The Other PCC Meets, Discusses High Speed Rail
Although the Peninsula Cities Consortium has been the most prominent organization with the initials PCC to be involved in HSR recently, there’s another PCC that could play a key role in HSR for some years to come. That group is the Pacific Coast Collaborative, formed by the governors of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as the premier of British Columbia. The current BC premier is Gordon Campbell, and he hosted the other PCC members in Vancouver on Friday to celebrate the opening of the 2010 Winter Olympics.
One of the PCC’s top priorities is high speed rail:
For the Pacific Coastal region to remain competitive, we need transportation systems that will facilitate the movement of people and goods north to south while reducing the number of vehicles on our highways. Rail, particularly high speed rail, can deliver significant benefits to the region including advancing climate change goals, energy conservation, congestion reduction, and job creation for the citizens of the region.
And HSR came up again at the PCC meeting in Vancouver, as Arnold Schwarzenegger included it in his remarks:
Schwarzenegger said it’s his intention to continue building the hydrogen highway all the way up to Canada. He also said that developing a high-speed rail from San Diego all the way to Vancouver is crucial. “It makes no sense for our trains to move at the same speed they did one-hundred years ago. Economic power is how fast you move people and goods around.”
We can dismiss this “hydrogen highway” concept Arnold has been pushing for a few years now as something that is indeed unlikely to materialize. High speed rail IS going to happen, both in California and in the Pacific Northwest, albeit at slower speeds than what we’re planning.
Of course, HSR may not link Vancouver, BC to San Diego for quite some time. That’s because, as anyone who has driven Interstate 5 or taken Amtrak’s Coast Starlight between Redding and Eugene knows, there’s a rather substantial set of mountains between the two HSR corridors. While I would be a regular user of HSR service between California and the Pacific Northwest, it isn’t exactly the highest priority. The cost of construction will remain prohibitive for some time to come.
That being the case, what’s the point to Governor Schwarzenegger even talking about border-to-border HSR? It helps to build support for HSR as a regional project, a regional priority. Instead of California, Oregon, and Washington being out for themselves, they can combine forces to lobby for federal funding for their HSR projects as part of a regional development strategy. This is exactly the approach that has been taken in the Midwest, and it was rewarded last month with over $2 billion in funding for HSR projects in that region.
Further, since Vancouver, BC is part of the greater Pacific Northwest economic region, it makes sense to include them in a regional HSR plan. The Vancouver Olympics have led to a second daily Amtrak Cascades roundtrip from Seattle to Vancouver, and that could be the basis for a true HSR link to connect the cities that are only 150 miles apart.
For Pacific Coast HSR to become a reality, Governor Schwarzenegger will have to do more than just give speeches about it. HSR could be Arnold’s only positive legacy to Californians, since his governorship has been a complete and even catastrophic failure in virtually every other respect. In 2010 he needs to work to ensure that HSR gets shepherded through the planning and funding process so that when he hands the executive office off to his successor in January 2011, HSR will be on a solid path to success.
“Hydrogen Highway” is just dumb. Much more likely to be successful is Project Better Place. http://www.betterplace.com/
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
So far, the Renault-Nissan and and HSBC parnerships seem to cover only Israel, Denmark and Hawaii where installing a network is not a huge investment, due to the small geographic size.
I’ve heard a Renault executive say that if this preliminary test is successful California will be top of the list for further development. Your state was selected because it is considered worldwide as carbon-conscious, and maybe also because Better Place is located in Palo Alto.
As a network of battery-swap stations has to exist before any car can be sold, I suppose they will start locally and extend the operation progressively.
Anyway, the fact that Agassi has been able to convince Renault and HSBC proves the project is not a pipe dream. It will also nicely complement HSR.
I write this from Vancouver, and to get here I flew to Seattle and then took the train to Vancouver. The ride convinced me that Vancouver should be part of the effort for high-speed rail on the West Coast. The ride is beautiful, but there’s also huge demand for the Seattle-Vancouver trip. And the current line can be prohibitively slow, thanks to the fact that it gets down to just a single track in Vancouver.
But, as Robert says, we need to start seeing high-speed rail as a regional effort. Eugene to San Francisco/Sacramento might be too expensive for some time, but Eugene to Vancouver and San Francisco/Sacramento are two huge, very well-traveled corridors ripe for HSR development. And if those corridors are built up enough, linking them together will eventually make economic sense.
We need to start coming together as a region to demand HSR service. What’s good for Seattle-Vancouver will be good for us in California, not only because we’re close enough to use it reguarly, but because we both live in a common region. And high-speed rail is a truly regional goal.
As a resident of Seattle who flies to the Bay Area frequently, I would LOVE to see this. Currently, the trip takes me about 5-6 hours door to door. Every time I fly I think how much more comfortable, faster a high speed train would be.
Bobierto Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I live in San Diego and head up to Portland not infrequently. My first reaction was, no, that is too long a route to take the train. But it’s a 2 1/2 hour flight if you get a nonstop, add 2 hours of check-in and TSA theatre at one end, and up to one hour of baggage collection frustration at the other, and we’re up to 5 1/2 hours for the trip. Now if SAN-Sacramento is going to be 3 1/2 hours on HSR, can I expect that Sacramento – PDX will be about 4 1/2 hours? That’s an 8-hour trip, not really so bad, especially as it would allow me to stop off in southern Oregon and visit relatives down there, something that never happens when I fly. Depending on the cost I might actually make that SAN-PDX trip more frequently than I do by air.
elfling Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I would love to be able to travel easily to Portland or Seattle. I would even take the mega-slow Coast Starlight if it went through the Bay Area at a more reasonable hour.
some day when hsr goes up to redding, and down to eugene, and its time to brdige the gap between the two, the big argument will be, I-5 versus the klamath falls “detour”
Joey Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
South or Redding and North of Eugene are both pretty easy areas, but between the two you’re going to have quite an expensive alignment either way, and I’m not sure there is the travel demand to justify it…
BruceMcF Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
However, there is certainly the freight demand to justify it if we ever notice that we are importing over half of the oil we consume and work to reclaim some 20% of our petroleum imports to fuel long-haul diesel truck freight.
The fastest passenger service that would use infrastructure built for 100mph rapid electric container freight would be a 125mph electric tilt train, and at those distances the most viable option would be a sleeper service.
And yes, freight first and passenger rail hitching a ride could well mean Klamath Falls, where a day corridor service would indeed prefer to run along the I-5 corridor.
dejv Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:08 am
Mountain railways for high speed and heavy haul usually require incompatible alignments. High speed trains require straight track and don’t mind steep grades, “lost grades” (going uphill then downhill then uphill again). Heavy haul trains need to avoid such routes as plague because precisely this kills their energy efficiency so freight routes minimize grades by “constant grade” alignment tailored as closely as possible to the terrain at the expense of curvature and therefore speed. This comparison of longitudinal profiles of old and LGV Paris – Lyon alignments shows this difference. Note also the highest point difference.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Thanks for elaborating on what I said:
Of course, Rapid Electric Freight rail can of course use corridors built with 2.5% ruling grades rather than 1% ruling grades, but there has to be a substantial benefit to justify building that from scratch when the Steel Interstate proposal would of course be electrifying the heavy freight as well as the high speed medium freight.
wu ming Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
even a marginally sped up train would be an improvement over the current glacial pace.
James Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
After finding a way past Shasta, south of Ashland is a high pass at the border, Ashland to Grants Pass follows a river most of the way, but Grants Pass to Eugene has some roller-coaster hills that the HSR would have to swerve around and/or bore through.
jimsf Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 12:22 am
100 years from now, the US still will not have done anything like this
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
At least two by 2020. Both of them in Manhattan but two of them. With any luck by then there will be two or three more in the pipeline, in Manhattan. I can’t find pictures of the one in the Bronx but there’s a big one in the Bronx. …”The Van Courtland Park valve chamber in the Bronx is the heart of the new water tunnel #3 project. Two football fields long (183 meters)…. “
Victor Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Shasta and the Cascades, Talk about the potential time bombs, Mt St Helens clones just waiting to explode, I’d keep any rail lines far and away from them.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Fears of volcanic activity aren’t a good reason to not build something. If it were, we’d have to permanently evacuate the entire city of Tacoma and its suburbs due to Mount Rainier.
wu ming Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
thank goodness we didn’t build any highways or cities between redding and vancouver bc.
We still haven’t seen any grant agreement documentation from the ARRA program showing what exactly the 2.3B was for (did it include 400M for TBT? Did it cover specifically requested projects? Or is it completely up to California to decide where to spend it? Who is the deciding agency? (MTC? Caltrans? CHSRA?) Is the amount contingent on california matching? What are the terms of the funding (timelines, etc). A heck of a lot is still mysteriously unknown about the ARRA grant. Where’s the beef?
jimsf Reply:
February 14th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
according to what I saw on sfgtv today, the tjpa is aware of legislation pending in sac per the allocation of money and has their lobbyists making sure that language is included to make sure the 400m goes to tjpa and not chsra.
Victor Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 8:05 am
tjpa? I’ve heard of the Trans Bay Terminal, Hopefully the 400m goes for the TBT as SF is one of the two mandated endpoints of the system, LA being the other of course. Never mind, It’s the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Hopefully they’ll spend It on the Terminal, I hear the old one is being demolished so that a newer one can be built.
[quote]Maria Ayerdi, Executive Director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) gave a presentation regarding the “San Francisco Transbay Terminal/CalTrain Downtown Extension Redevelopment Plan Integrated Transportation and Urban Revitalization.
Mike Grison, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, reviewed the redevelopment plan for the project area.
Nancy Whelan, Funding and Grants Program Manager for TJPA, reviewed the funding plan’s, costs, revenues and loan proceeds. In FY 2009-10, a Federal Transportation and Finance Innovation Act (TFIA) loan would be used.
Elizabeth Wilcha, TJPA Chief Engineer, reviewed the project delivery timelines and the TJPA Program Management Structure.
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission requested the TJPA to:
o Work to secure other counties’ and transit agencies’ participation in the JPA funding and the Transbay Terminal. Present an update to the Commission after the environmental document’s Record of Decision has been received on the project. (March 2005 Agenda Item)
[/quote]
Sorry If It’s possibly old, but It at least explains some acronyms. :D
http://www.catc.ca.gov/archives/2004/minutes/1004%20Minutes.doc
BruceMcF Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Victor, its html – “<blockquote> …</blockquote>” not BBCode, “[quote] … [/quote]“.
Yes, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is pushing for the $400m for the Terminal Broken for Trains box in the basement of a bus station to be under their control via the state side enabling legislation.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I recently spoke with an consultant working with the Authority along the peninsula, and the current design of the TBT box will allow for 10 roundtrips an hour in and out of the box, 5 for caltrain and 5 for HSR.
I guess that qualifies as total failure according to the current narrative many on this list are operating on. I guess accomodating a ROUND TRIP every 6 minutes (or trains moving in or out of the station box every 3 minutes) is worthless . Not to mention the worthless option of expanding capacity by complete a loop in the future if ever necessary.
No matter the facts, it is seems really hard to change a narrative once it gets started. Just look at healthcare.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Also, if more trains are needed at rush hour periods, the HSR project will likely end up designing the tracks to allow for a few trains (maybe 20% at peak times) to use the 4th and King Terminal. And I believe this will work fine because the central subway will provide good access for fourth and king for many commuters coming from the union square, chinatown, north beach area along that future line (though the central subway is hated as well by many, thought I think it is a fine idea when looking at the long-term). 5 hsr trains at peak hours for the finanacial district will work just fine. I don’t see this being a problem. Yeah the curves are tight and will slow trains a bit for a very short stretch, but the pay off is the TBT superior access to BART and Muni Metro (far better than any other alternative).
BruceMcF Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Why not build the TBT so that it does not commit the obscenity of requiring a three track underground tunnel to achieve ten trains in each direction per hour.
They run twenty trains per hour in each direction (more) between New York and New Jersey on two track tunnels. 75% to 100% higher construction cost to achieved 50% of the performance is gross incompetence.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
This might be something to look into. I am trying to recall the rationale someone told me long ago for three tracks. I just can’t recall right now. I suspect it may get value engineered out anyway to save money so the tunnel has chance to get built in a reasonable time.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
It qualifies as a total failure if TSPA every hopes to get its grubby hands on CHSRA bonding authority to help build the DTX. The CHSRA bonds can’t be used on 10-minute headway infrastructure.
jimsf Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
and to think that they will ever even need that many trains per hour is ludicrous. There is absolutley no way there is going to be a need for more than one hsr departure and arrival every 15 minutes and the same for caltrain. Its absurd. Unless they plan to waste money staffing and operating empty trains every 5 minutes, which, a private for profit operater is not going to to do. ?Their goal will be just like airlines… to make sure every seat is full. That means 500 seats every 15 minutes. Where are all THOSE people suppose to come from.
I mean its going to be a success, but numbers like that just are not going to materialize. They have to use some common sense.
Joey Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Uhh not to burst your bubble, but CalTrain already operates peak headways of 12 minutes, and that is likely to decrease sharply in the future. HSR is likely to be a little more even throughout the day but I wouldn’t say you can expect greater than 10 minute headways at peak periods.
jimsf Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Theres only a couple of those 12 minute headways on caltrain, and once the project is done, with hsr, and emus, and the whole thing, the entire daily sked will have to be redone. Just because the headways are at 12 minutes, doesn’t mean they are that way based on demand, but may be that way based on crewing and dispatching. That has a lot more impact on scheduling than minute by minute demand does. They have to work within the constraints of limited equipment /turns and crew hours of service and work rules. then throw dispatch and the current juggling of the local/bullet mix.
Departures from tbt one the everything is up and running, would be more likely to be memory schedules anyway.
jimsf Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:50 am
There is simply no way anyone can prove to me or show me how there will be THAT many people per hour boarding trains in sf. I mean maybe 100 years from now. and its not customary in america to build things out more than a couple of decades worth of growth. This built in obsolescence ensures new projects in the future and the money for building excess capacity, is rarely there up front anyway. Our entire national infrastructure is not ahead of the game, not even at the game, but a decade or more behind the game. That’s the way in the usa.
Don’t worry about it. the tbt will be under 8 feet of water before there’s a need for a train every 5 minutes.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
What does per hour have to do with it?
The most valuable arrival and departure times for ridership in a central urban area are not constant across the sixty minutes before conventional Start of Business or the sixty minutes after conventional Close of Business.
And allowing a delay of a few minutes to cascade into a delay of half an hour or more because of 10 minute headways into and out of the train box is an obscene waste of Federal money. If San Francisco cannot come up with a design that justifies receiving $400m, there’s plenty of other states waiting in the queue for no match Federal money.
jimsf Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Obviously they are going to make it get to the point where chsra admits that the trains per hour can be adjusted. tbt will be the terminus
A little off topic – brief interview with LA Metro CEO about the impact of the LA-Anaheim HSR segment. No new info, but good to hear what he has to say:
http://thesource.metro.net/2010/02/12/metro-minutes-all-aboard-high-speed-rail/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/15/belgium.train.crash/index.html?hpt=T1
Joey Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Interesting, though I’d wait until we know the cause of the crash before drawing any conclusions.
Victor Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
It was reported on CNN TV that one Signalman spoke French and the other Signalman spoke Flemish and that that was the cause of the accident.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
So an accident on a line without PTC or with a failed PTC system, since the language of the signalman does not matter in a functioning PTC system, which will not allow a train to proceed onto an occupied track.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-belgium-train-crash,0,4627091.story
High Concrete wall kept debri from hitting houses – how high was the wall? How close were the houses?
Observer Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
From the AP Video, it looks like the track was at least about 50 feet from the wall, and the wall was about 30 feet high.
http://video.ap.org/?f=AP&pid=5jEXfNOuUBo5od192SMFj_bPQZLaXPGJ
Joey Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
“After one of them ran a red light”…
Guess what I’m going to say to this.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I read in Le Soir (Brussels newspaper) that, altough all tracks in Belgium have ATC which immobilizes trains at red lights, some commuter trains are not equipped with it yet.
Infrabel, the company running the trains, didn’t tell the press if that was the case with the train which failed to stop.
mrcawfee Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
This risk exists if HSR goes down the caltrain corridor or if caltrain stays as is. A diesel train going 50 would pulverize the neighboring houses in the same way a HSR train would.
Your argument applies to removing the rail line entirely, however, this argument could apply to all transportation.
Observer Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
What argument?
I asked how far away the trains need to be from the houses, and how high the wall has to be. Its a fair question.
Y’know, they claim this IS going to built through 50 miles of neighborhoods, through school yards, and community parks. You’d think the biggest rail fans of all time would be asking what the safety clearances need to be.
By the way, something already being there, isn’t license to build whatever anybody wants, damn the safety. The world has come a long way in terms of safety standards since 1890. We don’t build unreinforced brick buildings anymore (unless we want to end up like Haiti), and we don’t build high speed rail through backyards – unless we are the CHSRA.
Joey Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
So are you suggesting that more right-of-way should be taken?
Matthew F. Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:17 am
He’s not SUGGESTING anything. He’s creating fear of derailment… uncertainty about the width of the right of ways… doubt that proper precautions are being taken…
All through subtle insinuations that are COMPLETELY LACKING IN EVIDENCE.
That’s how FUD works: They plant the skeleton of an idea, and your own brain fills in the gaps to paint the sinister, misleading picture they want you to have. Advertisers do it all the time.
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:30 am
A train will be blown to bits on the first day of operations. A shoe bomber is going to stick dynamite up his asshole and ignite it. There will be a struggle with passengers, but the attacker will slit their throats. The bomb goes off, instantly killing everyone in the immediate area. The train derails into several Palo Alto homes, taking out the families inside, many of whom are God-fearing white Americans. In the aftermath, bodies are recovered from the wreckage. Many more are injured, suffering from loss of limbs.
We could avoid all of this if we simply cancel this boondoggle right now. Can you sleep with blood on your hands? Wish you could go back in time and vote no on Prop 1A?
Joey Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Also note that the train is extremely unlikely to actually leave the tracks in anything but a head-on collision.
synonymouse Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:06 am
BART cars have climbed the rails on a number of occasions, even at slow speeds.
Joey Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Oh sure, trains will derail frequently enough. But how often do you get a train that gets far enough off the track to say, fall off a viaduct? Even in an earthquake (look at Japan) this is extremely unlikely.
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Car Plows Through Ga. Auto Auction Crowd, Injuring 28
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586262,00.html
“Gilmer County sheriff Stacy Nicholson said at least 12 people were critically injured and another 16 were “walking injured” after the accident, which happened at about 8.15 p.m. at the Blue Ridge Auto Auction, in Ellijay.
Gilmer County Lt. Frank Copeland said the auction features a large building where cars are rolled through for an audience to bid. Authorities said dealers were placing bets on a Volvo when the automobile rammed into the crowd. “
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:33 am
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0210/707014.html
“A white SUV reportedly ran a red light at the downtown intersection, plowing into the Raglands’ car, sending his wife of 33 years to the hospital.”
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Questions surrounding Wellington fatal car accident
http://www.wptv.com/content/news/centralpbc/wellington/story/Questions-surrounding-Wellington-fatal-car-acciden/n1xoT6VzW0aBy39tbYJycg.cspx
“Questions surround the car crash that killed a 23-year-old Wellington man on Friday and sent shockwaves through the Polo community.
Investigators suspect John B. Goodman was drinking when he ran a stop sign and plowed into Scott Wilson’s car.”
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:35 am
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586262,00.html
“Gilmer County sheriff Stacy Nicholson said at least 12 people were critically injured and another 16 were “walking injured” after the accident, which happened at about 8.15 p.m. at the Blue Ridge Auto Auction, in Ellijay.
Gilmer County Lt. Frank Copeland said the auction features a large building where cars are rolled through for an audience to bid. Authorities said dealers were placing bets on a Volvo when the automobile rammed into the crowd. Georgia State Patrol is investigating. A spokesman was not in the office Tuesday night and did not immediately return an e-mail.”
spokker Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Clearly we need crash walls on our roads.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 15th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
The wall does not have to be any given height, since a wall to hold fill to support elevated tracks is just one option among several. The overpass has to be 20′, while a tunnel has to be 30′.
There is no need for a wall above the trackline, except when you are building a trench or a tunnel, in which case you need a wall to hold the, you know, dirt and rocks out … not to hold the train in. Unlike road traffic, the train has these steel tracks which keeps it in place.
The primary reason for any above ground wall would be for noise abatement, and if it were the 1890′s, the primary safety impact would be negative, because of the earthquake risk. However, just as the world has come a long way in terms of safety standard since 1890, and so further the world has come a long way in terms of safety technology. Hopefully, any walls that NIMBY’s force to be constructed for noise abatement will be built to the most modern standards and will not pose a substantial additional risk in the event of an earthquake.
Some derailments leave cars scattered all over the place. If there is an obstacle in the path of the derailed train, as with the bridge in Germany, the damage is much worse.
The greater the speed the greater the impact, just as with automobile accidents.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Most derailments are the result of poor track maintenance. Most of the impressive ones involving passenger trains in the US are due to the failure to provide PTC systems.
So you are assuming that track maintenance on the Peninsula will be similar to track maintenance in an isolate bi-directional line used once a day by a coal train, and that the promised PTC system will not in fact be installed.
What is the basis for your assumptions?