July CHSRA Board Meeting
The July CHSRA Board Meeting is starting at 9AM today in Los Angeles. The agenda is here, and includes discussion of lots of Alternatives Analysis for segments from Fresno all the way to Anaheim. You can find those AA reports here.
There should be a live feed of video or audio, but I’m not seeing it on the CHSRA website. As soon as I find such a link, I’ll post it here. (Update: you can listen live by calling 213-922-6045, the MTA board room streaming number)
UPDATE: Some highlights from the AA reports:
• Shared track alternatives for LA-Anaheim: 3 freight/passenger tracks and two separate passenger-only tracks. One option is to have the 2 passenger tracks as an aerial, especially in places with narrow ROW, or to add them next to the existing 3 tracks.
• CHSRA is indeed looking at having only one station in the San Fernando Valley, either at Burbank Airport, Sylmar, Pacoima, or a point in between Sylmar and Burbank near the I-5/CA-170 split.
Live updates:
Someone just said “nobody will drive 100 miles to an HSR station.” That is a joke of a comment, with no basis in evidence. People drive 100 miles to an airport.
David Ory of MTC is up now, reading a letter from MTC head Steve Heminger about the ridership modeling, noting that the original modeling was verified by the original peer review team, and shows the flaws of the Berkeley ITS study – which increasingly appears to me to have been an outright hatchet job.
Elizabeth Alexis is up now. Says the ridership model “absolutely failed” – but she presents NO evidence this is the case. She’s condemning the Altamont/Pacheco numbers by saying “you would guess” that Altamont would add riders. I’m sorry, Elizabeth, but that’s not a supportable evidentiary claim. You cannot make a supposition and then attack a study because its research doesn’t fit your preconceptions. That’s not how the scientific method works.
A rep from MTA’s ridership expert is up now, who has expertise from Taiwan HSR planning. He served on the original peer review for MTC/Cambridge Systematics. “Based on my professional judgement, this high speed model is the most advanced model in the nation” and says the model is solid. As we know, MTA is not shy about criticizing HSR.
Up now is Michael Gimbel, a student advocate and who heads one of the CA4HSR local advocacy teams. Here’s the statement he delivered:
The Berkeley ITS report did not invalidate the HSR ridership study, or prove that its numbers were incorrect. Instead it disagreed with the study’s methodology, but these disagreements are themselves questionable.
The Berkeley ITS report has some flaws. First, there are many reasons to expect business travel will occur during peak hours, given the speed and convenience of the trains.
The Berkeley ITS study also believes it is not realistic for people to simply show up at a station and take the next available train. But we know from experience around the world, including in Japan and Germany, that riders currently do exactly that when it comes to HSR trains. If headways are low, then the ridership study’s assertions are plausible.
The Berkeley ITS study assumes that rail travelers will act like air travelers, but this is a dubious and unproven assertion at best. Rail travel provides fundamentally different kinds of service to the traveler, and travelers respond to it differently than they do with planes. Evidence from Spain and the Northeast Corridor indicates that air travelers will flock to trains when given the choice.
Overall, the Berkeley ITS study raises some questions that warrant further investigation, but in itself should not be seen as invalidating the HSR ridership projections.
David Schonbrunn of TRANSDEF is up to continue his HSR denial, says “you no longer have a viable project” – says we should select a bidder to pick their preferred route. That’s a bad idea. But then Schonbrunn asserts Cambridge Systematics’ study is “shady” showing that he isn’t interested in honest debate.
I’ll be giving some live updates as best I can, but don’t expect a complete liveblog.
Shared track alternative for LA-Anaheim would limit HSR to 3 trains per hour and 90 mph on that corridor, with a 3.5% decrease in revenue. In addition, it would limit Metrolink and Amtrak in terms of tph, as well, and prevent BNSF from adding a 4th mainline. BNSF has said to go ahead and study, and then they would let CHSRA know if it works for them.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Not sure the shared track alternative is all that workable then. But as CA4HSR has always said, it is something to continue exploring.
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 11:14 am
IMHO, PB is being very conservative in its 8 tph aggregate throughput estimate for the shared track alternative. Provided all intermediate stations have bypass tracks and all trains run on time (i.e. any delays are buffered at LAUS and Anaheim ARTIC), it should be possible to achieve much higher aggregate throughput on a shared main line.
One non-trivial issue is that bypass tracks for individual intermediate stations lead to extended dwell times whenever the integrated timetable calls for an overtake. That might be survivable for HSR (stop in Norwalk/SFS) and Amtrak PS (stop in Fullerton). For Metrolink’s OC line, which serves up to 4 intermediate stations, the cumulative line haul penalty would almost certainly not be acceptable.
A 10-mile siding covering Norwalk/SFS – Buena Park – Fullerton would yield much more acceptable dwell times for Metrolink. Serve any two stations for a single or all three for a double overtake. This would be roughly analogous to the MP-PA-Calif. Ave siding in the Caltrain Firebird concept for the SF peninsula. HSR would stop on the main line, with Metrolink overtaking on the siding. Platform height considerations would determine on which track Amtrak PS would approach Fullerton station.
Note that PB appears to be suggesting that BNSF continue hosting Metrolink’s 91 line (LAUS-Fullerton-Riverside, extended to Perris in 2013).
Clem Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Do you understand that a slot vacated by a stopping train cannot be reallocated to another train, and that when it starts again, the train will need another vacant slot? In the end, no amount of signaling magic will undo the fact that differing average speeds and stopping patterns quickly kill track capacity. 8 tph is not outrageously conservative. It shows a degree of realism absent in schemes like “firebird.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
The stuff I see on the Northeast forums talk about between 4 and 8 slots to move a train off the express track to make a stop on the local track and move back onto the express tracks. Depends of the interlockings and what else is going on at the time.
As for signaling upgrades, isn’t ERTMS IV going to have six dimensional time space generators that let two trains occupy the same track at the same time? … though since time and space will be warped it’s not really the same time or the same space. ..just as easy to do as moving block…
jimsf Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 12:21 am
( you just need to use one of those parallel universe deals that I saw on sci channel)
Agenda item 9 should be particularly interesting: in the wake of Caltrain’s mixed traffic waiver, Parsons Brinkerhoff is advocating a return to the original plan of sharing track with Amtrak, Metrolink and BNSF (via guaranteed time separation) in the contentious section between Fullerton and Anaheim ARTIC.
Please note: the Caltrain waiver does not apply to LOSSAN, it merely sets a legal precedent. CHSRA has yet to apply for a “rule of special applicability” from FRA for its entire network, incl. operations at 220mph. CPUC will need to draft additional rules, e.g. to enable operations of the 25kV overhead catenary system.
In addition, PB is advocating that HSR and the legacy passenger services between LA, south OC and SD counties share two new main line tracks between just north of BNSF’s Hobart Yard and Fullerton. The nominal speed on those would be 90mph.
In return, BNSF would make do with the present three tracks on the Transcon in perpetuity. It would also need to continue hosting up to 32 daily Metrolink trains to/from Riverside/Perris via Corona. Finally, it would have to make available three 400m tracks at its E 1st St yard in downtown LA for mid-day stabling/buffering of HSR trains. The company has not yet agreed to all this, but is willing to develop the concept to the 15% maturity stage with a small ($500k) grant from CHSRA.
PB is budgeting 30min for turning around HSR trains in Anaheim, presumably for cleaning and reprovisioning. It’s still unclear to me why this should then be necessary at the SFTBT as well.
Finally, there is also a new at-grade design concept for LA Union station, with 8 platforms tracks for Amtrak and Metrolink plus 6 for HSR. A total of four platform tracks would become run-through tracks. As in the SFTBT, PB is advocating different platform heights for legacy and HSR services.
The biggest upside of track sharing and a single-level LAUS would be a substantial reduction in total construction cost for this segment of the starter line. In addition, decongesting the freight tracks would allow BNSF to increase service frequency to the ports of LA and Long Beach.
The biggest downside would be reduced capacity, with PB forecasting just 4 Metrolink, 1 Amtrak and 3 HSR trains per hour.
—
Comments:
Limited HSR service frequency was the reason Curt Pringle pushed for HSR-only tracks into Anaheim ARTIC in the first place, in spite of the severe cost escalation that entailed. At the time, Caltrain had not yet secured its waiver.
Higher throughput would require bypass tracks at the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs plus Fullerton stations as well as fully integrated timetables for this section of the LOSSAN corridor, to implement overtake capability. Some eminent domain takings near those stations might be necessary to make that possible. In theory, northbound and southbound tracks could be stacked on top of one another at those stations, at considerable expense. However, this would severely constrain road grade separation options for several thousand feet to either side as the sidings would need to rejoin their respective main line tracks before those could return to a common vertical elevation via ramps with modest transition gradients. FRA-compliant diesel-powered Amtrak and Metrolink gear is limited to about 2.2%.
Track sharing would require all operators to agree on a common positive train control technology, at least for the shared sections. CHSRA appears to be leaning toward ETCS level 2 in combination with ERTMS traffic control software. All of the Amtrak PS plus some number of Metrolink and BNSF locomotives would need to be retrofitted with the requisite in-cab equipment. Staff would need to be trained in its operation, including login and logout procedures at the interface locations to other, incompatible PTC implementations (if any) and/or zones without PTC protection.
Any additional statewide HSR trains would need to be turned around in Los Angeles (phase I) or else in San Diego (phase II).
Did anyone else see this… Is this good news?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2010
Authority Signs Agreement with Belgium
for High-Speed Rail Planning
Agreement Demonstrates Continued International Interest
SACRAMENTO – The California High-Speed Rail Authority signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) today with the country of Belgium to continue sharing high-speed rail planning and development information. The agreement, with Belgium’s Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, was approved by the Authority Board at its May 2010 meeting.
“This is another example of the international recognition and support of California’s high-speed rail system,” said Curt Pringle, Chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “We’re pleased that this partnership with Belgium will enhance our planning as this project moves forward.”
Belgium has been operating high-speed rail since 1997, with routes connecting Belgium to France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The agreement includes the exchange of information on technical standards, purchasing and building methods, engineering know-how, funding options as well as operations and maintenance data.
“Belgium has extensive experience and expertise in providing high-speed rail technology, with neutrality and objectivity towards technical references, standards and manufacturers. The Belgian railways have been instrumental in making European high-speed rail a success, through international technical integration. We’re happy to share this experience with the California HSRA”, said Geert Criel, Consul-General of Belgium.
The signing of the agreement was followed by a presentation by Joseph M. Borremans, Senior International Project Manager and Representative for North-America of TUC-RAIL (Belgian Railways group). TUC RAIL extended and modernized one of the world’s busiest railway networks situated at the heart of Europe and has been involved in many international projects, acquiring valuable experience as a leader in high-speed rail technology.
This demonstrated interest in California’s project is the latest to accompany similar agreements between the California High-Speed Rail Authority and seven other countries operating high-speed rail
Scott Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I was wondering the same thing…
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
CHSRA is trying to tap into as many sources of HSR expertise as possible. SNCB hosts French Thalys, German ICE and British/French Eurostar trains. The UK requires special check-in/immigration procedures for those since it is not a full member of the Schengen zone.
In addition, the Dutch/Belgian Fyra trains (based on AnsaldoBreda V250 equipment) are due to enter commercial service in Belgium soon. All of that comes on top of all the regular local, regional, long-distance and freight traffic. The signaling and timetable management is quite complex. See here for a map of Belgian high speed lines.
The country also has expertise in leveraging HSR investments for urban revitalization at and near central station areas, e.g. Liège-Guillemins.
Emma Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Brussels, Belgium is the high-speed rail HUB for ICE-D and NL, Thalys, Eurostar and TGV. I’ve been at the high-speed rail station in Brussels Eurostar, Thalys and TGV lined up. SO you could get the expertise of all European high-speed rails which would only benefit us.
I also strongly suggest to take advice from Japan as they have a more elongated state like California. In addition to that they built tracks that are safe from earthquakes. This is expertise that the Europeans cannot give us.
We should always look at how the others are doing it and adopt the best ideas from all systems. That saves us years of research and bad surprises.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Several HSR lines in France and Italy are in fact protected by earthquake sensor arrays, but the technology is derived from the one developed in Japan. The Japanese have so far been the only ones unlucky enough to have a high speed train actually derail during an earthquake (Joetsu 2004). The train did not capsize and no-one was hurt, but there was some luck involved in that.
Japanese railway engineers there have since developed guard rail systems that will greatly increase the chances that a train that jumps the tracks during an earthquake will return to them or else come to a full stop in the upright position. This improves the safety of passengers and crews. It also cuts down on the damage, if any, to the infrastructure and the downtime associated with repairs.
OT: Deutsche Bahn to invest 41 billion euros in their rail network between now and 2014 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100703/bs_afp/germanyrailcompanydeutschebahn
If this level of per capita investment were to take place in the US, that would be equivalent to investing about 190 billion dollars in rail over the same time-frame. Assuming for simplicity equal per capita investment across all states, California’s share would be approximately 23 billion. At that rate, we’d have $42 billion in under 8 years. For Germany, this is just par for the course, and they’re in the middle of austerity measures, too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10257902.stm
Emma Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Yes and on top of that you should know that Germany is a little bit smaller than California. This is how they do it. It is really sad that our federal government thinks it is doing us any favor with ridiculous $1.4 billion for all high speed rail projects in 2011. At that speed, it would take decades to build high-speed rail. And at that time, most of the technology will be outdated which means even higher costs for construction.
It is also no wonder that their government-owned railway company makes profit while Amtrak is far behind.
Grrr, is anyone else as annoyed as I am about the fact that they can’t figure out how to stream these meetings. I mean, c’mon.
Reality Check Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Maybe they don’t really want to enough. After all, what’s in it for them? They may just see it as fodder for more grief from the (remote) peanut gallery.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Go down the stairs to the basement. You’ll find an old filing cabinet. In the back of the 3rd drawer is the phone number for live streaming of the board meeting. It’s 213-922-6045. Beware of the black leopard.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
The CHSRA has streamed its meetings in Sacramento. But because they are in LA, at the MTA hq, they do not have the same amount of control over the broadcast.
Kathy Hamilton said that no one would drive 100 miles. Her whole top 10 theme made her bonehead comments seem cute. She said her eight articles on the Examiner, which anyone can pretty much write for, makes her “dangerous.”
Reality Check Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Indeed, Hamilton lives a stone’s throw away from the Stone Pine 3 musketeers Engel, Brown and Brady. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is also a neighbor.
dave Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
She’s the CHSR basher on the Examiner, I beleive she also lives next to the tracks in Menlo. Who would have guessed?
The LA River people were out in full effect. I need to start an advocacy group that wants to keep the concrete. Gotta tunnel under rich people. Gotta tunnel under poor people. And we gotta tunnel under rivers. Ridiculous.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
After all the car chase scenes that have been filmed in it, the concrete channel deserves some recognition as an historical site…..
Robert,
Adding SF service to a San Jose only route cannot lose riders. If it did, you would adjust schedules so it wouldn’t.
Here is short preso illustrating how messed up this is.
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/CARRD-_Ridership_Brief.ppt
To explain why it is so messed up, just look at the headways for Warm Springs, the ONLY East Bay station. Those numbers are in hours and minutes. Anything red is OVER an hour.
Headways http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Headways-for-Bay-Area-stations-2007-model-runs.xls
To give Cambridge credit, these headways came from Parsons Brinkerhoff. To give them grief, they should have insisted they fix them if they were going to put their name on the report.
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
1) AB3034 explicitly defines the starter line as “San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles to Anaheim”. You can’t terminate the starter line in San Jose and relegate SF to phase II, the law does not permit that.
San Jose is not part of the formal starter line definition, though politically it would be nigh-on impossible to completely eliminate Santa Clara county from the HSR equation without killing the entire project. This leads directly to the next problem: VTA has already purchased the only available right of way between Niles and San Jose in the East Bay. It intends to use it for the BART extension and, Santa Clara county voters twice endorsed sales tax hikes to make that possible.
Splitting the starter line in Redwood City instead of Fremont would still mean grade separating the southern portion of the Caltrain corridor, so Silicon Valley towns would gain little or nothing relative to Pacheco. On a side note, the turnoff curve toward Dumbarton is extremely tight, on the order of 600 feet.
2) The headways model comes from MTC, i.e. the BART cheerleading squad. A station in Warm Springs no longer makes sense now that broad gauge tracks will be extended all the way to a heavy maintenance facility in Santa Clara.
The spreadsheet doesn’t even include a station in Pleasanton, even though all of the Altamont alignments CHSRA did study way back included one. MTC ignored that, perhaps because Bernal Rd is not a BART station and the extension to Livermore wasn’t even a paper tiger back then.
As the HSR program consultants, Parsons Brinkerhoff was effectively Cambridge Systematics’ customer. If the customer gives you a data set to work off of, you might ask some questions if you think there might be a mistake. However, if the customer confirms the data, you don’t insist that he “fix” it before you put your name to the deliverable. Not if you ever want to do business with that customer again. We’re talking consulting here, not accounting.
morris brown Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Apparently what AB-3034 says must be done often isn’t done. The classic was of course, no business plan before the 2008 elelction.
But right now, the legislature is seeking to pass AB-289, which would take Prop 1A funds to match with Fed ARRA funds and use them, for among others things, construction. Yet AB-3034 cearly says, construction funds may only be allocated, when full funding for a segment or corridor is in place. This bill would by pass the part of AB-3034.
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
We’ve been over this before. CHSRA could not produce an updated business plan before the election because the state legislature failed to pass a budget in time – again. They said it would take them 45 days from the moment they got their funding and that’s exactly how long it took them.
If you want to blame someone for the lack of an updated business plan, blame state legislators and the Governor. They’re the ones who put CHSRA on a starvation budget of $1 million in 2007.
Better still, blame the nincompoops who wrote the state constitution. If you allow voters to approve bond obligations with a straight majority but then require a 2/3 majority of both houses of the legislature to pass a balanced budget, you’re guaranteed to end up in dire straits.
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Btw, you might want to consult a lawyer regarding AB-289. If it does what you claim, it may be unconstitutional. Common sense tells me the state legislature cannot pass laws that supersede those that were approved via a ballot initiative, since allowing that would negate the whole point of direct democracy. In other words, any changes to AB3034 ought to require a new ballot initiative.
Wrt the letter of that low: it actually restricts CHSRA to requesting prop 1A for constructing one or more corridors or usable segments thereof. In terms of the law, a segment is an undefined fraction of a corridor, which in turn is a well-defined fraction of the entire network. CHSRA has to meet a slew of requirements in addition to matching funds, including a completed EIS/EIR. Those restrictions were put in for very good reasons: rail infrastructure lasts for many decades, so major mistakes are going to cause problems for a very long time. Best to measure twice and cut once, as it were.
What might be possible is asking FRA for permission to reprogram funding requested for the SF peninsula to e.g. the Central Valley, on the grounds that the EIS/EIR for the former corridor can’t reasonably be finished (i.e. litigated) by the Sep 30, 2012 deadline set in ARRA. CHSRA will need FRA to write a “rule of special applicability” for the whole system, including the parameters for safe and environmentally acceptable (noise, vibration) operation above 150mph. The Central Valley is where the data for that rulemaking is going to be produced.
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I am not a lawyer (yet, give me another 5 months), but as I have been reminded, Prop 1A was not a constitutional amendment. It was a bond authorization measure, only. So the Legislature can make changes as it sees fit.
morris brown Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Sorry Peter — wrong. Rafael has it exactly right…
More than one lawyer has been consulted and their unanimous opinion is as a voter approved Proposition, the legislature cannot modify without going back to the voters.
Rafael, Ab-3034 defines as a minimum a portion of the project that will connect 2 stations.
Chapter 20, Article 1 section 2704.1 …
(g) “Usable segment” means a portion of a corridor that includes at least
two stations.
So “undefined in location”, but with definite length boundaries.
StevieB Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
AB 289 does not modify Prop 1A. The analysis you link to says the bill would make the exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act of reconstructing or eliminating existing railroad grade crossings now law be extended to the projects that are a component of the California high-speed rail system. The analysis then enumerates current law where law number seven is money already available for grade crossings. No funding change to what is currently law is stated in the analysis to this bill you linked other than a cost decrease due to not having to prepare an environmental impact report.
StevieB Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
AB 289 Analysis
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Check the date – that analysis is 1 year stale. The bill has morphed no less than 5 times since then. Do you need a link?
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Here’s the current bill in the Senate.
Here’s the analysis of the current Senate version.
It is currently about how to allocate the ARRA and PRIIA funding, in addition to funding Phase 2 planning and Altamont Corridor planning.
jim Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Legalistic nonsense. Once the Prop 1a money runs out, what has been built with it (and any federal money that it has leveraged) is what has been built. If it has reached SF, well and good. If it’s only reached SJ, then that’s where it’s reached. If it’s only reached Merced, then that’s where it’s reached. Another effort can then build on the legacy of CHSRA (perhaps run by the California High Speed Rail Board: CHSRB). That effort will not be constrained by AB-3034. In particular, it need not extend whatever was built under AB-3034 to San Francisco.
Oh, and please stop talking about “reprogramming” the ARRA money. It hasn’t been programmed yet. The Federal government has committed $1.85B to CHSRA based on a CHSRA proposal which in its entirety would cost much more. So that proposal needs to be descoped donw to $1.85B worth before FRA and CHSRA sign an agreement. The descoping can include California not providing any matching funds. The descoping can include limiting construction to only one of the the segments in the original proposal. This is Federal Contracting 101. And if what’s constructed using the $1.85B is enough to provide the data that FRA will need to write a rule of special applicability, FRA might consider that, in itself, enough independent utility to justify the expenditure under ARRA. In that case, there need not be revenue trains run along the constructed segment (which means you don’t have to spend a lot of money on stations — you can do that later, using AB-3034 funds, when you figure you can run revenue trains along an AB-3034 “usable segment”).
Don’t invent constraints on CHSRA. They have enough problems without people inventing new ones.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Jim, they haven’t said it but they have fantasies of using the money to build more BART and in their most secret fantasies to Reno and Bakersfield.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
These headways were the actual ones used in modeling pacheco vs altamont. They were in MTC’s files. Parsons Brinkerhoff was in charge of deciding on them.
Cambridge did forecasts for more than 50 different alternatives, including ones that just stopped in San Jose. I am not advocating stopping in San Jose. Those numbers are just interesting because you can see impact of San Francisco. You can see detailed results in this report http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090403113249_R8b_FINAL_Ridership_Report_2007-26-10_AXK.pdf starting at page 46.
The main Altamont alignments had a station called “bernal” that was basically the pleasonton/ livermore station, as well as Warm Springs – which was not at the junction of the SJ and SF lines, but off on the SJ lines.
Do not ask me to explain the whys of any of the alignments – my source is the headways file and the ridership results.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
My point is this: It is possible for such an addition to actually lose riders. It may be counter-intuitive, but it IS possible. It’s not legitimate to say “this flies in the face of what seems reasonable” because as a study, sometimes you get accurate results that do not seem reasonable.
If you have evidence that the loss is in error, then it’s worth discussing that evidence. I just think we need to shy away from the kind of arguments that say “these results run counter to my expectations, therefore they’re invalid.”
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
It’s also possible that monkeys might fly out of your ass, Robert.
It may be counter-intuitive, but it IS possible.
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Wasn’t there a song about that? Oh, wait, that was about brass monkeys.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
That funky monkey.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
My point is this: It is possible for such an addition to actually lose riders. It may be counter-intuitive, but it IS possible.
Choke… Choke…
rafael Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I went back and dug up Chapter 7 of the Bay Area to Central Valley “Final” Program EIS/EIR. The Draft Revisions CHSRA has prepared in response to the Atherton vs. CHSRA case don’t address ridership data because those were not ruled against.
Basically, CHSRA claims that serving just one terminus via Altamont would generate higher ridership than serving multiple termini. For example, serving just SJ would supposedly deliver 94.6 million trips per year, serving SJ+SF just 87.9m and SJ+SF+OAK just 81m. At first glance, this is completely counter-intuitive. The basis for the claim is that finite throughput capacity east of Fremont would lead to reduced service frequency at each terminus. For example, for SJ+SF the analysts assumed that 2/3 of trains would head to SF and just 1/3 to SJ. That would cut service frequency to SJ by a factor of 3 relative to an SJ-only scenario. Frequency to SF would be just 66.7% of that in the SF-only scenario. Thus, ridership gained in SF would supposedly be more than offset by ridership lost in SJ.
However, actually achieving these stratospheric absolute ridership numbers would imply main line traffic of 10-12 full-length trains with ~1000 seats and ~75% occupancy rate each, every hour, in each direction, for a full 15 hours of every day of the year. In other words, every single train leaving any one of the termini would already have to be at full length (1/4 mile), such that splitting and recombining in Fremont would no longer be possible. Just ten years after the start of operations, ridership would already be limited by the number of seats that could be supplied rather than by the number of people who demand to travel up and down the state.
However, this scenario is far from realistic: even in Japan, France and Germany – countries that have had HSR for decades and where factors external to HSR (e.g. gas taxes, road tolls) heavily favor travel by train – no single line is so congested that every train is at full length on the main line. Train splitting and recombining are absolutely standard everyday operations there, it increases the number of passengers per hour that the busiest main line sections can support. Just because distributed traction technology now lets train vendors offer full-length trainsets that cannot be split doesn’t mean that operators will actually buy those configurations – at least not in large numbers.
By contrast, CHSRA argues that serving SJ+SF via Pacheco would supposedly generate 94 million trips (vs. 80m for SJ only) because every train would serve both cities. A southbound train would leave SF e.g. half-full and pick up additional passengers in the peninsula and San Jose.
Conclusion: the assertion that the limit ridership potential of the starter line would actually be reduced by splitting it at the northern end is technically correct. What’s highly questionable is how relevant that would be in the real world. If the operator achieves just 2/3 of the numbers forecast for SOP+10yrs, the system will be so incredibly popular that there will be strong voter demand – and willingness to pay – for expanding network capacity by laying additional track. Indeed, CHSRA is laying the groundwork for that by exploring the Altamont overlay, which could lead to actions designed to preserve precious right of way for future use.
Perhaps a more sober interpretation is that in the very early years of operation, the operator will struggle to turn an operating profit unless trains run every 10-15 minutes and the majority of them stops in both SF and SJ to put enough bums in seats. HSR is a very capital-intensive technology, the fixed costs are very high even if taxpayers are willing to exclude debt service on the starter line. The finances only pencil out if you can ramp up ridership to high levels within a few short years of start of operations.
Final note: SJ-only via Altamont came in at 94.6 million, SJ-only via Pacheco at just 80 million. Implicitly, even CHSRA’s analysts admit there’s huge latent demand for HSR travel in the Bay Area-Sacramento market.
Clem Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
The drop in ridership with decreasing frequency is of course the result of the flawed parameter used to ‘tune’ (i.e. game) the ridership model to obtain an arbitrary and politically motivated outcome. The optimal solution, if one may construct a (flawed) scenario to fit the (flawed) ridership model, would be to send all trains on a trunk line running Altamont – SJ – SF. The few minutes added to the SF trip time would be more than compensated by the massive ridership stimulated by frequent SF service. That such a non-split Altamont option was never considered speaks volumes… It would have looked too good.
Not that it matters, since planners are reportedly reacting to the peninsula uproar by potentially turning some trains in SJ… Gasp! Just like the dreaded train splitting! Ridership is doomed!
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 3:43 am
Actually, the idea of Altamont-via-San-Jose was studied, in the the context of alternative #9 which also included Oakland. It was rejected because of massive line haul penalties having to reverse direction in San Jose would supposedly generate:
SF-LA 3:17, SJ-LA 2:19. Elsewhere: SF-SJ in 30 minutes. Deduct wet from dry: CHSRA claims there would need to be a 28 minute dwell in SJ en route to LA. Complete BS for electric trainsets with cabs at either end.
SF-Sac 1:39, SJ-Sac 0:49. Again, SF-SJ in 0:30. Deduct wet from dry: CHSRA claims there would need to be a 20 minute layover in SJ en route to Sac. Still complete BS, but even more so because the dwell duration is different from the one for trains headed to LA.
Even with these bogus dwell times in SJ and the third terminus at Oakland (supposedly detrimental to ridership), the ridership numbers for this scenario came out just 3% below the Altamont base case of SF+SJ with a split in Fremont.
Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense would implement Altamont-without-a-new-Bay-crossing with the South Bay station in either Santa Clara/SJC (if tracks to Fremont ran in I-880 corridor, studied) or else in Milpitas (if tracks ran in the 237 corridor and across to Calaveras Rd, not studied). Either option would enable a transfer station to the BART extension plus run-through tracks. The Sunol-Midtown neighborhood of San Jose, targeted for transit-oriented development, would be just a short Caltrain or BART ride from a Santa Clara/SJC station. If that’s unacceptable to the city of San Jose, the 280 and 680 medians could be leveraged at the expense of additional miles of track.
Unfortunately, tracks in any of the South Bay freeway corridors would be extremely difficult to get an EIS/EIR for and construct. The continuation east to Altamont Pass (or Patterson Pass or Tesla/Corral Hollow Rd) would involve a lot of mountainous terrain and/or NIMBY burgs. Basically, you’d end up with all the headaches of running tracks through Silicon Valley plus all of those of running tracks through the East Bay.
Still, if the whole “iconic”-bridge-plus-Monterey-Hwy-to-east-of-101-in-Gilroy strategy craters, CHSRA may yet be forced to concede defeat and revisit the idea of running the starter line via Altamont. Plan A remains Pacheco.
—
Salient nugget of contrition on PDF p146 of the Revised Draft Program EIR Material (dated Mar 4 2010) for the Bay Area to CV section:
“It is the conclusion of this analysis that both the Pacheco Pass and the Altamont Pass alternatives have high ridership potential and that ridership and revenue do not differentiate between these alternatives.”
Clem Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:07 am
CHSRA claims there would need to be a 28 minute dwell in SJ en route to LA.
You are correct that this is totally bogus. Deutsche Bahn routinely turns ICE high-speed trains in less than five minutes at Frankfurt Main Hbf (one of the busiest stations in all of Europe) as well as Stuttgart Hbf.
anyone with an ounce of common sense would implement Altamont-without-a-new-Bay-crossing with the South Bay station in either Santa Clara/SJC
But then it woundn’t serve the Diridon station, would it?
Again, this ridership study has a finger on the scale in just about every scenario considered. It’s not hard to do it over, as Elizabeth has stated: unconstraining or changing a single parameter, without changing the underlying model, is a matter of just a few hours of work.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“But then it woundn’t serve the Diridon station, would it?”
Sure it would. Just call it Santa Clara Diridon station.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
We suggested just such a routing in our comments:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/CARRD-Ridership-comments-for-Program-Level-EIR.pdf
Even if it is not the final solution, it might be an interesting phase 1 solution.
Sara Armstrong Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Sorry, about the broken link. The link is: http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/CARRD-Ridership-Brief.ppt
(our webmaster is fired! :)
morris brown Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Sara: thanks for positing this. Tomorrow the Authority is supposed to have up audio/visual of the meeting — it will be nice to hear Elizabeth’s voice go along with this.
Nadia Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I don’t believe she was allowed to show it – so she posted it instead.
Posting from the train so sorry for the triple post, but to be fair to Elizabeth, two minutes is not really enough time to present evidence. I wish I could have stayed for her comments but I had to return some books to the library and I didn’t want to stay until 2.
As someone who will soon be embarking into the world of graduate level economics, I found the spat between Cambridge and ITS fascinating. Hopefully I will be able to understand it more fully in two years!
I’m unmotivated to doing any research or field work on this subject myself, but perhaps somebody with a clue could explain why it is not technically possible or technically desirable (note: I’m after rational arguments, not CHSRA/Caltrain/Metrolink-type made-up make-believe justifications) to have Metrolink’s LA-Burbank-Sylmar-Palmdale trains be HSR-compatible non-steam-age, post-19th-century, non-FRA technology, sharing tracks and stations and platforms in the corridor.
The level of passenger traffic is minimal; what possible justification can there be for an entirely separate, parallel and 19th century train service when the costs of slotting it into the shiny new infrastructure might be very low?
Likewise Metrolink LA-Burbank-Moorpark? Assuming it can’t be un-FRAd (my understanding/prejudice/imagination is that there is non-negligable freight traffic), then how about running it as a shuttle that terminates at Burbank with direct transfer to fast, non-FRA trains into LA? (Note: transfers don’t “kill ridership” if arranged half-way competently.)
I know of course there’s freight LA-Burbank and that getting rid of FRA tracks isn’t remotely an option; but could far more be done with the same or a smaller number of tracks by getting all passenger trains (Amtrak relics excepted, probably) onto passenger tracks, operating at speed and reliably and on a schedule (ie non-Amtrak style) and away from the lumbering freight beasts?
Curious and ignorant here.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
..oh you mean like they do it in the rest of the world? Nah, it has something to do with palm trees though I’m beginning to theorize that it’s something in the water from the Sierras…
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Richard, would you be expected a quad track shared solution in the Basin like the FRA waiver for Caltrain? Or are we talking separate passenger and freight traffic. It would reduce the possible frequency for HSR if Metrolink were to share the same tracks due to closer stopping patterns although it would be nice for Metrolinks to take advantage of the new infrastructure to make it more competetive with HSR.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 4:21 am
Other than funding for some new rolling stock, there is no reason at all why Metrolink could not change its business model to run a strictly regional HSR line between Palmdale and LA, in addition to the legacy standard-speed services in other corridors. Same for Caltrain between SF and Gilroy or for that matter, Amtrak SJ between Bakersfield and Merced/Sacramento.
CHSRA is a planning body, not a railway operator.
The only caveat is that regional HSR trains could not stop everywhere the current services do, unless there are sufficiently long sidings to let express trains pass without incurring unreasonable dwell times. This is essentially a function of aggregate throughput, platform height issues are just the cherry on top.
See also our earlier post on HiSpeed Services and Branding.
Fwiw, I fully expect Metrolink will truncate its Antelope Valley line to Santa Clarita the minute HSR goes live – regardless of who ends up operating that. Whatever ridership Metrolink currently has through Soledad Canyon will simply disappear. East of Santa Clarita, my guess is the line will be abandoned or turned into a tourist attraction, cp. the Niles Canyon Railroad or something associated with either Six Flags or Disney. Crucially, the land the single SCRRA-owned track between Lancaster and Palmdale is on could be sold to CHSRA to ease the right-of-way conflict with UPRR.
Oakland Tribune editorial:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_15458790
Another blow to the high-speed rail fantasy
Here is a wonderful idea:
“The best course of action now would be to abandon the high-speed train fantasy, spend the $2.25 billion in federal funds on more realistic rail projects and not sell any of the bonds.”
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Sorry Morris, but editorials by default are not “news”. They’re simply some random person’s opinion on something that they mostly know nothing about.
Bianca Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
What makes you think California would get to keep a penny of that $2.25 billion if we did that? The Federal government would yank that grant money back faster than a speeding bullet train.
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Actually, how about if we spend the 2.25 billion on electrifying the Caltrain corridor and completely grade-separating it? Would that be a “more realistic rail project” that would meet with your approval? Oh wait, but that would end up with the same result as HSR: A grade-separated railroad going past your house?
morris brown Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
There is a lot of support to electrify CalTrain. Doing the whole SF to SJ corridor with train sets estimated to be around 1.3 billion. Add in grade seps, and you are in the 5.5 billion range (CalTrain’s numbers)
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 4:37 am
Electrification without full grade separation will give you cleaner air. Considering Caltrain’s diesel fleet is in need of replacement and strict EPA Tier 4 emissions for new diesel locomotives go live in 2015, the air quality gain relative to the alternative wouldn’t even be all that large. The greater benefit would be access to SF’s Transbay Terminal. Running diesel multiple units through a long tunnel and into an underground station would theoretically be possible but introduce significant respiratory health and fire safety hazards.
More significant is that IMHO, Caltrain would never get environmental clearance to double its rush hour traffic volume without full grade separation of the entire corridor. At the forecast 10tph (each way), any remaining grade crossings would be closed so frequently that motorists wouldn’t put up with the delays. Talk about “bisecting the community”.
Btw, do you have a reference for that $5.5 billion number? Which type of grade seps did Caltrain rely on to arrive at that estimate?
Without more frequent and longer trains, there is no way Caltrain could triple its ridership and sharply reduce its operating subsidy per passenger.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The LIRR has grade crossings even on the Main Line, which runs 26 tph peak.
Peter Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
How busy are they in terms of cars?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Published Wednesday, December 17, 2003, in the Japan Times
Barriers stay down at rail crossings
As many as 500 railroad crossings in Japan are closed to road traffic
for a total of 40 or more minutes an hour during peak train traffic,
the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry said Tuesday.
Six crossings in Tokyo were found to remain closed for as long as an
hour, while 11 crossings in Tokyo and the cities of Osaka and Yokohama
were only open for one minute per hour.
To help street-traffic flow, the ministry said it will undertake such
measures as construction of bridges and underpasses for 27 crossings
by the end of March, and for another 40 at a later date.
The 500 crossings include 266 in Tokyo, 102 in Osaka and 74 in
Kanagawa Prefecture. Eleven other prefectures have crossings with
frequently closed bars, the ministry said.
Peter Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“Six crossings in Tokyo were found to remain closed for as long as an
hour, while 11 crossings in Tokyo and the cities of Osaka and Yokohama
were only open for one minute per hour.”
DAMN!!!!
Alon Levy Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I have no idea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Lots. The MTA has videos of the busier ones, with a voiceover explaining why they want to grade separate and add a third track.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The 10 trains per hour is utterly insane crack-smoking nonsense from our underachieving unprofessional friends at the Peninsula Rail Program.
Show me a suburban corridor anywhere in the world with that level of service based on anything like Caltrain’s current or best possible future levels of patronage.
To double its rush hour passenger numbers (which is not the same things as running twice as many under-used trains) Caltrain just needs to operate a better, more efficient service, one that doesn’t involve total bullshit like hour gaps between trains at peak hour(!!!!!!).
Luckily, this is very simple to do.
Unluckily, Caltrain is staffed and its “planning” is done by certified morons whose idea of a corridor upgrade is to completely abandon half the corridor, completely give up the idea of overtaking express trains (on an 80kmh inter-city corridor! world class!!!), choose to lock themselves out of the CBD station of the highest use station by far in their system, and to propose, somehow, using funding that doesn’t exist and never will exist, to wastefully throw twice as many trains at “serving” the corridor as can possibly be sustained or justified. Their bizarre operating plan is quite literally without precedent anywhere in the world … which either tells you that Caltrain just so happened to hire a team of super-genius transportation planners who have insights that nobody else on the planet has ever managed, or …
Anyway, 10tph on Caltrain isn’t going to happen. It isn’t necessary, it’s in nobody’s interests (save Caltrain operating and maintenance crews) and there’s no way to pay for it. Forget it.
But also forget the idea of grade crossings. They have to go. They will go. So let’s do them correctly.
(Which means elevating Caltrain at every location on the corridor except 16th Street in San Francisco.)
Grade separations (done correctly, ie not by Caltrain’s sub-human engineering staff) are pretty much an unqualified good.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Anyway, 10tph on Caltrain isn’t going to happen.
But there will be those pesky HSR trains which the crossing gates will close for. Current Caltrain service and 4 HSR trains per hour gets you to ten.
Bianca Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 7:32 am
So Morris, if the money fell out of the sky to completely electrify and grade separate Caltrain, without High Speed Rail, would you support that?
Peter Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
I don’t even see the point of asking him that. He can say “of course” with the knowledge that he will never be held to that.
Bianca Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:04 am
All the same, I’d like to see his answer.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 8:20 am
and the thing is once you electrify Caltrain there’s no technical reason why HSR trains couldn’t use the same tracks. Regulatory hurdles but no technical reasons why not.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
MNG papers have been editorializing against this since 2008. To quote FDR, “I welcome their hatred.”
And as Bianca said, that $2.25 billion can’t be used for other things. However, as the editorial ignores, that money does have to be used for things that have “independent utility” so it won’t build half-finished ramps in the sky.
OT: For those interested in Caltrain Electrification – Caltrain will be presenting the details about Electrification at a special PCC meeting on Friday, July 16th in Belmont (NEW LOCATION), 8:15 – 10:15 a.m. Belmont City Council Chambers, One Twin Pines Lane (behind El Camino Real Safeway). Come and hear for yourselves what the plan is and how ARRA money *may* be spent on this project….
This story out of Washington State, about a bunch of NIMBYs in a wealthy suburb flipping out about passenger rail, should at least make us feel a bit better about the NIMBYs in wealthy CA suburbs flipping out about passenger rail. We’re not alone in being afflicted by people who are convinced passenger rail with destroy their communities, when in fact it’s a gift to their property values.
Peter Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
A telling link from the comments to that article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra%2C1434/
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 12:32 am
That article is hilarious!
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others
“Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that.”
“My drive to work is unbelievable. I spend more than two hours stuck in 12 lanes of traffic. It’s about time somebody did something to get some of these other cars off the road.”
“Most people, unlike me, probably work near someone they know and don’t need to be driving alone.”
the APTA is kicking off a campaign to promote mass transit with the slogan, “Take The Bus… I’ll Be Glad You Did.”
Here’s a shocking little factoid (pulled out of a report) that should not be ignored:
Public transit has not caught on.
The share of the workforce commuting on public transit in the state’s four largest metropolitan areas barely increased from 5.5 percent in 1990 to 5.6 percent in 2006, despite the introduction and expansion of several light rail and commuter rail systems.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 3:55 am
It’s an article on http://www.theonion.com, forcrissakes. It’s satire.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 4:13 am
Naw. Really?!
(That’s sarcasm.)
Spokker Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Of course it’s satire, but there’s also a good bit of truth in there. If people vote for transit initiatives based on the idea that it will reduce traffic, they are in for a disappointment.
To counter that, we cannot hoodwink the voting public into believing that rail transit will reduce their automobile commute time. Instead, we have to stress that rail transit increases capacity so that cities can grow without becoming as gridlocked in the future.
Anti-rail advocates point to increasing vehicle volumes on roadways adjacent to rail corridors and conclude that rail transit doesn’t work. The question to ask instead is, what would roadway volume be if the railroad did not exist?
Traffic is going to continue to get worse with or without rail.
“The Berkeley ITS study also believes it is not realistic for people to simply show up at a station and take the next available train.”
That a rather ignorant claim, because that is how I take trains on the Northeast Corridor on the return leg of business trips. I have been taking day round trips from Washington DC to NYC every 2-3 weeks. For the early AM trip from Union Station in DC (WAS) to Penn Station in NYC (NYP), I buy the ticket in advance because I am on a tight schedule in the morning and want to take the Acela which is pricey for last minute tickets. But I don’t know when I will be done for the day and get back to Penn Station. So I get to NYP, walk up to the Quik Trak machine and buy a ticket for one of the next trains heading to WAS. The 5 and 6 PM Acelas heading south from NYP are often sold out (and expensive), so I usually take one of the next NEC Regionals heading to DC. I have gotten into the Amtrak area at NYP, brought a ticket, and gotten on a train leaving in the next ten minutes. No biggie.
I have been reading this blog, posts, and articles about the CA HSR plan for a while now. I find a lot of the objections from the NIMBYs to range from bizarre to ignorant. It is obvious many of them have no idea how the NEC works or that a lot of people ride it every day. Maybe if some reporters from the west coast were to ride the NEC, see that people actually ride electrified trains, and imagine a CA HSR system that is much faster with a MUCH nicer view from the window, maybe they won’t fight the CA plan as much.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:07 am
Some HSR systems, e.g. the TGV network in France, require advance seat reservations to avoid standees. However, even that is not a major hurdle to “catching the next train” as you can take care of it by sending a quick text message on your cell phone if you already hold an unrestricted ticket. Electronic tickets can be purchased online and printed at home or at the office.
Of course, discounted tickets can only be changed for an additional fee (analogous to discount air fares).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 8:37 am
What Alan said. Technically all Amtrak trains are reserved. In practice that means you have to go to the TVM and create or change your reservation if you want to catch the next train. You do run the risk of having the train sold out.
Alan, unless time is tight use the agents in the Acela lounge… they might be able to find seats on an Acela at a good price that the TVMs don’t have.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Even the TGV has express reservations. At Gare de Lyon, there’s a special line for booking trains 20 minutes in advance. The tickets sold are more expensive than the advance tickets, making it profitable for SNCF to maintain those extra booths.
Speaking of ridership projections—-(Excuse the long quote from the LA Times)
“It’s caused, I think, a lot of problems when it turns out later that the actual ridership is way off from the forecasts”, said UC Irvine professor David Brownstone. “This is a problem with almost all existing work. Is Professor Brownstone saying that that almost all ridership forecasts are way off?
If there is, as he implies, a deluxe, platinum forecast model that comes with a 100 per cent guarantee of accuracy, then maybe the legislature should spend a few million more and get it done. But since the existing forecast by Cambridge seems to be about as good as any other forecasts that have been done, lets keep HSR moving forward.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I guess you haven’t read Flyvbjerg’s work (yes, that is spelled correctly. no, I don’t know how to pronouce it). Cambridge actually cited him in their retort, which was kind of odd.
This http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/derailing-the-boondoggle-4334/ is a nice of overview of his work.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 12:40 am
Bent Flyvbjerg’s work is a must-read for anyone who wants to better understand the extravagances and dreadful planning of this megaproject. The ITS study actually pulled its punches in assuming that Cambridge Systematics just made honest errors in judgment and didn’t rig the model, but Flyvbjerg doesn’t pull his punches. He’s quite clear: they are lying to you.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 3:53 am
Did Flyvbjerg actually study the California HSR project or are you just extrapolating from his general conclusions on large public works projects?
For reference, consider that the “cost overruns” on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for lots of such projects, even if they were totally mismanaged.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
So, to sum up this endlessly repeated “argument”:
“XXX is OK because George Bush is a sleazebag” where in this case “XXX” = “PBQD and allied consultants systematically defrauding the voters and taxpayers of California and the USA“. Who can possibly argue with rhetoric like that?
(And then there’s “Argument” Number Two: “YYY doesn’t matter because … PEAK OIL!“)
I hate being a greenie and a leftie; the intellectual company one keeps is so dispiriting.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that it’s ok to waste money just because the previous administration did as well. My point is that if you’re going to criticize government megaprojects for being wasteful, don’t ignore the elephant in the room.
rafael Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:15 am
Btw: Japanese railway planners did in fact deliberately lie about the cost and initial ridership of the shinkansen system. There was probably a big stink about that a few years after the start of operations, but afaik the Japanese are now quite happy they were duped back then.
That, however, does not prove that CHSRA has deliberately lied as well.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 8:13 am
I’m not not making any insinuations. In this case, someone asked if ALL forecasts have been bad. Flyvbjerg’s work says yes, particularly fixed rail.
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Elizabeth, “Flyvbjerg’s work says yes, particularly fixed rail” is a pretty absurd statement. After Denver, Salt City City, and Charlotte light rail systems all had one or more new system or lines come in WAY over ridership projections, some of those were on or under budget too. There are more systems in the past ten years than those but you would need to google to find out the exact number.
Flyvbjerg’s work is out of date and to ignore reality and continue to parrot it shows either ignorance or a malicious intent to deceive, in order to demonize rail as a “failure.” I’m pretty sure you have honestly been taking him at face-value as an “expert” but his work is no longer current and should not be quoted as gospel. The Wendell Coxs of the world are still pushing it to hide the fact that most rail projects now over-deliver at or below budget.
Rafael makes an important point that you ignored as well. Despite the well documented lying that was involved getting the first shinkansen line built, it is universally acclaimed as a success. The political were wrong in being such cheapskates. Probably because, like you, they could not imagine is was possible for HSR to be as popular and successful as it was there/will be here.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Flyvbjerg’s work is out of date…
At the moment we behold all the problems and mindless boosterism with the Central Subway, BART-to-San Jose, the Oakland Airport Connector, HOT-lanes-masquerading-as-highway-widening…??? Get real. The Big Dig was only completed finally a few years ago.
Oxford didn’t think his work was out of date when they recently hired him.
And, yes, Flyvbjerg fits the definition of ‘expert’:
http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/
http://www.st-annes.ox.ac.uk/about/people/profile/details/bent-flyvbjerg.html
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
The Big Dig was only completed finally a few years ago.
The parts they started are finished. There’s a lot on the MBTA’s wish list for mass transit that was supposed to done with the upgrade that hasn’t been done yet.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
That, however, does not prove that CHSRA has deliberately lied as well.
The ridership numbers in the model obviously don’t add up. So the question is: are they deliberately lying, or just don’t know any better?
I believe the answer is the latter. And that is very scary. I would prefer that they were simply lying.
Joey Reply:
July 9th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Well, when you ask politicians to make technical decisions you end up with political decisions. Big surprise.
rafael Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 9:40 am
There’s a difference between numbers that literally don’t add up and numbers that you feel are not credible.
Can you point to a bona fide hard error in the math?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 10:35 am
So why should 1800 monkeys per second flying out of Rafael’s ass be a more credible number than 39000 per second? Hah! Just try to find the bona fide (that’s Sanskrit for “overhead conductor system”) hard error.
A positive note at the bottom of the L.A. Times coverage of the board meeting article State panel defends ridership and revenue estimates for high-speed rail project