August 2010 CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread
The California High Speed Rail Authority is holding its August meeting this morning in San Francisco. The agenda is here. I do not believe this is going to be livestreamed or anything owing to the fact that it’s not at the usual Sacramento location.
This meeting is likely to be more eventful than most. Alongside further discussion of the Merced-Fresno and San Francisco-San José alignments, the board is also expected to decide which of the four eligible segments (SF-SJ, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, LA-Anaheim) it will submit to the FRA for funding. (See update below for more on this.)
There are good arguments for each of the four segments. Californians For High Speed Rail is neutral on which of these should be selected – we’ll be happy with any of them, as it would represent a big step forward in getting the high speed rail project underway. I’m sure there will be discussion of this in the comments, and I look forward to reading those.
UPDATE: The SF-SJ Supplemental Alternatives Analysis is now posted on the CHSRA website. Looking at the documents, they’ve ruled out a stacked tunnel and deep-bore tunnel due to the community’s desire to have a narrow ROW footprint. What will be carried forward are elevated, at-grade, or a trench.
In other words, the Peninsula had to decide what’s more important to them: keeping the project within the current ROW so as to avoid eminent domain uses on houses, or tunnelling the tracks and consequently needing a wider ROW at the transitions, thus requiring more eminent domain takes. Based on the feedback the CHSRA has received, the narrow ROW seemed the greater priority. That strikes me as being very sensible.
UPDATE 2: It doesn’t appear that the CHSRA will actually be choosing one of the segments today, but will be developing plans for each, as Elizabeth accurately explained in the comments.
Almost positive it will be a CV segment where they will get the most bang for the buck. I wish it would be SF-SJ just to get it over with though.
Scott Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I’m hoping they’ll choose a segment where they can demonstrate the full 220 mph capability of CAHSR, since I think this will help rally public support.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
YES the valley for sure!! real HSR section..now that LA-ANA looks headed for 90MPH and nimbys are about to make SF-SJ the 7billion dollar man segment
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
SF-SJ will only be that expensive if the Board selects the trench alternative in the EIR. I personally am guessing that the Draft EIR will conclude that the trench alternative is not acceptable.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Well thats is going to be a real Bear..I dare say there will be trenchs in many of the locations ..wait till your hear the whinning that its not underground tunnels!
I would be happy with any segment, just for the sake of seeing actual construction start. Hoping for LA-Anaheim, as I believe that it would entail the LAUS upgrade, the bridge over the 101, and the improved Amtrak/Metrolink service via the run through tracks.
With the HSR/Caltrain train box in SF getting built as part of the TBT in about 6 months, and assuming the LA-Anaheim segment gets picked today, you would essentially have work started on both ends.
RT
StevieB Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Metrolink has had an envirmental report on run through tracks at LAUS since 2005 and has started work. Metrolink also has plans for additional track between LAUS and Anaheim. The central valley with the promise of 350kph operation would show the capabilities of the system.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:58 am
It is my understanding that the LAUS run through track project had not begun as there is no funding for it. Also, the Authority is likely to be the entity that builds run through tracks (for at least the HSR trains and most likely Metrolink/Amtrak trains) at this point and they envision a much straighter alignment as the tracks approach LAUS for the south. It is lilely that the 2005 EIR will be superceded by the Authority project-level document.
RubberToe Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:07 am
I believe this is correct, cause I’m not aware of any run through construction. Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was money for additional track between LAUS and Anaheim, though not sure if that is in addition to the 2 shared tracks or part of the tracks to be used by the freight and longer distance Amtrak trains. That may already be in the works like Stevie mentioned. We will know much more after today.
StevieB Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:37 am
The first phase of construction is removal of the mail truck facility at the east end of the station and replacement of the track and platform. I read on trainorders.com that, “The mail and express platform has been dismantled and track 14 is going in”. There is a photo of the track.
OT: Cnet article on busway in China.
China’s elevated bus drives above cars – by Liane Yvkoff
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20012633-48.html
This way you could have the express carpool lanes and the busway (i.e. light rail) which could feed TOD and other rail systems.
Reality Check Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:28 am
This is the bus equivalent of monorail … it’ll all be real big, real soon now, any day now. Just you wait! Video simulation masturbation is about as far as it’ll get. Just like the “Brillant Concept Non-Stop Train“.
wu ming Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
this is totally hilarious, if you’ve ever actually seen the way that chinese traffic works. they may as well put monster truck wheels on those buses and let them crush the cars directly.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I have a question.
Based on an animated video that was posted earlier, this thing runs on rails (very wide gauge) and has pantographs; in other words, it’s a super trolley! Why does everyone insist on calling it a bus?
Super Trolley could make connections with Super Train! :-D
http://nbc_supertrain.tripod.com/
Sorry–I–I–couldn’t–resist–
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Actually, it doesn’t run on rails. It runs on rubber tires.
Matthew Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Actually, it doesn’t run at all, but various reports in different news outlets have said it could either use rails or be implemented with rubber tires and painted lines. In the case of rubber tires and painted lines, cameras would be pointed at the street and automatically control the “bus” so that it drives on the lines.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Hey, we already built something like it, back in 1976, complete with atomic power! Zowie!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus
http://jalopnik.com/5472143/bus-world-talks-about-the-cyclops/gallery/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8E0mazRe4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPpBGsFddao&feature=related
From a dubbed version for export:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3y7zDZnyq0&NR=1
Help me! Help me! I”m going insane! AAAAAAhhhhhh!
The supplemental AA is now posted online. They got rid of the tunneling option. They have 3 options going forward, basically the first one is a combination of aerial and at-grade, and the second one is at-grade with many areas of open trench to satisfy the NIMBY crowd. The stacked tunnel configuration presented too many problems, including constrained operations and ROW access when having to transition from that configuration to the at grade configuration.
Looks like the DEIR that comes out later this year will explore these 2 options, and cost them as well. Then it comes down to how much more the trenches cost, and whether the authority can afford it.
RT
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
open trench is more than fine..it removes the tracks from view and clears the roads..IF any complainers want tunnels and roofs its on their dime..
They are absolutely not going to choose a segment today. Their plan is to have a plan.
They are coming up with plans for all four segments and hoping to have the problem of having to pick among them if more than one gets to the finish line (finish line defined as having intercity-utility and being environmentally cleared by Sept 2011).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Yep, that’s what I’ve been hearing as well.
John Burrows Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:02 am
The addendum to the CAHSRA 2009 business plan (table A-1) shows how far each segment has traveled through the environmental process as of April 2010. Before Federal ARRA funds can be committed, each section needs to pass eleven milestones and receive a Record of Decision/ Notice of Decision.
At the time of the addendum, Los Angeles-Anaheim at 61% complete was much further along the environmental path than Fresno-Bakersfield, Merced-Fresno, or San Francisco-San Jose. However, the table shows Merced-Fresno receiving its Record of Decision/ Notice of Decision (NOD/ROD) in August 2011, one month before the other three sections. Anyone want to bet on Merced-Fresno?
jim Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 7:20 am
I don’t understand this. Are they proposing an application to FRA that says, in effect, “Give us a billion dollars; we don’t know what we’ll spend it on right now, but here are some possibilities; we’ll decide which we want to do in a year or so.”? Do they have any assurance that FRA would consider such an application?
Peter Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 7:36 am
We don’t actually have to apply for the money right away. The application isn’t due for a few months yet.
jim Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Well, it depends on what money they’re applying for, but the deadline for the 2010 HSIPR funds (the $2.5B) is 5PM EDT today, a bit under three hours from now.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:16 am
The one that they propose to the FRA will obviously have to have a finished plan. So they are working on four, and the set(s) of plans finished on time will decide whether they have one, two, three or four to choose from.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Kind of.
The FRA wants the money to go to one segment. They would like California to decide on that segment now. California is going along with the one segment part, but not the decide now. If any of the sections get done in time, it will be with zero time to spare. This also maintains a certain pressure on everyone involved to get along and go along…
Apparently in October the FRA will have reviewed the revised applications and let California know if they are okay. The big question mark is whether they will buy that upgrading Caltrain is improving inter-city rail. So it is very possible that by October the Bay Area could actually be knocked out of the running.
There is another complication and that is the state match part. None of the current applications would appear to meet the qualifications in AB3034, the California law that governs use of the bond money. The legislators might try and get creative to fix this, but it is harder to mess with a law that went to the ballot than one that just went through the legislature.
Anyway, the applications including the calculations of intercity benefits should either be posted soon by the Authority or will come out via public records requests.
jim Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Rereading the staff memo it looks like they’re going to submit (by now, have submitted) four separate applications, each leveraging the ARRA money differently. The risk the board took of not deciding between segments is that FRA will decide for them by selecting a particular one of the applications to fund!
I don’t think the state match is really a complication. These applications are legally binding documents, committing California to state matches. Where the funds come from for the match is an internal California issue. If they can’t come from AB3034 bond money, then they’ll have to come from some other pot. California might have argued, just on the ARRA money, that its state match was contingent on the full application being funded. Since FRA had only partially funded, CA didn’t have to live up to its commitment. But the new applications will all reinforce the original match and commit to achieving particular milestones with a specific mix of federal and state money. And having made that commitment, California will have to fund it.
I think the West Chowchilla design option looks like a good solution to reduce the impacts on Chowchilla.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Looks like the curve radii would restrict speeds though.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Yeah, it would add some time to LA-Sacramento, without affecting SF-LA times. And it would save 10 miles of track, for a savings of probably about $500 million.
The appendices for the supplemental AA for the SF-SJ segment are posted in the Library section of the CAHSR website.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Can someone please explain to me what the F**K they are thinking with page 12 of Appendix C “Typical Sections”? Is this meant to save space at any and all costs?
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
But how do FOUR side platforms at one location save space? Wouldn’t two island platforms save more space, in addition to enabling cross-platform transfers and offering better passenger flow? Even two side platforms and one island platform would be better for passenger flow.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I would think that an island platform is going to slightly narrower than comparable side platforms. I suspect that they are exploring all possible options. Keeps the CAD guys busy and when the 4000 pages of documentation is delivered by hand to every household in the same universe as the proposed structures no one will complain – of file lawsuits – that all the options where not exhausted.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Yes, but TWO island platforms are going to take up more space than ONE island platform.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Sorry, TWO side platforms are going to take up more space…
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Interestingly, it’s not the worst cross-section they’ve come up with. They had one with 197 feet across. I still think they should simply build two island platforms, but if they have to go with one island and two side platforms, that would be an “ok” compromise.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I’ll qualify that before Richard blows up on me: “that would be an “ok” compromise except for the fact that it doesn’t allow cross-platform transfers between HSR and Caltrain.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
“Grotesque levels of unprofessionalism and limitless technical incompetency” pretty much sums it up for the Peninsula Rail Program. But that neglects “habitual and blatant mendacity”, which is another core attribute.
America’s Finest Transportation Professionals,
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
How? “America’s finest transportation professionals” sums it up.
Remember, they’re defrauding you of your tax dollars at the same time as they’re perjuring themselves!
It’s go-go win-win synergy all the time at the Peninsula Rail Program!
Sounds like San Bruno will be f*&ked up for a long time
“2C(1): Aerial Viaduct, At Grade, Open Trench, Covered Trench. These options are not compatible with the San
Bruno Grade Separation Project and would require significant re-work to the San Bruno project’s design concept,
potentially jeopardizing its current funding.”
Well, they made the right choice and selected Brisbane as the preferred maintenance facility location.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
But wait … they’re planning it for the EAST side of the tracks…
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Well, if the eastern location requires less environmental remediation (super-expensive), then it might be cheaper to build the maintenance facility there.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I’m inclined to believe that they just didn’t want to interfere with the city’s development plans.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Yeah, that does seem more likely.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
What about this?
http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/project/baylands-map-may2010.pdf
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Well, that would still throw a wrench in the city’s plans, then. I foresee discussions and negotiations between Brisbane and the Authority on this matter…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Given the recession, it’s more likely that the SF maintenance facility will be under construction before Brisbane’s project gets under way. That should give time to harmonize the plans.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The HSR facility is far better for jobs and tax base than more housing for this area..plus they can still have housing on the other side of the ROW
Got to love some of the Back at the Nimbys and Naysayers today from Wundermam!! And thats how many feel about this !! and the Supervisor Chiu directing a shot at the stupid idea of stopping HSR in SJ…FORGET ABOUT IT..
Fox Business News’s John Stossel is doing an entire show on high speed rail tonight. He just had Randall O’Toole on to bash it and someone from APTA on to defend it. I caught the end of that segment – Stossel is now talking about getting rid of traffic lights, and Glenn Beck will be on later to bash trains.
With opposition like this, I feel good about our chances of getting HSR funded and built.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Am I the only one who might look at an intersection such as Market and Van Ness and think that getting rid of traffic lights might not be such a hot idea? A roundabout is one thing, but Stossel is calling for just sending everyone into a standard 4-way + intersection with no lane markings, stop signs, or traffic lights.
There’s not enough alcohol in the house to get me through this show.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
It’s called libertarianism: We’re supposed to expose ourselves to the whim of everyone else, because only then will we all be liberated from the oppression of government.
Matthew Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 7:09 am
Yeah, like Somalia :-) Sign me up!
BruceMcF Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Except when government is acting in the interest of a large commercial corporation … those oppressions are OK.
Derek Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Removing road signs and traffic signals appears to work in Germany: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,505246,00.html
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
It works in small towns without a lot of traffic. Traffic management alone is a sufficient reason to use road signs and traffic signals. Removing them would create gridlock in larger cities.
Derek Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
The equilibrium state of an unpriced road is congestion anyway, so in the end it wouldn’t make any difference.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:14 am
I’m good friends with the local traffic engineer here in Monterey, and his take on this is that traffic lights aren’t just about managing an intersection, but about managing throughput on roads to ensure that traffic moves smoothly through a given area so that you don’t have gridlock.
wu ming Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
that happened in taichung after the 9/21 earthquake in 1999. because of the earthquake, power was out everywhere, all the traffic lights were out. until the military came in and started directing traffic, it was as close to utter mayhem as i have ever seen. imagine a four-way intersection with everyone gridlocked in all four directions at the center of the intersection, pissed at one another like a mob of car-bound north- and south-going-zax.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Honestly, the APTA and O’Toole deserve each other. The APTA’s good roads-style belief that they’re entitled to a cut of all carbon taxes just because it’s transportation goes a long way to explain what’s wrong with transit in the US.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
CA4HSR was invited to participate, but we were unable to get anyone to NYC, and they didn’t want to film us from a studio here in CA. Oh well.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Im glad that media is starting to call CA4HSR ..as a state agency CHSRA can only say so much and has to roll with the punches..CA4HSR can fight back against BS
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 12:49 am
At the same time, it’s just as well you didn’t go. John “Give Me A Break” Stossell is hostile to Amtrak, and so is O’Toole, both because they are government programs they argue government shouldn’t be in. You don’t need to walk into a buzz saw like that.
Of course, they also ignore the accounting of other costs, such as the underpricing of roads, including deferred maintenance. . . I like the comment about opening cash registers in a store because the lines get too long, I wish someone would tell the local Walmart manager he is a poor capitalist for not doing so. . .I made some joke about going around in a beard and fatigues and beret to annoy people, wonder how it would be for a pro-passenger person to have confronted Stossell and O’Toole like that. . .
In one of my now seemingly ancient posts on the generational issue, I commented that the “in-between age” group was angry as hell, tying every bit of American decline and American current difficulty to “liberal” attititudes and policies. I actually do have some sympathy for their view, as I am old-fashioned myself (note I did not say conservative!). I too am a little put off by say, rap music with its horrid lyrics, potty-mouthed and nudie-cutie movies, people driving while on cell phones, couples with kids but no marriage license, nudie-cutie clubs (three are just two miles from my house, a local health officer’s term for them is “butt huts”), abortion being permitted as easily as it is (I’m Catholic), and a whole host of ills we face. “Conservative” people of this country are upset with a lot of things they see as being wrong, and becoming dominant. “Pleasantville” looks like a pleasant place indeed, even if things are in black and white. And I am just old enough to know it was not entirely a fabrication, a dream, a “land that was but never was,” although it was that, too.
However, not all of these complaints can be laid at the feet of a “liberal” agenda. Much of it, actually all of it, is the unfortunate dark side of our own human nature. The skin merchants, such as Larry Flynt and his ilk, are in reality businessmen first and last, they are just in a different field. I happen to think the complaints about “socialism” in this country are misdirected; the banks, as I would argue, have not been taken over by the government, the government has been taken over by the banks. One web writer has argued that the big root issue today, as big in comparison to our political discourse as slavery was in the pre-Civil War era, is corporate fudalism, or corporate power. I am not alone in thinking that some of these corporate giants have some nerve to consider themselves as helpless as the ma and pa establishments they have done so much to undermine and destroy over the years.
It is also a mark of their success in portraying themselves as such that we have some of the anti-govenment, “nanny-state,” “socialist,” and “Communist” charges flying about. These people don’t like government or anyone else (apparently including God) telling them what to do. Government for them stands in the way of collecting the last penny in profits. And as passenger rail is part of government today, it also has to go (oh, and everybody who rides a train fails to pay proper tribute to oil companies, car companies, the road-building industry, the car-insurance business–you get the picture).
There is a book on all this, entitled “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” by Thomas Frank. A link with an overview of the book is below. I do recommend the book, but I’ll be “liberal” enopugh to say you should make your own opinion of the thing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F
As usual, have fun!
wu ming Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:38 am
it would have been worth it just to watch robert drop the OC rush limbaugh fan club anecdote on them just to throw them off balance and watch stossel and beck stutter.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
The problem with Thomas Frank is that he has this “Why, oh, why do those rednecks not realize that we’re the best for them?”. Part of the attitude is the inability to distinguish between different red states. Kansas is not that badly off; even before the recession, it had below-average unemployment. It’s not New Jersey, but it’s not Alabama, either.
But the “transit is socialist” people are quite different. If you want to find a pro-transit conservative, the best place to look is in the nooks and crannies of cultural conservatism, preferably in an area without minorities. Utah is surprisingly pro-transit; Paul Weyrich and William Lind are both culturally right-wing (Weyrich was a fundamentalist, and Lind is a racist). It’s usually the business-class booster types who are against transit; those often don’t care about cultural issues, which is why in pro-road circles the main thinktanks to look up to are Cato and Reason rather than AEI. Heritage and Heartland do say some anti-transit things, but more as a way of spiting the big cities.
I think the main reference about what ties those people together should be White Protestant Nation, by Allan Lichtman. Lichtman argues that since 1920, movement conservatism in the US has been about the notion of America as white and Protestant (though since the 1960s, the movement also accepted Catholics; under Pat Buchanan’s advice, Nixon engaged in Catholic affirmative action, to bring Italians and Poles into the Republican fold). Because of urban diversity, this movement also became anti-urban, and anti-everything perceived as urban, including rail transit. Even before 1920, the urban patricians, who became the core of the Republican Party, were horrified by the state of the immigrant enclaves, and believed that to turn immigrants into proper Americans, they needed to be suburbanized; once the car came along, they preferred cars to rail transit as the primary means of doing so.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Randall O’Toole is even more of a wacko shill when he actually speaks on camera than in his writings. He basically thinks mass transit only helps those “elitists” who live in center cities and that the answer is to privatize all roads everywhere, because like the line in the grocery store, the private operator will have an incentive to open more lanes for you to reduce congestion and keep your business.
Yes, he actually said that. This is all so silly it’s almost comical.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
O yes everyone on the Muni tonight was an “elitsts” all of us jammed to the gills on the once every 20min bus
Roger Christensen Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Stossel infamously did a hit piece on LA Metro a decade or so ago where his crew purposely hung around a station at off-peak, waited until they found an empty rail car, and then he sat in it exclaiming This cost billions of dollars, no one ever rides it, you are paying for it!!!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
In fact, Glenn Beck did not bash trains – instead he and Stossel got off on a tangent about Blackwater and how private contractors and private management of the military was superior to the current military.
Peter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Right. Because they have no rules of engagement restricting when they can kill random people on the street.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Damn, Glenn Beck trashed the US Army instead of trains. US Army 1, HSR 0.
nobody important Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
“…and Glenn Beck will be on later to bash trains. ”
You cannot be serious.
While drama is in high gear in the Bay Area, it is just starting to warm up in SoCal http://www.cityofalhambra.org/community/HSRailProject.html
dfb Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
More information is now becoming available. The cities along the I-10 corridor are all feeling blindsided by the shift by staff of the CAHSR staff to the I-10 corridor, lack of communication with the cities and county, and indications that that corridor will be the route recommended during the Sept 2 board meeting. The first presentation will occur in Alhambra on the 9th. Expect fireworks.
Peter Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Is it an actual shift, or is it simply a matter of the I-10 corridor being a reasonable alternative that the Authority is required to study by law?
Peter Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
It looks to me as if the I-10 corridor was on the table as an alternative since at least Fall of 2009. I’m getting this from the Revised Scoping Report, the Meeting Boards from Scoping, and the Meeting Notices for the 12 (TWELVE!!) scoping meetings held for the LA-SD corridor. Claiming to have been blindsided is disingenuous.
All alignments are on the table. There is no preference for the Program Alignment after the Program EIR is completed (see SJ-Merced for an example).
dfb Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:59 am
I should clarify, the I-10 corridor alternative has recently been realigned (last six months). According to Alhambra staff, the only details the city has is contained in that web site notice to its residents. The first details will be presented at the Alhambra City Council meeting on Monday. If you look at the alignment maps included with the boards presented during scoping meetings you will see that the I-10 between Union Station and El Monte was not presented as an an alternative. It is cities and residents along the realigned I-10 corridor alternative such as Alhambra, Monterey Park, and Rosemead who feel blindsided. Also, it seems the route through Covina has also been realigned. Apparently one goal between now and the Sept 2 board meeting is to narrow the alternatives down from four to two as well as a shift in the recommended program alignment to the realigned I-10 corridor.
See also: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_15678540
I’m still looking for that hooter that thought kids not wanting to drive was “un-American,” but in the meantime there is this little piece. . .
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26975&page=1
Is there no way to have all tracks at grade at Millbrae? Are the restrictions technical, or because CAHSR is trying to avoid takings?
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 9:00 am
There is a way. You take the westernmost BART track and convert it to standard gauge/OCS and you build a new track on the western end of the station. That will give you four tracks served by two island platforms. Apparently BART tracks and passenger dropoff zones are sacred or something though.
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 9:01 am
I should add that BART currently has three tracks at Millbrae, which is more than it needs or probably ever will need.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:09 am
If you look at their mindbogglingly brilliant plans, you’ll see that they take one BART track, leaving it with two more than are justifiable.
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
They don’t take any BART tracks. The easternmost track, which is on an island platform with the center track, is not shown.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Right you are. Thanks. It’s unsurprising to find that things are even worse than one imagines.
The Peninsula Rail Program: always thinking way inside the box.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Here’s some information from you: Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog: Millbrae Take 2.
So what’s happening? The usual. CHSRA+Caltrain=Peninsula Rail Program, America’s Finest Transportation Professionals, are trying to maximize cost and stupidity and inconvenience and flexibility, all at once.
Through cost maximization is always its own reward for the engineering consultancy mafias: the stupidity comes along for free and provides a convenient excuse if needed. (Who ever could have predicted that it would cost twice as much and serve half as many people as we said? Oh well!)
The problem at Millbrae is the useless, essentially unused BART white elephant for which CHSRA member Quentin “not yet indicted” Kopp was the front man and for which is is personally responsible.
Simply remove the three (count, em, THREE) BART tracks at this station and you are done.
Excellent Millbrae-BART connecting service can be provided by extending the airport’s people-mover automated passenger system to terminate overhead at the Millbrae station, right above the 4 Caltrain+HSR tracks.
A second, less rational and more costly, but far less irrational and less costly than the Peninsula Rail Program’s insane scheme, would be to put a BART platform and two tracks serving it underground, leaving Caltrain+HSR on the surface. Note that BART is in a tunnel right up until it pops up and enters the Millbrae station, so the amount of extra trenching to continue and terminate below grade is trivial compared to the 4.3km (2.7 miles) of crazy, cost maximizing one or two-track HSR tunnelling that the genius engineering professionals at the Peninsula Rail Program have devised.
The downside of this scheme is that the expensive, operationally impossible and, by any cost/benefit measure, completely worthless BART stub San Bruno-Millbrae continues to exist and has hundreds of millions of extra dollars spent on it. In addition, there will stlll not be a direct Airport to Millbrae station connection that doesn’t involve the cost, ticketing hell, inconvenience, and infrequency of transferring to BART. And of course a “downside” (which would save millions of dollars…) is that the re-construction of the last half mile of the BART terminal stub would disrupt the service entirely for the period of trench and new sub-surface station construction. Perhaps with some heroic engineering ($$$$$$) it might be possible to phase the trenching and keep one BART track and platform in service … but why bother?
So:
Alternative 1: Replace costly, inconvenient BART San Bruno-Millbrae stub with a free frequent Millbrae-SF airport connection; run all HSR and Caltrain tracks on the surface through the BART station. Solves all problems and has by far the lowest cost, by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Alternative 2: Underground the costly, inconvenient, unnecessary BART tracks and platform by extending the existing BART cut and cover a little over a third of a mile.
The people-mover connection from alternative 1 is still needed: we’ve just added significant extra cost, but at least minimized the amount of construction, particularly nose-bleed expensive sub-surface construction.
Alternative 3 Build nearly 3 miles of HSR tunnel. Build an underground HSR station.
The people-mover connection from alternative 1 is still needed: we’ve just added massive amounts of cost, maximized tunnelling and risk, minimized operational flexibility, and screwed the public interest raw.
So, how many nanoseconds do you suppose it took The World’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals to decide to go for Alternative 3? The only surprise is the modesty of their scheme. (Compare: Diridon Memorial Pangalactic.)
And please note, this is what they want to construct as part of their very first phase of construction pork orgy fraud. Nothing that would remotely benefit any rider of Caltrain or any city on the peninsula: they go immediately to the most wasteful and most inutile and most unecessary and most transparently laughable section first in order to (a) set a precedent for cost escalation (b) get it while the going’s good (c) have as much work remaining to do when the budget is “unexpectedly” exceeded (d) guarantee as much good money is throw after bad following (a)(b)(c).
Recall that when the dismally performing, over-budget BART extension to Millbrae was built, the started construction at the far end of the line to ensure as much cost was sunk as quickly as possible and to avoid any danger of project downscaling. We have exactly the same class of highly ethical Transportation Professional engaged in this latest Millbrae porkfest; to expect different behaviour would be ahistorical and irrational.
Reality Check Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Richard, apart from making a lot of sense, the problem with your Alternative 1 is it requires the probably-politically-impossible trimming back (removal!) of BART tracks. The BART system would actually have to — gasp! — shrink!!!
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:52 am
And Kopp has the nerve to consider himself fiscally responsible. He even brought it up in his recent KALW interview. He is indeed personally responsible for the Millbrae design disaster and owes the public well over half a billion dollars in their tax dollars that he wasted. Looks like Kopp wants to run up the bill yet again…
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
CA4HSR is also asking the Authority to consider an adaptive re-use of the Millbrae station. Along with consistent platform heights, these two issue remain.
We proposed the following possibility in our Prelim AA comment letter:
“Consider Re-Use of Portion of Millbrae BART Station Currently Not Used
It is our understanding that the Authority is considering a very expense subway station at Millbrae. Given that there is a great deal of unused capacity at the existing BART station, the idea of re-configuring a portion of the Millbrae Caltrain/BART station should be considered. A possible reconfiguration of the transit hub would have BART continue to utilize the easternmost platform and the two tracks that flank that platform. Then Caltrain Local trains would take over the ROW where the westernmost BART track currently exist (modifications to the portal would need to be made to allow Caltrain to proceed north on the surface). Northbound HSR/Caltrain Express trains would utilize the existing northbound Caltrain track. Southbound HSR/Caltrain Express trains would then take over the existing southbound Caltrain track. One additional track would need to be constructed just west of the existing westernmost platform for southbound Caltrain Local trains. Other design options should be considered as well.”
I also agree that adapting the BART tracks that go to SFO from Millbrae for the people mover would be very smart.
RubberToe Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 11:55 am
This seems like a no brainer. I was looking through the cost appendix, but couldn’t figure out what the cost differences would be between these two different possibilities. So I guess then that under this proposal:
1. The people mover takes over the BART tracks from SFO-Millbrae, providing airport access from Millbrae for Caltrain, HSR and BART riders.
2. BART still goes to Millbrae from San Bruno.
3. The only downside is that there would then be no direct BART link to SFO?
Assuming all the above is true, and assuming the cost is much less than whatever the proposed alternative is, it seems to make sense. Would they then also extend the people mover to the long term parking facility too? I would think that there would be people who would drive to the airport long term facility then hop a train down to SoCal, so that when they get back to SF their car is waiting for them. Just like they would do if they were flying down instead.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
BART would still run trains into SFO on the north branch of the wye. In essence, BART riders from San Fran would travel to SFO directly, while people from the south would get on the people mover in Millbrae. Also people riding Caltrain from SF to Millbrae would use the people mover.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
BART doesn’t need three tracks at Millbrae or two for that matter until the frequency can be pumped up to every three minutes. Get rid of one BART track at Millbrae minimum. I agree that a people mover extension to Millbrae would be beneficial as it is required to go beyond the International Terminal.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Richard, the problem with Alternative 1 is that it severs the Caltrain-BART connection at Millbrae. This means that, at least on the margin, HSR passengers from Daly City and South SF would have to go to Transbay instead of Millbrae (=longer travel time, =using BART’s peak instead of reverse-peak direction).
Jon Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I think the only BART connection being severed would be Millbrae-SFO, which would be replaced by a people mover. There would still be direct BART service from Daly City and South SF to both SFO and Millbrae.
Certainly seems like the best solution to me. The only problem I see is that the four BART tracks (2 from San Bruno, 2 from SFO) merge into three in the tunnel before they get to Milbrae. We need our new four tracks (2 BART from San Bruno, 2 Airtrain from SFO) to become 1 BART + 1 Airtrain by the time they get to SFO… whilst in a tunnel. The BART tracks are initially on the outside of the Airtrain tracks. Anyone got any thoughts on how to do this?
Jon Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Arg, I meant…
We need our new four tracks (2 BART from San Bruno, 2 Airtrain from SFO) to become 1 BART + 1 Airtrain by the time they get to Millbrae…
Caelestor Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Jon’s got it explained pretty well. We still got the Millbrae-San Bruno connection; we’re just replacing the useless Millbrae-SFO connection with Airtrain (much more useful). That makes 4 HSR/Caltrain, 1 BART, 1 Airtrain, and no aerial structures. Done, allocate the funds elsewhere.
By the way, what is the frequency of Millbrae trains? Because even if I lived in Daly City, I’d head to Transbay if trains came every 15 minutes instead of an hour…
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
A long history exists regarding the missed (intentionally thanks to Kopp) opportunity to create a “one-stop terminal” just west of 101 outside the airport on land owned by the airport that would bring Caltrain, BART, and the Airport Peoplemover together in one station (with no need for any Millbrae station to squash low-income apartments in a construction boondoggle, or even any need for expensive BART flyovers of the 101 to get into a very awkward and expensive stub-end terminal at SFO). The airport was more than willing to pay for extending the Peoplemover over 101 because it wanted to develop the property too. Blame Kopp.
Notice how Caltrain and BART tracks parallel each other in San Bruno? At the San Bruno Caltrain station, the BART tracks are right there underground, but no connection was ever made. America’s Finest Transportation Professionals at work. A literal track record of their “achievements” is there for all to examine.
BART and Caltrain can still be brought together in San Bruno.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Can they? It’s not easy to construct infill subway stations. If it were, there would be a lot more subway connections between the three legacy subway systems in New York than there actually are. It’s only easy if they were planned beforehand.
Is this more expensive than undergrounding HSR? No. However, it may be on a par with Richard’s Alternative 2 or not much cheaper, while connecting BART only to a local Caltrain station.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I’d put this in the “way too hard” category myself.
Of course anything can be done given enough money, but that doesn’t mean it should be done.
Nathanael Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Actually, it depends how deep BART is at San Bruno. If it’s cut-and-cover and no buildings abut the trackbed, it’s quite easy to construct infill subway stations (with side platforms); sometimes it’s not that hard even if buildings do abut the trackbed (if you can repurpose the building basements).
If it’s bored tunnel, it’s very expensive to build an infill station.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
It doesn’t matter, but the answer is that the top of the box is about 20′ below grade (it varies, since ground level isn’t level, but about this level where Caltrain passes over) and the tracks are about 35′ below grade.
Comparatively easy, but not easy. “Comparatively” means many tens of millions of dollars.
And the payoff is about zero.
You’re tripling the width of the box to make room for platforms, which means a very different structre to keep the walls vertical and the roof horizontal. Your new subway platforms will lie under a 4 track surface railroad (one that our genius friends want to carry the heaviest freight trains.) Your new subway platforms interfere with existing venting and pumping structures for the existing subway. Underground stations need extensive emergency access and venting. And where do the surface access points go? Public entrances and emergency? Also, BART is all about access control. Where do the banks of faregates and the mezzanine level and the station agent go? How do you get to the platform for the ground level trains? Go up from the subway, past grade level, up to an overhead bridge, then down again to get to Caltrain? Is this in the paid or the unpaid area of BART? Look at the insane scale of the existing San Bruno BART station to get a feel for how overbuilt the simplest below-grade BART station is required to be. Then triple that to somehow get up and over Caltrain.
Look, we fought this war in the 1990s and lost. Quentin Kopp, fronting for BART and PBQD, ensured the most expensive and worst possible public outcome.
Some of this could be repaired given infinite money, but it isn’t worth it. Foamers love looking at a map and saying “oooooh let’s connect this line with that line” but in the real world that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and in the real world nearly nobody will ever use the kewl connection that looks so good in Google Maps so in the real world it isn’t worth doing.
“Multi-modal” is just a greenwashing slogan. BART to Millbrae is and always was and always will be a get rich quick scheme for the sleazebags who built it; it never was and never will be a transportation facility that demands practical consideration.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
If it were, there would be a lot more subway connections between the three legacy subway systems in New York than there actually are.
I’ve wracked my brain trying to think of where there might be connections lurking in Manhattan or the Bronx and can’t think of any. There’s rats nests of subway in Downtown Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn where there might be better connections. Fulton Transit Center for instance….though I’m not convinced that is needed all that much. Walk a block or two on the street or a block or two underground really doesn’t make or break the deal in Downtown Manhattan or Brooklyn. One or two that I can think of in Queens but then that’s connections between the subway running on an El and the subway running underground. I give up. Where should there be connections – ones that are useful for transferring between lines not just ducking underground a block early?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
53rd/7th, 49th/7th, 50th/Broadway. Anything between the IND and the other systems in Downtown Brooklyn (Jay/Lawrence is just opening now, decades after unification; connecting both to Hoyt would be even better). Bidirectional Bleecker/Lafayette (again, they’re working on it, but if it were easy, it would have happened in 1950). The subway-el connections at Broadway/Union and QB/QBP (yes, those are possible: there’s one at Broadway Junction). They aren’t doing it just because they’re incompetent and think there’s no demand; it requires spending scarce dollars. Hell, it took a couple of years before they connected the IRT and BMT halves of Times Square.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Everybody wants an express train from where they are to where they are going. There’s going to be some compromises.
<em<53rd/7th, 49th/7th, 50th/Broadway.
The only thing I can see that doing is making it a bit faster to get from Astoria to the Upper West Side or vice versa. The southbound connections … it’s faster to just stay on the train you are on and walk a whole extra block when you get to your destination. Might be a bit easier for IND – IRT connections to the north but getting off a southbound E, waiting for a northbound B or D gets you to Columbus Circle and a transfer to the IRT, might even be faster except in the dead of night. What am I missing? Unless the point of this is to get transfers from the IRT local to the BMT locals out of Times Square. That might be a good thing. If you want an express you are still going to have to go to Times Square.
Anything between the IND and the other systems in Downtown Brooklyn
I’ve never seen maps that are detailed enough to evaluate Downtown Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn. Which is why I described them as a rat’s nest. It seems like there is a subway entrance on every corner and in some places, there is. There are some lurking in there. If anything I’m sure there’s ways to connect without getting off at DeKalb.
Bidirectional Bleecker/Lafayette (again, they’re working on it, but if it were easy, it would have happened in 1950)
Would have been harder in 1950, the IRT platforms were shorter. We’d have to find a subway foamer to find out if the platforms where always offset – the northbound platform is farther north than the southbound platform. If they were the time to think about connecting the IRT and the IND was when they were building the IRT. A subway that wasn’t even planned until 20 years later.
The subway-el connections at Broadway/Union and QB/QBP (yes, those are possible: there’s one at Broadway Junction).
They used to run trains all over creation, changing at the complex in East New York. It lowers frequency, so people were going there and changing trains anyway. Send every other train from 14th an 8th to Lefferts Blvd and every other Lefferts Blvd train to 14th and 8th. You take the first train in and change at East New York. Sometimes you get lucky and the train you want comes in. But then the people whose train didn’t come in get on yours and go to East New York and change… When did they stop calling it East New York?
Queensboro Plaza? You don’t want to run Flushing line trains down Broadway or Astoria Line trains across 42nd do you? You’d have to rip out all of the Flushing Line and rebuild it to BMT/IND specs. Otherwise the platforms are too close or the gap is too big, depending on what train is going where. Run into that lowered frequency problem again. Half the time the train coming in isn’t yours and you take it to Queensboro Plaza and change anyway.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Um, why the hell does it lower frequency to construct a transfer from QBP to QP within fare control?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Unless you run lots more trains sending half the BMT trains to Astoria and half of them to Flushign halves the frequency. Send half the trains from Flushing across 42nd Street and half of them down Broadway that halves the frequency. People will take the next train in and get off at Queensboro Plaza in the hope that a train on the other branch comes in before the train on their own branch gets there.
Unless you want to connect the 7 to the E across Queens Plaza, why?
The walk from Queenboro Plaza on the 7 to the E at Queens Plaza is longer than the walk from Broadway to Eight in Midtown, they can do what they do now and change to the N across the platform. Avoids the stairs too. If they want the E south of 42nd Street the walk at Times Square is shorter.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Some people want to travel from Astoria to Forest Hills. Or from Williamsburg to, um, any part of Brooklyn off the L or the IND.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Your problem is defining this as a “problem”.
And even if it were, apply some cost/benefit analysis.
God only knows the Peninsula Rail Program’s transportation professionals are never going to.
BART comes out ahead (it’s a fiscal black hole and an operating nightmare; I think they’ve had 7 different service plans since the turkey opened, all of them bad.) BART operating unions lose a few driver-hours. The public comes out ahead on operating subsidy. (Airtrain << BART.) The handful of people who transfer Caltrain-BART lose some time and we lose some riders there. The handful of people who walk to Millbrae and take BART might lose out (most drive, and an empty parking lot two miles to the north is about the same as empty lot in Milbrae.) It’s hardly the way I’d design things (I’d have sent the Caltrain line on a loop under the airport, like ZRH Kloten. and stopped BART at Daly City) but PBQD-Bechtel got their way in 1996 as always), the public got screwed, and now we try to pick up the pieces as best as possible.
So yeah, some costs. I’d got for Alternative 1, even with the downsides, because the financial upside is very large. How much again for the 3 miles of HSR tunnel and the underground HSR station at Millbrae again? After unexpected cost escalations?
Send the bill to Quentin “not yet indicted” Kopp.
Jon Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
No, the problem was he misunderstood what you were proposing. Do lay off the hyperbole.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
No, it actually is a problem (BART/HSR is actually not the biggest issue; BART/Caltrain for reverse commuters is). Not as big of a problem as a 4-km HSR-clearance tunnel, and potentially not as big as a 1-km BART-clearance tunnel, but still something that worsens service.
For one, here’s a better idea: cut BART to a single track at Millbrae. Single-track metro terminals exist (for example in Paris) and have enough capacity for the pitiful frequency of trains BART runs to Millbrae. Use the capacity reduction as an excuse to cut the BART shuttles as per your proposal. The effect on BART operating costs is the same, because under your proposal BART would just redirect the Richmond trains to SFO. The effect on ridership is positive, because not only is there still a connection, but also there’s a northbound cross-platform transfer between BART and Caltrain. The amount of extra space you need for this over no-build is measured in centimeters. And the political fights are somewhat easier than cutting a BART station entirely.
Jon Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Hmm, you may be right about that. I think maybe I misunderstood what Richard was proposing.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting completely eliminating the Millbrae BART station, I’m suggesting what you propose- a one platform BART terminus. So from west to east the tracks would go:
Caltrain Local (Southbound)
HSR/Caltrain Express (Southbound)
HSR/Caltrain Express (Northbound)
Caltrain Local (Northbound)
Airtrain (Northbound to SFO)
BART (Northbound to San Bruno)
We need one of Rafael’s Google Map diagrams, I think!
Jon Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Oh look, someone’s already done it.
Alternative A is the one I had in mind for the Airtrain extension. BART would have a single-track stretch from its current eastern Millbrae platform to the SFO wye, where it would split to two with a connection under the southern section of the wye. Airtrain would take BART’s current center platform, and have a single track running alongside the remaining BART track up to just before the northern end of the tunnel, where it would split to two before going up the southern section of the wye to get to SFO. The current western BART platform could then be used for Caltrain.
It’s all hypothetical though, because taking any track away from BART is tantamount to sacrilege. Realistically, the best we can hope for is that all three BART tracks are placed underground at Millbrae, with Caltrain and HSR making use of the at grade space. Airtrain would need to be elevated with a new bridge across 101 to get from Millbrae to SFO.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 1:23 am
Alon, I’m never sure how familiar you are with the Bay Area.
BART-Caltrain for reverse commuting (I reverse commuted for 15+ years and know something about it) is a completely marginal activity for hard core masochists who value neither their money nor time.
Beyond the expense and non-coordination of the BART-Caltrain transfer (the BART leg of course having no passes and coming fare surcharges for being in San Mateo County), BART’s circuitous route around the far side of San Bruno Mountain means one or two things:
* If you live on the south-east side of San Francisco or north-eastern San Mateo County, ie near the BART line, you’re a very short drive away from 280 as well. Driving to the freeway is as fast or faster than driving to BART, and the driving to one’s destination south of there is anywhere from 3 to 8 times faster than BART-Caltrain-shuttle. You’ll be at your office in Palo Alto before the BART train reaches Millbrae. There’s absolutely no competition, and it doesn’t matter if oil is $3/gallon or $14/gallon. Yes, sometimes you’ll be delayed by 280 traffic. Less often than you’ll be screwed by a Caltrain breakdown. (This is real world experience.) This is hopeless.
* If you live near the BART line in San Francisco (Mission, downtown, etc) the slowness of the detour around the wrong side of San Bruno Mountain means that driving/biking to a Caltrain station in SF and skipping the BART time and expense ($$$!) comes out ahead of walking to BART. (This is my personal experience, living a few blocks from 24th/Mission BART.)
* If you don’t live near BART in San Francisco, the above 10x over. Either driving across SF to 280/101 or driving/biking to Caltrain beats the pants off a tortuous multi-stage multi-modal odyssey. (I’ve carpooled with many such people.)
Yes, some people attempt to do it anyway, but it’s a real minority market. You have to be a hard core non-driver (I don’t drive, so I know all about it) and value your time at zero (which I do, since I’m typing this.) Yes, there are people who ride BART from the East Bay to Millbrae and transfer to Caltrain, but this is nuts compared to carpooling either 80-101 or 680-64 to the peninsula. (Based on real world experience of co-workers.)
In practical terms the “multi-modal BART-Caltrain connection” serves no purpose other than to have greenwashed the $2bn wasted on the the BART line. Look at a map — a map with streets, not just train lines on it — and think about it. It could never work, and never will work. It’s a lost cause and can’t be salvaged, for simple and obvious geographical reasons. Forget about it.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 3:36 am
The basic question is, what use does taking all three tracks have over taking just two tracks? Yes, the commute market is marginal – though it’s potentially not that marginal – but it’s nonzero, and the operating cost reduction coming from taking the last track is zero.
Regardless, many of the problems you talk about either are going to be fixed (faster, more frequent Caltrain service) or could be without new infrastructure if the Bay Area transit companies had competent people in charge (timed BART-Caltrain connection, combined tickets). For the trip from the average point in Daly City to the average point in Palo Alto or Mountain View it would still be faster to drive, but if both the origin and the destination were within walking distance of the stations, the trains would be about even on time with rush-hour traffic. It’s still not a large market, but it’s not completely negligible, and the cost of serving it over obliterating the BART Millbrae station is nothing.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Alon,
I don’t know anything at all about the geography or track layout of the BART system or proposed station layout in Milbrae (I’m afraid I’ve only been as far west as Columbus, Ohio), but what would be the possibilities of sharing the Milbrae station with dual-gauge track? This was fairly common in places where narrow-gauge railroads shared an interchange point with a standard-gauge line. It was also the case in Wheeling, West Virginia, in which two trolley systems shared track down a t least one street, in which one line was standard gauge, and the other 5’2 1/2″ gauge (common mandated street railway gauge in Pennsylvania to keep trolley companies from running freight trains down city streets, also the track gauge of the New Orleans trolleys as well).
Main objections I would take from here might be incompatible signal/train detection systems, and the BART cars not being FRA compliant, particularly in regard to buff strength.
Any comments or thoughts?
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/track%20gauge.htm
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
It wouldn’t work, for two reasons. First, the loading gauges are different; the narrower cars (BART) would have an unacceptable gap between the train and the platform. And second and more importantly, it’s difficult to mix terminal and through-tracks on a busy railroad. The railroads that get away with it tend to have very short turnaround times, and superfluous capacity at the combined station. BART doesn’t have short turnaround times, and Caltrain won’t have extra capacity at Millbrae for this.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Alon, hardly. Try in the ballpark of $10 million a year.
BART operates over twice as much service south of Daly City (8tph) as can be justified by ridership, all in order to provide 4tph (3tph off-peak) to the stupid one station Millbrae stub. Colma, SSF, San Bruno, and Millbrae are ghost towns compared to stations on the core system that receive comparable (or half as much) service.
The round trip Daly City-Millbrae-Daly City requires more than 30 minutes additional time, and BART’s train costs are over $1000/hour(!!!!!!!!). (And then there are the several full-time BART employees who lurk around the Millbrae station.) SFIA-Millbrae-SFIA (off-peak) requires more than 20 minutes (2×5 min trip time, but 10 for the extra train reversal.) That adds up to 129 train-hours per weekday to serve Millbrae.
~4400 exits per weekday, 76 train arrivals per weekday, maximum ticket value (Dublin-Millbrae) $7.05, typical ticket value (SF CBD-Millbrae) $5.60 means daily fare revenue is well south of $30k/day, even including $1/day parking fee at the mosty-empty Quentin Kopp Memorial Garage that displaced an entire low income neighbourhood of houses.
$30k max revenue and 129 incremental train-hours means a maximum train-hour cost of $232 to not lose money — assuming riders wouldn’t use another station, assuming there are no costs for station operation (~10 FTE) and maintenance. Revenue is at most a quarter of expense.
Stick a fork in it.
PS The only reason that Millbrae exists was to provide a launching point for further expansion of the BART system: a stub at the airport with no way south was an affront to imperial ambition. Those “tail tracks” past Millbrae for train storage which extend right up to the Burlingame city boundary? 80mph design speed! Since it seems that that won’t happen — instead we’re getting a Peninsula Rail Program that combines the worst of BART with the worst of the FRA, but at least the money is flowing to the exact same PBQD mafiosi as profit from BART pork — the station is redundant even on the most important public-private wealth transfer level, which in the end is the only one that matters.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
First, the average operating cost maybe $1,000 per hour, but it’s not the same as the avoidable cost. Some (very little) of the attributed cost would go from losing the station agents at Millbrae, but the other portions – administrative bloat, managerial bloat, overhead, all other stations – would still be there. So the savings would be somewhat less than $10 million.
Second and more to the point, BART won’t cut service. It’s not going to short-turn three quarters of the trains at Daly City just because ridership calls for it. Kopp won’t accept it, the unions won’t accept it, the current day-to-day management won’t accept it. It’ll redistribute any trains to other lines (“Now that we have a shuttle, we need more service to SFO”).
The only point of cutting all three tracks is if you assume that BART is just competent enough to cut service and just weak enough to allow a station to be lost, but not enough to coordinate fares and schedules with Caltrain.
(P.S. the optimal arrangement should be FpSpBpSpF. Count that as another benefit of FSSF that is now lost.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
There’s something to be said for BART in between the fast tracks. Means the people with luggage can do the transfer to HSR as a cross platform transfer. Also means the people on the express from Palo Alto who want to go to Daly City or even Civic Center have a cross platform transfer. Does mean that Californians would have to wrap their minds around the concept of a Barcelona Platofrom but I’m sure after five or six careful explanations some of them would get it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Alon, the avoidable cost just of operating the trains to Millbrae is on the order of $10m year.
Thanks for reading and paying attention.
PS If you’ll recall, my Alternative 1 proposal — the most sensible one, and the thing I at least through we were discussing here — is to remove BART from Millbrae altogether (ie the San Bruno-Millbrae most of the time combined with SFIA-Millbrae evenings+weekends, at least in this month’s ciobbled-togeher how-the-hell-can-we-deal-with-this-turkey BART operating plan). Do that and the amount of *unused* and *useless* BART service south of Daly City goes away by 50% immediately, by definition. The resulting service level is no worse than any other line, and over twice as good as patronage justifies, rather than over four times as much.
PPS I assure you that BART Operations (the competent guys who deal with the horrible mess that they get left behind by the pork-seeking corporations that “design” and build the extensions) would love nothing more than to deploy the wasted trains elsewhere, including passing through maintenance. And that is a good thing, on the whole.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
The $1,000/hour number is where the avoidable/attributed distinction came into play. The numbers are usually fuzzy on that distinction. I just wasn’t sure the number was avoidable rather than attributed – could have been that the NTD’s $240/car figure worked out to $1,000 when all the short weekend trains were included.
Then again, I just checked BART’s schedules and compared to the NTD operating costs, and the average operating cost per train-revenue hour is even higher, at nearly $2,000. Bleh.
P.S. If BART operations are so keen on cutting useless service, why do they not do this already? Why do they not do a round-robin like they do on weekends and in the evenings? Alternatively, why do they not institute an SFO-Millbrae shuttle and run trains to just Millbrae or just SFO? And why are they incapable of timing a transfer with Caltrain or of proposing an integrated ticket?
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 7:52 am
I have lived in the bay area for 40 years, most of that time in San Francisco and I don’t find BART’s route to be “circuitous” It gets me to the airport in 30 minutes, and fills a rail gap in muni service in getting to other parts of town as well as out to Westlake, and Tanforan. If it weren’t for BART we’d have to spend an hour or more the miserable 14.
synonymouse Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:14 am
@ Jim
Samtrans in the pre-BART to SFO days had an express bus from downtown(Mission St.) which took like 25 minutes to get to the airport. Took it several times and cheap too.
synonymouse Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Does the “the detour around the wrong side of San Bruno Mountain” remind you of any other PB-mandated detour?
Joey Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
It reminds me that (a) There is significant ridership along that route, at least in the city (Mission District, Balboa Park, Daly City) whereas CalTrain’s Bayshore cutoff provides negligible ridership and (b) That BART should never have been extended past Daly City and (c) This has no relevance to discussions about tunneling.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
(a) You’re nuts. Caltrain’s Bayshore cutoff provides all of Caltrain’s SF ridership and most of any future HSR ridership. Add 30+ minutes for the magical mystery ride via Colma (the old route, before 1906!) and you’d be an idiot not to drive. Anyway, I have no idea what you people are on about: it’s not that tons of people ride BART from Daly City or Balboa Park of 24th Street (I do!), it’s that BART to Caltrain is, in the real world, completely useless for anybody with a need to travel to the southern SF peninsula.
(b) That’s right.
(c) The relevance is that a completely useless three track BART parking lot in Millbrae is driving the “need” for an underground HSR station and 3 miles of HSR tunnelling underneath an existing rail ROW and underneath an existing barely used rail station in Millbrae.
Joey Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 12:41 am
I was making the point that BART SHOULD be on that side of San Bruno Mountain, because there is ridership there, but it should terminate at Daly City. All trains traveling from SF to points south should of course use the Bayshore cutoff.
As for point c, I was referring to how synonymouse was pointlessly trying to link this to the Tehachapi alignment, which is completely irrelevant.
jimsf Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
BART via its route thru the city serves far more of the city than the caltrain row does. As far as getting to caltrain. It depends on where in the city you live. If you live near a bart station, ( civic, 16th,24th,glen,balboa, dc, colma,) then bart is most convenient for going wherever you are going be it SFO, OAK, caltrain southbound, etc. Its much better than schlepping across town on muni to get to 4th and Townsend. And most people in sf who use transit aren’t going to be better off driving because they freakin’ don’t own cars. Most people who live in SF who are willing to shoulder the burden and high cost of keeping a car in the city are well off enough that the don’t need transit, 1, or 2, shoulder the expense because transit is beneath them. People aren’t running around with all these luxurious choices of driving or this or that, they do what they have to do. They are poor and working class and they use what is available whether they like it or not. Its 30 minutes from my building to the airport. It would take me at least 20 to 30 to get to from civic to caltrain at 4th. the choice is clear.
20-25 minutes on muni to 4th, to caltrain to say PA versus 35 minutes on bart to millbrae to caltrain to PA, BArt is still the better choice time wise.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Jim, this is exactly why Caltrain is planning to bring trains from 4th and King to Transbay.
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 4:50 am
Alon, well yes some day. But for now bart is the better choice. Not only that but even tbt is back tracking for a lot of parts of the city. Anything beyond civic center. In fact From here ( civic0 I’d still use a direct bart to sfo for my flight before Id use muni to montgomery, one block to tbt-hsr to millbrae-airtrain.
Even with a 15 minute travel time from tbt-sfo bart would would be faster.
civic- outer sf to points beyond sfo via tbt-hsr is only faster if you are going to RWC/PA San Jose.
If you live beyond Civic, backtracking to downtown to tbt is more time consuming than you realize.
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 5:05 am
I think joey meant that the ridership between downtown and bayshore is negligible. Very few ride within this stretch. I don’t have numbers for how many board at these interim stops. But its far less no doubt than the bart ridership between say san bruno and 16th street. Ultimately what will be nice is having all the options to go either way depending on where you live along the various lines. But neither has any particular advantage beyond proximity to where one resides.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Jim, this all depends on how the airport connections are set up. If the SFO airtrain were extended to Millbrae, and if they set up a good connection between Transbay and Montgomery, then it would be faster to backtrack and take Caltrain.
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
if they set up a good connection between Transbay and Montgomery, then it would be faster to backtrack and take Caltrain
Well, as daily Muni ride I have to say unfortunately, probably not. Don’t get me wrong I’m no Muni basher, I’m probably the last breathing soul in this town who still sticks up for Muni, they have alienated everyone. But lately it has gotten so bad, and is so slow, that it has become nearly useless. Now if they (muni) make some progress towards the 16th street transit corridor and the folsom street transit corridor ( future plans in conjunction with the eastern neigbhorhoods plan) then it might speed up the connection between the mission and 4th/king or the mission and tbt. But glen/balboa west/south, via muni to downtown, forget it. YOu’re better off barting direct to millbrae. Not trying to argue, I wish it (muni) were different, but its bad. very very bad. ( both in terms of time and unbearable rider experience) For them to turn me off, their last living defender in the land, well its just a bad situation. I put the blame squarely on Nat Ford. with his 300k+ annual salary he has been completely ineffective. Him and all his lackeys on the 100k+ payroll. A bunch of do nothings.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
For the record, the way it should have happened was that BART should have been left at Daly City and just have AirTrain come over to connect to Caltrain. Blazingly simple and effective. Building AirTrain over 101 is vastly cheaper than trying to bring BART or Caltrain into the airport. A tunnel under the airport would have been prohibitively expensive, and the airport didn’t want that and would have resisted. Now post-9/11, a tunnel under the airport tarmac is a non-starter. The original ridership model even predicted that an off-airport station attracted just as many riders as a station in the airport, but MTC’s Doug Kimsey quickly dismissed and buried those results — something must be wrong!!
All the savings from not having to build BART-SFO could have electrified Caltrain and extended it to the Transbay Terminal a decade ago. The Caltrain corridor would have been primed for HSR. It’s a case of the astonishing lack of foresight in Bay Area transportation planning.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
So huge populations in central and southeast San Francisco would have been better off taking BART to Daly City and transfering to some bus to get to SFO. No, the opponents of the BART SFO extension have it wrong and I suspect most of them haven’t lived in central/southeast SF. What should have happened however was BART should have had a transfer station with Caltrain in San Bruno and the proceed to SFO, possibly with two stations (an extra one positioned for easy access to the domestic terminals. Millbrae should have never happened. 1/2 billion would have been saved.
We need both Caltrain and BART to connect to SFO.
Joey Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I wouldn’t say “huge populations.” Sure, there are a good amount of people there, but those who will actually take BART to the airport are a small percentage (usually amounting to those within waking distance of a BART station).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“Some bus”. Well, there you have it.
I just love “rail advocates”. Cost is no object, as long as one gets jerk off dreaming about shiny long ribbons of steel rails.
PS Hundreds of billions of dollars squandered state-wide and world-wide on “airport connectivity” rail lines is 98% a welfare program for the rich. Airline passengers are super important and should never ever have to sit in “some bus”, so extinguish all rationality and cost control and build baby build!
PPS Yes I’ve taken many trains from airports and I prefer them to buses all other things being equal, which they aren’t. That’s not the point.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
The BART connection connects people from central/southwest SF to Caltrain and the rest of the Peninsula. Who wants to take BART to Colma, hop on a bus and then get on Caltrain. BART connecting to SFO AND Caltrain is a great thing considering it satisfies two very desirable connections for dense areas of SF. Where things fell apart was the stupid wye and Millbrae connection. I think we need to redesign the Taj Majal Station so HSR takes some BART tracks and the people movers utilize the southern leg of the BART wye to bring people to SFO from the south in for FREE. The best we can hope for now is to fix the Millbrae station as best we can.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Daniel, compare the cost of the Millbrae/SFO extension with the cost of electrifying Caltrain, purchasing noncompliant trains, and four-tracking select passing sections to allow for express overtakes.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
It’s always the mark of the misinformed when “transit activists” start slandering buses, or shuttles. It’s almost as if buses aren’t real transit, or perhaps just temporary solutions before a rail solution can be found, with BRT being the reluctant compromise. Buses are the workhorses of transit, and don’t ever forget it. Anyone knowledgeable of real transit operations recognizes the importance of buses and understands the importance of a transit system.
Direct airport-rail connections are not nearly as important as they are made out to be, especially when a rail corridor has to be diverted or disrupted in order to reach the airport. The popularity of air-rail links has much to do with business booster groups such as the Bay Area Council uncritically thinking airports are important for business travelers and thus must be connected to the most intense form of transit service possible. The construction industry is always happy to oblige in building big.
Have you checked out the terrible ridership levels at the BART stations at San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Colma? The whole extension beyond Daly City is troubled, and the Bayshore route (w/Caltrain) has always been the better route between downtown SF and the airport. SP understood this in 1907 when they completed the Bayshore Cutoff precisely to achieve faster travel times to the SF CBD. The airport workers living in Daly City would still prefer the cheaper buses to the exorbitant fares BART is now charging to access the airport.
Joey Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Well rail has its place and buses have their place. Rail is usually preferable because of higher capacity, higher reliability, and frequently lower maintenance costs (at least in the case of light rail), however, the high capital costs or rail mean that only the highest ridership corridors deserve it. Given the end cost and current ridership of BART’s SFO extension, the project was not justified (though relatively simple measures could have been taken to cut down the cost and boost ridership).
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Just to clarify, my intent was not to “slander” buses. I ride them all the time. Rather I was saying that adding in a bus connection is extremely inefficient than just continuing on a rapid rail line. In this case buses are much slower (not to mention the connection time). I apologize if my wording gave an impression of anti-bus. Not at all the case.
The poor station locations in San Bruno and SSF are very unfortunate and a result of stupid local politics. However, those mistakes don’t take away the utility of connecting both SFO and Caltrain to thousands of daily riders. Leaving massive gaps in the regional rail system is not a good idea and cutting off central, west and SW San Francisco from seemless rail transfers to the Peninsula and South Bay is shortsided in my opinion. Hopefully, along with a redesign/adaptive re-use of Millbrae, someday land use can be intensified at the SSF and San Bruno stations and maybe new infill stations can be added. For now, those BART stations are poor examples of good Transit-Oriented Development planning.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Rail is usually preferable…
This mindset is exactly the problem I was talking about. It’s not whether bus or rail is preferable! Buses will always be part of almost any transit system. It’s how the system works together and what kind of transit technology is needed where, according to demand. Rail is preferrable if you have the actual travel demand base on the corridor to justify it, not because of its characteristics that distinguish it from buses.
Spokker Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Buses have pros and cons, both real and imagined. I agree that the BART to SFO connection is overkill and would have been better served by buses (same with the Oakland Airport Connector), but buses do have very real limitations that make rail a better choice in some situations (see Los Angeles’ Orange Line).
Joey Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
This mindset is exactly the problem I was talking about. It’s not whether bus or rail is preferable!
That’s not what I meant. Rail has certain benefits which make it desirable (mentioned above) IF there is sufficient ridership demand (I would add as a side note that capacity is useless if no one uses it anyway). Assuming that the costs are equal (which of course they aren’t), most transit planners will choose rail (even if it is only street-running light rail) for precisely the reasons I stated above. In the end, it boils down to costs/benefits: (1) Is there enough ridership to justify the higher cost or fail and (2) Is their enough ridership to take advantage or the benefits of rail.
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
There are a lot of people, and i see it everyday, who get a frowny sourpuss face when you mention a bus ride. None of my friends will ride a bus of any kind. ( yes its ridiculous) but a lot of people just think that buses are for “losers” but that rail is somehow respectable enough. Not saying I agree, just saying, its a problem.
Spokker Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
It depends, jim.
For the last two years I rode the bus twice a week to classes and back. Later this month I start grad school and I have classes four days a week. I’m not taking the bus anymore because the 15 minute drive is a 55-minute bus commute. I was willing to handle that twice a week, but not four times a week.
Am I a prima donna or does the Orange County Transit Authority not offer the level of transit service that people demand? They proposed Rapid Bus service on that route years ago but it never happened. It would have probably cut the commute down quite a bit if they institute proof of payment and stops once per mile.
If there is good bus service and someone still doesn’t ride, then that’s stupid.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Jim, in the United States, bus transportation is looked on as for poor folks. In Canada, specifically Vancouver, it is what everyone uses to connect with rail transportation. In fact, I find some buses more comfortable than Seattle’s light rail.
synonymouse Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Kopp will not be indicted – the Pelosi machine will see to it that something will be named after him.
What is certain that whatever option that PB will attempt to impose on the Peninsula will be expensive, butt-ugly and dysfunctional, ergo a repeat of BART to SFO.
I think the PCC is screwed. The CHSRA might end up radicalizing Palo Alto liberals into tea-partyers. I don’t think that was what the pols had in mind when they concocted Prop 1A
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Syn, no one in the bay area gives a rat’s ass about Palo Alto, you people are so full of yourselves down there. Palo Alto only matters to Palo Alto. Go ahead and “radicalize” lol. I assure you no one will notice, or care.
synonymouse Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am
On the contrary I see the potential genesis of a neo-Reaganism in liberal academia, epitomized by Stanford-PA. Small groups can launch large-scale trends.
The old party machine order is in disarray – witness the Dellums fiasco in Oakland. I suggest that many will find the new model of political leader unappealing – meld a plutocrat with a welfare state mandarin and presto you have MIchael Bloomberg. fuggedaboutit.
Whitman may be a jerk but at least she will slow down the juggernaut enough so’s we can take a second look before we leap.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
She is not even going to win!!! Brown may not win in a landslide ..tho no WallStreet sleaze Repub is..The only reason Arnie ever got in was his then very popular moive star image..which he has ruined being Governor
jimsf Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Its the republican party that is in complete disarray. Pandering to the far right to get primary votes, while trying to distance themselves from those very same wackos at the same time, all while offering no concrete plans whatsoever for the future. When pressed, they have nothing to offer except a return to the Bush era policies and much to their dismay, as upset as voters are right now, they just as firmly do not want a return to those policies. Oh sure republicans wish that voters would be distracted enough to forget what was going on a few years ago, but they haven’t forgotten. As far as California goes, they have also not forgotten that Arnold said the exact same thing that Meg is saying, and was unable to do any of it because at the end of the day, Californians are not going to vote for getting rid of stuff they like and will often vote to increase local taxes to get more of what they like. As far as PA, the bay area, outside of PA, simply isn’t interested in what the people of PA’ opinions on anything are. Its not San Francisco, which like it or not, does matter, its not San Jose, hell its not even Oakland. YOu guys live in your own little self important bubble. Go on and have your little revolution. Knock yourselves out.
PeakVT Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Thanks for the responses.
Roundabouts work well provided the streets feeding into it don’t have a high volume of traffic and are no more than 2 lanes for each direction. Therefore they wouldn’t work for some major intersections in American cities.
Does anyone know what was said at the Board meeting concern the building of the transbay terminal? It was on the agenda, but nothing was posted on the CAHSRA website.
dave Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
The Board Meeeing for Aug, 5 is posted on the CHSRA Website. Look at it yourself.
“The core system contractor would design, build, demonstrate, test, validate and verify the core system elements in a test section (at least 100 miles long) of very high speed (250 mph) track in the Central Valley between Merced and (?) before the high speed elements are constructed elsewhere on the initial San Francisco to Anaheim route. Core system elements currently include the high speed trainsets, heavy maintenance facility, train control/signaling and communications systems, central control center, electrification/traction power systems, and track. (From CAHSRA 2009 business plan)
I am not sure but does this mean the following?
1. Billions of dollars will have to be spent in the Central Valley on 100 miles of test track plus the heavy maintenance facility plus electrification, control and signaling systems.
2. Trainsets will have to be purchased and run on the test track.
3. Will all have to be done before work can begin anywhere else on system.
4. Central Valley segment (At least Fresno to Bakersfield) will have to be started first with a possible delay of several years before any other segment can be begun.
Hopefully the San Francisco to San Jose, and the Los Angeles to Anaheim segments are not considered to be “high speed elements” , and could be constructed independently of the test section if enough money is available.
Or even more hopefully I have misread this section and there is no real issue here!!
Alon Levy Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
John, the section from SF to SJ is considered high-speed. I’m not sure about LA-Anaheim; I’m no longer sure whether the preferred alternative now is shared-track or not. However, rest assured that if there’s money, California will spend it on those sections, even before the Central Valley test track is complete. The test track is not supposed to test infrastructure, but trainsets, maintenance facilities, and maybe also signaling.
Nathanael Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Mistaken about (3) and (4).
What this means is, the test track work has to be done before the other parts of the system have actual high-speed running of the actual high-speed trains.
But the other parts can be designed and constructed, and used for somewhat lower speed running (still >80 mph, probably 110 mph) while this is going on.
It’s mostly the high-speed 250mph *trains* which need the test track; construction of track and catenary can be done, and lower-speed (but still fast) trains run on the track, before the high-speed trains are ready.
So raise your hand if you want yet another HSR vesrus flying trip comparison. Oh good, that’s everybody…
So, I went to vegas for a concert saturday. how did the flying stack up to a hypothetical hsr trip?
So this is a typical, advance planned, advance purchased, weekend leisure getaway from SF to LV round trip….
First, we have to establish the hsr rail travel time by making an assumption…
SFC to PMD is 2hrs 16mins per the interactive map and assuming a future Palmdale connection and a desertexpress speed of 125mph… plus transfer time at PMD, we will say 2 hours from PMD to LVS ( could be less with a higher speed, a timed transfer, or a direct service)
So lets say 4 hours by HSR
“but.. but..How can four hours beat a 70 minute flight for 59 bucks on southwest!!!” (the mantra)
Let me tell you about the 70 minute flight.
10 am bart train at civic to sfo for 1150am flight to arrive in vegas at 1pm
1030 at sfo for TSA
1130 boarding delayed due to fog
130 arrival in vegas
20 minutes de plane to curbside
20 mintues in cab que.
210 depart airport to hotel.
4 hours 10 minutes. oh, and I paid 119 one way and 92 for the return.
The return trip was worse as we sat on the plane for another hour with fog delays after sitting for an extra hour at the gate… my 925a flight didn’t get to sfo until 130p total time including TSA.. 5 and half hours. and thats 5 and half VERY freakin uncomfortable miles. I thought I was going to come unglued sitting in that tiny confined space. The plane was 100 percent full. I couldn’t get up couldnt move, its like being a straight jacket. with no fresh air, and baking in the sun on the tarmac in vegas.
If this had been a high speed rail trip I would have had the same 4 hours but instead of shelping from mode to mode, and going through that whole TSA mess, I would have found my seat, been able to stretch out comfortable in seats that are more comfortable than even first class on a plane, been able to get up, walk around, socialize in the lounge, have a nice meal in a comfortable setting, chat up the staff, breath ample fresh air, forgo ear pain, not have to fight for carry on space, I mean there is just no comparison. After todays return flight I’m canceling the idea of going to Hawaii for vacation. There is no way I’m sitting on a plane for 5 hours. Ever. Never again. Today was the last straw. Now I truly understand why we are breaking ridership records at amtrak, and why so many people are telling me they refuse to fly anymore cuz they’re fed up. I’m joining their ranks immediately.
Nathanael Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
To be fair, you’d still have had the cab queue in Vegas. But all the rest of the delays — gone.
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Yes, but can someone please tell me why in holy hell they didn’t extend the damn monorail all the way to the airport. I could have been to the luxor lickety-split for a couple of bucks. Infuriating. Absolutely infuriating.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Well, I’ll be on a plane to Hawaii in about 2 weeks, but I’m not looking forward to the long flight. I love being in the air, but I hate the modern experience of flying.
Unfortunately there’s no alternative (since there doesn’t appear to be regular passenger boat service between here and there, at least none that I’m aware of – unless it’s a cruise ship, which I equally despise), so flying it shall have to be.
After Netroots Nation, I heard from a LOT of my friends who traveled from Vegas back to SoCal and suffered through the traffic on Interstate 15 that they really wish there had been HSR as an available option. I’d much rather have taken DesertXpress from Vegas to Palmdale, changed to a California HSR train there and gone up to Gilroy, and changed to a passenger rail solution that could get me to Monterey (or at least to Monterey County).
jimsf Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I like the cruiseships. But a regular, basic boat service to hawaii would be a nice thing to establish. ( I like the cruises cuz they wait on you hand and foot and after 30 years of “can I help you” its ever so nice to be on the other side of the equation. And I don’t like being in the air anymore either. All I think about is how they lowered my fare by cutting corners on maintenance, and hired foreigners who don’t speak english to do take care of the planes, while increasing profits and screwing the crew out of their pensions. Yeh, that’s what I think about for the entire flight…. that and also, “why are we flying next to that mountain instead of over it… ( our west coast geography never ceases to amaze me)
DAmn, and I really want to go to hawaii.
oh and that wasn’t even the crappy southwest airlines, that was my favorite virgin america, and still, absolutely unbearable.