Typos and Hybrids
Two California HSR news items are breaking today, and I’ll briefly cover both here.
First up: the California High Speed Rail Authority reports that the coefficient that got the HSR critics all riled up was a typo:
What appeared to be a glaring flaw in the state’s bullet train ridership forecasts was actually a “typographical error,” an official said Wednesday.
A key number in the ridership model released last week should have read 0.0179, not 0.179, said Jeff Barker, deputy director of the California-High Speed Rail Authority. The mistake was in a document explaining the model, not in the model itself, he added.
Typos like that can make a pretty big difference, and not just in Brazil. But the Authority is saying that the model was perfectly fine; the explanation had an error that is easy to make. Once again, another attack on the HSR ridership models has come up empty. Keep in mind that these attacks are all based on one of two assumptions: that nobody rides passenger trains in America (which we know is wrong) and that any time government makes an error, it proves the whole project in question is totally flawed and should be abandoned (which is just plain ridiculous).
We can expect the HSR critics to try again to find their magic bullet. Anyone want to start a pool on what the next hair-on-fire allegation will be?
Next up: The CHSRA is going to study the “hybrid” option of stopping HSR trains at San José and forcing SF-bound riders to transfer to Caltrain, or even running HSR trains over existing Caltrain tracks at a slower speed, French-style:
Spaethling said the agency will also consider investigating what he called a “hybrid” model. This could entail having passengers switch from a high speed train to Caltrain, or having the high speed trains proceed on existing Caltrain tracks at lower speeds.
These options will not be included in the new alternatives analysis, but would be considered in a later document, he said.
I get why they’re going to study this – it’s been requested by some in the public. But forcing a transfer to Caltrain is an extremely bad idea. It would destroy ridership by making the trip much longer as well as less desirable. Caltrain is a commuter railroad with no on-board services (food/drink, bathrooms, luggage racks). And we know that transfers usually reduce ridership anyway.
Further, it may be illegal. Prop 1A makes it very clear that SF Transbay Terminal is the legally-required terminus of the system. The Attorney General’s office already said 4th and King can’t be the terminus and one would assume that would mean SJ Diridon can’t be the terminus either.
As to the French-style “send HSR up the Peninsula more slowly on existing track,” well, that is worth exploring I suppose if it’ll mollify the HSR critics, but it’s almost certainly not going to pan out in terms of ridership and finances.
I’m not really concerned about the hybrid study, since I’m confident it will reveal that the existing plan, of sending bullet trains over grade-separated tracks through the Peninsula to SF, is still the best idea from a ridership and financial perspective. And I am very pleased to see that once again, an attack on the HSR project has been turned back. Critics will need a lot more than a typo to slow this train down.
This message brought to you by Nelson Muntz.
Ha! I love it! And I was just joking two threads ago regarding spelling 2 “to” instead of “two.”
Are people in the East Bay really going to BART to SF, Caltrain to SJ and take HSR to LA?
Even Caltrain’s express trains take an hour to get from SF to SJ. That means anyone who doesn’t live within walking distance of SF’s two express stops would probably be en route for at least two hours before they even got on a high-speed train in SJ. Then the ride to LA is another two. Running HSR trains slowly up the Peninsula won’t fly–there is no way to even approximate the mandated 2:40 running at Caltrain speed. Using Caltrain to connect SF and SJ makes flying out of OAK look downright faster and easier. We can’t afford that. HSR must run on the Peninsula and it must run fast.
As post by many the HST must run all the way to SanFrancisco to make this system work. The other option of the trains running slower on the ROW may work if they are able to hit 100-110MPH in certain places with a few more 4track sections then the current ROW. Then comes the grade seperation issues
110mph does not require grade seperation just 4 quad crossing gates..far less cost but more dangerous and as stated over time many trains every hour unless they limit the number of trains that travel all the way to SF TBT. The report also talked about ‘stacking’ the tracks.. reading it sounds like the HSR will go ina tunnle and Caltrain will remain at grade? I did see in Caltrain news letter that if HSR goes in a tunnel and Caltain stays at grade in some areas CAHSR will be resonsible for eletrifying the above sections .
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Stacking seems like an unintelligent solution for most scenarios. If you leave the local tracks at grade but separate the express tracks, it more or less precludes the possibility of grade-seprating the local tracks at a later date.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
In theory, the depth of the tunnelled sections could be deep enough to allow for Caltrain/cities to still dip cross streets under the surface tracks and above the hsr tunnels.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Then why not just dip the cross streets to begin with?
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Pssst! Stop pointing out the pointlessness of NIMBY arguments! Then they’ll just come up with new stupid ones.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Dipping streets can have impacts on surrounding development (cutting off perpendicular streets, driveways, etc.). Ideally, HSR could avoid dealing with the most controversial of grade separations and perform the ones that are less politically contentious. All in all, if Caltrain/freight gets 75% of the grade seps done through HSR project, that would improve their operations immensely. I would imagine, even the politically difficult ones would eventually be constructed, thereby creating total grade separation for all rail operations along the corridor. Actually, total grade separation may become law in the urban areas in the near future.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:50 am
“Dipping streets can have impacts on surrounding development (cutting off perpendicular streets, driveways, etc.).”
Which was the whole point of the “retained fill” option anyway, no? By putting the tracks 15 feet above grade level they only had to dip the roads 5 feet to get under them, which means fewer driveways along the route need to be removed or re-configured.
They’d have to put the tunnel very, very deep to get under a road undercrossing that has to get under a railroad.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Well, in theory you could look at each required grade separation on a case by case basis and do what makes sense for each one, but that is just a “theoretical” approach. Far more scientific to invent an arbitrary silver bullet that is supposed to solve all problems for one or another flimsy reason.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Mind you, the peninsula isn’t just going to be one 50 mile viaduct. CHSRA is absolutely evaluating smaller sections individually, and you can’t really evaluate each crossing individually, since in most cases, the crossings around it have to adhere to the same solution.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
But to identify which clusters of crossings go together, you have to evaluate each crossing individually. In a few cases, three or four crossings have to go together, but the majority of grade separation projects are one or two crossings, particularly with the two split-grade and the rail overpass options. Since tunnels/trenches have the furthest to run to get under a road at grade, tunneling/trenching is the option that results in the longest individual segments.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Are they still hoping for their HAT trench?
I vote for running HSR at-grade on Caltrain tracks at 110 mph. Do that for a few months and people will be screaming for grade-separation so the crossing gates don’t go down every 2 minutes.
Donk Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
The study of the Caltrain transfer should also show that there wiill be more noise and disruption on the corridor with the current Caltrain setup than with the HSR-Caltrain grade separated combo.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Didn’t you hear…. AB3034 had a typo in it too. It does not need to go to San Francisco!
TomW Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Just because grade seperation is not legally required at 110mph doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. The faster the speed, the longer in advance of the train appearing the gates have to be closed, and hence the more disruption to traffic (because somewhere before the corssing, the train needs to see a signal letting it procede because the gates are closed. That signal has to be far enough back that if turns to danger just before the train passes, the train can stop in time. The faster the speed, the greater that distance).
Further, enough road users abuse level crossings (including those with quad gates) sufficiently often that it borders on the immoral not to install grade seperation where feasible.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Of course, the set-back for 110mph depends in part on the equipment – the set-back that allows safe stopping for the HSR and for Caltrain EMU’s running 110mph might not allow diesels to run at 110mph.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I’d argue for posting signs stating that those killed abusing level crossings receive an automatic Darwin Award entry.
Reality Check Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
TomW: where is a grade crossing signaling system as you describe in use. Certainly not anywhere I know of in North America. Most modern grade crossings use constant time warning logic which ensure the gates lower with a constant warning time of something like 30 seconds, regardless of train speed. The faster trains trigger the gates further away and slow-moving trains trigger the gates only when they are quite close. There is no way in hell fast moving trains can stop within the constant warning times typically in use. There are “tell tale” lights on most (all?) crossing gates which allow the engineer of the approaching train to see if the lights/gates are activated, but that’s of no use in terms of being able to stop short for trains moving at track speed.
So were you just making this up, or what?
Reality Check Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
TomW: where is a grade crossing signaling system as you describe in use. Certainly not anywhere I know of in North America. Most modern grade crossings use constant time warning logic which ensure the gates lower with a constant warning time of something like 30 seconds, regardless of train speed. The faster trains trigger the gates further away and slow-moving trains trigger the gates only when they are quite close. There is no way in hell fast moving trains can stop within the constant warning times typically in use. There are “tell tale” lights on most (all?) crossing gates which allow the engineer of the approaching train to see if the lights/gates are activated, but that’s of no use in terms of being able to stop short for trains moving at track speed.
So TomW, were you just making this up, or what are you basing it on?
I’d understand the controversy better if I understood what the significance of the “coefficient” is …
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
The coefficient is the number in the ridership model which describes the percentage changes in ridership that results from percentage changes in frequency of service.
That number was compared to the number that describes the percentage changes in ridership to percentage changes in trip speed, and it was said that dropping frequency to once per hour would have the same impact as increasing the time required for the trip to over nine hours.
But the number as given in the description of the model was given with its decimal point in the wrong place.
So the reaction that the attack was focusing on as being absurd was, it turns out, 10 times bigger than the actual number used in the model.
Bobierto Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
THANK YOU!
[blockquot]What appeared to be a glaring flaw in the state’s bullet train ridership forecasts was actually a “typographical error,” an official said Wednesday.[/blockquote]
Ahahahahahahaha … so I guess that lawsuit isn’t going anywhere then.
I think the fact that critics will jump on every error made by a government entity and claim that the project in question is fatally flawed is less dangerous to society than the fact that people immediately scream “corruption” and “cover-up” when such errors are made. This even before the government has had an opportunity to explain itself or anything is known beyond the fact that an error was made.
Just because an error is made doesn’t imply criminal wrongdoing. Shit happens. Even in government. And especially when you’re dealing with a project of this magnitude with so many players involved.
It makes the NIMBY foamers look like fools for sure. While we supporters waited for a reasonable explanation, our Nimby friends tried to get this in front of a judge as fast as possible.
Even still, 5 year old ridership studies are not going to help us get private financing. It would make CHSRA look good in the long view anyways.
CARRD and especially the person who discovered this error and gave it to the media isn’t going to like it when someone tells them that they can stop patting themselves on the back for giving this to their fellow nimby’s and cheering that they found the bullet.
Victor Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Yep, Cause they handed their fellow NIMBY’s a DUD, too bad, So sad, Not. Yeah I’m for HSR for the CHSRA(220mph tops so far), But in one area I’m for Maglev(As It can climb the Cajon Pass, Conventional HSR needs expensive tunnels to do so), But that area is not a CHSRA route even though the CHSRA will be in two of the same Cities as the CA-NV Interstate Maglev(186mph urban tops and 310mph tops rural so far) has gotten a $7 Billion loan from China and the CA-NV IM plans to build the Initial 40 mile segment between Las Vegas NV and Primm NV for $1.8 Billion and they are going to spend money on Planning the Anaheim CA to Ontario CA segment as well, So the race is on between them and their rival DesertXpress(150mph tops), I think If the Las Vegas to Primm route is built then DesertXpress might be doomed as It’s even slower than the CHSRA trains at 150mph(DesertXpress) vs 220mph(CHSRA) or 186/310mph(CA-NV Interstate Maglev).
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:57 am
A steel-wheel line from Vegas to a wye with CHSRA at the city of Mojave running 220mph trains would offer faster service from most of the state than would a maglev line to ARTIC, and you’d have one-seat rides. A future connection could be built over Cajon when the demand necessitates it.
WRT Cajon, HSR can climb the Cajon pass just fine. It’s expensive to tunnel, sure, but vertical profiles (roller coaster effects) mean that the maglev line is going to need tunnels too, or at least some crazy high aerials.
I think we’ll see DX reborn as just another line on the CAHSR system. I really hope someone puts the maglev idea out to pasture, it’s a waste of money. There’s no reason to build another system that is incompatible with CAHSR.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
It is true that maglev can climb steeper gradients than conventional high speed trains, however, unless the cost of maglev goes down significantly in the near future, then maglev might even be more expensive.
I say completely grade-separate and electrify Caltrain from SF to SJ as planned, and make HSR from SF to SJ the “Baby Bullet” of the future. In other words, I support the idea of running HSR trains on Caltrain tracks from SJ to SF. Can the speeds be upped to 125 mph?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Completely grade separate, and provide the in-cab signaling required to run above 125mph, and you could go above 125mph. The problem is mixing locals and very high speed express traffic on a pair of tracks – maintaining effective 5 minute headways for the HSR means that if the corridor headways are 3 minutes, there are only 2 slots available every 15 minutes for Caltrain services.
And once you have sorted out the engineering to allow the HSR to overtake each local that they encounter, the cost of the upgrade starts rising toward the cost of two express tracks and two local tracks.
Clem Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Two slots every 15 minutes if Caltrain can go as fast as HSR and *never stop*. However, supposing you allowed Caltrain to exercise its primary function of picking up and dropping off peninsula commuters, your track capacity would drop precipitously because of the large average speed differential between HSR and Caltrain. HSR at 12 tph and 125 mph would leave exactly ZERO slots for Caltrain.
Agree on the overtake bit– what the “stop in SJ” crowd doesn’t understand is that express runs from SJ to SF require overtakes, overtakes require 4 tracks, and 4 tracks require 100% grade separation, so they’re back to what they didn’t like in the first place.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Passing tracks are required for express operations, but four tracks along the whole Peninsula are not required. Relying on two tracks for the narrow and difficult sections of ROW would save lots of $$$ yet still providing plenty of capacity for the future. Four tracks at the stations is actually all that is required. Locals can hold at the station as an express/HSR goes by.
Funding is scarce, so the Peninsula Rail Program has to think strategically with limited and constrained resources. In reality, all these grade separations aren’t going to be funded all at once, so Caltrain/HSR will have to prioritize which grade separations are built first. It would be foolish for HSR operation to wait until every grade separation is funded and built.
12 long-distance HSR trains per hour on the Peninsula is a fiction of the imagination. 1-2 HSR tph will be likely for the first decade of operation. Maybe “12″ is a typo that should read “1-2″??
Tony D. Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:08 am
PR2010,
I agree with your thought. two-track in tight, “controversial” area’s of the ROW, and four-track for the remainder. Heck, let’s make things easier and eliminate CalTrain stations in area’s of extreme NIMBYism; PA, M/A, etc. You save money by keeping HSR/Caltrain to two tracks (possibly allowing for trenching) and eliminating the stations serving “NIMBYA”; you can’t have it all now can you.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Ah, but what about the people who aren’t NIMBYs, but work in PA or MP, for example. Like my wife. I like the idea of punishment for rabid NIMBYs, though. They’re ego-centric to the extreme.
Tony D. Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Peter,
My apologies if my scenario would inconvenience your family. MY BAD! That being said, is there anyone here who doesn’t think Caltrain has toooo many damn stations? Why have a commuter rail system with stations what seems every mile or two; especially the San Mateo County portion? You could consolidate stations, perhaps one per town or every 5 miles, and implement rapid-bus service along the El Camino to “feed” Peninsula commuters to stations.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Hehe, no problem.
I think Caltrain has an appropriate number of stations. I just feel like it needs to increase capacity. I grew up in Berlin and am used to using many different types of public transportation (most of which were local trains, S- and U-Bahn). Running even local trains more frequently helps make up for the lack of express or limiteds. Caltrain doesn’t have enough trainsets though to increase frequency. If I understand it correctly, they run their 90 weekday trains with only 20 trainsets? That’s crazy. Would Caltrain be able to increase capacity simply with more (and faster trains) on two tracks with strategic passing? Without quad-tracking and grade-separating most of the corridor?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
You are raming the question in the wrong way:
… if you are going to invest the resources required for an effective commuter rail system, why would you waste the opportunity to go ahead and make it an effective local rail line?
After all, an effective local rail line does a better job as a commuter rail line than a line set up as only a commuter rail line, since it offers opportunities to go into the office early or work over at the office a little later, and still have a train, when a commuter-only rail line is not running a service because its not the commuter peak.
Forcing people to in some cases cross the railway line at an appropriate location for a local station to catch a bus to a station further along the railway line would be silly … the express stations are where you put the intermodal connections, but their purpose is to expand the range of choices available, not to restrict the range of choices available.
Tony D. Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I also say eliminate Caltrain service between Diridon/SJ and Gilroy; seems rather redundant with HSR. Have Morgan Hill and S. San Jose commuters use rapid-bus or light-rail from Santa Teresa Station to travel north.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Even just 3 tracks in some sections would help..like thru Menlo/Palo Alto and save the money for stacked tunnels in Burlingame and other tight spots..Having only the express trains run up to the TBT might work and ease the load on the tracks and the limited platforms at TBT. changing to semi-express in SJ is far better than changing to Caltrain to get to SF .And stopping all HST in SJ will never happen as
everyone wants HSR direct into SF and T-REX size crap will hit the fan if this was really going to happen
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Yes, four tracks along the whole Peninsula are only required to mix local trains and express trains and HSR. If either HSR or, as Tony D. suggests, local trains are eliminated, then it seems like it ought to be possible to go with a mix of two and four tracks.
IOW, cripple the service capacity of the corridor in order to placate NIMBY’s whose property values in the real world (as opposed to their past-bound imaginations) will be suffering in 2020 if they do not have better local rail service and access to HSR.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Once you’ve got two grade separated, electrified tracks, what harm is shaving a few feet off of someone’s backyard in order to avoid imposing such a profound capacity restriction and scheduling nightmare.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
What an amazing idea!
wu ming Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
taiwan HSR is already running 6 trains an hour both ways, and they’re less than a decade into opening the line. 1-2 tph would be an extreme lowball.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Precisely. It requires abandoning the opportunity to get faster local rail service from electrification. Which is a quite insane thing to do when the only serious debate regarding Peak Oil is whether we have passed it already or will be passing it in the decade ahead, and when the US combines a long standing and long-term unsustainable trade deficit with an absolute dependence on imports for over half of our petroleum consumption.
Just to give some context, there were 7 different models. We’ve gone through the first one -
of 49 coefficients in the published peer reviewed numbers, 13 were excluded in the final model, 18 were added to the final model, 36 were changed, 0 were unchanged. 36 of the 54 were “constrained” which means the consultant chose a number based on their professional judgment, rather than use the number that came from the statistical analysis.
I’m starting on the next one and I think I’ve spotted two typos.
All of the information to do this type of very basic comparison is on our website calhsr.com
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
With due respect, you’re wasting bandwidth space, imo.
joe Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
From the post it appears some folks don’t want to understand.
1) “The final model reflects the data quality issues and fails industry standard primary validation checks. Producing forecasts from invalid models is problematic.”
Huh? The model isn’t validated? No evident that is the case on the web site. None.
2) “It is concerning that the real model was never made public nor apparently distributed to the peer review panel, particularly as there were significant and obvious issues with model’s validity.”
It is not concerning. Peer review of models does not involve looking at code, it involves understudying assumptions and algorithms. Does the theoretical basis of the model support the types of questions being asked (simulations). This is basic misunderstanding of peer review. Noe a code review does look at code but a code review is what happens for flight software like looking voer airplane avionics software to certify it’s safe to fly. Not done for model and sim.
3) “Decision made to not hold previously planned third peer revenue (page 8-7). “Due to time constraints in the development of the forecasts, this review is just not being conducted.” Certain panel members will just be individually contacted.”
Okay, they didn’t convene a peer review pannel for the third time, they did mail in reviews which is exactly what NSF and NIH do with reviewers. Its again common to have a panel not meet face to face – if they have had previous meetings.
“September 2007 Cambridge Systematics releases third peer review report based on email comments from 3 peer review members”
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 7:15 am
No, Joey, I understand. I understand enough not to be Shanghaied into giving the faulty ridership claim any credit, or, much of my time. In fact, I spoke to some of this in the previous blog-posting 2-3 days ago.
The fact is…. Is that this boils down to the fact that ridership modeling is part science and part art and application is a matter of professional opinion. The ‘science’end relies on data, and quality data, and existing conditions elsewhere that could be applied here. The ‘art’ part is applying those observations into a mathematical model. There are schools and professions built on this. Folks go to school and get grad degrees in this… or even PhD’s.
(I am not one)
The application of the coefficients… the values used…. is a combination of past experience, or observations, and professional opinion. And… as-if we don’t already know this…. there is no HSR experience in America to draw upon. So, some coefficients will be more reliant on professional opinion than others.
Again, this settles-out to being a matter of professional opinion. That is all.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
And note that hyperventilating about the “0 unchanged” is silly.
In this case, we are not estimating parameters for use in a model that is within the range of observations, we are projecting. Blind faith that the estimates should just be projected out without constraining some of them would be as silly as blindly projecting mortgage default risk from a period when there was lower moral hazard due to more mortgages being held by their originator into a period when there is substantially higher moral hazard because fewer mortgages are being held long-term by their originator.
A silly thing to do which, note, lots of well trained econometric and financial modeling technicians were perfectly willing to do when the price was right.
If a single important parameter is constrained – which it would be professionally irresponsible not to do, if it is the professional opinion that it is unwise to bank on the projection of that reaction coefficient, it implies that the unconstrained coefficients will also tend to react as a result. That’s how constrained estimation normally works.
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Brandon;
The model isn’t a professional opinion, it’s an abstraction. It’s unambiguous and precise.
Parameters are selected by professionals but they have grounding in the physical world and can be compared to other systems where there are data. Unrealistic and conflicting parameters can be challenged.
This kind of system modeling is done all the time.
The critics do not present a counter estimate, that is when built the critics can’t put forward a coherent, consistent argument and alternative ridership estimate.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“Parameters are selected by professionals but they have grounding in the physical world and can be compared to other systems where there are data.”
I don’t disagree with this statement. Did you interprete that I did?
Application of coeffecients will be within a range of values. The range will be a matter of past experience, past studies, professional judgement…. and so forth. When there are unknowns or insufficient real-life experience, application of coeffecients will be more reliant on professional judgement.
Again, where is HSR up and running in the US… and experience/observations can be used to apply here? None! Right? So… modeling efforts will need to rely more heavily on professional judgement. And, do you really think a novice can say one way or the other what is an unrealistic coeffecient or paramater? An expert can, but even with him/her…. it is still a matter of professional judgement.
Regardless, to what end does this go to? What change can come about it?
None.
Concerning Pacheco vs. Altamont…. forget it. Look a the CHSRA Board resolution on that decision and review all the “Where as’s”. There are no domino’s to topple or house of cards to blow over… what you’ll see is a number of independant findings going to support the decision.
JoeSez Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Dear Brandon;
Your assertion that parameter selection is professional opinion is, using my experiences, inaccurate and misleading. Opinion is SUBJECTIVE. Parameter selection and review is not a subjective process.
The fact data have real world constraints means there are OBJECTIVE criteria for criticizing the model and results. The selection of parameter vales is not justified professionally with real life experience and hence their judgment but rather the selection is grounded and can be refuted by actual observation and coherent, unambiguous assumptions. The values can be challenged using objective criteria, not solely opinion.
Experts know the literature, I know it in my area, so we’re quicker but not unassailable. Experts known parameter values where are common for typical systems, so they can be cost effective and accurate. Their knowledge can be objectively reviewed. The parameters can be verified by analysis, with observation, demonstration, or inspection.
You ask us Where is HSR running in the US? Why does the study have to use data from the US? Se are using knowledge gained from global experiences as they apply to California’s set of circumstances and characteristics. Sadly, we are so far behind that we can make more reliable ridership estimates because we are playing catch-up.
I think the hybrid option is worth exploring. I’ve taken the TGV from Paris to Biarritz (just past Bordeaux) many times, and the time added by the slower speed segment really isn’t a big deal relative to the simplicity of not needing to switch trains mid-route.
One question, though …. Is it still feasible to hit the required SF–>LA trip time with the hybrid option? Perhaps saving money on the SF portion would redirrect sufficient funds elsewhere to make up for the slower final leg? Would the hybrid option be a viable mezzanine solution? i.e. defer construction of the expensive SJ–>SF leg till after the rest of the system is complete and can more easily cover the costs?
//dan.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
There is a huge time disparity between how long it takes an express train to traverse the peninsula and how long it takes a local. Even with strategic overtakes, HSR trains couldn’t make the journey any faster than the baby bullets could (though that’s faster than they do today).
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
On the previous discussion of baby bullets after electrification, the figure of 45 minutes was raised. Run non-stop, perhaps another five minutes might possibly come off, so that’d be 10 minutes lost, or more.
With the “change train” option, it would be the extra 15 minutes, plus time to change trains, so perhaps 20 minutes lost, but where the modeling will really slaughter it is the question of financial viability given the impact on total ridership.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Todays Caltrain baby bullets go no faster than 79MPH..with PTC and electric power somewhere I remember seeing they would speed up to 900 or 100 MPH
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Soory it 90mph!!
Matt Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Speaking of typos…
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
sorry typo!!!! its 90MPH
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
OMG 900MPH we should abandon HSR and build a worldwide VacTrain network!!!
Victor Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
You mean kinda like this one from Genesis II(later Planet Earth)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II_(film)
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
The locals also get faster – electric motors have their best torque at zero speed, and can use dynamic regenerative braking so with frequent stops and starts, electric multiple sets with the same power rating are faster than diesels even under the same speed limit.
AB3034 specifies the terminus of San Francisco and a minimum travel time to achieve that. Those are the parameters.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
*Maximum travel time
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
No, not the maximum. Its permitted for trains to take longer than 2:40 – for example, all-station services – but the trip of 2:40 or less must be possible.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Well minimum time implies that the trains can’t take less time (okay I’ll stop being a grammar Nazi).
Anyway, what 1A specifies is a maximum express travel time, so local trains can take longer but express trains have to be able to make it in that time.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Definitely avoid being a grammar Nazi, because the two ways you said it don’t mean precisely the same thing. The maximum allowed minimum express travel time is 2:40.
The “hybrid” option of high-speed trains going on non-high-speed lines certainly could have merit, particularly if it allows access to markets that could never jsutify a full high-speed line (but could justify electrification).
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Well San Francisco absolutely justifies a high speed rail line, but you’re right, this could apply to other locations. For instance, we could upgrade the lines from LA to San Diego in Phase 1 and run HSR trains down there at reduced speeds until the funding emerged for the full Inland Empire HSR route.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Though the FRA would never stand for that.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
What the FRA will stand for depends in part on whether the PTC technology in place and the operational headways that can be offered qualify as time-separation. And of course all corridors with passenger traffic will be required to have PTC in any event.
Joseph E Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I agree, that would be great. Transferring from HSR to a diesel Surfliner in Anaheim will be a drag. Electrifying the rest of the LOSSAN corridor would be hard due to the segment on the beach in San Clemente, however. I think that area was the reason HSR is going inland to San Diego.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Part of the reason, certainly. An (expensive) tunnel has been proposed for that area, as well as a shorter one in Del Mar.
If that’s the best way from the engineering perspective.. it might be ok. But you cant expect to earn a revenue from passenger rail transportation – nobody in Europe or Japan does – its investment on the part of the government, like wind power generators and or recycling centres.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Every HSR system in Europe and Japan generates an operating surplus.
None earn of profit, of course, because it would be absurd to have a transport corridor that generates a profit on the backs of riders with all other beneficiaries getting a completely free ride. That is clearly massive underprovision: if you have a transport corridor that earns a profit, and it has positive net externalities, then the efficient thing to do is to keep expanding it until the capital subsidy is roughly in line with the positive net externalities.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
You are correct in that most rail systems are not required to earn back their capital cost (that is, cost of construction) from revenues. However, once a HSR system is build, it is almost guaranteed to operate without continued subsidies.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
In Japan people do expect to earn revenues from passenger rail. The mainland JR companies are profitable after depreciation, and nowadays so are both of Tokyo’s subway systems. In Hong Kong and Singapore, passenger rail is profitable as well. I’m not sure about Taiwan and South Korea – THSR is on life support, but I believe that Taipei’s subway is profitable, and that South Korean passenger rail operations are all profitable, as in Japan.
Although the Hybrid version should be studied to shut up nimby’s, I still think it’s not viable and is being requested soley for the purpose of not implementing grade seperations, electrification and quad tracks. If Caltrain had the funding to grade separate, electrify, and quad track to speed up service and frequency, the nimby’s would run out of options and call to dismantle Caltrain because that’s all they are trying to block. I doubt they want to block HSR just because it’s HSR, (they know it won’t run at full speed) but because of what it will bring with it. To them it’s blight and property values.
Let them know that even though the hybrid option IS every implemented, Caltrain will have to add capacity along with more tracks and more trains to handle the transfers statewide onto Caltrain. They will have more horns, more danger at crossings, more division between the communities, more smog. It’s a losing arguement and a waste of time.
joe Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I agree. Let’s do the study and end the debate, the counterfactual arguments against the proposed plan will be easier to put to rest once a Hybrid version is analyzed and problems illustrated.
Menlo Park et al. are missing an opportunity to shape HSR constructively. I expect they’ll be in opposition until it’s a done deal and what is done is done. Maybe this study will help turn some minds.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Study it to the point that you realize it is illegal and impractical. That should take all of about two hours (or less, if you’re not concerned with numbers).
Victor Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
I agree study the Hybrid, preferably to death, It’s It always blight and property values? In the 50′s and 60′s It would have been Nimbys saying no blacks in this neighborhood and all It was then was racism(Discrimination), It’s a different target today, But the idea hasn’t changed one bit, It comes down to one thing they fear change and will scream and holler and try to delay to kill something they don’t want near them. I would for one hope the Nimbys lose as their is always eminent domain which could be used on those who won’t sell their land(If needed) and It can be done as the courts said not too long ago.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
And yet the change that they have the greatest reason to fear, which poses the greatest risk to their property values, is the change in the risk of repeated oil price shocks … and grade separations and electrification of the Caltrain Corridor is one of the best defenses that they can deploy against that threat to their property values.
Just as AB3034 doesn’t say EVERY train has to hit 2 hour 40 minute time constraint, nor does AB3034 say that EVERY train has to terminate in SF. In fact, as HSR proponents are the first to point out, simply the capability of A TRAIN to hit 2:40 satisfies AB3034… by the same token then simply the capability of A TRAIN to terminate in SF satisifies.
If they run a single express HSR train per day (per week, or per month, or even less frequently), all the way through from LA to SF, it meets the wording of AB3034 – both the run time and the termination in SFTBT. Now, technically, they have to also run at least one train that stops at every station. And they have to prove (at least once) the capability to run with 5 minute headways. And they’re golden.
So, current caltrain electrification plans – two tracks – as long as it accepts at least 2 HSR trains occassionally, meets the requirements of AB3034.
What, all of a sudden proponets are big defenders of the spirit of the law? How quaint.
2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant
to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following
characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue
operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.
(b) Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that
shall not exceed the following:
(1) San Francisco-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40
minutes.
(2) Oakland-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.
(3) San Francisco-San Jose: 30 minutes.
(4) San Jose-Los Angeles: two hours, 10 minutes.
(5) San Diego-Los Angeles: one hour, 20 minutes.
(6) Inland Empire-Los Angeles: 30 minutes.
(7) Sacramento-Los Angeles: two hours, 20 minutes.
(c) Achievable operating headway (time between successive trains)
shall be five minutes or less.
(d) The total number of stations to be served by high-speed trains
for all of the corridors described in subdivision (b) of Section
2704.04 shall not exceed 24. There shall be no station between the
Gilroy station and the Merced station.
(e) Trains shall have the capability to transition intermediate
stations, or to bypass those stations, at mainline operating speed.
(f) For each corridor described in subdivision (b), passengers
shall have the capability of traveling from any station on that
corridor to any other station on that corridor without being required
to change trains.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:08 am
But Observer, sure you must be concerned on the impact terminating so many trains at san jose would have on profitability. You do want the system to make a profit right? I mean that’s part of “doing it right” no?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Not profitability – operating surplus. And a reasonable expectation of being able to operate a segment without local, state or federal operating subsidy is in the letter of the law.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Doesn’t the system have to support 5 minute headways between SF and Anaheim?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Simple answer: yes. In a terminal section, as long as you can guarantee that you can accommodate one HSR train following five minutes after a preceding one, there is arguably some leeway in mixing traffic … but that leeway is because at the SF/Anaheim speeds, a second HSR train could easily gain two minutes on the HSR it is following, opening up a slot for another train before the next slot for an HSR must be served.
Operating the Caltrain services so they can mix with the HSR trains while maintaining those headways means abandoning local Caltrain services, which would be an insanely short-sighted thing to do.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:24 am
Tell me, Observer, how you are going to get from San Francisco to San Jose in the mandated 30 minutes without doing some grade separations. It’s about 48 miles from Transbay Terminal to Diridon Station, so that requires a constant speed of about 96 mph to get from TBT to Diridon. 96 mph at grade is not very safe, not through the densely populated Caltrain corridor. Locals will flip out at the very idea.
As Jim also explains, you also need to show how the termination at SJ will impact ridership and financial viability. It’s funny how you HSR deniers suddenly stop caring about those things when it gets in the way of your latest scheme to keep HSR off the Peninsula.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
If you close the grade crossings every time a train passes, they won’t cut into speed. Even the NEC has a couple of grade crossings in 110 mph territory.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
But are they located in residential neighborhoods?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
They’re located in residential suburbs.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Just because they exist doesn’t mean that they’re a good idea.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Since when do opponents of the project care so little for the letter of the law? Isn’t the fact that Prop 1A bonds can’t be sold unless they can build one usable segment one of the major arguments that opponents harp on? So you’re going to pick and choose which laws to follow?
Observer Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Joey – 5 minute headway… Capable. Not every train, not every hour, not even regularly, not even more than once. Just like the 2:40
Robert – locals can live through anything once. Plus Caltrain alone can (and will) separate its existing two track width much more easily than a 4 track width.
Ridership – why Robert, look at the pots calling the kettle black. First of all, I expect the CHSRA to show profitability of getting PLENTY of ridership from the Peninsula into SJ via the Caltrain transfer – using the same methods as their current ridership analysis. Fake it, of course. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Although, I happen to believe a correct ridership study would show little difference – I don’t believe many people a) care if they can make an easy cross platform transfer in SJ, they’ll have MUCH better flexibility of which station they get on the system at, and MUCH better flexibility on times and frequency b) care to drive all the way to SF, intot he middle of the city, then pay exorbitant parking fees in the middle of the city – to get on the train. Not as many Peninsulan’s as you all seem to think have any reason or desire whatsoever to actually end up or start out in the heart of SF city streets. Its much more convenient to reach stations OTHER than SF – so I think an easy caltrain to HSR transfer in SJ is much MORE desirable than a trip all the way into the city. Tourists – those run through airports -so Millbrae connection just as useful (if not more useful) than trekk all the way into the city. I believe a correct ridership study taking in to account the huge benefit of avoiding the SF downtown for most travelers would show the ridership not hurt at all using the caltrain transfer method.
Thirdy – all over the last thread you guys cried repeatedly “ridership isn’t the only reason for choosing an alternative”. What all of a sudden you change your tune? I’m so surprised
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:12 am
You know, for an “Observer,” you’re not very observant. Just because people are using a particular argument (ridership) at a particular time doesn’t mean they’re abandoning their other arguments.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Also note that the following is a false analogy:
5 minute headways does actually mean capable of running a second train five minutes after any scheduled train. That’s what headway means. It does not mean that it always happens, but it <i.does mean that it always has to be able to happen everywhere along the network that receives AB3034(2008) funding.
What are they thinking? Let me get this straight, instead grade separations and upgrading the row, including, aesthetics, in order to handle all the traffic from hsr and caltrain, instead, we just run all the traffic at grade and more slowly, so that no one can ever cross the tracks, ever, between 6am and 10pm? And instead of eliminating horns, we can just quadruple their usage with the added benefit of making communities prone to death by train, even more dangerous.
But, I guess as long as the people of atherton are happy, thats all that matters. After all, they are the important ones, what with their halos and flowing white robes, and hair that smells of lavender…..
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:22 am
Sooo … what will really make the peninsula a hellhole … trying to run 20+ tph on two non-grade separated tracks, horns, bells, road closures, and all, or or a grade separated 4 track alignment with room to breathe? Hmmmm……
Observer Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Run Caltrain, as Caltrain, between SF and SJ on the Caltrain improved (grade separated, electrified) two track Caltrain. Period. HSR riders transfer at Diridon to get on to the “HSR” portion of their trip. Satisfy the requirements of AB3034 with no more than a token running of “HSR” on Caltrain tracks.
I have no idea what you’re talking about at 20TPH on Caltrain tracks – at rush hour (and I’ve sat many a weekday afternoon/evening at kids ball games in Peers park, at El Camino Park, at ) Robles Park, at Paly… There is about 1 train every 15 minutes (counting both ways) at the busiest times. There’s PLENTY of capacity to send a single HSR train through there on a saturday afternoon.
Why all of sudden would there be so much more demand for Caltrain? The idea that the mere existence of HSR creates some kind of mad dash for LA is at the crux of the real stupidity pushing HSR.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:01 am
First of all, an observant Observer would notice that at peak there are CURRENTLY 10 TPH on Caltrain (both directions added together). That means a train goes by every 6 minutes on average. Even at just 10 TPH, a single malfunction throws off the entire system as there is not enough flexibility in the current two-track system to account for failures.
Second, you’re assuming that the demand for Caltrain will not increase as the population increases. Or when the next oil price shock hits us.
Third, you are apparently choosing belief and willful blindness over logic and science if you do not see the pent-up demand for fast long-distance travel even from San Francisco to the Central Valley. It’s almost religious, you seem to cling to the belief that nothing can or will change. Change comes no matter how much we try to prevent it.
Observer Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Hey Peter, how many hours per day does Caltrain run at 10tph (both directions combined) ONLY one hour in the morning commute and ONLY one hour in the evening commute. Its the 7am hour that runs at 10tph, and its the 5pm hour that runs at 10 tph. In fact MOST hours of the day run a a whopping one or in some cases two tph
weekday tph both directions:
6am 7tph
7am 10 tph
8am 9 tph
4pm 9tph
5pm10tph
6pm 9tph
The rest of the hours in the day run at either 2 tph, or as in MOST hours of the day, they run at a whopping 1 tph in each direction.
Gee, how will we ever fit a single high speed train in to this schedule.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
We’re not talking about fitting a high speed train in once an hour or so during the non-peak times. We’re talking about six HSR trains an hour at peak times.
Who cares about the off-peak times. They aren’t the issue. And during the late morning-early afternoon Caltrain cut its frequency from two to one trains per hour each direction due to budget reasons, not because no one wanted to ride them.
We DO care about the peak times, when Caltrain and HSR are BOTH running the maximum amount of trains. And two tracks isn’t enough for that if there are any overtakes.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
HSR trains running at higher speeds than Caltrain, with different stopping patterns. Hence the need for quad tracks.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:45 am
The HST WILL run all the way to SF ! do you really believe SF/DIFI/Boxer would let a small group of nimbys and 3 small overblow towns to stop it..And SF also owns that Caltrain line along with PA and MenloPark.. Constuction may be more limted than CAHSR wants and trains might go slower or a limited amount but at least 1 to2 trains an hour will run to SF. No one will change to a Caltrain after riding HSR all the way to SJ
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Oh, and I suppose you think that the capacity to run additional trains to cope with high speed rail transfers in San José will just appear out of thin air.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Um… because under your scenario, “all of a sudden” 25 million californians will have a fast, cheap way to get to San Jose, and no other alternative to get from San Jose to San Francisco?
If, as you posit, concluding the HSR in San Jose would mean NO riders to San Francisco, then you yourself are arguing that San Jose is an unviable option.
All you need to do is admit, every time you post, “I am willing to put some trees in my backyard ahead of the economic future of 35 million Californians”, then we’ll at least respect that you’re being HONEST.
lol this is the government project that keeps on giving.
@Elizabeth
Elizabeth, our Dear Leaders have spoken. It was all just a typo, so that is reality. You may refer to true facts, but we here are concerned about correct facts.
You may have actually read the article and wondered, well gosh, was the original value 0.003 or 0.0179? Sure would be nice if the reporter actually looked it up instead of just quoting two mutually contradictory statements and letting the reader puzzle it out.
Also, you are to overlook the fact that the possibility of that particular coefficient being a typo was first raised by one of the plaintiffs in the present lawsuit.
So did threaded comments get killed or what? I make an effort to use the reply button and not stick my comment at the end like the jackass that I am, and my comment ends up at the end anyway. Oy.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Threaded comments still work. You have to use the reply button under the message though.
I couldn’t stand it anymore, I finally had to look up “coefficient,” so I’d know what all the hoopla was about… I found this:
In mathematics, a coefficient is a part of a monomial. Given any divisor of the monomial, the coefficient is the quotient of the monomial by the divisor. Thus the monomial is the product of the coefficient and the divisor. The various coefficients depend on the factorization of the monomial
why, that clears it right up! Its all about factorization. I knew we shouldn’t have closed all factories. No wonder this hsr thing is so hard.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:27 am
It’s basically just a multiplier that remains constant.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
oh, that makes more sense. thanks. So the hoopla was about allegedly changing it when they shouldn’t have, or something. Anyway all the numbers and analysis seem like overkill. Just use common sense and look around. Of course there’s gonna be a high ridership. ( alegebra is why I never went on to finish my ba. it makes my eyes glaze over. took it dropped it took, it dropped it lol)
Hey, maybe chsra threw the typo in on purpose to bait the deniers and then make em look bad….
Elizabeth Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Just to be clear -
the coefficient about frequency and business travelers was changed. It was only increased by 600%, not 6000%. Seriously people take a look at the raw data. It is not that hard.
Most of the coefficients are different, many are now out of the model, many have been added, many have been “hardwired”, we think we have spotted more typos in both original published numbers and new ones.
This thing needs a serious indepth, full access review NOW.
We put everything we get online so that we can move away from a simplistic he said, she said form of public dialogue. Take a look yourself.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I think most of us understand that. We just don’t think it’s that big a deal. It’s a model, not reality. Trying to delay the project at this point is simply a thinly-disguised attempt to kill it.
By all means, do your peer review. But understand that even a peer review would likely not change the end result at this point. Ridership data is not the only reason behind choosing a particular alignment. It’s a political decision in the end.
spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The model should probably be done by competent people or at the very least not changed without notice, but where are the business plans and traffic models for freeways that will determine whether or not they get built? They don’t seem to be that easily available.
And it’s true that ridership isn’t the only factor to take into consideration. I think most of have hoes to get to in the Central Valley. I say build it now.
JoeSez Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Model coefficients are designed to be changed, that’s why we modelers make them coefficients and not constants. When they are hardwired it usually done to adapt the model to a situation but identify areas of possible change.. Like setting a latitude coefficient in a model that uses geographic data.
The attack on the modeling and Sim is amateurish. From what I can infer, the concerns raised by the opponents are configuration management issues with the model and data files. So far nothing indicates the basic assumptions of the model are invalid which means the crticas are uninformed about the modeling literature and CAN’T attack it or they know th emodeling is valid and they’re nitpicking.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Elizabeth. The models are all meaningless because no one, not even harvard graduates, can predict the future. ITs all a lot of BS. They don’t have any idea whatsoever what kind of economy california will have 20 years from now. They have no idea what will or won’t be invented that could be life changing, or economy changing between now and then, they don’t know what kind of global situation, depression, war, enlightenment, whatever, will take place between now and then. so any analysis is basically just smoke blowing. The only thing you can do is use common sense and say the state will likely grow, a third option to cars and planes is rail, rail has been successful so far in cali and around the world, the feds are wiling to put up cash, and we need jobs, so wtf, build the damn thing. Itll either be a raging success, or we’ll manage to muddle through and find an eventual use for it either way. You can’t predict anything, but commons sense says this is a pretty good bet.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I love it how you no longer feel comfortable saying “factor of 6″ so instead you say “600%.” It’s not even true – a factor of 6 increase is 500% – but you conditioned people to think factor of 60 was so bad you have to make the current situation look like factor-of-600.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Yes, the first hoopla was about the fact that when you are estimating the numbers based on current conditions, than projecting it into a dramatically different conditions …
… professionals who have been burned before by just blindly projecting the statistical results will put limits, called “constraints” on some of the values.
And then the hoopla kicked into high gear because one number was found that seemed completely unrealistic and indefensible. So the assumption was that the MTC had been caught cooking the numbers without thinking through what the individual numbers meant.
Except it turned out that this one number was a typo – it was typed in the description of the model with the decimal point in the wrong place, so in the actual model it was only 1/10 as big as the number that the HSR attackers were using as the focus of their attack.
Anyone: If a hybrid-option on the Peninsula slows down HSR considerably, can the speeds in the Central Valley be increased? We’ve all seen the 360 mph test-TGV in action. Not suggesting HSR do that, but what about increasing speeds to 240-260 mph for the wide open sections of the system? Technically it seems possible, and would make up for reduced speeds on the Peninsula. Thoughts?
Does anyone know whether there were any significant Amtrak or regional rail delays from the snows out east? Seems like a good argument to me to reduce reliance on air travel for medium and even long distances.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
trains ran, but schedules were juggled en masses on the NEC due to turning equipment.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
What do you mean with “turning equipment”?
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
turning the equipment means the trainsets… like train 712 departs oakland, and turns at bakersfield and becomes 717 bak to oakland.
when there are service disruptions, and one train can’t complete its trip, it means it isn’t at the right place to become another train as planned, this can throw the whole deal out of whack on a busy corridor. so, they post the turns so we know whats up. a train from boston for dc may turn back at nyc as another scheduled train because the one that was suppose to be there is stuck somewhere else. plays havoc with the crews though but they do their best to keep things moving. Nothing worse than being so close to home at the end of a 4 day run and getting the call that your’e turning and going back to wherever for another 24 hours. I don’t miss it.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 12th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
If things are so bad the trains are running late they are probably so bad you shouldn’t be venturing out to the train station. If they are so bad that the trains are running late the airport is probably closed.
Things were running. Not well but they were running. Rumor, and it’s rumor, that most railroads including Amtrak “straight railed”. The rearranged the schedules so that trains didn’t have to use switches to get to where they were going.
Kinda moot when the Governor declares an emergency and bans all travel. If no one can get to the station there isn’t much of a point to running trains other than to keep the tracks clear. For instance SEPTA suspended service to Wilmington DE when Delaware declared a state of emegency.
….that is worth exploring I suppose if it’ll mollify the HSR critics, but it’s almost certainly not going to pan out in terms of ridership and finances….
It’s been studied. It didn’t make it past the second or third round of alternatives studied way way back when they were studying many alternatives.
The objective of the project is to assure mobility for Californians, by supplying millions and millions of trips. HSR is breathtakingly expensive but much cheaper than new airports and new highways. The objections to new airports or more highway lanes would pale in comparison to the objections to new railroad infrastructure.
If two tracks of Caltrain with change in San Jose is adequate the alternative doesn’t meet the objective of supplying millions of trips. If the project meets it’s objective of providing millions of trips two tracks of Caltrain doesn’t have the capacity.
They can dig out the the document summarizing why the alternative doesn’t meet objectives or they can fritter away another half million or so producing a glossy study. It will conclude that using a two track Caltrain isn’t a viable alternative.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Since some moronic State Senator or other is sure to object to the age of the study that originally showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that its an idiotic idea, it’ll be door number 2, fritter away another half a million producing a glossy study to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that its an idiotic idea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Ah, then he can campaign on what a boondoggle HSR is since they did the same study twice. Win win win for everybody except for the “let ‘em use Caltrain” crowd.
It does open up the possibility of very very carefully simulating traffic in 2030. Send a crew out to each grade crossing and have them trigger it when a train would be passing through. Some wire and alligator clips so they can short the track circuit and fool the gates into thinking there is a train on the tracks. A used horn, tank of compressed air to operate it and some hearing protectors. I seem to remember that two tracks can handle low teens in each direction when it’s running mixed traffic. Closing the crossings 28 times an hour instead of 10, in the middle of rush hour…. I give it three days before the whole Peninsula is up in arms. The “let ‘em use Caltrain” crowd won’t be convinced but the mob coming at them with tar, feathers, torches and pitchforks would at least get them to shut up.