LA-Anaheim EIR Delayed to Early 2011
As a result of the CHSRA agreeing to study track sharing between LA and Anaheim, the EIR for that segment, which was to be released next month, will instead be released in January 2011:
David M. Thomson, an engineer with the consulting firm STV, said the rail authority has pushed back publication of its draft environmental impact report to January to allow some of those issues to be sorted out. The document originally was scheduled to be finished in May. He made the announcement during this week’s Buena Park City Council meeting.
State officials on Wednesday said pushing back the environmental studies will not affect more than $2 billion in federal stimulus funds that have been given to the project.
Buena Park has been one of the more vocal communities along the LA-Anaheim segment about the HSR plans. Unlike the controversy on the Peninsula, this isn’t about whether HSR should happen or not, or whether it should be tunneled or not, but is about a rather specific and focused concern about the impact of HSR on the Buena Park Metrolink station and nearby TOD:
The city’s two-year-old Metrolink station may or may not need to be destroyed to make way for the bullet train, so city officials asked that a new one be built as mitigation — and placed where the railroad tracks cross Dale Avenue, a location near the current station. The Buena Park Metrolink station, popular with commuters, opened in late 2007 at a cost of $11 million.
Even if their homes remain intact, the residents there want to save the station because they bought condos near it, Mayor Art Brown said. If the station were wiped out, Brown said, the residents worry the complex would become “a run-down slum.”
A new $11 million station seems like a perfectly legitimate form of mitigation for Buena Park. And it’s notable that Buena Park officials believe that having mass transit nearby is the difference between a desirable development and a “run-down slum” (which is a ridiculous way to describe condos not near a station).
As long as this doesn’t jeopardize stimulus funds, I’m all for examining track sharing, under reasonable circumstances (very limited sharing with freight, if any at all; passenger service integrated with HSR, HSR trains not slowed or delayed by any other user on the tracks). There’ll be lots of details to discuss between now and early 2011.
This being Orange County, of course, at least one HSR denier had to get a word in:
“I like this better than what I’ve seen before,” Councilman Jim Dow said. “But I think this is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars I’ve ever seen. This is a bunch of old men wanting to play with electric trains.”
Whatever, dude. Orange County and the state as a whole are going to innovate our way into the 21st century with high speed rail whether you like it or not.
Is it an underhanded way of pushing through shared tracks?
Wow, if one city can introduce an eight month delay, imagine what will happen when Idyllic Fullerton, Pristine Norwalk, Beautiful Santa Fe Springs, Scenic Orange and The Sacred Anaheim Colony District start making demands.
At least Kopp and Diridon would’ve steamrolled these fuckers. Now the board wants to compromise! Haha.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 15th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
A commen sense plan is somthing good..its the FRA that has stupid fat American train minds…As far as the sacred colony ….white dust bowl trash is nothing to save..they are not Hollwood 1930.
The station needs to stay, but if it needs to be partially or fully reconstructed, that’s probably fine. $11 million is nothing in the world of HSR.
tomh Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Agreed. Though $11 million seems like a lot for concrete. Maybe they can rebuild an identical station (saving a lot on design costs).
The delay is a product of insufficient information and understanding among decision-makers. Sometimes the information is provided, yet folks that should be knowledable…draw blanks.
I am particularly thinking about the City of Buena Park…. who, after being advised long ago by the CHSRA, like all cities, “to plan” for HSR, instead, they continue forward and approve new condominiums/townhomes adjacent to the ROW.
The city only has themself to blame.
San Diego is no different. In fact, maybe worse. The Downtown Revelopment Agency approved multiple towers immediately adjacent to Santa Fe Depot.
I personally like the shared-track alternative. Given this section isn’t within the important LA-SF corridor, I think we could save billions of dollars by upgrading existing tracks. Besides, the fastest the trains would run o this section is 110 mph. Why would you need dedicated HSR tracks for such a relatively slow speed? By upgrading existing tracks, you could also have Amtrak and Metrolink running at 110 mph.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 15th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Keep in mind that we need to not have Amtrak-style delays on HSR-branded trains. They need to have on-time performance comparable to Japan and Spain.
Joey Reply:
April 15th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I believe that the previously identified issue was that there was insufficient track capacity to run more than a few HSR trains per hour. I doubt signaling is very modern on these tracks…
HSRforCali Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Amtrak generally has a good on-time record with the Pacific Surfliner. And most of the delays are caused by BNSF or Union Pacific.
With more advanced signalling installed by 2020, I don’t see why we can’t run 15-20 trains an hour.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
At high tph count, you can’t run trains with different stopping patterns unless you can precisely time the overtakes. This is rarely done on regional trains outside Japan; what passes for good on-time record in the US is not enough.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
How high is high? It’s less than 30 miles. Might someday far far in the future have what? ten trains an hour in each direction?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
What matters is not distance, but the number of stops the express trains skip and the stop time. As a thought experiment, ask yourself if it’s feasible to run the Z express on the same tracks as the local J if each service has 6 tph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
The expresses will be skipping 3 stops if they put an HSR station between Ananheim and Union Station or 4 stops if they don’t. Does the train even get out of the Archer Avenue subway in 4 stops?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Yes. And then it goes skip-stop, because anything else involving stop-skipping would run into capacity issues.
Andrew Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
That’s what I was thinking. Metrolink should really be planning on running electrified rapid services.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 9:14 am
And they wouldn’t even have to replace their railcar fleet. They could just swap out their diesel engines for electric ones.
Andrew Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
New EMU’s with level-boarding would be better, but it’s a start.
OT: HSR is nice to have around in case a volcano or something shuts down the air transportation system. Or in case a refinery failure spikes the price of gasoline. Or in case the population grows every year. Or…
Also O/T I heard on the radio this morning that Southwest may be facing financial troubles in the near future. They cited rising fuel prices as one of the causes. They’re doing everything they can to keep dirt cheap airfares but I doubt it will last.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 8:39 am
I personally think that once Southwest raises its airfares to represent the “true” cost of flying, everyone else will. For HSR, the sooner that happens, the better.
tomh Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The problem Southwest will have when their fuel contracts expire is not only will the per gallon cost of fuel be the same as other carriers, but Southwest has old airplanes. JetBlue and Virgin have newer, more fuel efficient airplanes.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Well, a lot of Southwest’s planes are new. They’re just not A320s.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I flew jet blue recently and they used this sporty little plane – not a 737 (can’t stand those) but this one had two two seating and lots of leg room. very nice.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
oh yeah this one very comfy.
I think this is a good effort and step in the right direction by the Authority to build some confidence and good will with the local community. The biggest unknown now is the position of the FRA. While it seems they have begun to come around on HSR and Metroling/Amtrak/freight sharing the corridor’s tracks, one cannot forget that the FRA has the final regulatory say on what happens, not the Authority. Hopefully a workable solution can be developed to save lots of money while improving local transportation and corridor safety along the way. In the mean time, this delay further suggests that the segments that could qualify for stimulus funding is now more complicated since SF-SJ, LA-Anaheim and Central Valley segments will all be approved (hopefully) around the same time. Only time will tell…
Another delay? When can we just start building this thing? I can’t tell you how much I want to take a high speed train here in California. Why do they have to do those silly EIRs anyway? What purpose do they serve? It’s just a few train tracks, how could it affect the environment?
What is wrong with describing the community as being at risk of becoming a run-down slum if the transport link is lost?
Over the next twenty years, all auto-only residential zones are at risk of becoming run-down slums without a more petroleum-independent transport corridor.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 9:58 am
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Americans are not going to give it up no matter the cost. Even back in the horse and buggy days, personal transportation was the preferred method over public conveyance. They’ll find a way. They will pay for gas at 5,6,7 bucks an hour, and then, gradually be switching to hybrids, to cut the cost in half, making it equal to 3 bucks an hour they pay now and that will carry them through another decade. Meanwhile, if you look at your cali map, you’ll see the vast majority of the state outside cities, not only doesn’t have transit, but can’t have transit do to its rural nature. The state by area, is still about 90 percent rural. ( and lets face it, do you really want those folks to be your neighbors ;-)
synonymouse Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The end of oil argument is being overdone. Railroads, even electrified, are tied into fossil fuels. All commodities are involved – there are those who predict a huge jump in the cost of steel due to changes in contract pricing of iron ore. Guess who is a big user of steel?
If it happens you can blame it on those Rio Tinto execs languishing in Chinese jails.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
What is the point of your comment?
tomh Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Oil isn’t used to generate electricity in CA. Yes, natural gas is the main source of electricity in CA, but not too many cars run on that. The more people in CA get out of their cars and onto modes of transit that use electricity for propulsion, the less oil is used for transportation in CA. Period.
The auto industry is a much bigger user of steel than HSR could ever hope to be.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
why did I say hour, I meant gallon. duh. ( always thinking of wages I guess)
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
For an example of what happens to areas with high gas prices and poor transit options, look to rural France. Rural France is very poor, but it doesn’t look like what you’d expect an urban slum to look like. As a result, Parisian stereotypes of poverty are about the suburbs, where poverty has bred crime and social alienation, rather than the villages, which are even poorer but not as visible to the urbanites.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
California’s rural counties are very important. They are big tourist draws and heavy on outdoorsman use. Fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, timber, are all a big part of those economies. These activities and industries , which are very much an integral, desirable part of the Californian Lifestyle, do not easily lend themselves to public transit. I mean you can’t haul dirt, logs, mobile homes, and camping acoutrement on Muni. So there will always be a need for cars, trucks, and big hunky powerful modes. But certainly in the urban settings, 90 percent transit use might be feasible, and in suburban settings, commuter rail makes sense, with cars and trucks as a back up. That great middle class of america will demand that whatever can be done, be done, to ensure the lifestyle continues.
—By the way, there was some news about this climate legislation and how it may kill or damage funding for rail. Something about the trust fund. Has that all been covered here? Sounds like some kind of bad news in the making.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
France has plenty of scenic, touristy places in the sticks. The towns right next to them look pretty, too. The rest of the country is still really poor.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
as is most of ours.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:50 am
No, the US actually has lower interregional inequality than France, I think. And its richer regions – the Northeast, Coastal California, the Texas Triangle, South Florida, Greater Chicago – are scattered all over. In France, there’s Ile-de-France, the nicer sections of the Riviera, and that’s it.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
At least France’s rural areas have a measure of population density. Rural California is important economically to be sure, but it’s not where the majority of the population live. Plus, this is all sort of a misnomer. Modesto, for example has the huge EJ Gallo glassworks and winery right in town. And even Los Angeles and San Jose were built on fomerly agricultural land. Plus you might not be able to go camping on a train…but think about the potential for Tahoe. Ski train could probably do gangbuster business in the winter.
a lot of you i think use surfliner? just a side reminder:
Spring Training: Earn up to Triple Points
All Spring. All Routes. All Kinds of Points.
When Amtrak Guest Rewards® members take the train, we’ll spring for the points. When traveling aboard any Amtrak train between March 22 and May 7, you can earn double points. And when traveling as a member from May 8 to May 29, you’ll have the opportunity to earn triple points. Why the boost? Because May 8 is National Train Day, a day to celebrate America’s love of trains, and the perfect occasion to start earning extra.
Not a member of Guest Rewards click here to sign up today
NIMBY Morris Brown has filed a lawsuit against CHSRA/Caltrain demanding to stop the project claiming that until all the monies are accounted for, no building can start. He also argues that Caltrain should not be able to electrified using Prop 1A money.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_14894895?nclick_check=1
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:05 am
wow, a lot of free time that guy has.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Morris your pathetic…
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Cute. I guess he thinks the court will overlook the “usable segment” language of AB3034? Good luck with that. Sounds like a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action will be coming up.
Angry old men, what can you do.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:36 am
The case number is 2010-00075672. There are no documents posted for it yet on the CCMS site.
Reality Check Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:55 am
There’s a link to a viewable/downloadable PDF of the “complaint for declaratory relief” here:
Citing finances, Menlo Park NIMBY sues to block HSR construction
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Oh, wow, what a load of legal crock. TOTALLY grasping for straws.
tomh Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Um, no. It’s owned by the different transit organizations of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and SF counties.
Peter Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Seriously, that’s like arguing that the taxpayers own city property and have a veto over any use that property is to be put to.
Why is there a dead end stub HSR line from LA to Anaheim even under consideration? This is one of the best served rail corridors in the country with additional and faster service now in the works independent of HSR. The next extension of HRS will be to San Diego through Riverside, NOT Anaheim so why the dead end branch? How many riders from the Central Valley and north will be riding through LA and to Anaheim anyway? This is a total waste of money and needs to be stopped now and stop wasting money on this project looking for a need. Lets spend the energy, time and money on the Los Angeles San Francisco main line.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
There’s a few people who live in and around Anaheim and quite a few who won’t be living near the extension to San Diego. They might get the urge now and then to go to the Central Valley or San Francisco or Sacramento.
jimsf Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I still think they should have opted for la-riverside first, considering how much rail there is already between the OC and LA versus the the 1-10 mega parking lot.
Ricky Nudnik Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
I noticed your username here. Which got me thinking. Why not build a high speed light rail service (something like a “bullet trolley”)? That way, you might be able to have high speed service to more destinations, since lower ridership would be needed per line. (This would be the equivalent of those propeller “commuter plane” services, I reckon, but with more elbow room aboard.)
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 2:37 am
It wouldn’t work as well. High speeds require very precise track geometry, raising the cost of construction. It’s much cheaper to build a low-speed line than a high-speed line: there’s no need for grade separations, curves can be much tighter, tolerance standards are laxer, electrification can be done at lower voltage. High-speed rail requires higher standards at all levels, and those require high revenue to break even.
Just want to share this cool picture:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=318982
Spokker Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
It’s amazing that there are Americans who would still put down China. For all the problems China still has with poverty and lack of freedom, we are none to talk. We give up our freedoms readily and there are parts of the US that are third world.
America is on the slow decline and no one ideology is to blame, only our inability to get anything done.
Spokker Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
To add, even if you are pro-highway/air travel and anti-rail, you have no reason to celebrate. The entire transportation system is going to hell.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Compare and contrast with SF’s World Class Architectural “Competition” Winner:
Classy dropped ceilings, with worse than useless full-plate mezzanine. Because US train stations should always be unpleasant, unworkable warrens, because the only thing the World Class TJPA cretins have ever experienced in NY Penn Station.
Yeah, we had the world’s best architects and engineers work on this project. And this was the winning entry. Awesome!
Underground mezzanine! Maybe someday somebody will think of some reason for this to exist. But until then, the main thing it to ensure it’s as hard as possible to either tell this is a train station or to get to and from the trains. World Class!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
…never been at track level in Grand Central have you? Makes the Flushing line station look palatial.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 11:34 am
It’s a major flaw I’ve noticed in (at least American) train station design: “Oh look we’re building a big new shiny $1 billion station!!! (oh and by the way there are a couple of ugly and inaccessible platforms somewhere where no one cares about them).”
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
There’s no mystery its righ here:
“The lower concourse level will serve as the passenger circulation connection between the ground and train station platform. Space will be provided along the public concourse for retail.
The northwestern end will be allocated for a SF Muni Transit Operations Control Center while the southwestern end will be allocated for intercity bus operators as well as for a taxi stand. The eastern end will include support space for the Transit Center.”
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
level by level, they wanted space for a lot of different things, regional buses, long distance buses, cabs, retail, operations centers for the various agencies etc. Its all right there if you read it.
PARK LEVEL- this was a must in order for san franciscans to accept the design One of the most unique features of the new facility is “City Park,” a 5.4-acre public park that will sit atop the new Transit Center and feature a wide range of activities and amenities, including a walking trail, vegetation gardens, lush landscape, lily ponds, an outdoor amphitheatre as well as several retail attractions.
————————————–
BUS LEVEL- The bus deck will be the primary bus transit facility for AC Transit to operate service from the East Bay, with direct connection across the Bay Bridge and dedicated aerial bus ramps.
MUNI will also run bus routes with service to Treasure Island from the deck. During Phase I operations, Amtrak and Greyhound will also utilize berths on the deck. Remember the bus level is connected directly to the freeway/bay bridge access ramps.
—————————————
SECOND LEVEL- Located one level above the ground floor level, the second floor of the Transit Center will provide passenger and visitor circulation as well as administrative offices, space for support services and potential retail In other words, flexible office and retail space in which to generate revenue for the city.
—————————————
GROUND LEVEL- The ground level will serve as the primary circulation hub of the Transit Center and feature a Grand Hall with a prominent Light Column feature allowing natural daylight into the building. The main entrance hall off Mission Square will include a public information center, ticket kiosks, automated ticketing booths and the main escalators.
Space for retail will be provided along Natoma and Minna streets as well as in Mission Square. The western end of Natoma Street will provide space for service and maintenance as well as for the Transit Center’s loading dock. An outdoor bus plaza will be located at the eastern end of the building between Fremont and Beale streets, serving Muni, Golden Gate Transit and SamTrans buses.
—————————————–
LOWER LEVEL – The lower concourse level will serve as the passenger circulation connection between the ground and train station platform. Space will be provided along the public concourse for retail. The northwestern end will be allocated for a SF Muni Transit Operations Control Center while the southwestern end will be allocated for intercity bus operators as well as for a taxi stand. The eastern end will include support space for the Transit Center Muni Operations Center here and Greyhound and Amtrak buses loading areas.
——————————————–
TRAIN PLATFORM LEVEL- The train station platform will be located two levels below the ground level. It will contain three passenger platforms that will accommodate six train tracks for Caltrain and California High Speed Rail.
See there you have it. A park to serve both the new neighborhood as well as waiting passengers for all agencies. A must for all new development in the city by the way.
Operations space for a total of at least 7 transit agencies ( thus the “transit center” concept)
AC transit gets the bus level which connects them directly to the bridge as they only serve the east bay via the bridge and have no need to come down to street level. makes sense. off the bridge, make the loop, grab your people, and right back to the bridge. no fuss no muss.
The lower level puts long distance/thruway bus connections right above the rail arrivals with street access via underground ramps and keeps the loading area and idling buses away from the main hall and ticketing on the main floor.
The rest of the space is retail and office, again, to generate revenue.
I know that many here are all about hsr for hsr’s sake Go HSR! HSR Rocks! ( make rock concert devel fingers sign here) HSR 4ever! and such. But the transit center has hsr as one component not greater than but equal to, the other components. I understand you may not like it, but don’t pretend you don’t understand it.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I agree that the mezzanine is necessary, but they still manage to create a dark and uninviting space below ground. At the very least, they could have removed sections of the mezzanine and small portions of the ground level in order to create vertical open spaces (particularly to the platform level), giving a sense of openness and bringing natural light into the train station (no, that single shaft on the center platform doesn’t provide enough natural light). Overall I’m disappointed with the general lack of thought that was given to what went below ground, as, once CalTrain and HSR start operating, the train station will become the CENTRAL FOCUS of the Transbay Transit Center, eclipsing, by far, the significance of the bus terminal and the retail and the elevated park.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
actually they did, there are open spaces between the levels and if you watch the video i posted under open thread… you will see that it is in fact, not dark and uninviting. besides you can’t tell either way from a pic. I mean I use civic center and embarcadero bart/muni metro everyday, nothing terribly uninviting about those platforms (except maybe for some of the people down there)
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Looking at plans and simulations, there are few openings between the underground levels. At least the platforms aren’t just concrete slabs, but they could put a lot more effort into making it a more welcoming space. By the way, Civic Center has unusually high ceilings … it doesn’t deter people from using it, but it doesn’t exactly invite people into it. And just something to think about … these types of things will likely have an impact on ridership.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Well I have to say, honestly that anyone who would base their decision on whether to ride bart, caltrain or hsr, on the amount of open airy space, should get their head examined. I mean for real, come on now, you either need to make the trip or you don’t. There aren’t a bunch of people lingering about civic center station debating on whether they should go downstairs and take the train or not.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
It might not affect their choice of which mode of public transportation, but it may very well affect whether they choose to ride the train or drive (especially for commuters).
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
It just won’t. The choice will be based on time and cost period.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Uh huh. Which is why people sit in traffic for 45 minutes to get to Manhattan when the train stations and bus stations they passed to get to the place where they sit in traffic for 45 minutes couldhave taken them to any place they wanted to be in Manhattan faster and cheaper.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Like Brandon said, the subconscious decision reigns supreme here. Like you said, no one in their right mind would *actively* make such a decision, but the difference between an average experience and a pleasurable one may have a very real impact.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 2:34 am
Adirondacker, check the rail mode share of suburb-to-Manhattan commutes. It’s about 80% except in the area feeding into the GWB, where the trains are diesel-powered and dump people at Secaucus and the highways are high-quality and not at capacity.
Commuters go into dinky stations all the time; pleasantness is probably only going to matter at the margins. It’s intercity travelers who care about nice waiting areas.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 11:12 am
It’s closer to 50/50 bus/rail split from New Jersey into Manhattan. Unless you are going from Fort Lee to Columbia Presbyterian it’s faster to use mass transit during rush hours. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Cheaper too in most cases because of the tolls.
When the crossings were HOV-3 from 6 to 10 AM back in 2001 TV crews would interview people trying to get across before the 6 AM restrictions. Claimed that it was “faster” or more “convenient”drive into Manhattan and cool their heels for hours than it was to take a bus or train. Something other than speed and cost is involved.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Well, the buses go into Port Authority, which makes Penn Station look good…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
That’s like saying the brimstone is less sulfurous in the 5th Circle than it is in the 7th and 8th…
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Well… I think we all know that the decision a person makes in this regard is ‘subconscious.’
In other words… when they are considering a trip via their available options they’ll consider, among other things, the qualitative perception among those options. If someone is left with a perception of dank and dark, they be less likely to use that when considering an alternative that is brighly and happy. Of course, here I am assuming most people would pick bright and happy over dank and dark.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
ok. the station is going to be brand freakin new. it isnt going to be “dark and dank” ok? dark and dank is the boston subway. or maybe some subway in india or something. It may not be all “calatrava-y” but that doesn’t make it dark and dank. geez and I thought I was a drama queen.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
you im the one who’s gonna be spending 40 plus hours a week for the next 20 years in the place and believe me I wouldn’t be advocating for moving the ticket office to back to tbt if I thought for a minute that it was going to be a miserable place to work. So If I can handle it for the next 20 years, you can handle it for 5 minutes now and then.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
jimsf ^^^ I was responding to this comment:
“Well I have to say, honestly that anyone who would base their decision on whether to ride bart, caltrain or hsr, on the amount of open airy space, should get their head examined. ”
And my response was that, yes, folks do make such decisions. However, it is a subconscious decision. And, I might add… it’s quite natural.
Personally, I don’t have an impression one way or the other about the qualitative nature of the TBT design… I’ll review the vids soon and develop one soon enough.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I mean I have flown into some pretty rinky dink airports in my day ( ontario, long beach, ) and seom really ugly ones too, ( atlanta, minneapolis) and I don’t remember the lack of “inviting space” being even an afterthought let alone a deal breaker.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I don’t think its going to be all dreadful like you think it is down there. watch the video. its looks very well lit to me and further, one only spends but 2 minutes on the platform level. I just don’t see a problem. The city is also including a public art component, the details of which are yet to be known. Rest assured, the make all levels plenty palatable to the traveling and shopping public. I woulnd’t worry.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I didn’t say that it’s dreadful, just that it’s far from ideal…
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
and no, the rail won’t be any more significant than the rest of the center as the center will act as the centerpiece for the growing neighborhood and will become, much like SFCENTRE and METREON, a destination unto itself.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Yes, it will. In 2030, what percentage of TBT users will be using the train station as its primary function? 80%? More? CAHSR alone is projected to have almost as many boardings at the TBT as Embarcadero BART (the busiest station in the system) does today, and that’s to say nothing of CalTrain, which, as a commuter service, may bring even more riders than HSR.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Yes ridership yes. But that doesn’t make it more significant. It the rest of the center, that will be generating the real revenue for the city. from the office and residential towers, to the office and retail space in the center itself, there’s a much bigger picture going on than just trains arriving and departing. At least from the perspective of what this means for san francisco.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You know, if the sole purpose of the Transbay Terminal is to generate revenue for the city, then CAHSR shouldn’t even be considering going there. And there is life outside of San Francisco. Money is a different matter, but let’s just think in terms of actual people. Like I said earlier, what percentage of TBT users are going to be using the train station as its primary function?
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
You know, if the sole purpose of the Transbay Terminal is to generate revenue for the city, then CAHSR shouldn’t even be considering going there why not? one doesn’t preclude the other. And having the direct connection with 7 or 8 transit agencies in addition to shopping/retail/dining/office/services options all in one place outweighs the alleged lack of excitement on the platform level. Americans love the “all in one” destination. I think we may have invented it! Mall of america anyone? Disney World Resort? Hometown Buffet?
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
You’re missing my point. Serving passengers and generating revenue are not mutually exclusive, but the current terminal is designed to generate revenue first, and serve passengers second. The primary purpose of the terminal should be to connect between trains, those 7 or 8 other transit agencies, and downtown SF. And the focus on “generating revenue for the city” as you put it seems to be hindering those functions.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Or 20 pounds of um um stuff … in a 5 pound bag. I’m sure the people of the East Bay are just gonna be thrilled that they get to take a bus over the congested Bay Bridge instead of a nice electric train but they made the mistake of not living on the Peninsula so there are going to be some tradeoffs.
The California high-speed line’s cost to build might come out as some $50 per California resident per year. (I estimated a 30 year construction period, a $60 billion budget – yeah, I figured cost overruns might continue – and a 40 million population (don’t forget that California’s population is likely growing over this time period, so that’s probably a conservative amount). That comes out to $1500 per Californian. Now, take the long construction period – it took DECADES to build the interstates, remember! – and divide this $1500 by 30, and so we get $50 a year, the cost of four or five restaurant dinners, or a college textbook, or maybe a couple of tanks’ worth of gas. That’s affordable, one would think…
Spokker Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 10:27 am
And with a progressive tax system the poors won’t even pay for it. On the federal level, the wealthy won’t even pay for it. Some rich folk don’t pay federal taxes.
tomh Reply:
April 19th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I remember hearing Warren Buffet admit his secretary paid higher taxes than him.
Gas prices ought to depend on population density. In the countryside, the prices should be lower, so there’s less poverty out there, and in the city and denser suburbs, they should be higher. Also, this shouldn’t apply to freight services: freight gas prices ought to be lower and more consistent than passenger gas prices, because otherwise high gas prices would further inflation more than they really need to. Why should I pay more for my milk just because my personal cost of driving went up? The point is to get people out of their cars, not overcharge for food and other supplies.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2010 at 2:05 am
The purpose of high gas taxes is to make people pay for the pollution they cause. If a truck delivers milk to your area, then its tailpipes emissions cause local health problems, contribute to global warming, and force the US to spend more money on invading Middle Eastern countries. Those costs should be passed on to the people who drink milk and make the trucks come and deliver, instead of externalized.
Many of the problems of driving are global, so the gas taxes correcting them have nothing to do with density. Only local air pollution is really local, in which case your argument may hold; however, if it’s easy to get cheaper gas by driving 50 miles, people will just drive more. The ways around it are more complicated – for instance, using variable tolls on all urban and suburban roads (including local streets), or dedicating revenue from the health portion of the gas tax to the regions from which it was collected.
I wonder if the cities in support and cities in opposition will duke it out. Surely Fresno’s mayor doesn’t want Menlo Park gadflies to ruin the project for them.
http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=12321901
Pringle got a helicopter ride of Fresno. The Meth capital of the world really wants this.
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Speaking of Menlo Park, they think the EIR isn’t good enough.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14902414
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 9:27 am
nothing will please these people so just keep going and let them whin
synonymouse Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am
The hsr is losing the battle in the court of public opinion.
A 200mph hsr is still possible but it needs to be moved to the I-5 corridor which the division of highways has done the dirty work of carving out.
The 99 corridor is too expensive to start out with – it can be upgraded incrementally. Create a use district financing program wherein the conurbations of Norcal and Socal pay for the hsr themselves so that the San Joaquin Valley has nothing to bitch about. They get some construction jobs and don’t have to pay squat. Meantime the big cities get what they need – speed.
jimsf Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
are you just high or what?
synonymouse Reply:
April 17th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
lame flame
tomh Reply:
April 19th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I’d personally also prefer an I-5 alignment as well since it would make SF to LA trips even quicker.
But politically it won’t happen because it’s a statewide project partially funded with state bonds, and the state’s voters approved it knowing the Route 99 cities would be included. Also, the Route 99 cities really DO want this train. Look at the monstrosity of a 12 mile long viaduct Fresno is willing to endure in order to have HSR (compared to the obstructionist NIMBYs on the Peninsula). CHSR needs the political backing of Route 99 cities to help overcome the folks who want to kill CHSR. HSR needs them as friends, not enemies.
Also, one of the goals of CHSR is for it to pay for its own operating costs (and even better if it can pay down at least some of the capital costs). To that end, it needs to have as high ridership numbers as possible. And you don’t achieve that by bypassing Central Valley population centers.
synonymouse Reply:
April 19th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
The extra half hour added by the Tehahapis detour and the 99 corrridor stops will hamstring the hsr. It will require a perpetual operating subsidy.
Go Peninsula Nimbys. I was so blinking stupid to have voted for the piece of dreck known as Prop 1A and its berm blight. About as eco friendly as another freeway. I’ll never vote for another bond issue.
Spokker Reply:
April 20th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Not if we had one of these: http://www.infrastructurist.com/wp-content/uploads/bullet-train.jpg
synonymouse Reply:
April 20th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Yeah, the pretty girl might make me reconsider, if she headed up the CHSRA board. She mig ht have an open mind about base tunnels, etc. etc. Godzilla would have a more open mind than the Bechtel berm boys.
Spokker Reply:
April 20th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Look, would you feel better about the route if they altered the paint scheme more to your liking? http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/kotaku/2009/07/pokemonbullettrain.jpg
Reminds me of the Hello Kitty chainsaw sendup.