeway freeway is 200 feet across. 350 feet if you count the entire freeway right of way. The crappy Green Line is little consolation. It’s not quite a Berlin Wall (you can still go under it if you’re brave enough), but it’s closer to it than any high speed rail line.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Doesn’t look like “success aveneue” was one.
The money quote:
The HSR spokesman “also said the rail authority will continue to use the “50 percent of airfare” model in its environmental reviews because this model allows the rail authority to plan for the impact of a higher number trains.”
You can’t have it both ways, guys… either you run a transportation charity and build for the high traffic generated by 50% of airfares, or you run a transportation business and build for the lower level of traffic with 83% of airfares. Why spend billions to overbuild the infrastructure for fairy-tale levels of traffic?
This double-standard is practically begging to be litigated under CEQA.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I don’t know about that. Granted, I’m not a CEQA lawyer. But since no final decisions have been made on fares, it does seem to make sense to study the potentially more intensive environmental impact, and then if you choose to operate with fewer riders, well, at least you have modeling and impact reports in case you run more trains or carry more people.
It’s not as if they’re saying “we’ll study the environmental impact of a tunnel but build an aerial structure.”
Joey Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I’d be careful with just building for the bare minimum expected capacity. The thing about ridership projections is that they are just that – projections. They may have fewer riders than projected … or they may have a lot more. And capacity is a lot easier to build in now than when the system is up and running.
Clem Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Ridership projections for California rail projects are typically overestimated by a factor anywhere in between pi/2 and pi, because funding decisions are often made on the basis of cost per rider.
Spokker Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Other people say that ridership estimates for rail projects are over estimated so that when ridership does exceed projections the lead agency can go, “See?! Everybody loves trains!”
Rafael Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
My take on this is that CHSRA would much rather build the whole thing with just public money and then see it operated it the best interest of that public, i.e. as a low-fare service. High ridership will strengthen the case for more public investment to build network extensions. Essentially, this is the French philosophy and, it was at the heart of the year 2000 business plan.
It was Governor Schwarzenegger than insisted on attracting private investment, which implies optimizing for profits. It’s an ideological canard in the sense that reducing ridership mean more demand for public investments in the modal alternatives, i.e. runways and highway lane-miles. Politicians need to think of HSR as just one of many pieces of a much larger transportation funding puzzle or else, they end up acting penny-wise and pound-foolish.
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Is that guy STILL governor. when does his time expire anyway. oh yeah, now where gonna get yet another republican millionaire, this whitman gal. please tell me we aren’t going to be that stupid.
Aren’t the Altamont Corridor tracks owned by UP too? I imagine there are some places where HSR will have to be next to UP right of right at times even if they chose Altamont. Anybody know more about this?
jimsf Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
UP owns the entire western half of the Milky Way.
Joey Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
UPRR owns basically everything in the East Bay and through the Tri-Valley area. In terms of UPRR, Altamont is arguably worse than Pacheco.
God, I live about 3,800 feet away from the nearest freeway (Interstate 5, 10 lanes, 400 feet wide) and the noise is amazing. It’s not ear splitting from where I am, but Christ, the roar of the traffic is ever present. I can’t imagine what it’s like for the people living 800 feet away.
recent merced commentslocals prefer bnsf.
okay so lets talk about the joys of driving the fancy free highways and byways of california.
what a load of crap this was. First it did take 3 full hours to go 116 miles
The traffic slows to a crawl in the very same places that it has been slowing to a crawl for the last 40 years, regardless of lane additions.
I stopped off at harry and david to pick up a gift, at the “vacaville premium outlets” ( which is Miwok for suburban hell cluster”) where there are acres of paved parking, but nowhere to park. this is where I engaged in the eskimo circle ritual dance where you drive round and round and round while you become later and later for your social engagement. Once you finally make your way to the store you realize that the reason these people drive such ginormous vehicles is because they need them to carry their equally ginormous rear ends. (note to self, cellulite and polyester stretch pants are a bad combination)
Then its back on the road for more of the most tedious, mind numbing, impossible to stay awake while your leg cramps up on the accelator travel experience ever.
then you turn around and do the whole thing in reverse, plus throw in Saturday Night bridge traffic.
wait though your aren’t done, becuase you have to refill the rental car with gasoline which apparently costs more than christmas at tiffanys. 30 freakin dollars for 9 gallons of gas? WTF!! plus the after hours drop off fee, bridge tolls, etc and my 35 dollar rental car trip cost me …. 130 bucks.
ok I got to see my kitty cat that I left in the country. but still. I don’t get how people can go on like this. There is nothing affordable or convenient about cars. period. god bless my muni fast pass.
did I mention I nearly …a brick when I saw that gas pump thing spinning those numbers around! 30 bucks? for 9 gallons! are they out of their freakin minds? and people still drive?
forget it.
Spokker Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
@jimsf So you’re who Amtrak hires…
Rafael Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 2:05 am
If you think $3/gallon is expensive, try filling up in Japan or Europe. Gasoline is cheap in the US, only in places like Venezuela or the Middle East is it cheaper still. The recession has depressed prices for the moment, but the long-term trend is still firmly up – even after adjusting for inflation.
jimsf Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
rafael I think prices will hit 5 bucks again as soon as the economy heats up. and once you spend some time living car free/urban to go out there and do that suburan thing, well its is so shockingly evident that its a dreadful, wasteful way to live. but its also the status quo and isnt likey to change. I mean if people are willing to send their kids off to die for it… what can you do.
wu ming Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 8:28 am
the real tragedy is that once upon a time vacaville had the rather charming nut tree, and now it’s those goddamned outlet malls.
jimsf Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
yes. see how I was able to do that math and communicate the experience?
jimsf Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Yeh we used to love the nut tree.
@jimsf. Your story presumes you would have a rail line that goes anywhere you want to go. FAIL.
My story doesn’t presume anything. we already have a rail system that goes everywhere I want to go. I just want it to go to those places faster.
jimsf Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
see?
jimsf Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
or better, after hsr overlay, see there isn’t a populated part of the state you can’t get to.