How Gilroy Will Benefit From High Speed Rail
Some of the cities that will benefit most from high speed rail will be those in between the major cities. Fresno, Merced, and Bakersfield will all be transformed into important, prosperous cities tied into the job markets of Southern California and the Bay Area with high speed rail. Those cities, with high unemployment rates and bleak economic futures under the status quo, will benefit immensely from HSR. And despite some debates over where exactly the tracks should go in those cities, even those opposed to one route or the other see the need to build HSR.
And then there is Gilroy.
Like the rest of the cities along the route, including Palo Alto, it’s likely the case that a strong majority of residents still support high speed rail – but a small minority of people who don’t want to admit the benefits of high speed rail, and worry about its impact on their community, are coming to dominate the conversation there.
A Gilroy city council meeting last night saw some of this HSR denial voiced, as reported by KSBW/8 (one of the TV news stations here in the Monterey area):
Some residents in Gilroy said Monday evening that they fear a proposed high-speed rail route will destroy the serenity of their small town.
“Quality of life in Gilroy as a whole would be completely devastated,” resident Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo said.
Whenever someone speaks of “quality of life” they apparently believe there’s just one definition – and one alone – of what that means. In fact, there are several definitions. To me, living in a city where unemployment is high and the downtown is, to put it charitably, in need of some help is not exactly the highest quality of life one might have.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s not a slam at Gilroy. It’s a wonderful town. I taught on the southern edge of town at Gavilan College for a while after I moved back to California in 2007, and got to know the town and many of its people during that time. I’ve had some great times at the Gilroy Garlic Festival (coming up this weekend!) and have often visited its stores, whether the outlets or shops downtown.
But Gilroy can be more, and it can be better. Instead of being a small suburb of San Jose, it can be a more vibrant city. A high speed rail station can bring significant transit-oriented development opportunities, protecting the east side of town from sprawl and channeling growth into the city center, currently dominated by low-rise buildings dating to the 1950s and 1960s. As with other cities along HSR lines in close proximity to major cities, Gilroy can experience dramatic economic growth and new job creation without destroying its agricultural heritage, and without having to make dramatic changes to the current city landscape.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen all over California, despite the desire of the majority of people to embrace this future, there’s always a minority that fears change. And that’s what we saw at the Gilroy city council meeting. Back to the KSBW report:
“No one ever though these alignments were going to come straight through communities,” Sheets-Saucedo said.
Of course, this is simply not true. The alignment has been intended to go through cities for many years now. The California High Speed Rail Authority held public meetings in Gilroy before the November 2008 vote explaining that very point. Of course, in Gilroy, it might not necessarily go through the city. There is another alternative, to send it east of town through farms and open space. Of course, people live out there too:
“There are four routes in consideration. One goes through the back of my property, through horse facilities. One goes in between my house and barn, making my house unlivable. It’s literally 100 feet from my back door,” said Carmen Patane, who lives in unincorporated Gilroy.
No matter what happens, someone is going to be impacted. If Sheets-Saucedo gets her way, Patane would get the impacts. If Patane gets her way, Sheets-Saucedo would get the impacts. It’s an unavoidable situation.
Of course, some prefer to avoid it altogether by claiming the trains don’t have to be built at all. It’s the same thing we see on the Peninsula – faced with the fact that most Californians and even most of their neighbors want high speed rail, some opponents and critics turn to trying to undermine the solid case for bullet trains in the first place:
Transportation attorney and project critic Joe Thompson said he was more concerned about the solvency of the project than which route it would take. Taxpayers would be left footing the bill, he said.
“This is going to break the backs of the few remaining small businesses that we have left,” Thompson said.
This is also not true. Gilroy small businesses will benefit significantly from the added customers that would be brought in by the high speed trains, whether to serve riders waiting to transfer to connecting service to Monterey, Salinas, and Santa Cruz or by new residents living downtown who can bring wages to spend at those small businesses.
In fact, with the possibility that Gilroy might lose its Caltrain service due to cuts on that system, the city is going to need HSR to help sustain long-term passenger rail service. Without trains, Gilroy will wither on the vine. Workers at Silicon Valley jobs will not be willing to spend the money on gas to drive to and from Gilroy every day when prices rise. I know for a fact that Gilroy’s younger residents share that sentiment, and strongly agree that passenger rail is a necessary part of their city’s future.
And it will help boost property values as well, just as it has in Europe. A study was shown to some members of the public on the Peninsula demonstrating that point, according to a staffer for a state Assemblymember representing a district along the Caltrain line (I’ve been promised a copy of that study and will post it as soon as I can get it). That will help ensure Gilroy thrives in the 21st century.
As any visitor to this weekend’s Gilroy Garlic Festival will know, traffic is also a major problem there. HSR would help bring people from all over California to that festival, pouring money into the local economy. (Seriously, if you’ve never gone to the festival, GO! It is awesome. The food is delicious.)
That’s not to say there aren’t legitimate issues to be worked out regarding Gilroy HSR. The city council is concerned about the parking requirements made by the Authority:
“We’ve been told they’re only paying for the tracks and for the platforms for people to get on and off,” Gilroy City Councilman Perry Woodward said.
“We would need to build as many as 6,600 parking spaces in a garage. That is something the city of Gilroy simply cannot afford,” Gilroy City Manager Thomas Haglund said.
This is a very legitimate issue that definitely needs further study and review. While I’m sure the Authority has solid reasons for making the request, it may be necessary to examine ways to reach an accommodation between the project and the city on the parking matter – as with the route.
Gilroy will see an influx of new residents without causing sprawl, bringing jobs and money, will become a key crossroads for travelers going from the rest of the state to the Monterey Bay (and vice versa), and will enable Gilroy to become a destination in its own right.
As with most other cities in California, the status quo in Gilroy is not tenable. Change is coming. It’s a question of whether the change comes in the form of decline and decay, or whether it comes in the form of innovation and prosperity. As a big fan of the city of Gilroy, I hope they choose the latter option – an option that can only be achieved with high speed rail.
Note: I’m going to be in Las Vegas over the next few days for the annual Netroots Nation, a gathering of progressive online activists and bloggers from across the country. I’ll be speaking on two panels, including one about how to turn California from a failed state into a progressive laboratory – and high speed rail plays a central role in that vision. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will be on a panel on Thursday morning that I’m attending, so let me know if you have any questions you might want asked of him, though I’ve got plenty of my own.
Anyhow, posting might be a bit lighter than normal in the coming days. This would be a good time for any of you who’ve always wanted to write a post for this site on an issue related to high speed rail to do so – send me an email and let me know what you have in mind. I’ll also be in Hawaii the last 2 weeks of August, so I’ll be looking for guest posters during that time as well.
Of course it’s the younger residents who support HSR. As a young man myself, it feels like the way to “turn California from a failed state into a progressive laboratory” is to wait for a significant generational shift in voting behavior. I’m confident that in 30 years, people will barely remember a time when their gay and lesbian friends couldn’t get married, smoking marijuana was criminal behavior and there were no bullet trains in California. But I’m sure your presentation has much better ideas on how to bring change about faster.
Scott Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:19 am
We can’t afford to wait that long for this kind of progress.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:46 am
I’m with you that it’ll take some time for the generational shifts to play themselves out. But we’ll need a clear agenda to rally around and push, push, push to implement it. Nothing happens by inevitability.
Tony D. Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:40 am
As a citizen of Gilroy, I support high-speed rail. I’m pretty sure my 4 year old daughter would/will support it as well. We also know a lot of young, progressives here with young children who can’t wait for the “bullet train.” What you have in those against the project are those who are 60+ years old who want things to be as they are; and they are certainly in the minority. But they are the ones that get the media’s attention with their whining and crying (see Sheets-Saucedo above). But alas, let’s not fret to much over what they think: this project is coming! The question moving forward will be how/where it will be built, not if it’s going to be built.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Gotta ask, Tony – have you been able to attend any of these meetings? I know it’s not easy, especially if you’ve got a young child.
I think I have your email somewhere…we should talk about organizing a push back from supportive Gilroy residents.
Tony D. Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Robert,
My dad and I went to a meeting last year at the Hilton Garden Inn. As you’re probable aware, lots of diagrams, maps and illustrations along with people available to answer questions. There were quite a few citizens in attendance and no one appeared hostile to the project. Haven’t gone to a meeting since. I’d probably be viewed as a Gilroy “carpetbagger” by the hard-core NIMBY natives since I’ve only been there for 5 years, but I believe most of the residence west of Monterey/UPRR (going towards Santa Teresa blvd/Hecker Pass) are supportive of HSR. Just in case: adominguez69@verizon.net
wu ming Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:34 am
if it’s anything like davis, most of the NIMBYs haven’t necessarily been there very long themselves, being a NIMBY and “a concerned citizen” is a way to claim a sort of local street cred on an accelerated schedule.
but then our NIMBYs might be a bit different.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
.. developer is someone who wants to build a cabin in the woods. A conservationist is someone who has already built a cabin in the woods….
YesonHSR Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
these little Nimby towns get all the Media attetion..a whooping 20-30 people show up and now HSR is a “horrible” thing because some baby is upset
wu ming Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:48 pm
she will. kids love fast trains.
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Some of us actually support HSR!!!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:06 pm
The generational pattern plays out again. . .
Out of curiousity, is this bit about older people being upset with the railroad something you noticed on your own, or have you been reading about the generation gap in earlier postings here?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Oh, did take a look at the video clip, and the patter is there again. . .
Question: Why is this generational gap so undereported? It seems blazingly obvious by now, Advertising Age ran an article on a substantial aspect of it and its potential economic impact, yet it seems to be invisible in the mainstream media. The politicians certainly seem quite ignorant of it (consider the talk of a 6,000 space car park for the station)–like, crazy, man!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 am
I think it’s underreported because to someone who’s only started paying attention very recently, it doesn’t look like there’s an in-between age; it looks like older people are against transit and younger people are for it, and this plays into a general theme of transit spending as a form of future-oriented idealism.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Actually, it might be getting to be just such an “young-old” debate because of the age of the high break point. When I first started noticing this, the break points were 40 and 70. That is now almost 20 years ago, which means we are now looking at a low break point at or close to 60 and at a high one at or close to 90!
How many high-80s-low90s people do you see at these meetings?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Exactly… once the distinction is young/old, it fits media tropes so nicely that it doesn’t even need to be explicitly pointed out.
wu ming Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 am
well, if you assume the usual media tendency towards representing older, whiter, more affluent suburban homeowners as the sole and rightful participants in our political sphere, it’s a set-up to frame it as “concerned citizens” rather than point overtly to the age difference and the existence of another side to the discussion that isn’t CAHSRA talking heads. paying attention to younger people, nonwhites, renters, etc. would be totally out of the ordinary, except in “dumb people on the street who don’t know anything” segments, pop culture segments, or “why are they protesting?” segments.
The meeting seems amaturish on the park of CHSR.
“We would need to build as many as 6,600 parking spaces in a garage.”
WHY?
I’m a Gilroy resident and HSR advocate but no way should HSR require 6,000 parking spaces. That’s insane. We’re designing a system that requires a car. The damn station will be put out in a pepper field and unwalkable.
Car based train access is a bad idea. It’s like Bart vs Metro in DC. I can walk out a metro stop and instance walkable neighborhoods. Bart stops are parking lots.
My old Noe Valley neighborhood in SF would be illegal to build now — not enough parking spaces.
Why not build 500 parking spaces and encourgae shuttles/trains from Monterey and surrounding areas.
I’d also try to put the parking size in a context. How many parking spaces did we authorize with the new walmart/crossroads shopping centers off 152? I donno. It might help to show gilroy’s come close to that capacity already.
Travis D Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Some parking will be needed. I’ll be 40+ miles from the nearest HSR station (which would be the Modesto station) with nothing but highways in between. And I intend to use the system as soon as it gets built to where I can use it.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“Bart stops are parking lots.”
Depends on where they are. Suburban stations tend to have parking.
Beefing up express bus service from Monterrey with timed transfers is a very good idea. It would even benefit those who would never use a high speed train by giving them easy access to Gilroy and San Jose.
That’s what I hope HSR does, encourage more transit, the benefits of which accrue even to non-users.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
That depends on how the HSR project was funded. Debt service on $10 billion bond is more than $500m/year.
By comparison: Some several hundred million in State transit assistance has been eliminated from the budget. As a result, my local bus agency is functionally insolvent. It carries 250k trips per day — more than entire population of Gilroy, Santa Cruz, and Monterey combined.
Of course, it would be nice to fund both. But budgets are zero-sum game.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:05 am
The United States is the greatest nation on Earth!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
It depends on what interest rate California gets. Low-interest, government-backed loans can go down to 2%.
Speaking of the garlic festival thanks for the reminder. I haven’t been in years. Now, how do I get there? I’d certainly go in a heartbeat on hsr. I could ride free on amtrak if we stopped there but we don’t.
Doesn’t caltrain only go there like once a day or something? And the festival grounds are way our in BFN if remember correctly. So, it will be too much hassle to get to and I may never ever get to try that famous garlic ice cream. And its all because we don’t have hsr.
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:36 am
CalTrain has a few commute-direction only trains that go there. That means northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. Monterey-Salinas Transit operates various buses from San José as well.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:42 am
VTA goes there, as well.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:48 am
MST Line 55 connects Monterey to Gilroy and San José (downtown and Diridon Station). They have shuttles from the Gilroy stop, which is the Caltrain station, to the Garlic festival.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
I did find that one. (we actually sell it as an amtrak connection sjc-mry) but it takes too long. an hour on a city bus and then how do you get out to that field in the middle of nowhere? and with caltrains sat sked, all stops, its a door to door 4 hour trip. I guess this is why so many people still don’t like transit. I’m just surprised that they wouldn’t run some event trains. Its a huge freakin famous bay area event!
…oh wait… I see there are shuttles. ok. but still. You’d think they’d run at least a couple morning and afternoon trains.
ah, now see here … this is ridiculous… Gilroy is serviced Monday through Friday by CalTrain Commuter Service only. The train leaves Gilroy in the morning and does not return until the evening
Now how on earth are they having this festival that hosts a bizillion people every year yet they don’t even bother to run special / additional rail service. I consider this an absolute failure on the part of caltrain, who job it is to provide public transit to meet the needs of santa clara san mateo and san francisco counties.
unacceptable.
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:53 am
They used to operate the “Garlic Train” which would take people there from points north during the festival, but it’s gone now.
joe Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:47 am
Garlic train was canceled due to Liability. Garlic train was the City’s responsibility.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 am
bummer. Garlic train is a great idea.
Didn’t someone argue a few weeks ago that the reason an HSR station at Gilroy wouldn’t promote sprawl is the county’s development restrictions? Or was it Rafael and not you?
Either way, that conflicts with the idea that “Instead of being a small suburb of San Jose, it can be a more vibrant city.” Nothing in Santa Clara County’s behavior suggests that Gilroy will selectively allow upzoning but not sprawl.
A 6,600 car parking garage would encourage driving and advantage sprawl. Instead plan and zone for mixed use development near public transit to advantage population density and discourage sprawl.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:49 am
Yes, one of the myths of CHSR project is that it “promotes” TOD in far-flung cities.
While there may be good reasons for a city like Gilroy to have a HSR station, promoting TOD isn’t one of them. Intercity HSR station is not a prerequisite for changing zoning and planning code away from auto-centric policies.
Shouldn’t Silicon Valley workers be working in Silicon Valley? Why not build the TOD near where the jobs are?
“People living at point C, being a point directly in between, are often given to wonder what’s so great about point A that so many people of point B are so keen to get there, and what’s so great about point B that so many people of point A are so keen to get there. They often wish that people would just once and for all work out where the hell they wanted to be.” – Arthur Dent
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:18 am
6000 spaces? Yawn. The outlets mall already has somewhere around 4000 spaces, and nobody seems to be up in arms about that.
plan and zone for mixed use development near public transit
HSR is not public transit. People fall for that all the time because the damn thing has steel wheels and a pantograph, which reminds them of light rail systems. HSR is no more public transit than Southwest Airlines.
joe Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:59 am
Yawn? 6000 in downtown Gilroy? That’s ~10% of the current population.
The point about retail parking is well taken. What is the parking for the retail development on the east side of town?
However you are mistaken, the new HW152 development was heavily contested. The EIR was flawed, courts ruled the City should have known so the appeal of the EIR to stop the development failed.
The older Outlet Mall isn’t close to 4,000 and it was built outside of town, not in the downtown area.
Last night I began counting HW 152 outlet parking using google maps. ~1150 slots in front of Target to Michale’s.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Who said anything about downtown Gilroy? There won’t ever be a station in downtown Gilroy.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Unless they figure out a way to trench it and make it compatible with the UPRR alignment. Maybe Caltrain stopping Gilroy service due to budget problems would enable them to make that transition without mucking up anyone’s service.
I have the feeling they will implement the US-101 to Downtown Gilroy Trench alternative. The 101 alternative has very little residential impacts, while avoiding UPRR essentially entirely. It has some agricultural impacts, but they are few and far between.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
That trench would cost an arm and a leg (four tracks plus two platforms, more than 125 feet wide) and it would sharpen the curve into Pacheco. Noise and vibration issues are nearly certain to introduce a speed restriction, if the sharp curve hasn’t already done so; recall that planned speeds in this area, for the majority of trains that will not stop in Gilroy, are the full maximum of 220 mph.
If anybody cares about the ‘H’ in HSR, not to mention basic quality of life in downtown Gilroy, the station unequivocally belongs east of 101. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the CHSRA and their concrete-pouring contractors care about either of these issues. More concrete = $$$
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
While a trenched alignment would mean some noise and vibration issues, they would definitely be much less than they would be for an aerial.
Assuming they ran the trains at 220 mph through downtown Gilroy (preferably in a trench to mitigate noise and vibration), routing the trains through an East Gilroy station instead would only result in a savings of 25 seconds.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
This is not a situation like with the San Bruno grade separation, where the current plan completely sucks, and a slight change would improve the situation dramatically (saving 40 or so seconds) only adding very few impacts.
Here, we have the opportunity to actually plan for the future and do it right from the get-go. we can build what will hopefully become an intermodal station where trains from Salinas, Monterey, and potentially Santa Cruz can act as feeders for the HSR system. We can, with proper zoning in Gilroy, transform the area surrounding the downtown station into a livable, walkable, TOD community. I think that may be well worth the cost and the additional 25 seconds and some additional noise and vibration (but less than with an aerial).
Or we could place the station out in East Gilroy and get none of the above benefits.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:01 pm
The downtown alignment map shows a curve radius of roughly 4000 m, good for speeds somewhere between 140 to 180 mph (See <a href="http://www.tillier.net/stuff/hsr/TM%202%201%202%20Alignment%20Design%20Standards%20R0%20090326%20TM%20Excerpt%20A.pdfTM 2.1.2 table 6.1.3). Dropping 40 to 80 mph off your cruising speed, and then trying to re-accelerate at the anemic rates that are the rule in HSR cruise profiles, would probably waste far more than 25 seconds for everybody who travels between LA and the Bay Area.
A station near 101 has the considerable benefit of being freeway-accessible for the 95% of Gilroy station users that won’t call Gilroy their home, while keeping heavy traffic away from the 5% of Gilroy station users who do call Gilroy their home.
Enough with the livable walkable TOD hogwash, this isn’t a light rail system! It’s 100 decibel intensive-use transportation corridor that a typical Gilroy resident will use maybe once a month!
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Ok, then if we assume that they’ll only be going 140 – 180 mph, they will be nothing close to 100 decibel. You can’t have both.
I wish they would include the curve radii on their alternative alignment subsection maps. That would help these discussions greatly.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Conceded, and agreed. I have a nagging suspicion (which keeps getting confirmed in little fits and starts) that there is nobody doing systems-level optimization of HSR… adding a second here, shaving a second there, and making it all hang together.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“there is nobody doing systems-level optimization of HSR”
Welcome to the marvelous world of CEQA/NEPA segmented analysis. I’m not certain that they COULD have someone doing a systems-level optimization given the segmented approach. Any systems-level decision/policy would still have to be considered separately under each segment’s analysis. I think they may have no option but to do it this way without running into statutory problems.
It would definitely be something worth submitting comments on, though. Would you be interested in collaborating on a letter to submit at the next board meeting?
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Isn’t that why they had the Gilroy Station Loop alternative? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of running trains at full speed through Gilroy as well as bring the benefits of a downtown station? And possibly make a trench somewhat more feasible as well?
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
They took the Gilroy Station Loop out because there was a fear that the loop would never be built, and the fact that it would add a number of track miles and require flyovers on both sides of Gilroy for the loop track to exit/enter the mainline. And it would be very expensive, too.
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Really? Compared to the downtown alternative, you’re adding maybe 5-6 miles of track near 101. At $33 million/mile, that’s less than $200m that your adding. Combine that with the fact that the downtown alignment could probably be built a little bit more easily without all the express trains blasting through, and the incremental cost isn’t that much.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:21 pm
But you’re not only building an additional loop. You’re going to have the worst of both worlds: the visual impacts of an aerial + station or higher cost of a trench, plus the visual impacts of the flyovers, plus additional impacts to farmland, plus more track to maintain, plus the distinct possiblity that Gilroy may never get a station if the station is not included from the get-go.
From the San Jose – Merced Prelim Alternatives Analysis: “This alignment alternative would have a capital cost factor 36 percent more costly than the PA.”
Compare that to: “The Trench design option (without the UPRR) would have the higher capital cost factor and would add nine percent to the cost of the total subsection alignment costs.”
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Wouldn’t the best solution be to build a conventional rail connection between Gilroy Downtown and Gilroy East HSR? This would have much lower impacts than a HSR rail, lower costs, and no mega parking garage in downtown Gilroy.
You could divert the current San Jose-Gilroy line so that Gilroy HSR is effectively an extra inter-modal station on that line. Caltrain services leaving San Martin would stop at Gilroy HSR before terminating at Gilroy Downtown, while trains from Monterey/Salinas/Santa Cruz could stop at Gilroy Downtown before terminating at Gilroy HSR.
thatbruce Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:54 pm
How far apart are these existing large plains of asphalt and the proposed Gilroy station? Most shopping center carparks are way overspecced for the usage during commute times.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100616105652_SJ-Merced%20Exhibit%20Boards_AA%20PIMs_June-July2010_web.pdf
Please see page 18 for an illustration. It depends on which potential station you’re talking about. A Gilroy East station would be within walking distance of the Gilroy Outlets. A downtown station would be a little far, requiring a parking new parking structure.
StevieB Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Unless you are talking about private railcars and private planes then trains and airlines are by definition public transit. To get people out of their cars you build connecting public transit and not huge parking lots.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
But… Southwest Airlines essentially runs a private long-distance transit service, so in that sense, HSR is a form of transit. Commercial passenger airplanes are just as the term Airbus describes: flying buses. Now it is true that long-distance transit service, which includes HSR, has a small fraction of the ridership and travel demand as a well-planned urban transit corridor.
mike Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:57 am
For what it’s worth, this is basically the French model. To just pick one example, Gare du Creusot TGV, a small station on the LGV PSE between Paris and Lyon, has a 1,000+ space parking lot for a catchment area with several times less population than the Gilroy station would have.
If you’re running thru trains at 220 mph you do not want them running through your downtown. That is not going to encourage high density development. We’re not talking about the sub-125 mph speeds that you’ll find on the Peninsula or between LA and Anaheim.
Michael Mahoney Reply:
July 24th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Another example is Avignon TGV. Before it was built, all trains stopping at Avignon had to go into town. Now they stop at the station, which is 2 km from the town center. It has (judging from an aerial view) about 300-400 parking spaces. A shuttle bus runs about every 20 minutes into town, journey time 13 min. The stopping trains use the two outside tracks; the through trains use the inside tracks. They do not bang through at line speed, but travel at 100 km/h, which is similar to the speeds on American lines. The inner tracks are separated from the outer by a wall about 2 m high, which I assume acts as a sound and wind barrier.
“High-speed rail memo for GOP candidates for governor”
http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2010/7/21/high-speed-rail-memo-for-gop-candidates-for-governor
Scott Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:44 am
This was quite disturbing to read, albiet completely unsurprising. It’s a shame that this is what our political system has come to.
HSRforCali Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:50 am
I think it’s supposed to be a joke. This guy is a blogger for the Milwaukee Biz Times and seems to write about how HSR should be built within the Milwaukee area.
Walter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:54 am
Definitely satire.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Definitely satire, and one of the better reads I’ve seen lately!
Reread the whole thing, and note what the “governor” does at the start, and what he does at the end! :-)
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Very plausible in any country. I remember a French politician, who had fiercely opposed the TGV project, proudly posing for a photo near the train and looking at it as if it were his child.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Andre’s comments remind me of a story about Winston Churchill, who was upset with some French politician; he described the man as “trying to figure out where his people were going so he could lead them there.”
The biggest problem with politicians I see is that most are terribly afraid of losing their nice, high-profile jobs; some, upon closer examination, are so cowardly they make me look like Audie Murphy!
“let me know if you have any questions you might want asked of him, though I’ve got plenty of my own.”
Ask him how a national HSR system can be effectively planned and implemented in light of political considerations in the Senate (i.e., the disproportionate power of small, rural states). Same question but in light of poor planning coordination between states.
Travel times from Gilroy to other cities by high speed rail are pretty impressive——-
From Gilroy you could travel to: Sacramento in 1 hr – 12 minutes
Fresno in 41 minutes
SFO in 41 minutes
San Francisco in 51 minutes
Los Angeles in 2 hr – 4 minutes
Once HSR is in operation, I would bet that many in Gilroy would take the train. I would also bet that people and businesses, in substantial numbers, might think seriously about relocating to Gilroy.
O/T: TGV train hits truckload of shampoo
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Well, maybe the train needed to be cleaned…
Reality Check Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Apart from the chuckle factor, it’s worth noting because many do not know or do not believe that HSR and level crossings can coexist. While they’re to be avoided if possible — especially in high-speed areas — there’s no technical reason why you can run HSR trains through them at relatively low to moderate speeds in order to extend your one-seat-ride network reach at reasonable cost in the interim.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
There are no grade crossings on HSR lines but many TGVs run on conventional lines so that passengers can have a one-seat ride. The French don’t like transfers. If they can’t have a one-seat ride, they will either drive or fly.
Grade crossings in built-up areas or on frequented roads have been phased out but many still remain on small country roads. That’s where accidents happen.
The last lethal accident happened two years ago. A heavy truck which had stalled on the tracks was smashed by a TGV. The train suffered little damage, except for the crumple zone in the nose.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
When the high-speed trains and regional trains are timed to just miss each other, nobody likes transfers.
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:41 pm
If you look at the map included in the story the train was NOT on a high-speed line. It was on an old legacy line, hundreds of miles away from the nearest high speed line. Accidents like this is why HSR needs to fully separate the rail line from streets.
thatbruce Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Yes and no. You’re mixing the concepts of the HSR system and HSR-capable trains operating outside the HSR system. The accident could have happened to any train the SNCF was running through there, not just a TGV trundling along.
The HSR system, that is, any stretch of track where high speeds are seen, needs to be fully grade separated. However, and to repeat a point, HSR trains are perfectly capable of operating on conventional track, at conventional speeds, and facing conventional hazards such as grade crossings.
While grade crossings are good things to eliminate, using them as a reason to stop HSR-capable trains operating at conventional speeds through them is a poorly thought-out move.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:11 am
You’ll find TGVs, Thalys and Eurostars in tiny stations in the French Alps at 2700 ft altitude. Eurostar ski trains, non-stop from London St Pancras to the Alps, are very popular. Of course, the alpine part of the trip is not high-speed, but passengers appreciate not having to bother about their equipment until their reach their destination.
This versatility has a downside: collisions, though very rare, remain a possibility and trains have to be UIC-compliant. This excludes Japanese-style high-speed trains since they don’t meet UIC compression-without-deformation specifications.
wu ming Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:45 am
i really wish they would set one of those ski trains up between the bay area and tahoe. all those jackasses driving their SUVs on 80 to and from every weekend tie the whole region up, to say nothing of all the snow/chains trouble compounding it all.
a ski train, esp. with ski resorts picking people up near tahoe, would take a lot of them off the highway, and they could sip hot cocoa w/ schnapps all the way up and down.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 am
In the US, it’d also exclude European trains since they don’t meet FRA compression-without-deformation specifications.
The probability of the FRA revising its buff strength requirement down to 200 tons is approximately the same as that of revising down to 100 tons.
Clem Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:42 am
Are you talking about the same FRA that just approved a waiver for Caltrain to operate more than 100 UIC-standard trains every day through 45 grade crossings on the peninsula?
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 am
And that will allow them to share tracks and ROW with freight trains between Santa Clara and Tamien?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 am
Or the FRA that has been testing crude crash energy management systems for years?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Yes, the same FRA. The FRA’s thinking seems to be that if there’s PTC then buff strength doesn’t matter, and if there isn’t then the current rules should prevail.
Here’s a question: CEQA requires that all significant impacts be mitigated. This includes impacts to traffic circulation. A downtown HSR station would doubtlessly mean impacts to traffic circulation. Part of that impact would be due to vehicles looking for parking, if a parking structure was not constructed. Would mitigation of this impact from parking not require that a parking structure be constructed as part of the HSR program? And would this not be required to be paid for by the Authority as a feasible mitigation? Why is the Authority then saying that the City of Gilroy would be responsible to pay for the construction of the parking garage?
synonymouse Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:02 pm
This is one of the reasons that Palo Alto is deeply skeptical of the hsr. Many passengers will want to drive to the station – more parking structures is about the last way to make your downtown more people and pedestrian friendly.
One of the profound advantages of an hsr collector station and possibly terminal at SFO is that it is already set up to handle massive passenger parking.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
more parking structures is about the last way to make your downtown more people and pedestrian friendly.
So don’t build them. People will leave their cars at home and use Caltrain to get to the HSR station. There. solved your problem.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
How large of a parking structure are they looking at for Palo Alto? Remember, Palo Alto already has very extensive public transportation options that feed into the station. This reduces the need to drive there by a lot.
That’s not yet the case with the station in Gilroy, although commuter rail connecting Salinas, Monterey, and Santa Cruz to Gilroy would do a lot to alleviate the need to drive to the HSR station in Gilroy, assuming they implement a downtown option.
Matthew Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I’m really annoyed by sloppy use of the word “impact.” Of course you want the project to have an impact. If it didn’t, it would be wasted money. If one of the desired impacts is that it reduces car usage, then that’s a feature and not a bug. There are multiple ways of mitigating traffic problems in city centers, not just building a parking garage. Improved public transportation is an obvious one. Reduced car access or redesigned traffic flows in a city center can reduce traffic impacts as well. A parking permit system that disallows parking on side streets for anyone other than residents is yet another strategy. If we’re talking about a HSR station, kiss-and-ride facilities would be a relatively inexpensive way of reducing parking problems. Of course all these things change the status quo, but it is not illegal to do so, on their own, or in conjunction with a larger infrastructure project.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I’m talking about “impact” in environmental terms. Under CEQA and NEPA, every impact, whether positive or negative, has to be assessed, analyzed, and mitigated if necessary. It’s not a sloppy use of the term, it’s the way it’s used in the environmental law field.
Matthew Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
It seems the environmental impact is driving in the first place, not encountering traffic on the way. CEQA requires that *environmental* impacts have to be assessed, analyzed, and mitigated if possible, while NEPA only stipulates that they be disclosed. CEQA requires that if there is a feasible and environmentally superior mitigation, that it is implemented. It seems providing bus service, or any of the other options I’ve listed above would be a superior environmental mitigation, while a parking structure would not. In fact, I would further argue that a parking structure would induce additional car trips resulting in increased air pollution, and would therefore itself have to be mitigated if possible. I stand by my statement that it’s sloppy language, or at least very circuitous reasoning.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:31 am
Well, I know for a fact that traffic circulation is an impact that has to be studied under CEQA.
O/T, but why doesn’t the Authority study the possibility of an at-grade station for San Jose Diridon? It’s being done for LA Union Station, so why not Diridon?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Just what do you suppose the odds are of Rod “not yet dead” Diridon or his CHSRA colleagues requesting that staff investigate a less grandiose Diridon Memorial Intergalactic Station for San José, Capital of Silicon Valley?
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:16 pm
If we are going to do the “Iconic Bridge”, then we need your “Diridon Intergalactic”.. Otherwise too much drop into Diridon. The two together are going to make a statement that I am sure even Rod Diridon will be proud of.
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 10:39 pm
The two together are going to make a financial statement that no one will be proud of.
O/T: A whole radio documentery about CAHSR http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/kalw/detail?entry_id=68427
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Some interesting information in that. A lot of handwavium too…
Off topic…
At: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/kalw/detail?entry_id=68427
is text and an audio link to a KALW webcast with the title:
The Planning Problem: A documentary on high-speed rail
I seriously that this 30 minute program could any better tell the story of why the California project should be stopped and stopped immediately.
The high light is an interview with Bent Flyvbjerg, the person has done more studying on large infra-structure projects than anyone else in the world, and boy does he does not mince words.
The program should be listened to via the provided audio link — it is much better than the text which is not fully complete.
The interviewer and author, Nathanael Johnson, deserves a Pulitzer prize for this work and KALW has done the public an immense service.
Better hurry back, Robert to try and counter this.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Already been done.
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr5.Flyvbjerg_Deja_Vue.htm
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:36 am
morris, at least try to pretend to care about discussion on this blog. nobody important posted that link two posts above yours.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:09 am
another silly “reporter” digging up NIMBY fears and BS for a story..the same kid..ie have you see him he could be your grandson..besides its Public Radio..you know that Obama suff !! right Mccain guy!!
morris brown Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 am
Oh my YES!.
@YesonHSR — Please don’t let me, or KALW or Nathanael Johnson, or Bent Flyvbjerg even attempt to change your or other’s views with the facts.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
Of course MR NIMBY you have been correct on everthing about this project..starting with your “prop1A will go down in flames” !!!
John Burrows Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Maybe Samer Mandanat, the professor who peer-reviewed the projected rifership numbers, could cause you to rethink your view.
Professor Mandanat says that estimates for CAHSR are unreliable and that operations costs might run in the red for years, “But that doesn’t necessarily mean that HSR is a bad idea, right? IN MANY CASES, PROJECTS LIKE THIS BECOME GAME CHANGERS. They incentevize other changes in the transportation system that together make the system work better. That’s the (If you build it, they will come approach”
The future does not come with a ridership guarantee. Professor Mandanat says that no one can predict the future, and that even the best forecasts are likely to be 50% off.
If the Legislature wants to fund another ridership study, OK, but don’t even think about stopping HSR.
Tony D. Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
“the facts” Morris?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
Flyvbjerg is right on the money.
Fans of megaprojects and cool civil engineering and trains (that would be me; but I’m guessing not Morris Brown) either have to acknowledge this and try to advocate better and more honest projects or they have to factually and objectively refute his objective data. Flyvbjerg is doing the world — and environmentalists — a huge favour by showing just how thoroughly superficially “good” public works are co-opted (greenwashing is this season’s colour!) by economic actors who have no concern at all for good public policy outcomes.
Jumping up and down crying “NIMBY!”, “Peak Oil!” or “Facts are stupid things!” doesn’t cut it.
The worst part of being a leftie and greenie is having to associate with innumerate and blatantly irrational soi-disant lefties and greenies. If the facts are on our side, we should present them. If not, change the world to make things better; don’t just shout that black is white because, well, you wish it were.
California is just screaming out for HSR and for radically better regional and urban public transportation systems. But not at any price.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
I have to agree with you on all of the above Richard. But, it’s not always just some sinister plan by big players alone who are gaming the system to line pockets. In spite of corruption at all levels in all things american, we still have the democratic element, still have to answer to the public, whether they are informed or not, still have real financial limitations and consequently still have to make do with making deals with the devil to get things done. Even all the so called “special interest groups” ( which is anybody who takes an interest in anything that affects them) are americans with a right to have to their say and push their influence. That’s just how our system works. Freedom in american means you are free to try to get what you want, however you want, by convincing enough people to take your side using whatever means you can within the law. And american laws are designed to be very loose. From congress, to the criminal justice system, to the tax code, there are endless outs, loopholes and second chances. The way things get done in this country is what it is. No one is going to change it because everyone at some point gets their benefit. Its messy and unseemly. America is a scheme by design. The best one’s at navigating the scheme win the game. That’s what they mean by “freedom” We the people get to decide what is criminal and legal. So of course, if want to do something, we can simply make it legal, or at least, “not illegal” with a wink.
i can’t stand lefties/greenies. They are exactly like the religious right. But they are a necessary evil. They can be used to push an agenda just like the right can. Its all so terribly sordid and untoward.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Corruption: it’s the patriotic, American thing to do.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
^If you look really close, you can see that tag line on the bottom of the flag. ;-)
John Burrows Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Flyvbjerg mentions that on the average, rail projects exceed budgets by 40 per cent, and therefore why not boost projected budgets by a like amount.
If this were done to the original CAHSR budget of around 34 billion dollars, we would have a revised budget of between 47 and 48 billion dollars—-higher than CAHSR revised estimates, but not by much. If everyone’s OK with this, then CAHSR could make note in their business plan that when taken into account, the Flyvbjerg Fudge Factor would add 3 to 4 billion to their own estimate, and we would not have to do any more cost studies.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
So, then what about projects that actually come in at or under budget?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
The revised estimates are just inflation-adjustment. The original budget was given in 2009 dollars, but the feds forced the HSRA to revise the budget to year-of-construction dollars. Only one item underwent a real increase in budget, and that’s the LA-Anaheim segment, which went up from $4 to $5 billion because of the tunneling proposal.
The basic problem with fudge factors is that they’re already figured in. It’s called contingency, and is typically 25% of the project. In practice all it does is tell managers that it’s okay to escalate prices 25%, so they neglect trying to keep costs under control until the entire contingency is exhausted.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:29 am
Check out Rod Diridon’s fielding of the revised estimates on a recent televised interview. From what I understand, projects are typically budgeted in year-of-construction dollars. The feds simply ‘forced’ the CHSRA to conform. It feels like they pulled a fast one on the voters by not adjusting these numbers until after the vote. That’s the point the interviewer, Phil Matier, attempts to make.
http://www.videosurf.com/video/what%27s-up-with-high-speed-rail-138406571
To put this ‘oversight’ (or as Flyvbjerg might say, ‘strategic misrepresentation’) in perspective, consider this. A year ago they were describing $16-18B from the feds and approx. $7B from private investors. Those were 2008 dollars. The $9B in bonds is fixed, therefore the $12B or so upward adjustment for inflation will have to come from elsewhere. With or without the feds, the HSRA could not have realistically use those numbers forever; there’d come a point in time when they’d be forced to adjust the numbers. They used dated numbers because either a) they could get away with it, or b) they didn’t know any better. Which is just a nicer way of saying they’re either crooks or stupid.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
I actually think that documentary was pretty even-handed. Yes, there were statements made that sounded horrible for the project if presented out of context, but all of the people interviewed basically made the point that the project could end up being a blazing success.
The one big problem I had was that they ignored the fact that the Program Alignment for the Gilroy subsection actually has the station in downtown Gilroy. The East Gilroy station is a backup option.
The idea of giving planners incentives to plan well is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but runs up against some problems. Let’s say you need someone to prepare something like a ridership study for a large infrastructure project. Do you really think anyone is going to do it if they have to wait a decade for the project to get built before they get paid? Of course not. What if the project is never built? What then? So, the only way you could “punish” them for an incorrect study is by not hiring them again. Which basically brings us back to the way things work today.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 am
No, that’s the exact opposite of the way things work today. The only “incorrect” study is that one that doesn’t deliver the project sponsor (meaning its locked-in lead consultants, not the silly irrelevant public agency) the funding for the project.
Fraud in ridership and budget projection is always rewarded. Just look at the objective historical record of PBQD/Bechtel and their subcontractors in California.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
“Which basically brings us back to the way things work today.”
I should have separated that sentence from the previous one. What I meant to say with the last sentence was that it “brings us back to the way things work today, with no incentives to make accurate predictions.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 am
The case in point is Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB). They have an established track record of failure in project projections and outcomes. They were behind the Big Dig and the BART-SFO disasters. Why would any honest public sponsor hire PB given their demonstrated record of failure to produce good projects??? Who says we are dealing with honest public sponsors? Pay-to-play culture has a lot to do with it.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
I’m not sure it’s PB rather than the local contractor networks. In Tel Aviv (not the best example of competence in the world, but still nowhere near as expensive as US cities), PB lost a bid to build the subway, but not by a large margin.
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Once a project is in the pipeline the momentum is formidable. Witness the BART Oakland Airport people mover, once again back from the presumed dead.
In the case of BART not only do you have PB, but the construction contractors and the BART bureaucracy behind the plan. BART unions don’t like it but the construction unions support it.
Don’t discount Ring-the-Bay rising from the ashes of the berm wars. I think Caltrain will lose out to the juggernaut, which hasn’t lost out on any project that I can recall.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
“rising from the ashes of the berm wars.”
That was the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Which isn’t saying much, since I’m currently reading about legal ethics.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 am
A “program” alignment refers to the alignment identified in the program-level EIR/EIS. It does not, as far as I can tell, imply any preference for the “project” alignment at the lower tier EIR/EIS.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
Conceded. My point, though, was that the reporter only spoke about the East Gilroy alignment, and used it as an example of poor planning, while omitting the fact that other alignments with different station options are in fact under consideration.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 am
What bothers me most about the Wendell Coxes and Bent Flyvbjergs and Randal O’Tooles is that they ignore so damn much about the real costs of our road-oriented society. This includes frightengly expensive wars in the Middle East that are driven at least partially about oil (Osama bin Laudin and his followers would just be crazy people in the desert otherwise, and we wouldn’t care–and wouldn’t have to).
I normally have a low opinion of economists, but I like this one; check out his perspective on the importance of oil-free transportation:
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/
Cox, the Toole, and Flyvbjerg are by no means synonymous. It’s only the bury-the-head-in-the-sand transit fools (often with their own political agenda) that make that sloppy and unsophisticated rhetorical connection.
Flyvbjerg is not interested in the “mode wars”. Don’t forget that PB and HNTB are very much involved in road projects too. Flyvbjerg criticizes extravagant road projects too, and he is more than willing to applaud good rail projects. He is interested in why big infrastructure projects go wrong so often. Only a fool wouldn’t see the problems with current megaproject planning.
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
This is why I consider Whitman’s ostensible opposition to the hsr a positive development. Assuming a Whitman vistory, the movers and shakers will be forced to defend and explicate their crappy hsr scheme, in particular the routing. Altho the time frame makes it look deliberate, in reality there was a rush to judgment by a relative handful of the politically well-placed. Hardly a way to come up with the best plan for a megaproject which under the best of circumstances the state will be hard pressed to afford.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I saw no indication that Whitman is opposed to HSR due to the routing. Her statement was simply a claim that CA is unable to afford any HSR project.
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Maybe there will be some specifics forthcoming, The key issue in the affordability argument is whether the hsr can be self-supporting, namely will it require operating subsidies. The routing has profound implications for hsr revenue.
The 3 major routing disputes, Altamont vs. Pacheco, 99 vs. I-5, and Tejon vs. Tehachapi, are extremely controversial. IMHO the consideration of these alternatives was biased and botched and needs to be revisited. I am convinced that the general Tolmach plan is more viable than the current CHSRA scheme. I am hopeful that Whitman will be moved to call for an “agonizing reappraisal”, as they called it in the Eisenhower era.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Weren’t you also convinced that the new CEO would go back to the drawing board?
There are only very few people who think that I-5 is preferable to 99, and only very few who think that Tejon is preferable to Tehachapi.
The only truly controversial alignment choice is Pacheco vs. Altamont. Even that is pretty much settled, though, too. The lawsuit is HIGHLY unlikely to be reopened. And a new lawsuit based on recertification of Pacheco in the Program EIR/EIS would have to come up with something better than it did before.
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I only suggested and hoped that there was a slight chance that the new CEO would see problems with the PB plan. AFAIK he has not said a word.
I suggest that, for example, the best and brightest on the UP staff, hypothetically and of course off the record for political reasons, would see my point. Real world railroaders would recognize the detour sucks for operational and maintenance reasons and Tejon difficulties are being overblown.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“I only suggested and hoped that there was a slight chance that the new CEO would see problems with the PB plan.”
Maybe because these “problems” are only in your head?
“I suggest that, for example, the best and brightest on the UP staff, hypothetically and of course off the record for political reasons, would see my point.”
And with this you, as usual, use weasel words. You “suggest” that someone with knowledge about rail operations would anonymously agree with you, without stating who this person is. That’s basically the same as saying “I have no one and nothing to back me up.”
Who cares what UP thinks about the Tejon vs. Tehachapi routing? It won’t affect them at all. The only objections UP has against HSR are unrelated to the choice of alignment. They relate generally to use of UP’s ROW and constructing HSR adjacent to their ROW.
And just for the record, UP doesn’t exactly care about detours. They don’t run to schedules or deadlines. They build where it’s easiest and cheapest (hence their Tehachapi alignment).
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
The Tehachapi Loop was the only railroad route feasible in the mid 19th century to connect the San joaquin Valley with Socal. And it remains so because the gradients of a new tunnel route would still be excessive for freight.
But that doesn’t hold true for electrified passenger service. My point is that real railroad people would give far more weight to the deficiencies of the Loopy detour than the ward healers and machine pols of the CHSRA.
StevieB Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
If Whitman is elected governor it will mean more delay. Flyvbjerg says each year of delay adds 4.5% to the cost of a megaproject. Opponents often deliberately delay a project then point to the cost overruns as a reason to stop.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Opponents don’t so much delay projects but rather serve useful purpose: as convenient scapegoat for when the inevitable cost-overruns happen. It goes like this:
1. Stupid mega-project is proposed.
2. Opponents point out obvious problems in the project.
3. Project gets approved anyway.
4. The obvious problems happen, leading to delays and cost-overruns (Nobody could have predicted!)
5. Project managers blame opponents for delays.
A corollary: if there is no vocal opposition, blame an endangered species for the delays.
Whitman being elected shouldn’t affect HSR one bit; unless she wants to get recalled!
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
But wouldn’t she be able to appoint a majority of the Board members? So she could stack the Board with opponents to the project. That would give her sufficient clout to seriously impede, if not kill, the project.
Tony D. Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Yeah, I guess in theory she could do whatever the hell she wants. Can you say Ms. Gray Davis?
“So she could stack the Board with opponents to the project”: even I don’t think she would be that stupid. Again, no one, not a hypothetical governor nor opponents to HSR, are above the people of this state!
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I want this project to happen and all but I don’t think she’ll be recalled if she kills the project. We are a divided state on many issues, and high speed rail is one of them.There will be as many people singing her praises as there are critics. Most people, however, will say, “Huh? What?”
synonymouse Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
The chances are that Jerry Brown, if elected, would be the one to go down the Gray Davis highway to political oblivion.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 am
I doubt there’s a californian alive today who doesn’t wish we had kept gray davis in retrospect.
Robert Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:28 am
wrong are you
Off topic, but the TSA is increasing its focus on transit. The new head of the TSA made a very cryptic statement that terrorists are looking at transit because it doesn’t have the kind of screening that air travel does. He was sparse on details, but does that mean we’ll see airline style screening on the subway? Who knows.
All I know is that I have to be stopped before boarding a train for security screening, be it high speed rail or the local light rail, I will not be riding transit anymore. It’s as simple as that.
How do you the rest of you feel?
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
To clarify, if officers want to stand around with dogs and AK-47′s, be my guest. I hate random baggage screening, but I’ll tolerate it. But I won’t tolerate metal detectors, taking off your shoes and emptying your pockets. The second that becomes part of the plans for high speed rail in California is the day I stop posting here. You’ll find me at the dealership purchasing a new car that day.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Airline style screening on transit is completely impractical in order to move mass amounts of people. Security should be in intelligence and evaluating early threats through intelligence.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Correct. But is the TSA dumb enough to try to hammer through such security anyway?
Look at what this asshole said.
“Pistole said he wants TSA workers, including 47,000 screeners at 450 airports, to operate as a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”
“I want to take TSA to the next level,” Pistole said.”
I think the TSA needs to be scaled back, myself.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
It’s all about jobs. Watch the unions do with this one.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Even the Senator who pushed the TSA through Congress (can’t remember his name) said that the TSA had become a monster he wished he could undo.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:14 am
All I know is that I have to be stopped before boarding a train for security screening, be it high speed rail or the local light rail, I will not be riding transit anymore. It’s as simple as that
That isn’t going to be the approach.
OT: CA4HSR will be presenting their concerns about Electrification at the PCC meeting tomorrow at 8:15 AM in Belmont (One Twin Pines Lane).
CARRD suggested the idea to both the PCC and CA4HSR and we’re looking forward to the presentation.
Here’s their facebook announcement about it:
http://www.facebook.com/ca4hsr?ref=search
Got this in the mail…
Can’t Wait!!!
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) cordially invites you to the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco.
Forty years of dedication is about to be rewarded. On August 11, 2010, the Transbay Terminal begins its transformation to become the “Grand Central of the West”, connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the rest of the State. The new Transbay Transit Center, which will replace the outdated Transbay Terminal, will infuse the economy with thousands of new jobs while providing the first modern High-Speed Rail station to the nation.
The Transbay Transit Center project will be a model for land use and transportation planning across the United States. Made possible by President Obama’s stimulus legislation, the project will create thousands of private sector jobs, leverage significant private investment and build transportation infrastructure that will provide economic and social benefits to countless generations to come.
Please Join Us
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
10 o’clock in the morning
Transbay Terminal
San Francisco, CA
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
Can we protest? ;)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 am
“Grand Central of the West”, connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the rest of the State.
Connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the rest of the state except for the peons in the East Bay and Central Valley north of Frenso who will be stuck in traffic on the Bay Bridge.
The Transbay Transit Center project will be a model for land use and transportation planning across the United States.
But I don’t think they had “don’t do it as badly as this, though you would really really hard to do it this bad” in mind when they proposed it as a model.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 am
It is a model allright – they closed the public bathroom at the replacement East Bay Terminal.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Heh, you think that’s bad? I’ve been to a brand-new railway station in Germany (major hub and everything), where they FORGOT TO INCLUDE PUBLIC RESTROOMS IN THE DESIGN!!!!! There was only a tiny room that had been converted to a restroom off to a corner of the building. I guess no one noticed because the construction workers always used portapotties until construction was complete…
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Everybody’s a comedian around here.
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
If we didn’t laugh about it, it’d just be sad.
OT: BART Board ok’s OAC
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/23/BAF81EIGSR.DTL
Funding plan includes, drumroll please, $5 milion from the CHSRA.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
OK. Any doubts that the CHSRA is simply a limitlessly corrupt machine designed to convert taxpayer funds into contractor pork for the very worst possible projects?
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
Yeah, not even a loan. It’s supposed to be a grant.
In their defense, $995 million of Prop 1a funds are in fact supposed to go to improving transit connections in the state.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:21 am
BART already does that for the Bay Area
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
I understand the City Manager of Bell is now available – he would be perfect to head up the Palmdale big dig.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
Isn’t he just going to retire? I’d head a major bank if I were him.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
A bank is so bourgeois – besides unlike the “Intergalacitc” they don’t name bank buildings after anyone.
But how about the Loopy Route re-christened the Rizzo Meander?
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Only if you own the bank.
Btw, HSR won’t use the Loop. Just a tidbit of information from me to you…
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
I am trying to learn Latin but I am not quite sure of the correct prefix meaning under. Shall we call it the sub-Loop or the infra-Loop. But I think Loopy is pretty descriptive.
Interestingly on the Altamont site all the posters are thoroughly unimpressed with the detour. One complained about the hsr’s curious attachment to the UP. My take on it was that the CHSRA suffers from UP envy, in the Freudian sense.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The Altamont Pass alternative actually follows the UP line closely.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 pm
So does a major highway.
That is the way it has to be with Altamont. The UP would have to grasp that, but on the other hand the UP must consider the CHSRA morons to lust after the crappy Tehachapi route the UP is stuck with for gradient reasons when said CHSRA could have fabulous Tejon express base tunnels courtesy of the largess of the taxpayers excited to see a real 21st century engineering feat.
But for something on a lighter and more entertaining note:
http://laist.com/2010/07/22/video_expo_line.php
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
“excited to see a real 21st century engineering feat”
Most people don’t give a flying monkey about engineering feats. They just want the damn thing to work and not have cost them (as in the taxpayer) too much.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Not so.
Remember Ronnie Reagan used to say on tv: “Progress is our most important product.”
You may be too young for that. Point is that even right-wing Republicans are impressed with innovation and accomplishment. They understand that speed costs money, but speed also can make money. The CHSRA needs to adopt the fastest route possible. Palmdale belongs on another route. The public understands that the straight shot is the most competitive. Keep asking why is Donner better than Feather River until all becomes clear.
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
The public understands nothing. You should know that.
Also, engineering projects that are taken on for the sake of prestige have a tendency to dig themselves into a financial pit.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 pm
You mean like the Russian’s first Sputnik? People looked up at the blinking light in the sky the first night and practically crapped their collective pants that them commies were in space over us. I assure you prestige is a tangible factor and worth spending money when you are in a competition.
Prestige aside, Tejon is a better route and will make for a much more successful hsr.
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I’m more talking about things like the Channel Tunnel (though IIRC it’s beginning to be financially stable).
In any case, a 10 minute difference in travel time won’t make or break the project, and I’d take that over the entire route being closed for a month or two after an earthquake for repairs.
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
With an adequate gallery at the Garlock fault the repairs in the tunnel would be commensurate with repairing Loopy damage. Remember 1952.
We are just guessing at the time differential because the CHSRA doesn’t want to do comparisons that would be embarrassing. I am suggesting a half hour advantage to Tejon-I-5.
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I _suggest_ that you (a) Get out a map and actually calculate the distances involved and use the speeds to calculate a real number, rather than just pulling one out of your ass and (b) Do some research before you claim that they never provided the data. My rudimentary calculations indicated a 12 minute advantage. This is actually the same number that the CHSRA gave in their tunnelingreport, which I’m guessing you haven’t read (search took a couple of seconds, by the way), though I’m guessing they had a much more detailed analysis than my approximate-mileage-and-average-speed method.
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Err, tunneling report should be two words
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Also, travel times are listed in table 2-1 on page 10.
Samsonian Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I’m more talking about things like the Channel Tunnel (though IIRC it’s beginning to be financially stable).
The Channel Tunnel’s financial problems stem from the fact it was privately financed at Thatcher’s insistence, not that there’s a fatal flaw in the rail link between UK and the continent or its concept.
If the UK, France, and EU had directly funded this important rail infrastructure, it wouldn’t have had financial problems it did. It also would have lower transport costs. Trackage fees for CTRL and HS1 are reportedly 10 times higher than in France.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
At least they haven’t offered any funds to pay for the BART subway extension to Santa Clara…
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 11:19 am
With every mistake we must surely be learning.
$1 billion for HSR from the Senate
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=23903
StevieB Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Not much when compared to the $3.5 billion for airports and more than $40 billion for highways.
Hey, your thoughts on this? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/kalw/detail?entry_id=68427
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
WOW. That is a staggeringly biased report. Nathanel Johnson is turning out to be every bit the biased anti-mass transit reporter I suspected he’d be based on his flawed reporting on the Berkeley ITS study.
He appears to have made no effort whatsoever to reach out to any HSR supporters. I never heard from him. He’s using the cover of the San Francisco Chronicle to push out anti-HSR messaging.
This is going to require a strong pushback. Not because I think it’s going to be damaging – but because the bias is unacceptable.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I thought that despite the bias it was pretty mild.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Wow what is it with this Main Stream Media?
I mean, not REACHING OUT TO THE NETROOTS? LOLZ! WTF? ROTFL!
Interviewing acknowledged experts and the movers and shakers directly involved in the subject of the program?
Not interviewing me — me! personally! — to point out the bleeding obvious that Doug Kimsey on the MTC board is a stratregically misrepresening sack of s*** when he claims that the fraudulent, MTC-abetted, contractor enriching, Kopp-fronted BART extension to Millbrae only fell short of the deliberately and laughably fraudulent ridership “projections” because of “economic depression as a result of the dot-com bust” even through Parsons-Brinkerhoff’s “projections” were made years before the dot-com boom had been imagined by anybody?
Wow. Main Stream Media. So unhip to Web 2.0 social crowdsourced netroots.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
He didn’t have to interview me. He should have interviewed HSR supporters. Instead he makes it look like a heroic set of critics vs a big bad government agency that won’t listen.