Who Will Get the HSR Stimulus Funds?
Although we had expected the question of who gets the HSR stimulus to be settled by the FRA when the awards were made last month, we now know that was just the start of an ongoing process to get those funds translated into steel in the ground. California has either $1.825 billion or $2.25 billion in federal HSR stimulus funds (depending on whether or not the $400 million for the Transbay Terminal is counted as part of the $2.25 billion grant), but it’s apparently up to the CHSRA and the governor to determine how those will be split up among the eligible corridors – San Francisco to San José, Merced to Fresno, Fresno to Bakersfield, and Los Angeles to Anaheim.
Speaking after Thursday’s CHSRA board meeting, Rod Diridon suggested that the question over which segment gets the funds means the Bay Area segment has to “catch up” to the rest of the state, as reported by Mike Rosenberg:
California High-Speed Rail Authority board member Rod Diridon said after a San Diego board meeting that of the four corridors eligible for the federal cash, the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim section was clearly leading. He said the corridor is about 18 months ahead of the San Francisco-to-San Jose section in terms of planning.
“We’re going to have to catch up (in the Bay Area),” said Diridon, one of two Bay Area representative on the board, which is in charge of divvying up stimulus funds. “That doesn’t mean shortcut — shortcuts are deadly.”…
At the very least, he said they would “put a lot of pressure” on the Bay Area engineering team to maintain its schedule. In the Bay Area last year, the state extended a public outreach process by 30 days and its critical report on track alignment, originally scheduled for completion in December, now will be out in March.
The larger staff would not necessarily accelerate the process past checkpoints, only ensure planners don’t fall behind schedule while holding all the public hearings they promised, Diridon said.
Diridon’s caution against “shortcuts” is important here, and the timeline proposed is fair, though work will have to be done to ensure that Context Sensitive Solutions doesn’t get tossed aside in the process. The need for economic stimulus and jobs in the Bay Area is still desperate, and there is every reason to believe we can balance that with the need to run a fair and thorough public input process.
Of course, the mere mention of “catching up” is causing concern on the Peninsula that it might indeed mean cutting corners on public engagement:
But many officials and residents in the Peninsula and South Bay have pushed for the opposite, hoping to slow down the process to make sure each detail is tirelessly examined. They already fear the White House stimulus grant awarded last week will spark the authority into a mad dash that could result in oversights and critical errors. The state needs to enter a construction contract by September 2012 or lose the federal money.
Some of these voices were heard at the Palo Alto State Senate hearing last month, calling for a delay of the stimulus so that more time could be taken to assess the project and possible ways to build it, including Palo Alto mayor Pat Burt.
Such a delay is unnecessary. The engineering team working on the Peninsula is going to publish its Alternatives Analysis next month, and preliminary outreach to stakeholders about that analysis are already under way. That analysis will help clarify many questions and uncertainties about the project, and provide for a more focused discussion. That discussion may not be any less contentious, but it will be more productive in that there will be something more concrete (literally and figuratively) to look at, to examine, and to help provide feedback to the Caltrain/HSR project.
One of the most common and notorious ways to kill a project or an idea one dislikes is to study it to death. That can’t happen with high speed rail. At the same time, the people of California, no matter where they happen to live, deserve the ability to provide input and have their voices heard about the project proposal. Additionally, there is the commitment to a CSS process that must be respected.
There is every reason to believe those commitments, those obligations to receive public input, and the need to produce solid plans can be done in time to meet federal stimulus deadlines on the Peninsula – if the present timeline and schedule is kept.
A spirit of honest collaboration may be slowly starting to emerge on the Peninsula. High speed rail is going to happen. Let’s hope all the parties on the Peninsula, including the great silent majority of HSR supporters, are able to work together to ensure this gets built in a way that fits the community’s needs.
Get used to studies. If Whitman is elected governor there is no way she will be able politically to just wink at Bechtel. The entire CHSRA project will be subjected to independent scrutiny.
Think about it. There is no way in hell the residents of the more affluent towns of the Penisula(more than just Palo Alto)are going to accept the berm abomination. Even if their putative political leaders sell them out to CSS bs, the locals will soldier on and become more outraged as the true dimension of disruption become clearer.
Eventually professional polling(and some election results)will elucidate Peninsula opinion. My guess is that the consensus will come down to the hsr should just terminate in San Jose or fall back to Altamont.
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Altamont doesn’t solve any problems and San José is just plain stupid.
Dave Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Actually Altamont does solve problems, just not San Jose’s. 580 commute over the Altamont is the second most congested in the Bay Area.
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Well in that case Altamont needs real commuter rail and not intercity trains.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
and a livermore bart extension and improved ace service are both on the way- and can be completed much sooner than starting from scratch with altamont hsr and a new bay crossing. It would take 20 years to get a bay crossing approved if at all.
Samsonian Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Small improvements to ACE still doesn’t come close to meeting the need in that corridor. Something the Altamont Overlay can take care of. If you think that isn’t worth the cost (speaking of BART to Livermore), consider this:
BART to Livermore is out of control on cost.
http://transbayblog.com/2009/11/10/gearing-up-for-livermore-and-altamont-part-1/
I previously thought it’d be worthwhile if Altamont happens, and it’d fill out that missing link in the transit network. But it’s $3-4 billion depending on the alternatives into downtown Livermore (with ACE intermodal), and that’s pre-blowout costs and schedule that’s happened to every BART project. Keep in mind this is only 5-13 mile link, and largely at or above grade (only 1 alternative includes a subway section). Like with BART to SJ, this is makes no financial sense.
Altamont HSR/Overlay is around $5-6 billion, and it’s far faster, capable, and longer, connecting Stockton/Modesto to the Bay Area, those communities in between, and hosting Bay Area-Sacramento HSTs.
What about that link between Dublin/Pleasanton BART and ACE/Altamont HSR?
The Transbay Blog entry above, and Rafael have mentioned a real alternative. The Iron Horse Trail, an abandoned rail line parallel to I-680, from Concord to Pleasanton could be reactivated and put back into rail service. Coincidentally, it runs right by Pleasant Hill BART and Dublin/Pleasanton BART, so intermodals at those locations shouldn’t be any difficulty, and can rejoin the ex-SP ROW into Livermore. And thankfully unlike other abandoned rail ROWs, this ROW is largely preserved and publicly owned.
Although, it’s current owner is the East Bay Regional Parks District, and it’s currently used as a bicycle and pedestrian trail. There might be issues in putting it back into rail service, including political turf fight, NIMBY-ism, and bike/ped trail users revolt.
Of course there’s still UPRR issues with regard to the ex-SP ROW, but in concert with ACE/CHSRA’s Altamont Overlay, I’m confident they can be overcome. And BART running lightweight DMUs on a revived Iron Horse Trail rail line, with timed transfers, would cost far less, and deliver far more transit than a “conventional” BART to Livermore extension from Dublin/Pleasanton BART.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Whitman is a republican and not a celebrity. She is un-electable.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
That is what I thought about Ronald Reagan when he was first elected governor. I could not believe they could elect that guy.
Jerry Brown is carrying his own baggage. And I can’t see Feinstein entering the race as it would be two billionaire aging ladies, a too obvious illustration of our dysfunctinal political system
And I can’t either Whitman or Brown backing out of debates. Whitman would certainly bring up the hsr, as it is a major issue for her base. Dan Walters is a spokesman of Republican conservatism and the fact that he has sunk his teeth into the CHSRA guarantees that this will be a major campaign issue. Jerry Brown will be forced by the machine to favor Bechtel, a position that will not be popular in his East Bay home territory that saw its Altamont route axed.
Bianca Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Right, because super-wealthy businesspeople-turned-politicians have done so well running for statewide office in California. Just ask Al Checchi, Steve Westly, or Michael Huffington.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Even if most all the candidates are independently wealthy in every election there will still be a loser. But the winner will generally be rich or on the take.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
In a debate between brown and whitman on the subject of hsr and the jobs and federal funding it brings, brown wins because 1- we need jobs and 2- californians already approved hsr.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Great point. I hope Whitman has the same fate they did. Unfortunately I worry she is not only opening her wallet, but spending her money wisely, investing it in smart campaigning. Huffington, Checchi and Westly all basically thought if they spent enough, that would be sufficient to win. It wasn’t, and if Whitman is spending $100 million AND spending it wisely, then I am indeed worried.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
So far whitman has been ads that seem compelling on the surface but problem is she is oversimplifying the issues. There isn’t one thing she has mentioned in the ads, that she can actually do as governor. Further, there is the other side of the coin to the issues brings up, and the other side of coin is all the people in california, none of whom, when it comes it “their” stuff, are going to allow anything to be cut and once the ads against her start, further into the campaign, that will be made clear. We just saw how someone who said they could go to sac and blow up boxes and bring sweeping change, failed. So another person, promising to do the same thing is going to go over like a lead balloon.
What will win is someone who says ” I can go to sac, navigate, and work together with everyone to get california into the 21st century”
Remember californians approval of high speed rail was in the 70s% before the economy went bad, and still passed at 52% even in a bad economy and budget crises. What that says is that, budget aside, californians overwhelmingly support high speed rail.
Now if you want to run a sleazy campaign and try to capitalize on peoples fears, you can do that. But one, it will show what a sleaze you are and two, its likely to backfire as people are just as fed up with sleaze as they are with recession.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:17 am
But Ronald Reagan WAS a celebrity.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:38 am
At the time Ronnie took a lot of flack along the lines of “What’s a b-grade movie actor know about being governer?” Deukmejian and Wilson weren’t celebrities – but they were tied in to the big money.
Meg Whitman could very well beat Jerry Brown and she will not be able to ignore the growing number of critics of the hsr without really alienating her political base.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Whitman couldn’t govern without alienating her base, either – California’s tax situation calls for reforms that the Tea Party people won’t like.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
synonymouse, you write as if berms are always bad, and as if the only alternative to a tunnel is a berm.
Clearly, when a residential suburb is on one side of the corridor and a busy thoroughfare is on the other side, an excellent design for benefiting from the improved access across the rail line while remaining visually protected from the thoroughfare is for the track to be located toward the thoroughfare side, with some form of wall, and a landscape berm to face the residential suburb.
Through the “town center” of an area, obviously an arial structure with commercial/professional space underneath is better than a berm, and better than an existing right of way at grade, but on a per mile basis, a busy thoroughfare on one side and residential property on the other at least as common as a town center scenario.
And of course, its not one long elevated path all the way through the Peninsula towns, but a number of fairly short elevations with the majority of the corridor at grade, so there’s no impediment to the design solution for a segment located in one town following one design pattern, and the design solution in another town following a different design.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
One of the objections to tunnels is entrance and egress gradients. Your elevated to surface concept would also require gradients.
Personally I question the whole concept of berms in seismic territory. They risk subsidence and high track maintenance costs. Elevateds with deep pylons would not subside any nearly as much and would not require constant trackwork. BART elevateds are mostly all open concrete structures. There’s a reason for that.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:18 am
You’d only have subsidence problems if you don’t build them right. By now engineers have kind of figured these things out.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Have you studied berm use in Japan and Spain at all? No. So stop spreading FUD.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am
synonymouse, you sound like there is static on the line between you and your sources of information.
Part of the issue with entrance and egress gradiants is that you have to go further in vertical distance when going down then when going up, so a tunnel normally is longer than an elevated structure when both are clearing a road that is crossing at grade.
As others have already pointed out, the claim that there are no construction standard suitable for berms built in seismically active areas is simply a bold-faced lie. Whether its a lie because you are misleading or because you have been misled – that’s really beside the point, isn’t it?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Such a “consensus” would assume Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer accept it.
I see ZERO evidence to indicate that would be the case, especially after Pelosi and Feinstein pressured the USDOT to give $400 million to Transbay.
Do we know when the Anahiem to Union Station segment will be ready secure funds for construction? Basically, the date/month/season when ARRA funds provided to California will need to be assigned in order to start major steps…. purchase any ROW, utility relocations, clearing sites, and construction?
I suspect this date will be the deadline that the Peninsula segment will need to meet in order to get a large share of those funds… this assumes a strategy to use project readiness as a measure to assign funds.
Note… I am not saying project readiness would be the only measure.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Note that the full 2010 and 2011 budgets in the Business Plan for the program planning and the first year of design and build for the four segments can be covered by the ARRA grant, and its the 2012 timeline that needs to be sorted out – and if there are contingencies, those contingencies spelled out in the benchmarks in the funding agreement.
Also that at least one of the Central Valley segments must be pursued to avoid all segment completion dates slipping, since test track is needed.
With $1.85b program funding and funding for the four segments, spreading the funds evenly across all four segments won’t allow release of any AB3034(2008) bonding authority. Limiting the northern segment to pre-ROW acquisition activities and applying for the balance of half of its cost for the next round of HSR funding would be a straightforward way of proceeding, since the Anaheim / LA segment is further advanced in planning.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Bruce: You had better re-read AB-3034 and the requirement that full funding be available before any Prop 1A funds can be released for a segement or corride
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Bruce: You had better re-read AB-3034 and the requirement that full funding be available before any Prop 1A funds can be released for a segement or corridor
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Isn’t that what he was talking about when he said “spreading the funds evenly across all four segments won’t allow release of any AB3034(2008) bonding authority” ?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I reread it. Its not full funding for the whole system that is required, its full funding for a segment – and its not full funding exclusive of the state bonding authority, but full funding inclusive of the state bonding authority.
The ARRA funds are no-match funds under the Congressional appropriation, so there is ample flexibility in how the benchmarks are set up. There is plenty of funding in the ARRA appropriation to fully fund half of one or both of the CV segments, and either one or both of them fall well within the authorized state bonding authority.
The original request was for enough to fully fund half of all four corridors applied for, so nobody can say that the statements regarding California being able to match Federal funding dollar for dollar were in poor faith – but under the bonding authority, it might end up more like 75:25 on this go round.
If it ends up being 75:25 on the level of funding that was allocated, that’s not even a bad thing, as in our economic system its the Federal government that has the best capacity to engage in long term investments in urgent national defense and economic risk priorities like having an alternative to petroleum-dependent technologies for intercity passenger transport. California gains quite useful leverage if it actually ends up with a 75:25 or 80:20 match on a segment rather than the 50:50 match which is the maximum allowed under the proposition.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
It is fully funding to make a segment or corridor usable for HSR. Now the budget for LA to Anaheim does not include electrification or PTC as examples. In the Bay Area, the budget doesn’t include anything other than electrical, not the full grade separations and tracks, stations etc.
So, yes they can spend the Federal funds as they wish, with Federal approval, but Prop 1A money has other restrictions, and none of the proposed applications, resulted in full usable segments or corridors, which is the necessary condition for Prop 1A bond funds to be released.
This restriction as I have written so many times, was inserted to make sure bond funds expended would result in usable HSR segments, not useless fragments.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Yes, it is full funding to (1) make a segment or corridor usable for HSR and (2) allow a service to be operated without required subsidy. A 110mph express CV service would work for (2).
You may have written about it so many times that you are remembering the way you have been arguing that it is rather than the actual terms of the actual AB3034(2008). It was quite clearly written to allow development of a segment that can be put to use before the full Stage 1 is finished.
I understand that you’d misrepresent it to say otherwise, but you can’t bullshit me on that issue, since I have access to the same text that you have access to.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Ok Bruce: cherry pick what you want — this is what I am referencing: Prop 1A is a High Speed Rail bond measure — segment to be useful for HSR, and utility is not meant for just passenger service, but HSR passenger service.. In any event this will be decided on a mugh higher level than you…
Section 2704.08 …
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level
environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
(d) Prior to committing any proceeds of bonds described in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 for expenditure
for construction and real property and equipment acquisition on each
corridor, or usable segment thereof, other than for costs described
in subdivision (g), the authority shall have approved and
concurrently submitted to the Director of Finance and the Chairperson
of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the following: (1) a
detailed funding plan for that corridor or usable segment thereof
that (A) identifies the corridor or usable segment thereof, and the
estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable segment
thereof, (B) identifies the sources of all funds to be used and
anticipates time of receipt thereof based on offered commitments by private parties, and authorizations, allocations, or other assurances
Observer Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Bruce, the segment has to have 100% of the funding for that segment identified before any AB3034 can be appropriated.
It also has to result in a completed segment (including 2 stations and everything in between).
It also has to be suitable for and ready for HIGH SPEED RAIL operation. (Testing completed, signaling finished, etc)
AND it has to be ready to turn over to a rail operator for revenue operation.
AND it has to have ITS OWN ridership and revenue projection showing that it will be break even (not require any subsidy) in its own right. (Good luck with this)
AND it also has to have 100% of its Project EIR work and environmental clearances COMPLETED and be shovel ready.
The 100% funded plan includes ALL of the following:
(A) The corridor, or usable segment thereof, in which the
authority is proposing to invest bond proceeds.
(B) A description of the expected terms and conditions associated
with any lease agreement or franchise agreement proposed to be
entered into by the authority and any other party for the
construction or operation of passenger train service along the
corridor or usable segment thereof.
(C) The estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or usable
segment thereof, including an estimate of cost escalation during
construction and appropriate reserves for contingencies.
(D) The sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor, or
usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those
funds based on expected commitments, authorizations, agreements,
allocations, or other means.
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based
on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or
usable segment.
(F) All known or foreseeable risks associated with the
construction and operation of high-speed passenger train service
along the corridor or usable segment thereof and the process and
actions the authority will undertake to manage those risks.
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be
completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and
ready for high-speed train operation.
(I) One or more passenger service providers can begin using the
tracks or stations for passenger train service.
(J) The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor
or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or
federal operating subsidy.
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level
environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
Now it could be true that they could use federal funds to complete minor projects here and there without any AB3034, but until ALL AB3034 conditions are met, they’ll not get any AB3034. So, if federal funds are contingent upon matching – then thee federal funds are not going to be usable either.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Except for one claim, that summary is all true, though of course I hope you are not going around pretending that any of that is any substantial obstacle – those are things that both should be and can be done.
What it implies as a binding constraint is that if segments are fully funded sequentially rather than in parallel, one of the two CV must be in the first tranche, since without one of the two CV segments on track for completion, the required test corridor will not be available.
So while you are phrasing your remarks “as if” you were correcting what I said, you are, in fact, simply confirming what I said.
Of course, anyone can tell that one part of the “summary” is misrepresentation, by simply reading the actual text quoted below:
It does not have to be turned over to a rail operator. The text is:
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Observer has it right. Bruce, the restriction I post, will have no effect if full funding is procured, before construction on the segment segment or corridor begins. That’s the way I read it, and so do many others.
(the text editor here is driving me nuts — I give up trying to post more at this time)
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
This is a fine rhetorical trick: state one circumstance in which the restriction posted will have no effect. Just let people presume that the restriction will necessarily have effect if full funding is not procured, before construction on the segment begins.
Yes, it is true that if full funding for a segment is procured, as defined, including AB3034(2008) bonds for up to half of the total, and the balance of the conditions are met, then construction may begin.
Construction may also begin if funding to begin is procured which does not require tapping AB3034(2008) funds, since the restrictions in that section are restrictions on the use of the AB3034(2008) funding.
The ARRA grant is ample for program planning costs for 2010 and 2011, segment design and build costs for the four segments applied for through to 2011, and the balance sufficient to meet the minimum external funding requirements for the Merced/Fresno segment.
An alternate strategy would be to focus the ARRA grant on final design and ROW acquisition across the four segments, and work toward full funding of segments, allowing access to 3034(2008) bonds, in later rounds of Federal HSR funding.
It will be interesting to see which tack they take.
Of course, they will be working with the DoT to work out the approach, benchmarks and criteria, and sadly for the HSR deniers, the DoT now wants the HSR in California to succeed. It was so much easier to imagine roadblocks being through in California’s path back when the DoT was being run under an aggressively anti-rail vision of the future of transport in the US.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I guess your approach means the Feds won’t care how the money is spent. I guess you think the wording in the various stimulus funds applications, wherein is described the work to be performed can just be cast aside. I guess you feel the Feds won’t enforce any restrictions, such as the promise that Prom 1A bond funds would be used to match the Federal funds on a 1:1 basis.
I suppose anything is possible with the Federal funds, but since the stimulus funds were to stimulate jobs, I don’t think using these funds for land acquisition would be met with much favor in Washington.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:03 am
(1) How would this be the conclusion:
(2) Only on the tacit premise: “If the Feds negotiate with the CAHSR a set of terms for release of the ARRA funds and benchmarks and criteria for completion that are compatible with the terms of AB3034(2008), that means that they don’t care how money is spent”.
(3) Because otherwise, there is no reason to make that guess.
The first point you raise is a point in favor of some available options and against one.
The second point is just silly: of course the Feds will not hold the authority to a match ratio that required full funding of the segment applications in order to achieve – they knew that full funding of the segment applications was required in order to get the 50:50 match when they decided how much of the California application to fund.
Your basic premise in this is that the DoT was incompetent and uninformed about the terms of AB3034(2008) when it made its decision: that they were just twiddling their thumbs and then threw darts at a dartboard to make the allocation. My premise is that the people who were employed for months in evaluating these applications were in fact doing there job and that the DoT knew about AB3034(2008) when it made its decision.
I’ve seen a lot of comments about Whitman the past few days. Has HSR became a central issue in the governor race? Has Whitman made any statements on her feelings on HSR? I haven’t been able to find any statements on HSR from any of the candidates–but posts seem to suggest that a Whitman election would be counterproductive to HSR.
San Jose Mercury:
Bullet train ridership numbers don’t add up, watchdog says
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14348826
From what I have read here, most posters had better go much deeper thinking about the ramifications of what this revelation on the ridership forecast imply and what the consequences will be.
Certainly don’t take the spin being put on this by the CHSRA.
The local Bay Area papers, Daily News, Daily Post, now the SJ Mercury and others, giving front page coverage to this item.
Tomorrow, Sunday Feb 7, at 9:00 AM it is my understanding that Elizabeth Alexis and Pat Burt (Palo Alto Mayor) will be on KPFA radio. (94.1 FM — I believe they also webcast live)
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
They seem to be accusing the authority of using faulty methods but all that aside, common sense clearly says that 41 million per year is no where near an outrageous unobtainable number. all you have to do is break is break it down. YOu don’t need any kind of study to show that.
41 million per year
112k per day
4600 per station ( based on 24 stations)
195 pax per hour
48 pax boarding per train (based on 4 trains per hour)
Do you really think its unrealistic to expect 48 people each train in 2030 in a state with a population in excess of 42million or more?
Joseph E Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
42 million a year is only 1 round-trip per every two people. I already fly or take Amtrak about 6 times per year, as does my wife, my kid and pretty much all of my friends here in Long Beach (most fly Southwest or Jet Blue several times a year).
With oil production peaking and demand for cars increasing every year in China and India, I think the cost of flying or driving will have gone way up in 2030. CAHSR did not model for peak oil in their projections. And even the EIA thinks oil will have peaked by 2030!
Unless peak oil causes the end of Western civilization, people like me will be wanting to travel to visit family and to do business at the other end of the state, and electrified high speed rail will look very attractive in 2030.
I think we will beat the projections, due to induced demand, taking over almost all the need for in-state flights, and shifting over half of drivers out of their cars and onto the trains in the corridor.
What mode share do you think HSR will get? Why don’t you think the projections are realistic, when other countries have seen similar results even with cheap oil?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:08 am
And given peak oil – and the uncertainty about peak oil is whether we have already reached it or whether we reach it in the coming decade – when the HSR is available, there will be a strong incentive to take vacations somewhere along the HSR route rather than flying out of state. That another form of mode shift.
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Another article of vague assertions and no evidence. If they think that conditions have changed such that ridership should be recalculated, then the should AT LEAST say what those conditions are.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Since an arbitrary “change in conditions” is as likely to result in an increase in projected ridership as a decrease. If they redo the car survey, and are talking to drivers who have experience a severe price shock within the last three years, rather than three decades ago as in 2005, it would be unsurprising if the results result in higher mode share split estimates.
In which case the denialists will start accusing the CHSRA of rigging the numbers. Because their conclusion is fixed and immutable, used to select the evidence they consider, rather than the evidence driving the conclusion. People like Cox and O’Toole, whose income depends upon being against large rail projects.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
That’s precisely their plan, Bruce. They want to accuse CHSRA of rigging the numbers and use that to stop the entire project. Their argument is that ANY flaw in the ridership numbers proves the whole system is flawed and must be stopped.
Observer Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Morris, might this new information be usable in court? In the same court that already heard the Atherton lawsuit?
It seems like potential evidence that much more of the EIR than simply the UPRR issue is invalidated.
Could the same judge order the whole EIR throw out, throw out the Pacheco/Altamont decision, and halt the project level work halted pending new and independent ridership studies?
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I don’t see much new information. People have been criticizing the ridership numbers since the dawn of time, so that’s nothing new, and that article certainly doesn’t convey any meaningful information.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Observer: I am not an attorney, but all your suppositions seem possible to me
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:25 am
But ridership was only one of MANY reasons why the Pacheco/Altamont decision was made. Need for a new Bay crossing with all its glorious environmental impacts, environmental impacts along the Altamont alignment versus those for Pacheco (with the US EPA and Army Corps of Engineers both agreeing that Pacheco is better), etc.
It may be a viable cause of action, but it does not mean the result would be any different. The likely end-result would be that the Authority would have to redo the numbers and the analysis. They could still go with Pacheco if they wanted to. It would just mean further delay, not an end to the project. But that’s what you want, anyway.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Pacheco or Altamont, the only thing we know for sure is that a study has to be done again, and it wasn’t the NIMBYs or the “deniers” that did it, it was the MTC. The least they could have done was publish their changes. Announce the changes. Put out a press release. Just say something about it. They can’t even throw their own supporters a bone.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Well, there’s the perfect venue for that study to be put out: The new Draft SF-Merced Program EIR is supposed to be released soon. I’m pretty confident (maybe overly so) that this new issue will be addressed in it. Just describe the ridership numbers, explain how they got them, put out an explanation for why they differ, what the implications are, and be done with it.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Am I the only one who finds it odd that KPFA would do a show with Alexis and Burt but not include an HSR supporter for balance? (It doesn’t have to be me.)
As to the ridership data, this is something we’ve been hearing about for some time, and certainly warrants further review. But we also need to not jump to conclusions, as the article seems to do. Was the coefficient change enough to throw the entire ridership projections into question? What is the actual impact of the tweak that is at issue here?
What worries me is that this looks like the “if there’s any flaw or change to any element of the projections, the entire thing is invalid” argument, which is itself flawed. I’d prefer a close examination of the issue by a range of experts, who can tell us 1) whether there is actually a problem here and 2) what it actually means for the overall projections.
If there is a problem, and if it were the result of a deliberate desire to put a thumb on the scales, heads would need to roll. Even then it wouldn’t prove the system is a bad idea, just that the ridership numbers might need to be recalculated.
I know HSR critics want to pick apart the projections, since they know they can’t stop the trains using any other arguments. We should resist the desire to play that game, while at the same time ensuring that everything has been done properly, that all the numbers do add up as expected.
My assumption for the last few weeks has always been that the Legislature would likely order new ridership projections to be made. If these numbers do date back to 2007 and earlier, new projections will almost certainly benefit HSR and show it is indeed financially viable, since there has been a significant and sustained nationwide increase in passenger rail ridership since 2007.
Nadia Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Judge Quentin Kopp was scheduled to be on the show, but he pulled out. We understand that Robert Doty will be there as a panelist.
For the record, CARRD is asking for exactly what Robert is suggesting – that there be close examination by a range of experts and that we figure out what this all means. We are also requesting that this happen in a public forum to assure transparency and integrity of the process.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Whew, that’s good to hear that Doty will be on the show.
spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I should have taken more classes on statistical analysis, haha.
spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Maybe in a year I can tell you what is going on with this, haha.
Clem Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
This may play out very badly for the SF – SJ segment.
If I understand correctly, the ridership model was improperly goosed to impose a huge penalty for lower frequency of service (as would result from the “train splitting” between SF and SJ under the Altamont option). If you recall, “train splitting” was a key argument against Altamont. This effect was so pronounced that ridership for an Altamont to SJ + SF (split in Fremont) did not generate any more ridership than Altamont to SJ without any service to SF whatsoever.
With the Bay Area – Central Valley EIR being revised, there will be another window for lawsuits, as provided under CEQA. A new lawsuit based on this emerging information could go very far, if it does turn out they cooked the books to make Pacheco come out on top.
It’s going to get interesting.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
The reality is that the current project will not continue with the current leadership and some people may even go to jail. That’s pretty much the bottom line. I was skeptical about the rumor, but it is more damning than anything ever levied at this project.
My dream of shitting at 220 MPH through the Central Valley will have to wait until I am 70, and by then I might not even be able to hold it in anymore.
Hopefully the feds will take pity on us and let us divert the money to more worthy projects, such as getting the Pacific Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquins up to speed.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
No, this will be made to go away.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
How so, jim? The company that did the study is saying that MTC elected not to update the ridership model. Unless the memo is fake, I do not see how the CHSRA can recover from this. “Oh, we changed the model a bit.” Who the fuck does the MTC think they are? The experts, who were paid to study this thing, are at Cambridge.
The sad part is that the project probably would have been great if they just included the update information from Cambridge.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Now we get nothing. No Pacheco. No Altamont. Nothing. The project is likely to be set back years.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Itll be ok. Its all going to work itself out. You’ll see. Relax.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Haha, I am relaxed. I care about a lot more things in life than high speed rail. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
This is certainly an interesting scenario Mr. Spokker. You seem to have done some deeper
thinking.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
anyway all they have to do is hire some one else to figure out what the ridership will be, and once its determined that the numbers still make hsr viable, then big deal. how long does it take to do the math? a week?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Jim, it takes longer than a week. What would take it past a month would be to do new surveys … but of course, if they do new surveys, from people who experience the 2007/2008 oil price shock, and after the hassles of airport security theater have had a couple of more ratchets, that would risk being more favorable to HSR than the 2005 surveys, so the opponents of HSR won’t want that.
Obviously, if they expected that new ridership surveys would be to the disadvantage of the ridership estimates, they would have been clamoring “take new surveys” for months now.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
In reality, california shouldn’t even exist, yet here we are with one the worlds largest economies. You have to have more faith the in magical powers of back room shenanigans which make Cali@ viable against all odds. I have complete faith in these magic powers cuz its been that way my whole life. Just close your eyes and concentrate real hard. and one day when you wake up, there hsr will be! just like they said. Trust me, it always works out that way. It just does because it has too.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
and just to perk everyone up….. the chron did a poll today and it shows 65% still in favor of high speed rail.
Observer Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
y-sure. Nothing like an unscientifically collected survey to cook results… Survey of San Franciscans’ – do they like public transit? LOL. Good one.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
observer – its not san franciscans who were polled. most of the chron readership is not in san francisco. one only need read through the comments sections on any articles to know that. most of the crhon readership is most of norther californian – outside san francisco.
and the comments sections of any article skew far to the right as well.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Most of the Chronical’s readership certainly is in SF. Further a poll like this is worthless.
However, if you want to believe any of that, just remember that SF went pro HSR at a
79.2% yes level in the 2008 election — this poll would show a reduction of 15% from
those numbers.
Regarding the SJ to SF segment:
Its important to let peninsula residents know that with about $12 billion in funding now available that trying to delay the project is futile. Rather than wasting time arguing they should spend the remaining time giving their input as to how they want HSR implemented in their area and whether they are willing to pay extra for tunneling/trenching. The message should be clear: HSR is coming. You can help shape it or be or be “a martyr”. The time for nitpicking is coming to an end. Its time to put concrete and steel on the ground.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Spain is reported to being committed to cutting spending by $70 billion. I wonder how much of that is coming from AVE.
No, it is Caltrain-CHSRA which will be martyred.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/05/news/economy/financial.hotspots.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
AVE is already operational and, as I’m sure you are aware, profitable. So maybe they won’t be expanding the system as much in the near future, but that doesn’t keep it from operating.
Funny thing though, the USA has been INCREASING HSR spending in the recent past, not decreasing it. Guess someone over here is finally starting to see the value of public works projects and infrastructure.
Nathanael Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Spain is not going to cut back on AVE at *all*. Why? Because they have two types of projects:
(1) projects they’ve already started building
(2) projects which link up disconnected hunks of already-built or in-progress AVE lines.
They’re more than a little stuck: the only rational thing to do is to finish all the planned projects — anything else would be extremely wasteful, and unlike in the US, Spain’s government isn’t totally stupid.
If funding survives, they will find a way to declare Anaheim to Los Angeles as working with “independent utiliiy” so that they can build it here. Public Works head Natalie Meeks told the HSRA Board on Thursday that the Anaheim ARTIC station is already planned for underground HSR capacity, and earlier this week Anaheim city staff pushed through an affordable housing project on the HSR line. When questioned on the location, City staff told the residents that HSR is going underground in a tunnel beneath the Colony District, and they can build anything they want. Did anyone really think this would turn out any other way? Anaheim to Los Angeles will get built….even if the rest of it dies. And as long as they do not take out my beloved home town, Curt is welcome to it. But given the news that MTC’s Cambridge ridership report is less than complete, and the audio of Medhi admittting contractors are getting gifts and trips, this thing is going to be killed in the press, careers will be ended by this one.
morris brown Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I missed Morshed’s comments on that. Can you provide a link?
Observer Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
CARRD website, under Transcripts, Jan. 6th Meeting (Conflict of Interest committee meeting), transcript. Look esp at Morshed’s comments.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“City staff told the residents that HSR is going underground in a tunnel beneath the Colony District, and they can build anything they want.”
They realize there’s a heavily used freight, Amtrak and Metrolink line there that will be at grade for the foreseeable future right? Hope that new development likes horns! Oh, and exhaust fans from tunnels in the middle of the night. That shit is like the sound of children laughing. Good work anaheim, you saved a train station from being moved (again), and now you’ll get to enjoy the sound of horns all night long forever. I’d be willing to pay the extra money just to see these idiots have to deal with this crap in perpetuity, but I actually have friends who live along this line that are being screwed by your shortsighted fearmongering about ED.
If you actually cared about the people near the lines, you’d be campaigning for full grade separation, not a tunnel.
Oh, and the line is coming to the surface level before it hits Artic, so your “ARTIC station is already planned for underground HSR capacity” is complete bullshit.
Spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Even if HSR didn’t exist those rail lines are going to be seeing a lot more trains and a lot higher speeds if rail boosters get their way, and they’re going to want grade separation just like Lincoln got.
And they won’t be the electric trains, they’ll be the lumbering diesel trains complete with horns. Quiet zone, hah.
Kevin Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 9:08 am
and now you’ll get to enjoy the sound of horns all night long forever.
Except for the fact that OCTA is already doing the engineering work to turn the 50′ stretch into a quiet zone. Or did I miss the super-secret provision that stops that work if HSR foamers don’t get their way? Your faux-concern over horn noise is as touching as my fellow Anaheimers’ attempted fearmongering over the NOISE! and VIBRATION!! that we’ll see if HSR is run at-grade. (As for the noise from exhaust fans, how often are they going to have to run the fans for a ~1.5 mile tunnel that’s traversed exclusively by EMUs? We aren’t exactly talking the Holland Tunnel here.)
As someone who lives directly across Citrus Park from the ROW (no hand-wringing on behalf of ‘friends’ here), I’d actually be fine with the at-grade option as presented in the LA-Anaheim Alternatives Analysis. But now that the CHSRA’s fine army of consultants wants to blow that proposal out by at least an additional 25′ (so that they can accommodate all of the crash walls, utility easements, drainage strips, etc., etc., etc. that are apparently essential to modern HSR), I don’t hold out much hope for PB putting forward a palatable at-grade solution. Call me a selfish NIMBY bastard, but I’m not too hot on having my neighborhood park completely destroyed because some hack at PB doesn’t think that four tracks can fit into an 85′ wide stretch of ROW.
dejv Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:46 am
The american diesel freight trains at 80 mph are louder than existing HS trains at 125 mph. The same goes for vibration. You know, those trains must be comfortable at all speeds up to 220 mph. How do you want to achieve that if they’re rattling at 125 mph?
They’re not. Drainage can be merged with walkways/refuges for rail personnel, crash walls are unnecessary if freight wagons are inspected before they enter this constrained section and utility easement for OCS poles and noise barriers isn’t wide. Legal requirements are more demanding than technical ones. See this Clem’s blogpost.
Kevin Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
dejv: I didn’t say that I believe that HSR will bring about excessive noise and vibration; in fact, I’ve used the same basic argument as you in speaking with my neighbors. I was just saying that crying “the horns! THE HORNS!” to advocate for the necessity of grade separation (esp. when quiet zone crossing improvements are already in process) was as compelling as others crying out “the noise! THE NOISE!” to advocate for a tunnel.
And while I know that two HSR tracks don’t require a 61.5′ wide ROW all to themselves, neither you nor I nor Clem work for the CHSRA or PB — but unfortunately, one guy who does happen to believe that works for PB as the engineering manager for the LA-Anaheim segment. You’d think that being presented with a constrained ROW would inspire these guys to come up with some creative engineering solutions to minimize the necessity for ED takes, but you’d be wrong.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
This segment doesn’t need a crash wall. I don’t know why they are proposing one. It’s just 110 MPH. Does the Northeast Corridor have crash walls?
Colony Rabble Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:08 am
First of all I am not saying I planned any of it, I am telling you what City staff is working on here in Anaheim. They are moving forward, and spending money, on an assumption that it goes deep bore, and anyone at the HSRA Board mtg Thursday at SANDAG saw the presentation by Natalie Meeks showing ARTIC with an underground boarding area below the at grade Amtrak line. If that assumption is incorrect, her boss was in the room, in the Chairman’s seat, and he has plenty of opportunity to correct that assumption before Anaheim money gets spent.
Had the At Grade remained in the ROW as presented at scoping, they would not have had as much push back, although in all scenarios there is the issue of surrounding historic homes having unreinforced masonry and united foundations that are subject to vibration. But the alarm in Anaheim is seeing how often these buggers change the scheme, and run none of it past the residents and stakeholders. Yeah, it pisses us off to be told what others are doing TO us without our input. Wouldn’t it bug you? Since when is it unAmerican to defend one’s home or business?
Now of course they have me irked to no end, and as I look into the project as a whole I find problems that i would like to see addressed as a California taxpayer, far beyond my residence in a city that is affected.
The numbers do not add up, the consultants are arrogant, even with Pringle, and I resent my tax dollars paying them for incomplete work. Why is that so hard to understand?
Give me real numbers, show me how this pays for itself, and give me a solid plan for how this fits communities not only my NIMBY back yard, but in communities along the route who know even less than I do. Then and only then will I submit to sacrificing “for the greater good”. But signing off on this thing with questions in the air is stupid.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I would like to remind you that the at-grade option has not been officially eliminated yet, even if the authority and the city of Anaheim seem to be aggressively pushing the underground option.
Oh, wand by the way, if those homes can withstand the vibrations of the fright and heavy passenger trains that rumble by currently, then they will have no trouble with high speed rail. Lightweight electric passenger trains don’t generate much vibration, especially at low speeds.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Not to mention that they most likely won’t be any louder.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
And they would lose all the historic ambiance of having a train in suburbs that grew up around the railroad….
Why hadn’t the DTX tunnel been planned more like this?
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.844124,-117.999913&spn=0.003192,0.002951&t=k&hl=en
This route seems like it’d be about the same price, but a lot faster in terms of travel times than the current DTX plan. Also, a deep-bore seems like it’d be a lot less disruptive, especially since it’d be going under an urban area.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
OK, nevermind, the map doesn’t work. I’ll just describe it. Instead of having trains turn right towards King Street Station, why don’t they construct a deep-bore tunnel that starts under 7th street and gradually turns towards the Transbay Terminal. It seems something like this would allow for significantly faster travel times. Also, there’d be a lot less wear and tear on the bogies since trains wouldn’t have to make the sharp turns required in the current DTX plan.
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
You’d have to avoid Moscone Center, which extends a few stories underground and blocks most of the possible approaches.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
You could easily avoid hitting the Moscone Center. When the alignment comes out of the Transbay Terminal, it could continue in a straight line avoiding the Moscone Center, and then start gradually turning south after 4th street.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
moscone center is under mission and howard. there are huge convention spaces under there and they are all connected together and to the hotels next door. I guess is you go deep enough you could go under that too?
HSRforCali Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
How deep are these corridors exactly. Too deep for a deep-bore tunnel even?
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
well you can see some nice pics here It was a ginormous excavation when they started it, and it seems they never stopped adding more and more convention space to it over the years… sort of the winchester mystery house of convention centers…
off the top of my head id say youd have to bore down – and you know, under the foundationsadn pilings and such, at least 100 feet or more below the surface. I dont know how deep the foundations go.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
So the tunnels even go under Yerba Buena Gardens?
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Yerba Buena Gardens is right on top of Moscone. It extends all the way from Mission to Folsom on the block between 3rd and 4th.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
is this what you were thinking? I don’t know why they couldn’t.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Not exactly, but your diagram does help to show off-limit areas. Starting from Transbay, couldn’t the tunnel swing to the right a little bit to go around Moscone Center under Mission Street? Then it could start gradually turning south after 5th Street.
Joey Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Seconded.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
ah yes, thats an idea too, but again the convention halls – not just the connecting tunnels are UNDER mission street. so you’d have to dive down however deep to get under moscone’s foundations, but… as far as making the turn south at the corner of mission and fifth – youre in luck because that corner only contains a garage – granted a very very huge and vital garage… but its old, and could be rebuilt, or whatever if you had to take it out. leaving a nice space for a curve….
HSRforCali Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Geez, you’d practically have to plan 50 years in advanced to get a high-speed rail tunnel through Downtown SF.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:17 am
yeh blame it on the pro growthers and their damn “we have to have density” blathering. they’ve have sneakily gone around sticking things just everywhere. Otherwise we’d have some nice big spaces to choose from… but noooooooooo, we have to have more people and more stuff and more buildings everywhere. “oh oh look a blank spot quick! fill it in before we all die from having too much elbow room!” yep. its their fault. I tried to stop them, and now look at the mess.
I call for an aerial approach. all the “future city” movies have aerial transport zipping between the high rises. so why not.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“all the “future city” movies have aerial transport zipping between the high rises. so why not.”
I think those are mostly airspeeders. Unless you’re referring to the el in “The Incredibles.”
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:08 am
you’d have to decide whether to go over or under the central subway on fourth as well. which will be pretty deep – well, you’d have to go under it cuz you’d have to go under the moscone halls as well so lets see – that tells us how deep…. since central subway at that point is getting ready to dive under bart on market… and bart is three stories down – so central subway will be four stories down, so hsr would have to be 5 stories down and since its 2 stories down at tbt, it would have to leave tbt and it would have to dive 3 addtional stories down in about 2 blocks. I guess that would work. ( of course according the recent posts the project has been cancelled anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter)
hell id rather see them put the whole thing on an aerial from 4th to tbt anyway so we can have a view of the city upon approach. Id put it on a high aerial along the 280 extension and up 6th. thats my hood, that area is protected though. hell they could put it in my basement for that matter.
HSRforCali Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:17 am
I like that idea! Imagine approaching tbt and seeing a panorama view of the SF skyline. Too bad Rincon Hill would fight it like crazy.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:19 am
EXACTLY!!!! hello? tourism!! its our number one thing! and our city is far to gorgeous to not gaze upon.
So the first segments in the US will be Anaheim and Orlando. HSR appears to be a theme park extension.
Question: I have heard that the 3 options for an intermediate stop between Union Street and Anaheim are Norwalk, Fullerton, and my fave None. Any word on this?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Right now there’s only one option for an intermediate stop, Norwalk.
Roger Christensen Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:00 am
If Metro builds Norwalk Green Line extension to the Norwalk HSR station there would a direct light rail connection to LAX. However this is not an adopted Long Range Plan project neither is it eligible for Measure R funds.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Yeah, the Green Line extension could provide a case for Norwalk that nothing else could. But I wonder if it’s really going to happen…
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:45 am
I’m not saying Norwalk-with-no-connecting-transit is a good option. I’m just saying it looks like the final decision has been made, and Norwalk will get an HSR stop.
Samsonian Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I don’t know this area that well, but I gather that many aren’t hot on a Norwalk station.
I thought main reason for this alignment was to have a station at Fullerton, on the way to Anaheim. If we aren’t going to have a station in Fullerton, why are we even using this alignment at all, especially if they’re trying to foist a billion dollar tunnel on state and federal taxpayers in the Fullerton-Anaheim section with no station in Fullerton?
There’s 2 rail ROWs to the south. 1 of which is ~1 mile south parallel to I-5, which could still have a station at Norwalk and then cutover to the rail ROW along I-5. It’d need to use I-5 ROW to get across that last bit to ARTIC.
The other rail ROW is a few miles south, apparently unused/abandoned, that can also be used. It’d have to pass through Disneyland to get to ARTIC in Anaheim, but I’ve heard they might be cooperative.
I recall various options like this in the Alternatives Analysis. LA-Anaheim may be more advanced in planning, but it seems it’s lagging in rationale.
spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Here’s somewhere where the CHSRA isn’t totally corrupt! Just a little bit, though.
The abandoned ROW you mentioned is the old Pacific Electric right of way to Garden Grove, I believe. It’s arrow straight and would be perfect for HSR, if not for all the low to middle income resident areas that would just kill us on the environmental justice front. This was studied and rejected.
The I-5 alignment was previously studied but rejected for cost. It would have required an aerial above the Golden State Freeway the entire way.
Disney will not be cooperative on any project.
The tunnel isn’t being foisted on Anaheim, but some Anaheim residents are demanding a tunnel. It isn’t the 40 mile long tunnel that the Peninsula wants, but it is expensive as hell. I want to see it built at-grade if it’s built at all.
But the entire Anaheim-LA segment is a big waste of time and money. The funding could be better spent upgrading the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner to 110 MPH speeds without those fucked up flyovers and tunnels. Building HSR between Anaheim and LA will not give Metrolink and Amtrak the kind of benefit Caltrain will be seeing on the Peninsula.
The money maker is LA-SF, if it still has a pulse, that is.
Samsonian Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:48 am
I’ll try to re-read the Alternatives Analysis for LA-Anaheim section when I get the chance.
But I stand by what I said earlier: If there’s no station in Fullerton, we should consider a different ROW.
I don’t know exactly why CHSRA excluded those alignments, but if the reasons you listed are why, I don’t think they’re good enough.
Wrt ex-Pacific Electric ROW:
Just because poor people live in neighborhoods around a former rail ROW, doesn’t mean they have an environmental justice claim. I don’t think any eminent domain would be needed against them for that alignment, and a station somewhere along that area would also be possible. And even if Disney was uncooperative, they’re a single, private, corporate landowner, the state could force an elevated line through.
Wrt I-5:
I don’t think it’d need to be elevated the whole way, just the part in Anaheim. You’re they probably rejected it for cost reasons, but that was before Pringle and Anaheim NIMBYs started demanding a Fullerton-Anaheim tunnel on everyone else’s back. Even if the whole I-5 alignment had to be above grade, aerials are still cheaper than tunnels.
spokker Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:55 am
Force an elevated line through Disneyland? What?
BruceMcF Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Among the first segments – they still need a CV segment to test the HSR trains.
not just the tunnels under ybc but thats hall D a the most ginormous hall of all!
not that diagram does not include the new moscone west portion – on the west side of 4th, and also the corner that looks blank in the lower right half, is the sony metreon mall.
Getting back to the topic of the blog entry, who gets the ARRA funds?
If the CHSRA is the one getting it (including the $400m for TBT “train box”), and they are given wide latitude to fund the segments, does it mean they could not fund TBT train box?
I hope so, because a poorly “designed” hole in the ground, that won’t be used for a decade, and fails to serve both commuter rail and HSR, just isn’t worth $400m. That’s $400m in HSR money that could be used to build actual rail and grade separations that can be used immediately.
Then again, USDoT will probably give the money straight to TJPA, perpetuating and rewarding their failures for short term political reasons.
And so the saga continues.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
No TBT box, no TBT train station. SF politicos recognize this reality. Remember Kopp and BART have opposed this tunnel project for 2 decades.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
The billion dollar bus terminal is being build with or without the trainbox, regardless of what Kopp and crew have to say about it.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
That’s correct. In fact doesn’t the teardown start this year?
synonymouse Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Of course the new TBT will go ahead. But if there is no box included now there will never be a station constructed later. Just too expensive and too much disruption. Kopp and BART know that.
If a tunnel is built in Anaheim, it prevents the current tracks from every being grade separated.
Oh please spend most of the money on the Central Valley.
(1) They actually want it.
(2) It will actually be high speed.
(3) It’s genuinely ready to go.
(4) It will create the necessary push to connect it to one or the other end.