Deputy AG: Prop 1A Forbids Ending HSR in San Jose
In what is described as “informal advice” provided by Deputy Attorney General George Spanos, the California High Speed Rail Authority has been advised that the proposal of ending the HSR line in San José and forcing SF-bound riders to transfer to Caltrain to complete the journey is not permitted under Proposition 1A, approved by voters in November 2008. The full letter is included below via Scribd:
For NIMBYs who have argued that the CHSRA’s 2009 Business Plan is “illegal” because it floated the possibility of revenue guarantees to turn around and propose ending in San José is the height of hypocrisy. (I’m not a fan of those revenue guarantees, and if Prop 1A indeed banned them, then that would be a solid argument against their inclusion in a financial plan. Just so we’re clear.)
Of course, there are other reasons to oppose ending the HSR route in San José aside from the inconvenient truth that Prop 1A forbids it. Ridership would plummet since many riders won’t want to transfer to a commuter train that lacks the on-board amenities of HSR, and would traverse the SJ-SF route at a slower speed, increasing the travel time. And with less ridership comes less revenue, making it much more difficult for the trains to cover their operating costs and repay private investors.
Let’s hope this puts an end to what was always an unproductive discussion. HSR will traverse the Peninsula to serve San Francisco. What remains to be determined is exactly how that will happen – above-grade? In a trench? In a tunnel? Some mixture of those? That discussion is going to intensify considerably once there are actual alternatives put on the table, hopefully at the end of this month. And that is the discussion that matters most.
About time this silly idea is washed out..Maby they heard some voices up here in SF ..the city that voted 74% yes on Prop1A ..that was more yes votes than the entire population of the 3 nimbys cities combined. And yes real options need to be looked at not hair brained ideas that only try and stop the upgrading and life safety grade seperations that are badly needed
I believe this informal legal opinion would amount to a “fatal flaw” for the idea of ending HSR in San Jose. Next stop: up the peninsula to SF.
Mr. Diridon’s October 6, 2008 presentation to the Palo Alto City Council. (one month before the election)
Councilmember Pat Burt: “How much latitude would exist in the route and the system should Prop 1A pass?”
Mr. Diridon: “The route that has been identified by the Program Level Environmental Review is a band. Now the band is currently overlaid for our area on the Peninsula roughly parallel – paralleling – the Caltrain system. It’s probable, I’d have to suggest it’s probable, not impossible, that we would use the Caltrain corridor. It’s probable that we would look at a 4-track system. Though we’re going to also have to look at nothing in the corridor. Not going any further north than Gilroy or San Jose. We’ll also be required legally to look at a two track system or a four track system. So all of those will have to be examined. So whether they be in a tunnel, whether they be in a trench covered, whether they be in a trench open, whether they be on grade or even elevated will have to be studied. And you’ll be taking part in that. Your staff will be deeply involved in it.”
Evan Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Yeah…that’s nice and all, but I think the text of the bond measure — which Californians voted for — matters a little more than two sentences Ron Diridon spoke in Palo Alto.
Rafael Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:14 am
Rod Diridon has proven a less than 100% reliable source of hard information on this project. While his gaffe in this instance is embarassing to him and to CHSRA, it does not constitute a legal opinion but rather, a political one.
He is right to point out that CHSRA still needs to articulate why 4 tracks all the way is absolutely necessary. After all, AB3034 states that northbound HSR trains must serve SF TTC, i.e. without a transfer to Caltrain in SJ. However, the bill does not require that they must run on dedicated tracks to get there, nor that each and every northbound train into the Bay Area must reach SF. It would be legal to terminate a subset of HSR trains in San Jose, e.g. because there’s not enough capacity at the Transbay Terminal or, because SJ ends up generating more and SF fewer boardings than CHSRA’s ridership models predict.
Any plan for making do with just two tracks (except at stations) in the SF peninsula would present at least the following issues:
- multiple regulatory hurdles thrown up by FRA and CPUC related to mixed traffic, platform heights etc. Waivers are rarely granted, especially if a major freight railroad such as UPRR raises objections. CHSRA is proceeding on the conservative assumption that the “rule of special applicability” require to run off-the-shelf lightweight bullet trains at up to 220mph will only be available if its entire network is dedicated to HSR. The best approach to identify what regulatory relief may actually be possible would be for CHSRA to spend some prop 1A funds on two headcounts for senior FRA and CPUC liaisons dedicated to California heavy rail projects. These would be based in the same room right next to CHSRA staff in Sacramento.
- accelerated wear and tear on track geometry due to US-style super-heavy freight trains and legacy Caltrain passenger trains. (Floating) slab track might fit the bill, though additional engineering work on metal fatigue of both rails and HSR train suspensions would be needed to verify that.
- CHSRA, Caltrain and UPRR would have to agree on a single PTC implementation for signaling in the SF-SJ corridor. CHSRA is reportedly forging ahead with off-the-shelf ERTMS technology from Europe, while Caltrain remains enamored of its very risky bid to develop its own CBOSS system. UPRR hasn’t tipped its hat yet, FRA has given legacy railroads until April 1 to do so.
- CHSRA and Caltrain would have to integrate their timetables very tightly and quite possibly, agree to substantial impacts on their respective business models. For example, Caltrain might have to switch to EMUs with unusually high acceleration (e.g. well over 2m/s^2 at rest) and replace the present local/limited/baby bullet service mix with a simpler one in which any given Caltrain will stop only at every other station (but always in SF, SJ and the mid-peninsula HSR station).
Even then, CHSRA might have to accept a lower speed limit, e.g. 90mph, during Caltrain rush hours. That would add roughly 10 minutes to the SF-SJ line haul time of HSR express trains. Note that AB3034 only specifies that SF TTC to LA US must be possible in 2h40m, it doesn’t say this has to be the case at all times of day. During Caltrain’s off-peak hours, the speed limit could be raised to 125mph.
Commuter rail planners have a rule of thumb that every minute of line haul time gained or lost amounts to roughly 1% change in ridership. Conservatively extending this rule to HSR service between SF and LA and factoring in CHSRA (debatable) daily boardings estimates for SF peninsula stations, I reckon reducing the speed limit during peak periods only would reduce total ridership on the fully built-out HSR network by just 2-3%. Unfortunately, that number would include a lot of lucrative business travelers, since they tend to leave early and return late so they can spend the entire day at the other end of the state. WiFi on board could ease the impact on revenue and profits, which would otherwise be more severe than the one on ridership numbers.
These negatives would have to be weighed against reduced construction costs in the SF peninsula and reduced risk of delays related to various forms of litigation incl. eminent domain/reverse condemnation suits. Delays would entail construction cost escalations, both due to design changes and to inflation in that sector. Public funding is not indexed for inflation. Delays would also lead to indirect opportunity costs for the wider economy.
That said, it’s not at all clear that SF peninsula NIMBYs would be any more willing to accept aerials and retained fill berms just because they’re only half as wide. Note that even in a two-tracks-except-at-stations scenario, there’s not nearly enough money in the kitty for tunnels through suburbia.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
HSR should do just fine with business travelers. Most airports have curfews that makes it difficult/impossible to travel downtown to downtown by air before business hours begin.
mike Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Actually, it’s possible that they might be required to study a “no build alternative” to benchmark against, even if such an alternative were not legally, technically, or economically feasible. Someone with detailed knowledge of NEPA or CEQA would have to comment here.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
They examined the no build alternative, years ago when they selected the Caltrain alignment. It’s not a viable alternative.
For those of you wondering what Robert is talking about when he refers to revenue guarantees, we have a little primer on the controversy – http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CARRD-Revenue-Guarantee-Packet-2010-March-1.pdf
Interested to hear what people think-
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Revenue guarantees for private funding debt are a difficult area. They are intended to replace farebox profits in the event that those cannot cover operating costs as well as debt, but you can’t classify them directly as operating subsidies either. In the end, I think that guaranteeing private investment with public money would probably be deemed legal if it were pushed, but we don’t want to end up like Taiwan.
Brian Stanke Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
I think the whole controversy is a good reason to reduce the private financing of the project and push it as far back into the construction phase as possible. How to replace it? Government-backed loans or revenue bonds:
Federal loans or federally-backed revenue bonds, and
State loans or state-backed revenue bonds
If the state is going to take the downside risk ANYWAY through a revenue guarantee, then why give away the upside? A government backed loan would have lower interest rates and the state gets to keep the upside profit if the revenue comes in according to plan. The profits can go into funding the extensions rather than being drained off to pay the private investors.
Even better, if the ridership is off the first couple of years the state and Feds can wait around until the system hits its stride in year 5 or 6 then starting collecting on the loans. That is something a private investor could not do, see Taiwan or HS 1 in Britain.
Brian Stanke Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 pm
To add to this. I believe that the “private” Nevada HSR project is looking to mostly or completed be funded through a Federal government loan. If they can do it why can’t the CA HSR Authority take out a similar loan? It should be much easier to get Federal money when you promise to pay them back rather than taking a grant.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 am
The funding of Eurotunnel is the example of what should not be done.
UK prime minister M. Thatcher insisted that “not a penny of public money” be spent on it. So, there was no EU guarantee. The venture was thus considered high risk and rated accordingly. Shares were subscribed by public institutions and many individual investors. 350 banks were involved and their dealings with one another (transiting through Cayman Islands, for instance) were so opaque that it made any auditing impossible.
Then, rumours were spread that the tunnel was bankrupt and shares were in free fall. Banks kindly bought them back at a fraction of their initial price. When that operation was completed, shares miraculously began to regain value, and Goldman Sachs is now the majority owner of Eurotunnel.
So, refusing state guarantee ended up costing the public billions.
Anything that is currently illegal can be made legal by changing the law. Something called democracy.
But for something entirely different, here is a novel Grapevine alignment. That is if the link works:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,40287,40405#msg-40405
lyqwyd Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I read the link, but it seemed rather vague. How much time would it save as compared to the route through Palmdale?
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Is there a cost estimate associated with this route option? (and I mean something concrete)
Joey Reply:
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 pm
And do you really think that anything as nonsensical as terminating in San José would make it past voters OR the legislature? (take a step back and think about how that looks to someone who doesn’t live on the peninsula).
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Hate to break it to you, but if you actually look on a map and sketch out what he’s talking about, that’s not a “grapevine” alignment, it’s more accurately a variant of the tehachapi alignment with a more western crossing to the high desert. It only saves a few miles off the authority’s chosen route while adding many miles of tunnels and skipping a population of 500k potential passengers.
I also hate to break it to you, but that route from Bakersfield to the High desert was part of the tunneling report. The Authority’s version is slightly different in that they tac eastward to allow a station in Palmdale (it makes no sense to skip a high-desert station when you’re only a couple miles out of the way), but the crossing between the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave Desert are the same as what is proposed by your friend. They refer to it as the “Aqueduct/SR-138″ alignment, and while it could cross the San Andreas Fault at-grade, it would have to cross the Garlock fault in a tunnel.
So to recap: benefits over the chosen alignment: 5-10 miles shorter (not the 40 you keep crowing about). Drawbacks: 500k fewer passengers served, approximately 2x as many miles of tunnel, and the need to cross a major fault line in a tunnel.
Keep f*cking that chicken syn.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
The Garlock fault issue can be deat with as has already been done sucessfully elsewhere:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,40287,40544#msg-40544
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Did you bother to read the rest of the issues discussed above?
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Eliminate the Palmdale dogleg completely and you’d be getting back to the vicinity of 40 miles saved. The PB map shows what a gratuitous detour Palmdsle represents. Regional rail is more than adequate for Palmdale.
Or you could build both the detour and the bypass routes.
But all this controversy will pale by comparison to the conflict that will break out over the Palo Alto berms. CHSRA intransigeance will force many relatively sympathetic to the hsr concept over to the kill-the-whole-project-outright side.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Nobody has ever said that it can’t be dealt with, just that the cost isn’t worth the trouble when you can cross it at grade by going 10 miles out of the way.
You’re arguing in circles. First you complain that the route should go over the grapevine, then you find a guy who says the line should go through the high desert but skip palmdale, and you use it as an example of why the grapevine alignment should be chosen, when in fact he’s not advocating that at all, then when it’s pointed out that this person’s base-tunnel across garlock has already been studied and dismissed in favor of a 10-mile longer at-grade route, you go back to claiming that the line should go over the grapevine.
Your friend over at the other blog just validated the tunneling report from the CHSRA by pointing to the tunnels BART had to dig over the hayward fault: they had to build large chambers, just like CHSRA says they would have to do over garlock. What’s more, the margin provided by those BART chambers will be completely used up within 50 years of their construction, requiring new tunnels and new chambers, and all that on a line that only has to cross the fault at 50mph, not 200mph, where the curve radii of that warped track must be much greater.
jimsf Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
While you could ask the half million folks in the antelope valley to use metrolink to get to LA, has it occurred to you that perhaps they would like to be connected with the whole state, south AND north? And that they are just as deserving to a north south single seat ride as any other population that size. Sacramento will have single seat ride access to all points. san jose will, sf will, la will, the IE will, san diego will, fresno will, every 500k+ region will. Why not them?
elfling Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
(Well, the North Coast won’t. But that’s a quibble.:-) )
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 12:19 am
(elfing, anyway 220mph is way to fast for stoned folks.)
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The main issue with a tunnel through a fault line is not the shifting over time requiring the bore to be modified, but the sudden shift in the fault line in a major earthquake. Your altamontpress article did nothing to explain what would happen if a major earthquake happened. I.e. tunnel shut down in both directions for however long it takes to reconnect the sides of the tunnel, possible disaster for whatever train is transitioning the tunnel in the direction of the fault line.
Why in the world would you bore through a fault line if you don’t have to? Just because BART has done it, and I’m not sure whether BART even HAD any other options for that route, doesn’t mean it should be emulated anywhere else. It’s just, well, stupid.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
A quake of the magnitude you are anticipating would certainly cause collateral damage in the vicinity that would involve closing down the line for repairs anyway. See Tehachapis quake of 1952.
BART was correct in opting to tunnel thru the Hayward fault. A direct line is worth the risk and expense, especially when the alternative, a lengthy detour, has been proven historically to run similar seismic risks.
The Palmdale dogleg was a gerrymander insisted upon by LA to benefit real estate developers. The principle has already been established(the Berkeley BART subway)that special, extra features shall be paid for by the demanding party. Ergo let LA County pay for the side trackage to Palmdale and the CHSRA build the express bypass well to the west of Palmdale.
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
And that damage would be repaired quickly, versus months if not years for major damage to a tunnel bore.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Pure guesswork – no way to know in advance the extent of future seismic damage that will occur on any of the alternative alignments from LA to the San Joaquin Valley. The White Wolf fault wasn’t even considered dangerous prior to the 1952 quake.
http://www.data.scec.org/fault_index/whitewol.html
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“no way to know in advance the extent of future seismic damage that will occur on any of the alternative alignments from LA to the San Joaquin Valley.”
Yet another reason to go with an at-grade alignment.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
It’s not just crossing faults in tunnels.
It’s the absolutely crapulent geology — barely cohering remnants of massive holcene landslides and other goop that hardly qualifies to be soil — in the Grapevine corridor that ought to be avoided, even at the apparent expense of a longer route, for very sound risk reduction reasons — risk in operation and in constructiion.
As far as I can determine from a lot of non-professional but careful reading, CHSRA got it right on Palmdale. Whether this was done for good reasons or political ones or random ones or kickback ones I can’t say, but whatever they were they appear for once to have coincided with sound geotechnical and project risk management ones.
The arguments for reconsideration appear to be limited to “it doesn’t look straight on a map”.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Sorry to be so contrarian but yes it doesn’t look straight on a map. That would have been acceptable in the 19th century before autos and airplanes but circuitous in the name of risk aversion would be a mistake now. Yeah it is worth construction difficulties for a more direct route.
Something other than straight that looms on the map – the route thru Tehachapi goes thru a whole lot longer mountainous territory. And who knows but what the hoary UP route might be sitting on the spot most prone to damage, close to the White Wolf fault. 1952 was a 7.7.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Longer, but a lot less treacherous terrain. The Tehachapi alignment would duck in and out of short tunnels while the Grapevine alignment would likely require base tunnels. And for the record Tehachapi adds roughly 12 minutes to the express line-haul time.
And why are you so certain that it is “worth construction difficulties”? I don’t see you doing ridership studies, or getting cost estimates, or for that matter, consulting anyone who knows a thing or two about tunneling.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
By the way, have you ever actually seen either route, either with photos or having actually been there? You can tell the difference in the terrain just by looking.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Yeah, I’ve been over both routes. To my mind the general area of the Grapevine is a no brainer. Let’s boldly go where no rr has gone before. Let Herr Herrenknecht give it his best shot.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
So I take it you were unfazed by the sharp peaks, deep valleys, and terrain that even a freeway struggles to traverse?
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
That’s more my recollection of the Tehachapis route. The Grapevine is just two long grades tht like to overheat old “över the hill”cars.
Base tunnels – good; berms in affluent suburbs -bad. California can afford two base tunnels..
It’s true that the initiative requires the end of the line to be the Transbay Terminal. But the Peninsula route isn’t necessarily a good idea. I would have argued that the presence of both the Capitol Corridor and Cal Train would have allowed CAHSR to connect the Central Valley with Oakland’s port and SF and then quickly cross the Altamont Pass.
Doing this would also make the “revenue guarantees” less cryptic. Quick service between the Valley and Oakland would allow the HSR operator to carry freight and limit the need for operating subsidies. The “revenue guarantees” could then focus on spot-market esque derivatives which the state would buy.
(Goldman, on behalf of HSR buys a futures contract for a commodity used by HSR like oil. Then as the price spikes on oil, the state pays the operator the difference between HSR ticket prices paid by individuals and the new cost per passenger from the price spike…what the HSR ticket price should be if it passes the total cost of the commodity increase onto consumers. Goldman will no doubt use its position in the ICE (International Commodity Exchange) to lure CAHSR into the highest possibile prices for futures contracts all while extracting these revenue guarantees via derivatives.)
Eventually, the ridership forecasts will come true for HSR…but it’s very likely that the operator just like an airline will have to look at carrying passengers, freight, and even mail to break even. And if the latter two are considered, the Peninsual route doesn’t look very attractive….
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:06 am
High-speed freight is a small business in France and Germany, and not a business at all in Asia. The cost advantage of freight rail comes from the fact that it requires little infrastructure; US freight railroads make a profit by running on tracks at low speed and with lax track geometry and as little signaling as possible.
HSR isn’t your grandfather’s railroad, or an airline. It makes money on passengers, not goods.
dejv Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
> US freight railroads make a profit by running on tracks at low speed and with lax track geometry and as little signaling as possible.
As I already posted on Clem’s blog, this can be strong incentive for BNSF and UPRR to use ETCS L3, developed on top of ERTMS Regional (under development) and proven end-of-train devices. Combined with spring switches, they can abandon all trackside electronics, saving a lot on operating and maintenance costs. It also allows moving block signalling, that they would more than welcome at bottlenecks like Tehachapi Pass route.
In urban areas with high rail density and all signalling and interlocking features already developed, they could use ETCS L1 as a PTC overlay to the existing infrastructure.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
and when is ERTMS L3 going to be ready? If ever?
dejv Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
When there’s demand for it. ERTMS Regional is lightweight L3 (with relaxed train integrity detection, precisely the area that american RRs have no trouble with thanks to FREDs), currently being implemented in Sweden.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Okay, what operational need do North American railroads have for level 3? Level 2 can cope with the traffic on the lines for decades if not forever.
dejv Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Level 2 needs axle counters or track circuits, level 3 does not. On line sections with spring switches, it means that carriers woudn’t have to install any trackside electronics. The only new stuff on infrastructure side would be GSR-R (that could reuse portions of existing radio infrastructure) and RBC’s, avoiding need to install, power and maintain axle counters and track circuits in vast spaces of American West.
Second L2/L3 difference is possibility of inexpensive moving block signalling, bumping capacity at bottlenecks with no additional cost, unlike multiple-aspect automatic block.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Except it has turned out in the real world that the costs of balises (for position reporting)
and even axle counters (or track circuits, in the FRA Third World) are pretty much down
in the noise compared with the astronomical system development and deployment costs of any sort
of moving block, communications based, life safety critical system.
As for bottleneck capacity, it has turned out in the real world that it is far cheaper to just
install short blocks at such points (upgrading legacy signalling systems with limited numbers
of speed limit signal aspects when necessary) than it is to pay the penalty of radio based
moving blocks. In some theoretical limit of sub-wavelength or Planck-scale positioning perhaps
there’s some theoretical capacity increment available from the latter systems, but in the real
world it turns out that sub-100m scale blocks are all that’s needed.
There are a ton of industry and academic reports — and titanic, multi-billion failures to deploy –
which attest to all of this. It turns out that good enough is, in fact, good enough.
A large part of the job of competent engineering management is to recognize and
enforce such applicable and low-risk solutions.
Summary: communications based train control and vehicle positioning has turned out to be
a solution in search of a problem. But snake oil salesmen are always in search of dim-witted
marks. (And in the case of Caltrain’s funders, have certainly found one.)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 9:27 am
PS I have no sufficiently informed opinion about the applicability or otherwise of ERTMS/ETCS
to the US freight system.
However it is perfectly adequate for the CHSR+Caltrain (independent of freight, unless you’re a particularly corrupt or stupid or mendacious consultant and agency functionary), just as it has been recognized as being perfectly adequate for high speed and regional systems around the world.
Don’t borrow trouble. Learn from others. And go along way out of your way to avoid people with bad track records.
dejv Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
With L2, most of infrastructure for moving block is already in place. There is one missing piece – the train integrity detection system (something that european trains lack, unlike american freights with FREDs) and one hurdle: to exploit L3 advantages, all trains must be ETCS-enabled. Two more notes to you first paragraph:
1) L2 and L3 needs exactly the same fixed balises. IIRC, they’re RFID-based so they don’t need any power infrastructure
2) track circuits are similarly antiquated technology to steel wheel on steel rail.
Radio block will certainly be more expensive if there’s no infrastructure for it while infrastructure for conventional signalling is already in place.
So you’re against ETCS? Vehicle positioning is key element of all ETCS levels (via balises and odometry) and communication for stuff like movement authority and speed profile are defining points of L2.
As for the L3 development, the Swedish are doing it in light-weight form (minus train integrity detection and moving block) – based on times of L1 and L2 teething, they should be done around 2012-13.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Hi dejv,
I don’t think you’re using L3 ETCS and “communications based” in the sense that the rail industry does.
L2 ETCS (and L1, and very promising L1-LS coming courtesy of the great engineers of SBB-CFF-FFS) is a solution for a real set of problems and is being deployed at an increasing rate and world-wide. It’s not optimum for everything, but it’s good enough, and deployment risks are comparatively low and decreasing, all of which count for a lot, where “a lot” is measured in hundreds of millions of dollars/euros/rupees/etc.
L3 ETCS (and moving block systems, and self-reported vehicle positioning, which is a life safety critical function) are, for practical mainline rail engineering purposes, technical solutions in search of problems and anybody with any sense (and people without any sense who got badly burned) gave up on them long ago.
I’m only passingly familiar (ie Googling, and dodgy ability to decade Swedish) with Banverket’s proposal, but I think you’ll find that tight moving blocks aren’t involved, and that it’s still a research level project (ie shouldn’t be even considered locally, just as CBOSS shouldn’t be.) The target lines appear to be extremely lightly used and remote ones without any existing block signalling where deployment of any new fixed infrastructure is a significant expense; I suggest to you that such costs aren’t even worth thinking about in the context of CSHRA or Caltrain budgets. Maybe somewhere on a freight shortline in the midwest, but as I said above I haven’t thought enough and read enough about what the real US freight requirements are to even express an opinion re ETCS outside 99+%-passenger new service in California.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:17 am
Not counting subway, is there even any rail system in Europe that uses moving block signaling apart from the Berlin S-Bahn?
dejv Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 2:12 am
In this thread, I was writing about freight RRs. It would be insane for CAHSR and Caltrain to use anything else then ETCS L1/L2 or DS-ATC – technologies proven in similar deployment environments.
For freight RRs of american west, it is different story. They’re very remote and they’re not electrified. This means that any new thing to be powered is going to be costly. Quite similar condition to european non-mainlines with few key differences:
- usual remoteness of american west is matched only in few european areas like northernmost Scotland
- remote european lines are legacy tracks with small amounts of traffic while remote american lines are core bussiness of BNSF and UPRR
- there are no deadlines for PTC deployment in Europe
Yes, lack of moving blocks and train integrity detection are said to be two main differences between full L3 and Regional. I don’t understand much swedish either which isn’t helped by usual lack of information during development of such systems.
dist Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 2:26 am
@Aaron:
Yes there is, the central part of Paris RER A. This should be renovated and extended to other RER line in the near future.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
High-speed freight is not meant to replace trucking, but air freight. An example is the Fedex-La Poste partnership. La Poste uses Fedex’s international links, Fedex’s airfreight containers are taken care of once they have arrived at Paris CDG airport, which is Fedex’s European hub.
The scenario they imagine for the future is this: from CDG, the containers will be loaded on high-speed trains specially designed for airfreight containers and despatched to all European destinations. That would give Fedex a European penetration that it doesn’t have, so far.
Unexpectedly, trains would, in many cases, deliver freight faster than planes because they can run at night, while curfew regulations oblige airports to close.
Unfortunately, their project has hit obstacles and can’t reach the bigger markets:
- UK: narrow loading gauge and absence of high-speed lines.
- Germany: pseudo-technical hurdles. In fact, DHL and BundesPost, which have a de-facto monopoly on the German market wouldn’t be too happy to have to compete with Fedex-LaPoste.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Realize that in the US, air carriers are required to ship for free US Mail. As air travel becomes more and more expensive, the Post Office is going to need to figure out a way to still get goods long distances. CAHSR’s dizzying current alignment runs thorough counties that have 90% of the state’s population, so it can be used pretty effectively for mail.
As for cargo, this is a more explosive idea. As far as I know, CAHSR is going to utilize where possible track and right of way already owned by the railorads. If the investment is made for high speed rail, BNSF and UP will expirement with using HSR to ship timely products, like agricultural goods from the Central Valley into the cities. The Alameda Corridor already exists in Los Angeles, the trick now is to do something similiar for Oakland and to connect the state’s major airports. Then we will have a pretty fearsome system, and high ridership to boot.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
What reason do BNSF and UP have to ship goods on expensive HSR tracks instead of cheap legacy track?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Legacy track using a ….diesel engine?
You can’t argue it both ways. Either ridership on HSR is high in part because the cost of refined fuel makes other forms of transport more expensive or prohibitive, or it’s not. If the cost of fuel is going up, then it is also going to make longer routes on legacy track also more expensive. When you factor in the growing demand for California’s agricultural products worldwide and fact that fertilizer is also a petroleum based product, it’s going to become much more lucrative to use HSR to transport perishable across the state.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Ridership on HSR is high because of the speed and comfort; electric traction is preferable because diesels are too inefficient at 200 km/h, and are just not capable of 350.
For American freight rail, the equation is completely different, because speed is not an issue. ATSF actually tried to have a premium-rate shipping business doing LA-Chicago in 40 hours; it flopped, because the time saving over the usual train, which did the same route in 55 hours, wasn’t large enough. Passengers are a lot more time-sensitive than the major freight customers: for smaller time savings in percentage terms, Amtrak passengers routinely fork over extra money for the Acela, and Tokaido Shinkansen passengers routinely fork over (a little) extra money for the Nozomi.
If fuel becomes too expensive, the freight railroads will just electrify their legacy track. It’s no big deal – electrification doesn’t require the additional track maintenance and precise geometry that come with HSR. Russian freight trains, which enjoy a similar privileged position in shipping to American trains, are electrified on the main lines, without having high speed. Russian proposals to increase freight speeds focus on cuts in long-distance shipping time, and do not look anything like passenger HSR, starting with the fact that the average speed touted is considered medium-speed in Europe.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Actually, when it comes to the issue of light freight i.e. mail and other packages, the Peninsula line can work out. In this case, the U.S. Postal Service has a regional mail distribution center in Burlingame which, coincidentally, is right next to the existing caltrain mainline. The address is 1625 ROLLINS RD. BURLINGAME, CA 94010-9995. Depending on how the peninsula segment is designed, it could be possible to have a short side track right along the back of the building which could make loading and unloading mail pretty seamless. If this does work out, then it could help take many big rigs off of I-5 driving down to SoCal. The only question would be where the other distribution centers are and if they are close to the proposed lines.
Joey Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Well I don’t think any of us dispute that light freight wouldn’t be a problem.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I know, it’s just that hauling the mail or light packages could be a very good source of extra income for the system, especially when many of the proposed HSR routes are planned to be near if not next or airports, or locations close to many distribution centers. This opens up the distinct possibility for companies like UPS/FedE/USPS, etc. to consider working toward developing a light freight capacity through HSR. If this is done, it can take trucks off the road, which can decrease costs (not to mention the environmental/traffic benefits), deliver packages faster, speed up distribution, all the while HSR makes money on this service.
Suppose HSR trains share the same tracks with electified CalTrain trains (except passing sidings at local stations)? That would simplify right-of-way while maintaining one-seat rides to San Francisco.
The same issue exists for the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment, where time savings of dedicated HSR tracks are pretty insignificant but right-of-way costs would be very large.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Yes, that would work. It’s actually how most HSR lines get built in standard gauge countries: the initial LGV Sud-Est required trains to use the legacy line one third of the way, and the KTX still requires trains to use the legacy line south of Daegu.
The problem is that the HSR builders want their temples in Anaheim and San Jose, and the HSR critics are proposing variants on “Stop it at San Jose” that would kill the project instead of simplify it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Because once you electrify Caltrain the density of traffic means you either run everything local all the time or you have to start three and four tracking big sections of it. With that much traffic there would be increasing demands for grade separating it. So instead of grade separating it all at once you have to install electrification then come back in a decade or so and tear it all out build the grade separation and install it all again. Instead of a few years of disruption you have decades of disruption and much higher costs because you are doing this while maintaining service on a much busier railroad.
I like the part of the argument where san francisco sits back and goes without high speed rail because menlo park thinks its icky….Sure it might happen in a twilight zone episode but in real life….. san franciscans would simply board caltrain en masses with big boxes full of special medicinal brownies and hadn them out to unsuspecting peninsulanians, and by the time they woke up hsr would be all done. That, or we’ll threaten to send our homeless brigade. The peninsula would surrender faster than france.
The Washington Examiner strikes again, quotes “expert” Randal O’Toole and shows HSR has failed everywhere, especially in Europe.
I’m so glad to hear that! You know, CHSRA is a deja vu for everyone who used to live in a country that now has high speed rail. Thre are always those sceptics who oppose the train in their city, but when it is built, nobody regrets the idea.