Electrify or Die
That’s the implicit forecast coming from Caltrain officials, as reported by Mike Rosenberg:
Declaring an electric railroad its only chance at salvation, Caltrain officials on Thursday released the most-detailed projections yet of the rail line’s bleak financial picture: $47 million in debt next year — with a gap that will grow by about $1.6 million a year.
With electric trains, Caltrain could expand commute-time service and collect 49 percent more money while keeping expenses roughly flat, according to a new financial forecast the agency compiled at the request of the Bay Area News Group.
Under its current service with diesel trains, the commuter line would be losing $61 million by 2019 — half of what it would need to operate.
Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon said he didn’t want to use an “electrify or bust” frame, but did lay out the dire situation facing the railroad in the wake of the recession and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s war on public transportation:
The new projections come weeks after Caltrain officials announced massive service cuts were inevitable for the popular rail that transports about 40,000 people from San Francisco to San Jose each weekday. Weekend, nighttime and midday trains could be on the chopping block as soon as this fall.
Next to go, Scanlon said possibly in fall 2011, would be a “considerable” number of commute-time trains, which the majority of Caltrain passengers ride. Then the railroad, which Caltrain bought in 1992 but has been transporting passengers since 1863, will continue to decline until the entire system is threatened, although Scanlon would not speculate on when it would have to shut down.
Caltrain electrification will help resolve this situation, although it has to be noted that electrification won’t happen quickly enough to avoid these problems that are just around the corner. Passenger rail advocates need to come together to demand reversal of the state budget cuts that are responsible for Caltrain’s crisis.
Of course, reversing those cuts won’t solve the long-term problem. Running diesel trains creates increasing costs over future years as the price of fuel will continue to rise. Electrification means lower costs and more revenue. And electrification is needed to improve capacity – electric trains move more quickly, creating more slots on the railroad for more trains that can carry revenue-generating passengers.
There’s been a lot of discussion of this in the comments to yesterday’s post, some of which debate whether the answer is to have BART ring the bay. To me the answer is simple and straightforward:
1. Restore the state budget cuts to transit agencies, so Muni and SamTrans aren’t having to cut off Caltrain to save themselves.
2. Provide Caltrain with its own source of operating funds, perhaps as part of a region-wide gas tax increase to fund operations on all the major systems.
3. Leverage high speed rail funds to help build the infrastructure that can be shared by an electrified Caltrain “regional rail” in order to satisfy the “independent utility” requirements of federal stimulus funding.
It must be pointed out that Caltrain/HSR already has a claim on potentially billions in federal stimulus funds to get this project underway. That is the very same funding that some in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and elsewhere on the Peninsula think we should simply give back or send to another part of the state. For the sake of Caltrain’s survival, that would be a very bad move.
And yes, I’m a bit slow in getting to this one – CA4HSR has been busy having extremely positive and productive meetings with state legislators and the staff of members of Congress in recent days. There remains strong and ongoing support for HSR in both Sacramento and Capitol Hill. We are right to push back hard against the NIMBYs, but so far, their efforts simply haven’t borne fruit.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Good!! Im glad that are voices are heard thru you..We are not that rich compared to the people that want to kill HSR…MeloPark/Reason/Cato…funny they say you are we/you are well funded and powerful..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
If I were well-funded to do HSR advocacy, we’d already be seeing shovels in the ground.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Because 1A would’ve passed in 2004, or because the post-1A process would’ve been faster?
Unfortunately, electrification won’t solve much if Caltrain doesn’t have access to all four tracks. Caltrain must grow some balls and work to keep their Baby Bullet service. They won’t need as much operating subsidy if they are allowed to run the kind of service people like.
Caltrain has always suffered from a lack of any sort of dedicated, predictable source of funding. With the 3 “partner”/member agencies (VTA, SamTrans, and SFMTA/Muni) that form the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) always squabbling over what share of the operating and capital budget each is will and able to pay each year, there is never the ability to make long-range plans with any confidence that the operating funding will show up in the years and quantities needed. With Schwarzenegger’s ongoing defunding of transit funding hitting Caltrain (directly) and its 3 member agencies simultaneously, and with the massive hit that the Kopp-worsened BART/SFO/Millbrae money pit has put on SamTrans and the SMCo. TA, things are suddenly looking ultra grim.
Re: the talk of BART replacing Caltrain …. never mind the obscenely huge capital cost of 3rd rail traditional (aka “real”) BART replacing Caltrain … the question is whether BART could deliver any more/better or less/worse service for the amount of Caltrain’s annual operating budget? Then, we could ask the question again, only this time with BART merely taking over from the JPB the operation and evolution of Caltrain as it exists today.
Anyway, apart from that interesting exercise, even BART would not have Caltrain’s operating budget available to it for the same reason Caltrain no longer has that budget available to it. There is no dedicated source of funding for rail transit on or along Caltrain’s historic (1863) Peninsula rail corridor. That problem needs to be solved anyway, and when and if it does get solved (new property tax/assessment, or sales tax, or combination of thereof, or …) then we can still entertain who should operate HSR-compatible transit rail on the Caltrain corridor going forward … BART or JPB or HSRA or the new SF Bay Area Verkehrsverbund (BAV).
I just don’t know why at this point in our state’s history we haven’t once and for all decided to fund transportation with a more equitable formula. I never here about Caltrans going broke when it comes to highway money. We have to stop treating local and regional transit as second fiddles to the highway funding. The state needs a comprehensive fully integrated “transportation” plan.
Not a state rail plan.
Not a highway plan
Not 500 tiny transit agencies each chugging along doing there own thing.
But a fully integrated, coordinated effort, with specific goals and guildlines to be applied to ALL agencies as they pertain to interconnectivity – including the roads – including the movement of freight (ports, trucks,rail)
A “California State Transportation Plan” for the 21st century. ( along with the thing for water and power)
Of course. This will never happen. I have long been an advocate for california seceding from the union in order to be its own small nation, free from the burdens of the US government’s taxation, trade and immigration policies . But I’d have to be confident that cali has what it takes to start acting like a nation. So far it is too busy going to bed with washington dc and too far under the covers.
Someday though. Someday.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Weren’t you bemoaning recently how tax dollars go into a murky black hole in Sacramento? Special districts like BART and other transit agencies help balance the state-local relationship.
But I think the missing element of your suggestion isn’t about transit or the state’s lack of a infrastructure plan. It’s that zoning and land use is still primarily a city-by-city thing. Balkanization between transit agencies is one thing…but what about bedroom suburbs? What about fights over sales tax revenue? California could be its own continent…we’d still have a parochial system of government from the statehouse and the counties down to the city councils.
The 21st century state is coming, but it’s not something most people will want to embrace….
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
well yes – with that state plan id expect accountability and transparency concerning every dollar collected and dispersed ( cue everyone choking) but you are right about local control. I certain prefer local control here in sf, per our districs but it does create quite a “situation” and certainly what’s good for LAncaster is not going to fly in Laguna Niguel.
This is one crazy ass state. I love it. but its really something. Like the child only a mother could love. He we can be so great and be so dysfunctional at the same time is amazing.
Its wacky good fun.
Victor Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 7:45 am
And since the Electrification uses Electricity We need cheap electricity and that means We need Community Choice Aggregation which PG&E opposes as their funding Prop 16 on the June 8th Ballot and so I’d hope prop 16 goes down to defeat(of 16) instead of enshrining a power monopoly in out states constitution, As I believe Prop 16 violates out Federal Rights to Freedom of choice, Besides when was the last time a board of directors or a CEO could be recalled for a rate hike? Never, Only elected officials can be voted out of office, Recently in Los Angeles the DWP(Department of Water and Power, Municipal power generation) asked for a rate increase at one percentage and the city council denied It and suggested a smaller increase instead, PG&E is a for profit entity and profit is almost all they evidently care about from what I’ve read.
( pardon all those typos)
the obscenely huge capital cost of 3rd rail traditional (aka “real”) BART replacing Caltrain
The cost of replacing Caltrain with BART is relatively trivial after grade separations are built. BART knows grade separations are in the cards, and that’s why we’re not hearing a peep from them. When shovels are in the dirt, the BART machine will awaken. For example, by pointing out the billions that could be saved by avoiding the “need” to quadruple-track the San Francisco tunnels if commuter service can plug in to Millbrae.
Is that why Caltrain is so eager to create facts on the ground in San Bruno, north of the BART cutoff?
Or am I too conspiracy-minded?
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm
well, and Muni’s metro/light rail could take over the smaller sf stops like 22nd street, bayshore,.. in fact the T thrid line already parallels the caltrain line in sf.
OR what if….. HSR took over the bug stretches of the corridors and in between was replaced with a light rail system for shuttle people between all the podunk peninsula stops and as a feeder to the hsr stops..
There’s a myriad of possibilities.!
Reality Check Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Yes, full grade-separation and getting rid of (or otherwise “solving”) the freight train accommodation problem will greatly simplify and cut the cost extending BART from Millbrae to Santa Clara … but the average BART station ain’t cheap. Even without the sea-of-parking mentality driving up the cost, there’s the high-platform closed station design that goes with their faregate-based ticketing scheme. Oh, right, TransLink/Clipper could take care of that problem if they’d just allow you to tag on and off aboard trains … or at least on barrier-free open platforms. I just hate when riders are treated like so many cattle, forced to funnel through faregate chutes while fiddling out and inserting their tickets in little slots 4 times per day … Mooooo!
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Hey … I like faregates. They are efficient, effective, and necessary for some high-density lines (for instance, in Japan, I didn’t see a single train system without them). That being said, BART’s approach is problematic. Many stations only have one or two small banks of faregates, which definitely DO impede the flow of passengers. The tickets are also problematic and prone to getting demagnetized or damaged (things like TransLink and EasyRider do help though…). A properly implemented faregate system shouldn’t be intrusive or impeding, though I guess that could be said of anything.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
do away with fare gate? ha, around here not only do we need fare gates, but electric fence and phsers set on stun. Fare evasion is rampant. Now if you guve us permission to vaporize scofflaws on sight, then we can talk about a more la te da laissez faire approach.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
But that would just make vaulting the turnstile more of a thrill.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
I thought the same about faregates, too, but Japan is not the best example. Its traffic density is so high that faregates are economically justified, and POP is impossible to implement on many lines. How do you inspect fares on a train with a crush standing capacity of 150 packing 300 people?
On less busy lines – say, the lines in Continental Europe other than the RER – they prefer POP.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Even the low-volume intercity lines in Japan use faregates (though maybe it’s just easier to have one system for everything). And if the RER is an exception, why is that?
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 4:27 am
From my own experience (I live in France) there are faregates with turnstiles in all the subway systems I have used. In Paris it is current to see suburban youths vaulting turnstiles. RATP employees just look the other way, for fear of starting a race riot.
If one of these youths was seen using a ticket he would be accused of “acting frenchie” and would be the laughing stock of the others. The problem is that they also systematically vandalize trains, costing millions in repairs.
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 10:28 am
^sounds just like here on bart and muni.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
The RER is run as a subway. (Yes, French subways have faregates – POP on subways is uncommon. But the TER network is POP.)
It’s a one-system-for-everything issue. As their labor costs increased to the point of not being able to have people check passengers’ tickets at stations or on trains, Japan and Germany chose different systems for cost reduction. For Japan’s passenger volumes, faregates made the most sense. For Germany’s, POP did.
But if you want, you can partly chalk rural Japan’s faregates to the fact that Japan is even more capital-dominated than France, which means that JNR executives might have had a one-size-fits-all notion about fare control imported from Tokyo. Whether it’s actually bad depends partly on the question of which companies perform worse financially, DB and SBB (including S-Bahns and rural branch lines) or JR Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 1:23 am
Hmm and you wonder why people bottleneck through BART’s tiny banks of faregates…
swing hanger Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 8:59 am
“I just hate when riders are treated like so many cattle, forced to funnel through faregate chutes while fiddling out and inserting their tickets in little slots 4 times per day … Mooooo!”
“Fiddling and inserting” are so 20th century…Nowadays there are systems like JR East’s Suica that are touch contact based using rechargeable plastic cards or even your cellphone- you barely break stride going through the gates:
http://www.eticketworld.net/public/eTicketWorld/FunctionalModel/SuicaGate5.jpg
For example, by pointing out the billions that could be saved by avoiding the “need” to quadruple-track the San Francisco tunnels if commuter service can plug in to Millbrae.
There’s no need for more than two tracks north of Bayshore. Competent operators all over the world manage more than 20 trains an hour in and out of a terminal with two tracks. Even NJTransit and Amtrak manage it. Most of them don’t have to cope with tight curves. On the other hand PATH manages 20 an hour in each direction through the Morton Street curves. Very slow and very noisy.
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
(already 4 tracks there though)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 pm
yes it is four tracks wide at Bayshore. Hence “north of Bayshore”
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
well ok if you insist on being all picky about details. I just happen to like that pic.
Clem Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Think of the four track thing as a straw man. Whether it’s actually required operationally is quite irrelevant.
SAmtrans could put light rail on El Camino and hsr could use the caltrain row and caltrain and bart could be shown the door.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
This would be funny if it weren’t depressingly close to reality.
and while we’re at it, lets extend the T-third line into sfo – that – combined with central subway – would provide a straight shot from the airport to the convention center and union square. hmm.. has city hall thought of that yet? I think I shall send them a note. although for me personally living on top of civic center bart station… bart to sfo in 30 minutes, is pretty much impossible to beat. Still, muni is our system and sfo is our airport, and I think our system should serve our airport.
Reality Check Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
BART would have a shit-fit if Muni tried to extend T-Third to SFO. They can’t have cheaper options undercutting their $8 (round-trip) surcharge to prop up the failed BART/SFO/Millbrae money pit. BART just cut a deal to kill the free Millbrae station employee shuttle bus SFO started running when BART hiked the SFO station fare surcharge to $8 per round-trip. Since SamTrans decimated their more affordable bus service to SFO in the wake of the BART/SFO disaster, low-paid transit-dependent airport workers (and other price-sensitive transit users) were forced onto ultra-expensive BART to reach SFO … when BART kicked the surcharge from $3 to $8, SFO began running a free employee shuttle (which — shhhhh — everyone can ride) from Millbrae. Here’s the news:
SFO workers to lose shuttle created to avoid $8 BART/SFO surcharge
Deal set to kill worker’s $8-BART/SFO-surcharge-avoiding shuttle
jimsf Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:32 pm
The airport workers should stage a very loud and disruptive action at the sfo bart station entrance. They need to raise an obnoxious enough ruckus the get plenty of coverage. Although, current public sentiment in the recession could be ” we have to pay so you have to pay too”
This is what happens when money gets tight, americans turn on each other like hungry dogs.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
If BART would have a shit-fit if the slow Muni T-Third line was extended to SFO, what is BART thinking about the proposal of Caltrain/HSR connecting downtown San Francisco to SFO in 13 minutes??? It takes BART 32 minutes to get from Montgomery Street to SFO, because it takes the long route around San Bruno mountain, the route SP dropped as its mainline over a century ago in favor of Caltrain’s route. 32 minutes vs. 13 minutes: which way would you go?? That’s a very serious time advantage over BART’s service to SFO and the motivation for Kopp’s efforts to kill the route to the Transbay Terminal.
But what about Coastside! I want to go to half moon bay!
you know just a side note. but that tiny short little interstate 380 from sfo to 280 – originally that was suppose to continue west at 280 and punch a tunnel through the coast hills and pop out in pacific.
The peninsula folks stopped that dead in its tracks. probably a good thing though.It pretty gorgeous out there.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_14948526
Yup, the NIMBYs just want rail to die. What a surprise
Reality Check Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Some NIMBYs may view the prospect Caltrain death as a jackpot in the form of a home equity boost. While that may occur for a few homes very close (or immediately adjacent) to the tracks, a huge number of residential — and especially business/commercial — properties, would lose value with the loss of convenient nearby rail service connecting cities from SF to SJ.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 9:24 am
That just what they would love to happen…of course HSR is just as unwelcome but too bad nimbys its still going thru
synonymouse Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Naah – you guys are just overreacting. Caltrain would have disappeared years ago if so-called nimbys were against it.
Major parts of the Peniinsula are deeply opposed to berms. San Francisco wouldn’t want them either. Four track tunnels are too expensive and obviously the CHSRA opposes surface or in trench grade separation schemes. It had to know the controversial berms would be a very difficult sell.
BART Ring-the-Bay would be an overall win-win for the more affluent burgs like Palo Alto. The blight issue would be essentially eliminated, especially if UP freight servicde were abandoned in time. Public transit service needs would be adequately met by BART, with its more frequent service and its sterling funding track record. This would be a very easy public opinion victory for BART.
Personally I would prefer an OCS standard gauge electrified railway. If Caltrain goes blame it on a stupid CHSRA route alignment. Kopp and Diridon have probably been scheming all along to replace Caltrain with BART.
The future of the CHSRA is now a political issue. November could produce a call for what was know in the Eisenhower years as an ägonizing reappraisal”. About time.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Suuuuuure. Because longer commute trips and forced transfers to reach city centers qualifies as “adequately”
synonymouse Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Caltrain without express tracks would be a worse service than BART. Ergo segregated and incompatible Caltrain and hsr – 2 two track systems – will prove not politically acceptable. So either caltrain or hsr would have to go. In order to not nullify Prop 1A and in order to get rid of a crippled Caltrain they would have to bring in BART, which is a dedicated 2 track system, thus far anyway.
Bad strategy for CHSRA because the united nimby burgs, having tasted first blood, will then go for the ditching hsr blight. Especially when they realize how much real estate values will go up, ala Embarcader Freeway teardown.
In the end any middle Peninsula station will be recognized as a headache requiring lots of long-term parking right in the middle of, for instance, Palo Alto’s downtown.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Fair enough, though CalTrain would probably still provide faster service because it isn’t limited to 79mph and doesn’t take that detour around San Bruno Mountain. Still, it appears that this is working toward Clem’s scenario, which is 4 tracks HSR+BART…
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
syn- Suppose you got bart through palto alto. it would still be either on a berm as is it in pleansant hill and concord and fremont or it would be on an aerial as it is in el cerrito and hayward. The only way you would get bart to tunnel under PA and Menlo Park would be if bart let you do what berkeley did and allow those cities to pay for the expense. ARe you telling me that the residents of Palo Alto and Menlo Park would be willing to pay to get rid of caltrain, support bart, and pay to underground bart, when they are not willing to pay to underground hsr and/or caltrain?
synonymouse Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
This is precisely what I am saying. Even the honorable Quentin Kopp has opined that it is much easier to dig a subway with BART than with Caltrain-hsr. Both stations and tunnels would be much smaller. Palo Alto and the other wealthy towns could find the money for undergounding BART in preferred areas, especially when you factor in the increased property values over the long term.
In the end the Peninsula will accept an upgraded Caltrain or BART on the SP ROW but not the hsr. The latter can always be routed down the 101 corridor or enter via the Dunbarton alignment.
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
And what would palo alto say to the peninsula towns who would have to pay bart, but would not get bart stations, and instead would lose their local service, places like belmont and san carlos and extra stops in san mateo, san francisco, and even in palo alto. Not only would these areas lose all service but the remaining commuters would have another half hour to 45 minutes tacked onto their san francisco-silicon valley commutes.
“Sorry other peninsula communities, but we are rich and we get what we want so too bad for you”
Syn -I hate to break it to you, but outside of your little self important world in PA, no one cares about palo alto. The rest of the bay area couldn’t care less about it, doesn’t ever go there, or even have it on the collective bay area radar. You all have the “san francisco as center of the universe” attitude. The difference is that sf has good reason for that, but PA does not. The only time I ever hear places like atherton and PA mentioned in conversation is when its accompanied by a crinkly face expression. And those people who work in the valley, and live up in sf just to be hip, are despised here by the way. THe rest of the bay knows that the world ends at the sf county line, its time Pa joined the “reality club” and realized it too. Even san jose with its “over one million” population knows it will never have sf’s cache.
you aren’t getting bart. and hsr will be running through PA and will be on a berm.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I think we both know that 101 is stupid and that Dumbarton doesn’t solve any problems north of Redwood City (while creating problems in Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore). Let’s be glad that NIMBYs aren’t the ones making decisions.
synonymouse Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
A BART Ring the Bay could easily duplicate all the existing stops on Caltrain. And probably will.
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
No it won’t. The caltrain stations like san carlos and belmont and PA and Cal Ave and MT view and san antonio, and sunnyvale and lawrence,,and menlo park and atherton,, burlingame and broadway… and more —- all of those will lose stations with bart. The number of total stations would be reduced by half. no cities would get two stations and some would get no stations. That is not an improvement in service in a group of communities that were built around their local train stations to begin with. And since ther are currently no plans to switch to bart, even if were suggested tomorrow, it would be a minimum of 30 years before such a line would open.
You know, syn, that card the doctor gave you, that only helps with your glaucoma, it doesn’t change fantasy into reality.
synonymouse Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 10:46 am
The so-called and much-maligned nimbys are responsible for the very existence of Caltrain. Without them BART would have long since usurped the SP ROW and your precious hsr would be forced to a 101 entree into SF.
You are “misunderestimating”, to quote dubya, the sheer politrical muscle of BART, with its juge bureaucracy and militant unions. Just take a look at its San Jose blitzkrieg – it considers the Peninsula its manifest destiny. The hsr’s fair weather “big dogs”, like Feinstein and Kopp, are in reality stone BART shills.
The 30 year time frame could more appropriately applied to Muni’s dysfunctional Rose Pak Memorial Central Subway. By the time it is done you’ll need a $20 bill to get on a Muni bus.
jimsf Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Ok syn. How bout we wait and see. Meet me here for I told you so in five years ok?
synonymouse Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I doubt 5 years will be required to get a clearer picture of where things are going. November should gauge the political winds.
A defeat of the PG&E monopoly sham and the LA water grab sham would sober up state spending. And a Whitman victory would almost certainly produce the “investment grade”Bechtel-independent re-evaluation of th e hsr that has been so sorely lacking.
Of course if the dope offensive succeeds forget all your worries. The price of weed will collapse and all the dealers will start selling heroin to to recoup thier profits. All the hsr foamers can float oof to xanadu wher there is a berm down every nimby street.
Peter Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I thought you “recoup” losses, not profits. Learn how to use the words.
While I’ll agree with you that the water bonds measure and PG&E’s monopoly-grab are for shit, I fail to see what PG&E’s measure has to do with state spending.
And of course the marijuana measure is absolutely for shit. But what do any of those measures have to do with HSR?
synonymouse Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Let me re-phrase: the dealers will need to reacquire previous profit levels by recouping losses.. I should have probably said regain profits.
Smart voter rejection of scams that have been accompanied by massive propaganda barrages will send a sharp message to the pols that the electorate is in a determined, crackdown mindset regarding spending. Thisslap would be especially directed at dubious scemes that have been politically handicapped and will require ongoing subsidies, at a time when the state needs to cut its future debt load.
PG&E, Bechtel, the CWP, the CHSRA – they are all arrogantly swilling at the same public trough with next to zero oversight. Slap one or two they all get the picture.
The dope deal epitomizes why it is Calilfornia, not Texas, that has degenerated into the true “Dumb****istan”.
The muni line could connect the sfo all the way not only to moscone center, and union square but eventually north beach and fisherman’s wharf. one seat from boarding gate to vacation hotel. ad it turns out, and I didnt know this but san francisco city college has an sfo campus. plus this muni line would serve oyster point bio tech, and the city of brisbane. along with the eastern waterfront plan and candlestick point development.
I like my idea thank you.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Heck, let’s just build light rail up the entire coast! It will probably take a week or so to make the trip, but what the hell!
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 10:31 am
well you lay over at the scenic destinations along the way. light rail on the PCH from sf to malibu! Then people could finally make the trip without all that twisty driving.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
But the tracks are ugly so they’d probably suggest electric buses but then the catenary is ugly so they’d use regular old buses… aren’t there buses along that route now?
thatbruce Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
The old Ocean Shore Railroad had a stab at SFO to Santa Cruz a century ago and lasted longer as a litigation company than as an operational railroad (1906 was a bad year). Just gotta solve Monterey to San Luis Osbispo. As for practical modern day equivilants of seaside light rail, Belgium has light rail along its entire coastline (a mere 80km or so).
jimsf Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Id like to see at least a light rail system the would connect santa cruz, capitola, salinas, sand city and monterey. We can call it MART
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
The distance seems a little long for light rail. Perhaps DMUs or other multiple units would be better since they can achieve faster speeds in the long gaps between stops.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Light rail vehicles are multiple units.
The biggest problem isn’t speed, though. It’s that the construction costs of a new line that long are prohibitive, which means that the most cost-effective solution would use the existing legacy railroad, possibly with upgrades. Unfortunately, FRA regulations ensure that the most cost-effective solution requires prohibitively heavy, prohibitively overstaffed trainsets blaring horns at every grade crossing.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 7:19 am
I will note that horns blaring is not a blanket requirement anymore. It is only required if you don’t have proper safety measures. Clarification on quiet zones came out a couple of years ago and many communities are adopting them – http://www.calhsr.com/resources/quiet-zones/
I do have one question maybe someone can answer.
I made the BART/ Caltrain transfer at Millbrae a couple of weeks ago (and any comments on this blog complaining about the design are understated, if anything). There is no grade crossing nearby, yet Caltrain had to do all the clanking and horn blowing but BART didn’t. Why is this
Peter Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
But it’s up to the local authorities to implement quiet zones.
Even with quad-gates there are still distinct possibilities for drivers to kill themselves at grade-crossings. Just ask the guy who was killed by Acela at a quad-gated crossing.
If you read the FRA’s documentation on quiet zones, it states that no municipality has been sued for a grade-crossing accident in a quiet zone YET. They (the municipalities) are still very worried about their exposure in such potential accidents. The LIABILITY, not the regulatory scheme, is the main barrier to quiet zones.
dejv Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
You can use Russian-style barriers. No real barrier for monster trucks, though.
Reality Check Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
@Elizabeth : horn-blowing is not required or normal at Millbrae station … but like in all areas where it is not already required by FRA or railroad rules, it is at the engineer’s discretion (as it is with BART and their toot-toot horn thing). Many/most Caltrain engineers will run the ding-ding-ding-ding bell when rolling in or our of occupied station platforms. It’s definitely not consistent, so like with the horn, it’s probably also at their discretion at stations (either that or a lot of Caltrain engineers are breaking the rules). If you noted Caltrain horn blowing, it was either one of those engineers that really loves to use the horn or the engineer thought something s/he saw justified it.
Peter Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
So the remedy would be to complain to Caltrain about it if you don’t think it was appropriate.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
You’re right in principle, but not in practice. Quad gates are expensive, and completely unnecessary at low speeds. The FRA rule demanding quad gates and not just gates and bells was based on selective reading of studies on the subject.
Horn-blaring away from grade crossings is allowed if the engineer judges that people at the station are standing too close to the tracks.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 7:31 am
A single line is unlikely. However, the constituent parts are being proposed. Monterey County is far along in the planning of turning the Monterey Branch Line from Monterey to Castroville into a light rail corridor served by DMUs. Santa Cruz County is just about to finally buy out the UPRR line from Pajaro to Davenport. That leaves the Pajaro-Castroville gap to be solved in order to produce a single-seat ride from Santa Cruz to Monterey.
That day may be far off; two transfers may be required in the interim. But this is coming together.
jimsf Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 11:13 am
And if can as shown get the line from santa cruz and the line from monterey to connect and serve tranist center at salinas… where a future south extended ccjpa and north extended surfliner meet then the whole monterey bay area has a direct connection to the statewide network
Peter Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Have they figured out whether they will be running FRA-compliant vehicles on the Monterey Branch Line?
Joey Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I think their plan is to run BRT or light rail…
Peter Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
From what I saw on TAMC’s website, they’re going to run DMU light rail. Their video appeared to be of Stadler DMUs.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Last fall the TAMC board voted for light rail (with myself giving them a gentle nudge in the right direction). The plan is indeed to use DMUs. Monterey isn’t wild about using overhead wires, but I’ve chosen not to pick that particular fight, so DMU it is.
TAMC already owns the rail corridor, so it’s a matter of rehabilitating the rails from Castroville to Sand City, putting rail back in from Sand City to Monterey, and working on crossing gates and some intersection reconfigurations, mostly in Marina and Sand City.
Operating funding hasn’t yet been secured. In 2008 Measure Z “only” got 62% support from the voters. The TAMC board (made up of elected officials from around Monterey County) is keeping open the option of going back to voters again in 2012.
You stole my post!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 25th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
This refers to a rather sophisticated spammer that has been taking existing comments, reposting them as their own, and linking to their commercial website in their username field. One of the first things I do when I visit this blog is check the pending comments, so sometimes I see their repost before I see the original.
I’ll make sure those kind of spammers don’t have further success getting through the filters.