CA4HSR Submits Comments on SF-SJ Alternatives Analysis
Comments on the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San José segment of the HSR project were due on June 30. As Rafael mentioned in the comments to yesterday’s post, a number of cities along the route have submitted their comments, including Mountain View and Redwood City. Like those of other cities along the route, these comments focus on preferences for specific implementations and structures.
Californians For High Speed Rail submitted our draft comments as well, as you can see in the embedded document below. In it, you can see that CA4HSR chose to focus on bigger-picture issues, primarily the lack of coordinated planning between the CHSRA and Caltrain, and some assumptions about the project that are worth revisiting for this corridor. Our goal is to support the construction of a passenger rail corridor that meets the needs of both high speed rail and Caltrain, while allowing for some freight service.
We generally did not make comments on specific alignment issues, such as tunnels vs. trenches vs. above-grade structures, preferring to instead emphasize the need for better coordination among the agencies and pointing out specific areas where that coordination needs to improve.
CA4HSR AA Comment Letter – SF to SJ AA Report
Also included in that file is the letter CA4HSR submitted to Caltrain and CHSRA board members several weeks back, calling attention to these coordination issues. We have heard very favorable responses from members of the Authority about our letter, and Caltrain is still in the process of drafting its own response.
It’s our hope that as in other places on the HSR corridor, the San Francisco to San Jose corridor can be planned and built with the maximal level of coordination between the CHSRA and other local agencies to ensure the best experience for future riders of the system – the people whose needs are the most important in this process, and the people whose voice is so far getting lost amidst the NIMBY ruckus.
Very good letter, it hits many important points. Just a few observations:
a) where did the 19 metric ton limit for freight come from? The limit for HSR is 17, the one for regular short line tracks usually 22.5.
b) you didn’t highlight the significant vertical alignment constraints imposed by freight spur access.
c) you didn’t stress that a common signaling and PTC system is an absolute prerequisite for sharing tracks, no matter if there are two or four
d) you didn’t address the issue of equipping UPRR locomotives and training UPRR staff to use this common PTC system
e) you didn’t underline the aggregate throughput constraints of TJPA’s flawed concept for the DTX tunnel. The train box needs to be moved west such that a single-track loop tunnel (up Main inbound, down 3rd outbound) can be implemented while keeping all six platforms perfectly straight and full length. TJPA’s claim that it must proceed because the EIR is completed and has ARRA funds makes no sense. Current plans lock in billions of investment and will deliver a heavy rail station that simply won’t work properly for either Caltrain or HSR.
f) you didn’t underline the need to avoid very tight curves and “iconic” bridges across freeways in San Jose (granted, that’s technically in the SJ-Merced section)
g) repurposing BART tracks in Millbrae won’t be possible, on account of the dual track tunnel just north of the station. Clem has argued in favor of additional tracks west of the existing ones, but that might well entail significant eminent domain takings both north and south of the station. Legally, CHSRA cannot reach that conclusion until after it has proven that track stacking is prohibitively expensive.
h) no mention of Caltrain’s San Bruno station, which is shovel-ready and in line for ARRA funding but whose design predates HSR and locks in a curve that’s too tight for 125mph. That project needs to be put on hold and the design re-evaluated in the context of HSR incl. the solution at Millbrae.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
The criminal, rent-seeking, self-enriching technical incompetents at Caltrain have just shovelled another $10 million of your tax dollars (item 4(d) into their own and their special world class consultant pals’ pockets for this catastrophe. Score! (Who cares if it’s an own goal?)
Crucifixion is far, far, far too kind a fate for anybody at the PCJPB.
Neither of which/whom need be involved in any case.
If you say something physically impossible often enough then it doesn’t become magically true, you know.
Things only get worse: the criminal incompetents at Caltrain have already awarded the contracts (item 12) for this megaclusterfuck. Ka-ching!!!!!!
Crucifixion is too kind a fate for anybody at the PCJPB.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
c) common signaling and PTC system
Common systems are nice to have. The freight could run on a token system if it needed to. Just because there’s a sophisticated signal system on the line doesn’t mean that locomotives without will stall on the tracks.
UPRR locomotives and training UPRR staff …
UP locomotives run over non-UP tracks crewed by non-UP crews all the time all over North America. It shouldn’t be a problem at all for UP to turn trains over to a shortline operator if need be.
thatbruce Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Don’t confuse the (locomotive) power sharing arrangements between the large railroads with handing a train over to another operator. The former makes the latter easier, but doing the latter (eg, UPRR letting the Port RR be the shortline operator for the branch) is unlikely with UPRR’s attitude.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
SP and UP have been desperately trying to abandon the obscure low volume money losing branch line to the mighty Port of San Francisco longer than most of us have been alive. Ten seconds of googling found the California Short Line Railroad Association. I stop looking for shortlines that interchange real live freight with UP after the third one. Feel free to wade through the list of California Short Lines then do it for the other states UP operates in. They do it all the time even in the very very special State of California.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
That does not make sense. Why would Union Pacific defend the ROW if they wanted to get rid of it?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Other than having paralegals copy and paste boilerplate together is UP defending the ROW?
Joey Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Their comments about the HSR project don’t suggest that they’re too concerned about preserving freight on the peninsula.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Then why was this written in the letter submitted February 23rd 2009 to the Authority
“Union Pacific’s permanent easement for freight and Amtrak service over this line is a valuable property and operational right that must not be impaired by construction and operation of the HSR. The Authority must protect such rights and mitigate all adverse impacts to Union Pacific’s satisfaction.”
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/union-pacific-speaks.html
These comments suggest they are concerned in my opinion. Would the ICC allow for 8.3c in the trackage rights to go forward to abandon freight service or negotiate a limit with a special set? We’d be at their whims in the case of a freight abandonment. If it is not valuable to them, why would they have spent time to write the letter one year ago?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
There hasn’t been an ICC in decades. It’s boiler plate cobbled together by a paralegal so to keep the STB happy. The STB is particularly concerned who provides the service just that it’s provided. If it a short line railroad that uses electric locomotives why would the STB or UP concerned.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 12:02 am
So the reason they want to keep it is just to keep the STB happy? Can the STB prevent the Abandonment from happening since the ICC is no longer?
rafael Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 1:56 am
“Prevent” is a big word. Unilateral abandonment of a freight corridor impacts freight customers and the towns they provide jobs in. That’s why there are federal abandonment proceedings, in which the party terminating service has to shell out for compensation. In addition, it’s rarely good PR for a freight rail operator to terminate any freight service anywhere.
UPRR no longer owns the SF peninsula corridor yet enjoys limited service rights, in perpetuity, for nothing. The railroad does not have to pay for track or signaling maintenance. The overheads associated with continuing service are therefore relatively low, so UPRR prefers to keep serving the few remaining customers to initiating abandonment proceedings. They may even make a small profit on the activity, since taxpayers are picking up a significant chunk of the fixed costs.
Paragraph 8.3c of the 1991 contract gives PCJPB the right to unilaterally terminate UPRR and by extension, any Amtrak intercity service, if necessary changes to the commuter service are incompatible with those. Such changes could include shuttering Caltrain, turning the right of way over to BART, full grade separation with large transition gradients, increased speeds and associated superelevations in curves etc. However, if PCJPB were to invoke this paragraph, it – not UPRR – would be on the hook for the compensation payments. Indeed, UPRR itself would be in line to receive some compensation.
Ergo, UPRR is trotting out its paralegals because turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Btw, marshaling activities within the mighty Port of SF are handled by the San Francisco Bay Railroad, a five-mile short line that handles 4800 freight cars per year.
Peter Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:17 am
The STB is the successor agency to the ICC. They have all the same authority as the ICC had with regards to railroad oversight.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:50 am
They have much less power to force a railroad to lose money providing a service. It’s why great big swaths of track have been abandoned since the STB was formed.
I suspect that UP looks over the services on the Peninsula on a regular basis. They see that they are at least breaking even. Abandonment costs money and since they aren’t losing money it makes more sense to continue to provide it.
They don’t get use of the track for free but it’s much much cheaper than if they had to maintain just for freight. Tell them they are going to have to maintain it and the lawyers would have the paperwork for abandonment at the STB within days. it would probably be granted because the STB doesn’t make railroads provide money losing service.
Joey Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Uhm, what? It should be no problem to repurpose the westernmost track (there are three). The portal will have to be modified, but that should not be too much of an issue.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
He comes with really baroque three level solutions to avoid the multiplex in San Bruno but never seems to be able to come with similar things when faced with other problems … like putting BART out of it’s Millbrae misery and moving the station north.
rafael Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 1:33 am
At the station, the westernmost track could be eliminated. Just north of there, though, is an electrical substation and ventilation building for BART. At Center St, the north portal of the short BART tunnel through San Bruno features four – count ‘em, four! – tracks.
“Putting BART out of its Millbrae misery” by moving it further north would eliminate a key transfer point between Caltrain and BART as well as an important feeder service for HSR. Considering that the SF Transbay Terminal will be at least a block-and-a-half from the nearest downtown BART station, any HSR passengers arriving from the East Bay or western SF with baggage and/or kids in tow will likely prefer to transfer in Millbrae.
Also, for better or worse, the BART shuttle between Millbrae and SFO will likely be fired up again. Speaking of baroque solutions, the ramp across 101 was actually double-tracked. Would I have built that nonsense? No, I’d have moved Caltrain’s San Bruno station north and BART’s San Bruno station south such that passengers could have executed a transfer by going up or down a level. I’d also have implemented the SFO station as a run-through affair via a loop. Unfortunately, the infrastructure is what it is and we’ll just have to live with it.
Note that BART uses Millbrae for overnight stabling. The tail tracks at SFO don’t offer enough capacity.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Unfortunately, the infrastructure is what it is and we’ll just have to live with it.
All of it could be moved. It’s a function of money. Sometime starting over is cheaper than trying to kludge existing infrastructure.
I try not to look at maps of SFO/Millbrae. Rational people would have put a spacious interchange station a few hundred yards from the current terminal in the open fields between 101 and the Caltrain ROW. I’m sure RM can dig up the proposals from the 80s or 90s suggesting just that.
People mover on one level, Caltrain and HSR on another and BART on a third or off to the side of the Caltrain/HSR platforms. Make Millbrae a Caltrain local stop and move all the other services to the new station. Truncating BART to one station instead of two means everybody gets more frequent service, at least the people on the west side of the Bay. Plenty of room for cross platform transfers between Caltrain locals, Caltrain expresses and HSR. Plenty of room to put in lots of escalators and elevators between the platforms on different levels. Plenty of room out there for a yard for BART too.
thatbruce Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
DYM replacing the easternmost BART track with non-BART to enable cross-platform transfers?
thatbruce Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Btw Robert, new comments seem to go through a process of submiting.
Joey Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
It would allow cross-platform transfers between (assuming common platform height) HSR and CalTrain and/or CalTrain expresses and CalTrain locals.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
You don’t need a common platform height to have cross platform transfers.
O/T: http://www.morganhilltimes.com/opinion/266957-letters-high-speed-trains-are-dangerous-time-to-revote-and-reject-hsr
Can you believe this bullshit? This is about the dumbest argument against this project I have ever seen.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Oh we have a 4 page discussion about that one over at SSC.
1) Grade separations take care of that mostly plus track fencing dividing NB and SB.
2) ROW will be FENCED! Which only leaves vunerable platforms.
3) In Spain, their culture is used to not using overpasses and underpasses next to the tracks.
Next please
rafael Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
The train that hit this group of Latin American festival attendees was a regional express, not an AVE train. The new pedestrian underpass was not marked clearly enough and, the old pedestrian overpass was chained off. However, in Europe, you never ever cross railroad tracks at a station with high platforms. You look for the pedestrian over- or underpass, otherwise you’re likely to be up for a Darwin Award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castelldefels_rail_accident
Spokker Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“Killtrain”
Clever guy.
nobody important Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
No, I take that back. It’s not the dumbest. I once saw a comment on youtube (I think) saying they’re building high speed rail to take us to FEMA death camps.
Peter Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Was that by the same people who believe that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, and/or the Antichrist?
nobody important Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Probably more like the 9/11 truth/NWO/moon landing hoax people.
Peter Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I’m sorry, if you cross tracks at locations that are not designated, or cross them when the arms are down, the bells are ringing, and the horn is blasting, then you deserve whatever comes to you.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
what is really stupid is the fact that on average 30,000!! people die every year in auto accidents..he forgot to mention that..last year was 37,612..that needs posted in the replies to his dumb rant
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
By that logic, we should shut down Highway 101 for good. I’m sure Morgan Hill residents would love that.
Interesting point about the separation of Caltrain and HSR platforms. I was unaware that Caltrain was a proof-of-payment system. Having experienced one-platform transfers on BART, I assumed that HSR would interface with other train systems just as easily. It would be awfully stupid to do it any other way–timed transfers will be key for trips to and from San Mateo, Mountain View, etc.
The good news is that HSR stations are being planned where other transportation already exists and in transportation hubs of the future such as the TBT and ARTIC. Squandering this opportunity for strong state-wide transportation with inefficient ticketing or clunky transferring would be a real shame.
rafael Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Bureaucrats and planners love their own private Idahos. Working with each other – yuck!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
What Caltrain has is not proof-of-payment. Proper POP means that fare inspections are random – for example, on Muni. On Caltrain, conductors punch every passenger’s tickets.
Peter Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Not quite, they only check that you have a valid ticket.
Clem Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Nobody punches anything on Caltrain anymore. You should ride sometime, Alon.
Agree with the content of this letter, but there are more than a few typos and the tone is a little informal. A shame as this detracts from the professionalism of the arguments.
Daniel Krause Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Sorry for the typos. We really ran up against the time limit this time and it was a judgement call to just send it out without the extensive editing we normally do. We are really stretched trying to keep up with this massive project. Will do better next time.
Jon Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
No apology needed, I’m just making constructive criticism. You guys do a great job!
Daniel Krause Reply:
July 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Much appreciated.
You should make the letter available for people to read. Whenever I try to download it, I get prompted to set up a facebook account, which I don’t want to do. Why isn’t there just a like to the PDF (or text available in HTML)?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
That’s weird – I did not know Scribd was either making people login to Facebook, or sign up with Scribd (they’re not making you set up a Facebook account, but they’re not exactly clear about it).
I use Scribd because it enables people to read the file embedded in the post itself, without having to leave the site. But obviously there’s a need for a hosted version of the PDF file, which you can download by clicking here.
Spokker Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 4:13 am
I can see the letter just fine and I don’t have a Facebook account.
O/T: The Pasadena Star-News has a level-headed op-ed about Bob Blumenfield’s AB619 bill targeting SNCF for its collaboration (under duress) with the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
The paper complains about the fact that passage of the bill would distort the bidding process for the California High Speed Rail project, if and when it matures to that point. It also articulates the reason why this legislation is proceeding in the first place: “Blumenfield, D-Van Nuys, introduced the legislation after talking with Holocaust survivors groups that feel SNCF weaseled out of taking responsibility for actions during World War II by using sneaky legal maneuvers to avoid a costly lawsuit a few years back.”
Unfortunately, bills such as this are giving lawmakers an excuse to avoid negotiations on the budget. Gov. Schwarzenegger has already demanded – yet again – that all state employee salaries be reduced to minimum wage until a budget is signed, sealed and delivered. Only at that time would checks be cut to cover any back pay owed. An appellate court just endorsed the Governor’s decision, but the state controller John Chiang continues to resist the measure by arguing that the state’s payroll software will not be able to comply with such an order until 2012. Chiang is the official responsible for that software.
For its part, CHSRA wants to apply for $492m in prop 1A bond appropriations to press ahead with the project-level planning and preliminary engineering of the HSR project.
The ridiculous 2/3 rule on the budget is crippling both day-to-day operations and strategic investments in the Golden State. It has got to go, a dependable constitutional amendment to that end must be on the 2012 ballot.
Robert can you please make documents available as PDF files as well as Scribd? They are complete pain to read when emebbed in your blog due to the small size.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 8:36 am
See the reply above to David.
rafael Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
@ TomW -
just FYI: I don’t know which browser you’re using, but on mine (Mozilla Firefox 3.6.6 on a Mac) the embedded Scribd viewer features a Fullscreen button near the top left and a magnifying glass with a + sign near the bottom right. Between those two, you should be able to read the doc just fine without having to download a PDF version.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 6th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Flash = fail.
I would like to thank CA4HSR for submitting its comments. Several points, including Two-Track/Shared Track, Freight? and Rolling Stock/Platform/Control Systems integration where touched in my own comments ( http://hattrench.com/node/3205 ).
Aerial, Berm, At-Grade, Open Trench, Closed Trench, Tunnel, Hybrid (Dual Stack) … cities and citizens have stated their preference and why. What is CA4HSR recommended Alignment Alternative?
Daniel Krause Reply:
July 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Currently we are taking a wait and see position on the verticle alignments along the Peninsula until there is more information produced during the development of the actual Draft EIR/EIS. There are many other issues to focus on right now such as compatiblity with Caltrain’s plans, issues surrounding freight and design criteria, etc.
Daniel,
These cities have had to use the limited information at-hand and come forward with their best guesses. What SHOULD be built? TBD. Remember, the AA comments are for engineering resources that take ideas towards a 15% design level. Right now, with only 3-5% design, we don’t have the information to make an informed decision. By stating your teams preference for what should be studied you are in fact asking for resources to provide all of us with the tools we need to make these decisions.
Daniel Krause Reply:
July 7th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I am not totally following you here. We are simply not ready to make a judgement yet, given that we are still only at the AA stage of the environmental process. That is why a frustrated with the PCC jumping the gun here and assuming that they must have all the information at this stage. Rather than taking a very contentious position at this point, they could take our approach, which is to let the informatin unfold. Maybe more time is need to allow informatin to unfold properly, but calling for a suspension does not accomplish this. Information is developed over time as things are discovered and issues are raised. Though the Authority has made some serious mistakes in their public process, and I understand some of frustration folks have along the Peninsula, it is also unfair for people to expect the Authority to have all the answers at this stage. A reasonable and construcitve approach for the PCC would be to make comments on information that is expected at the AA level, while also stating that as a group of cities they are leaning towards certain alternatives to be carried forward. If the PCC feels they need more information about the AA information, then they should focus on that constructively in their comments. Asking for a suspension, regardless of the intent, seems to many to be a strategy to mess with the viablity of the project.
JamesJonas Reply:
July 7th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
In response to the AA, we where asked to provide comments with regards to the alternatives and select which alternative we prefer. Your saying CA4HSR needs more time and information to make a decision. The PCC is asking for more time and information to make a decision. Both positions sound very similar, although I would agree that ‘wait and see’ is different from ‘stop the train’. The AA process is to identify those alternatives which require further information and thus greater amount of engineering resources. It is not that CA4HSR comments are not valid, just incomplete.
Daniel Krause Reply:
July 7th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
We actually did specify our position for shared use track alternatives and the elimination of non-shared track alternatives. I guess we could have taken it farther and stated that we would prefer to see most alternatives (in terms of the vertical alignments) carried forward. However, there are going to be certain aspects of the project where we feel it is not necessary for us to take a position. Right now we have judged taking a position on the verticle alignments is not in the best interest of the project or our organziation. This may change as things evolve.
JamesJonas Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 8:40 am
[To Observer - CA4HSR and PCC are both asking for more time. Thus, criticism by CA4HSR of PCC's request for more time runs hollow. ]
I have seen hundreds of citizens, who are both for and against High-Speed Rail, having to make a decision on Vertical Alignment. The reason is that was the assignment as defined by CHSRA. CHSRA asked the cities and citizens of the Peninsula, with little information, poor tools and little time to make a choice. City after city has stood-up and committed hundreds of hours, multiple meetings, huge community workshops, just to make that decision. I have seen citizen after citizen having to wade through a fire-hose of charts, presentations, data, and pictures, which where lacking and maybe even a bit misleading, make a decision.
I agree with challenging assumptions on this project. Just see my comments ( http://hattrench.com/node/3205 )- two-track/shared track, two-step project, single or zero Caltrain track shoofly, open now/cover later trenches [Trench Caps], unification of HSR/Caltrain platform/station design and exploring a partnership with BART. Everything is on the table if you wish to drive down project costs and meet the needs of these communities. It still means you take a stand on Vertical Alignment and then take the heat.
The bottom line is that there are no good choices on Vertical Alignment. Simply I’m challenging CA4HSR to spend less time tossing rocks at cities that have to make these tough choices and more time working with the Peninsula cities to create a solution.
Whats the difference between CA4HSR asking for reexamination of underlying assumptions (which will take time), and the PCC asking for more time so that underlying assumptions can be reexamined?
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Ummm, CA4HSR are looking for the Authority to reexamine its underlying assumptions for the Peninsula only, at this point. In contrast, the PCC have called for “All Stop!” on the ENTIRE project.