Saturday Open Thread
It’s National Train Day today – a good occasion to celebrate the passenger trains we do have, and recommit ourselves to improving the system and bringing true high speed rail service to California, revolutionizing and massively expanding the passenger rail system to provide for future prosperity.
We’re currently living through the last throes of the 20th century model of transportation, where those who believe the status quo is just fine, that automobiles and planes can handle all our travel needs, are having one last fight against a future built on electrified trains. As the Gulf oil spill reminds us, however, our dependence on oil has massive costs, and needs to be reduced as quickly as possible.
Some ask about the cost of HSR. We ask about the cost of doing nothing. It is not zero.
Lets compare the gulf coast after decades of sacrifice to the texas oil industry as seen here and here with the california coast as seen here drilling off the cali coast- over my dead body.
One wonders if texans grow extra limbs after swimming at their local beaches.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
at least they aren’t risking hypothermia
hmm… here and here
A coupe things….
1) Too much is being made of the Peninsula NIMBY’s.
2) Nothing substantive has changed with the project.. Why a recent underling theme that a compromise in some project elements is eminent is lost on me. Because the CHSRA is examining some wild-arse ideas does not signal anything, except having an open minded. Wait for a Board decision for a signal to change.
3) Too much is made of Northen california issues…. raising them to levels that are unncessary. Try a focus on Southern California issues for some balance. Is a SoCal blog site needed?
rafael Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
There have been lots of SoCal-related posts and discussion threads on this blog, so I see no need for a separate forum dedicated to that region. It would simply split the readership and shift the focus away from what is supposed to be a statewide project with national significance. If you feel SoCal / San Diego county issues have not received sufficient attention here, if we’re missing a important aspect of this puzzle, I would encourage you to email cruickshank at gmail dot com offline and offer to write up one or more guest posts.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
There are plenty of SoCal posts…it’s just that there hasn’t been much news from down there recently to discuss. As rafael said, I’m *always* open to guest posts. Send ‘em my way.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Good to know.
“Rail was born in the 19th century, will survive in the 20th, and dominate in the 21st”.
This is what Louis Armand, a French mathematician-engineer, answered 50 years ago when he was accused of encouraging the government to waste public money on an obsolete means of transportation.
random info: Altamont v. Pacheco is actually a debate that goes back to the 1860s
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/lifestyles/183190-here-to-l.a.-in-2-hours-not-so-fast
Joey Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
WTF … isn’t Niles Canyon part of the Altamont Pass Route?
Peter Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Interesting. However, the technical reasons for Altamont v. Pacheco in the 1860s are not exactly relevant to the discussion today… (brake technology was in its infancy, tunnel construction was, well, for lack of a better word, primitive, etc).
Nonetheless, very interesting from a historical perspective. I might actually go take that train ride…
Clem Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The train ride is great. My kids love it, especially when they bring out the huge, hissing, hulking 2472.
Peter Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Interesting that the FRA still bothers to regulate steam locomotives.
Eric M Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
That’s because the boilers become dangerous if regular maintenance is neglected
Peter Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Yeah, I guess it’s like the FAA regulating planes built in the 1930′s.
Victor Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
As Eric alluded to, Boilers need to be maintained or they will get dangerous enough without proper maintenance to where they will explode and so It’s one of those things that like It or not needs to be regulated for peoples own safety, As some people in power like to cut corners, Heck I live in a place where corners were cut, But at least It won’t explode.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Brakes, couplers, a signal system even if the signal system is to only have one locomotive on the track at a time….
It seems like every other article on Calif High Speed Rail will prominently mention how the system will whisk passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2hr and 40 min. CAHSR will serve 23 or 24 other stations, and to future riders from those stations, how high speed rail will benefit them will be more important than the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
For instance — With all of the NIMBY activity on The Peninsula, has anyone discussed how a Redwood City or Palo Alto station might actually benefit them.
Any of the NIMBYs have not discussed how a station would benefit them. However, the pro-HSR people have been recognizing the benefits and staring down at Palo Alto asking what are they thinking? They could have an HSR station but they oppose the HSR line like the plague. The HSRA will most likely not play along with community concerns at this rate and go with the cheapest option possible due to grouips throwing up lawsuits and not willing to compromise. Single interest group issues are holding America back and need to become aware that European nations are ahead of us. The reason they are in debt is due to generous social welfare which is what will happen to Social Security unless the problem is dealt with. It will be a hard blow but something will have to be done sooner versus later.
Victor Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Problem is, The Nimbys simply don’t care about European issues, They see this as another evil Big Government project and they want It dead and their very scared of any change.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
US Social security was balanced about 8 years back and is not a debt problem.
Medical costs *are* a long term debt problem. We’ll end up having to do something more efficient, like Britain’s NHS (‘cheapest’ of the developed world systems partly due to cheaping out, but partly due to having very few layers of bureacracy). Of course the US costs are orders of magnitude out of line with even the most lavish European system. (And the government pays huge portions of these costs already, with Medicare, Tricare, the VA, Medicaid, the Federal Employees system, SCHIP, etc.) The health insurance reform law will save a few billions but it will probably need to be made yet more efficient.
The MTC released a study on “how are we going to manage SFO with 80% more passengers”: http://www.regionalairportstudy.com
Improving Air Traffic Control, and trying to force passengers to use OAK and SJC are suggested, but HSR is seen as the best solution for most of the issues. In my mind, anyone who thinks HSR is a bad idea needs to solve SFO’s future…
Peter Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Interesting. Rafael will be disappointed they didn’t include Castle in their study…
rafael Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 5:24 am
Interestingly, the study does include Sacramento, Stockton and Monterey airports as well as a number of military bases both in and outside the nine-county membership area of the MTC. However, I see no mention of leveraging passenger rail HSR to relieve demand for in-state flights. Sounds to me as if the airport section of the MTC is beholden to the aviation and construction industries rather than putting the already expressed wishes of state voters front and center. Ironically, the SFO director emphatically endorsed prop 1A (2008), citing opposition to building a third runway. Besides, it would be subject to fog-related delays, just like the existing ones.
A big part of the problem is that SFO is a department of the city and county of San Francisco. The Oakland and San Jose airports are similarly owned locally, which means the three compete rather than co-operate. For example, it would be fairly easy to leverage spare capacity in Oakland via courtesy shuttle buses and a hydrofoil ferry. Combined with integrated baggage handling and airport code sharing, this would create a single “virtual” airport. An urban gondola system would achieve the same thing. It’s just that there is no financial incentive for SFO to pursue either option.
Leveraging Castle via a new terminal-cum-mainline-HSR-station could allow San Jose to close its downtown airport. Aircraft noise and air quality are key reasons why the city’s long-standing efforts to develop the Midtown area near SJ Diridon station have met with rather limited success. The general aviation traffic could be diverted to Palo Alto or Hayward or perhaps even Moffett Field. Unfortunately, as the example of Buchanan Field in Concord has shown, the GA crowd wields considerable political clout.
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 9:49 am
I like your gondola idea.
http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Gondola
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 10:10 am
I’m still confused why you want to close SJC, especially after the city just dumped over a billion into a new terminal and UGLY parking structure (the hands thing is creepy and just makes me think of zombies).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Because then they could start pushing for BART to Castle Airport, it’s then a short stretch to Fresno and onto Bakersfield….
Tony D. Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The future Peter; it’s all about the future (say 10-20 years out). You could always adaptively reuse the new terminal and concourse (retail, commercial, cultural). Agree that the hands are ugly and creepy; I actually think the terminal side of the parking facade looks better than those hands.
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Also, calling PAO “cramped” is an understatement. The runway is SHORT, and there is only one runway. That leads to what could charitably be called “restrictions” on operations on busy days. There’s no place for anything else to go in there.
RHV has a few more options in terms of space, but that would require the county to spend some money it doesn’t have.
HWD is way too far away from SJC for anyone living in San Jose to want to base their plane there.
Lastly, E16 (South County) suffers from the same problem as HWD, too far for people to want to base out of.
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Oh, and the reason why the GA crowd needs to have clout is because otherwise there would be no GA airports LEFT in the country.
Oh, and Moffett would require NASA to open up its field to the public. Good luck with that.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Here’s the thing:
This study is sort of like the book “Dow 30,000″…it assumes that in effect a linear model for transit development and population growth. The dirty secret of government is that, as much as government responds to changes in society, government also triggers changes in society as well.
Now if you are God, you’d tell the MTC that this study is nice and all, but avoids the sad truth. Air travel is going to fall precipitiously, in large part because as China re-evaluates its currency the economic model of cheap crap and cheap energy is going to fail. Oakland has the best location for an airport, and is also adjacent to the Port. Outside the Bay Area, Castle is still a good thought to consolidate. You also need at least two major airports in Southern California.
But high speed rail is going to effectively tie together half the population in the West, and thus reserve planes for longer haul flights.
Tony D. Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“How are we going to manage SFO with 80% more passengers.” Here’s my solution!
http://www.thesanjoseblog.com/2010/03/sjc-hypothetical-question.html
In a fashion similar to what’s going on with Frankfurt International Airport in Germany, with its terminal/runway expansions and ICE/Airport Long Distance Rail Station, I’m sure SFO could be expanded to handle over 80+ million passengers per year. Couple that with Rafael’s “Merced Airport” scenario and some of the idea’s being thrown out by the MTC, and SJC in downtown San Jose could be shut down as well.
Tony D. Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I meant “Castle Airport,” not Merced.
Tony D. Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
By the way Rafael,
I know I’ve disagreed with you on other aspects of the HSR project, but I’m totally down with your airport thinking! Awesome stuff! Merced/Central Valley International Airport; high-speed rail can make it happen!
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
“but I’m totally down with your airport thinking!”
You agree with his lunatic ideas for running ekranoplans up and down the coast and up the Delta to Sacramento?
Rafael may know a lot about HSR, but his knowledge and understanding of aviation is based on, well, gadgetplane concepts.
John Burrows Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I live in Midtown San Jose, in a TOD totaling about 750 units, courtesy of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. Our developments have been constructed in the last 10 years, and that’s pretty good by San Jose standards. The fact that not much is happening is due more to the economy than to the airport. One effect the airport has had is to make our downtown skyline a bit stumpy because of FAA regulations, but not everyone thinks that’s a bad thing either.
I live about a mile from SJC, an easy taxi ride, and if I couldn’t fly out of SJC, I would use SFO, only 13 minutes away by bullet train.
A bigger concern for me is the fact that at least every other day, I have to wipe the soot from my windshield (courtesy of Caltrain diesel locomotives) So lets not worry too much about the airport. Lets just get HSR done and Caltrain electrified.
So lets leave SJC where it is and get Caltrain electrified, this should take care of most of my soot problem.
John Burrows Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I must have been incorrect when I said 13 minutes from San Jose to SFO. The 2 stops are at least 35 miles apart. This 13 minute figure on the HSR route map must be a mistake—probably 23 minutes would be right.
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Yeah, even at an average of 125 mph that’s 17 minutes.
Tony D. Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Straight line from Millbrae/SFO to Diridon is 32 miles. The CHSRA website states 13 minutes travel time between SFO and Diridon, but I’ll take 17-23 minutes anyday!
Has anyone read the long article in today’s SF Chronicle about Japan’s experience with HSR and what it could mean for CA? If so, what are your thoughts?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:46 am
It’s print-only, which means I won’t get to it until they post it on the website on Tuesday.
Seriously, print-only is like using steam engines to power Caltrain service.
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:48 am
“like using steam engines to power Caltrain service”
At least the locomotives would look cooler…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
just bought a paper early Sunday addition from a corner store and its NOT in this edition!!! ARRG ..must be in the home addition
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I mean, I *could* go scrounge around Monterey to find a print edition, but what is this, 1986?
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Well, you can also pay $1.50 and purchase it online. I think that’s the only way to get it, actually…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I like being able to lay on the couch and read a paper with having to hold some plastic square in my face..besides when you fall asleep it does not wack you in the head!!!
John Burrows Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
For me it is still 1986, or at best the early 90′s. Guess I will walk over to Diridon and see if they still have a Chronicle.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I’ve got nothing against reading a print edition…but to not have the same articles online, in this day and age, is nuts.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
True.it would have been nice.. thou.they have been running little trailers on the Sfgate site about this story all week..when I could not find it this AM on line I had to go and buy it.. that is what they hoped for!
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
“For me it is still 1986, or at best the early 90’s.”
Hence why you’re commenting on a blog…
jimsf Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
In olden tymes back in the 80′s I fondly remember a time when I had to live in the eastbay and I read the chron, which was the “morning paper” on bart on the way to work, and the Examiner, which was the “afternoon paper” on bart on the way home. Actually I think everyone did this. Of course, they were real newspapers then. Now the chron is just , well I don’t know what it is, its a mess, the examiner is our version of fox news.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Im going out soon to buy a copy..its only in the print addition
BTW, detailed alignment alternative maps now available for San Jose-Merced.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.asp?p=9492
Peter Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:50 am
It looks like they want to go with the “South of Caltrain” option for the Gardner community transition. Looks as if it would take out a couple of houses and backyards and close West Virginia St where it crosses the tracks.
Front page article in todays(Sunday) San Francisco Chronicle. Not available on line. Not a lot of new info, not very technical, draws comparisons mostly to Japan system, but… I took it as extremely pro HSR. I guess the big news to me is that this is very different from the San Jose Mercury(and the bulk of the other Bay Area papers which are it’s subsidiaries) articles which have been very negative. This is THE paper in the Bay Area and I think the paper that most of the Peninsula reads. Could this be the turning of the tide on the Peninsula?
Missiondweller Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
It seemed unbiased to me and presented facts on noise, not opinion. It seems like it would be rather positive to HSR supporters. Also, another story on the emphasis of the stimulus that for the most part leaves out city’s needs for mass transit and a bias towards highways/freeways. I look forward to Robert’s comments on both stories.
Missiondweller Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Here’s a link to that other story:
Washington’s anti-urban bias
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/09/INT71D9GAU.DTL
Eric M Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I think the turning point will be when papers and high profile people start criticizing the people on the peninsula for being obstructionists
YesonHSR Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Just bpought correct Sunday Addition and I think is a good article about HSR in Japan and what it can be like here..Its not some nimby/reason/cato slanted horror story and does point out what will have to change in cali to make it work at its best
synonymouse Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
I read the article – what I most remember most from it was the observation that trains in Japan are much quieter than BART or Caltrain. And of course the reason why is maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.
Something our hsr won’t enjoy because it will be running constant operating deficits in a state that is just getting broker.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
It’s not exactly maintenance. JR East in fact makes a big effort to design low-maintenance trains, because it wants to spend as little on maintenance as possible. Weight has a lot to do with it – the EMUs in Japan weigh a little more than half as much as Caltrain’s gallery cars and one quarter as much as its locomotives.
BART’s noise is unique. I honestly have no idea why it’s so much noisier than comparable subways, and neither do you. It’s not just lack of money – New York has a long tradition of deferred maintenance, much longer than any of the postwar subway systems.
corntrollio Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
BART is not nearly as loud in the tunnel between Colma and SFO/Millbrae. There’s not nearly as much squealing, screeching, and just plain metal-on-metal noise. I was wondering if it’s just newer track that’s making it more pleasant or if they constructed things differently.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 2:10 am
You’re right, but even between Colma and SFO, it’s much noisier than anything else I’ve been on.
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I remember the first time I rode LA’s red line. I was flabbergasted at how quiet and smooth it was compared to the BART system I’d grown up with. BART absolutely howls.
synonymouse Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I believe you will find that several factors figures importantly into BART noise. One, it is older and has accumulated more rail corrugation. Two, it uses aluminum core-steel tire wheels with a flat as opposed to tapered profile. Third, there is little resiliency in either the trucks or the concrete slabel trackways. Fourth, the sliding doors leak noise and the problem worsens with age and wear.