HSR Critics Craft A Magic Bullet Theory
The opposition to California high speed rail has generally emphasized different things at different times. In 2008 the arguments focused around claims that HSR wasn’t necessary for California, wouldn’t work here, that nobody would ride it, etc. Those arguments were roundly rejected by California voters when they voted to approve $10 billion in funding for the project in November 2008.
In 2009 the opposition shifted. Recognizing that trying to argue against the concept of HSR in California was a non-starter, opponents instead tried to undermine the project by arguing that the route choices were flawed, or that communities would be destroyed by the project. After a burst of NIMBY energy in early 2009, this began to fade as it became clear that state and federal lawmakers were not going to let a group of prosperous Peninsula residents block a project that had widespread public support and was a necessary part of the state’s economic recovery. Indeed, by early 2010 NIMBYism had faded significantly as a threat to the overall project, though it continued to play a big role in debates over routing and implementation.
By 2010 the folks who didn’t want HSR to happen had focused on trying to destroy the project and the CHSRA’s credibility by combing through every document available to find ANY flaw they could – a search for a magic bullet, like decades of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. It didn’t matter whether the flaw actually meant the whole HSR project was fatally flawed. All that mattered was that some discrepancy be found. Because if that were possible, then they could use that discrepancy to argue that the project is flawed without ever having to show precisely how the flaw means the project isn’t viable.
Let’s be very clear about that. The goal wasn’t to explain why HSR won’t generate operating surpluses, or suggest that California doesn’t need the trains. The goal of HSR critics was to instead find a flaw and assume that finding a flaw automatically meant HSR has to stop, that everything the Authority says is false, that all numbers don’t pan out, etc, etc.
It is a fundamentally dishonest approach to public oversight of a project. But that is precisely what has happened here.
First it was the business plan. We were told that the plan was “illegal” because it suggested a public guarantee for investors. It wasn’t clear whether that actually was illegal, and in any case it didn’t get much media traction. We were then told that the fact that the overall cost estimate changed was proof that it was a boondoggle and CHSRA can’t be trusted. Of course, the shift was due to federal rules regarding year-of-expenditure costing. We were then told that a model that proposed setting fares at 83% of airfare instead of 50% was somehow a sellout and a bait-and-switch and meant the project was dishonest and we should revote.
But none of those criticisms stuck. Sure, some parts of the business plan still need work, but that’s natural in an evolving project like this. And the HSR critics seem to have instinctively understood this line of attack was going nowhere, because they quickly shifted toward a focus on ridership.
This was partly due to signals sent by HSR opponent Senator Alan Lowenthal, who has repeatedly tried to destroy the project. He even lied to the public when, on KQED a week ago, he claimed that everyone who spoke at the Palo Alto hearing raised “concerns” about the project – Lowenthal did not once mention the outpouring of public support for the project he had heard.
HSR critics picked up on Lowenthal’s extremely dishonest and irresponsible claim that “the ridership numbers don’t pass the smell test” as a green light to zero in on the ridership estimates to try and find their single flaw that would somehow bring down the project they disliked, since every other line of attack over the last two years had failed them. Lowenthal’s original “smell test” claim was totally baseless, since he had NO explanation for why they didn’t seem right. No evidence, no logical argument. All he said was it didn’t feel right to him. That’s not a serious statement, certainly not one that should be made by a state legislator with oversight powers over an important project.
The initial efforts of HSR critics to attack the ridership numbers here in 2010 was the laughable attempt by the PCC to suggest that HSR and Amtrak were legitimate comparisons – that any idea that HSR would draw more riders at its stations than Amtrak at its NEC stations was somehow ridiculous. In fact, that is precisely what will happen and is a totally justifiable claim.
So they quickly abandoned that, but did not abandon the search for their magic bullet. This week, they claimed they found it. Here’s what we know:
1. Cambridge Systematics wrote in a letter dated January 29, 2010 that the MTC chose not to include the final coefficients in the final project report. This was stated neutrally, as the letter clearly indicates. Cambridge Systematics did not claim MTC or CHSRA was being dishonest, fraudulent, or anything else. All they said was, in effect, “we weren’t the ones who chose not to include that information. Go ask MTC.” Yet HSR critics claim this was “deliberately withheld,” for reasons unstated yet apparently sinister. How do we know the reasons were sinister? Well, actually, we don’t. We’re supposed to just believe people who have a vested interest in making HSR look bad.
2. The coefficients in question were modified, as is claimed to be regular and legitimate practice. It is important to keep in mind that it remains unknown why the coefficients were changed. One report indicates it was done to assess the impact of travel time on ridership, but that does not exactly explain why the coefficients changed by the amounts they did. In the absence of that info, it would be wrong to assume that means CHSRA did something bad. Yet that is precisely the assumption being made by HSR critics. We’re supposed to jump to conclusions because critics ask us to do so.
3. Nobody has explained what the impact of the coefficient change actually was. Did it totally change the ridership numbers for Altamont and Pacheco, which were still very close even after the change? Was it alone responsible for the choice of Pacheco? Realize that Peninsula HSR critics have a vested interest in undermining the Pacheco alignment, because it might theoretically revive the Altamont alignment, which would direct the trains away from the communities that have been most vocally opposed to HSR (Menlo Park, Atherton, and Palo Alto). [UPDATE: Brian Stanke shows in the comments the shift took Altamont from 69 million to 65 million riders, and Pacheco from 65 million to 70 million riders.]
4. More importantly, nobody – not one single person – has explained how this invalidates ANYTHING regarding the overall ridership numbers, the revenue estimates, or the fiscal plans. We are supposed to just believe that because one controversial change was discovered, that suddenly the whole HSR project is in dire peril.
Nonsense.
What we have here is a question about how one element of one part of one ridership estimate was made. The question can be answered fairly straightfowardly, without a rush to judgement, and I hope that is precisely what we will get. I have communicated to the Authority my belief that complete openness is in their best interest, and I have every reason to believe they feel exactly the same way. After all, the ridership info in question WAS made public when HSR critics asked for it, wasn’t it?!
So why is this “magic bullet theory” getting so much attention? Let me explain some reasons why.
Americans are trained to think nobody rides trains and they all lose money, so anything that reinforces that frame helps kill HSR projects. As we know, this assumption is complete nonsense. Many passenger rail systems of various kinds in the country have significant ridership and meet their goals. HSR in particular consistently posts high ridership numbers across the globe. Further, all HSR systems, including Amtrak’s Acela, generate profits “above the rail” – meaning operating costs are covered, no ongoing subsidy is required. That is not true of California freeways, for example, which require a costly state subsidy to maintain operations, since gas taxes are insufficient to pay for necessary upkeep, certainly not for adding capacity (eve Orange County has used sales taxes to subsidize capital construction on new freeway lanes). But because HSR is a train, well, it’s easy to assume that it’s going to fail anyway, so anything that reinforces that preexisting assumption of failure is useful.
The media in particular are trained to believe that any discrepancy on the part of government is a sign of scandal. Plenty of reporters and media outlets make a living exposing government problems in breathless tones. Sometimes these are significant. But they usually don’t suggest the public service in question should be abolished or ended. When the University of California has a scandal over executive pay, nobody proposes the solution is to close down UC. When the East Span of the Bay Bridge cost estimates came in way above estimates, we didn’t decide to not replace the span. When hospitals commit billing errors, we don’t shut down the hospital. Instead in those cases we solve the underlying problems, ensure anyone who screwed up or intentionally erred is held accountable, and we move on to ensure we don’t lose sight of the big picture. Yet we’re supposed to now throw out all HSR plans and the project itself because a controversial coefficient change was found? Really?
Stephen Colbert was right – “truthiness” has replaced the truth. This entire controversy over ridership is a classic example of truthiness – “a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.” When Alan Lowenthal said the ridership numbers “don’t pass the smell test,” he was engaging in truthiness. When HSR critics say the coefficient change means the entire ridership estimate is flawed and HSR is doomed, they too are engaging in truthiness. They found a magic bullet that they believe validates their preexisting worldview and now we’re all supposed to fall in line behind them and agree HSR sucks and we should just quit. No, I don’t think so.
A severe recession has created a public mood less accepting of any change or new idea at all, mobilizing public fear of spending new money on something that might not work. Across the political world, we see regressive forces beginning to prevail in their quest to stop us from solving deeper problems merely by suggesting the solutions might cost money or that the solutions might be imperfect. In a week where we learn one of California’s largest insurance companies will raise rates by over 30% on individual policy holders this year, we’re supposed to believe that health care reform is a bad idea that should be abandoned. After a decade of accepting that global warming is real and we should do something about it, we’re now supposed to believe that a few stupid emails sent by some British scientists somehow invalidate the entire effort to address the climate crisis, that we should instead do nothing while our planet heats up, our sea levels rise, and our state becomes drier (don’t let recent El Niño rains fool you).
There is a widespread effort in this country to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt – and especially concern about spending money – to keep the 20th century alive at all costs and to destroy any effort to do anything new. What we are seeing with this silly “magic bullet theory” being peddled by HSR critics is not at all different from the people trying to repeal AB 32 or trying to stop federal health care reform from happening. It all involves critics and defenders of the status quo taking false or misleading claims about one piece of the overall reform or need to act and using them to insinuate the whole reform or underlying issue is nonsense and should be ignored – even though their claims have not actually shown what they claim has been shown.
It’s like assuming a kid who flunked a math test is mentally challenged and doesn’t deserve to continue their education. It’s like assuming that because Apollo 1 burned up on the launch pad that we shouldn’t go to the moon.
In short, it’s absurd to use one controversy to attack an entire project. But that is what the HSR critics want to do, because all they feel they have to do is sow doubt, whether or not it’s backed by reasonable analysis, and they’ll win.
I hope for the sake of this state and its future that we will reject that, and demand solid analysis backed by strong evidence from all sides in the HSR discussion. If someone at MTC or the CHSRA did something they shouldn’t have, I will lead the call for them to be held accountable and face the proper consequences. But I’m not going to fall into the trap of assuming that just because a magic bullet theory is claimed, that I’ll abandon the HSR project. I hope others will refuse to fall into that trap as well.
When Robert gets going and writes a thread of 2100 words, I guess everyone is supposed to roll over and say “yea, those in opposition have no case, just ignore them. His final words —
“If someone at MTC or the CHSRA did something they shouldn’t have, I will lead the call for them to be held accountable and face the proper consequences. But I’m not going to fall into the trap of assuming that just because a magic bullet theory is claimed, that I’ll abandon the HSR project. I hope others will refuse to fall into that trap as well. ”
are particularly hollow, since everything that preceded is meant to discredit what is now known. I really can’t imagine you ever calling for this project to be stopped
Robert, the issue was not a plan to find a flaw, but rather an effort to try and understand ridership numbers which on an intuitive basis don’t seem to make sense.
You write:
“HSR critics picked up on Lowenthal’s extremely dishonest and irresponsible claim that “the ridership numbers don’t pass the smell test ”
Why was the Senator’s claim dishonest and irresponsible — I guess it was because you say it was.
I found it very interesting that Spokker, an enthusiastic supporter of the project now has strong doubts, and posts the following in the previous thread:
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
The reality is that the current project will not continue with the current leadership and some people may even go to jail. That’s pretty much the bottom line. I was skeptical about the rumor, but it is more damning than anything ever levied at this project.
My dream of shitting at 220 MPH through the Central Valley will have to wait until I am 70, and by then I might not even be able to hold it in anymore.
Hopefully the feds will take pity on us and let us divert the money to more worthy projects, such as getting the Pacific Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquins up to speed.
[Reply]
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
No, this will be made to go away.
[Reply]
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
How so, jim? The company that did the study is saying that MTC elected not to update the ridership model. Unless the memo is fake, I do not see how the CHSRA can recover from this. “Oh, we changed the model a bit.” Who the fuck does the MTC think they are? The experts, who were paid to study this thing, are at Cambridge.
The sad part is that the project probably would have been great if they just included the update information from Cambridge.
[Reply]
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Now we get nothing. No Pacheco. No Altamont. Nothing. The project is likely to be set back years.
[Reply]
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Itll be ok. Its all going to work itself out. You’ll see. Relax.
[Reply]
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Haha, I am relaxed. I care about a lot more things in life than high speed rail. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
===========
Robert, you had better face a bit of reality. This all needs to have a through investigation, and it cannot be dismissed as just opposition trying to kill the project.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:16 am
It’s futile, Morris. Robert has his hands tightly wrapped around his ears as he shouts “lalalalalalala – I can’t hear you!” If he cares as much as he claims to about getting HSR built, he’ll calm down and look at the facts rationally. Shouting down the critics is about the worst thing he can do at this point. It makes him come across as wanting this train NO MATTER WHAT. Facts, be damned. lalalalalala.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:25 am
You just proved my point: “Robert, the issue was not a plan to find a flaw, but rather an effort to try and understand ridership numbers which on an intuitive basis don’t seem to make sense.”
How do you know they “don’t make sense?” Your statement isn’t any different than Lowenthal’s “doesn’t pass the smell test” claim. This issue is being blown far out of proportion.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Yes, the isue needs to be investigated. The problem is when people automatically assume that something like this automatically means that the project is doomed. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Right. If something improper was done, then I’m all in favor of holding them accountable and having them face whatever consequences are appropriate. But there doesn’t seem to be a need to throw out the entire project over this.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Personally, the memo from Cambridge needs to be reconciled before I am a supporter of this project’s management again.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
What needs to be investigated… That some people don’t “get” something that they don’t have any specialty knowledge about?
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Since when did I become an expert? When I said something negative about the project? Haha, I’m just an idiot on the Internet like all of us except for jim. He’s the genius.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Agreed. :)
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Morris wrote: “Robert, the issue was not a plan to find a flaw, but rather an effort to try and understand ridership numbers which on an intuitive basis don’t seem to make sense. ”
Blah blah blah…. And your intend at the end of the day?
You’re a fool if you think that you can review numbers and co-effecients to such a degree that you can provide a credible opinion on the matter, let-alone to carry on an intelligent conversation?
Ridership modeling efforts requires a very fine-grain knoweldge of applicable numbers, modelign routines, and how different types of information shold be applied. And, there is no off-the-shelf formula to use for California in this instance. Add to it that new raw information becomes available over the course of a mulit-year project… and its encumbant on the project managers to use the newest and most insightly data…. you’re bound to find some conflicting results.
That should be a given. Why is it not?
The above is applicable in our own lives too. Even yours, Morris. Try reviewing things in your own life… whether it is your checkbook ledger, your 401k plan, or what is in your refrigerator…. it is a dynamic world and things change.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“on an intuitive level don’t make sense” means “can be painted as wrong whether or not they are in fact wrong”.
For example, since Gilroy is the main transfer station for the coast, it makes intuitive sense that the ridership model will predict more arrivals/departures at the station than one would normally expect for a town of Gilroy’s size.
So anyone raising the ridership numbers for Gilroy as an example that is supposed to be “counter-intuitive” without mentioning its status as the main transfer station for the coast is clearly either too lazy to look at the transport network that HSR is part of, and therefore their expressed view is unreliable, or else is deliberately misleading people, and therefore their expressed view is unreliable.
I’m missing something here. Does anyone know exactly what the missing data was about. I’ve read the news clip and I didn’t see anything conclusive. It’s not because one person is claiming something is fishy that it’s ideed fishy.
Before jumping to conclusion it will be best to clearly know what was done. Why allways assume the worst (ie manipulation)? Just wait untill further explanations are given before hanging anyone up a tree.
And please, for a state wide comprehensive system in a higly mobile society of 50million people (populaiton forecast for 2030) 41m trips a year is not such a big deal. France TGV transported 97m people in 2006 and even with the allegated cultural differences between California and France I’m confident that 41m trips a year is a doable number.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:26 am
That’s my point – we don’t actually know why the data wasn’t originally published, we don’t know why the coefficients were changed in the amounts they were, and we don’t know what the overall effect is.
If there’s a legitimate problem here, by all means, let’s look at it and figure out why it happened, what the impact is, and how to fix it and move on. But the reporting on this has been pretty deeply flawed.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
No member of the media is educated on this science.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
No member of the media is educated on this science
Brian Stanke Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:06 am
The coefficient involved was sensitivity to changes in train frequency. It was increased 60 times which raises eyebrows as to why the big change. As Robert points out, and CARRD website http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/ shows, the overall effect on system ridership is tiny.
Interregional ridership:
Altamont Pacheco
69 65 million before the change
65 70 million after the change
So the big change is which alignment had higher ridership. But the overall number of riders on the highest ridership alternative barely changed. Even the Pacheco ridership changed less than 10%.
Potential scandal? Yes. Potential refutation of the business plan or studies showing overall system ridership would lead to big operating profits? No.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Exactly. While it is indeed worth exploring why the change was made, any scandal would be limited to that change, and does not apparently invalidate the overall financial projections.
The question here is what does this impact regarding the Altamont vs. Pacheco choice, and why was that change made? The accusation will be that MTC and CHSRA “rigged” the numbers to favor Pacheco. That’s possible, but unknowable given the evidence we have. More information is needed. It’s also worth keeping in mind that the ridership numbers are still pretty close together. Pacheco still had other benefits over Altamont before the change, and Altamont still had other benefits over Pacheco after the change.
Either the coefficient change is defensible and legitimate, in which case no problem, or it’s not, in which case we have to ask “why was it done?”, “who did it?”, and “what does this mean for the overall project?” The first two questions are unclear. The last question is more of a political and PR question than a numbers question. If the frame that this is some project-ending scandal gets accepted, that would be unfortunate since the evidence doesn’t indicate that’s a legitimate conclusion. But that seems to be where the critics want this to go.
Observer Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:57 am
9 or 10M swing… 69 down to 65 and 65 up to 70. Potential cooking of the Pacheco vs Altamont decision? YES. Lack of integrity? YES But the real questions raised here are WHAT ELSE? Without new ridership study no trust can be put in the ridership numbers which are at the core of almost everythign else.
As was raised before – this AT LEAST throws into question the ridership study, which now requires a new independent study. Anybody denying this is a liar. And that introduces significant TIME, which puts the ability to spend federal funds at grave risk.
It also entirely throws out the Pacheco vs Altamont decision AND it WILL require a completely updated set of data brought in the Peninsula PRogram EIR. Now, that’s not arguable AT ALL since there is no PROGRAM EIR, the PROGRAM EIR isn’t even presented yet, let alone certified.
Where to start on the rest of your utter nonsense:
Business plan critcism’s
1)illegal to provide public guarantee to investors – you claim its not clear weather thats true. Read AB3037, Federal, State or Local subsidies are illegal. Period.
2) Cost “change” – was not because of ‘rules change’ – that’s dishonest spin. The costs are now, by requirement of federal law, stated in year of expenditure, which is more honest than the CHSRA stating cost of project in dollars of a yeargoneby. In fact, CHSRA was STUPID in not thinking in inflation terms when they wrote their own bond. They are locked in to $9B in any year of expenditure, whereas as the true cost of the project continues to rise – they get NO inflation adjustment for in that bond.
But the far more interesting TRUE increase in cost in the plan is $2B for Anaheim tunnel, as CHSRA continues to shout loudly that tunneling just can’t be done – its too expensive.
(As an aside, maybe this lack of understanding of time value of money is why California’s budget is in such a sorry state of affairs)
3) Rate increase combined with vast ridership decrease. Well, first of all, this certainly points to some vastly inflated ridership numbers for the benefit of the election.. The train was presented as a public service that would benefit the masses at an extraordinarily low cost to ride. That, we know, is pure bull. Ridership then – for purpose of environmental benefits – to COOK the environmental benefits of building the train, to COOK the CO2 reductions, to COOK the auto trips taken off the roads, to COOK the recutions of freeways needed, to COOK the reduction of air travel, to COOK the reduction of aiport expansions needed = all COOKED by vastly overstated ridership. Because now we know BY CHSRA’s ADMISSION that they now present a ticket cost/ridership that would the revenue generating scenario needed for the private investors. Stated simply, the old version wouldn’t attract investors, the new one does, Private Invetors are a required part of the CHSRA’s own plan, not optional that they put forth a plan that would be attractive to private investors…
Its a bait and switch, pure and simple. Tell one thing to the public to get the vote, say another thing later when you’re forced to appeal to a financial plan that has a rats chance in hell of attracting private investors.
Not to mention, sure they had at that point the inklings that the ridership numbers they were using smelled funny.
4) And this is the best one of all. Robert you say anyway, these argements didn’t attract much media attention and ‘didn’t get much traction’ in the media. Robert – really? This is your test for “truth”?
Lowenthal may have said some things from the gut. CARRD went out looking for the truth. Facts. Data. That’s TRUTH Robert, not how big a media blitz you can create around a photo opp for ARRA stimulus.
When a kid cheats on a math test, no one claims he mentally challenged – they claim he’s a cheater.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am
It also entirely throws out the Pacheco vs Altamont decision
Correction: MIGHT throw out the Pacheco vs Altamont decision. Of course, without actually knowing EXACTLY what changed and what it effects (I frankly doubt that you have the resources to conduct a ridership study), you can’t say anything definitely.
illegal to provide public guarantee to investors – you claim its not clear weather thats true. Read AB3037, Federal, State or Local subsidies are illegal. Period.
The subsidy applies to passenger service run on the high speed line, NOT debts on the capital cost of construction.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Your whole comment proves my point. You use this issue as a jumping-off point to make all the other claims you wanted to make about how HSR is supposedly flawed. The coefficient issue becomes an open door for you to sneak in all the other criticisms that hadn’t gotten any traction because they were rightly judged to not be serious obstacles to the project and were instead seen as things that can and would be properly resolved.
When a kid cheats on a math test, the kid isn’t thrown out of school and prevented from ever finishing their education. They’re instead punished and given a chance to get it right.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Yes, CARRD went out looking for fact. And then certain people take those facts and put spin on them. Certain Observers, for example.
WE DON’T KNOW WHY the model was changed. We should not be leaping to conclusions (“OMG it’s a conspiracy!”) before we know WHY it was changed. There may well have been something shady going on. Or not.
Was the model changed 60 times to skew it towards Pacheco each time? Or were they simply tinkering with it until they had what appeared to be a more reasonable number? We don’t know yet, so please everyone chill out.
In the end, though, a decision under CEQA is in fact a POLITICAL decision. The CHSRA may have made a decision to go with Pacheco even if the numbers did favor Altamont. The presence of a pre-existing ROW (Caltrain) and the ability to include San Jose (third-largest city in CA) on the main line seem to be pretty good reasons to me. That’s called a political COMPROMISE. For certain people on this blog for whom it’s “My way or the highway” (literally, it appears) and don’t appear to have ever heard the word, look it up.
Once again, it’s not about building the fastest route, it’s about offering a service to the people in the State.
Brian Stanke Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Sorry if I was not clear, the coefficient got 60 times bigger from the published number to the final (unpublished) number. This only impacted the Altamont – Pacheco split in a big way, not the SYSTEMWIDE ridership, that changed less than 10%. Raising projected fares would have a much bigger impact.
A detail I missed the first few days, the Authority is never even mentioned in the transmittal letter. It is the Bay Area MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) that was the client and asked that the final numbers not be published. So if there is a conspiracy and villain, as some claim, all the evidence is pointing at the MTC not the CAHSR Authority. Yet Observer isn’t calling for the MTC to be abolished only the HSR project.
So Observer to you care most about who was responsible for possible malfeasance, or finding excuses to attack the Authority? Which is it?
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Ah, I understand now.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:22 am
“So if there is a conspiracy and villain, as some claim, all the evidence is pointing at the MTC not the CAHSR Authority.”
If MTC was the one that tainted the study then *they* need to be thrown off the project. But no matter who did it, any studies the MTC was involved in have to be redone, adding even more delay to the project.
The worst thing is that it’s a good project that is being ruined by typical California politics.
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
MTC and the Bay Area transportation-industrial complex heavily promoted Pacheco because a new Fremont-San Jose rail link would have cast a long shadow over the $6.5 billion BART to San Jose extension.
While the jury is still out on whether they actually cooked the books, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to notice that there clearly was a multi-billion dollar incentive to do so.
When in doubt, follow the money…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Q1. Who produced the Bay Area ridership and costs studies?
A1. PBQD.
Q2. Who conceived, designed, and promoted the BART San Jose extension?
A2. PBQD.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
This is being blown out of proportion.
A missing link to the discussion involves the different type of trips being made and implications to average trip length, and so forth. The composition of trips certainly would be different between Pacheco and Altamont…. Altamont likely had more local/cheaper trips… Pacheco likely had more long distannce higher cost trips….. If that is the case… then what is wrong with decision makers making a decision toward Pacheco for that???? Huh?
Tony D. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Are you going to answer Brain Observer, or are you going to keep on throwing out nonsense!?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
It’s sure a nice fantasy to imagine to finally see Quentin’s Boy, MTC Executive Directory Steve “$5 billion Bay Bridge cost overrun” Heminger finally serving the jail time he so richly deserves for so many gross violations of fiducial responsibility.
But it’s very unlikely they’ll get him this time either.
Still, one can dream.
For the record I attended all the (public) meetings in 1999 in Oakland when our highly ethical and professional MTC staff and PB consultants strong-armed, in the direct face of initial data and presentations supporting the contrary, that Altamont, the once preferred alternative, should be taken off the table. I can assure you that CHSRA staff, in particular Dan Leavitt, were present throughout and quite completely acquiescent.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Even if Altamont was the superior choice, it would be plagued with the same allegations, lawsuits and opposition in the East Bay. Let’s not pretend that people would suddenly get boners for Altamont if it were chosen.
Bianca Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
It’s not just the East Bay. High Speed Rail will run through Menlo Park regardless of the alignment. And it will run near houses regardless of the alignment. The only difference is which houses. Changing the alignment will only change the faces showing up at Menlo Park city council meetings; it won’t change the fact that people will be concerned. It’s one of the things that puzzled me about MP joining the litigation- we’re getting HSR regardless of Altamont or Pacheco. I think it would be in the city’s interests to study up on mitigation and make sure that potential impacts are appropriately minimized.
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Allow me to go way out on a limb here, but does the answer perhaps lie in the difference between Belle Haven and Felton Gables?
Bianca Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
My goodness Clem, I think you might be on to something. :-) But it isn’t all Belle Haven. There are plenty of houses west of 101 as well.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:20 am
“WE DON’T KNOW WHY the model was changed.”
And who do you expect to tell you the honest truth about why that coefficient was changed?
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:26 am
No one. Documents may show it, but no one will fess up to the real reason.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Actually, for the purposes that the ridership study is being put, which is to provide baseline figures for financial viability, the fact that the modification of the model that was not accepted by MTC starts with both routes in viability and ends with both routes in viability does not, in fact:
Indeed, if the MTC was guilting of swinging the numbers, at 65m via Pacheco and 70m via Altamont, Pacheco would at least be effectively tied in terms of revenue, if not better – its not as if the final regression run, which MTC elected not to use, implies that Altamont is dramatically superior in terms of financial viability, or as if either run points to any problems in terms of financial viability
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:19 am
The fact remains that a change was made to make one alignment look better than it was and the people who did the study have no idea why.
Maybe Altamont was the proper choice after all.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
We don’t know whether the change was made to make one alignment look better. That was the effect, but there still hasn’t been a full explanation as to the underlying theory behind the change.
Even with the original numbers, Altamont wasn’t a slam-dunk. Ridership was not the only factor in the choice.
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Regardless of the underlying theory, what we have here is fodder for a long and drawn-out CEQA lawsuit over the re-certified Bay Area – Central Valley program EIR. That means the SF-SJ segment will almost certainly miss the stimulus shovel-readiness deadline.
Kiss it goodbye and get ready for a new round in the Altamont vs. Pacheco fight.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Actually, I think that this may have been the PERFECT time for this to come to light. Now the CHSRA has the opportunity to respond to the ridership data if not in the Draft, then at least in the Final EIR. Now they can make their case for Pacheco as bullet-proof as possible AND take the contradictory ridership information into account in their analysis. I don’t see much of a downside here. That could avoid a successful CEQA lawsuit.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Pacheco over Altamont did not hinge on ridership numbers alone….. it’s foolish to think it was. Many other factors played a role. I would like to the operability was one…. and operating cost.
Tony D. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Thank you Brandon. But don’t talk to loudly; Altamont-only foamers don’t like to hear the truth.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I am not here enough… look at what happens when I only casually post!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
That may well be true. It might even be a good thing overall. But it wouldn’t justify some of the more over-the-top statements we’ve seen from HSR critics in the press.
john Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
How is any of that relevant if the Altamont/Pacheco decission was made in 2007 and this magic-letter is dated two weeks ago?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Or, rather, a change was not made, where standing pat on the previous modeling favored Pacheco.
Observer Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
The numbers quoted above by Brian Stanke have continued to dog me all day. I have no idea if he’s provided a basically correct quantification of the issue, but for sake of argument lets just suppose it is. If the second version of numbers were determined to somehow be improperly derived…
Its a decrease for Altamont of (only) 5M, and an increase in Pacheco of (only) 4M. That’s a swing of 9M riders in favor of Pacheco. (I’m just going to round to 10 for ease of math, its irrelevent really, I’m just trying to make a quick point about magnitude…)
At 100 per one way ticket, 10,000,000 * $100 = $1,000,000,000 (1 BILLION) difference in revenue between the two version. Assume what goes South, must go North – roundtrip it would be a $2,000,000,000 ($2BILLION) difference in ridership.
I can not imagine the private or investor or public agency alive that would poo poo this difference as immaterial. The numbers being discussed here are BIG numbers, not just to the Pacheco/Altamont decision, but perhaps even for the system as a whole.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I don’t take anything I read here at face value. I am not going to on this at all!
One thing for all to be mindful of… ridership projections alone did not determine the fate of Altamont.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
There’s also the Dumbarton bridge, and the negative financial impact of Altamont.
Only rabid right wingers who are mad, mad, mad, about everything because their economic policies failed and they got caught and and had their asses whooped, care about this. The average californian just wants it to get done. Its not hsr they are fed up with but this kind of nonsense and fame playing from those who want to stop everything.
Dan S. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Yes, anyone have any additional links to news stories that show this actually getting attention out there in the “real world?” Morris posted a radio program, okay that’s something. But talk radio, yep, that’s gonna be hysterical no matter what they’re discussing. Anything else?
For the record, I don’t care if any books were cooked. 40 Billion Dollar project, what, who expected it to be squeaky clean? You can’t convince me it’s a fatal flaw. I still want the train! Besides, all I’ve read of this supposed controversy is here on this blog. With all due respect, I don’t believe everything I read.
Hmm, just checked BATN, they have one story from the Palo Alto Post and one from the Penninsula Daily. Not exactly a front-page bombshell if that’s it. Nothing mainstream yet it seems. Why’s that?
Dan S. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I guess I’m the only one listening to myself :-) but, I realized that Robert did have a link to a story on the Mercury News website in his essay at the top of this blog entry. For those like me who might have missed the opportunity to hover your mouse over the underlined text to reveal its purpose, here’s another chance:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14348826
That story actually has a pretty clear overview of the “controversy” and what various people are claiming. (Well, compared to here, IMHO.)
Anyone know if this ran in print?
Counting on a supine judiciary to rule against this boondoggle is a mistake. The only solution is a political one – elect a governor who will suspend it pending a thorough independent investiation.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I haven’t found anything in the chron about this. I guess its not that big a deal.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:06 am
And you think that the governor is going to have the political power to stop the project in the face overwhelming support for the project from the Central Valley, the unions, and the big industry groups in favor HSR? I’m not talking about the contractors, but about organizations like the Bay Area Council.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Whether you are a supporter or a non-supporter, this incident needs to be investigated if you truly want to find out if it’s a big deal or not.
Unfortunately, there will be delays.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I agree. But Brian Stanke made an excellent point that most people, including myself, missed.
It was the MTC that had the numbers changed and asked the original numbers to not be published. NOT the Authority. Placing the blame on them and alleging that they are corrupt is beating the wrong horse.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am
But how do our fearless leaders at the CHSRA not know about this stuff?
The first order of business on Monday for Pringle should be to direct staff to get to the bottom of this. Cancel all other appointments. Let’s hope he’s an honest guy.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
The only place where this has seemingly risen alrarm status is … here. And it was not my doing!
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Nevertheless the MTC numbers underlie the entire program EIR, which is currently not certified. Uh oh.
The opposition to HSR on the Peninsula remind of Colin Powell arguing for war against Iraq at the UN Security Council. You present the “smoking gun” evidence of something you allege is so damaging that it demands immediate action. Yet, like Powell, much of the evidence for the “ah-ha moment” is not present or verifiable. The opposition will continue to banter away with, claims that “this person said blah blah blah” but in reality, much of what is said is taken out of context. Like Powell, the opposition claims to be carrying out the work of the good against the “evil” CAHSR which it alleges massive conspiracies to threaten to destroy the Peninsula, for which it is the ultimate enemy that must be dealt with. The Opposition’s end game: change the route or else it’s war. Well, like the fabled UNSC meeting, many were unconvinced about the alleged case, and as will happen to the opposition, your war against CAHSR will end up costing all of us much much more if you seek to delay or kill this project. Happy hunting.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
When a woman with four years of graduate study in econometrics makes an allegation like this, you better listen.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Arguments from authority don’t work, though. Elizabeth Alexis is a smart woman and a good person, but her expertise is not in ridership modeling. She’s found something that bears further investigation, absolutely, but we are by no means bound to agree to her interpretation of the evidence.
Proper scientific methods involve a group of people looking at the evidence and discussing the conclusions. She wants a peer review of this issue and the ridership numbers as a whole. I support that. I also think her own conclusions should be reviewed, just as I know all of you can and do question and challenge many of my own conclusions.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Yes, I’ll listen. However, when someone gets data, runs a set and finds that there is something different than what is published, that is but one issue that needs to be investigated. Why did the MTC not publish the full set of data figures? I don’t know, you don’t know either. The fact of the matter is that this does not constitute a fait accompli that warrants killing the project as it is.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
But the allegation itself is, one financially viable corridor was selected over another financially viable corridor, but the financial benefit of the one chosen over the one not chosen was not as dramatic based on the final model run as it was in the next to last model run, which the MTC chose to stick with.
Despite the nonsense being put out by Morris, Observer, and rodent, this tiny flaw really amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Keep trying to “reach” for your magic bullet; HSR through Pacheco is coming.
FYI, just because Spokker has changed his mind doesn’t mean a damn thing on the grander scheme of things; that’s his right as an American. I, like many others, still support HSR…and?
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
“FYI, just because Spokker has changed his mind doesn’t mean a damn thing on the grander scheme of things”
Quoted for truth.
morris brown Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Spokker: I certainly didn’t mean to imply you had changed you mind (position) on HSR. Rather that you looked at the facts and recognized that more than a brush off must be done. I would be overjoyed if you indeed left the “Dark Side” and joined the “White Knights where the force may be with you”.
I don’t know where this is going to lead. Those of us who lived through and followed “Watergate” perhaps have a different perspective. In any event, this will not just go away.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
My position on Altamont vs. Pacheco has been shaken due to whatever the hell the MTC is up to. However, that doesn’t mean I accept other charges levied at the project, like that it’s going to create a Berlin Wall on the Peninsula or turn the Peninsula into a Mad Max movie. That’s what I was getting at.
“We’re supposed to jump to conclusions because critics ask us to do so.”
Don’t jump toward conclusions but let’s work toward some conclusions, at least.
“Stephen Colbert was right – “truthiness” has replaced the truth.”
The fact is that we are dealing with statistical analysis that few, including myself, fully understand. My own education in statistics is very basic, but I am trying.
This isn’t just some “Berlin Wall” bullshit or cries about property values. There is a memo from Cambridge that raises more questions than answers and you should be joining rational minds in asking those questions.
I think you should be calling up the CHSRA or anyone else in the know and finding out more about this instead of making excuses.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I’m all for those questions being asked and answered, and have every reason to believe that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I have made inquiries with the Authority on this.
What motivated my long post on all this was watching this issue get blown far out of proportion. If there is a problem, let’s learn what it is, why it happened, who was responsible, hold them accountable, make any necessary changes and fixes, and move on.
CHSRA needs to start construction ASAP (aka 2011, as they claimed they could) on the LA-Anaheim segment. Those opposed to this project will do whatever it takes to slow it down. In a few decades, we’ll look upon our nationwide web of high-speed trains and pat ourselves on the back for how it all started–35 miles of track, three stations (LAUS, Norwalk, ARTIC) and one dream. We say that the project became so much more of a reality when the stimulus money came in. The project will REALLY get real when trains are rolling through Orange County into downtown LA.
Let’s all be very clear about what we know and don’t know.
We know:
1) The real numbers look very different and function quite differently than the published numbers.
2) A decision was made to keep the real numbers from public examination for almost 3 years after they were finalized, during which time many critical events happened that rely very heavily on these numbers as having a high degree of accuracy.
3) The real numbers have validation issues.
4) You can never have perfect insight into the future but forecasting is like horseshoes. Closer is better.
5) The finger pointing has begun.
What we don’t know
1) Why?
2) How?
3) Who?
4) When?
5) Why are we using any set of ridership numbers to determine parking needs in Fresno?
Our stance is very clear on this.
1) An investigation is clearly warranted. As usual, we have spoken to people on all sides of this issue. While reactions to the news vary (to say the least), everyone wants to get to the bottom of this and make sure the numbers being used are reliable and that if there was wrongdoing that there are appropriate consequences.
2) Ask the ridership peer review panel what they think. Do they think these change are significant? Do they have validation concerns? As soon as we received the documents last weekend, we asked the Authority to send them to the original peer review panel. So far they have not done so.
3) We need to stop using the current model and get to the bottom of this. If there is a problem (and I don’t think it is a secret that we think there is one), you are throwing good money after bad by continuing to lean on it.
Back to what we don’t know – who, when, why, how. Let’s find out.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Back up a second. You’re alleging that the “real numbers” were kept from public examination. We don’t know at this point that the original numbers were in fact the “real numbers.” Are we tossing out the possibility that the published numbers are the ones that are right?
Elizabeth Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Yes we are tossing out that possibility. The letter from Cambridge says so, MTC has confirmed it, CHSRA has confirmed it.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Ok.
dist Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Something is bothering me here…
If their purpose was really to maliciously withhold informations and bend the truth into a direction that suited them best, they wouldn’t have gave you the numbers and at the same time admit what they were doing. That would be crazy and plain stupid. The sole fact that the MTC, the CHSRA and everybody else released this information knowingly clearly kills the buzz for me. If they really are guilty, they won’t give you the rope to hang them with.
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. A public agency withholding the information would have raised more alarm bells, and there was probably a hope that the coefficient files would be sufficiently obscure and arcane that members of the public wouldn’t understand them.
That calculation seems to have backfired.
Brian Stanke Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Elizabeth, I agree with a lot of what you are saying about finding the truth about what happened. The question is do you want to fix the problem and move forward, or stop everything and take a guaranteed multi-billion $ hit?
If you want the project dead rather than Pacheco then stopping it is the answer.
If you want to save Californians tens of billions of $ in infrastructure cost, reduce our vulnerability to oil shocks, and reduce sprawl and farmland loss, the answer is move forward while the problem is examined and resolved.
The absolute biggest possible deal that COULD come out of this would be changing the Pacheco v. Altamont selection. The overall system ridership difference was 1 million out of 60, so questioning the overall project ridership is ridiculous. Just use the draft numbers that were peer reviewed and revote the Pacheco v. Altamont selection when the revised EIR comes back up.
btw. That was very disingenuous for you and Mayor Burt to compare today’s airline prices to the 2035 projected HSR price, without mentioning inflation. You know better than that. Cooking your numbers will only discredit you, even if the host did not catch it this time.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The model is inflation neutral. So when they say “$105″ they are really saying $105 in 2009 dollars. They really do mean that it would be 83% of whatever airfares are 2035.
Ditto for revenue numbers, operation costs, automobile operating costs.
I think this is fine to talk about these types of things in 2009 dollars so that people have some context for numbers. You also don’t have to make any assumptions about inflation and you don’t have to explain that the fare of $220 or whatever the post-inflation number would be is really a 2035 number and it can’t be compared to current fares etc etc.
This also means however that it is fair to compare to $105 price to current air fares.
Our group has a lot of confidence that a combination of a good process, and engaged and informed stakeholders will result in a good outcome. Having a good ridership forecast is absolutely crucial, especially considering some of the challenges of doing a project like this in California.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
No, they really mean 83% of what airfares were in real terms in 2005. There’s less basis in physically measurable reality for believing that airfares can remain at that level than for anticipating higher airfares in 2035 than prevailed in 2005, but using 2005 airfares ensures that the modeling remains on the conservative side. Page 69, second column, first full paragraph.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
The cost numbers are year of expenditure, as required by either the DoT or both the DoT and the state legislature. The revenue modeling is in real terms.
Of course, its based on a sample of 2005 airfares, so if the operator were to follow that pricing strategy, its obviously not going to be 83% of 2020 airfares, let alone 2035.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Some thoughts:
“The real numbers look very different and function quite differently than the published numbers.”
So? That just tells us there was a difference. It does not explain why.
“A decision was made to keep the real numbers from public examination for almost 3 years after they were finalized, during which time many critical events happened that rely very heavily on these numbers as having a high degree of accuracy.”
This is the crux of it, and I think it’s just wrong. The real numbers weren’t “kept from public examination” – that implies an effort was made to hide it from inquiry. Yet the information was furnished to you when you requested it, was it not? There are a lot of elements of the ridership numbers that haven’t been published, but that doesn’t mean there’s an effort to hide it.
You also seem to be overstating the role of these numbers. The ridership projections did not determine whether voters approved or rejected the project. Nor were they the sole factor in the Altamont vs. Pacheco choice. Yes, these numbers weren’t published during the time those decisions were made. But correlation does not imply causation.
“The real numbers have validation issues.”
What are these issues? Once again, don’t assert – prove.
“You can never have perfect insight into the future but forecasting is like horseshoes. Closer is better.”
Yes, and it has not yet been determined that the ridership projections in question aren’t “closer.” All we know is there was a change. We don’t know if the change was flawed or unreasonable. Some claim it is. But a claim is not the same as proof.
“The finger pointing has begun.”
Yes, it has, which is unfortunate and unnecessary, and makes it more difficult to get to the truth of the matter.
I continue to contend you’ve overblown the significance of what you found and are using it as a “magic bullet” to prove a theory you already had, which is that the entire HSR ridership projections are flawed. This looks to me like a case of fitting the facts to the theory.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Note that this part of the claim is substantially bullshit:
What “many critical events relied very heavily on” was whether or not the project was expected to generate a substantial operating surplus once in operation.
The MTC may or may not have put their finger on the scale to strengthen the case for what they preferred and for what financial risk avoidance would have dictated … but the allegation is that the final run of the model that they did not accept would have still left the system with a substantial operating surplus once in operation.
Let’s have some fun and claim that somehow the CAHSRA and MTC covered up the fact that an Altamont alignment would generate 1 billion HSR riders annually and Pacheco just 1. Then, for “political reasons,” they choose Pacheco over Altamont. Guess what folks…THIS ISN’T ILLEGAL! It may not fly with Altamont-only supporters or ardent NIMBY’s who don’t want rail altogether, but choosing one route over the other is not illegal or law-breaking. Of course this hypothetical isn’t the case, but it illustrates how stupid blowing up this tiny flaw is.
Don’t worry Robert, this issue will subside over the coming weeks, and we’ll start hearing crap like Rod Diridon is an ex-Communist or that Mehdi Morshed is a member of Al Qaeda. Keep reaching folks!
Elizabeth Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
At the end of the day, even if something is a political decision, as a society we need to have some confidence that the data used in that political decision making has some basis in objective reality.
Dan S. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I’m with Tony here. I personally don’t need 200% confidence that all the columns of numbers in this 10-year construction project add up correctly. I’m part of this society too. That’s my opinion.
Not surprised the opponents of the project care, or someone else with a vested interest in Pacheco / Altamont. If it’s not even illegal, this seems highly unlikely to be a fatal problem.
I mean, we all could read these numbers last week. If the coefficient problem was so outrageous, why wasn’t some astute opponent of the project already flagging this 60x multiplier? Does anyone here even know what value for this number makes sense? (I have an opinion on that one already!)
Dan S. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Yikes, I may have to amend my position. It does seem like this thing is a total whirlwind of controversy. I mean, the mayor of Palo Alto is going absolutely bonkers on this one. Look out HSR, they are coming for you and they mean business now. As reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post:
“Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt said it is ‘premature’ to draw conclusions and the data is not something the consortium should take on directly.”
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Pat Burt has been going bonkers about HSR anyway.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
At the end of the day, the worst allegation would be that MTC deliberately cherry-picked which numbers based on measurable reality they preferred to go with.
There’s nothing that has been stated that would provide the slightest support for an allegation that they used numbers that were not based on measurable reality, so a suggestion that they may have done is clearly misrepresentation.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
By choosing Pacheco we were sacrificing faster Bay Area Sacramento travel for higher ridership and higher revenues. If the changes were only made to make Pacheco look better, then we gave up Bay Area Sacramento for nothing.
In the past we have defended high speed rail stating that the voters of California knew what was going on with the project and voted accordingly, but we cannot defend unpublished changes that may have unjustifiably favored one alignment over the other.
In the coming days we need to find out what happened.
On a personal note, I have been to the Los Angeles Public Library (the one that burned down once in downtown LA) and read old studies about the system from 1996 and 2000. Old studies favor Altamont and yet at some point Pacheco magically appeared as the front runner some time after.
Clem Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
By choosing Pacheco we were sacrificing faster Bay Area Sacramento travel
More than that: we were sacrificing faster San Francisco – Los Angeles travel as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Only if the UP alignment north of Fresno were feasible and only if there were no problems running at high speed over Dumbarton. And even under this double hypothetical, the difference is 2 minutes.
And don’t forget – Altamont through Dumbarton is longer than Pacheco. If 350 km/h operation were to prove infeasible or if the line had to detour around every town, Altamont would take much longer regardless of the UP and Dumbarton issues.
Tony D. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Wow, for all the knowledge Clem spits out regarding CalTrain and HSR, he just got schooled by A.L. Bay Area to Cowtown travel “sacrificed?” Are you kidding me?! Save a lousy 2-minutes for SF to LA via Altamont and bypass the states third largest city and economic engine? Yeah right! And if you thought environmentalist went crazy over SFO’s proposed runway expansion into the bay, just think of the uproar with HSR over Dumbarton/southern SF Bay. Alas, we’ll one day have an Altamont HSR overlay along with Pacheco, which all of you Altamont-only foamers always conveniently ignore. No Clem, this won’t re-open the Altamont/Pacheco debate, so stop dreaming about it!
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 12:55 am
All the environmental groups that I recall taking a position preferred Altamont via Dumbarton vs. Pacheco. Here’s a December 19, 2007 item published in the SJ Mercury on the subject.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I thought Altamont saved something like 2 minutes over Pacheco when traveling to SF (but added 10 or so when traveling to San José).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Assuming the spur to San Jose ever got built. Caltrain to the mid Peninsula stop or BART to Fremont if BART ever gets built would be good enough for a very very long time. Instead of Phase 1 San jose gets service in Phase 3 or 4 or Phase Never. So it adds the time it take BART to mosey up to Fremont and make the change to HSR.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Only if the Dumbarton bridge proved feasible – if not, it would put San Jose in Stage 1 and lose time traveling to both SF and SJ.
Of course, if the CHSRA had chosen Altamont, then the question of whether or not the Dumbarton bridge could be used would have been used to prove “zOMG CHSRA is taking a BIG risk here!!!” by the HSR deniers.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Sacramento would better be served via the Capital Corridor anyway. It offers little to no time savings if you’re coming from San Francisco. Maybe if you’re living in the South Bay it’s a little better…
morris brown Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
From Tony D.
Let’s have some fun and claim that somehow the CAHSRA and MTC covered up the fact that an Altamont alignment would generate 1 billion HSR riders annually and Pacheco just 1. Then, for “political reasons,” they choose Pacheco over Altamont. Guess what folks…THIS ISN’T ILLEGAL!
==========
REALLY! Somehow I don’t think that Judge Kenny, who ruled on the Bay Area EIR would agree with that statement, and I don’t think any other Judge or legal mind would either.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Well, as a somewhat legal mind, and one who has studied CEQA and NEPA, I’d argue that it would not be illegal to choose Pacheco over Altamont even if the ridership numbers favored Altamont. I will agree with morris that they would nonetheless have to disclose that fact. You still need to explain your decision, and you aren’t allowed to make stuff up, which is how this could be interpreted.
Which is why I still think it is quite fortunate that the Bay Area – Central Valley Program EIR got depublished. This enables the CHSRA to take the differing numbers into account and explain why Pacheco is still the better choice.
The problem with altamont is still the bay crossing. which will be blocked at every turn by environmentalists. You’ll never get that train over the bay.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Which ones, exactly?
Certainly not the foremost organization of them all, the Sierra Club, which endorsed Altamont over all-trains-via-Los-Banos.
Certainly not the federal or state environmental agencies, which repeatedly raised warnings about the grasslands wetlands impacts of the Pacheco route.
Come on. Give us an example of these “environmentalists”.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Sierra Club preferred Altamont because it wanted to prevent sprawl in Los Banos. The wording of Prop 1A took care of that concern. They then stated that they supported Pacheco, if I recall correctly.
I think Jim is referring to the environmentalists who would be interested in protecting the Saltwater Harvest Mouse, and other animals living in that corridor.
By the way, I believe both the US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (those who have jurisdiction over the wetlands) favored Pacheco as having less environmental impacts than Altamont.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I see the environmental issue as neutral. Altamont has the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, Pacheco has the Central Valley wetlands. Both have an impact, and is not immediately apparent that one impact is greater than the other. So it’s not really an argument for/against either alignment.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Not necessarily neutral.
Pacheco: HSR will be routed through the Central Valley wetlands on a viaduct right alongside Henry Miller Rd, an active roadway.
Altamont: HSR would have to be routed on a newly-constructed bridge along a route that has not been in use since 1982 through a wildlife refuge that they are working very hard on restoring at this point.
Active corridor versus inactive one.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 2:45 am
A rural highway is more active than a corridor with PG&E high voltage power lines, SF’s Hetch Hetchy water pipeline, a major 6 lane state highway and bridge, in addition to a currently inactive rail line that would modernized and reactivated?
You have a funny definition of “active corridor.”
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
You are saying that the presence of very high intensity use near to the corridor makes disturbing the refuge a non-issue.
Most people concerned with conservation and ecological sustainability would view it as converting the impact from the footprint of the Dumbarton road bridge to the footprint of the Dumbarton road bridge, the Dumbarton rail bridge, and the area in between.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
It’s the same corridor.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=37.499342,-122.112994&spn=0.025229,0.052614&z=15
All of those critical pieces of infrastructure are there, have been for decades, aren’t going to be torn down, and doesn’t appear to be any serious negative impacts regardless.
Do you think rail would be any different?
What if the rail bridge was re-built even closer to the road bridge? Does that make it acceptable?
It bothers me that we’re holding rail out to some ridiculously high standard that it, and only it, needs to meet. When we all know, or should know, that rail has far fewer impacts than a road of comparable capacity. Indeed, it can takes cars off of parallel roads which have a larger environmental impacts.
There’s a rail line already there, letting “The Bay Is Sacred” types to prevent it from being rebuilt, is no different than allowing Peninsula NIMBY types from blocking CalTrain upgrades.
Of course this is all hypothetical, because we never even got to this point thanks to San Jose based interests.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Actually, it is different. The NIMBY’s that are fighting an efficient upgrade of the Caltrain corridor moved next to a working rail corridor. The refuge, by contrast was there first, and people built up around it.
And if the NIMBY’s “lose”, they all get the protection of their absolute property value of an all-electric local transport corridor, while possibly some of them may suffer some small loss in relative property value. The refuge, obviously, loses more the more and bigger the work is done.
And its not as if they would just rebuild the bridge in its previous configuration – it would be a four tracks supporting high speed limits to support HSR as well as the local rail systems that will want to use it.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Sierra Club never supported Pacheco over Altamont. It supported Pacheco over no-build, once the Los Banos issue was resolved.
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Comment: Enviros unanimously insist on Altamont Pass HSR route (19 Dec 07)
Enviro, rail groups blast Pacheco high-speed rail route choice (14 Nov 07)
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Judging by the dates this was before they resolved the issue with an elevated structure, right?
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I guess so.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:53 am
They’ll sue again.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Now here’s something I didn’t know… even the dumbarton bridge is protected, its a “scenic highway” and right now they are doing a seismic retrofit, and the bridge and the views from the bridge to the south are actually “protected” so caltrans has to jump through all kinds of hoops to make the bridge safe while making sure they don’t alter the views during or after.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:27 am
That makes it sound as if it would be even more difficult to build a new Dumbarton rail crossing by bridge. Wouldn’t a new bridge change the view from the Dumbarton?
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Yes. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying the process, if you started today, would take 20 years to complete. EVerything in the bay area takes 20 years. everything.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
You think things take less time other places?
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:01 am
The sierra club is not the problem, they’ll approve once they get their money, it the other groups such as this prominent local group save the bay with teh snowy plovers californian clappers.. in addition to restoring the the bayshore to its natural state, they add trails and viewing platforms for nature lovers who, probably aren’t going to be able to enjoy their serenity with four different rail agency running rapid trains through the wetlands. but go ahead and give it a try.
I have uploaded the audio from the KPFA radio broadcast today (Feb 7,2010). You can download at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/347371309/kpfa1.mp3
On the program was Pat Burt (Palo Alto Mayor), Elizabeth Alexis (economist and financial expert) and Bob Doty, leading the HSR program for CalTrain.
WARNING: Robert is not going to like this program.
Well, I still don’t care about Altmont vs Pachecho. It will be plenty fast either way for me (I want to get to San Mateo, San Francisco, Hayward and Berkeley most of the time. I rarely travel to San Jose or Palo Alto), and the Capitol Corridor between Richmond and Sacramento is already plenty fast for Bay Area to Sacramento travel. Would the Altmont alignment really have been that much more useful for SF to Sac travel than upgrading the Capitol Corridor, which is more direct?
I say, lets’ build both the central valley segments and LA-Anaheim, then work on LA-Palmdale and the Tehachapis, while they straighten this stuff out up north. Plenty of people will take HSR within Southern California, and between LA and Fresno. But I do hope we can stick with the Pachecho alignment instead of redoing everything again. I can see how the Pachecho alignment works, but Altmont will have problems with the new bridge and getting thru east Alameda county. And I want to see Caltrain upgraded all the way to San Jose, not just half-way.
Perhaps in the end this will turn out to have been an honest mistake, rather than any intentional change to support Pachecho over Altmont, for the sake of San Jose’s political ambitions.
The fact that the frequency factor was increased does not mean there was prejudice in favor of Pacheco. The correct comparison is not between the current factor and the previous one, but between the current factor and a calibrated factor from real-world HSR systems.
It’s entirely possible that the factor was changed because of extra data coming from new lines, or because of a previous prejudice for Altamont. On the surface Altamont is far, far more commonsensical than Pacheco, just as the Grapevine is more commonsensical than the Tehachapis; there may have been prejudice in the other direction, in favor of the routes that look better on a map, at least until PB and San Jose decided against Altamont.
US transit planners routinely dismiss frequency as a factor in ridership, and prefer one-seat rides at low frequency.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:03 am
They did not calibrate the coefficient in applicaiton. They used the 60x one, which implies a ratio of 10:1 for OVT/IVT.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Did they calibrate the previous coefficient, which made Altamont look better? If not, then it’s two numbers pulled out of a hat.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Isn’t it the later coefficient that made Altamont look better? (on ridership, of course not necessarily on passenger miles or revenue)
I had understood the claim to be that the MTC did not accept the final modeling, and the allegation to be that they had not accepted the final modeling for dubious reasons.
People, it will be Pacheco Pass for the main HSR route into the Bay Area and an Altamont HSR overlay for commuter service between Silicon Valley and Tracy/Manteca (with future service to Sac). GET OVER IT! But hypothetically, can someone tell me a good reason why San Jose/Silicon Valley should have been kept off the main-line (with Altamont-only) so that 2-minutes could be saved between SF and LA? And why the great importance of connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento from the get go with Altamont-only? Can’t wait to hear the answers to these questions.
Caelestor Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Altamont apparently has more potential as a commuter service.
Of course, the major downside is how HSR would cross the bay into SF in an Altamont arrangement.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Most likely via a new high bridge at the dumbarton crossing.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I don’t see how you are going to get a bridge built. Its taken 20 years to build half a bridge here. By the the time you get it past the environmentalists and the design processes and the public input, and the nimbys, yes there will be nimbys,, we’ll all be in the old folks home.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
That’s a big expansion of the impact on the refuge. Saying, “oh, it would have been an even bigger impact with a low bridge” would mean something if you were trading an existing low bridge in heavy use with a high bridge.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Construction costs for the full system are much lower under Altamont due to the shorter overall track length. I believe even Altamont through a second Transbay Tube would cost less than Pacheco counting both phases. But Pacheco is cheaper in phase 1.
Altamont would also keep Silicon Valley on the mainline through the RWC station. Palo Alto, which would be a better station, can only be served by Pacheco, but because of the lawsuit CHSRA decided unilaterally to drop it from consideration and put the station at RWC. It’s ironic that in response to Palo Alto’s lawsuit against Pacheco the authority responded by changing the rules to eliminate one of Pacheco’s selling points…
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Silicon Valley would not be on the mainline. At best, it would be on a spur in the East Bay, with probably about 1/3 of all Bay Area trains going there.
Also, when did they eliminate Palo Alto as a station? I don’t recall it ever being officially eliminated. Also, don’t forget that there’s still Mountain View.
Dan S. Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
That would be big news if that decision had been made. (No stop in P.A.) Wouldn’t shock me given the NIMBY uproar and CHSRA’s bizarre public outreach methodology, but I haven’t heard it. Citation Please.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
I would love to see the station go to RWC and not PA. But isn’t their a problem from the eastbay to san jose with not having any row available?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:05 am
No, RWC would be on the mainline. SJ would be on a spur.
They didn’t officially eliminate Palo Alto, but all the publications of sample schedules and station traffic statistics now use RWC as the Peninsula station, whereas before the lawsuit they said “RWC or PA.”
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:43 am
What row will they use from altamont to san jose?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Same one they’re going to use for BART, I believe. One of the reasons Altamont got tossed out is that it would conflict with BART to San Jose.
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
So from san jose you have to go north to the livermore valley and out to modesto, before you go south? and if it conflicted with bart before? does is not still conflict with bart? Does altamont mean that modesto becomes included in phase one?
how does the nearly impossible task of building a new bridge across the bay through sensitive wetlands, which will hold the project up for at least 20 years, impact the project qualifying for the federal funds?
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Yes, Modesto would be included in Phase 1 had Altamont been chosen.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I think it would be on 880 south of Warm Springs. The conflict is only north of there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Without going back and looking things up, could have been in the median before they converted the median to more lanes of highway.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Since the one east of the bay is already spoken for, obviously they’d use the same bridge over the Bay and go down the Caltrain corridor.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
No, with Altamont, San Jose would be on the SJ-Sacramento mainline as part of a higher-ridership network. Far more traffic moves on the SJ-Sacramento than on the SJ-LA corridor.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
That’s only because there’s no time-effective service currently SJ-LA. Just because we have one type of service pattern today doesn’t mean it will be the same in 20 years. Claiming that is disingenuous.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I am talking about ALL traffic: air, road, rail. Been on the 580 lately? On the 80? They are the two busiest highways in the Bay Area and Sacramento regions.
Vastly more traffic moves on the SJ-Sacramento corridor and the SJ-LA corridor. And don’t even try to bring up the piddling number of air passengers.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Road traffic alone doesn’t matter. HSR is less competitive with driving at SF-Sac distances than at SF-LA distances.
Think of it the following way: the busiest highway in California is the 405, connecting the San Fernando Valley with West LA. Obviously, Sylmar-LAUS is not going to be the busiest station pair in the system – the access and egress times are brutal to HSR on such a corridor. That’s why most HSR traffic is always intercity, not commuter, and why rail mode shares versus driving are usually low at SF-Sac distances.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Altamont is a very poor choice for a Bay Area-Sacramento link. The only area it serves effectively is Silicon Valley.
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Joey: Explain “very poor.” Sacramento is just over 2 hours from Oakland (and well over 3 hours from SJ) via the Capitols. Altamont HSR, with Bay Area stations in SF, Millbrae, Redwood City, Fremont/BART, San Jose and Livermore/Pleasanton would be the fastest link to Sacramento for SF, the Peninsula, the South Bay and much of the East Bay (via BART connection) and certainly from the Tri-Valley area.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
It may make some sense for people in the South Bay and a little bit up. But for anyone in the SF/Oakland area, it makes MUCH more sense to travel via the capitol corridor, especially since the CC is likely to receive speed upgrades in the near future, and for those areas, Altamont isn’t exactly competitive to begin with.
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
This website has a lot of good, meaty “food for thought” about Altamont. Those wishing to slam Altamont, would do well to take a little time browsing this site before making too many silly or uninformed statements (which may include echoing the Authority’s lame excuses/cover-story for mysteriously and hastily dumping the obviously-superior and long-time preferred Altamont Pass alignment at the behest of agitation and heavy-handed behind-the-scenes lobbying and arm-twisting from San Jose “interests” such as Carl Guardino and his SVLG, then-mayor Ron Gonzales, Rod Diridon and many others.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
No, from any reasonable ridership model, there would be far more traffic between the Bay Area and SoCal than between the Bay Area and Sacramento. Under Altamont there would be more Bay Area-Sac traffic than under Pacheco, especially under Altamont-through-second-Transbay-Tube, but there would be much more Bay Area-LA traffic.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
To be clear: vastly more people move along the SJ-Sacramento corridor (or even between the Bay Area and Sacramento regions more generally) than the SJ-LA corridor (or between the Bay Area and SoCal regions more generally). Long-distance travel is a very small percentage of total travel behavior.
Any honest analysis of traffic would reveal this instantly. Count highway lanes and levels of congestion for a no-brain conclusion.
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
your evaluation is flawed. The majority of traffic on say, i-5 is long distance travel. but the majority of travel on the freeway lanes (the congestion you speak of) is NOT sac-sjc traffic, but local traffic… local to the point of hsr is of no use to it.
egk Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
But even the CHSRA numbers show that Sac-BA has way more trips then BA-LA. Of course because they look at unipolar French and Spanish HSR as the model (as well as our northeast corridor) rather than multipolar Germany, they don’t even think about running the CA system as a multipolar system effectively. In a multipolar configuration it is impractical to run direct trains frequently between all destinations. So you have effective timed transfers. Look at how you get from Frankfurt to Berlin and Hamburg, or Cologne to Suttgart and Karlsruhe. Direct trains to each city alternate with single transfer connections.
If we are thinking about getting passengers from SJ and SF to SAC and from all of these to LA, one way to get frequent service would be to run both SF/SJ-Sac and SF/SJ-LA trains through Altamont meeting to exchange passengers. Likewise LA-SF/SJ trains would meet with SAC-SJ/SF trains to exchange passengers.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
@egk
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Altamont makes a very poor choice for anyone north of Fremont who wants to go to Sacramento. You’d have to run the trains quite fast even to compete with the existing Capital Corridor.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
When it comes to long-distance travel, you have to mainly look at airline travel. Most dense airline corridor in CA is between the LA Basin and SFO/OAK/SJC. There is hardly any SAC-Bay Area airline traffic.
Looking at road congestion is not a good way to compare Altamont v. Pacheco. Road congestion only gives you a good idea about how well-suited a commuter rail link would be, not long-distance inter-city travel.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Except that airlines are only part of the intercity travel inside California.
Remember, this is California. We have numerous big bad highways, and they carry the overwhelming number of trips.
Even the CHSRA numbers projected as much as 80% of riders would be coming from cars.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Yeah, but the argument was regarding the “follow the lights.” I was arguing that to determine long-distance intercity traffic patterns just following the lights on the ground is misleading, as a substantial amount of intercity travel takes place between the LA and SF regions by air.
egk Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@ Peter Just as there is very little air traffic between – let’s say – Washington, DC and Philadelphia. Distances of 60-200 miles are HSR-friendly but don’t make any sense for air-travel. Almost all of this short-medium-distance intercity travel is today – by necessity – done by road. But with HSR in place a 2 or 3 hour drive become a 1 or 1 1/2 hour rail trip, and much of this travel could well divert. Many of the most successful HSR lines in Germany are in this short-medium distance range (Frankfurt- Cologne, Hannover-Hamburg, Stuttgart-Mannheim).
Of course nobody would ever build HSR just for cities so close together – these German links are all parts of longer-distance routes, but once it’s there it does get heavy use. Putting the NorCal-SoCal connection – with all its high-speed infrastruture – through Altamont would be similar, happily provide a short-medium distance connection between the Bay Area and SAC that beats driving hands down. (There may be other reasons to prefer Pacheco: Monterrey and Gilroy, for example, but there are tradeoffs).
@ Joey CAHSR will run at double the speed of the Capitol Corridor, even at its 110 mph build out. SAC could easily be well under an hour from anywhere in the BA, via Altamont.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
And there’s no reason why you can’t do both or all three, build HSR as currently planned, upgrade the ACE corridor and upgrade the Capitol Corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
EGK: the Frankfurt-Cologne line is basically a bypass of a slow legacy line. It’s not just for Frankfurt-Cologne traffic, any more than the first phase of the TGV was for traffic between Lyon and two thirds of the way from Lyon to Paris. The same is true for Hanover-Hamburg and Stuttgart-Mannheim.
And there isn’t that much rail traffic between Washington and Philadelphia, either. The biggest city pair on the NEC is New York-Washington, because once distances get much smaller than that, driving has barely any time penalty.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
@ adirondacker12800: Agreed. There needs to be a fast, efficient NETWORK. And the riders along the Capitol Corridor have been waiting a long time for some upgrades. As have those (albeit few) that ride ACE.
egk Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:46 am
@Alon Levy: You must know that Philadelphia has over 3.5 million Amtrak passengers annually, with the vast majority going to or coming from NEC stations (i.e. they are short-distance intercity passengers). And that is without true HSR (average speeds in that corridor are only around 80 mph).
As stated, short distance HSR piggybacks on top of longer-distance service. Frankfurt-Cologne is a great example – that line was so expensive nobody would have built it just to service that city pair. But it is heavily used by short-distance travellers just the same. I used to take the train over that segment weekly (from Stuttgart to Duisburg) – and the vast majority of those on the train were travelling between those two cities: the train would fill up in Frankfurt and empty out again in Cologne. [sorry can't work up any numbers from the net, other than the 11 mio annual on that segment]
For short-distance HSR to be attractive, access time is crucial. Since most German cities are very dense and with good transit to rail stations and difficult auto accessibility to the center city, short distance HSR is a hit there (I used to regularly get from my apartment in Stuttgart to my friend’s in Frankfurt [about 130 miles] in under two hours – just about half an hour faster than driving). Bringing this back to the CA context, HSR from Sacramento to downtown SF would be a big winner because of the local transit and density of SF, whereas HSR from Sacramento to Silicon Valley would be more variable and depend on future development patterns.
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Does anyone have any realistic idea how long it would take to design, approve, fund, and construct a transbay tube across that section of bay. When we are still decades away from getting a far more important sf-okj bart tube already?
We can forget about hsr service to sf in 2020 thats for sure. They will have to put sac in phase one and sf in phase two
Of course by then, the tbt will be finished, and the tbt development area fully built out. Then good luck figuring a way to get the hsr into downtown.
What we end up with is sf in phase ll, and terminus at 4th.
I guess some people will be ok with that.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
A second tube would be between SF and Oakland and probably carry two BART tracks and two standard gauge tracks.
But it doesn’t matter. Altamont through Transbay Tube won’t happen.
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
right so what are the altamonters suggesting?
before we go on to support altamont you have to answer these questions
1)how long would it take, if you started today, to get a bridge or tube approved, funded, and constructed including the lawsuits eir etc.? If you answered less than 20 years. you are dreaming
2) are prepared to toss the nibmy progress made, and start from scratch with the nimbys in
livermore, pleansanton, union city, fremont, milpitas, and east san jose?
3) since 1a was specific, are you prepared to put hsr on the ballot again, with the new route choice?
4) considerin all of the above. will we have phase 1 up and running in 202 as planned?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
One of the reasons it won’t happen is that there’s no place to put the train at the western end opf the tunnel.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Sure there’s a place for the train at the western end – it’s called TBT. From the east the curve radius and capacity issues would be a lot less brutal.
But, again, it’s not going to happen. It’s not the environmental studies, which have already been done, or the NIMBYism, which is concentrated in the areas affected by Altamont/Dumbarton. It’s the cost of a new tube. It’s less expensive than you think, and may actually end up costing less than Pacheco including Phase 2, but it’s way more expensive in Phase 1, and that’s where the money is going to right now.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but 1A didn’t specify Pacheco, did it?
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I don’t think 1A specified Pacheco, but the CHRSRA had made the decision before 1A was passed.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I think 1A’s travel times at least require Pacheco. SJ-LAUS in 2:10 wouldn’t be possible with Altamont, if I understand it correctly.
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Was that written into 1A?
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Thats not even close to being true.
Clem Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
SJ would be on a spur?
So would San Francisco!
It’s a Y and there is no reason, other than a possible civic inferiority complex, that San Jose should be demoted to “spur” status. The trains will go where the ridership is.
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
The good news with the Y is that space-constrained SF Transbay Terminal no longer has to extra seat/train capacity to accommodate SJ’s ridership, thus ameliorating some of the under-capacity issues being raised there.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Why is the failure to electrify Caltrain and failure to cut Caltrain operating times to SF good news?
Clem Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Why would HSR from SF to Redwood City preclude electrifying Caltrain from Redwood City to San Jose, as is already planned independently of HSR?
As it is, the emerging design alternatives do nothing for Caltrain except consume large amounts of its ROW and preclude overtakes.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Well that depends entirely on how the timetable is planned.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Its already planned, but to date the funds to proceed have not been sorted out.
And in the aftermath of a successful NIMBY effort to prevent electrification and grade separation of the corridor to allow the HSR through, Caltrain on its own might have a harder time of it. Remember that Altamont at this stage is assuming a successful NIMBY effort to prevent electrification and grade separation of the corridor for combined HSR and Caltrain use.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Also, how would Altamont change anything about the situation with overtakes. It might make things a little easier south or Redwood City, but from there north, you’ve still got the same problem.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
especially when there is already sac-sf service available.
With the title of this piece, Robert has apparently taken the side of the Warren Commission. How appropriate!
Robert’s dismissal of the ridership issue can only be based on his not having seen the number of coefficients that were changed, or the exceptionally large changes. I believe we will hear from the peer review team that they would never have given the model a “pass” had they been shown the final coefficients. If that proves to be the case, we then know that the decision to not publish the final parameters was a conscious attempt to deceive the public about potential ridership. Contrary to Brian’s assertions, we believe the model seriously inflated systemwide ridership. When the smoke finally clears, we believe this will be a very different project.
BTW, anybody that’s still doubting the feasibility of Dumbarton Rail should look at pages 34 – 39 of our Petitioners’ Opening Brief, available at: http://transdef.org/HSR/HSR_Lawsuit.html
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:56 am
And your opening brief did oh so much to convince Judge Kenny of the feasibility of Dumbarton. I’m sorry, but a brief is a persuasive legal document. It’s not meant to be objective. It’s meant to persuade the trier-of-fact by highlighting all the negatives of your opponent’s case, and all the positives of your own.
The opening brief makes no mention of the fact that electric trains are quieter than diesel trains, and that especially with welded rail operations even at 125 mph the trains will be quieter.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Oh, and the section of the brief that you pointed out does nothing to explain how Dumbarton/Altamont is preferable to Pacheco.
TRANSDEF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The answer is simple: Follow the Lights!
The 580 Corridor is one of the most congested in the Bay Area. It makes no sense when spending billions of dollars to not provide rail capacity there. And you get a great connection to Sacramento too.
Check out our website: http://transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Yeah, but my point is that your brief did not make that point the way you claimed it did.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I have checked out your website.
I maintain that the “follow the lights” approach is useful if your intent is to operate commuter service. HSR is not set up to be a commuter service. Upgrading ACE and increasing service frequencies would be the better approach to address “follow the lights” along 580. Especially given that HSR will not be decreasing that congestion.
By the way, 101 is also a very heavily congested corridor at all times of day. Why does offering improved service through HSR on 580 take precedence over doing the same on 101?
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
HSR is not set up to be a commuter service.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a bright line between commuter distances and intercity distances.
There isn’t. There’s a lot of gray, and ever more of it.
How do you classify Bay Area – Sacramento? Los Angeles – San Diego?
By distance, we’d say they were intercity. But by travel patterns, they could be considered commuter.
Upgrading ACE and increasing service frequencies would be the better approach to address “follow the lights” along 580. Especially given that HSR will not be decreasing that congestion.
ACE is operating on a congested, windy, single track, heavy freight rail line. I don’t see upgrades within that context.
Even if it did, incremental improvements to ACE won’t have a material impact on I-580/I-205 and I-680 congestion. 150+ MPH electric rail service on dedicated tracks serving those communities will. How you’re not seeing that is beyond me.
HSR doesn’t need to serve all those communities, but ACE can. Which is the point of the Altamont Overlay. The problem is there’s no real commitment to fund it, because it’s not formally part of the HSR project. Not to mention those in power at SJ/SVLG/MTC/BART that likely still oppose it.
101 is also a very heavily congested corridor at all times of day. Why does offering improved service through HSR on 580 take precedence over doing the same on 101?
They’re both deserving.
The problem on the Peninsula is a failure to prioritize effective transit. We could have expanded, electrified, and grade separated CalTrain many years ago. Instead, we’ve spent billions on failed BART extensions, and still haven’t learned our lesson (see: BART to SJ and BART to Livermore).
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
All valid points. I have a question though … would there be enough capacity on the Fremont-Manteca segment to support intercity high speed rail (presumably with more trains than the Pacheco alternative, considering that they have to serve two destinations) plus the regional commuter trains (and possibly reasonably frequent service to Sacramento)?
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I don’t see why not.
There should be capacity for at least 12 tph, which a lot of trains. If those trains are full length and/or bi-level, potential capacity more than we’d need for a long time. The network has headroom for decades to come. The only place this isn’t true is in downtown SF.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I never said that the upgrades to ACE should be incremental. I was just stating that “follow the lights” doesn’t favor Altamont over Pacheco necessarily, as TRANSDEF was claiming.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
It would seem that the congestion, the single track, and the interference by heavy freight all potint to the same upgrade, which would not be “within” that context, but which would instead change that context.
Since a common target of that kind of incremental upgrade is initially 110mph diesel tilt trains, which are time-competitive with cars along the same general line of travel, and then 125mph electric tilt trains, which are faster than cars along the same general line of travel, the question is where the magic threshold is passed where suddenly improvement of the service goes from having no material impact to having material impact.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Since a common target of that kind of incremental upgrade is initially 110mph diesel tilt trains, which are time-competitive with cars along the same general line of travel, and then 125mph electric tilt trains
Both of those would be a massive improvement over what exists now. However hitting those numbers requires more investment than you might realize.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Sure they would require an investment. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make that investment though.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Since I very much doubt that hitting those number requires substantially more investment than I realize …
… I take it that what you were trying to say was that hitting those numbers would have a substantially higher capital cost than the amount already spent on ACE, though of course would be less than the proposed commuter overlay.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Whatever connection you get to Sacramento is a poor one. It’s circuitous and it only serves the South Bay. If you want Bay Area-Sacremento service, use the Capital Corridor route.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
PLEASE SPEED UP CAPITOL CORRIDOR!!! I may be commuting on it beginning in August.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Well, if we speed up the Capital Corridor (which we very well may in the near future), then Altamont will be no comparison.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Grade-separate the damn thing through Oakland. That alone would cut 5 minutes off SAC-SJ.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Just because Capitol Corridor and Altamont HSR would share San Jose and Sacramento as end points, doesn’t mean they’re comparable.
In fact, that’s probably the only thing they’d have in common. You can clearly see on map they have very different routes and serve different communities.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Aha, so the purpose of the Altamont corridor is not intercity transport between the Bay and Sacramento, but rather to serve as a stations-starved version of a fast commuter rail line.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
You’ve discovered my sinister plot.
Seriously though, Altamont is about Bay Area – Sacramento as well those communities in between.
I’ll reiterate an earlier point that there’s no bright line between commuter and intercity travel, especially on a corridor like this. And there’s no technical reason, or any good reason, that prevents an Altamont line from accommodating both.
I’ve got nothing against Capitol Corridor, I’ve used it several times and believe it’s got enormous potential. I’d love for Capitol Corridor to get designated a “High Speed Overlay,” and get what Altamont is being promised by CHSRA as well.
Not that it matters, but I live in the South Bay and occasionally go to Sacramento to see family. I hate the drive, and I’m hardly the only one. The only time I’ve ever been in Pleasanton, Livermore, or Tracy was for a pit stop on said drives. I have no personal stake in rail in those communities. I only care about rail in those communities in the context of having a first class passenger rail system in our region and state.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Has anyone worked out how much grade-separating Capitol Corridor through Oakland would cost? Just a random thought.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
The way that the Capital Corridor Business Plan (2009/10, p.9) puts it is:
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I don’t think the people who control the transportation money have bothered to think about it. It’s a matter of priorities. And right now we prioritize airports, bad transit like BART, and highways.
It’d certainly bring a lot benefits despite the disruption and expense. Although I have to say, those street running trains are comically awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jack+london+square+trains&page=&utm_source=opensearch
jimsf Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
they are busy with track work as we speak including in the eastbay, and plans to cut time off the trip.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
In what way is it a “great connection to Sacramento”, if the Dumbarton Rail Bridge is not reconstructed?
Going down to San Jose is the same as the present route, then up from San Jose to the other side, then “following the lights” implies extending the go-slow zone for a way to the east of the bay until finally getting up to speed, to head to Stockton and then take a right turn.
If the intention is to provide an effective corridor to Sacramento, surely upgrading the more direct route taken by the Capital Corridor to Regional HSR standard can provide that without requiring either the detour of the SF/LA route down to San Jose then up to Altamont, nor requiring any tunneling.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Even With Dumbarton, it’s a pointless detour if you’re coming from SF (or anywhere in that general area).
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Joey: you cannot make something true no matter how much you repeat it or wish it to be so.
Here are the Altamont travel times assuming SF and SJ termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) from Table 7.2-1 on page 7-4 of Volume 1 – Section 3.7 of the Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIR/EIS:
SF–LA=2:36; SF–Sac=1:06; SF–Fresno=1:18; SJ–LA=2:19 ; SJ–Sac=0:49; SJ–Fresno=1:01; Livermore–LA=2:06; Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:42; SJ–Tracy=0:25.
So as I told you before, Altamont HSR would be much faster (and more frequent) than the Capitols. Much nicer (smoother, quieter) ride and train too.
Also, Union City-Sac is listed at 0:43 in table 7.2-7 in the same document.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Oh, I see, you are assuming that the Capitals cannot be upgraded.
Normally I have to charge someone with making that as a tacit assumption, its nice for someone to make an explicit admission of guilt. Thanks so much.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I can never understand why they think that the people along the Capitol Corridor line be satisfied with 1950s service forever. . . and why they think that getting on a bus in Emeryville is going to sit well for long.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I think it’s an understanding, at least among the transit community, that this is BART country.
And it’s a cancer on Bay Area public transit that consumes every dollar it can, at the expense of all other transit needs.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Don’t remind me. A little part of my soul dies every time I hear about BART’s expansion plans and how they affect other transit projects.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Ehh, just run gauge-changing Talgo trains on the BART tracks all the way to San Jose.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
One-hour HSR service is rarely competitive with driving.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
It should be, when it’s much faster than driving is.
Assuming little to no traffic (hah!), driving SF-Sac is ~1.5 hrs and SJ-Sac is a bit over 2 hrs, maybe up to 2.5 hrs. You’re telling me people wouldn’t flock to an affordable, comfortable, fast, electric train that can do that same trip in under a hour?
I find that hard to believe.
Consider CalTrain. It had a big boost in ridership after launching their limited stop “Baby Bullet” service which does SF-SJ in ~1 hr (the all local takes ~1.5 hrs). And that’s only comparable in time to driving without traffic (also ~1 hr), it doesn’t have an enormous time advantage that Altamont HSR would have over its parallel roads.
Unless you’re comparing us to Japan and/or Western Europe in this context. I don’t think it’s fair, because they already have a much more robust passenger rail network to start with, and driving is very expensive there because drivers aren’t subsidized and have to carry their own weight. We on the other hand have allowed our rail network to fail into shambles, and subsidize driving like nobody’s business.
That’s why this project is so important. It changes the game. It can, and should, pickup some of the “commuter” demand in addition to intercity demand. There’s so much riding on this project that it just burns me inside to see that the people running the show are hacks, not to mention the road blocking NIMBYs and FUD spreading deniers.
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Or people trying to slow the project because they didn’t get the version they wanted.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Yeah – I am more or less neutral on the whole Altamont vs Pacheco thing, but prolonging the debate at this point seems pointless and wasteful.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Samsonian: yes, I’m comparing the US to Japan and Western Europe. In Japan, one-hour HSR is lightly used. Even on Tokyo-Nagoya, where the Shinkansen takes 1:37 and driving takes nearly 5 hours, most people drive instead of ride HSR. (I’m not sure how long conventional rail takes, but it has to be long, as Japan’s legacy rail network is really slow).
Under either Altamont or Pacheco, what would happen is that there would be a noticeable but small market of commuters living in the Central Valley working in SF or SJ. Pacheco would restrict this market to Merced, while Altamont would spread it over multiple cities. It would not be a larger source of either ridership or revenue than LA-SF intercity trains.
The Caltrain Baby Bullets are commuter trains. In Japan and Europe, too, one-hour commuter trains have a higher modal share than the competing freeways. It’s just the one-hour intercity HSR trains that don’t.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
That is in part a deliberate policy decision, pricing 1 hour trips so that they are effectively premium class travel with ordinary “coach” being provided by ordinary express intercity trains.
Pricing 1 hour trips in order to fill a lot of 1 hour trip seats implies a lower load factor for the HSR train, since the market for 1 hour trips will rise closer to a major metro area and fall in the regions in between.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
It’s not just a policy decision. All else being equal, cars are more competitive for intercity travel than for commuter travel. Trains that are slightly faster than driving can be very popular for commuter travel, but for intercity travel, they have to be much faster.
There are many reasons for this. Off the top of my head:
1. Average load factors are much higher – 2.2 people per car in California versus 1.3 for commuting – which reduces the price per person.
2. There is less roadway congestion, making driving less annoying.
3. The traveler may want to use a car at the end of the trip, to visit multiple attractions or business travel destinations. It’s not like with work trips, where people expect to stay at the office or in its vicinity until they go home.
4. The for-hire modes of transport usually require booking in advance, and ask people to show up at the station some time in advance, which can run from 10 minutes for trains to 90 minutes for air travel.
5. It takes some time to travel to the airport or train station. The access/egress times cancel the time advantage of HSR over cars at short distances.
6. The traveler is more likely to want to stop on the way for food or leg stretching.
HSR is competitive with cars at medium and long distances. The breakeven point should be around two hours – more than Tokyo-Nagoya, but less than Tokyo-Osaka. But at short distances, it may not offer any advantage over driving or taking low-speed rail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
…Like what Amtrak does along the Northeast Corridor? I haven’t checked fares recently. Acela betweeen Newark and New York is 5 dollars a mile. NJTransit, which is just as fast as Acela on that segment is 33 cents a mile.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Alon, you write as if transport preferences for intercity travel are tightly packed around average preferences.
Yet we know that even slower than car conventional intercity rail is not restricted to just “those with no alternative”, since increases in service frequency and service reliability result in increase in ridership. So clearly there is a spectrum.
1. Average load factors of 2.2 are not achieved by loads all clustering between 2 and 2.4 per car, but are achieved by one and two and three and four and five occupant cars.
2a. For those who do not enjoy driving, and in particular those who prefer visual or audiovisual entertainment to audio-only entertainment, several hours driving is several hours that could be used to relax.
2b. For business travelers, two or three hours spent driving is two or three hours that could be used more productively if the employee was free to concentrate on work.
3. The traveler may want to use the car at the end of the trip, but the traveler may also find the car at the end of the trip to be nothing but another chore in terms of finding a safe and secure parking place in an unfamiliar area.
4. Some car trips can be made at the spur of the moment, but others require advance preparation, in some cases when when traveling with children, in other cases in order to book a company car for the trip.
5. It takes some time to find a place to park the car on arrival at the final destination. The parking place hunting time can cancel the access/egress time advantage of cars over HSR, especially when traveling to sites with convenient transit connections.
6. The idea that its not possible to get food or to walk around to stretch your legs on a HSR trip without stopping the train is hilarious. At least the first five points were relevant to transport choices for some people – the fact that the car has to be stopped to get food or stretch legs (and indeed ought to be stopped to stretch your legs every two hours to avoid an increased risk of traffic fatality) is a clear benefit for HSR across the board.
Rather than the fantasy of there being a “speed threshold”, the reality, starting at speeds below time-competitive with cars, is that there is a continuum, with quicker trips on trains being an advantage if a train is brought from a time-disadvantage to cars to being time-competitive with cars, to having a time-advantage over cars, to the point of being time-competitive with flying, to the point of having a net-time-advantage over flying (when the time overheads connected with flying are included).
The thresholds as opposed to the continuous responses occur as specific destination/origins enter new market segments. For example, over three hours, the ability to compete for same-day trips starts to fade. That, of course, interacts with frequency, since an actual arrival before the start time and actual departure after the end time is required to compete for a specific same-day trip.
egk Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Even in “no-speed-limits-on-the-Autobahn” Germany, 1 to 1/2 hour service is heavily used, as you must well know. You can’t fall into the trap of thinking that because market share is relatively low that rail service is “lightly used.” Short-distance intercity travel has so much more volume than longer distance travel – in the USA 60% of intercity travel are trips of 50-250 miles (which is why SAC-Bay Area has about the same level of intercity travel as BA-LA, despite LA being >10x the size of SAC). So a lower market share can still mean LOTS OF USAGE. (I can’t quite dig out the right numbers, but it is something like this: diverting 10% of short-distance intercity travel from car to HSR would result in the same ridership as diverting all of the air travel of any distance to HSR).
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
But because of the distances between the BA and Sacramanto, 110mph and 125mph can attract a substantial amount of riders, while a 110mph or 125mph service SF/LA will get a much small share of the total transport market. So the BA/LA is the transport corridor that requires Express HSR service.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Ehh … I think you have the wrong link.
Anyway, don’s misjudge me. I’m not trying to make anything true. My claims come from speed analysis done by commenters on this blog. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I am more than willing to accept it. Unlike some people I can actually admit when I am wrong.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Here is the correct link, and you are in fact correct (see?). Sacramento-SF via Altamont takes just over an hour, while the current capitol corridor takes about two hours when you include the time taken to get from the East Bay to downtown SF (BART from Richmond vs shuttles from Emeryville yield about the same travel time). So yeah…
Reality Check Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Whoops, I goofed and grabbed the wrong link. Haste makes waste! Thanks for posting the correct link, Joey. I’m always glad to admit my mistakes, too. I have a major problem with people who can’t just admit when they goofed and move on.
So the lesson is that be careful about repeating what you see folks here post. You have to consider what their track record/credibility has been, and of course, before you stick your neck out so far as to repeatedly post a “fact”, it’s always good to check it out for yourself first. Trust but (occasionally, anyway) verify!
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
On the other hand, if the Dumbarton bridge is not available, the Altamont Pass SF/SJ/Oakland option is SF/LA 3:17. So without the Dumbarton bridge, there goes the Prop 1A funding authority.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 8:48 am
It’s only 3:17 assuming insanely long direction changes at San Jose. With a fast reverse move on the model of the ICE, or with a station at Santa Clara, it would take about 2:50.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Ah, so by assuming new options which were not considered at that stage in the study, you can get it down from way too long to a bit too long.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
The option I’m talking about wasn’t new. It’s the same as what the study considered: HSR going down from Altamont Pass to SJ, changing direction, and going up the Peninsula to SF. Such direction change moves can be done in 3-4 minutes, but the EIR considered 30 minutes to be the minimum.
The maximum travel times you’re citing were made after the final decision to use Pacheco was made. Altamont doesn’t provide for 30-minute SJ-SF travel, or for 2:10 SJ-LA; instead, it provides for 1:10 SF-Sac through Dumbarton or 55 minutes through a second Transbay Tube, which the Pacheco-oriented time limit does not talk about.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
If Prop1 had been predicated on a Transbay Tube, how much would that add to the budget for Stage 1 from LA to SF?
spokker Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
To be fair, going to Merced is a pointless detour if your final destination is Sacramento.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:24 am
withi 40 million californians, wanting to go to 10,000 different places on millions of different trips, pretty much every trip is a detour for someone unless there’s a direct train from everywhere to everywhere.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Not if you are going to Sacramento from SoCal. The primary purpose of 220mph Express HSR not to support trips of 1 hour, after all, so the primary purpose of running a 220mph corridor into Sacramento is to support train travel from Southern California.
Hence the concept of the Commuter Overlay, to provide a 125mph or 160mph link from the 220mph Express Corridor to the Peninsula corridor by some means, which can of course take advantage of the excess capacity when two 5 minute headway corridors merge into a single 5 minute headway corridor linking NoCal to SoCal via the CV.
those who would use this situation to try to kill pacheco and bring back altamont, will guilty of dooming the project for the bay area, for decades. Because while we have approval for the existing plan, starting over with altamont will bring up a band new set of hurdles, and those hurdles will have to be addressed from scratch beginning with impacts, the environmentalist, the costs, ( tube/bridge) and a whoe brand new set of nimbys. remember and altamont route will run through even more back yards than the pacheco route.
You may as well consider the project dead.
On the upside. no hsr to sf, means slower development in sf. and less density and Im all for that. Its almost enough to make me hope the project dies after all.
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Development comes, HSR or not. HSR may help us to direct our development in intelligent directions.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:51 am
I can point them in an “intelligent direction”……
well I guess you could do this and forget SF altogether you know term at okj, until the ne bart/rail tube si open in 2050. but that causes a prob with the legal working of 1a
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Yes, there’s have to be a dedicated people mover between the TBT and oakland side of the bay, and the station at the oakland side of the people mover magically declared to be the “rest of” the Transbay Terminal.
Of course, if the TBT supporters reject an across the street station as being the “rest of” the TBT, I’m not sure about a station in Oakland.
this
If Altamont is eventually chosen, I hope the counties and cities it runs through subsidize monthly passes so that it becomes a viable corridor for everyday commuting for eligible station pairs. ACE is okay for what it is, but it’s not really a heavy lifter when it comes to transit.
This entire discussion so far completely ignores the most important aspect of the project, and the suggestion of changing to altamont… the politics of it.
now ive been in cali for 45 almost 46 years, and Im telling you one thing, politics is always the overriding force, not technology, not engineering, but politics.
consider all of the following:
1) dumbarton crossing. It will take a decade or more to get it through the eir/planning/vetting/engineering/legal challenge etc process. Sure it can be done. It just can’t be done in time to keep hsr on sked.
2) ccjpa, ace, and caltrain all have their eyes on that crossing. They know that the funding to get service there is a long way away, so they aren’t worried today, about issue number 1 above just yet. But they expect that to be reserved for their use. (See my comment about politics coming first, above)
3) in order to accom. regional rail and hsr on the bridge you’re talking about a minimum of four tracks. and a high bridge. Thats is a huge impact. ( see #1 above)
4) The delay in getting the project rearranged to accom. altamont instead ( this isn’t going to happen anyway by the way- see comments on “politics” above) would mean that hsr will not reach sf unit after the transbay development area is built out. So good luck to cahsra getting anything but 2nd street and an after the fact tbt basement location. Sure they can ask, he sf, save us a spot on beale, will be there in 2030 to which sf will reply, sorry, no sav-sies…
5) so okay, altamon clearly was not approved by the voters in 1a. so, now what, you have to go back to the voters, in whatever election, and ask them if its ok if you make such and such changes.
and suppose they say no? then you’re sol anyway and you’ve wasted god knows how much time resulting in god knows how much cost increase.
6) lets say the nimbys in the livermore valley are pushovers, ( as if) and the train get over the bridge
into menlo park… so now, menlo park has to deal with not just one row of upgrades and increased service (caltrain and its grade separations and increased traffic) but also a four track, multiple operator and hsr and commute service through the other half of its neighborhoods. This will result in cries of “we are under seige” from the people of menlo park. Oh you don’t think so? lol have you been paying attention?
yes, if you want to kill the project for northern california. support altamont. If you want to kill or delay indefinitely, the project, until you get your way, consequences be damned, then support altamont.
doesnt matter to me, like I said. the upside is that thing not coming into sf for another 20 years, means less growth here. and I am adamantly anti sf growth anyway.
and, and this will be richards favorite part, In order to placate and gloss over the whole screw up of not delivering what the voters ordered, the new spin will be, (you know, cuz we’ll lose the federal money) “we are going to focus on improving our statewide steam train network, with incremental upgrades and additional coastal service and, after all, it will make more sense to re visit hsr once we have a better regional network in place” and the public will go, “oh yeah, I guess that makes sense”
and we can all purchase our hsr tickets sometime in 2035 or so.
and that, is what would happen. and that is why, they will stick with pacheco, and make the “problem” go away.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 8:53 am
More than politics, isn’t it … if the primary argument raised by Altamont alignment folks is how great it would be as a station-starved High Speed Commuter Rail line … why shouldn’t the services that can put in enough stations to do a commuter rail line right have first dibs on the alignment.
Indeed, since cranking the commuter rail lines up to proper express speed with a proper distribution of local and express stations will get more cars off the roads than the HSR will, while a two track bridge will be reckoned as substantially less impact than a four track bridge, they may well have a better crack of actually getting the bridge approved to be built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
in order to accom. regional rail and hsr on the bridge you’re talking about a minimum of four tracks. and a high bridge.
A two track system can easily carry 20 trains an hour in each direction. Why would they need four tracks across the Bay?
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Yeah, isn’t Caltrain only looking at running a TOTAL of 6 trains per day (that’s including both directions) across the bay for Dumbarton Rail?
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I think a two track bridge could support HSR and commuter operations. Especially since speeds might be limited to 90 mph or less through the wildlife refuge.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Was that in the speed profile that gave Altamont its famous 2minute time advantage SF/LA?
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Don’t see how it could.
Reality Check Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
With the Dumbarton Bridge corridor crossing, Altamont’s huge time advantage is for trips between the Bay Area and the Sacramento/Stockton region. Pacheco forces that huge travel market to take a long and costly detour via Los Banos. It’s costly because at system buildout, Pacheco adds substantially more system route miles over Altamont. The trade-off with Altamont is that trips between San Jose and the south get a bit longer — but not much, and not enough to offset Altamont’s other major benefits from a system and cost perspective.
Riders are riders, if they’re willing to ride HSR for less than an hour over Altamont Pass (and plenty will), let them come! HSR systems all over the world have plenty of one-station stop riders. Nothing wrong with that. Those folks get a non-stop express ride every time :-)
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
To be fair, Pacheco was never intended to offer service between the Bay Area and Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto. Pacheco is optimal as a Bay Area-SoCal link, which, as I understand it, was why it was chosen.
Caelestor Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Good for SF-Peninsula-SJ.
Altamont would better serve the East Bay.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Altamont would better serve Livermore. For Oakland and Berkeley, Pacheco is better because of the frequency issue.
Reality Check Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Pacheco was chosen because San Jose interests insisted on it — and in no insignificant part to protect SVLG’s and SJ’s and VTA’s dream of a SJ BART extension, and partly due to a large and long-standing inferiority complex vis a vis SF. They called in favors, they lobbied their asses off, etc. A lot of arm-twisting occurred behind the scenes to get everyone to fall in line behind the push to dump Altamont and push for Pacheco, and keep on pushing for Pacheco in the face of the outcry from rail and transit advocacy groups, environmental groups, etc. HSRA’s currently-unfunded Altamont overlay effort is an outgrowth of a strategy that MTC and other Pachecoites used at the time to co-opt and quiet the out-of-control push-back they were getting on Pacheco. Anyway, part of the talking points “script” Pachecoites, some of them on the Authority (Diridon, for example), were using was that HSR should not accommodate or be interested in the obviously huge Altamont Pass travel market because those were commuters. Huh? WTF? It matters not one shit whether a paying customer on your high-priced HSR train is a “commuter” or an ex-frequent-flyer business executive. In any sane rational world view, you want to maximize paying asses filling the seats of your trains. The more of them there are, the more successful (by any measure) your service is and the better the economics are.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
As an economist – no, more riders does not automatically mean “more successful by any measure”, unless you are talking about more riders with the same average trip length, at the same average time of day.
While intercity transport demand has higher and lower levels at different times of day, commuter demand has a stronger peak, which means that you get to buy more trains for the same number of riders, because you have to have enough trains to provide seats for the people riding during the commuter peak.
Also, commuter demand tends to be for shorter trips than intercity transport demand. So focusing on commuter demand implies more seats have to be empty for a longer part of the in-bound commute in order to be available for the closer commuters, and more seats will empty early and remain empty on the out-bound commute.
Normal commuter rail services often address this by having standing room, so that the seated capacity can be added to substantially by standing room. But since the HSR will be designed for intercity transport, they will be all-seated trains, and can’t use that.
That is why all around the world, HSR service providers often choose to price commuter-distance trips at a premium price, in order to ensure that the shorter trip tickets that are sold pay a sufficient amount for the smaller number of passenger-miles that they provide in order to compensate for the reduction in average load factor.
And, why this is wrong:
… in a sane, rational world, intercity rail services are concerned about the passenger miles of transport that they are providing, and not just about the number of people buying a ticket.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Silicon Valley would definitely get the short end of the stick in an Altamont configuration. It would be a longer journey with less frequent service.
wow, can you imagine what amtrak california could do with 40 billion?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 1:12 am
build a high speed rail system between San Diego and San Francisco with service to Sacramento thrown in? :-)
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 1:53 am
hey, yeh, cool idea, now I wonder where they would put it…..
@jimsf
Will environmentalists use the train? Can’t you just let them in the club, maybe slip them a cool million or so? It would go along way to help them turn their backs on all those defenseless marsh creatures.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 9:49 am
@bart – oh well sure of course thats basically how it works anyway, organizations such as, and especially the sierra club, are not actually environmentalists (scientists) but lawyers, they will welcome the re opening of the issue as it gives them another round of pocket lining, once they line their pockets, again, over the same issue, then it will magically get their endorsement.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Actually, the lawyers working for the Sierra Club are in fact environmentalists. They’re just environmentalists who also happen to be lawyers. I know a number of them.
Also, I don’t believe the Sierra Club was involved in the Atherton lawsuit. It was just cities and transportation advocates, in addition to the Planning and Conservation League. And they hired an outside attorney to represent their interests. The state was represented by the Attorney General’s office. Accusing the Sierra Club of lining its pockets on this just distracts from who actually was involved.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:43 am
( oh well, next time you see them, ask them about how they feel about their policy of burning our state’s forests to the ground for the past 30 years and bbq-ing the wildlife along with them.)
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 10:49 am
I know you’ve got some issue with understanding that redwoods need fire for their seeds to germinate. And with understanding that one of the reasons the fires in recent years have been so crazy is because for decades we put everything out immediately. Now the dead brush and stuff has built up (because there were no smaller fires to clear it out) and most forests have become tinderboxes. Don’t blame the Sierra Club, blame CDF/CalFire for their policies on extinguishing every fire immediately for the past 50 years.
Fires have been a necessary part of the environment for millions of years, and we’re still here…
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:31 am
not the kind of massive fires we have now, and thats due to the sierra club BLOCKING any attempt to thin the forests.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:32 am
and the fire for the seeds is a myth. its just not true. its not real science. uh, you know that baby redwoods trees are growing right now, in areas that were not affected by fire.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I’m sorry, I should have phrased that better. If you’ll refer to the pdf I linked below, it discusses the precise role of fire. You are correct that it doesn’t help them germinate. But it’s still an important part of the life cycle.
Do you have any links referring to the Sierra Club being responsible for thinning not occurring? If I recall correctly, I read that funding was withdrawn for operations that would have cleared a lot of the brush in an area that recently had a major fire.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
its in here somehwere… but im late for work ….. some interesting bart persecptive in there too for the bar haters…
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am
http://thatsmypark.org/newsletter_pdf/Redwood_Guide_Mainv_5.pdf
See beginning on page 39 of the paper/page 51 of the pdf.
not t mention the majority of our forests are not redwood. Its nothing more than the fake enviros trying to cover their tracks.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:39 am
With what motivation?
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
because its has been apparent that the policies that the sierra club insisted on in the past – of doing anything and everything out of the forests, including letting the lumber companies manage the forests properly, has resulted in overgrowth, and the explosive fires we have now, which are not natural.
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Again, what’s their motivation? You’ve only stated what you claim to be the result of their policies. The lumber companies that the Sierra Club was fighting for the most part were not “managing” the forests, they were clear-cutting them.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
the sierra club, and I remember it because it was an issue way back, when I was growing up, and we spend tons of time in the sierra, – the sierra clubs goal was to stop all developement and all human activity in the forest. Their view was “people are bad”
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Yeah, well, maybe that was their view way back, but I believe they have changed their focus since then. And back then less was known about the science behind proper forest management.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
well, in all fairness, I have ben hearing tidbits here and there that they realized they needed to get better science. Just like we are finally getting from movement from the dems in realizing it time to revisit nuclear power.
spekaing of the envirtonment – on a positive note – I just came from the port recycling meeting ( we are getting recycling in our ticket office and port building building)
Did you know that SF citywide programs have resulted in a 72% recycle/compost rate – keeping that much out of our landfills annually and the city’s goal is 100% by 2020.
500 tons of compost per day leaves the city for vallejo were it is processed and then sent to fertilize the wineries in napa. very cool.
Simply build the HSR up the East Bay to Oakland, privatize CalTrain without any new investment, put tolls on the Peninsula freeways, and let the NIMBYs figure it out for themselves. If that requires amending the referendum, then simply blow off building it beyond San Jose until the NIMBYs cry uncle — and if they don’t cooperate, then you’ve got a done deal, a line from LA that’s all finished except for a few spoiled brats in the way, and go back to the voters with a much needed boost for the East Bay. The Peninsula NIMBYs do not deserve, need or value mobility and access.
Perhaps when VTA bet the farm on BART, they understand the Peninsula psyche better than those of us who worried they were sending good money after bad.
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
You know that’s a bad idea. HSR needs San Francisco in order to generate ridership, and NIMBYs will keep fighting it until it’s build and they realize that it isn’t so bad.
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:05 am
I wouldnt be crushed if I had to go to oakland to catch the train since I have to go their or sfo to catch the plane anyway.
Joey Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Removing HSR from the city center it is intended to go to eliminates one of the advantages it has over flying.