Arsenic, Burlingame High, and HSR Tunnels
Help me understand a letter being sent by the San Mateo Union High School District to the California High Speed Rail Authority that claims a tunnel is needed to avoid stirring up arsenic near Burlingame High School:
The proposed high-speed rail project through the Peninsula will stir up contaminated soil near Burlingame High School and cause other serious disruptions in the San Mateo Union High School District if bullet trains don’t go underground, local education leaders contend in a letter….
San Mateo Union wants the authority to pay particular attention to the arsenic school leaders believe is in the soil along the Caltrain corridor that fast-moving trains would use. District leaders say the arsenic could be the result of weed killer sprayed along the tracks years ago. They worry that construction could dig up that contaminant, exposing Burlingame High.
The school is about 400 feet away from the tracks and just saw the completion of an arsenic remediation program costing more than $4.6 million.
Here’s what I don’t get. A deep bore tunnel would disturb the soil as well, and could also dig up the arsenic. The TBM (tunnel boring machine) has to put the soil somewhere, and if there’s arsenic that’s worked its way down to where a deep bore tunnel would go, then any disturbance could cause the arsenic to resurface or get into nearby watersheds and creeks.
Of course, that’s merely speculation on my part, same as with the SMUHS letter. What is really needed is a rigorous soil analysis to determine what is actually there, and what if any impact the various construction would have. An above-grade solution, especially if it were retained fill, might not actually do all that much to disturb existing soils. But it seems the prudent and sensible thing to wait for the technical analysis from on-site studies before firing off a “tunnel-only” letter.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that this issue is being used as a “won’t somebody please think of the children!” move by people who don’t want an elevated solution anyway. Burlingame’s city council has been critical of the HSR project for some time now, and this seems like a too-convenient way for them to say “it has to be a tunnel.”
I’m not dismissing the concern about arsenic. But there’s crap all over the Peninsula left as a result of 20th century industrial activity that has to be considered as part of this construction project. Depending on the soil analysis, it could be the case that it’s actually safer to build above-grade than below-grade. So Is it so hard to wait for an in-depth analysis of what is actually there and what it means for the various alternatives before pronouncing one alternative safer than the other?
you know…with all this talk of tunnels, what about the rights of the train riders.
Tunnels are hella boring to ride though, I would rather see where I am going.
Think of the train riders!
To me this smacks of OMG think of the children…which in fact it is more NIMBY BS.
Susan Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:39 am
The speed of the train dictates that you would be in Burlingame for a total of 2 1/2 minutes. So if a tunnel would save houses and save our town, then I’m sure you can deal with being in a tunnel for a mere 2 1/2 minutes. Try riding Bart from Oakland to SF. Nobody complains about how long they are underground there. If you lived within a couple hundred feet of the track and were likely to lose your home where you’ve lived for many years and raised your children, I’m sure that you wouldn’t mock us so called “NIMBY”s.
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I do mock you all ,but that was typed mostly tongue in cheek. Oh and subway != HSR, people expect to be underground on a subway(BART/MUNI metro).
I feel that a lot of people don’t know exactly what HSR is and and have never experienced it, but because its “different” you all think its “bad”. To be honest when (not if) CAHSR gets built I will sell the house I currently live in, to move near a HSR station, if I have not moved back to Japan. Also if lived near the tracks and someone came by and offered me money to take part/all of my house, I would not be sad. It is more money in my pocket.
I have lived near one of the busiest HSR (Tokaido) lines in the world for a while, it was a choice for me to near the line. I have also spent a number of years in Germany riding the DB, and lived near the Nurnberg – Prague line. Lots of trains at all hours, but it was the convenience of being able to hop a train to anywhere in Europe from a few meters off my door step that made me want to live where I did.
On the issue of tunnels, while I am agents the idea, I do feel that if the locals want it and are willing to pay for the added price over the cheapest way of doing things then do it. BUT if the local cities/people are not willing to pony up the money then don’t build the tunnel.
But think about this, a tunnel might mean more land is taken than with other options, due to the fact that there needs to be all the ventilation and all construction area needed for building it. Its somting you should look into.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
While I disagree with Jathnael’s grammar and spelling, the issue is not whether HSR riders want to be in a tunnel (they don’t care about that), it’s whether tunneling is a cost-effective way of constructing HSR (it’s not).
If you live a couple hundred feet from the tracks, the likelihood of losing your house is miniscule. They won’t need to take more than a few feet off of a few people’s backyards for most of the distance. This is not going to be a gigantic bulldozer taking out whole blocks at a time. Construction will be limited to the current Caltrain ROW, with very few exceptions.
Tunnels require more eminent domain (i.e. loss of houses) than at-grade or elevated, due to the major staging areas required at the tunnel portals for the tunnel-boring-machines and large amounts of dug-out earth (it has to go somewhere, as Robert pointed out in his post.)
Bianca Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Susan, if you live within a “couple of hundred feet of the track”, what makes you think that you are “likely to lose your home” as you say?
If you are comfortable living that close to Caltrain and freight tracks, which are diesel-powered, fume-spewing, horn-blowing nuisances, why do you believe that an electrified (quieter! no emissions!) and grade-separated ROW (quiet! no horns, no crossing gate delays!) will mean the loss of your home?
Have you looked at the ROW maps for Burlingame? Much of the Caltrain ROW in Burlingame is already 100, 120, even 150 feet wide. You can see them for yourself here.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Absolute red herring. There are no houses that abut the ROW in Burlingame. There is California Drive and Carolan Ave that separate the ROW from houses, along with other streets toward the southern end of Burlingame’s ROW segment. Further, auto dealerships and light industry are the only structures, except the train stations (in use and otherwise) and a car wash that are directly next to the tracks at Broadway. Also, for the houses that are within a few hundred feet and have been there for years along with the active line, you are likely to have an improvement in quieter trains, no more horns, far reduced emissions as well. Noise can be further mitigated by sound walls.
Aren’t there really easy ways to prevent dust from construction from floating away? As in spraying the ground with water while construction is ongoing?
I say give the kids shovels and make them dig it.
Wouldn’t the preferable approach be to remediate the soils along the ROW throughout construction? This way the arsenic would be removed from the community? Otherwise its just another red herring.
rafael Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 am
Bingo. Burlingame residents care so very, very much about their precious younguns that they have seen fit to site the high school just 400 feet from the noise and diesel pollution near railroad tracks and, to do squat diddly about suspected surface soil contamination for decades.
Compare and contrast this with the inland portion of the Naval Weapons Center in Concord, which the Navy recently returned to that community. Back in the 1940s, it had used arsenic-laden weedkiller on the grass covering the roofs of an array of munitions bunkers there. This portion of the area will not be developed at all, much less will a school be built there.
If PCJPB decides to let CHSRA use its corridor for construction above ground, someone will indeed have to quantify the level of contamination and if need be, contain the dust during excavation. This will add to the cost, something that CHSRA will have to consider in deciding which option to implement. However, that in no way, shape or form translates to a bored tunnel through suburbia at state taxpayers’ expense.
I am paying engineers a buttload of money to analyze the soil before the city of San Diego will let me do some excavation in my yard. Yet, these people can sue based on what MIGHT be found if you DON’T dig? I really don’t get it. Shouldn’t they have to pay to do their own study before basing a lawsuit on what it is they expect the study to reveal?
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
The San Mateo Union High School District is sending a letter for the comments section of the alternatives analysis, not filing a lawsuit at this point in time.
Bobierto Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
On re-reading I guess I’m not making sense. In my analogy, CHSRA is in my shoes – having to prove there is no hazard before they begin building. Guess I need to get off my high horse.
Wouldn’t digging tunnels cost far more than taking steps to avoid spreading any contaminated soil? Tunnels seem far from the optimal solution to this concern.
swing hanger Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Of course tunneling would be far, far more expensive than any abatement measures. But as others have said, NIMBY’s are using the “what about the (poor little) children?” argument to push the tunnel, which is just a way to kill the project entirely.
Caltrain lays out its financial picture without electrification:
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14940410?source=rss
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I wonder how much of this is real and how much is political posturing. The article reveals the strategy being employed by Caltrain officials.
First, it cements Pacheco Pass as the preferred alignment. Caltrain’s assumptions are that the entire line must be electrified and that high speed rail money would pay for a significant chunk of it. Under Altamont, HSR does not use the entire Caltrain corridor.
Second, it turns the anti-HSR group into an anti-HSR/Caltrain group. Object to high speed trains, well, you also object to Caltrain, your local transportation alternative.
Their entire assumption is based on the fact that electric trains would offer a higher level of service and therefore attract more riders, which isn’t necessarily a bad assumption to make.
It seems like a shewed strategy and puts a dent into the argument that some in the opposition have made, that Caltrain doesn’t need HSR.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
*shrewd
Victor Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Yep, Definitely shrewd. :)
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
see, this is how it always works. stay tuned.
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
That doesn’t mean they’re not in deep doodoo without electrification though.
rafael Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:58 am
The fundamental problem is that Santa Clara county isn’t willing to pony up its share of the Caltrain electrification project because it has prioritized the BART extension. San Jose and Silicon Valley worker bees tend to live in the East Bay, which Caltrain does not serve. On the other hand, SF’s dream of massively redeveloping the blighted Transbay neighborhood more or less hinge on electric Caltrain equipment, because running diesel trains through a 1.3 mile tunnel into an underground station would present serious air quality and fire hazards.
Partial electrification would require dual mode locomotives or multiple units featuring both pantographs and on-board diesel gensets to power the electric traction motors. For high OCS voltages, e.g. 25kV, a bulky and heavy transformer is needed, so in practice dual-mode systems make do with much less, e.g. 750 or 1500V. This would be sufficient to sustain Caltrain’s target top speed of 79 (perhaps one day 90) miles per hour. So this would be doable if expensive. However, it would limit the feasible acceleration in the electrified section, a dealbreaker for an operator that believes its survival depends on sharply reducing line haul times for local trains that stop 15 times in a 50 mile stretch.
Also, large diesel engines and EPA Tier 3/4 exhaust gas aftertreatment systems take a while to come to operating temperature. Frequently firing them up and shutting them down increases emissions, increases fuel consumption per mile traveled on diesel, increases maintenance overheads and reduces life expectancy. Since PCJPB’s accounting objective is to minimize its own cost of operations to the peninsula counties rather than that of a one-time big-bang capital investment that thanks to HSR will be largely or wholly funded by the other actors (state, federal), it is aggressively pursuing electrification of the entire corridor between SF and San Jose as the price for sharing the Caltrain ROW with CHSRA.
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
There’s another way to run on partially-electrified line: retain some diesel locos, use fully automatic couplers and signalling that allows entry to occupied track. In last electrified station, you can run then train to the track where is prepared loco for it, the train glides to the loco, gets attached, driver of diesel loco runs brake test and train departs. Total dwell time is 5-10 min. Meanwhile original driver goes to the other platform and awaits arrival of SF-bound train shoved by another diesel, the diesel gets uncoupled, the drivers change, our “first” driver continues with train after ~2 min dwell and driver of diesel loco shunts it to SJ-bound track.
It may be demanding but you don’t need dual mode locos and keep all advantages of electric service in electrified section.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:53 am
The only problem with that is that no one makes locomotives and coaches at BART’s rail gauge and loading gauge. Cross platform transfers are faster than switching locomotives.
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
BART loading gauge is of the same width as of american mainlines and it’s platforms are around the same height as those on NEC, so if you find some suitable rail profile with narrow foot, you can build shared BART and Caltrain gauntlet track. ;)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
North River tunnels are tight. I doubt you could wedge a Comet or an Amfleet into a BART tunnel . without shearing off the top.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Horizontally, yes, but vertically, BART’s loading gauge is quite small. You would either have to sacrifice bilevels, sacrifice catenary, or possibly both.
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I was referring to BART running on Caltrain ROW, where there are no tight tunnels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
So what you want to do is change the logo on the side of the train from Caltrain to BART?
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
My original reply to Rafael was about running mixed electric/diesel operations efficiently on existing Caltrain tracks. You mentioned BART, so I assumed you were talking about regauging local tracks to 1676 mm.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:31 pm
People run mixed electric diesel operations all over the world successfully without BART logos on the side of the train.
BTW Im watching this program Future Earth- Addicted to Power Its pretty good. Check it out if you have msnbc
@ Peter at 9:04 PM
Without electrification there IS no HSR
Victor Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Agreed, Without electrification, It may as well be Amtrak.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 am
Well, given that HSR is planning on financing a large chunk of the electrification, I don’t see why HSR is dependent on Caltrain for electrification. More like the other way around.
Just tossing out crazy ideas but can we also imagine a four track row with two bart tracks and two hsr tracks? and no caltrain? I tend to prefer to keep caltrain for a few reasons, (one, those are amtrak jobs) two, the stations are close together and serve each and every community along the way, three, its an historic row serving long, long established railroad inspired downtowns. That said, that last short gap between santa clara and millbrae in the bart around the bay scenario, bugs me and is begging to be completed. With bart though you’d likely lose at least two stations, Belmont and San Carlos would likely be consolidated to a Belmont-San Carlos Burlingame would lose one of its stations. Hayward PArk would go. Atherton would go. Meno and PA might be consolidated, Cal Ave would go. San Antonio would go. and Lawrence would go. That would leave you with:
Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Hillsdale(or maybe just one of those) , RWC, PA, Mt View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara.
I seriously doubt that anyone on the peninsula, would vote for bart to replace caltrain with this loss of station services.
And of course there will still be a track row with all the nimby opposition to berms and what have you.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
Don’t fall for BART’s world domination scheme…
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:11 am
BART using standard-gauge, electrified tracks with double-deck EMUs. ‘Nuff said. Better service, and they can still run to 4th and King and the TBT.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 am
It’d only work if BART ran on a schedule with timed overtakes. Otherwise all trains would have to run local, which would kill SF-SJ ridership.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 am
No, I was seeing it as regular bart with through trains around the bay. and the 6 or so stations between santa clara and millbrae, ( San Mateo, San Carlos, Redwood City, Palo Alto Mt. View and Sunnyvale) If you are going to have to change modes like this ridiculous e-bart nonsense they’ve come up with then forget it.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 am
You would lose a lot of ridership by eliminating those other stations. Like my wife, who gets off at Menlo Park, together with a lot of high school kids and students at Menlo College, etc.
What about all those new TOD housing developments (and the term TOD is being used lightly) near all those stations you eliminated?
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
yeah, its really not feasable. Peninsula residents would be more likely to vote money for saving caltrain than they would to pay for bart.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
“Otherwise” all trains would have to run local?
That is already planned. Caltrain is giving up express overtakes and falling back to a two-track system with no overtakes. SJ – SF will be 10 minutes slower than it is today with the Baby Bullet.
See AA Appendix K.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Are you talking about the 2025 Caltrain schedules after Michelle Bouchard’s letter? She does say that the timetable assumes existing Caltrain speeds.
This doesn’t sound like something the CHSRA is forcing Caltrain to do. The timetable is based on their own 2025 plan. Why doesn’t Caltrain work to preserve their expresses?
If Baby Bullets are out, it might be productive to roll the money that would have been spent on Baby Bullets in order to make HSR runs between San Jose and San Francisco more affordable, such as discounted monthly passes for commuters. Such a plan confers a public benefit in that it takes cars off the freeways.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Or maybe Caltrain is working on a side-deal to have people who would have otherwise taken Baby Bullets to get to ride the HSR locals on the Peninsula…
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I don’t know how that would work.
1. You could just say, “Want an express train? Go buy a high speed rail ticket!” This doesn’t really maximize the public benefit of taking cars off the road, though, especially if HST seats are priced similarly to airplane seats.
2. You could make Caltrain tickets good on any high speed train between San Francisco and San Jose, but that would probably result in decreased revenue for HSR unless the HSR operator is compensated.
3. You could impose a surcharge on Caltrain tickets if the rider wants to “upgrade” to an express train. This seems too complicated and you would still have to subsidize part of the ticket.
4. You could implement a “Rail 2 Rail” type solution where only monthly passholders get to ride the HSTs for no additional charge. This is similar to the Amtrak and Metrolink agreement in Southern California. Again, the agency would have to pay the HSR operator for this privilege.
5. Caltrain could grow some balls and work for a shared track alternative or hijack some HST train slots. Those fuckers are going to be running way too many trains anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Or when Caltrain replaces it’s fleet it can buy something compatible with HSR and run trains on all four tracks…. They can spray the blue and gold trains with repellent to keep the cooties from the red and white trains away.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Ture- if the catrain cooties get onto the hsr, then they will spread to socal and metrolink. The whole state rail system will be infected!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
And I betcha no one has thought of the cross contamination possible in San Jose where the
BART trains might catch them! The turnstiles won’t be enough protection….
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
mutations will ensue no one will be safe.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
But “HSR locals” (oxymoron?) would consume just as much HSR track capacity, if not more, than scheduled overtakes with coordinated cross-platform transfers. So why provide express service using high-speed trains that are (a) physically incompatible with Caltrain platforms, (b) whose stopping pattern cannot be adjusted to serve the actual express demand that develops at intermediate points, and (c) are extremely expensive and do not make use of their actual high-speed capability, or if actual high-speed trains are not used, constitute an odd-ball sub-fleet of high-platform commuter trains that cannot inter-operate with Caltrain?
Somebody somewhere needs to adopt a fundamental principle for the peninsula rail program: build FLEXIBLE, COMPATIBLE infrastructure that can dynamically allocate scarce resources (such as track capacity and rolling stock) in the most optimal fashion in response to ACTUAL demand patterns, not ridership studies projected one quarter century into the future.
Two plus two = three. They have got to try a little harder.
(By the way, what interest would Caltrain have in working a side-deal to give away the most lucrative segment of their ridership? If there was some sort of “Farebox Zero” policy, it might make sense, but otherwise not.)
Isn’t it strange, I am starting to sound like Richard.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:54 pm
It’s amazing that so much money is being spent and riders will actually end up with less options.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I just see so many bad decisions being made on levels both big and small. Down here where I live they want to move a heavily used bus depot into the first floor of a parking structure. Unfortunately that means riders will have a more difficult time transferring to trains and riders who wait for the substandard service will not be able to wait in daylight as they do now, but in a dank, depressing parking structure.
I used to be very intimidated by the people who make the decisions about public transportation, and never had much confidence in myself. But I couldn’t do much worse than these idiots.
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
What about Kodama on Tokaido, with average stop spacing of 32 km / 20 mi?
Hungarian flirt costs 22370 euro per seat. BR Class 395 costs around 36200 euro per seat with ~2005 GBP/euro exchange rate. Significant difference, but not extreme, IMO. Faster trainsets could provide direct service to Gilroy and eventually, if FRA and UPRR allow, Monterrey.
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
BART is still very much in the picture. The berm nightmare casts the BART alternative in much a much more positive light. BART ring the bay and the hsr stopped at San Jose or relocated to Altamont.
A thorough drubbing of the water bond issue in November would embolden the pols to rework Prop 1A. Pols read polls.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
Ok, I know what your answer will be, but why would BART be better than HSR + Caltrain in terms of grade separation? BART has no money to tunnel the Peninsula. They would have to build at-grade or elevated. And due to it’s oh-so-fabulous third rail, it HAS to be grade separated EVERYWHERE.
Oh, and btw, I guess you missed the AA where they essentially eliminated berms in residential and commercial areas…
Winston Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Actually, having BARTD take over Caltrain seems like a great idea. They’re pretty comfortable running conventional rail, given that they already run the Capitol Corridor and are building a modern DMU based rail line in lieu of extending their third rail system out to Antioch. Further, they just seem better at getting things done. Even saddled with their third rail technology (which is great for the original system but stinks for an alignment that is mostly at grade), they’ve managed to get numerous projects built.
Remember, for all its suckage, BART moves nearly as many people in San Mateo County the peninsula as does the entire Caltrain line (~30K daily boardings for BART’s SM County stations vs. 40K for Caltrain’s total ridership)
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“are building” is not quite correct. eBART is planned, but has no funding. Actually I don’t think the detailed environmental work has been done yet, though I could be wrong.
Winston Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
The EIR for eBART was certified on April 29 of 2009, so all the environmental work has been done for nearly a year. The project has been fully funded and two contracts (one to modify the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station and trackwork to accommodate ebart and another to design the parking lot at the Hillcrest station) are out for bid as of the 10th of this month. The project is expected to be done in 2005.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:21 am
First, the water bond is liekly to pas because our water system is falling apart and in need of serious work. As for bart, be careful what you wish for. With bart you will get an aerial like the eastaby, bart is much noisier than hsr, and, you will lose service to several stations. Is this what you want?
wu ming Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 am
nice bait and switch. the water bond is a monstrosity for a whole host of reasons, and you can bet that a whokle lot of us that worked to get the HSR bond passed will be moving heaven and earth to block this idiotic LA water grab and westlands agribiz dam subsidization con job.
it would be as epic fail dumb as assuming that voting down the state leg’s dumb tiny tax + massive budget cuts straitjacket initiative last year was a citizen’s crevolt against taxation. only someone desperately trying to sell something unrelated could make the connection.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
huh? Theres is a serious problem with future water supplies. We need more storage and the delivery network is crumbling.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 am
how are you going to supply water for another 20 million people? You know, the same 20 million new people for whom we are building hsr?
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Yes, the current water network is crumbling. But I have to agree that the current water bond is a total monstrosity, which will lead to nothing less than the destruction of the Delta’s ecosystem.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
its suppose to help the delta.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:21 am
Oh, by setting up a commission that would determine the mininum water flow required to prevent deterioration of the delta?
The funny thing is, the minimum water flow has been known since the 70s or 80s.
The “criteria” (I believe that’s the term used) amounts of water are not legally binding on anyone. The commission will “find” an already known minimum, and there is nothing in California or Federal water law that makes that minimum legally enforceable. It was a compromise, without which the bill wouldn’t have passed.
I’m sorry jim, but you bought that one hook, line, and sinker.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Well Id like to believe you but it sounds too much like the usual uber-liberal save the rhetoric. In order for California to have a dynamic economy we need massive transportation, water, and energy infrastructure and the massive policy to go with it.
Even since enviro-nazis suggested dismantling san francisco’s deliciously tasty n- pure water supply ( Im drinking some right now mmm mmm good- ha! suck it LA!) so they can have a new place to go rafting and rock climbing, they lost all credibility with me.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
htat should have read save the -insert creature du jour- rhetoric. I hate trying to be witty only to have my wireless keyboard sabotage me.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Some other solution has to be found.
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Palo Alto and the other upscale Penisula burgs could find the money for a 2 track subway. Otherwise it is brutalist elevated for the industrial and poorer towns. HSR would be out. other than via 101, and the UP would remain on surface for as long as freights last. The uptick in real estate values would make it a sound investment for PA et al.
An incompatible and segregated Caltrain vs. hsr bolsters the case for dumping both for BART.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
See, you DO know how to use the reply button. Now, your next homework is learning how to use it to reply to the correct threads.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
An incompatible and segregated Caltrain vs. hsr bolsters the case for dumping both for BART
Or dumping one for BART. I’ll let you guess which one.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
syn- you are really finding some very good drugs – let me guess, mushroom hunting in coastal hills?
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
So what would be crazier? Replacing CalTrain with BART or replacing BART with CalTrain? ;)
(and by that I mean the electrified type…)
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
The reality is, even if bart and the residents of the peninsula were to decide today to switch from caltrain to bart it would take decades to find the money, do the studies and get bart built. What would everyone do in the meantime. Now, what you could do is dismantle caltrain as an agency and have bart take over operations. But physically that would result in the same 4 track elevated electric row with hsr.
By the way, i had lunch with a co worker today… rumor has it that another operator – the one that metrolink just dumped and switched to amtrak- is now going to try to take caltrain from amtrak and run it instead. Ha great timing now that caltrain is broke. If you think caltrain runs over lots of people now, just wait till that anti union, safety – on the-cheap bottom line company starts running it.
Peninsula NIMBY’s need to get out and about in the Bay Area where we already have elevated tracks/ aerials for BART. They’re not intrusive at all, and yes I realize the four track up the peninsula would be bigger but not nearly as large as a freeway overpass of 8-10 lanes that we also have all over the Bay Area.
“The devil is in the details”
The Burlingame arsenic issue is just one of many that are being “uncovered” as we get into the details of making this massive project work; and it won’t be the last. If we could have used our superior 20-20 hindsight we would have foreseen these issues. Unfortunately most of us have about 20-200 foresight and we risk losing some of our optimism as the process moves forward. These details will be resolved as part of the process. I live within a “stones throw” of HSR (don’t worry, I’m not a NIMBY) and am looking forward to using the system by 2020.
suppose you did an elevated berm BUT, with two true-bart tracks and two hsr tracks….. but used hsr trains that had the third rail option built in,, then had them run on third rail operation between sjc and sfc, thus eliminating the unsightly catenary altogether. the nimby’s would like that. it would mean a huge reduction in visual blight. ( cue richard’s standard rant here…)
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Would you still be able to maintain 125 mph operations for HSR using third rail?
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:31 am
I don’t know. But anyway, its totally unlikely to happen like that. Im just thinking out loud.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 am
Well, visual blight from OCS is totally overblown, anyway. NIMBY/Richard propaganda notwithstanding.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 pm
are you sure I wont be rendered sightless if I look at overhead catenary?
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Only if you live in California, apparently. People on the East Coast, Europe, Asia, and virtually everyone else are immune to this effect.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
You can use some of the rose colored glasses Palo Altans use as they gaze across the station plaza, the ones that make the telephone poles with 6 crossarms, invisible.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Maybe they can decorate it. OR do what PGandE does with the high power lines, paint them subtle colors that make them blend in with the hills and sky.
dejv Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 2:17 am
yeah
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:27 am
No. Eurostar was limited to 140 km/h with it and they had some serious problems, so they got rid of the shoes as soon as possible.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Yeah and even BART could go faster on stretches like Pleasanton-San Leandro, but arcing is too much of a problem at high speeds.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
It’s ironic that 140 km/h was the top speed that the Berlin S-Bahn ran its trains at back in the 1930′s, until they decided that 120 km/h was less problematic.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
You can’t have 25kv AC on a third rail. It has to be DC and low voltage (less than 1kv). That allows suburban speeds.
Note that a train doesn’t need power all the time. When at speed, it can run for miles with the pantograph lowered. So, You could imagine the third rail as an emergency source of power only used to start the train if, for some reason, it had to stop in a no-catenary zone.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I think some systems use 1.5kv on the third rail, but that is pretty much the upper limit.
The arsenic issue is overblown and counts as a red herring. This, like many other issues will be dealt with when the corridor is upgraded. All that has to be done is to carefully plan to take the dirt out, mitigate the problem of dust being created by spraying the ground. Problem solved. In fact, this I believe would qualify as an environmental improvement.
Something interesting that I’m sure CARRD and others who are interested in ridership/revenue forecasting might want to read: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientific-journal-recognizes-high-speed-rail-ridership-model-91919449.html
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
*FISH SLAP*
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
Interesting. This press release leaves out the part where the authors were forced to make last minute changes when we pointed out that some of the statements in the journal article were at best false.
The details of this saga are not particularly important and the he said, she said kind of thing is oddly petty.
What is important is that the High Speed Rail Authority is feeling insecure about the study. We keep asking them to have a public forum with university style peer review, instead of this we’ll defend to the death whatever choices we made, which doesn’t get anyone closer to the truth.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The details of this saga are not particularly important and the he said, she said kind of thing is oddly petty.
Yes, five people who I assume are respected in the field said the numbers make sense and showed their work. You say they don’t. Feel free to write them, the email and street address for the journal are on the contact page.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
The comments we made were considered serious enough that the editors pulled the article from publication pending serious revisions from the five people.
It is beyond me why of all articles the Authority would be highlighting this one, which has this fairly sordid history. It was not obvious that the editors were even going to allow it to be published, even with revisions after submitting an article with significant misstatements.
This is a story we tried not to make a big deal out of, because it distracted from the matter at hand, which is trying to get some good numbers.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Quick question: What is the current status of the article? Has it now been published?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Yes. Follow the link in the press release.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Ok, so if it’s published, then they have reviewed CARRD’s objections, and either dealt with them and incorporated them, or dismissed them. So they’ve been taken care of. Who cares whether they went back and reviewed their own work. That’s their job as part of scientific peer-review. Now the ball IS now back in CARRD/NIMBYs’ court to prove them wrong.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
The Journal of Choice Modelling had also published a study on the ridership previsions for the Madrid-Barcelona HSR. It scientifically proved that those previsions were over-optimistic and that hardly any passengers would be diverted from the airlines. We now know how wrong they were.
Ridership prevision is not an exact science. Human behaviour is unpredictable. The SNCF’s previsions have all been wrong. It underestimated Paris-Lyon and Paris-Strasbourg and overestimated the success of out-of-town stations. All based on scientific modelling and polls of significant population samples.
I remember that to the question “would you travel on a French plane?” 80% answered “No”. Now, how many people bother to know whether their plane is a B337 or an A320? Yet, I suppose the 80% who answered “No” were part of a significant population sample.
People, living conditions, mentalities change. Ridership previsions are like long-term weather predictions: too many variables.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I’d say that it’s pretty important that a peer-reviewed journal has stated that the numbers are legitimate. The ball is back in your court to prove them wrong. Good luck.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The article discusses a model. The model discussed was positively received by the peer reviewers of the journal. Great – except, the point is – no matter how great the model they reviewed is – it was NOT what was used to generate the numbers used by the Authority.
The decisions made on this project don’t rest solely on ridership – we all know that.
There are other factors and the Board has the discretion to make the decisions based on all the available – possibly sometimes conflicting, information.
The subsequent EIR comments from the public and agencies took the published data at face value and made comments and recommendations based on that information. It is important to know whether we were presented with accurate information on which to make comments and to move forward. If, for whatever reason we did not have the correct information, then there is a problem and we should quickly figure out how to proceed appropriately and rectify the situation.
The sooner they admit the problem the faster we can work to restore credibility. The longer they delay and distract – the greater confidence levels dwindle – which is something we can all agree would be a detriment to the project.
CARRD tried hard to get the Authority to admit the mistake, rectify it and move forward. They continue to ignore the suggestion.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Don’t worry, you get to sue again after the Program EIR is recertified.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
In my old econometrics textbook the author talked about the agenda of the researcher and how corruption can distort statistics quite a bit. Because so few in the general public have any formal statistical training, they don’t have the tools to know when they are being fooled.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:39 pm
But that can cut both ways. If one party can put out statistics that are skewed (corrupted), then the other party can do the same. We still don’t know any more than before as to which side is “right.” Except that now the Authority is backed by peer-review. Like I said, CARRD is now responsible to prove that the peer-review is flawed.
Nadia Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
This is not about people understanding statistics or the models or what answers they came up with- it has to do with the process.
The information they put out was NOT what they used to make their determinations – and that is a problem. Process matters and that is a process mistake.
FYI – Berkley is doing the peer review on the ACTUAL inputs and models the Authority used. Let’s see what they have to say about it.
This journal article is talking about a model the Authority has but has NOT publicly applied to the process, so the article doesn’t prove anything.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Ok, why didn’t you say that to begin with? And who’s doing the peer review at Berkeley?
HSRComingSoon Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:31 pm
What exactly are you saying when you state: “The information they put out was NOT what they used to make their determinations – and that is a problem”? Are you referring to the decision making process that led to Pacheco instead of Altamont? If so, the ridership/revenue study was part of the process and information that led to a route determination. Issues like publicly-owned, available ROWs, to concerns about building either a new trans-bay bridge or a trans-bay tunnel also came into play. Not to mention, with the Prop 1A mandate of having the terminus at the transbay terminal, what route would you take in the East Bay to reach the SF TTC?
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Sorry, just realized that you were Nadia and that we’ve been talking with Elizabeth. Your comment just now was clearer than anything else I’ve read on this thread to explain the problem.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
It appears that they are stating that the model that was just peer-reviewed in the journal is not the same model that was used in the EIR process, but something else.
I’m curious what the difference is between the model applied in the EIR process and the peer-reviewed one.
Also, who’s doing the peer-review on the model actually used for the EIR process?
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Sounds like corruption.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
A model can be the most finely crafted set of equations, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and yet it is only as good as the parameters that are input to the model. I suspect the rotten stench comes from some of these parameters. Such as the assumed trip time, for one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
How do the numbers published in the journal differ significantly from the the numbers the Authority originally promulgated?
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Not very much. They cleaned up a few typos (that we had pointed out) and took out some
information (replacing it with footnotes). When I get a chance, I’ll post the the article they tried to publish and the article they ended up publishing. The final article ends up not really saying much.
Let’s not lose the forest for the trees. The problem remains the signficant gap between what they said they did and what they actually did. We are still waiting for the publication of some kind of document that accurately reflects the study.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
There’s many ways to skin a cat. If in the end you have a skinned cat it doesn’t really matter much how you skinned the cat. The skinned cats look very much alike to me. The skinned cat SNCF offered up looks a lot like the skinned cats the Authority is displaying. Other people use simpler methods and end up with skinned cats. I don’t see any skinned voles or bears.
Pity that the quality of concern trolls this blog attracts isn’t what it used to be.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
You can’t only look at evidence that supports your preferred view of the world. You also have to consider evidence that contradicts it.
Elizabeth is an educated woman who has concerns and has brought up issues. They must be considered.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
And all she has told us is that the information is somehow “wrong”. What’s wrong with it?
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
“And all she has told us is that the information is somehow “wrong”. What’s wrong with it?”
THEY DIDN’T ACTUALLY USE THAT DATA TO MAKE A DECISION.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
The data didn’t exist when they made the decision!
Years ago they had a model. The model has changed since then. Since they were making decisions in the past they didn’t have access to what is now the current model. Silly them they used the then current model. No one has explained why the past model or the current model is wrong. Or why using the past model in the past is a bad thing or why we should use the past model now or what’s wrong with the current model. Or if there are material differences that would have affected past decisions or future decisions. Just allegations thats something is wrong.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
One other thing to note –
the press release makes this sound like the article is by some independent group of people. The journal article was written by the people who actually did the study.
It is a little like Pepsi announcing that Pepsi is a great drink.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Well, the journal article may have been written by the people who did the study, who of course would try to look as good as possible, but the peer review of the article would have been conducted by other, assumably disinterested parties. Unless you have other inside information?
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 1:51 am
@Peter, you don’t need inside information to find out that the peer review was essentially skipped for the final round of models. It’s in the CHSRA’s documents on their website. Just watch the stairs and beware of the leopard.
Nathanael Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Uh, no. The Journal version of the article was definitely subject to proper peer review.
The argument Elizabeth appears to be making is that the model / numbers used in the CHSRA’s documents are *materially different* from the ones in the journal article, which would definitely be a serious problem, because it would mean the ones in the CHSRA documents were significantly different from the peer-reviewed model.
Except then she says they aren’t materially different. I don’t get it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Spreading FUD tends to do that, get people who are using a few brains cells in concert, confused.
It doesn’t matter how many experts say the data is right,, as long it doesn’t agree what the NIMBYs think, they wont be happy.
Peter Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Very, very true.
And I betcha no one has thought of the cross contamination possible in San Jose where the
BART trains might catch them! The turnstiles won’t be enough protection….