Has Northern California Abandoned Mass Transit?
Growing up in Southern California, where the car was king (because alternatives had been deconstructed and systematically defunded), I would often look at Northern California – and the Bay Area in particular – as a model of how California could be done better. More sustainably, more fairly, more progressively. In 1995, on my first trip to the region, I rode BART from Berkeley to San Francisco and back, and began to see how mass transit could make California a much more livable place.
Southern California had been making slow but steady strides toward mass transit, but something always held it up – and you always got the impression the region wasn’t truly committed to rail or buses. By 1997, I had decided to leave SoCal for good, and spent the next four years at UC Berkeley, and spent a year commuting via BART to a job in downtown San Francisco. I came to learn some of the limitations of the BART system that many regular users know well, but I still appreciated it – without BART, the Bay Area would be a traffic-choked nightmare on par with LA.
Since I came back to Northern California in 2006 (permanently in 2007), living now in Monterey, I’ve had a chance to use much more of the regional rail network – Muni Metro, Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, VTA light rail – and seen how well it works, as well as where it can be improved. And for much of that time, I was confident that the region would be able to build upon that network, improve it and make it more efficient. Rising gas prices in 2008 would have seemed to prove that the Bay Area had been right to embrace mass transit early and often, and most expected that the high gas prices would have produced public support to expand the system.
Initially, that’s exactly what happened. Prop 1A passed with at least 60% in most of the nine Bay Area counties as voters instinctively saw the benefits of high speed rail. In Sonoma and Marin counties, the SMART train was finally approved with the 2/3rds hurdle overcome after a similar plan failed in 2006. And in Santa Clara County, the public indicated strong support for the controversial BART to San José project, passing Measure B with barely room to spare beyond the 66.67% mark.
Since then, however, things have stalled out. The Bay Area appears to be backsliding on passenger rail, and is sliding into a dangerous dependence on oil and automobiles – while Southern California has decided to become a national leader in building out mass transit. Just as cities like Beverly Hills are dropping long-term resistance to mass transit, cities such as Palo Alto and Berkeley – which long prided themselves on being environmentally friendly, promoting new urbanism, and encouraging transportation alternatives – have become shockingly, stridently hostile to mass transit.
The recent news that Southern California is getting more of the non-HSR passenger rail money in the Prop 1A bond than the Bay Area is just one example of how the Bay Area is falling behind in mass transit aspirations. It’s certainly news that shouldn’t be overstated – SoCal agencies were quicker on the ball, and apparently had more local matching funds than Bay Area rail agencies, meaning that whereas SoCal largely won its pre-allocated share of funds, the Bay Area fell far short of winning what it was eligible to receive.
Other examples show a disturbing anti-mass transit trend in Northern California. Berkeley’s bizarre rejection of BRT shows that the city once known the world over for its left-wing activism has suddenly turned very conservative. Similarly, Palo Alto, whose council voted unanimously to endorse Prop 1A in 2008, has instead adopted the anti-HSR principles of “tunnel or nothing” that I called “inappropriate”. Caltrain is on life support, Muni is facing huge cuts, and even here in Monterey, a group of NIMBYs in a beachfront condo complex are bitterly opposed to light rail, even though the trains would run on a ROW used by rail for nearly 100 years.
What gives? Why is the Bay Area seemingly abandoning its support of mass transit and instead relying on the automobile, despite decades of leadership in transportation alternatives?
The answer has to do with wealth and privilege. In my time at Berkeley in the late ’90s, I learned that the Bay Area’s liberalism uneasily coexists with widespread wealth and a powerful sense of privilege, a combination that led to a much stronger sense of individualism and “I’ve got mine, screw you” attitudes that undermine collective action and projects designed to serve the public interest than I’d ever expected. Often, when residents of the Bay Area core are asked to choose between their liberal politics and their property values or aesthetics, they choose the latter, even if it reinforces inequalities and dependence on environmentally unfriendly modes of transportation.
There’s little else that can explain such reckless outcomes as Berkeley refusing to even consider bus rapid transit, instead choosing to listen to business owners and neighbors who believe that a dying Telegraph Avenue would somehow be hurt, instead of saved, by mass transit. How else do you account for the stunning flip-flop shown by the Palo Alto City Council on high speed rail? Without accounting for the sense of privilege, how can we understand so-called “environmentalists” like the Planning and Conservation League waging war on passenger rail?
In each of those instances, you have people born and raised in an era – the 1950s and 1960s – when rail was considered obsolete and the automobile was considered king. Peak oil was just a theory being thrown around by M. King Hubbert and global warming was virtually unheard of.
The Bay Area’s environmentalism and initial embrace of mass transit was, in retrospect, of a very limited sort. Primarily established in the 1970s and 1980s, the Bay Area created a kind of ghettoized rail network – one that did a decent job of moving people around, but was never intended as a replacement for the automobile, and certainly not something that was intended for every community. In fact, we can see as far back as the mid-1960s the emergence of a preference for aesthetics and property values over mass transit and environmentalism, when Berkeley threatened to block the BART project unless it was built underground. The 1970s anti-density movement that made San Francisco an unaffordable place to live for anyone who isn’t rich or upper-middle-class was of the same vein, as was the Gary Patton school of thought that if passenger rail had even a hint of possibly encouraging sprawl, we were better off being dependent on polluting, expensive, inefficient automobiles.
The contrast with Southern California is instructive. To be sure, not all of SoCal is on board with mass transit. Orange County fought and killed the CenterLine, a light rail project that would have served the OC urban cores. As we saw this week, conservatives still remain ideologically hostile to mass transit, and still control many local governments. And LA has its pockets of NIMBYs who have tried to fight subways and light rail projects there.
But those are increasingly exceptions to the rule. Los Angeles County’s Measure R, and in particular the 30/10 plan to build out the Measure R program by the end of the decade, shows that SoCal is serious about its passenger rail. A robust advocacy community has helped keep Metrolink alive and has supported the Pacific Surfliners, the second busiest route in the Amtrak system. San Diego is embarking on yet another expansion of its light rail, and the Coaster and Sprinter trains are popular.
As cities such as Beverly Hills now clamor for subways after spending the 1980s and 1990s fighting it, we can see that SoCal has come to understand the costs and dangers of its dependence on the automobile. Choked by traffic, racked by pollution, and in desperate need of the economic stimulus that comes with savings on oil prices, there is now widespread popular support for mass transit in the area, including HSR. Sure, there are pockets of NIMBYism, but overall the spirit is to seek constructive solutions for mass transit and passenger rail as business, labor, and the public at large agree that mass transit is the key to the region’s future prosperity. Hell, even places like Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston understand the need for passenger rail, and have become strong supporters and builders of mass transit networks.
Happily, that same combination exists in the Bay Area. Business groups and labor unions strongly support high speed rail, as does the majority of Bay Area residents. But they are being shouted down by an increasingly powerful group of people who are determined to choke off future investment and prosperity by shackling the region to the automobile and oil dependence. Unconcerned about the effect on household budgets (because they have their own wealth) and apparently blithe to the effects of global warming or oil dependence (they must think that rising sea levels and oil spills are a price worth paying to keep their communities looking exactly as they do today), they are dooming the Bay Area to a slow and steady decline as the rising cost of oil and the increasing environmental impact of the automobile act as pincers, eviscerating the region’s economic competitiveness and quality of life.
But the forces currently killing mass transit in the Bay Area are convinced it won’t happen. Living in a permanent 1970s, they have told themselves that it’s OK if Caltrain dies, that light rail and BRT are unwelcome, that HSR is nothing short of a Death Star that will turn whole communities into a dystopian nightmare. And they will cling to that belief with increasingly shrill desperation as it becomes ever clearer that their ideal Bay Area is dead, and that efforts to revive it are merely causing widespread suffering.
It would be a sad fate for one of my favorite places not just in the country, but in the world. But perhaps it will take a calamity to force the rest of the Bay Area to wake up and take power back from the de facto allies of the oil companies in Palo Alto and Berkeley. Most Bay Area residents really do want to protect and improve mass transit, really do understand that the 20th century is over, and want passenger trains to be an integral, instead of marginal, part of their communities and their lives.
It’s time for that Northern California to stand up and be heard. Otherwise, an increasingly conservative, reactionary, and elitist NorCal will destroy the region’s mass transit, and take with it the region’s prosperity and livability. And that would be a tragedy.
The vitriol directed against rail–both north and south of the Tehachapis–too often sounds swinish. Ascribing motive to the reactionary ranters due to their economic class or generation, however, risks losing an opportunity to reach an appropriate consensus. Here in Southern California this past week, Metro held a community meeting in Westwood to update local homeowners on current plans to build the Purple Line subway under our homes. Along with many others at the meeting, I first learned that one of the three proposed routes would tunnel directly under my house. Despite memories of gaping sink holes opened in Hollywood by Red Line tunneling, I expressed my strongest support for completing this subway extension as quickly as safety allows. Although I am well within both the “I’ve got mine, screw you” economic class and the “car is king” generation you castigated, I do not support investing in this infrastructure from altruism. Nor do I support it from any delusion it will decrease traffic in my neighborhood; I trust it will bring even denser development. Rather, I selfishly hope it will allow my city to remain economically competitive, my quality of life to improve and the community I leave to my children to be more vibrant. Although HSR will come nowhere near my house, I strongly support it for the same reasons I strongly support the subway that may tunnel under my house. Working to help opponents understand why these projects will also work in their selfish interests may move these projects along faster than excoriating opponents for–as do we all–having selfish interests.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
Excellent point, angeleno. There is a way for people to be self-interested while also understanding that their self-interest is helped when the community is more prosperous and there is more economic activity.
The attitude you describe seems to be spreading in LA, which is a very positive thing. But in the Bay Area core, it seems to be shrinking.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Perfect example of how transit-friendly LA has become. With the exception of a few nimbys, many are now saying build it through my city! With the 30/10 plan, LA will have a vast mass-transit system connecting every part of the region before high-speed rail is completed. And they say Southern Californians don’t ride trains…
To be fair, some $400 million of the 950 reserved for legacy transit in prop 1A remain earmarked for various Northern California agencies, primarily in the Bay Area. They just haven’t filed applications to get a lot of those funds appropriated just yet. SoCal agencies are ahead, having already filed for 88% of what was earmarked for them.
However, Robert is quite right to point out that this foot-dragging is remarkable at a time when the economy is down and the public sector needs to invest in order to kick-start it. In NorCal, there is a palpable lack of urgency to deliver visible signs of progress Real Soon Now(tm).
Note that in LA county, which passed Measure R in Nov of 2008, implementation projects are being met with cautious approval from the very people that had long opposed projects such as the extension of LA Metro’s Purple Line out to Santa Monica. The audience at a recent planning meeting was remarkably devoid of NIMBYs.
Why should this be the case? Well, the rails are going underground. Why are they going underground? Because Los Angelinos were prepared to tax themselves to pay for it. Local taxes paying for expensive tunnels. What a concept!
Santa Clara county residents did, of course, pass Measure B. They understand just as well as their counterparts down south that running rails well below grade as opposed to high above it is very expensive and, that neither the state nor the federal government are going to pay for the delta. Unfortunately, all of these funds – plus those from an earlier sales tax hike in 2000 – are earmarked for the BART extension from Fremont Warm Springs to Santa Clara. San Jose is using its massive political clout to ensure not a penny is available for Caltrain electrification in the county, never mind a contribution toward any HSR alignment below grade through Mountain View and Palo Alto.
Victor Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
Which means Those areas that want HSR underground and need to have Caltrain electrified, Need their own Measure R as a group of cities and to pay for It themselves, Just like those in the LA basin have done. No one else is going to help them, Otherwise the Bay area will just have to go through what LA did, Wait. Even Beverly Hills wants Mass Transit now and they used to be against the very idea of It, Now their supporting It as they should, As the future waits for No one and those Who wait soon find themselves passed by.
Rafael Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
No, the HSR project will actually fund both electrification and full grade separation of Caltrain in return for a fraction of the right of way. It just won’t fund tunnels where they would add cost without a commensurate increase in ridership. That’s why construction of the DTX tunnel between 4th & King and the new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco is worthwhile, provided the engineering concept and associated cost are within bounds. Right now, they aren’t because TJPA’s plan calls for three rather than two tunnel tracks in the critical tight curve at 2nd & Townsend, precluding the use of conventional tunnel boring machines.
Digging brand-new tunnels for HSR between Bayshore and 4th & King is an even more dubious proposition, as very little line haul time would be lost by forcing HSR and Caltrain to share the existing tracks at moderate speeds in this short but critical section. Ok, maybe the tunnel walls might need some maintenance, they are after all over 100 years old already. And, Caltrain might have to close the 22nd Street Station to keep traffic moving. And, maybe the mighty Port of SF could only run plate H cars at night, or keep making do without them. IMHO, these aren’t substantial objections. A more valid point is that hidebound FRA rules would make it very difficult for HSR to share track with any FRA-compliant rolling stock, whether it be legacy Caltrain gear or UPRR. Still, CHSRA hasn’t even asked the state legislature to appropriate funds for a headcount so FRA can hire a senior staffer dedicated to writing the federal rules required for California HSR, Caltrain and other rail upgrade projects in the state. He/she would need to do this in close co-operation with the CPUC.
Also, CHSRA’s current plans for tunneling between San Tomas Expressway and San Jose Diridon deserve to be scrutinized. There must be a cheaper way to fit HSR + Caltrain + UPRR into that right of way, even if it means reconfiguring Caltrain’s CEMOF maintenance facility. One complication is that the BART extension project is supposed to terminate in a large maintenance facility in Santa Clara, which on the face of it implies a total of 7 tracks passing underneath CA-85 side-by-side.
It’s hard for us to argue that tunnels through Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View would break the bank as long as CHSRA itself does so little to avoid unnecessary or needlessly expensive tunneling elsewhere in the SF peninsula.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 am
What bunk. California(and the US) is in long term doldrums and what jobs there are are generally low paying and spread out over far-flung suburbs. Transportaton by car is expected by employers and besides the young people prize their mobility. In some areas it is not safe to be on foot. There is too much crime on transit and the militant unions demand excessive compensation packages, rendering fares too expensive.
Overall the US is slouching towards the Third World, the kind of place where rail service is undermined by gangbangers stealing the copper ocs wire.
And most of all the Bay Area is dominated by BART, which hoovers up most all of the transit funds. It is your Bechtel broad-gauge baby.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Your description of life in California bears little resemblance to reality. Young people are some of the biggest proponents of dense urban living, some of the biggest backers of mass transit. Yes, we prize our mobility – which is precisely why we support mass transit, because we understand that dependence on the car ≠ mobility.
Transportation by car is no longer expected by many employers, especially in the growing urban cores, where most jobs are now being created.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37291578
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:25 am
You know what? The failure of this country to take care of the poor or provide decent jobs does mean there are more ‘scrapping’ thieves. They’ll take the piping from your house before they’ll take the electrification from the railway though.
The *gangs* in LA have a pact not to mess with the light rail line. Begin to get what’s going on?
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Also, the “scrapping” is only a major problem when prices of raw materials is really high. What’s the cost of copper right now?
YesonHSR Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Iv only heard people from the UK use that term for ‘sucking’ up things…
The sad thing is that those asking people to “choose between” are living in a fantasy world where car-dependent properties will be able to maintain their value in the property market.
That is a fantasy as absurd and dangerous as the fantasy in the finance sector in the middle of the last decade that residential real estate prices could only go up.
In reality, the majority of those suburban residential areas that do not have a car-free and oil-independent alternative means of transport are going to learn firsthand that “slum” is not an exclusively urban phenomenon – a slum emerges wherever the property value drops below the replacement cost of that property. And that will happen in most entirely car dependent suburban residential areas in the decade ahead.
A few will be able to get by on being exclusive get-aways because most people can’t readily get to them … but by definition, its not possible for a majority of residential real estate to become “exclusive” neighborhoods.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Cities like Palo Alto and Berkeley are convinced they will never become slums, and therefore believe they are immune to these truths you describe. For their sakes I hope they return to an embrace of mass transit before reality proves their illusions to be false.
Rafael Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
Palo Alto and Berkeley are both very, very far from becoming slums. Losing public transportation would increase motor vehicle traffic in both cities, which would indeed have an impact on real estate values. However, neither city is even remotely interested in eliminating the services they already have. In Palo Alto’s case, the issue of the day is how to add HSR to the mix while upgrading Caltrain at the same time.
Besides, both places are chock-full of brainiacs with PhDs that can create new wealth by starting up software and biotech companies. They do it all the time. We’re not talking about rustbelt towns like Cleveland here.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I’m not sure, though, that all those fancy pants PhDs in Palo Alto are the ones calling the shots, regardless of their wealth. I work in PA, and ISTM (for what its worth, not much) that many of the same people who are against HSR are very lukewarm about Caltrain, and if they successfully kill HSR, Caltrain would be next. Elite opinion in PA seems to be very opposed to public transportation in general.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Its the WOOFS (welloffoldfolks) that are against HSR..young people in PA voted for HSR…your right the first group could care less about transit let alone HSR ..its all a “waste” on money..they have their cars and sububran 1950s-60 lives in those heads and it will never change
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Well except for the ex-Northeasterners and Chicagoans who dread having to drive into San Francisco and wish there was better train service.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
The impact of losing public transportation at low gas prices of $2~$4/gallon vs the impact at high gas prices of $8~$10/gallon are two different things.
And Palo Alto may not be interested in eliminating the services it already has, but delaying the construction of the HSR corridor is delaying the electrification of Caltrain, which means it is risking eliminating services it already has.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
There are gated communities in the Riviera that are completely auto-oriented even though the local gas prices is $8/gallon. Palo Alto, which is about as rich, could weather peak oil. East Palo Alto couldn’t, but when did rich communities ever care about what happens to other people?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:06 pm
When the service workers can’t get to work, that’s when they care.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Not even then. See the debacle of Colorado Springs’ recent government shutdown. Or the mansions of the Riviera, located well away from the TER.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Never been in NY during a subway strike have ya?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
No. But in NY the rich people use the subway, too.
Joey Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Alon: that’s because the subway is the only reasonably fast way to get around Manhattan. Driving may be marginally faster than walking…
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Saudi princes, who have mansions on the Riviera, occasionally travel on the TGV. Obviously not to save on gasoline since they usually book an entire 1st class car.
This almost started a riot on the Gare du Nord platform as people tried to get into the practically empty Saudi car while the rest of the train was full.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Well, the parts of the Riviera I’m talking about are too far east for the TGV. Towns like Villefranche are nearly 6 hours from Paris by TGV, and 1:30 by plane. At any case, the most exclusive parts of those towns are located away from the TER line.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
I lived in Berkeley in the mid-sixties and there was a crime problem on Telegraph Avenue then. Nothing new, just more now.
It would be very nice to see buses in Berkeley replaced by streetcars. Not long ago there was a scheme to wire for trolley buses. But nothing came of it because of the cost. Operating costs leave very little left for capital improvements, which are difficult to push when service is being cut.
There is no panacea when it comes to public transit. That is why it is so important not to make dumb, gratuitous mistakes. My favorite example is BART’s broad gauge. Believe me there were plenty of people who debunked that decision at the time but there were overruled by guess whom? The Tehachapis detour is in the same category of half-baked thinking.
Things can get really bad for the transit cause. My understanding from an insider at the time is that the only reason San Francisco streetcars survived the fifties was that the Twin Peaks Tunnel was deemed too narrow to accomodate buses. The Sunset Tunnel was considered wide enough.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
You simply will not listen to engineering experts, will you?
Yes, plenty of people attacked BART’s broad gauge at the time. Why do you think there *aren’t* hardly *any* people attacking the Tehachapis route?
….Answer, because it’s the geologically sensible route.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Note that the complaints on the final approach to the Transbay Terminal: super-sharp curves, incompatible platforms, security theater, etc. etc. — complaints coming from practically everyone interested — those are comparable to the crticism of BART’s decision to use broad gauge.
You have a good *general* point which is spoilt by not picking the right examples.
Peter Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Don’t get him started. He also thinks that retained fill berms are bad in earthquake country because he thinks that the soil will settle in an earthquake. I guess the retained fill berms we have already for roads aren’t good enough for him. Or the ones used around the world for rail in earthquake country. Engineers don’t know what they’re doing, but Richard Tolmach does.
flowmotion Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
This sounds like some strange revenge fantasy. If economic forces conspire to turn Palo Alto into a slum, there will be far worse problems than any rail line can solve.
Not at all..Prop1A passed by large amounts here..even in Alameda and ContraCosta Co that will have no station stops..LA county had a 59percent pass rate compared to SFs 72 percent if anything it shows the BayArea has long range thinking for total overall mobilty for the entire state. In LA the metro and rail are still shiney new things and people still want more..We do here also..thou its the media giving the impression all is bad and the ninmby crowd is how everyone feels…NOT true now about the PCL and that way of green thinking..Well just because you live in the country and drive a Hybrid SUV and like looking at trees doen not make you “green”..if anything they are standard suburanb types that dont like dense city housing or people nor rail transit..The old hippies hated cities and big goverment..hey move to farm and make our own world ideas..HSR and transit would be something from the big goverment..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
I certainly don’t mean to imply that ALL Bay Area residents are turning against mass transit. The support you described is very real and still there. But those folks are getting shouted down by a small but vocal group of people who absolutely do not have the best interests of the community in mind.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 am
Very true..and the media for some reason has given them a big soap box to stand on when it comes to this project..I guess they know alot of people are for HSR so this is a way to kick up some drama news for sales thou the problem is it creates bad images and the elected officals run from bad news.
Thats why we need CAforHSR and that Transportation bill to pass and to get constuction started so people will eager for the system to be opened…
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
They are not against transit per se – they just don’t care for Bechtel’s blinking blighty berms.
Change the route – the tunnel to downtown SF is nice but too expensive for what you get. The Altamont to SFO alternative makes a lot of sense.
Prop 1A needs to be dumped. It could never pass today.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Of course it would..the same people that voted against it would still do so and voters that said yes would too..the media and the nimbys have made it out to be some bad news item..it will be built and use by millions…just like the Bart ‘monster’ your always whinning about..yet its a big part of bayarea life everyday and when not running right you do see the outcome?? SO it was/is worth every penny just as HSR will be…down thru Pacheo and the Central Valley
I think the perceived hostility to public transit in Northern California also reflects the fact that the region does not have a “unified” plan or concept of what it wants to do. While the MTC is supposed to be the regional planning body, the mere fact that there are 28 different transit operators stifles cooperation in this region. Compare that to Metro in LA County and the other transit operators it cooperates with and it shows that by having fewer competing bodies, you can more done. Similarly, if there was a major consolidation of operators, you could have a more “harmonious” fare and transfer system to make it easier to get around. For example, there is a surcharge to go to SFO via BART just because it is within San Mateo County which is not formally part of BART. Also, by eliminating redundant transit lines, you can gain more efficiencies in where you’re going. Moreover, the region’s operators have major public relations problems, which detracts from ridership. Muni, for example, by law must give its drivers a raise, regardless of performance. BART unions have demanded more and more when riders have been frustrated by performance, the state of repair and bad planning, such as the Oakland Airport Connector. These issues have lead to higher fares, decreased ridership and service and a public attitude that is decidedly against supporting additional funding for transit. As for why Berkeley doesn’t want BRT, I think it’s because the merchants don’t want lost parking spaces, which is a legitimate argument. As for Caltrain, its service overall is really good and I still question why certain cities oppose its electrification, although it is clear they view this as a “trojan horse” which would lead to HSR coming down the line. I think the greatest way to combat the attitude against public transit is to show that people’s tax dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently. Whether this means speeding up VTA light rail, bringing BART to SJ, electrifying Caltrain, extending Muni light rail to SMART in the North Bay, once there is a shown public benefit and people experience both a reduction in their spending and getting where they need to go with minimal hassle, then public opinion will be more in favor of expanding public transit and spending for it.
dejv Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
The mere presence of 28 operators in area with several million people doesn’t make the system user-unfriendly. I live in area with 1,2 million people that is served by 19 operators, and the system works seamlessly. There are few key things that make it work:
- the schedules are tightly integrated and where possible, cross-platform
- there’s just one common fare system for heavy rail, light rail, trolleybuses, city buses and rural buses.
- the line number is unique within system
- parallel lines that serve exactly the same market were either interleaved (if they had different origins – to bump frequency on shared section), or eliminated to get rid of intra-system competition
- where sensible, village-to-city buses were cut to nearest rail station to eliminate parallel running and maintain higher frequencies with the same level of subsidy
All of that was possible because of strong but quiet political support in last 10 years. The regional government formed “coordinator of integrated transport system” that created the system and expanded it gradually over the whole region. Today, it takes care of all stuff mentioned before and also “invisible” things like contracting private operators, collecting fares and redistributing them according to actual line performance and so on.
In 9-county Bay Area, such thing is inherently difficult. But it’s possible, for example VOR manages to run single integrated in three of Austrian states with some lines serving another states or even neighbouring countries. Bay Area has it’s organizational equivalent to VOR GmbH – the MTC. You “only” need to change it’s role to something similar like VOR GmbH and give it necessary political backing to do all those potentially painful changes.
(BTW, the system I described at the beginning of this post closely followed structure of VOR.)
Robert Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Having 28 systems doesn’t require the systems be user-unfriendly, but the reality is that they are. If I want to take mass transit from my home in Oakland to San Carlos I have to take 5 or 6 different transit systems and pay that number of independent fares. ACT from my home to BART. BART to SF, Muni from BART to CalTrain, CAlTrain to San Carlos and then possibly SAMTrans to get to final destination. Heck, if I only want to get someplace outside walking distance from BART in SF I have to pay three different fares. Now compare that to many places in Europe where I would only need to pay a single fare to ride all different systems. It doesn’t make for a good experience.
Joey Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
You could take BART to Millbrae but depending on where you start you may have to wait for infrequently-running trains…
dejv Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 am
The point is that those systems in Europe are run by greater number of operators and they are user friendly, so decreasing number of operators isn’t necessarily the way to improve transit.
For example, transit in German states of Berlin and Brandenburg is run by 41 operators. Note that they serve similar population to Bay Area (6 million people) at lower density (194/km^2, vs. 320/km^2 of Bay Area) – check VBB‘s fact and figures.
dwight david diddlehopper Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I agree with some of what you have written. My objections to the proposed CAHSR are based on how poorly the other systems run – except for Caltrain which I use at least a couple times a week, with a bike. And I have no confidence that the state of California can do this project at the proposed cost. I have no confidence that the ridership numbers are even close. I think it will only benefit the more affluent and leave everyone else paying the bills for it that we can’t afford.
Building this fantasy with money we don’t have, loaned to us from other countries to buy other countries’ technology is a real sucker move.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Incredible – an idea on this site I agree with: “extending Muni light rail to SMART in the North Bay”. I have touted this concept on the Altamont site many times only to rankle the diehard NCRA-NWP partisans. The GG Bridge can handle a second deck for light rail. Unfortunately there was no ROW included in the Doyle Drive project. Alternately coming off at Park Presidio from a Geary line has been mooted for decades. The snag is that your homies at BART-Bechtel want to broad gauge Geary.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
I actually meant to have extending Muni light rail and SMART as two independent ideas; I’ll make sure to proof read my posts. Nevertheless, I think it would be fascinating to find a way to have a light rail system or something like SMART start in the North Bay, go across the GG bridge, travel underneath Lombard St. from the Marina to Columbus then travel up Columbus (underground of course) to the end of the proposed central subway. Alternatively, it would be interesting to find a way to do something similar but go down Geary as a subway to the financial district.
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
As a north bay resident, having SMART seamlessly connect into transit that will get me into SF proper or the east bay would be enormously beneficial to me, and would open up a lot of economic opportunities as well.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 9:11 am
I doubt it would be economically feasible to connect those two systems. One of SMART’s biggest selling points is the fact that it is the cheapest way to offer quality service along its corridor. On anything but the worst-weather days, the ferry should be more than sufficient to connect SMART to SF and beyond.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 9:23 am
I’m not saying such a link would not be a good addition, but just that I don’t see how it would pencil out in a cost-benefit analysis.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 9:31 am
You’re more likely to get a connection to BART in the East Bay from SMART. Probably by an eBART-style DMU across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
Rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Something similar was already proposed and shot down by Caltrans. The asphalt cowboys are not giving up the emergency lane.
Rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 9:32 am
SMART will connect to the ferry at Larkspur. I guess you could call that connecting transit.
synonymouse Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 10:07 am
A quarter-mile hike across a foot bridge over Sir Francis Drake.
Larkspur hates the idea of being the SMART terminus. If NCRA-NWP freight operations were abandoned SMART could be electric light rail instead of very pricey, customized doodlebugs. Then the line could be extended down 101(albeit with some BART style civil engineering)to Marin City, replacing the northern half of the trunk GGT #80 Santa Rosa to SF bus line.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 10:30 am
“A quarter-mile hike across a foot bridge over Sir Francis Drake.”
Since when is walking 1000 feet an imposition? Especially to people who are taking public transit.
“instead of very pricey, customized doodlebugs”
Are you SERIOUSLY complaining about the cost of the CHEAPEST and most cost-effective rail line to be built in the Bay Area in God knows how long?
“If NCRA-NWP freight operations were abandoned SMART could be electric light rail”
And if the moon was made of cheese…
If, if, if. It’s like the “if the CPUC gave a waiver for Caltrain regarding platform heights…” and “if the JPB got the STB to allow them to abandon freight service then we could…” crowds. Never gonna happen.
“Larkspur hates the idea of being the SMART terminus.”
Based on what? Your personal communication with undisclosed parties?
I would find it interesting if for once you responded directly to some criticism, instead of going off on any tangents.
synonymouse Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
There hasn’t been any freight service on the NWP in almost 10 years. The Northern part of the line is washed out.
Larkspur has officially opposed the terminus location since the first SMART ballot measure.
SMART will be of a new, untested design as light dmu’s, such as Siemens Sprinter, are not allowed to commingle with freights. Questionable for a tiny outfit like SMART to take on debugging a brand new vehicle design. San Rafael is opposed to loco-hauled.
A quarter-mile in a wheelchair? The GGT express buses will still be faster, cheaper and serve a much larger area of SF.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
The last I saw, SMART was looking at an FRA-compliant design for its DMUs. That would imply that they will most likely end up with a Colorado Railcar design, which has already been tried-and-tested in both Florida and Oregon.
Not to sound uncaring, but the number of people who would be using wheelchairs is quite low. That should seriously not keep the trains from terminating where they do.
I believe they are looking at running freight on the line as well, for garbage hauling.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
And thank you for actually responding directly to comments, instead of diverting attention to other unrelated issues. It’s refreshing.
rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
If you’re referring to the US Railcar DMU, which is FRA-compatible, the bi-level version went into commercial service with Florida Tri-Rail in 2006 after a three-year trial period. TriMet in Oregon has used the single-level variant since February of 2009.
Note that Colorado Railcar went belly-up in December of 2008 due to late deliveries and financing problems. The CEO was ousted and the company emerged from bankruptcy as US Railcar.
The NCTD Sprinter between Escondido and Oceanside uses non-compliant DMUs and it does not share track with FRA-compliant rolling stock.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Yeah, I called it the Colorado Railcar DMU because that was how it went into service. It is in fact now owned by US Railcar. Isn’t there an operator in Alaska using the bi-level version, as well?
rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
@ Peter -
afaik only unpowered versions of the cars are in service in Alaska, though the company did some hill climb tests on a 3% gradient up there.
Reality Check Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The NCTD Sprinter doesshare track on a time-separated basis with FRA-compliant freight trains. That’s why they have those interesting platform “drawbridges” that must be raised to allow freights to lumber past. Here’s a photo of one in the “up” position allowing FRA trains to roll by.
Peter Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Yeah, SMART will have gauntlet tracks so that they don’t have to do the whole drawbridge thing.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Indeed. Of course the “requirement” for a pork-laden FRA lard-ass piece of 19th century unreliable overweight inefficient junk was determined by the expert consultants of LTK Engineering Services.
And guess who got subsequently scored the contract to “design” the specifications for an FRA junkpike for SMART? Why, LTK Engineering Services.
America’s Finest Transportation Professionals in action.
PS Guess who is the in-house consultant “specifying” every detail of the guaranteed-to-be-catastrophically-incompetent Caltrain EMU (with extra CBOSS-FRA! and added platform height incompatibility!) contract? Surprise, none other than a LTK Engineering Services!
Where do they even find these people?
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I’m not convinced the NWP will ever carry freight again, at least not to Eureka. Caltrans spends a lot of money keeping 101 in service between Willits and Eureka. The NWP route, through the Eel River Canyon, is even more challenging; the terrain up here has washouts every year. That’s not to say an alternate route wouldn’t be useful; after all, a few years ago 101 was completely broken due to slides. But, I’m not sure there’s enough funding for both routes.
Freight to Ukiah or even Willits could be feasible, though.
elfling Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I’ll settle for a carefully timed bus across the Richmond Bridge if I must.
Alexei Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Well, the new Doyle Drive ROW is very wide, after all. Probably not unreasonable to put a pair of tracks in the middle if desired. But there are other projects I’d like to see happen first, like Geary.
synonymouse Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Geary deserves first priority, well before the botched Central Subway. BART covets Geary Street, but it should be a standard gauge Muni operation. Had the 1937 subway bond issue passed the B line would have survived Urban Removal in 1956 and we wouldn’t have to worry about the damn merchants.
Now there are some real “nimbys” for all you nimby-haters – the Geary Street merchants.
At the very minimum the #38 should be converted to trolley bus, but apparently Muni has put a moratorium on trolley bus conversions out of fear there won’t be enough diesels in case of emergency.
jimsf Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:42 pm
The power went out Friday. A metro car snapped a wire at duboce and it shut down the F line, the subway, and several trolley bus lines. I got caught in the middle of all. It was surreal. All I could think was, “so this is what it would look like if their was ever a walk out”
hundreds of people packed every bus stop. The diesel shuttle buses packed. Wheelchair passengers off and on meant that the entire front of the bus had to off board , get the mobility pax on, then reboard, then do it all again a few stops later.
I love the electric system and think it should be expanded, but they have a point, if the power ever goes out system wide, the city will come to grinding halt.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:33 am
If the system has a fair amount of redundancy — rather than a single chokepoint where one broken wire shuts down everything — then it only comes to a halt if the citywide power goes out.
In which case all the businesses shut down too, so there are fewer people travelling.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Are the bus drivers covered under a different contract from the trolley bus drivers and the light rail drivers. If they are all covered under the same contract they’ll all go out on strike at the same time.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“I love the electric system and think it should be expanded, but they have a point, if the power ever goes out system wide, the city will come to grinding halt.”
That’s true in just about every large city, isn’t it? It’s not like NYC has enough busses to avoid chaos in the event of a major power outage.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
“Geary deserves first priority, well before the botched Central Subway. ”
Pretty much every mass transportation advocate agrees with you there.
jimsf Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
There will never be a second deck on the Golden Gate Bridge. Ever.
synonymouse Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:39 am
The highway lobby always planned for a second deck for automobiles on the GG Bridge. That’s where all those cars to be carried on the Embarcadero and Panhandle freeways were going to go.
But the “nimby” freeway revolt put an end to that for now. Remember never is a long, long time. Berm-happy hsr reminds me of the of the freeway-happy fifties.
If Southern California looks like it is forging ahead on rail transit while the Bay Area has seemingly stopped, it is also true that SoCal has a lot of catching up to do.
Metrolink is nowhere near even thinking about electrification, which it will need in the future. The Bay Area has had much more success with TransLink than the MTA has had with getting cooperation from Metrolink and the municipal bus lines on TAP.
Does anyone have any additional information on the $950M CTC allocaitons? This SJMN aticle does not provide any details as to which NorCal projects these funds will go towards and there is no detail at all about the breakdown in SoCal. I did a quick search on the CTC website and didn’t find much, and other newspapers did not seem to cover this. Thanks.
rafael Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:08 am
Not exactly a list of project, but at least a summary of the total dollar amounts per agency:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15131437?source=rss
1. Beverly Hills historically opposing mass transit is urban fiction. The city for decades has been very supportive. Homeowner associations in the Hancock Park area were the naysayers who lobbied Henry Waxman.
2. In 1998 2/3 of LA County voted to shut down subway construction and reversed and taxed themselves for more one decade later.
3. Metro has just hired a new chief planner: Martha Welborne. She took the Board of Supervisors on a trip to Curitiba and sold them on BRT. The future rail projects are guaranteed by Measure R but some rail activists who fought the BRTvsLRT Wars have raised eyebrows. (At one time Metro programming maps showed Expo as BRT.). Nice, bright lady and approachable.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
The legacy of Jesse Haugh lives on.
rafael Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:10 am
Taking decision makers on a field trip to study successful systems in other countries. What a concept!
here’s what happened. The bay area population has been replaced by pod people.
Actually, its a combination of, for one thing we have for decades, paid more and more and more for everything in the bay area, more than the rest of the state and most of the country too. People are tapped out.
two, there is a high median income here that keeps getting higher, once people make that money. Transit becomes declasse. three, much of the original working class has left out of frustration over higher costs, trying to keep up and winding up being lumped in to rub shoulders with the third world influx. and four, the fresh young people who are of the millennial generation for from the middle of the country and do not possess the old school 60s based values that that reigned over the bay for the previous three decades.
There has simply been a huge shift in who lives here and what their priorities are.
Meanwhile, and correct me if I’m wrong, but my impressions when I go to LA, socal, are that I get a sense that la does a better job of being america. in that, it does a better job of scooping up huge masses of new people and assimilating them into the LA culture. In socal people more easily tos away their roots be they midwest-domestic or foreign/international. The LA thing is irresistible and people know matter where they are from, quickly become “LA- ized”
The bay area however is becoming increasingly disjointed and is full of people of every persuasion who no longer see the bay area as “us” but only as “me”
I love the bay and city, but I have to admit I find tips to LA to be incredibly refreshing. not something you’d ever hear a norcal native say back in 70s.
rafael Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 am
And by “us” you mean anyone with a weakness for all things French?
jimsf Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:50 pm
No, bus us I mean the population being more interested in the bay area as a whole, first and worrying about their homeland second rather than constantly fighting and protesting as if they are still living where they aren’t. I get the impression that in LA people still prefer to assimilate and in the bay, people want to separate. Of course that’s a broad generalization, but there is a whole different vibe, and in my opinion , a much better one, in la. these days.
There was a distinct shift in the 90s, everyone was talking about it, a lot of the art, design, old school cool, community fled sf for la, a place previously eschewed. Then the bay proceeded to turn into everything we used to accuse of La of being.
Its kind of like how they talk about the earths magnetic fields and how one day the poles are going to flip and cause chaos.
On the upside, we know that la is slowly creeping northward, so eventually things will be put right.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Nothing new – the SF downtown crowd has always favored freeways and cars over transit. The beats and hippies messed up the C of C’s plans, but today’s yuppies are more susceptible to the “we need more parking” mantra.
Still nothing compares to the transit devastation of 1947-1951 with Geary Street lasting until the end of 1956. The anti-rail frenzy of the fifties was like a cultural byproduct of McCarthyism.
viva LA
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=324742
Joey Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 pm
That’s the San Bernardino line right-of-way, right?
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Recent excursion from LA to San Bernardino
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:04 am
Why is that “diseasel” coupled behind the 3751′s tender? Sacriledge!
I have to confess to being a strong steam fan.
I like the way things used to be, even if some people claim I want to turn the clock back 100 years.
But as I’ve said before, what was so wrong with travel by train and trolley in 1910?
synonymouse Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 am
The Santa Fe requires a diesel backup but the UP runs its two steam locomoatives sans diesel regularly.
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,42928,42928#msg-42928
Alon Levy Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
For one, the operation was so labor-intensive that it could only work in a low-wage environment. It was also very dirty; cars and the diesel engine were conceived in part as a way to reduce steam engine emissions.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Oh, I’m quite aware of that, having done some research work for a large tourist rail proposal–guess I’ll have to let folks know when I’m kidding a bit! :-)
I still love the old beasts, though–the sound at work is magnificent, and the whistle, at close range, seems to make the air itself come alive.
The 3751, in common with many Western locomotives, is an oil-burner; the carriers in the West often used No. 6 residual (Bunker C) in steam because it was cheap. This was the oil in a refinery that was left after you had distilled off everything lighter, such as gasoline, kerosene, naptha, and so on. It’s a heavy, black, tar-like substance, you have to heat it to at least 70 degrees F. or so to get it to flow.
Southern Pacific took advantage of this on its heaviest power by turning the whole locomotive around, and running the thing cab forward (which is what the type came to be called, long before a certain car made by Chrysler). Gave the engine crew great visibility, and great breathing ability, too, in the line’s tunnels and snowsheds over the Sierras.
What one of these machines looked and sounded like, complete with the distinctive chirping/wheezing from the exhaust of the air compressors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ErZ5SgkVw
I’m from the East, and here steamers burned coal. As bad as that sounds, particulate pollution wasn’t as bad as you would think. Steam locomotive cinders are fairly large, about like hot, black sand, and they don’t stay in the air; a lot of them come down around the third or fourth car behind the locomotive (guess how I know this!)
Best way to experience such a ride is in a car with windows that open–lets in all that wonderful, dramatic sound (even if it lets in the smoke and cinders, too).
Some stories about steam, both in recent times on tourist or heritage railroads:
One was from a fellow who liked both trains and drag racing. At the time he had a boy who was five years old. The boy was afraid of the dragsters; he asked his dad why “those cars sounded so angry.” The same boy was’t afraid at all of Strasburg Rail Road’s No. 90, a medium-sized locomotive that used to haul sugar beets in Colorado. The big, panting engine was “friendly,” despite its size, noise, and heat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xTrUrNFh9w&feature=related
My personal favorite as Strasburg is the 475, a former coal-hauler from my home state of West Virginia. Its hooter whistle was the mournful thing coal trains used on the Norfolk & Western. Lest anyone squawk about pollution on this road, I found out recently that it burns about 875 tons of coal per year in five engines. For comparison, an electric power plant in Harrisburg, Pa., burns about 1,000 tons in four hours. I think we can live with some steamers around!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY3PDpWBMzk&feature=related
The Cass Scenic Railroad in West Virginia is a former logging railroad, with an average grade of 5%, two stretches of 11% (and once had a section of an incredible 13%), combined with 40 degree curves (longest car they can handle is only 40 feet long), and two switchbacks (the train has to reverse direction to continue to climb). Power is geared-drive steam, Shay and Heisler types. These locomotives have an engine that drives a shaft, much like a drive shaft in your car, either under the locomotive (Heisler) or down the right side (Shay), to gears on the wheels, which swivel in trucks at each end, like those of a diesel. Top speed is very low, only about 15 mph for a Heisler and 12 mph for a Shay (and they rarely go even that fast), but the engines will run on track that would scare a handcar and can almost climb a tree. They worked and still live in a world where modern diesels do not go.
This railroad had cars that were called “cinder cars”–just a converted flat car, no sides, no roof, nothing but benches and hand rails. Great for scenic views, and of course all that sound. They eventually had to quit running these, at least on a regular basis, because of complaints about the cinders burning holes in people’s clothes. One lady, who was incensed, and upset, and angry, buttonholed the superintendent at Cass: “You ruined my clothes! You’ve ruined my clothes! Your brochure says you run a steam train! It does not say you run a coal train!”
I wonder where she thought the steam came from–a laundry?
I had the chance to speak to a conductor on this railroad. He said this scenic road does sell more tickets than seats on occasion, and so they have standees. His suggestion on how to get a seat was to point out into the woods and exclaim, “Look, a bear!” When everyone jumps up to look for the “bear.” you get to sit down. What if somebody complains? “You move your feet, you lose your seat,” was his reply.
Hard-working steam power, great scenery, fun employees–my kind of railroad!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDJkzW7ligQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUXdt3hAFus
Railroads can be more than just about going from A to B. They can be grace, beauty, and history combined. I hope the new HSR and other services can build upon that legacy, as well as give the transportation option we need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDC8cWIWLE&feature=related
Have fun, and best luck–no kidding! :-)
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Well, that applies to steam trains, but why does it apply to electric trolleys and interurbans? One-man operation was in place very early, and it was all-electric power.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:27 am
The big killer in steam was locomotive maintenance and maintenance of support facilities.
As an example of the former, a railroad yard on the Baltimore & Ohio at Brunswick, Md., had something like 400 employees in steam days; the roundhouse (a “light” repair shop, only for running repairs and inspections, as opposed to “heavy” repairs or overhauls) employed 40 master mechanics alone, plus boiler men, electical men, air system men, blacksmiths, and so on. This is because steam locomotives have parts that were highly stressed, required fitting, and were often quite large and heavy (it was not unusual for a main rod, connecting the crosshead to the main driver, to weigh 1,500 pounds). Diesels have relatively small parts (although with engines that have up to 710 cubic inches of displacement per cylinder in 16 cylinders, which are large compared to automotive practice), and the parts are ready-fitted out of a box, like parts for your car. The net result was that Brunswick went from 40 master mechanics to 4 in the diesel change.
Service facilities included coaling towers with their conveyor systems (at least every 100 miles, sometimes more frequently, often duplicated in smaller sizes where an assigned engine for a branch would be stationed), water towers every 25 miles (and also duplicated on branch lines) with their pumping and heating systems (to keep the water from freezing), water treatment facilities where water was bad for one or more reasons (surprisingly few places had really good boiler water, ideally it approached drinking quality), oil tanks and heating facilities for oil-burning steam (the trouble here being that black, gooey Bunker C oil fuel), ash pits and conveyors (coal burners again), plus the requirements for anything like a major road (and some smaller ones) for at least one really heavy repair facility that included foundry, forge (with at least one steam hammer), complete machine shop including large lathes, wheel lathes (some of which had to handle wheels up to 7 feet in diameter) drill presses, bending brakes, boiler plate rolls, milling machines, shapers, planers, punch and shear tools that could punch holes in plates up to an inch thick, overhead cranes with hundreds of tons of lifting capacity, plus not just the people to run all this (shop personnel), but more people to maintain it as well (bridge & building group), plus real property taxes on all of this (and other things like stations and the railroad itself). Some of these facilities, among them Roanoke, Va., Juniata (Altoona), Pa., Mt. Clare (Baltimore), Md., West Albany, N.Y., and Sacramento, Ca., could and did build locomotives from scratch, and did while also doing heavy repairs that essentially took a locomotive down to its smallest parts (some of which were still quite large) and put it back together again, after which it was practically a new engine. All this went away with the diesel, along with the skilled employees who in any other business would have been classed as tool-and-die men (if you know anything about machine work, you know how skilled with machine tools these men had to be). Similar skill sets were also required at the commercial builders in steam as well (Baldwin of Philadelphia, Pa., American Locomotive Co. or Alco of Schenectady, N.Y., and Lima Locomotive & Machine, Lima, Oh.).
While on the subject of shop facilities, I should also mention that the Baltimore & Ohio had a shop to make its own rails in Cumberland, Md. (part of this was that the B&O actually predated Pittsburgh’s steel industry, with the rail shop later retooled as Bolt & Forge, it survived into the 1970s). The site was turned into a shopping center in recent years, a fate also shared with the huge Santa Fe shop in San Bernadino, Ca. (seond largest such shop facility in the country, exceeded in size only by the Pennsylvania Railroad shop in Altoona, Pa.)
Funny how we worry about job loss now, and dependency on outsiders for skills and labor; it wasn’t always so. . .
Roanoke, Va.
http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/shops.Html
Pt. Saint Charles, Montreal, Canada.
http://rlhs.org/ARCHIVES/rlapo3.htm
Hagerstown, Md.
http://www.wmwestsub.com/hagerstownshops.htm
Erecting hall, Schenectady.
http://chestofbooks.com/reference/Wonder-Book-Of-Knowledge/images/Erecting-Shop-Schenectady-N-Y-Works-American-Locomotive.jpg
A relatively quiet looking moment at Proviso (Chicago), Ill.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/1503?size=_original
A rarity–an intact survivor, on a narrow gauge heritage railroad in Pennsylvania, the East Broad Top Railroad and Coal Company:
http://www.ebtrr.com/pics/l-myers/070421_91.jpg
http://www.ebtrr.com/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Broad_Top_Railroad_and_Coal_Company
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/top.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/swings.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/boil.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/macshop.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/whlathe.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/bore1.html
http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Shops/thread.html
The images above are but a sample of what is in this repair shop for a railroad that was only 33 miles long and home to six narrow gauge and two standard gauge locomotives (at the transfer station in Mt. Union, Pa.). You can only imagine what a railroad like Southern Pacific would need.
I guess all those jobs were expendable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFC_9szfA5c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-P0xN3e2w&feature=relate
rafael Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:15 am
It’s definitely the cars that are emitting all that pollution, right?
NIMBY’s Everywhere!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8R0rbYW4rg
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Well, judging from the faces, it looks like my age pattern is showing up again (with an exception or two, of course).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
You know what’s important about that?
They lost.
The Cheviot Hills NIMBYs – who, like the NIMBYs in Monterey and Palo Alto, opposed returning trains to a rail ROW that had carried trains for many decades – lost their fight. The Expo Line will indeed go through their community.
And you know what? Within months of the line opening, people will have forgotten all about the fight, the trains will become a normal part of the community, and folks will wonder what all the fuss was about.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:02 am
In Palo Alto and Menlos case the trains have never stopped..if anything the line became less noisey and loud due to the decreased freight train movement..HSR will make it even less
jimsf Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:54 pm
I love the part where the gal if freaking out because the old trains were just mere trolleys/street cars but the new ones will be horrible light rail vehicles. I mean there’s a huge difference right!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 7:32 am
I have a similar goody.
I was at a trolley museum in Pennsylvania, and had the toughest time not exploding with laughter at a woman who was explaining the controls of a trolley, which included a gas pedal (air whistle, foot-operated on this car) and a steering wheel (hand brake)! This was an older type car, with hand controller and classic air system, and no dead-man pedal.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Grr, how I wish I could correct mistakes–forgot to mention this wasn’t a member of the staff, but someone with a kid.
Gee, if that is a steering wheel, how do railroad engineers steer those long, long, trains and not have the tail cut across curves, like a trailer truck does?
Jay Thorwaldson’s current article in Palo Alto’s Town Square Forum states: “On top of that comes a press announcement that the CHSRA, beleaguered by protesting residents and Mid-Peninsula Cities is seeking another 16.6 billion in federal funds for what has been estimated as a 43 billion dollar project. What’s wrong with this sentence?
The answer—CHSRA is seeking 16.6 MILLION, for planning and environmental work, not 16.6 BILLION. Maybe this was a typo that could have been caught by a little proofreading, but more likely, it was a deliberate misrepresentation designed to strengthen the argument and stir up the troops.
Don’t journalists have an obligation to try to get their facts straight?
rafael Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Ha, so the Palo Alto Town Square Forum is a bastion of journalistic excellence now? Million, billion, zillion – they’re all just big, scary numbers, aren’t they? Be afraid!
Spokker Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Even better is that one of the commentators wants to get the FBI involved to investigate the CHSRA.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Just took another look at that page, and Jay Thorwaldson’s face suggests he is a member of the WOOFers (Well Off Older Folks, as someone else here put it)–wonderful way to describe my “difficult, in-between age” group!
I got a question. Why can’t HSR trains use the existing tunnels between SF and Bayshore? It just seems to me it’s not necessary to build separate tracks since Caltrain EMUs will probably go the same speed as HSR trains through this area regardless. Also, wouldn’t a shared-track option save a lot og money?
Alexei Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
I’m not sure they won’t, but the big tunneling project will be the one that connects the current terminus to the Transbay Terminal, which doesn’t exist yet.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I still don’t get why they need 3 tracks. Wouldn’t it be just as efficient but far cheaper if they did a 2 track tunnel?
rafael Reply:
May 24th, 2010 at 10:11 am
This is a puzzle to many observers. Best guess, the world-class rail consultants TJPA hired simply weren’t prepared to employ doubly curved turnouts near the Transbay Terminal because AREMA, an organization by and for the US freight rail industry, hasn’t certified any. Never mind that no freight train is ever going to use the DTX tunnel…
Also, Caltrain insisted on underground station platforms at 4th & Townsend to provide continuity of service and an intermodal with SF Muni’s Central Subway. The third track there is supposed to let HSR trains pass any stopped Caltrain, though that’s not a good enough reason to extend the three tracks all the way along Townsend and up 2nd.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 4:06 am
Checked your photo of a “double-curved turnout;” it’s just a standard turnout laid on a curve. They’ve been used in railroading for, well, however long have railroads been around with turnouts! They are considered something to avoid if possible because they cost more to maintain (keep in surface and allignment): this and other special trackwork, including double-slip switches, are normally only used in really tight areas. If this is in a location where the curves are sharp, I would want to reconsider, too, what with the long (85 to 89 feet is standard length) passenger cars that will have to negotiate such trackage.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/railway/slip.htm
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/pom-feb2007.htm
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/photogallery/slipswitch%201.jpg
rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 4:41 am
The curve immediately west of the platforms at the new Transbay Terminal is very tight. Tunneling is very expensive, two tracks would be a lot cheaper than three. HSR trainsets based on Jacobs bogies (Alstom) or wheelsets (Talgo) feature cars that are much shorter than standard.
Of course doubly curved turnouts are known technology even in the hidebound USA. It’s just that TJPA has made no effort – none – to bring down the cost of the DTX tunnel. Why would it, if CHSRA and Caltrain will be paying through the nose for it?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Can you provide a link to show what this is to look like? I’m really not from the area, and am not familiar with what this new terminal is supposed to come out to. A track arrangement drawing, if available, would be of greatest interest here.
I’m somewhat familiar with Talgo equipment (the original prototypes were actually built by American Car and Foundry in the 1950s), but I wasn’t so sure about Jacobs bogies (hadn’t heard the term before). Turns out they have a long if somewhat specialized history in the US. Among other things, they were used in some of Union Pacific’s early articulated streamlined trains, Burlington’s original articulated Zephyrs, and articulated chair cars on the Southern Pacific going back to early Daylight sets from 1937. Some of the early Zephyrs and SP cars are still around, and of course they are in extensive use now for container equipment. French TGV sets use them, too.
Thanks for educating me with a new term!
Reality Check Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
D. P. Lubic, have a look at the Focus on: SF Transbay Transit Center posting on Clem’s Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog.
rafael Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Here’s a good starting point for the gory details of the DTX tunnel:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/focus-on-sf-transbay-transit-center.html
—
Jacobs bogies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs_bogie
Pros: reduced train mass, cars can be wider for same loading gauge, protection against jackknifing after derailment
Cons: special lift equipment is needed to modify and maintain consists (called trainsets in this context), lead bogie on any given train must be conventional for stability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y_CzCM6-hw
—
Talgo’s wheelsets are a proprietary technology that’s been in service in Spain since the 1940s. Each short car is supported by just two wheels and a hitch on the next car. The wheelsets are always unpowered and steered with a passive bar linkage between the cars, ensuring that they always run perpendicular to the rails (i.e. no lubrication needed to avoid squealing in tight corners). Each wheel is on its own short axle, permitting a very low level floor. This is exploited in the bi-level Talgo 22 design to deliver continuous aisles on both decks for improved passenger circulation.
The company has had a few export successes, including Kazakhstan of all places. Unfortunately, most of the marketing literature that might be relevant to Caltrain and California HSR is only available in other languages. The extremely lightweight AVRIL currently in R&D features 4 powered bogies (2 conventional + 2 Jacobs) in addition to 11 wheelsets. Platform height is a UIC-standard 760mm, but CHSRA wants something in the 1000mm range to avoid getting locked into a single vendor. It’s a further development of the 350, which is in commercial service as the RENFE 102.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/11/04/meet-the-train-makers-part-3-talgo/
http://www.talgo.de/download/Talgo22D.pdf
http://www.forotrenes.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=72031&sid=33e4a6037bf5d1672bd2025362efee35
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Well, I’ve got a bit of reading to do!
First impression–why locate the station where it is? You have severe, severe, curve problems, severe speed restrictions, high noise levels, high maintenance with all those curved switches on mininal raidii, potential problems in hanging wire to line up over the track in a tight space, platform gap problems, and I would even say I wouldn’t want to tear down the old Key building, but would rather save it and rebuild the Key System (and maybe the Sacramento Northern, too) to supplement the BART lines. There is an intermediate station on the map that looks like it would be a better place, tie it in with a rebuilt street railway system.
About the only good thing I can say about it is that they were conservative in car design, working around your double-deck coaches. Nice to be able to run anything into the station–but that’s about it in my opinion. (Of course, I’ll also say I’m not a professional engineer, and some people would consider me a stick in the mud, too–after all, I’m also a big steam man, and like things that look retro.)
Someone else commented somewhere on this page that Bechtel had a grand reputation for accomplishment. I wonder if that record of accomplishment has been diluted, like so many other things, by bean counters and hucksters.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 26th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
First impression–why locate the station where it is?
I’ve never been able to find a reference in one place or a few places. Piecing together bits and pieces from here and there, back in the 90s they conducted studies of transportation needs in the Bay Area and came up with a large station perpendicular to the present site. It would allow for expansion in the future and be designed so that any future tunnel to Oakland could connect to it. They then put it up for a vote as a Proposition and decided that using the footprint of the current bus terminal was the place to put it.
They want a terminal someplace near there. It’s near the financial district which is a destinatoin, the bus terminal atop the railroad station makes transfers to the buses easy and it’s moderately close to BART and MUNI services.
That was a very simplistic article. Berkeley is fighting BRT for a very good reason. BRT will eat up, depending on location, either one lane of traffic or blocks of merchant parking. Business owners can figure out what will happen when their clients can’t park to buy bulky merchandise. Therein lies the rub with BRT. You have to have the space to put it in without creating more congestion or stripping parking.
Peninsula cities have a valid beef with High Speed Rail, not just a Nimby beef, although that is indeed part. The Gilroy/Pacheco alignment is just plain crazy. HSR fiddled with the model to show that more people would ride from Gilroy when it is just plain obvious that the Livermore/Altamont/Stockton alignment is where people live and would generate, according to some studies, 20 million more riders a year. Why condemn properties on the Peninsula, fight the cities, fight the nation’s largest railroad (who refuses to share its right of way with HSR) when there is a better alternative?
That’s why your article is simplistic. The issues are complex and sometimes the folks fighting transit have a valid concern. I support transit and use it daily. But I can also look beyond the smokescreen of pro/con transit to the underlying issues. I suggest you do the same.