The Big Bang and Incremental Improvement
Last Saturday RailPAC held what was a fantastic event at MTA headquarters in Los Angeles, bringing together rail advocates from across the state and even the nation to speak about the future of passenger rail in California, with an emphasis on high speed rail.
I was only able to attend the morning session, but found it to be extremely valuable, both for the presentations as well as the opportunity to reconnect with old friends and meet new ones. The discussion was wide-ranging and while there may not have been agreement on everything, there was clearly a shared desire to seize the opportunities voters gave us in 2008 to make a dramatic change in passenger rail in California.
I’ll make some brief comments on different items discussed at the meeting, but I wanted to open with a framework offered by Amtrak VP of Policy and Development Stephen Gardner in his presentation – that there are different approaches to HSR in the US, one he termed “the big bang” (European/Asian style 150mph or higher trains) and “incremental improvements” (small scale improvements that can add up over time).
Gardner argues that the US needs both, and I fully agree. However, I also strongly believe California HSR must embrace “the big bang” – and in fact that Californians have already done so by their votes for Prop 1A, Measure R (LA County), Measure B (Santa Clara County) and elsewhere in 2008.
For the last 30 years, passenger rail advocates have become expert at doing a lot with very little. Funding has been hard to come by, and advocates learned that in the absence of massive amounts of money (which instead was going to freeways and airports), passenger rail had to be efficient, smart, but also accept certain limitations in order to survive. This approach has had quite a lot of success, especially on the Capitol Corridor but also on the other two Amtrak California routes, where big ridership gains were wrung out of a relatively small amount of money and an unfavorable trackage situation. I don’t mean to disparage the incrementalist approach, because without it we’d have been screwed in the era of Reagan, Gingrich, and Dubya.
That being said, even California’s incremental success has relied on its own Big Bang, which came in 1990. The passage of Propositions 111 and 116 at the June 1990 election provided the funding for Amtrak California services to buy an entirely new fleet of cars that enabled the incremental improvements. This is obviously not the same kind of “Big Bang” that Gardner was talking about – he was referring specifically to high speed rail – but it does indicate that incrementalism is not possible without strong advocacy for big infusions of cash, and that when such infusions become possible, they must be pursued with full force.
Comparing 1990 to 2008 is like comparing a high tide to a tsunami. By 2008, it had become absolutely clear to two key groups of people – the California electorate and the Barack Obama campaign – that what was needed was something more than the relatively slow and sometimes unreliable service burdened by sharing tracks with freight. Big bangs capture the public’s imagination, show that better passenger rail service is both possible and desirable, and can consolidate public and political support for ongoing investments in passenger rail.
The California public in 2008 did not vote for incremental improvements. They voted to transform intercity rail service. Of course, how we get there is an open question.
As the Tea Party movement has arisen and Democrats have grown a bit more hesitant to spend lots of government money, many rail advocates are witnessing the return of the conditions they knew so well over the last 30 years. Growing doubtful about the prospects for more federal money, some advocates are concluding that we may need to scale back our ambitions and use the existing HSR funds for incremental improvements.
Others, like Darrell Clarke, argue for a “mid-course correction” in the HSR planning process, where the CHSRA seeks more accommodation with the existing ROW and more integration with existing service. This appears to be able to meet both the goals of the Big Bang – true HSR service from SF to Anaheim – while also satisfying the incremental approach that may be necessary in the immediate future.
In the presentation we collaboratively produced, Dan Krause of Californians For High Speed Rail laid out CA4HSR’s vision for the LA-Anaheim corridor. Based in part on prior conversations with LA rail advocates, it indicates ways to implement what Darrell Clarke has been describing. Krause laid out some key design principles that need to be foregrounded when considering the LA-Anaheim corridor:
• Design with the assumption of full HSR build out.
• Design each piece of new infrastructure to be scalable – there must be enough capacity to handle future ridership growth.
• Design LA-Anaheim section to be compatible with entire statewide system (to guarantee reliable through-service).
In other words, incremental improvements and track sharing ought to be explored, as long as they serve the long-term Big Bang goals and definitely as long as whatever we spend our money on does not act as a bottleneck to future service.
There is more to the presentation that you should read, but Krause moved to list three priorities for the LA-Anaheim corridor, based on the above principles:
Priority 1: Complete Los Angeles Union Station Approach & Station Modifications – i.e. run-through tracks. Jarard Wright of Transit Coalition also called for this, indicating possible consensus on the value of moving to build this project, which can provide immediate benefits as well as serve the long-term needs of the HSR system.
Priority 2: Complete Key Grade Separations Projects. Importantly, this needs to be done so as to not throttle future levels of HSR service – we do not want to come back in 10 or 20 years and have to tear this out again. Let’s get it right the first time.
Priority 3: Complete HSR Portion of ARTIC Station. The design can be cost-effective – HSR might not need to go in a subway, and parking structures might be able to wait for the time being.
CA4HSR feels these are some starting points – though by no means the only ones – for moving forward on the LA-Anaheim segment.
Still, there were some conceptual differences on display at the meeting. At the end of the “How to Spend the First Billion Dollars” panel (where Dan Krause gave the above presentation), RailPAC president Paul Dyson argued that it did not make sense to build a high speed train that just links LA to Anaheim as a demonstration segment, a first segment, or a proof of concept segment, because that would fail to generate public support.
Ryan Stern, however, gave a very eloquent response to that argument, pointing out that was pretty much what happened with the Metro Red Line – it opened just from Union Station to MacArthur Park in 1993. And what happened? The public clamored for more, and has been clamoring for more ever since.
While there is surely room for sensible short-term investment in the corridor as Dan Krause laid out, he was absolutely right to point out that Californians expect bullet trains, and we need to find ways to deliver. The Big Bang is here. We already are going to have to implement it in stages, but as long as that big picture vision is kept in mind, there is every reason to believe sensible choices can be made about what to do in the near term, and ensure it provides for major increases in passenger rail service in the long term.
What that to me means is it needs to be all hands on deck to secure more and permanent federal funding. We’ll have more on that in the coming days and weeks.
Some other items that were discussed that was noteworthy:
• Tom Stone of DesertXpress gave a very thorough presentation that went into great detail on the plans to link Victorville to Las Vegas. As Brandon pointed out in the Saturday Open Thread, that presentation did not include details on the funding, only that they are in “active discussions” with a range of funders. We will see what happens, but I am excited for this project and think it could give quite a boost to our own HSR project between SF and Anaheim.
• Armin Kick of Siemens emphasized the company’s Sacramento factory, which has been making light rail vehicles since 1984. The factory covers all of North America and even does some exports to South America. Siemens has no plans to build a second factory elsewhere in the country, and is quite happy in Sacramento, defying the claims that California is overregulated and cannot sustain major industry. Siemens has already identified and purchased adjacent land to the existing factory for high speed rail production. There’s been a lot of discussion about China’s proposal to use the former NUMMI plant in Fremont to build trainsets, but Siemens showed that they already meet and exceed Buy America rules, do most of the production in-house, and meet or exceed green building standards. Siemens will be able to make a very compelling case for why it should be the supplier of trainsets for our system.
• Joshua Coran of Talgo came down from Seattle to deliver his presentation on Talgo’s success with the Amtrak Cascades, where they’ve been able to deliver an exceptional on-time performance because they insisted on doing the maintenance on the trains, not just selling them to the State of Washington. Talgo is primarily focused on the emerging HSR corridors elsewhere in the country, but clearly has its eye on California as well.
In the afternoon session, which I had to miss:
• Amtrak’s Stephen Gardner spoke about Amtrak’s HSR success and the need for ongoing investment in existing Amtrak services, particularly replacement of aging rolling stock.
• A panel spoke about the LOSSAN corridor, including Buena Park mayor Art Brown. I’d be especially interested to hear about this panel.
• And finally the Coast Starlight Communities Network presented a list of proposed upgrades to improve service quality and ultimately provide additional runs beyond the daily train serving the line in California.
Again, this was an excellent day of discussion about high speed rail and passenger rail. We are moving into a new era in this country, and while many challenges remain, it does seem that most everyone shares the desire to work together to bring about the vision that Californians endorsed back in November 2008. The Big Bang is here – it’s time to get it built.
Robert: Overall a fine analysis of Saturday, until you left for the other event.
I have a concern about “the big bang”. It’s great to have the vision, but financially, we’ve only got incremental funding. So, the theory is to use what little money we’ve got to get some type of “bang”. Yes, Los Angeles County has 3, that is 3 sales taxes of 1/2 cent to build out our system and to provide operating subsidy. The mayor has the idea of financing 30 years of projects, so we can get a federal loan to build the lines in 10 years, and then to repay the loans with the 30 years of tax revenue.
Now, Los Angeles County has built a lot with the twin 1/2 cent taxes from Prop. A & C, but LA also hit the wall, as the Capital dwindled and there was funding to finish only about 3 projects over the next 25 years. So, that is why Measure R was brought in to finish another big chunk of the job.
Now, on the state level, we have the $2.2 billion from the Feds and the state bond funds. The LA / OC team want to see that Capital spent wisely. While many in Los Angeles want to see the Purple Line extended west, the expansion to Westwood is slated for 2036. And, if the elements of the 30/10 plan go through, you are looking at 2018.
That 30 year expenditure is $17.5 billion. And that is real funds backed by 1-1/2 cents of sales tax and state and federal grants. In comparison, the PB team has set the costs of LA to Anaheim somewhere between $4.5 to $10 billion. Somehow, there is a complete lack of reality in what the HSR current team is doing and a complete reality of what LA County Metro is doing.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:39 am
We don’t just have incremental funding. We have $11.25 billion right now for HSR. There’s another $2.5 billion in the federal FY 2010 budget, and organizations including CA4HSR are working to launch campaigns to get another $4 billion in FY 2011 and ultimately $50 billion in the new transportation bill.
I understand the need to figure out how to use what we’ve got before the stimulus deadline. But we would be wrong – very, very wrong – to assume that’s all we’re getting. The assumption I’m starting to hear from a few corners is that we’re not going to get all $40 billion, and so far, that’s a premature assumption. We certainly shouldn’t plan on not getting it.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:49 am
Plus, we’re quite certain that private investors are interested in dumping a LOT of money in. Siemens, Chinese investors, etc.
Victor Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Well I’ll be listening to this blog for a long time, As It certainly sounds interesting to Me, So keep up the good work Robert.
Amtrak’s HSR success… that would be the line with the trains that need to be taken out for maintenance every 32,000 km because they’re too heavy, and have lower average speeds than 160 km/h diesel-powered non-tilting trains abroad?
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 8:59 am
Which is primarily the backwards FRA’s fault, not Amtrak.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:01 am
Not really. I lost the link but I remember reading an article explaining why Amtrak opted for the “bank-vault-on-wheels” solution. To sum it up, the FRA said: we’re OK for a European-style train as long as you install the signaling system that goes with it. You can’t blame the FRA for that. Any competent authority would have had the same attitude.
Alstom and Bombardier are also to blame. They knew they were asked to build a monster, a hippopotamus on gazelle legs that would cost a fortune in maintenance. But they had plants to keep running. And the customer is always right, after all.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:04 am
Ahhh, ok. Sounds reasonable enough. So, it was either pay lots of money up front for signalling, or lots of money incrementally on increased maintenance?
anonomouse Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Acela went into service in early 2000. What signaling system was available in 1998 that could have been installed, debugged and running between Boston and Washington by 2000?
dejv Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
European KVB, LZB or Ebicab or Japanese D-ATC.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
At what immediate cost, and would they have had to upgrade all trains that travel along the NEC?
dejv Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:54 pm
1) Big, but it should be quickly recovered in lesser maintenance costs and higher speeds
2) No, AFAIK none of them would interfere with legacy NEC systems. On-board equipment of other trains could be gradually replaced with fleet renewal or major overhauls
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:01 pm
So some trains would be dispatched with legacy NEC systems, while Acela would use a separate system? On the same tracks? *Raises eyebrows*
dejv Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:58 pm
What’s so weird about that? I doubt that higher maintenance costs of two parallel ATC systems would exceed loco retrofitting costs.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Don’t forget that if the Acela had the axle load of the Pendolino, it’d cause about one third as much track wear – and that’s without considering the longer safe maintenance intervals.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:52 pm
doubt that higher maintenance costs of two parallel ATC systems would exceed loco retrofitting costs.
Shutting down the NEC for a few years while they installed the new system wouldn’t have worked out too well…..
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
Two parallel signalling systems is impossible and illegal. It’s a fundamental violation of safeworking principles — both systems always have to know where every train is, and only one can be authorized to grant movement authority. So you always have to have one overlaying another, you cannot have two in parallel.
dejv Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am
So NEC practice of 100 years of parallel optical and track-circuit-transmitted signals is impossible and illegal? Interesting…
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
They aren’t separate and parallel signalling systems. They’re part of the same signalling system.
Yes, you can have two different types of data transimssion systems within one system. Surely you knew that?
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
FYI, nowadays the correct thing to do would be to install ETCS, which is designed to solve all these problems. When converting with a line which already has an existing signalling system, ETCS “Level 1″ acts as a translation layer from the native signalling system, so that the trains only need to speak ETCS. The underlying signalling system remains the same and the ETCS is an overlay.
Then, when all the trains are speaking ETCS, it becomes possible to replace the existing signals on a section of track with “pure ETCS”, that is, ETCS level 2.
dejv Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:09 am
FYI, LZB, ETCS L2 and other communication-based signalling systems can be and often are another layer on existing interlocking systems. You just put another box next to every interlocking, that transmits MA granted by these machines to Control Center (LZB) or Radio Block Center (ETCS L2), that in turn transmit MA to trains. BTW, ETCS L1 is basically redesign of Ebicab.
BTW, did you notice that I wrote KVB yesterday, but I really meant TVM, the system used on LGVs?
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Of course, one can also viciously suppose the FRA suggested a solution that they knew Amtrak couldn’t implement, thus obliging it to “choose” FRA compliance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Which is why all of Europe is switching to LZB or is it TVM .. oh wait….
dejv Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 am
ETCS was anything but operation ready back in 1998-2000.
For the record, Spain uses LZB on its 1990′s high speed lines.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 am
Japan is happy with its ATC system, and has no intention of switching to ETCS.
Eric L Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
That link would be interesting, I’m trying to find better defenses of the FRA position. But the signaling issue seems beside the point. Right now the FRA requires special signaling for speeds over 79 MPH. And trains are allowed to go over 79 MPH in places where the signalling has been installed and continue onto non-high-speed track at 79 MPH. That’s fine. And if that were the only issue, then there would be no incremental-vs-big-bang trade-off to be made — upgrade the track one section at a time until you have a full high-speed line. The issue is with the weight and stiffness requirements of the trains that go into effect if you share any part of the line with freight traffic. There are two problems with this:
1. The big-bang-vs-incremental trade-off — you have to build the full high-speed line, or you work on incremental improvements that, due to the heavier trains you need to run, won’t really ever result in the speeds you’d like and will be excessively costly to run.
2. The requirements are not justified by safety. There are other ways to make the trains safe and no evidence of improved safety as a result of FRA regulations. The requirements effectively prohibit things like crumple zones — why prefer having passengers jolted out of their seats in a perfectly rigid train over allowing a part of the train not carrying passengers to collapse and absorb the shock? Base the regulations on actual passenger impacts in crash tests. Not to mention the longer stopping distances of heavier trains are themselves a safety problem. Oh, and trains are far and away the safest mode of travel anyway, so why hinder them and have more people drive?
Question for others: Is there anyone lobbying for changing these rules?
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am
You have the analysis correct. I don’t know who’s lobbying to change the rules. The European train manufacturers have asked for them to be changed. We believed that Caltrain was lobbying to get *some* of them changed.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:04 pm
http://www.ebbc2.ebbc.org/rail/gao.pdf
Here’s the skinny from the GAO on the Acela debacle. Blame is handed out pretty evenly between Amtrak, Bombardier, Alstom, and to a lesser extent to the FRA.
Eric L Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Okay, though this clearly isn’t the link Andre was talking about. And it doesn’t at all investigate whether FRA requirements that increased the weight actually improve safety or just how costly those requirements were. Yeah, the Acela trains are crappy, and that may be partially because they are custom-built, but that too probably has a lot to do with the fact that they were built to meet requirements that don’t exist in other countries with high speed rail. The stresses on the tracks, the brakes, the tilting mechanism, everything really, are higher with a heavier train. So the FRA is making everyone else’s jobs more difficult, and the GAO just notes Amtrak and Bombardier didn’t do a good job under those requirements. Perhaps investigating the regulations wasn’t the GAO’s job, but it’s time to do that.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Amtrak, like CHSRA, was determined to deliver a pre-determined project at any prices, rather than to deliver public benefit at a justifiable cost. People’s careers and companies’ bottom lines became intimately intertwined with the North East Corridor Improvement Project, and technical failure became just another way to keep dragging it on and on.
The correct public policy response to projects which were extremely dubious to start with, and then immediately blow out their budgets and schedules and tear up their agreed deliverables, for whatever reason, Big Bad Infinitely Stupid FRA, or criminal contractor overcharging for electrification scheme, or whatever, is to pull the plug early and not throw bad money after good.
But once it’s all about building a particular project and nothing else, and once the scoring of earmarked funding independent of project viability becomes the be-all and end-all of the process, well then the sky is the limit. And the construction fraternity, being no dummies, get the signal loud and clear. Too big to fail! Big Dig, anybody?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The correct public policy response to projects which were extremely dubious to start
Building another lane on I95 would have cost much more. Go ahead, figure out how to add a lane or two to the Cross Bronx Expressway. It would make the Big Dig look cheap. Wouldn’t be particularly cheap through Northern New Jersey, Westchester, Fairfield and New Haven counties either. Or Baltimore. They could probably widen the New Jersey Turnpike through southern New Jersey relatively cheaply but then the Turnpike isn’t I95 down there. Want to widen I95 itself you are talking about going through Philadelphia. Not cheap.
The alternative would have been more airport. There’s no place to build more airport.
public benefit at a justifiable cost
….well if they had done in the 70s what they promised in the 60s they wouldn’t have spent the 80s and 90s patching together the decrepit infrastructure….
criminal contractor overcharging for electrification scheme
600 million for roughly 200 miles of track while working around a busy railroad and installing a signal system while they were at it wasn’t all that outrageous. There were Grand Juries impaneled. I don’t remember if even got to the point of handing down indictments.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Yes Richard. Perhaps you are just now realizing you live in america? Let me be the first to welcome you. I don’t want you to have a stroke so I’m going to provide a short, gentle reference list for living in america.
now be sure to take deep cleansing breaths
1. In america. do expect politics.
2. In america, do expect profit motive. ( its something about capitalism)
3. In america. you will here the term “freedom” tossed about. This one is tricky because they don’t tell you that what they mean by “freedom” is freedom to get away with whatever you can. Whether you are a wall street broker, an insurance company, a recreational drug user, or a petty criminal.
If you have or can get money, if you have or can get political support, if you can trick people, convince people, ( hello advertising?) or use whatever god given talents you have to get yours, and can do it without getting caught, then you win.
So when you find corruption (gasp) in business, or politics, or even when the guy who cuts you off, or runs the red light,gets away with it, just know that this is what they really mean by “freedom”
jsut look at the tax code. its like a game. A big easter egg hunt of who can find the bet tricks to keep from paying.
So try to be so shocked when say, a union gets a candidate elected, and then the candidate rewards the union. THATS HOW IT WORKS.
Same goes for the wealthy. The winners win and the losers lose until such time as they win again.
So just get over it. No doubt, some planing decisions are in fact being made in order to ensure future changes and contracts. They get to do it like that cuz they can and you can’t stop them. YOu don’t have the power to change it. and you won’t change it. I suggest you trying drinking.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:55 pm
There’s politics and profit everywhere. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is comparing the US to communist or authoritarian countries. The issues differentiating the US (or the UK) from the rest of the developed world are different:
1. The US and UK have a culture of overpaid, inbred managers and consultants, which leads to a severe not-invented-here syndrome. Those consultants are paid to Innovate! and Invent!, not to implement or tweak proven solutions.
2. The US specifically is still reeling from when it was the most advanced country in the world, so American politicians are predisposed not to trust European or Asian ideas. Britain is somewhat better in this regard – it’s had enough time to get over losing its empire.
3. The US and UK, plus a few other countries (e.g. Italy, France, Israel, Australia) have toxic union-business relations. The resulting battles ensure that when management wins, workers get paid shit, and when unions win, it’s impossible to engage in any labor-saving efficiency improvements.
4. The US and UK have bureaucracies that emphasize professional managers and leaders, and not professional engineers, designers, etc. In the aftermath of the Challenger disaster, it was discovered that NASA explicitly told engineers to think more like managers and less like engineers.
Pay attention to the fact that all of those issues are especially bad in New York, so unsurprisingly its transit construction costs are the highest in the US and the world, and its not-invented-here syndrome is the worst.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Alon, let me suggest something else.
In the US (in particular), there’s a very strong emphasis by the consultant mafia on getting particular megaprojects approved, and then running up the costs of the project as fast and as high as possible, with the understanding that once something is approved, no matter how bad it was, and no matter how infinitely much worse it becomes, the political will exists or can be cheaply purchased to ensure that the pork keeps rolling in. In short, it’s all about scoring earmarks, bringing home the bacon (even if the profits immediately get shipped off elsewhere), and not about delivering benefits. In fact, nobody cares about how dismally badly the project performs in the slightest (Exhibit A: BART to Millbrae.)
In contrast, another way of doing business is for the people who design and build public works to deliver public benefits as quickly and economically (and yes, these people want to and do make profits) as possible, with the understanding that there will be more where that came from because the public (either through direct plebiscite or through elected representatives) likes what they see and want to see more of it. Exhibit A are the intercity and metro rail projects of Spain of the last two decades.
Example: Barcelona today is constructing a massive high speed (10 platform tracks) commuter rail (8 platform tracks, 2 lines) metro (4 platform tracks, 2 lines), bus (22 intercity bays, with tons of space for local city buses), taxi (200 deep taxi rank!), private car (2500 parking spaces), urban development (there’s a park on top of the whole thing, and the former wasteland of train tracks will be decked over) project.. all for about of tenth the cost of the catastrophically incompetent, less than quarter-sized Transbay Terminal disaster in San Francisco.
Or, look at Barcelona’s incredible L9/L10 Metro projects, the largest construction project in Europe, and delivering results for less than 1/10th the cost of the rent-seeking vendor-captured 2-station Central Subway boondoggle in San Francisco.
Contractors aren’t digging and erecting and pouring and assembling this stuff in Spain out of the goodness of their hearts: they’re doing it to make a profit, but with the expectation that there will be more stuff to go around in the future if they continue to deliver as they have in the past. Make the first high speed line a success, meet the budget, schedule and ridership promises, and there will be a whole country clamoring to be filled with high speed lines.
The contrast with our local situation, in which cost is maximized and ridership minimized because nobody cares about benefit, couldn’t be starker. PB’s not going to go broke if our state turkey has 1/4 the ridership they “predict”, after all! In fact, that will just be justification for crapping out more gold plated turds, in order to “realize the vision”. Works every time!
I really just don’t see how to get from there from here. We have a perfect, vicious cycle in which failure is actively rewarded — in fact in which it is actively sought out –, and in which neither cost effectiveness nor public benefit have any weight whatsoever. We expect public projects to fail, and just shrug our shoulders and fork over more tax dollars when they do. The bigger the disaster, the bigger the payout. Just ask PBQD about how badly their reputation was damaged by the (objective, but who cares about facts) fraud revealed in their BART cost blowouts and ridership shortfalls. “You’ll never work in this town again” … NOT!
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 am
There’s some strong evidence that San Francisco also has a particularly bad “city culture” of nonfunctional, wasteful, incompetent spending. I read an entire article on it.
But for contrast, it does *not* seem to be as bad outside San Francisco, New York, and Boston. Stuff comes in at plausible prices with decent performance even in Chicago, of all places, and certainly in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, et cetera. I’d even say LA does OK lately.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Chicago’s planned Circle Line’s first phase is projected to cost $600 million per km. That’s reasonable only for a fully underground line crossing under multi-story subway tunnels in very dense areas. The Circle Line, whose first phase is fully elevated, doesn’t have this excuse. It’s so egregious it makes me wonder whether once the time comes for the underground sections of the line Chicago will overtake New York as the city with the world’s most expensive subways.
The Sunbelt cities of the US build subways at 1.5-2 times the normal European cost, and light rail at below-average cost; their problem is not high construction costs as much as bad route and service planning leading to low ridership. Specifically, LA’s Green and Gold Lines are complete duds, and Seattle’s light rail at subway cost is so embarrassing that even light rail advocates exclude Seattle from their average light rail cost calculations. Overall, American LRTs average $20,000 per weekday rider, which is almost unheard of in the rest of the world even for subways. Portland, at $15,000/rider, is at the lower end. For comparison, the Paris trams cost $4,000-7,000 per rider.
I think I know what article about San Francisco you’re talking about, and it’s completely meh. It cites a few examples of bad governance in SF, doesn’t bother to find out that the same things happen all over the US, and quotes Kotkin talking out of his ass about how even liberals don’t find SF’s policies attractive. It’s not good reporting, and it’s indicative of the Chronicle’s fishwrapper status.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
It’s not good reporting, and it’s indicative of the Chronicle’s fishwrapper status. ha, now there we can agree.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
exactly my point. so why bother getting upset about it. I mean live in country where 57 percent of republicans actually think obama is a muslim and 24 percent think hes the anti christ. this is america. so what can you do? not much. jut be glad there is any project at all and support it. Unless you want to take the stance “if I can’t have it my way then nobody should get it” which isn’t going to endear you to supporters or the majority of californians who voted for it and just want it done. they just want to know, when will it be done. most of them don’t care how its done. just tell them when its open and if it will be cheaper than a plane ticket.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I think Californians do care how much the project costs. If CAHSR had the same per-km cost as the tunnel-heavy airport HSR in Norway, it would cost about $14 billion from LA to SF. If it had the same per-km cost as the Italian TAV line, it would cost nearly $100 billion. Those things matter.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
You do have a knack for going around the general point that I was making. You know as well as I do that now that the 1a passed, mot californians are not following the detailed progress but simply want to be alerted as to when they can board. Most people have never visited this site or the hsr site, have no idea of the altamont/pacheco and other controversies, and frankly are to busy with their lives to care. Its only us hsr geeks and foamers and armchair types who spaz out over this stuff…. and of course the nimbys are their own special breed.
but you knew what I meant.
You know what it sounds like, its like when rachael maddow asks a republican a direct question and they do everything but answer the direct question while trying to shift the focus away from the main point.
this project is still in the general vicinity of what the voters expected as far as cost. They just want it done.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Meh. Californians still care about costs… I don’t think too many people care about technical issues like Altamont/Pacheco, UP/BNSF, or the equipment used. But people do care about how much the government spends on the project.
1A is not enough, because the assumption in 2008 was that there would be about $10 billion extra state and federal funding, and $10 billion private investment. If Californians get more supportive of the project, and the costs seem under control, then Pelosi and Feinstein will have an easy time kicking in the extra money. If they start opposing the project, and the Republicans can credibly scream about costs, then Pelosi might decide to cut CAHSR loose.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
In all seriousness though. Everyone, I have to ask….. no joking now… Am I really the only one here, who understood what this project would mean once the big sell was successful?
Of course, politically well connected people were going to benefit. That was the whole point.
When “they” speak of “job creation” for instance. well duh. those big players, will in fact need to hire people, californians, and so we get jobs. But surely you knew who would benefit the most. The big players.
I mean I knew when prop 1a was in progress, exactly how it would play out. ITs a very lucrative back room style deal. But that said, californians will benefit, will get jobs, and will get a fast train. just like all other big american projects. yes yes even the big dig. Ti won’t be perfect but its what we will get. Then we’ll adapt and move on to the next thing and make do.
Please tell me everyone wasn’t really believing the more kumbaya-ish aspects of the original sales pitch? to quote from john water’s original hairspray “don’t act ignorant Tracey Turnblad”
It will never change.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:06 pm
No. :-)
If the federal funding for complete phase I is indeed endangered, CHSRA should push for through running of high speed trains on legacy tracks and prioritize SJ – Palmdale section. It should make the system usable and create enough public demand to fund the rest of system, similarly as first section of LGV Paris did. It could also allow to connect Sacramento and San Diego right from the beginning and make possible direct connections to Tahoe and other resorts. Note that tracks don’t have to be electrified right from the beginning to achiveve it, trains can be operated in TGV Vendée style.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:38 am
San Jose to Stockton via Fremont, Livermore and Tracy would have been the perfect first stage for Northern California (I have no informed opinion on the LA Basin, but for obvious political reasons something of comparable expense would have to be undertaken in the southern half of the state):
fills in a missing rail link;
SAVES over $10 billion dollars;
massages the grandiose egos of the City Fathers of The Capital of Silicon Valley and The Most Importantest City in The Entire World by reaching SJ before any other lesser conurbation;
fulfills a useful transportation function;
long enough to be used for system testing and debugging;
viable as a stand-alone first phase;
not a make-work phase, and wouldn’t need to be done over in any way, just extended;
extremely low construction risk (Fremont-Sunol tunnel geology being understood in fine detail due to the parallel Hetch Hetchy aqueduct bores);
involves a reasonable mix of different structure and construction techniques (modest amount of tunnelling, none east of Dublin, a couple significant viaducts; low-tech bulldozing; and a limited number of new grade separations), with civil design and construction packages readily decomposable into competitively sized tranches;
puts Sacramento right there on the map, rather than 40 years or more mañana mañana;
readily and feasible and obviously extendable north to Sacramento and south to Fresno, Bakersfield;
doesn’t leave the Central Valley off the map altogether;
etc;
etc etc etc.
What’s not to like?
Oh right. The saving $10 billion of public tax dollars and being useful parts.
Does Not Meet Sopranos Fiscal Engineering Criteria.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
The perfect first stage for the LA Basin would in fact be LA-Bakersfield. Despite the construction risk. It fills in a missing link which already has massive numbers of people travelling every day.
(And it has to run via the Tehachapis to make the construction costs plausible.)
Of course, if it weren’t for the FRA built-like-a-tank regulations, it could mean direct trains from Sacramento to LA with electro-diesels. Nobody wants to beat up the track and require overbuilt engines just to satisfy the FRA lack-of-crumple-zones-is-mandatory regulations. :(
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:41 am
I forget if anyone replied to who owns the tracks and ROW between Palmdale and LAUS. Is it UPRR?
SS Sam Taylor Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Actually, Metro (LACMTA) owns the tracks between Palmdale and LAUS. The problem here is that CA HSRA has plans to build a nine mile $3 billion tunnel between Sylmar and Sand Canyon. And, of course Metrolink won’t be able to use it. And, when the new HSRA CEO comes in and starts giving haircuts to some of the “big bang” team members, you will probably find a new set of directions telling the HSR contractors that they better figure out a way to “share usage”.
If HSRA can find the money to build to Palmdale, then they can figure out how to go up Interstate 5 and not go out of the way to Palmdale. The Palmdale-Bakersfield route takes the line about 90+ miles longer to get to the bay area.
synonymouse Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:54 pm
As far as I can tell the CHSRA never had any more than a perfunctory interest in the Tejon region alternative. Paperwork notwithstanding their heart was never in anything but Palmdale and the Tehachapis. AFAIK east of but parallel to I-5 base tunnels were not examined in detail. And I definitely think they should have solicited opinion from those who actually mine base tunnels, like Herrenknecht, about whether and how to tackle Tejon bores. It is still not too late to take another look as this route serves any alignment thru the San Joaquin Valley faster than the Tehachapi Loop.
As to the test track, the issue is simple. BART had a test track; Bechtel built BARt; Bechtel is designing the hsr, ergo the hsr will have a test track, like it or not. The real purpose of the test track is to come up with some really expensive, unique specs, in the spirit of BART broad gauge.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Wow, your drugs are good. I wonder what you’re like off of them?
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
and where do you get them?
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:00 am
You’re a loon. There’s a very involved set of engineering paperwork, which I’ve read, discussing the Grapevine route, and how they attempted to find a decent tunneling route through the Grapevine, and exactly why the construction risk was considered too great, and exactly why there is no non-tunnelling route suitable for high speed through the Grapevine.
This paperwork was all available on their website. The engineers clearly would have preferred to go through the Grapevine, just as the engineers for Seattle’s light rail would have preferred to have a stop under First Hill.
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Meh, he’s read the paperwork and has dismissed it as a cop-out.
He thinks that the Authority doesn’t have cojones for not wanting to build base tunnels, that the Authority should have called in Herrenknecht to plan the tunnels, that they would not have had to cross any fault lines in a tunnel, and that it is highly important to ignore the CV cities and build an I-5 racetrack to Altamont, for shock-and-awe effect. That’s a summary of Synonorodent’s view.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Seems like a good summary.
Frankly the vibe *I* got from reading the report is that the authority engineers would have *loved* to build enormous base tunnels under the Grapevine as a giant showpiece, but crossing near the intersection of three fault lines underground was just a little too much for them.
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I forgot to also mention that he also wants to implement some sort of population control. I’ve suggested he start with himself.
Andy Chow Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Actually the first stage should be between the Bakersfield and Lancaster. There’s no passenger rail service between that segment.
The rail corridor between Lancaster and LAUS is owned by Metro/SCRRA.
If that segment is built, it would be possible to provide service to the Bay Area via the San Joaquin route, and eliminate the current Amtrak bus bridge over the Grapevine. The rail service would be more competitive to driving.
thatbruce Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Semantics: UPRR seems to own Palmdale to Lancaster as part of Mojave to Cajon.
rw Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:56 pm
If desert express is at all real — La to Bakersfield would have the advantage of leasing trackage rights for a real route between two real cities (Reno and LA) until other sections get built out. CAHSR would get some income a few years earlier and there would be a big bang of people traveling from LA to Reno.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
That would be a nice bonus. LA-Bakersfield would already attract a *lot* of people by itself (no current rail service, busy bus bridge, lots of drivers).
AFAIK the worst politicization in the entire project was the decision to do LA-Anaheim and SF-SJ first. Huh? Bakersfield-LA should come first.
It seems to me the CV Test Track should have priority over all sections. Unlike the LA-Anaheim section where trains will run at a maximum speed of 110 mph, the CV will allow for 220 mph. The combination of speed and technology would surely wow not just Californians, but the entire country; further building up public support for HSR funding. Yes, the LA-Anaheim section would serve the 2nd busiest corridor in the US, but people are predictable. If they see a train going at 110 mph vs, 220 mph, it’s pretty obvious which one they’ll be more impressed by. Plus, the CV Test Track is probably the cheapest section to construct.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:40 am
There’s a very strong case for that. There’s also a case for doing a true HSR line from LA to Anaheim because it’d be higher profile, but you’re right that the CV test track would be cheaper and easier to build.
thatbruce Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Given the long lead time, making a start on the Tehachapi tunnels at the same time as the CV test track would also be in everyone’s interest.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
Absolutely. That LA-Bakersfield section is going to take quite a while to build. It really, really needs to get going.
SS Sam Taylor Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Could you explain this Central Valley test track? These are off-the-shelve trains, not unknown and untried equipment. Is “test track” meant to be a fancy term for “initial segment”? Also, isn’t this the
segment that isn’t going to be electrified when first built? I realize that I may have missed some of this, but I know I’ll get some answers.
Oh, and who was going to purchase the “test trains”? HSRA? So, then they have to become an operating railroad? Is this where “private industry” brings in some trains and hopes to get “break-even” revenue running test trains? Has anyone looked at the Code of Federal Regulations and GCOR and found a qualified operator?
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Due to California Air Resources Board regulations the atmosphere in California has a different viscosity than the air where the high speed trains will be manufactured. In addition the Sierra Nevada Mountains produce a gravity vector across the transverse axis of the central valley, necessitating testing to ensure that the rolling stock can handle the unique transverse loads.
They want to call it a test track, that’s fine, it’s just the length of track from Merced (or Fresno) to Bakersfield.
The operator is to be chosen at a future date, when the authority determines how they want to structure the contract (Build, build operate, build operate transfer, etc. etc.)
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
and the tule fog dont forget the tule fog.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I’ll take a stab at this. A test track needs to be built (1) For purposes of regulations (there are currently none in the U.S. for operations above 150 mph, and the regulations will likely be evolutionary based on testing and operational experience gained in this process, i.e. for signalling and the like), (2) for training and technology-familiarization (there are no similar trains operating in the U.S., so the workforce has to be trained how operate and maintain the new equipment and infrastructure), (3) to certify the trains (they need to be able to reach and maintain for some distance a speed 10% above their max operational speed, and you need a stretch of tracks straight and long enough to reach this) and (4) simply to get the kinks out of the system.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:50 pm
And yes, the test track will simply be integrated into the system once it gets connected to other sections.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
(0) to provide tens of millions of dollars of “project oversight”, “testing”, and “acceptance” pork for the same contractors who write the specifications that require “project oversight”, “testing”, and “acceptance” for special furlongs and ounces “standards” developed by the same consultants for “unique Californian conditions”.
Ka-ching!
We can never be tested enough.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
You wanna get on a train that’s just spent a month on a slow boat from Japan or two months ona slow boat from Europe operated by someone who’s never used that piece of track that has never had a train on it? There’s going to be some testing and training. They need someplace to do it
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
How long did Taiwan’s HSR run through testing prior to start of revenue operations? And they had proven equipment and experienced imported drivers…
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
plus it means more ribbon cutting ceremonies. we love ribbon cutting!
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 am
Yes, they need testing. But they don’t need years of testing, not for the train, anyway. I’d be more worried about testing the tracks, to see the trains can run on them smoothly.
Bottom line: there’s no point in building a maintenance yard and a test track before the line is nearing completion.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
You need a maintenance facility before revenue service, any revenue service, starts. They don’t helicopter in pre-fab maintenance facilities from the maintenance facility factory….
dejv Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:14 pm
This is pretty common thing. For example, AGV prototype reached 360 km/h in late 2008 on French LGVs. For Italian authorities, it wasn’t sufficient and they had to some more tests on italian AV/AC network.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
It must have been for the profit of the Italian authorities, as per Richard’s logic (is that the right word for it?).
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm
You know, Italy isn’t exactly a model of good government. Its budget blowouts on intercity rail sometimes make California look good. I don’t think California’s dumb enough to want to serve every city on the route with both a city-center through-station and a bypass.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I’m sorry, was it maybe for the profit of the contractors who built the AV/AC network? Or for Alstom?
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:27 pm
as for the test track construction, the real question is who will supply the simulated wood grain paneling.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Yes, the test track is due to the FRA’s not-invented-here attitude. “Yes, we know you tested them off in Europe and Japan, but you have to test them HERE.”
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
Why not just call it the “initial segment”, and do that sort of testing on it prior to opening? That’s what they do on metros.
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Well, that’s what would happen.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:50 pm
In one of the board meetings I believe it was Tony Daniels that brought up the issue that to run trains on the line you have to have an operations center, and since the operations center is planned for the CV, you’d have to build a temporary one on the other segment. His opinion (which was not well received by Curt Pringle) was that there was no reason to waste money on a second operations center when you were just going to run the trains back and forth between Anaheim and LA at 110mph.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
That’s a new one!
I guess that they must be planning to use the rails of the system to link the futuristic Operations Control Center of the Central Valley to the LA basin, so without a continuous ribbon of rail from Fresno to Anaheim, there’s simply no way to release the semaphore signals, crank the switches, or send the morse codes announcing special trains, or synchronize the standard railroad timepieces carried by the conductors.
PBQD senior consultants: there’s always something $urpri$ing you can learn from them.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Richard, you may be (surprised/shocked/appalled/delighted) to know that in fact an accurate operating wrist/pocket watch is a mandatory part of the amtrak uniform. oh and this just in, whatever high speed trainsets cali buys, they will be retrofitted for a caboose complete with woodburning stove. ( because hobo stew from a microwave doesn’t have the traditional flavor)
The cabooses will deigned by bechtel.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
There’s plenty of dark fiber they could lease, for sure.
But an honest question: Without something completely radio-based like ETCS-L3, wouldn’t you normally put the communications fiber in or alongside the trackbed?
dejv Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 am
You’ll need optical cables even with radioblock. Interlockings aren’t going anywhere even if you get rid of all trackside equipment.
As a biased Bay Area resident I’d love to see the SJ to SF leg get built right away, assuming we can get peninsula NIMBY’s on board. This would have an immediate incremental effect on commuter rail and also serve as a mini HSR line to showcase the technology even as we have to wait for the full implementation of CAHSR.
The density of the corridor and established ridership would immediately begin providing substantial revenues to prove the business aspect of the project as well as the technology.
Evan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:21 am
Amen to that! That would be fantastic for SF, SJ and everywhere in between (and around).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:45 am
I don’t think you get it.
They’re planning to construct an entirely separate and parallel HSR-only choo choo line next to but unrelated to the Caltrain tracks.
So the EVIL NIMBYS would get exactly what they claim: a huge amount of cost, disruption, noise and inconvenience, and in the end nothing is in it for them other than losing Caltrain express capability.
As a bonus, the HSR-only tracks get to sit there essentially completely idle for a decade or two until somehow enough non-Caltrain, Caltrain-incompatible, long-distance HSR trains and riders materialize to somehow justify having built a separate HSR-only set of tracks between an HSR-only station in SF and and HSR-only station in San Jose. (Again, look at the real world, where “Madrid” and “Barcelona” and “London” and “Paris” are two pairs of real world cities on the real planet earth, to see how likely 9 trains per hour per direction of long distance traffic are any time in the first 20 years.)
And somehow Caltrain, with no available operating funds to run the service if barely fails to put out there today, would somehow benefit from this? Does Not Compute.
This is just madness!
NIMBY! DENIALIST! PEAK OIL! BANANA! NIMBY!
Missiondweller Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Of course that ignores that Caltrain would operate quicker with an electrified train set (quicker starts and stops), would benefit from grade separation and be able to “showcase” HSR from SJ to SF likely terminating temporarily at 4th and King. Yes it would likely operate at deficit as it is only one small part of a wider system but the point is to begin earning revenues on a completed segment and showcase what’s to come.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Richard operates under the conclusion (not assumption) that every and all regulatory and technical problem would be solved quickly and cheaply if they only decided to build things the way he wants.
I’ve concluded that sometimes he may be right, but that mostly he’s a bored armchair engineer. There’s a reason why engineers are engineers, and why he’s an armchair engineer.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Thats what I said a long time ago. The thing is we all have our armchair opinions, but you know, you gotta mix it up once in while. Like me, you know I love the french but I also don’t like the foreigners. and that I hate the nimby’s but but support sf’s right to dictate things (nimbys) within its borders. It not just a continual, predictable rant about quentin kopp and the PB&J guys or whoever they are. Richard is like syn-mouse… its the same paragraph with the words slightly re arranged each time.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Richard. There’s corruption! Boo! sheesh.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
And the sad thing is that Richard actually has some valuable technical knowledge that would contribute greatly to our discussions. If he wasn’t throwing a temper tantrum every day. So his knowledge goes to waste and people (rightly) dismiss his rants.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
You really don’t want to understand.
There will be two completely empty, idle tracks. And they’ll remain 80-90% idle for a couple decades. By design!
That’ll “showcase”. Fer shure.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I’m not sure how 10 years scheduled between now and start of operation constitutes “a couple of decades.” Unless you’re saying that they won’t be operating many HSR trains, which I seem to recall being one of your claims.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Isnt the plan to start running trains between sf and la by 2020? and track construction will start around 2014-2020. so what tracks sit idle for two decades?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
What he’s saying is that they won’t be running more than 4 tph for decades – hence the two idle tracks. He’ll tell you that the connecting transit is so bad that using the usual gravity models for ridership, which agree with CHSRA projections, don’t apply. (And I’ll tell you that the connecting transit to the central city HSR stations is okay – it’s the connecting transit to all other metro area destinations that sucks.)
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:46 pm
That’s what I thought. and I still think he’s high.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
4 trains is low. The creaky old Northeast Corridor manages 3 4 or 5 depending on how you want to count, most of the day. Boston, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Balitmore and DC have good mass transit. At the rest of the stops it’s effectively non existent. Yet people use the trains…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:33 pm
The NEC peaks at 3 tph for Amtrak, which is the only available service on the two most popular city pairs (NY-DC, NY-Boston) and the only reasonable service on city pair #3 (NY-Philly), on which the cheap commuter train alternative is much slower and does not have a guaranteed connection.
But it doesn’t matter, because the Acela’s average speeds are in line with those of fast low-speed trains. Israel’s Tel Aviv-Haifa nonstop trains, which are diesel loco-hauled, top at 160 km/h, and do not tilt, average about 120 km/h, not much less than the NY-DC Acela. (The route runs 3 tph all day… and the connecting transit at both stops is horrific.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Depends on which train you want to count. There’s an Acela, a Regional and Keystone Corridor train once an hour for most of the day. Frequently there’s a long distance train. Most will not carry passengers within the corridor but some do, That brings it up to 4 some hours of the day. There’s a train on the Empire Corridor more or less once an hour most of the day for 5…. Depends on which train you want to count…
Service in California is going to be competeing with a much longer drive. It’s going to be faster than flying. 4 an hour is probably too low.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Who died and made the Empire Corridor part of the NEC?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Depends on which trains you want to count. Penn Station is definitely on the NEC and that’s were most people on the Empire Corridor are headed.
A better question would be why isn’t it? Springfield to New Haven is considered part of it and Keystone service is, so is service to Richmond.
If the ALP45s work out, it’ll be real easy to do Albany to DC. It’d cut an hour out of Albany to points south of NYC – Amtrak usually schedules an hour and half layover in Penn Station. ALP45s work out they’d be able to run at 125 on the parts south of Albany where the track is good for 125 … Makes Albany to DC faster than driving and almost as fast as flying.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 am
Those Albany-DC trains would probably displace NY-DC runs that are now considered NEC, for no net gain in tph count. It’s not as if there’s room to squeeze more trains into the North River Tunnels without major signaling upgrades.
I really don’t want to start talking about 90-minute train layovers. Let’s just pretend that Amtrak’s layovers are 10-minute and that trains make it in time 199 times out of 200, okay?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Um if things go according to schedule Amtrak gets 4 more slots at peak through the North River Tunnels in 2017. On the other hand they are predicting the 4 tracks will be a capacity again sometime between 2030 and 2040. If the experience with Midtown Direct is pertinent 2030 is optimistic. If they move at the deliberate speed they have been moving at they should have started planning capacity enhancements for 2040 in 2000….
The way to shorten your time between Albany and DC ( Or Philadelphia ) is to dart off the almost on time train, go to an Amtrak ticket agent and assertively request rescheduling on the 2:05 instead of cooling your heels in the lush environment of Penn Station’s cattle pens until 3:05. Even with a 90 minute layover it’s time and cost competitive with driving.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Midtown Direct stole much of the remaining market share for NJT. As long as the trains are useful only for people who work in Manhattan, and as long as some of the densest areas of Bergen County have no rail service, NJT can rest assured the extra riders on the Erie Lines won’t muck up its capacity.
(Well, I’m talking about a hypothetical situation in which trains turn back from the 8-track cavern at reasonable speed.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Midtown Direct stole much of the remaining market share for NJT.
Huh? NJT is the one who finally implemented Midtown Direct. People have been toying with the idea since the PRR opened Manhattan Transfer. Probably would have happened in the 60s or early 70s but the DL&W in it’s infinite wisdom chose to electrify at 3000 volts DC.
As long as the trains are useful only for people who work in Manhattan
Taking the train to Manhattan if you work in Morristown isn’t particularly effective. Taking the same train to Morristown might make sense. Unfortunately parking is too easy in Morristown and not many people take the train to get to work in Morristown. Only place where taking the train to work, works, is in Newark and to a minor extent places like Elizabeth, New Brunswick and Iselin. The situation isn’t going to change much until driving and parking in the suburbs becomes much more painful.
and as long as some of the densest areas of Bergen County have no rail service, NJT can rest assured the extra riders on the Erie Lines won’t muck up its capacity.
There’s life outside of Leonia and Fort Lee. The Raritan Valley line will be getting direct access, no more transferring in Newark. The RVL uses multilevels now, it’s going to be overrun like Midtown Direct was. They are grade separating the Morris and Essex line’s tracks into Manhattan away from the NEC. That’s going to make the trip 10-15 minutes faster, which along with being able to get a seat, is going to attract riders. … being able to get a seat is going to mean more trains – it’s not unusual for the trains to be standing room only between Manhattan and Metropark or Manhattan and Summit.
Well, I’m talking about a hypothetical situation in which trains turn back from the 8-track cavern at reasonable speed.
6 track cavern. Hasn’t been an 8 track cavern for years. 25 an hour, which is what they are planning on, is respectable.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:42 am
There just aren’t that many more riders on the RVL watershed. NJT has about a 50% mode share on the commute-to-Manhattan market, and can’t expect to get above 75% or so – there’s too much in Bergen County it just doesn’t serve. It’s not just Fort Lee and Leonia; it’s anything on the West Shore Line.
Taking the train to Newark will start working once NJT starts being competitive about it – to say nothing about Elizabeth, or Brooklyn, or White Plains. Nasty transfers, poor service outside rush hour, and high fares (gotta pay all those assistant conductors…) are what discourages ridership, not parking. You’ll be surprised how cheap parking garages are in dense, transit-oriented areas that aren’t in the US or Canada. The only place where you could legitimately blame parking is Metropark, and it’s NJT’s own fault for keeping the station as a park-and-ride instead of trying to put office space within walking distance of the station.
I don’t see how that would help HSR without a redesign of the runthrough tracks, last diagrams I saw for the metrolink runthrough tracks showed super-tight curve radii coming out of the south end of the station. If they make that curve radii large enough for HSR to run on it it could work, but they’d have to go aerial or take out a number of buildings.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 am
Some random comments on this:
There’s no way to do the runthrough tracks without fairly tight curve radii due to the surrounding buildings.
However, the curves will be very, very close to the platform — finish curve, enter platform. This makes them a lot more palatable than anywhere else, since the train is coming to a stop anyway. TGVs and ICEs take some very tight curves right at station throats.
Despite the low speeds, it’ll still be faster than looping around 180 degrees from the riverside tracks, which already have quite tight curve radii themselves, due to the more direct route.
They’re going to go aerial much of the way already, due to the need to cross over 101 and the roads.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Here’s the FRA’s summary of the runthrough tracks design.
Check out page 10, those are roughly 100-120m curve radii and short platforms. The authority’s latest designs for LAUS have 220m-ish curves on the approach tracks (the bare minimum at any speed) and will still require taking a number of buildings.
I think it’s a great idea to combine the approach tracks for the two separate rail systems, but such a configuration will look like the authority’s designs, not the current runthrough designs.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:10 am
Good grief. 100m? Yeah, any combination will look like the Authority’s designs.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:10 am
Isn’t 100m cutting it pretty close even for the existing Metrolink trains?
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
100m might be an exaggeration, but it’s certainly much tighter than the 200m in the authority’s “tight curve” option.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
And here’s a presentation showing the latest drawings from the authority, these are the revised, tighter designs in response to complaints that the station approach would take out too much of skid row.
The very tightest of those designs has 650ft curve radii and still takes out (or flies over) several blocks. At 650ft, we’re talking TTC-style curve radii, certainly not something you would do if you had any other options.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Huh. Why didn’t they consider flying between the temple and the LA County building? That puts the first several blocks entirely over parking lots. Go over a few one-story buildings south of First Street, and touch down on the west side of the Red Line yards. Even shallower curves, over fewer buildings, etc. There will need to be a new bridge over the LA River, and it looks like it will have to be elevated most of the length by the LA river anyway since I see no way to increase the number of tracks there….
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
They did, that was the program alignment.
In Gardner’s presentation he talks about the improvements that amtrak has seen in on-time performance. With some routes around 90% “on-time”. One question I have though is what counts as “on-time” for Amtrak? A shinkansen arriving more than 1 minute after the scheduled time would be considered “late”, but what is “late” for Amtrak? 5 minutes? 15 minutes? Jim, can you help out here?
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:07 am
This document from the BTS from 2005 states that “on time” for amtrak means less than 10-30 minutes late, depending on route length:
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:33 pm
those numbers sound about right. The numbers are tighter for commuter / shorter runs such as ccjpa, and obviously longer for 2000 mile trips. After 3 days from sf to chicago, 12 minutes doesn’t matter much. side note- from my experience this past year for night shift, the northbound starlight routinely gets into the san jose time point half an hour early. and the zephyr gets into ermeryville – end of the line an hour early. this is due, from what I can tell, 90 percent to the lack of freight traffic getting in the way due to the bad economy and 10 percent due to long awaited, and finally completed track improvements by union pacific.
btw way does japan or france have a 2000 mile train route? just curious.
oh that reminds me. I had at least 3 french couples stranded due to the volcano this week. the all opted to spend their additional unplanned time in america, taking trips on amtrak. One gal from toulouse warned me ( I always love chatting up the frenchies) that while paris is 2-3 hours from all of france now, it is still very time consuming to get between other city pairs. just an interesting side note. maybe they need to build a “franceloop” line or something that goes around.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Jim: yes, France is incredibly Paris-centric. It’s not just the TGV that’s useless for circumferential trips; the local commuter networks are horrible outside Paris.
SNCF is not going to built an actual orbital route, but it is planning to build more bypasses near Paris, on the model of the Interconnexion Est. There’s going to be one from the LGV Sud-Est to the LGV Atlantique, and another from a new LGV connecting La Defense and Brittany to the LGVs Nord and Atlantique. I do not remember whether those lines are going to have suburban stops, like Charles de Gaulle or Marne la Vallee on the Interconnexion Est.
By the way, this demonstrates the need for a central station. Tokyo Station, Berlin Hauptbahnof, and New York Penn opened early enough that they’re usable for intercity traffic. Chatelet-Les Halles didn’t, and neither will whatever counterpart London gets when Crossrail opens; this forces expensive orbital routes.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:59 pm
well if anyone has toured france I must ask, since I will eventually tour it by rail.. should one make a home base in paris, and each day, go outbound to a destination in the morning and back to home base in the evening. rather than attempt to tour the country in circle? If normandy, brittany, bordeaux, marseille, dijon, and strasbourg are each within 3 hours of paris then one could take a 7 am train to a different region each day, arrive for a full day of sightseeing, and return to paris in time for late dinner. oui ou non? like this…. with enough time to sample the special dish of each region. anyone done it?
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
Berlin was lucky to have a lot of relatively empty space near the middle of town so that Hauptbahnhof could be made *large* and made into a through station both ways, and even so this was only done recently.
NY Penn (and Grand Central, for that matter) were actually built on the outskirts of town — the center of town simply moved after they were built. Downtown Manhattan, the original center of town had to make due with the Hudson & Manhattan Terminal, now the PATH World Trade Center station. The equivalent in Paris would be if the EuroDisney station ended up at the center of all activity in Paris.
London’s real “center of town” is, and always has been, in the City where Bank station on the Underground is. There are several intercity train stations quite close (Fenchurch St., Liverpool St., Moorgate), but the sheer demand for local metro, suburban commuter, and “near intercity” services means that the long-distance services keep getting pushed out to further locations. Kings Cross St. Pancras isn’t half bad for a long-distance hub, though.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:49 pm
GCT was a suburban station for a specific reason: it allowed steam trains to terminate without polluting the built-up area. Penn was not suburban; by the time it was built, Midtown was a bustling urban area, larger than secondary downtowns like Downtown Brooklyn or Long Island City.
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Heh, well, it’s debatable whether Berlin was “lucky.” The reason for that empty space was, well, the fact that the city was divided for nearly three decades by a WALL.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Wait, you’re talking about the new Hauptbahnof? I thought you were talking about the 19th century-era Ringbahn and Stadtbahn, and the Nazi-era Nord-Süd-Bahn.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
For comparison, in Japan, “on time” means “within one minute of schedule.” Five-minute lateness is rare enough you get a certificate of apology. The 700-mile Tokyo-Hakata through-trains are 30 minutes late only if there’s a typhoon, an earthquake, or a suicide.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:10 pm
What about in Europe? I remember one of the JR execs talking shit about how an “on time” TGV would be considered a late Shinkansen, but he didn’t elaborate.
Airlines, IIRC bumped their definition of “on time” to within 15 minutes late, from 10. Of course that’s from when the plane is parked, not doors open, and certainly not when you get your bags and are ready to leave the terminal.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are about as good as Japan. Spain is somewhat worse. France is much worse; its on-time performance is comparable to that of the better-run American railroads. I’m not sure about the TGV, but the RER defines on-time to be within five minutes of schedule, and even then has about the same on-time performance as Metro-North.
The Tehachapis detour is not the Big Bang but the Big Wimp.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:01 am
Troll. Maybe you should go trolling for hookers.
I’ll leave that activity up to handsomely compensated machine pols, spin doctors and consulting engineers. They are expert on performing the “Big Bang” on the hapless and feckless public.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
yes they are. but calling the public hapless ? I don’t think so. the “public” voted and made the choice. trying to diminish that choice by claiming that the public who voted did so because they are hapless and on ly you know the real story isnt gonna fly. Do you really think californians were naive enough to think that this was some kind of altruistic end all be all? Of course not. Calfiornians just wanted the damn thing built and they really don’t care who profits or how it gets done so long as it gets done.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Btw, learn to use the reply button. It’s not hard. I know you know how.
This is Ken Ruben who participated in the meeting and was the one greeting those attending as they arrived up the escalator to the third floor of the METRO building.
I of course, had a chance to meet Mr. Gardner from Amtrak but was (as were others), disappointed in his answer to RailPAC Director Bob Manning’s question in regards the status of the SUNSET LIMITED.
In follow-up questions to Bob’s first question to Mr. Gardner after his presentation, when pressed for more speciific information about the SUNSET LIMITED status, he actually used the wording (paraphasing) I will have to punt or something to that effect in his reply.
Others attending that are reading this on this blog or who will receive this later as part of my regular e-mail sendings, may want to comment further and I will accept any corrections or additions to my comments here.
Robert Cruickshank, I may have met you when you arrived on the third floor but I am sorry I didn’t officially meet you.
Ref Los Angeles to Anaheim and our discussion at the Steel Wheels Conference, building pure HSR at a cost of $6 billion to achieve a 10 minute improvement in journey time as a “showcase” is preposterous, and is the sort of idea that brings passenger rail into ill repute. This is even more true given that Anaheim is on a branch of the core system and trains north of L.A. will not run for many years. A true train to nowhere. If you want to destroy political and public support for modern passenger rail then take out the homes and existing Metrolink stations and run a near empty shuttle train. The train would have to be heavily subsidized and this is illegal under 1A.
It’s easy to talk about a big bang but it’s just not deliverable. The HSR has to be built incrementally, it’s physically impossible to deliver 400 plus miles all at once. Furthermore the funding does not exist. We have about $4.5 billion at the moment, since the balance of 1A bonds can only be issued when other funds are available. As for additional fed funds, there are many other states who missed out first time around and they will be elbowing their way to the front of the line. Given the change political winds I wouldn’t count on a lot of fed money for quite a few years. We may not even be able to issue the California bonds for a few years since we can’t afford the interest payments.
The run through tracks as originally designed can be used later by HSR. There will be a time penalty because of the tighter curves but that’s not the end of the world. The alternative is to take out a revitalizing part of L.A. and build a viaduct 90ft above the first street bridge.
By building the run through tracks and finishing the grade seps L.A. to Fullerton we can speed up 80 Metrolink and Amtrak trains per day, improve air quality, reduce fuel consumption and the carbon footprint, and call it phase one of HSR and we’d have a winner at low cost. That would keep $5 billion or more available for the real stuff in the green fields.
PD
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:56 pm
The ground-level runthrough tracks will never be used for HSR, mainly because of incompatible platform heights and the FRA. I agree with your point about LA-Anaheim being a pretty useless demonstration corridor though. Better to build the central valley test track – at least then you have impressively fast trains running, even if ridership won’t be that great until the system is complete.
Daniel Krause Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I see the run-through project design being updated by the Authority that incoporates HSR service in a shared-use arrangement. The curvature can be adjusted somewhat to allow for greater speed for all trains traveling in/out of the south end the terminal. The idea is to not stick to our guns on old designs that were only for conventional rail, but to have the Authority update these designs in their engineering so that all systems benefit. This would also apply to any grade seps done between LA-Anaheim. The existing designs from BNSF’s Third Track project may need to be updated by the Authority.
As Robert, I also don’t see any conflict between incremental and bang bang. Until we have a long-term funding guarantee for HSR, we build sections of the HSR system that also work with and improve service on existing systems (Caltrain/Metrolink). However, we design the sections we build with the money we obtain in the short-term to standards for full HSR service. The idea is not to ever go back to any one segment of track built to do a second upgrade.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I agree in spirit. However I don’t see the the different types of rail traffic being compatible with each other in a shared use arrangement. Granted, only 15 HSR trains per day are planned to operate between Union Station and Anahiem in each direction.
Voters, such as myself, want systems seen similar to those seen in Japan, Germany or France. That means fast, high quality, effecient, on-time, safe and reliable service. A shared use arrangment from Anahiem to Union Station cannot guarantee these characteristics will not be compromised, nor guarantee that other portions of the planned HSR network will not also be affected, including Union Station to Sacramento or to San Franciscio.
If these characteristics are not compromised in a shared use arrangment, someone please advise me.
To shared use proponents, I would suggest that your discussions always include any implications to the characteristics I listed above… and from the perspective provided. If there are implications, or other elements that are inconsistent with Prop 1A or AB 3034, I suggest the same. And perhaps include in your discussions that 1A or AB3034 would need to be changed. That’s a particularly important last point… becuase if legal changes are necessary, any discussion without including the necessary legal changes… the discussion would be just for shits and giggles.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 am
Well, think about it this way: Suppose the structures for the run-through tracks are built to allow four tracks, with spacing for high-speed and electrification, to connect to the tracks on the west side of the station (just east of the Gold Line). Then it will be compatible with conversion of the western two tracks to high-speed tracks. (The run-through tracks will mean that there are enough tracks to do this.)
This is about structure construction first and foremost — we want to build the expensive structures so that they are suitable for high speed and we don’t need to build *more* expensive structures a few years later.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Paul, you’re not serious about improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions unless you also advocate repealing the FRA’s rolling stock regulations and replacing them either with the UIC’s or, better yet, Japan’s. Ask yourself what causes more pollution: a 100-ton locomotive hauling 55-ton coaches, or 33-ton DMUs.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
The run through tracks as originally designed can be used later by HSR. There will be a time penalty because of the tighter curves but that’s not the end of the world.
The run through tracks as originally designed are well under any minimum curve radius allowed by any of the HSR manufacturers (with the possible exception of Talgo), that’s not a speed issue, it’s an issue with the long wheelbase bogies used by high speed trains.
Speaking of big bang, check out latest plans for Merced http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/04/21/1393615/high-speed-rail-project-will-change.html
Go to the “more pictures part” to see the schematic.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
The key quote, as far as I’m concerned:
Merced *desperately* needs jobs. Good to see that the residents and businesses understand that HSR = economic growth.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
World class!
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
http://media.mercedsunstar.com/smedia/2010/04/20/23/MER_p0421_p21_rail2.standalone.prod_affiliate.111.JPG
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Yeah, that station does look like a bit of overkill for Merced. But if it’s already elevated and the city is footing the bill for it…
Elizabeth Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Does anyone have any evidence the city is footing the bill?
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
No, but that was my assumption.
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
At least it’s not as tall as Fresno…
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Actually, that’s a pretty decent station. Given the need for an elevated station, that’s the way to go. It’s really no weirder than, say, Erie, PA or Schenectady, NY’s existing stations from 100 years ago.
I actually respect the PCC a little more since they apparently rejected Morris Brown’s request to help repeal Prop. 1A. I know they’re supposed to be the enemy and all, but at least they’re not out to kill the project completely.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Cities-reject-effort-to-repeal-rail-91759919.html
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Morris Brown’s lawsuit made me laugh. I can’t wait to read Robert’s post on it.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Coming up later tonight…
I’m reviewing the Preliminary AA for SF-SJ. What are they referring to when they state that
“At the higher speeds ( up to 125 miles per hour) and higher train frequencies (up to 20+ trains per hour) anticipated for both HST and Caltrain service, it is not operationally feasible for trains to cross oncoming rail traffic to reach another track and maintain reliable service performance. Instead, a railroad grade separation must be provided to physically separate the crossing movement from the opposite-running track.”
Does that seriously mean a flyover to change tracks, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Does that seriously mean a flyover to change tracks, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
That’s what they’re implying.
Of course, they’re just lying, in order to justify their already determined course of action, regardless of real world technical reality. The way this game always plays out is that you put this crap in an EIR or “alternatives analysis” as a pre-emptive blow; somebody calls you on it; you say “comment acknowledged — see page 1-234″ in your FEIR “reponse”; and then you just go ahead and do the stupdiest and most expensive thing as you intended all along place. This isn’t engineering: it’s gamesmanship and, above all, rent-seeking.
Their “model” is that there are completely separate and parallel and unequal HSR and Caltrain tracks. If anything happens to block an HSR track, then the only course of action is to use the other dedicated HSR track. They’re saying that since this requires crossing two Caltrain tracks it can’t be done.
GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.
PS Ummm … with 9tph (that’s fictional “trains” per hour) heading the other way … exactly how much utility are they going to get out of crossing over to their other super-private ultra-dedicated no-girly-trains-allowed HSR-only track anyway? Vastly less capacity is used merging two adjacent same-direction tracks together and then splitting them back than is lost by going through a single track bottleneck used by opposing direction traffic. In other words, if you lose one track of SSNN (FSSF or SFFS) configured track, you’re in pain, but if you lose a track of PBQD/HNTB/PCJPB-approved SNSN (FFSS) then you’re completely screwed and it’s game over. But this was never about engineering and never about operating trains in the first place.
Really, really, really smart engineers they have working on this, you can be sure. Where do they find these people?
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Ok, I didn’t need more than the first two sentences.
The rest of your comment is nothing but like the rest of the junk you put into every post. We already know your opinions. Go yell at random people on the street. They may actually be more interested.
Spokker Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Why can’t you operate express Caltrain runs on the fast tracks?
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:18 pm
The time it takes the CalTrain express trains vs the time it takes the Intercity HSR (particularly the express trains) to traverse the peninsula differs by 20 minutes or more, meaning that you severely restrict capacity if you restrict a train to one set of tracks or the other. Ideally, intermediate service levels (that is – commuter expresses, which fall between the intercity and the locals) are able to transition seamlessly between the express and the local tracks in order to maximize capacity.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Platform height incompatibility. And, more realistically, agency turf battles. One set of tracks for the commuter agency, using CBOSS, and another for HSR, using ETCS.
Spokker Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Why don’t they buy trains with the same platform height? And yeah, Joey, why don’t they use all four tracks for all services as needed? Why don’t they use the same signalling?
I didn’t know they were fucking up that badly on the Peninsula.
Spokker Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:23 pm
This seems like common sense stuff that even an idiot like me can understand.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Spokker it’s no fun to comtemplate doing the rational thing. While using two different signaling systems would be stupid and expensive it doesn’t mean it’s impossible for both to coexist. Differnt platform heights would be especially stupid but that doesn’t stop trains from traveling on each other’s tracks it just means they can’t use each other’s platforms … which would be especially stupid… Different agencies coexist quite merrily all over the world, in the US even, there’s no reason why it can’t be done in California unless the extra specialness of the aura of the Peninsula prevents it.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 am
Hey it says that they could share tracks in the most recent AA.
“To
accommodate the estimated capacity requirements needed to support both HST and Caltrain projected services, a
four main track system is currently assumed for this corridor. The San Francisco to San Jose Section is considered to
be a “shared use” corridor between Caltrain and HST, allowing each operator access to the four (assumed) main line
tracks in order to reliably deliver their respective schedules and service types.”
So who is telling the truth?
It also says that Caltrain will “operate a mix of express, skip-stop, and/or local services”
It doesn’t sound like they’ve ruled out sharing the four tracks or getting rid of Caltrain Baby Bullets.
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Yeah, flyovers. I’m not going to go crazy like Richard, but I agree that this approach seems stupid when you consider the simplicity of FSSF.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Yeah, flyovers seem like complete and utter overkill. I mean, they would never need them unless a train is disabled, in which case “reliable service performance” is not going to be maintained, anyway…
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 8:28 pm
In FFSS they would be needed for trains to transfer between the express and local tracks.
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Yet another reason to ditch FFSS in favor of at least SFFS, if not FSSF, if maintaining “reliable service performance” is so important to them in the unlikely event of a disabled train.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:10 pm
wouldnt it be a good idea to have direct cross platform transfers at the combo stations for getting from you local caltrain onto your hsr train traveling in the same direction. they way bart does at macarthur where north and east bound concord and richmond trains pull into the platform in tandem, open doors, wait for people to switcheroo across the platform and then trains depart in tandem.
on the opposite platform, you get the same thing with the south/west bound trains for fremont and SF
to copy that with caltrain and hsr I guess it would call for either FSSF SFFS or SFSF
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 am
I don’t think anyone uses SFSF, except at flying junctions. Not many agencies use SSFF, either; Tokyo has a few exceptions, but that’s to maintain cross-platform transfers to lines serving different destinations. For local/express transfers, the ideal is either SFFS or FSSF. SFFS is more common but that’s due to legacy issues; on brand-new four-track lines, rather than two-track lines that were later expanded to four tracks, FSSF is more common. (Caltrain has more in common with new lines, since it’ll have to rebuild the entire line anyway, including the stations.)
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
You “need” flying junctions in a FSSF situation if your S and F trains don’t share platform heights because if your northbound F track is blocked and you need to stop at a station, the northbound F would need to cross over to the southbound F to stop at a platform with the appropriate height. Same thing with the S trains for SFFS.
Before you jump all over me please note I’m not advocating this configuration or justification. Certainly the preferable solution is one with shared platforms and SFFS/FSSF.
I think it’s only fair to also point out that the track configuration hasn’t been chosen yet and the draft AA has a discussion on the issue.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
“I think it’s only fair to also point out that the track configuration hasn’t been chosen yet and the draft AA has a discussion on the issue.”
The draft AA discusses all possibilities, FSSF, SFFS, and the worse ones. They also discuss Caltran and HSTs having access to all four tracks. It sounds like nothing has been decided yet, indeed, so why all the frothing at the mouth from people?
Peter Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:21 am
Because Richard said they are lying. Ergo, they must be lying.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
Well, some people have made it sound like they’re in the know beyond what the authority has publicly stated, on this issue and others, and have made assertions to the effect that the authority had chosen SSFF/FFSS (as they have in LA). When asked to clarify their sources, they have been mute, so either they don’t have good sources, or they won’t reveal them.
Not being one of those people in the loop, all I have is the public docs.
Nathanael Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 am
This means that FFSS and SFSF would require flyovers to change tracks.
FSSF and SFFS would not because they don’t require crossing *opposing* traffic.
SSFF is very rare worldwide, because it’s stupid. I believe it’s used in parts of London (the “relief” lines being on one side of the “main” lines) and it’s also used when metros which were added later run next to mainline rail lines.
At this point, *considering freight*, I really hope they go with SFFS, with freight running two-way on the eastern track in the middle of the night. Considering the passenger movement pattern and the community locations, they should probably go with left-hand running as well.
The local-only stations would have pickups for traffic to San Francisco on the “preferable”, more spacious west side, and dropoffs on the more space-constrained east side. Express stations would of course have two island platforms. There would be a slot in the night when southbound passenger traffic would be forced onto the fast tracks by freight running on the eastern track — there shouldn’t be much southbound passenger traffic in the middle of the night anyway.
Of course all this assumes that they find some way to convince the FRA that it’s OK to have freight trains and high-speed trains running on different tracks with crossovers which could theoretically allow them to change tracks if the crossovers and the signal system malfunctioned. *rolls eyes*.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Tokyo uses SSFF on some lines, and SFFS on others. The SSFF lines are so because,
a) The services are always different – mainly, one local line that runs through to another line and that has all trains making the same stops, and one express line that terminates at Tokyo Station. Thus the trains don’t need to cross from the slow tracks to the fast tracks.
b) The cross-platform transfers are often not local/express. The Keihin-Tohoku Line has cross-platform transfers with the Yamanote Line, which it runs next to near Tokyo Station; JNR judged this transfer more important than transfers to the Tokaido and Tohoku Main Lines, which run express parallel to Keihin-Tohoku. In fact, at rush hour the Keihin-Tohoku trains skip some stops in central Tokyo, effectively acting as an express line to the local Yamanote on the shared section; in this case, the service is FSSF.
c) Both the local and the express lines are packed to the gills, so that trains don’t have space to switch back and forth.
In all cases of SSFF, the slow and fast lines are branded separately – e.g. Keihin-Tohoku versus Tokaido/Tohoku Main, or Chuo-Sobu versus Chuo Rapid. When JR East runs separate service patterns on what it considers the same line, or when it has four-track sections for timed overtakes, it uses SFFS.
ok, if most of the system is only two tracks, one in each direction with crossovers located at whatever determined intervals. then whats the difference if you continue that up the peninsula in a FFSS configuration as if caltrain isnt there? just asking.
also, is there some reason they cant build it with all four tracks compatible if need be, but still generally use FFSS or SFFS or whatever they choose. run them as separate systems, but give them the option to intermingle if needed.
I think the four tracks, the catenary, the signaling, and the platforms, should all be compatible. The issue as far is ssff ro sffs etc, should only be an issue per where to put which platforms.
There are also some places where there is room for more than 4 tracks which could be used to add flexibility.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:15 pm
They’d need more than four tracks when San Francisco looks like Manhattan and the rest of the Peninsula looks like Brooklyn and maybe not even then.
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
huh?
jimsf Reply:
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
you mean they don’t need more than four?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:54 am
He means that SF will need New York-like density to warrant six-track passing sections.
But the point is moot anyway because the capacity constraint on the line is at TBT.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:27 am
but with half the trains terminating at 4th and half at tbt there’s no constraint. In any case, yes it will be decades, if ever that the sf/pen equals nyc. The best solution would be 4 interchangeable tracks – use them as sffs or fssf, but make them compatible in case of service disruptions.
another reason to have all four tracks fully interchangeable is in the even of damage/earthquake etc, and repair/ other trackwork that might occasionally call for shutting down one or two tracks and forcing all trains onto the remaining tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:05 am
4th is a dud terminal, unless they decide to build it like Shin-Osaka or Shin-Yokohama and put massive development around it. Even then, you’d lose more ridership on the frequency split than you’d gain on the additional destinations served.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
thats not true . why would you loose ridership? people who want tbt will be able to get there and peole who want 4th will be able to get there. I mean a train arriving at tbt every 10-15 minutes is more than enough. You expect me to believe that if there isn’t a train every 5 minutes destined for tbt then people will so forget it, ill fly instead? come on. get real.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Frequency splits mean that each destination gets less frequent service. It’s this reason that led to Pacheco being chosen over Altamont – the preferred Altamont alternative involved trains splitting to SF and SJ, and that would’ve meant fewer trains to either city.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Theres a big difference between splitting san francisco and san jose and splitting to two locations in san francisco within 10 blocks of each other in what is probably the most dense community anywhere in the state. – one station serving 8-10 regional agencies in the heart of downtown and the other serving the fastest growing part of sf along with two major freeways and room for parking.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
do you really think that someone will decide not to use hsr based on the fact that they have to wait 12- 15 minutes for the next tbt destined train versus 6-10 minutes? How does that thought process go?
” I was going to take hsr from la to sf but then I found out that the trains to only run every 15 minutes minutes to the transbay terminal or I can wait 6 minutes but get off at 4th. so instead Im going to fly and spend 45 minutes on bart”
Its one thing to be unhappy that you didn’t get your preferred location solution but quite another to expect me to believe that a few minutes and a few blocks will impact ridership. Very few californians are that anal about stuff..
And again to be realistic, at least as many people who currently drive to SFO who would opt instead for HSR, from sf, will still drive to HSR so having the King street option with easy freeway access and room for ample parking ( as opposed to navigating the one way labyrinth of the fidi) will make HSR even more attractive in pulling people away from the airport. There are a LOT of people who simply refuse to use public transit who have their friends and family drive them to and from the airport. Especially when they have luggage and those people will still insist on being chauffeured to and from HSR as well.
I envision a very nice above ground light airy station at 4th with white zones for drop off and pick up, as well as short and long term parking ( a garage as a source of revenue?) at king. oh and don’t forget the direct connection via muni up 4th the convention center and union square hotels.
A visiting tourist is more likely to use 4th directly to union square.
having both locations is a huge advantage for both travelers and the city of san francisco’s business, convention and tourism industries.
(For all we know this could be been the smokey-sf- backroom-political-clout plan all along, stranger things have happened….)
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Jim, SF/SJ was just an example. Ridership modelers for transit agencies have found the same thing in local rail ridership: frequency to each destination matters a lot.
Think of this concretely. You want to use Caltrain to go from SF to a local station, which gets 4 tph peak. You head to TBT, but just missed your train. If all trains serve TBT, you need to wait 15 minutes to get to the next train. If half the trains stop at 4th and King, your options are waiting 30 minutes and walking to 4th and King, in which case you might still miss the next train.
The same holds for HSR. Unless your destination is LA or SF, you won’t be able to get on every train. The difference between a 15-minute wait and a 30-minute wait is pretty big. (Again, ask yourself if you’re willing to walk 15 minutes for a connection that may not even be guaranteed.)
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Jim, I wouldn’t expect 4th and King to have half of the ridership you get at the TBT. Mission Bay may be fast growing, but it will never compare in any meaningful way to the business opportunities and dozens of transit connections available in downtown SF. Freeway access and room for parking redeem 4th and King a bit but I sincerely doubt it will make up the difference. Not to mention the fact that the sheer ambiguity of which station to use will deter a good number of people…
should it be like this?
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:54 am
Yes, though each track wouldn’t be exclusively HSR or CalTrain (well, actually, the local tracks would be).
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Clem says it should be a center island platform for Caltrain.
jimsf Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
it needs to be “cross same platform-same direction” transfer between hsr and caltrain so that caltrain can act as a feeder. if you are going from say Belmont to Fresno. You can board caltrain at Belmont and ride to Redwood City ( or PA) step off, walk directly across the platform and board the arriving (in tandem ) hsr to continue south. no waiting, not climbing up and over to a different platform, just a smooth transition. same thing in reverse – la to san carlos, off board the hsr at RWC/PA walk 15 feet across the platform and board the caltrain local that pulls in side by side with the hsr train. total transfer time – 30 seconds.
Big bang just heard in LA. Metro approves 30/10 which with Fed armtwisting could speed the 12 major “R” projects to completion within 10 years!
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/4_6_10_transport.jpg
These are the 30/10 projects. It would result in:
The Purple Line Extension to Santa Monica: Desperately needed. Wilshire is a very congested corridor and bus riders are packed like sardines into buses on the surface. Many riders must wait for another bus because the current bus is full. Buses often bunch up, affected the efficiency of the system, and I don’t think you can add many more buses to this corridor.
Expo Line: Good project. Uses an existing right of way to provide service to a transit dependent population, provide an alternative to the congested I-10, and provide a link between Santa Monica and Downtown LA. Will be boosted by the Downtown Regional Connector.
Crenshaw Line: Similar to Expo, it will provide good transit options for a transit dependent group and it might make getting to LAX easier for people in the area. For those coming from Downtown, the FlyAway might be better, though.
Green Line South Bay Extension: I don’t know much about this project, but it seems okay. Maybe it should go to Long Beach to provide an alternative to the 405.
Gold Line Foothill Extension: A grossly irresponsible extension to the boondocks. SGV politicians held the rest of the county hostage in order to get this extension. No sane person would ever build it. These distances are much better served by Metrolink.
Gold Line Whittier Extension: Apparently these areas are denser than people think, but its potential will rest on which alignment is chosen.
Downtown Regional Connector: A big bang project that will eliminate transfers for some riders and turn three light rail lines into a cohesive system.
Santa Ana Branch: This is the least matured Measure R project so we don’t know much about it.
But all in all this is a “big bang” or whatever you want to call it, and it will be quite an achievement if it happens.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Agree spot on.
I used to live in the South Bay, the green line extension is slightly meh. The line goes through the least dense area of the south bay, but it’s conversely the most transit dependent, so it’s sort of middling. I mentioned before I’d rather see that ROW used for electrified metrolink to downtown Long Beach but LRT isn’t terribly inappropriate and since the whole green line is grade separated, it’s average speed is pretty fast and it carries a decent amount of people on the existing line despite being the “train to nowhere” with stations predominantly in the middle of the freeway. I haven’t seen whether the extension will be fully grade separated or not.
Unfortunately, the Vermont Subway, which by ridership projections would get more riders than any new line except the wilshire line extension, keeps falling off the planning docs.
Wilshire needs to be restriped with bus-only lanes (I hate calling it BRT), something like half the trips on wilshire each day are in busses, give them half the lanes. Even after the subway is put in, those busses are going to be packed.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
The Green Line partly relies on big parking lots so that riders can park and ride to work, since getting to the station via foot or connecting transit sucks. Almost every Green Line station has a park and ride. I tried out the Green Line one day and parked at Norwalk in the middle of the day, and only found a spot because someone else was leaving.
I imagine that a South Bay extension would be pretty much the same pattern. Again, I haven’t looked into the specifics of this project too much.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
You can’t really have a “big bang” in Southern California transit planning. It’s too reactive to what land use patterns already are, as opposed to trying to redraw the map as it were.
That said, Wilshire, Expo, and Crenshaw are very worthwhile because they are largely City of L.A. projects and the Mayor and Council can use them to create synergy for different types of urban planning. Even if L.A. embraced density without anyone else it would go a long way to sorting out the region’s problems. But because the Council members have inordinate power over zoning in their districts, it’s a long hard slog.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 am
+ Regional Connector.
Also, Expo…. 30/10 would not affect the planned timeline to completion for the project. Phase I is nearing completion…. and Phase II is already planned to be completed in 2015.
What 30/10 does is provide Metro a license to work with the Feds on gettign a load to advance the projects. Interesting is that Metro is not committing themselves to the whole package of projects… but could advance one at a time… however, they will do so only in the priority order already established.
HSRforCali Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:09 am
The 30/10 plan is actually great for HSR in that since these projects would be completed by 2020, the same time as the completion of the first phase to SF. This would mean far better connections for getting to Union Station instead of driving.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
On the contrary, 30/10 actually sucks for HSR. It deemphasizes most of the good HSR feeder ideas – Green Line to Norwalk Station, Red and Orange Lines to Burbank, a Burbank-Pasadena link – in favor of the Foothills extension.
Look, the Wilshire subway and the Expo Line are great ideas, and the Regional Connector is okay (it’d be much better if it had a transfer to the Red Line where they’d intersect). But Crenshaw is a horrible corridor for a north-south line, and Expo is the wrong place to terminate it. The ideal north-south trunk line is Vermont or Western. Crenshaw is meh, and Crenshaw-to-LAX just screams, “Yeah, we dropped the ball on the Green Line, but this time it’ll work, we swear.”
Finally good news.
If LA to Palmdale segment is built first, then the DesertXpress can connect to Los Angeles from the get-go. This is the best possible “show case” train. A truly highspeed train traveling its full viable route, possibly within five years. Federal money may scarce, but they may like the idea of helping this route as quickly as possible. Its cost effective to federal funds since Vegas to Victorville is privately funded. California bond money should be spent only on the LA Palmdale segment, since it keeps the promiss of building Anaheim to SF train only. Modest federal funding can bridge Victorville to Palmdale. I agree with previous posts that LA to Bakersfield opens up the broadest expansion of rail possabilities for the state – even as a stand alone project.