Palo Alto Hearing Open Thread
In case you need the info again:
7PM Thursday, January 21
Palo Alto City Council chambers
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA
I’ll be there around 6pm, and have a number of interviews lined up with the media beforehand, but if any of you want to come up and say hi, feel free to track me down. I’ll also be livetweeting the proceedings on the blog’s Twitter account, @cahsr for about as long as my iPhone can hold out. And tomorrow I’ll post a review of the hearing here.
One thing to keep in mind is that this is all basically a bunch of political theater. The hearing won’t change the minds of the State Senators. They know that just because the room gets packed full of NIMBYs doesn’t mean they represent the true feelings of the community. And the same would be true if the room were somehow packed with HSR supporters, which is highly unlikely to happen.
But it is an opportunity to get out our core message, which is this: the people of California voted to build high speed rail in 2008. They still support it, and expect the state legislature to ensure the train is built as planned without breaking the bank.
I know that the HSR deniers are expecting tonight to be a huge moment for their movement. They’re going to be disappointed. Instead tonight will be a moment where HSR support starts to show itself. Sure, they’ll get to vent their spleens at the State Senate committee, but in the end the voters passed Prop 1A and the legislature is obligated to see to it that the HSR system is built. And that’s the message we’re going to deliver tonight.
I plan to be there, as long as 17 is open.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some sort of passenger rail service that could, oh I don’t know, provide high-speed service from, say, Gilroy up to Palo Alto? Service that could then link up with slower-speed passenger rail service to Santa Cruz and Monterey?
Mark Drury Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Ever wonder why there’s no Caltrain service (Baby Bullet or otherwise) from Gilroy north after 7:05am? But somehow, someway, CAHSR would make such service viable, I guess. Regards,
Mark D.
joe Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 8:45 pm
The expensive 2 lane expansion of 101 from Morgan Hill to San Jose cut into Caltrain ridership. If that money had added 1 car pool lane and improved the tracks Girloy North, trains could run faster and safer.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Joe, the fact remains that we now have the two new lanes, and demand for rail transit service from Gilroy north is either next to nil or Caltrain simply can’t or won’t accommodate it for other reasons. I, personally, would be far more interested in rail transit between the San Francisco peninsula, where I live, and Monterey and Santa Cruz, as Robert suggests, than I would be in service to the L.A. area. Odd to think that seventy years ago or more people in the Bay Area could take a train to Santa Cruz and Pacific Grove on the Monterey Peninsula (traces of the old ROW can still be seen on the front nine of Pacific Grove Golf Links). Regards,
Mark D.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Mark, I would be more interested in service to San Diego and the Inland Empire than I am in service to San Francisco. However, my (and your) local needs don’t trump state needs.
The other projects we want are the responsibility of the counties we live in. Counties should work together to plan and construct better regional rail options.
JoeSez Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Mark, that’s a phony choice, Monterey or LA. The correct answer is both and making the Gilroy station the hub supports connecting Salinas /Monterey to Caltrain connection.
But please, I’d like the fact the 2 lane widened highway be taken into account as the **root** problem for decreased ridership from Gilroy – after all we spend what 100+ million to make that improvement without any cost recovery hand wringing.
Gilroy had better ridership before the gov’t decided to spend millions of dollars building an car alternative sans any cost recovery, how will be get our precious tax dollars back?
Caltrans spent 100+ million to make car commuting a better alternative for trains – hence CAHSR FAIL !!!
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
JoeSez, I was strictly indicating my personal preference in the mention of rail transit to Monterey, nothing more. And I’m no fan of widening highways, either, but I don’t know that we had a better alternative in the 101 corridor south of San Jose. Even if you tripled Caltrain ridership from Gilroy north I don’t know that that would have made a dent in the traffic problems on that awful stretch of road. And HSR is too uncertain (and too far in the future if it is built) to suggest as a remedy, as well.
Spokker, I would posit that the regional transit problems in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the Lost Angeles area are far more pressing and important to tackle than building CAHSR and, as such, should be the state’s higher priority, regardless who would now be responsible for funding any regional improvements. That is, in my view, the regional transit problems in our larger metro areas truly are a state problem and should be prioritized and funded alongside CAHSR. Pipe dream, I know. Regards,
Mark D.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I agree with you, but it’s not an either/or proposition. In Los Angeles County Measure R was passed to pay for bus and rail projects. Local transit *is* being improved alongside HSR.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
and $950 million of Prop 1a funds are to be used to improve local transit.
[Deleted by Robert. Don't know how this got through the moderation. Gotta check the seals.]
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Are you Native American? If not, then your ancestors carpetbagged to Palo Alto, too.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
There go your anonymous spammers, Robert.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Anonymous rules.
I would have been there…but I got to deal with fallout from this storm.
Joy.
I wish I could have made it…so keep us updated!
Sadly, I work right across the street from Palo Alto City Hall but won’t be able to attend the meeting this evening. And now that I’m posting comments on this blog I should add, by way of introduction, that I’d be more in favor of CAHSR if the Altamont Pass route were still on the table. And if California was evenly remotely able to afford this project at this time. I realize many or most of you disagree with the latter sentiment, but I’m wondering how many of you are still open to Altamont? I’m a train nut (I created http://nwprr.net and belong to a couple railroad historical societies) and am a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club, which on the surface might make me an obvious supporter of CAHSR, but I’ve read of the Authority’s business plan and, simply put, it makes me nervous. In any case, I’m happy to be part of the discussion on this blog, even if I end up in the role of hate sponge. Regards,
Mark D.
Peter Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Switching to an Altamont alignment at this point in the game would set the project back by years, in my opinion. There was a time to argue for Altamont, but that time has now passed. At some point the discussion over the issue must end and a decision must be made.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I personally don’t care which alignment was chosen, but if they had picked Altamont, we would be hearing “terminate in Livermore” instead of “terminate in San Jose.” Regards,
Spokker J.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Terminate in Livermore? I imagine you’re saying that tongue in cheek, given there’s no rail transit service from Livermore to San Francisco, while San Jose already has such service. Perhaps you’re thinking we may hear those cries if BART were extended to Livermore? Terminating HSR in San Jose makes sense to me with the Pacheco alignment, but I imagine that’s not a popular position on this blog. Regards,
Mark D.
Joey Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Well, yes, the idea was that it would connect to a future BART service (not that amounts to much), and yes, that is several orders more nonsensical than terminating in San José (though that seems rather dumb to me too).
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Mark, tell Pleasanton that. They would only support Altamont if trains terminate in Livermore.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
Well, whom would you rather do battle with? Pleasanton, or Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton? I’m only half-joking, of course. Regards,
Mark D.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I would rather do battle with Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton, because choosing to send HSR up the Peninsula is about the smartest goddamn thing the authority has done so far.
Matthew F. Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Oh sure a terminus in SJ would make sense – if 25% of the system’s total trips didn’t start and stop in cities further down the line, including the Big One, SF.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 am
The perfect reason for keeping an electrified Caltrain in the picture, Matt? This has been hashed, rehashed, and regurgitated too many times but the 2 hour and 40 minute direct trip time requirement was perhaps the silliest of the entire proposal. Regards,
Mark D.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
Yeah, that was dumb. It was originally 2:44, but some staffer probably felt that 2:40 sounded better. Maybe we can track him/her down and drag him/her behind a train.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I think Altamont/Dumbarton with an SJ/SF split would have been slightly better than Pacheco. I also think Pacheco has enough merit that derailing the project over it is stupid.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
The sierra club has done more damage to the state of california’s environment and its economy than anyone.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
The sierra club is nothing but a bunch of lawyers who have figured out how to make a very good living sucking off the taxpayers and they use science they found in a box of cracker jacks. What they have done to our forests is criminal.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Have you found your meds yet, Jim? Seriously, your angry non sequiturs appear to advance no CAHSR-related argument, far as I can tell. Regards,
Mark D.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
That’s the one issue that Jim goes nuts on. Not worth arguing with him over it.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
jim works for Amtrak.
Clem on Palo Alto Online:
“Posted by Clem, a resident of another community, 8 hours ago
> They need more space than what’s available. Ask them.
Sadly, I have to agree–only because they are designing to ridiculously ample alignment requirements that are 100% out of sync with the way it’s done in the rest of the world. If someone wanted to, they could fit four tracks quite comfortably within 80 feet of ROW. The trouble is, they don’t want to and don’t plan to. The plans I’ve seen are well north of 100 feet.
This is what happens when you give kids some crayons, but in this case several billion dollars are on the line.
We are going to get the HSR project we deserve.”
It appears that Clem’s analysis for only taking 4 acres of land for ROW widening is the ideal. The actual plans include more widening.
Clem Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Spokker you are my blog valet. Park my comments right here please.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:19 pm
According to the alternatives analysis for Anaheim they needed 85 feet of ROW for four tracks. That’s still one of the plans, but at one of the most recent meetings they introduced a contingency plan of over 100 feet just in case Metrolink doesn’t want trains to close to their tracks. Thoughts?
Kevin Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:54 pm
In speaking with the engineering manager for the LA-to-Anaheim segment last night, he seemed pretty wedded to the idea that his two HSR tracks needed 61.5′ worth of ROW *even if* Metrolink allowed HSR inside of their ROW. Apparently they’ve gotta have space for all of their crash walls/moats/death strips and giant cable raceways along the outside edges of the tracks, dontcha know. (When I continued to press him on why *that* much space was necessary, he indicated that some of his staff were raising similar objections, but that they were designing to a ’standard’. Where did the standard come from? Other systems around the world [and not the FRA], supposedly, although he wouldn’t name which ones.)
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 11:35 pm
We’ll see what happens, then.
It’s entirely possible that he’s an odd man out on the staff. People within the organization can certainly have different opinions on what is the right way to build it.
I don’t buy that a 110 MPH train needs a death trap crash wall with flubber barriers.
Clem Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 am
The standard came from a dark, insalubrious place. You can retrieve your own copy here. Please direct your attention to TM 1.1.6 and TM 1.1.21.
Utility easements are evidently much more important than people’s residential property.
Clem Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 am
To be more specific:
Track centers 16′6″ (from TM 1.1.6)
OCS pole clearance from track center to center of pole 14′0″ (from TM 1.1.6)
OCS pole foundation width ~2′ (estimated)
Walkway 3′0″ outside of pole foundation (from TM 1.1.21)
Drainage 3′0″ outside of walkway (from TM 1.1.21)
Cable ducts, system equipment and utility easements 3′0″ outside sub-ballast layer (from TM 1.1.21)
Tally it up:
3′ + 3′ + 3′ + 1′ + 14′ + 16′6″ + 14′ + 1′ + 3′ + 3′ + 3′ = 64′6″
Pretty close to your quoted 61′6″
Pretty close to cross-section drawing C0303 in TM 1.1.21
Kevin Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Thanks for the specific pointers, Clem. It’s pretty clear that someone at PB or the Authority gets hot and bothered thinking of utility easements: their worst-case “we don’t sign any MOUs with anyone” cross-section for the 50′ wide section of ROW in Anaheim includes a 16.5′ section of nothingness *between* the existing ROW and their new 61.5′ wide HSR ROW. Why? According to the section engineering manager, it’s for fiber optic cables, in case they can’t sign an agreement that allows them to be moved.
*What* fiber optic cables? If they’re there, they’re *already in* the existing ROW, which is undisturbed in that scenario — they’d have to dig them up and move them *TO* their 16.5′ strip! (Unless PB is trying to argue that 1.5 miles of fiber optic cabling is somehow buried underneath buildings that were built decades before the first fiber optic cable was ever deployed …)
I was at the City Council Chambers as the hearing got underway- turnout was quite large, the overflow room was full and they were setting up a second overflow area in the lobby. An impressive union turnout tonight- High Speed Rail will bring a lot of jobs to the state, and it was good to see a solid pro-HSR turnout in Palo Alto.
Scheduling conflicts prevented me from attending the hearing itself, but I’m recording it on the DVR and will catch up later tonight. Just from the turnout though, one thing is clear- a lot of Californians want to see HSR built, now.
HSRforCali Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Wait, you can record it on DVR???
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Probably public access.
Bianca Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 am
Yup, it’s on one of the Government Access channels. Simitian did comment early on that you’ll be able to see it through his website, I think.
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Bianca wrote: “Just from the turnout though, one thing is clear- a lot of Californians want to see HSR built, now.”
I see this claim a great deal, that “Californians are still overwhelmingly in favor of HSR.” Bianca, what, specifically, about last night’s turnout makes you so certain of the above? Did you conduct a straw poll of some kind and extrapolate to the rest of the state? It’s an honest question: Were any reputable (for some definition of “reputable”) polls conducted in California in the latter half of 2009 round this very question? My gut feeling, based on the admittedly small sample size of friends, neighbors, and family members whom I’ve spoken to about the issue, is that the tide has turned against HSR somewhat, due chiefly to fears about the financial health of the state more so than specific problems with the project as currently designed. Harkening back to the previous blog post, I think the project would be in trouble were it to come before the voters again — the economic uncertainty now laying over us like a fog, one which won’t dissipate anytime soon, might in and of itself engender enough FUD to scuttle CAHSR. Regards,
Mark D.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Some thoughts.
* People don’t alert the world to their good fortune. The most vocal among us are those who feel they are slighted. The people at meeting are definitely going to be those who oppose the project.
* “My gut feeling, based on the admittedly small sample size of friends, neighbors, and family members whom I’ve spoken to about the issue, is that the tide has turned against HSR somewhat”
Your attitude probably has a lot to do with that. When I speak to people about trains, I know they don’t care. They feign interest and say, “Yeah, yeah high speed rail would be great.”
The same likely happens to you. When you talk to someone about HSR they are likely to pick up that you are against it on the Peninsula. They are likely to empathize with you regardless of what their personal opinion is. “Yeah, yeah f’ those guys trying to run trains up here.”
* I don’t think anything but a good poll could give us a clearer picture about what people think about high speed rail. Gut feelings on both sides are worthless.
And then we can argue about how accurate the poll figures are.
Bianca Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I was at the meeting last night and I saw a very large number of people wearing “High Speed Rail YES!” stickers. Sorry I didn’t take a count. I’m not aware of any recent polls, and I would be equally interested to hear the results. I can share my own gut feeling, based on my own admittedly small sample size of friends, neighbors and family members to whom I have spoken about this issue. These are folks who live in Menlo Park and Palo Alto and want to see this built. We understand that the state will continue to grow, and when there are an additional 15 million people here in 2030, how are we all going to get around? I certainly hope I am still around in 2030 and I hope that we haven’t wound up widening the freeways so much that we end up paving the whole darn state. We understand that oil won’t be this cheap forever, and when cheap oil goes away we will need to have some alternatives in place *before* that happens.
Most of all, Mark, do you remember what the economic outlook was in the fall of 2008? The economy had pretty much gone down the crapper. California was in an economic downturn. Despite, or perhaps because of that, the voters saw an opportunity to take bold action to transform the state’s economy. The economic uncertainty was already palpable in the fall of 2008, and the voters, I believe, voted for the long-term. Economic uncertainty did not stop the Bay Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge- to our long-term benefit. High Speed Rail is in the same category.
Glad to hear that show of support for HSR instead of the usual detractors..many Californians want HSR but the media loves drama..I do hope if there was coverage they will show how many people showed up backing HSR..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 10:28 pm
I didn’t see any TV cameras here aside from Palo Alto public access. TV news is probably out watching the rain fall.
Here is what we are dealing with in Anaheim: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=111791154239862255567.00047db900d7af3d6266a&ll=33.839107,-117.906891&spn=0,359.99716&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.839272,-117.907694&panoid=_OSWjbW4lY8IFGTbAsDrhg&cbp=12,124.6,,0,7.25
People who are so afraid of the world that they fence off their little residential street. Who are they hiding from?
Kevin Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 11:05 pm
What’s your point? How is this different from any number of gated condo developments in their hundreds (thousands?) across the USA? It may say something about America in general, but I don’t think that it says much about Anaheim in particular.
(Yes, it’s an entirely new-build condo development put up sometime in the mid-90s. It’s not like the neighborhood banded together to put a gate across a previously-public city street.)
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Those are single family homes on a typical residential street. What looks like the condo is outside the gates.
Kevin Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Well, if you want to be pedantic, some are detached condos (all sharing the same parcel), while others are single-family homes. I’ve been inside the dreaded gates; I know someone who’s on the development’s HOA.
But still, how do a few gated-off streets in Anaheim pose any serious obstacle to HSR, especially when compared to, say, the entire city of Atherton? You can find insular people all over California.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 am
I didn’t say they posed a serious obstacle. I was simply making a value judgment on them and the way they live because I am a bastard.
Bobierto Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:49 am
LOL I wish everyone had your perspective
I made a map showing what will be taken for the 1.5 mile constrained stretch of the Anaheim segment. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111791154239862255567.00047db900d7af3d6266a&t=h&ll=33.824803,-117.901559&spn=0.00121,0.00283&z=19
Click on the Southernmost icon and scroll up, clicking on the various icons you see. The map ends at La Palma.
The map won’t be perfect but let me know if you see anything wrong with it.
Hmm.. the Super Bowl for High Speed Rail is about two weeks away.
Nike Ad says to “just do it”…
http://www.gantdaily.com/news/11/ARTICLE/70226/2010-01-21.html
January 21st, 2010
U.S. Seeks Japanese Help to Build High-Speed Rail Systems
Tom Ramstack – AHN Correspondent
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The Bush (sic) administration Thursday raised a likelihood that the Japanese government and corporations will play a significant role in development of a nationwide network of U.S. high speed rail systems.
The Transportation Department plans to announce in about two weeks the winning applicants for $8 billion in federal funds to build the passenger rail systems.
“I have no doubt that we can learn from Japan’s experience,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood during a meeting with Japanese officials and corporate executives in Washington, D.C. “We will work very well together exploring what it takes to make high speed rail successful.”
…
“news” on the subject…
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=123524
While I was there for the presentation and part of the Q/A session, here are my thoughts on the hearing.
The business plan: yes, more work needs to be done to improve the methodology and provide more “realistic information” about the operating models. That said, it is early on, and contrary to what many critics said, you need to develop some of the engineering first to develop the “big picture” in order to provide those pieces of information that potential private operators and investors would want. More financial information will emerge as issues are sorted out.
The “smell test.” Well, let’s see about that. There was talk about Gilroy having unexpectedly high numbers of riders. Why is that? Let’s use common sense. One, that station will attract riders from the surrounding counties who normally would fly out of San Jose to get to So Cal. Also, many do commute to the Bay Area from areas to the Southeast and Southwest of Gilroy and reducing wear/tear on a vehicle is done by not driving, which suggests people would take the train.
The CSS process will be expanded, which is good. Public input is absolutely necessary if not vital to this project. That said, for all of the comments about slowing down the project, this is an awesome strategy to kill the project. In this case, the longer it takes, the more it costs, therefore, we can’t afford it. I am completely opposed to this strategy. Communities will work with Caltrain/HSR but there will be some hard truths, such as not every city will get a tunnel.
Also, the Peninsula must remember, it is part of California. While there are many justified critiques and concerns, attempting to kill the project by say, stopping in San Jose will decrease ridership even more, since who wants to go to SF when you have to get off and transfer in SJ? In fact, the peninsula is a little schizophrenic about wanting to electrify/grade separate Caltrain, but at the same time, not permit HSR. A good example of this is Menlo Park’s previous plans to have a 4 -track grade separation but now demands a tunnel or nothing at all. Similarly, by building this section, it allows people to come of the peninsula and vice versa, which would add business, especially if Palo Alto gets a station. I think Assemblywoman Gagiani’s comments were right on the mark about the State-wide implications for this project, especially for the Central Valley.
The last portion of my thoughts focus on what could be. There was some mention of what this project could do. For Caltrain, as Bob Doty was right to say that a well designed project could bring in demand that was unexpected, and the Baby Bullet shows that. Likewise, for those who seek to kill the project, my questions are: how are we going to pay for the highways that have to be expanded when their right of ways are constrained? What about the airports? By building this project now, you won’t need to consider stacking the Bayshore Freeway, and it can open up gates at airports to regional or international travel that were used more or less for Bay Area-LA flights. This will be good for the long-term economy
HSRComingSoon wrote: “… attempting to kill the project by say, stopping in San Jose will decrease ridership even more, since who wants to go to SF when you have to get off and transfer in SJ?”
This argument has never made the least sense to me. The need to transfer in San Jose might scare some riders away but it would present no more added difficulty or inconvenience than one already encounters while flying, so long as Diridon Station remains a clean, safe, comfortable place to spend 15-30 minutes awaiting a connection (on par with most airport terminals, at least). Were I a CAHSR proponent in favor of the Pacheco alignment I would push the San Jose terminus rather than face the legal juggernaut on the San Francisco peninsula — how many billions (and lawsuits) would the project save by doing so? Remove the direct travel/time provision between S.F. and L.A., terminate in San Jose with frequent connections to Caltrain, and CAHSR has a far better chance of being built, IMHO. Regards,
Mark D.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
That’s another issue that would require a revote, though. I didn’t see any language in Prop 1a that allows the legislature to amend it without running it past the voters again. Therefore, stopping HSR at Diridon would require a revote.
Apparently though, studies have shown that you take a heavy ridership hit when you require a transfer.
Also, I think you’re overrating the legal powers of the peninsula. They “won” the last lawsuit while losing on everything that could have changed the route. Just because you can afford good lawyers doesn’t mean you always get the result you want.
Bianca Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I have to say, Mark, when I fly, I will almost always choose a non-stop flight if that option is available. Changing planes, changing trains, or changing buses is a hassle. For many people, having to change trains in San Jose will be a dealbreaker if they can just fly from San Francisco direct to Burbank or LAX, despite the traffic hassles and the security theater hassles. Even if you aren’t traveling with kids or luggage, it means that you have an interruption, you have to collect your stuff, find your connection, and get settled again. If you are trying to get work done, that’s a huge interruption.
When they built the Shinkansen, they didn’t stop it in Yokohama and make everyone transfer to a commuter line to get to Tokyo. The TGV goes all the way to the Gare de Lyon; it doesn’t stop in the southern suburbs and make people switch.
Stopping HSR in San Jose will kill ridership, period. The threat of litigation is not enough to change that fact. Opponents on the Peninsula have already tried litigation and so far they haven’t come up with much of a leg to stand on. And all major infrastructure projects generate litigation- that’s just part of the program.
Finally, when HSR is completed, Caltrain will be fully electrified and grade-separated. There won’t be a whole lot significantly different between HSR trains on the Peninsula and Caltrain, so why suggest imposing the hassle of switching trains if the only thing that will accomplish is changing the color of the train going up and down the Peninsula? If you reject the idea that stopping it in San Jose will kill ridership, then those increased passenger volumes would mean just as many trains per hour on the Peninsula as if HSR ran all the way to San Francisco. Given that the two alternative outcomes to stopping in San Jose are either (1) no meaningful difference in impacts on the Peninsula, or (2) killing HSR entirely, which outcome are you actually advocating?
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
CHSRA’s documents claim that electric trains at 125 MPH are 3db quieter than diesel trains at 80 MPH.
But I am sure they are corrupt and lying.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
the only way you save money by stopping in SJ is by not electrifying and grade separating Caltrain. Meaning trips will be much slower and the transfer combined with longer trip times will drastically reduce ridership. There’s no point in doing HSR if it stops in SJ.
Imagine if every flight from LA had to transfer at SJC before going on to SFO, how many people do you think would still take that trip?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
If they terminate HSR in San Jose they will have to run a Caltrain to carry all the passengers who want to go to SFO and San Francisco. Two extreme scenarios, electrify first or electrify last.
Electrify the line and HSR can go all the way to San Francisco without transfers. Lets just say that means 4 HSR trains at peak in addition to the current 6 Caltrain trains. Ten trains an hour need more passing tracks along the line. Ten trains an hour tie up the grade crossings more often. So they begin to grade separate things. Electrification and grade separations mean Caltrain attracts more riders because it’s faster and more comfortable than diesel hauled trains. Which means the grade crossings are closed more often. Also means the passing tracks are more frequent or longer or both. Eventually they end up with a four track fully grade separated ROW.
Electrify last means that there are more diesel trains rumbling through the grade crossings more slowly than electric trains. Which means the grade crossings get separated just like in the above scenario. More grade separations mean Caltrain is faster, attracts more riders. More and longer passing tracks. Which attracts more Caltrain riders because it’s faster. More riders means more diesel fumes. Which results in demands for electrification. Electric trains are faster and more comfortable which attracts more riders. More passing tracks. Eventually they end up with a four track fully grade separated ROW.
Building four track fully grade separated ROW for HSR now is different how?
you have to collect your stuff, find your connection
Unless they do actually build the Pan Galactic, your connection will be across the platform just like it will be for people going to Sunnyvale or Redwood City ( assuming the HSR station is in Palo Alto ) So it will be much better than most airport connections. If Caltrain is running on fairly frequent schedules there almost no chance of a missed connection. Not that HSR should terminate in San Jose….
Bianca, Spokker, and lyqwyd, I do not believe that a hypothetical transfer between CAHSR and Caltrain in San Jose will be any more onerous than what one is currently subjected to just to get in and out of an airport terminal these days, even with a direct flight. I have two small kids and if given the choice between taking a train to L.A. in 3.5-4 hours (I haven’t been to L.A. in 12 years), with a transfer in San Jose, and taking a direct flight from any Bay Area airport, I’d choose the train without hesitation. But if driving were a third choice I would probably opt to drive, unless getting from the train station in L.A. to my final destination was very easy. And let’s not forget that for a significant number of northbound passengers San Jose will be their destination.
Yes, Caltrain should be electrified and grade separated, but what none of you seems to have acknowledged above is that doing so, without running CAHSR up the peninsula, will require far less in the way of (or no) eminent domain takings, based on two fewer tracks and the land required to support them (and hence the billions in savings I mentioned earlier). Having CAHSR terminate in San Jose, with frequent, electrified, grade-separated Caltrain service taking passengers further north, and with connection times averaging less than, say, thirty minutes, is, to me, the most likely way to get this thing built through Pacheco, even if it needs to go before voters again (which, according to many of you, should be a slam dunk). Well, this assumes some way is found to get HSR built around the UP ROW south of San Jose, too. Regards,
Mark D.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
But like adirondacker said, if you terminate HSR in San Jose, Caltrain would need a LARGE amount of extra capacity to continue those passengers to SF or bring them down from SF. That would mean a lot more trains on Caltrain, which means more passing tracks for both directions, which means quad tracking nearly the entire route. More trains would mean more grade separations would be required, which would lead to grade separations at all crossings. Which is exactly what Caltrain + HSR would be be on the Peninsula. So, what’s the difference?
Mark Drury Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Peter wrote: “which means more passing tracks for both directions, which means quad tracking nearly the entire route.”
More passing tracks, yes, but “quad tracking nearly the entire route” does not necessarily follow. It may very well be that an electrified, grade-separated, two-track Caltrain with a few more passing tracks can handle the extra load, where HSR passenger “load” is anyone’s guess at this point in time.
And, lyqwyd, I think you underestimate the cost of eminent domain takings on the peninsula when you consider the fair market value of the property plus the legal costs and associated delays of all the litigation. I don’t know that, all told, it would run into the billions but it would not be insignificant. And as I said above, a transfer in San Jose will deter some people from riding HSR. Whether that number is significant or not, no one knows.
A differing or otherwise inconvenient fare structure would definitely discourage ridership, but offering a shared or combined fare when purchasing an HSR ticket should be the least of the challenges facing this project (depending upon the bureaucracies to be penetrated, of course). Regards,
Mark D.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The cost is in the grade separations and electrification. Just laying tracks is not the expensive part (nor is the eminent domain takings). So your change basically results in a far worse service, at very little savings.
Are you saying that ridership will not take a hit if people are forced to transfer?
People can transfer from Caltrain to BART and get far closer to the SF job center, but very few people do, because transferring sucks and people don’t like it.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Also, if you have to transfer to a different fare structure it discourages people. This is based off of my experience in Berlin.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
And by different fare structure I mean having to buy an extra ticket to travel into a different fare zone.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Not only that, but the eminent domain takings even for a 4-track system are not expected to be significant. Further, as the San Carlos experience shows, if you’re going to grade-separate, you ought to do so with consideration for future expansion, instead of assuming the present level of service will never ever change.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“even if it needs to go before voters again (which, according to many of you, should be a slam dunk).”
I didn’t think Prop 1A was going to pass in the first place.