“Nowhere doesn’t work”
The headline doesn’t remotely fit the content, but this editorial from the Pasadena Star-News is pretty good:
If Californians want to actually travel on a high-speed train, as opposed to reading 30 years of op-ed pieces about the concept, as we already have, then they’ll realize the train has to go somewhere. Nowhere doesn’t work. Neither does too many stations – this isn’t a milk run.
We don’t want to see undue hardship on locals. We do want to see the train.
The editorial is in response to the recent discussions in the city of Alhambra about the proposed HSR project alignment through the San Gabriel Valley. As we’ve seen, there is some debate about possible neighborhood impacts, and Alhambra residents are uneasy about alignments along I-10.
The PSN’s take is, I think, a fair one. They recognize Alhambra’s concerns as legitimate, which they are, but stress that not building HSR is not an option, and that California needs this project:
Given the former cheapness and convenience of air travel, high-speed rail probably was nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky idea for California in earlier eras.
In the post-9/11 age, though, with security and air traffic making most trips akin to living through a waking nightmare, a 300-mph train begins to sound like a very good idea. Business travelers in Spain, for instance, have found that the Barcelona-Madrid leg of that country’s AVE fast train is actually just as fast as flying, given airport delays – with few of the hassles.
The California train still has many obstacles to overcome. The bond funding voters approved through Proposition 1A two years ago authorizes $10 billion, but the whole project is likely to cost over $40 billion. Private funding in this economy is hard to come by. But if we don’t plan for the future, and make the necessary sacrifices for and investments in it, our state’s formerly bright light will shine very dimly indeed.
Here again the PSN editorial has hit the right notes, although they could say more about rising oil prices, and I think they’re too skeptical of the possibility of private funding. The economic crisis is actually a reason why we might see some significant sources of private funding – large funds like CalPERS are seeking reliable rates of return in an era where that isn’t exactly easy to find.
But overall, this is a good editorial on the HSR project, showing that there are media outlets in California that understand the need to plan for the 21st century economy and build the necessary infrastructure for our state to thrive.
Alhambra as we’ve said in the comments is overreacting and doing the Peninsula panic of the sky is falling. I have listened to a freeway from two miles away across a body of water. I’ve seen the YouTube video of ICE trains passing between 200-300 km/h very quietly and very close to the trains. Interstate 10 will probably project more noise an high-speed rail will not increase the noise.
The politicians really need to stop spending money on themselves and go on a high-speed train in Europe or Asia to see what they are missing out on. Maybe that will solve the political will issue. Also with the Authority taking heat for not knowing answers, would it help to have some HSR supporters at meetings like this who have better background knowledge of high-speed rail or would we be throwing ourselves into no-mans land?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
My experience (which is now almost 20 years old) was the no-man’s land variety. That might be different today, and it might be different in California, which I’ve been told has been a pretty laid-back place. At the same time, there have been those video clips earlier on this site. . .yet sometimes that is just the thing that needs doing. . .
Which leads to the question. . .why haven’t the California HSR officials at these meetings asked questions of the audience about peak oil, highway finance and costs, shortcomings and limitations of auto use, the generational change, and all those other things? Maybe they don’t know about all of them, but they surely know about some of them. What’s wrong with asking the anti-tax crowd and the NIMBYs what they would do about peak oil, aging drivers, highway underfunding because of too-low gas taxes with no index for inflation, or any of a host of other questions? Are they that ignorant–or are they afraid to ask the questions and stir up a hornets’ nest?
What’s disappointing is that these are presumably technical people, not elected officials who could have to face the wrath of the electorate. I’ll repeat something I’ve said before: most politicians are quite timid in reality, and are deathly afraid of losing their cushy, high-status jobs, especially as elected offices are usually exempt from unemployment coverage. I’ve been told, in regard to proper road pricing, “You’re right, Dave, but we can’t do that. If you want us to accomplish anything, we have to be in office to do it.” A variation of this was a comment from a retired Dutch pol, who was quoted as saying something like, “We know what the troubles are and we know what needs to be done. The problem is how do we get reelected after we do these things?” It seems to me that the HSR officials could stand a chance at taking heat off the pols, and make the pols’ lives easier in this regard.
Maybe the politicians should have a lottery and choose some winning locals to go abroad and try it for themselves. Then they’ll come back and tell everyone how great it is.
William Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Yeah, at the end of every CAHSRA meeting there should be a lottery to pick some audience to go to China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain to go see, hear, feel HSR for themselves. Organizing such a trip shouldn’t cost 5K per person, maybe even the HSR makers would sponsor them…
Victor Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
That is a fantastic idea and they can bring back recorded audio & video too.
Interesting commentary on politics in regard to rail, both high speed and local, from Florida and the Mid-West:
http://www.tamparail.org/article.asp?entry=571
http://nineshift.typepad.com/
Why win the lottery? All you have to do is just sit on the HSRA board, you can get study trips that are worth $17,000 for free.
rafael Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Would you rather have CHSRA board members make decisions regarding tens of billions of taxpayer dollars without ever meeting with experienced counterparts abroad?
A bit off-topic, a bit foamy maybe, but some images you might find useful in letting people know an electric railroad isn’t the end of the world:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=270022&nseq=20
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=326577&nseq=14
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=333228&nseq=4
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=327312&nseq=11
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=328641&nseq=9
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=326657&nseq=12
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=323282&nseq=21
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=310464&nseq=43
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=298770&nseq=61
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=294704&nseq=63
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=284626&nseq=66
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=283870&nseq=67
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=279739&nseq=69
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=259788&nseq=93
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=258549&nseq=96
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=249655&nseq=105
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=248515&nseq=106
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=230862&nseq=118
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=219957&nseq=126
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=139858&nseq=197
Some of these photos show power lines that are more objectionable than what will be in California; when the Pennsylvania electrified its railroad in the 1930s, it also had to build much of its grid distribution to go with it because the existing grid couldn’t handle the load. This included at least one power plant that essentially served the railroad. Today’s grid, despite its problems, is much more extensive, and those tall, tall towers with the high-tension lines aren’t likely to be needed on the California system.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Wow lots of great shots. Hardly looks like the end of the world.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
The nimbys would not be impressed by any of those pictures.. they would also like the CalTrain to go away and let alone HSR. Yes they’re playing a little game that their lives and property will be runied.. they need to go back east and look at the lines that Acelas run along.. seems to go through some very nice communities and at quite high speeds from my window seat!.t
I future tube plans include a stop under Treasure Island. The City just got it back from the Navy and construction starts next year on a new green city including 7000 units of housing.
dave Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Are you serious about the tube stop or are you just saying?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
He’s exactly as well informed about this as anything else.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
No future plans don’t include one, I’m saying, I would like them too. (The word “hope” after “I” is missing – its my wireless keyboards fault)
And no Richard, I was implying any information. It was just a thought. YOu’re the one who knows everything remember?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Jim, you may have heard they are building this lovely bus station right downtown. Maybe the people on Treasure Island can take the bus.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
They will have frequent ferry service as the plan includes a ferry terminal as well. I was merely suggesting that for barts big 2050 plans for another tube perhaps they should consider a stop there. For decades people have talked about “why didn’t bart stop at YB/TI.
Its not likely to be practical but who knows what will be going on in 2050 anyway. YOu may even be living in Jersey.
AndyDuncan Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“YOu may even be living in Jersey.”
Let’s keep it above the belt, please.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I suggest you do not underestimate the drawing power of the Garden State.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Come on, Andy. Not everything about Jersey is bad. There’s nothing wrong with the state that an army of bulldozers won’t fix.
thatbruce Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
If the city recently got TI back from the Navy, that would seem that no TI BART stop originally was because there was nothing of mass transit interest there at the time the BART plans were drawn up. Did the Key system stop at TI?
(And avoiding the more solid formation of TI in the bay meant that the one opentrench/sink a tube section/weld together/cover method of construction could be done across the whole bay )
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
When bart was new, people would comment on how it didn’t follow the bay bridge routing. So many people traveled the i-80 approach to the city, even back then, that there was a sense that the trains should cut over from berkeley to the city. I’m just thinking back to those days and the general feeling in the air then. Of course the population and commute patterns have shifted since the early 70s.
Although I could see use for a route that hypothetically combined the caltrain route from the city across the ccjpa route near berkeley to continue to sac.
Or how bout a Y or X in the middle of the bay, smart/ccjpa/caltrain
Joey Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
The Key system stopped at Yerba Buena Island on its way across the bay. I can’t be sure, but openings are visible that may have once served as the station platform.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Cool that would be something to look up. Ill bet there are pics out there somewhere.
Dan S. Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 12:26 am
There are some cool historical pics on the transbay web site:
http://transbaycenter.org/media-gallery/image-gallery/historical-album
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:45 am
You don’t know how much I wish the Transbay terminal was somewhere else and that the Key terminal would be preserved and the Key System itself rebuilt! The “bridge units” (articulated cars built by Bethlehem Steel in Pennsylvania) were cool, too, even with all those rivets.
This is a railfan video company, and a video is (or was) available (California Electric Trilogy) that features the Key System, Sacramento Northern (freight operation), and the Pacific Electric. The Key System segment includes a ride over the bridge and a stop at the island station, and cool footage of the cars switching over from third rail to catenary at speed, with third rail shoes folding up and pantographs reaching to the wire.
http://pentrex.com/index.html
http://pentrex.com/elec.html
There are other items available from other companies that cater to us foamers–watch this space!
I’ll get them up when I get a little more time.
thatbruce Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Safety holes for trackworkers (so says the wikipedia article on the Bay bridge), no stop at YBI.
And yes, I got Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island mixed up.
Joey Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
I’m talking about this. And ther was definitely a stop at Yerba Buena.
CNN report on HSR:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/08/18/us.high.speed.rail/?hpt=C2
Who ever proposed running trains at 300 miles per hour through the San Gabriel Valley? CHSRA is looking at 110 between LAUS and Riverside.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Units of measurement aren’t exactly the strongpoint of Americans…
StevieB Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Reporters seem to easily confuse kph with mph. Evidence the International Business Times which today said,
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Sweet! They managed to finagle a free and instant upgrade to maglev! Hot damn!
AndyDuncan Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Well, technically they’re correct. The experimental TGVs have hit 357mph (574kph), and the JR-Maglev hit 361mph (581kph).
Conflating test runs, or in the case of the shinkansen, the maglevs, with the normal day-to-day rolling stock is typical journalistic idiocy, but it’s not an issue of unit conversion.
Peter Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
But Rafael’s earlier point of 300 mph trains through the San Gabriel Valleys is BOTH an issue of typical journalistic idiocy, as well as an issue of unit conversion.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I thought they were looking more into the 125-150 category? Either way, it is much less than 300 mph and below 200 mph as well.
rafael Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Afaik, trains on the LA-SD leg would only hit 125-150mph south of Riverside. Then again, plans may have changed. It all depends on the details of the route and the number of stops.
Joey Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I seem to remember them saying that trains would be traveling at ~150 through the San Gabriel Valley, except where tight curves dictate otherwise.
dfb Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
The Authority told Alhambra the train would go 150 MPH through the city during both community meetings. The only exception is a tight curve which has three speed/curve options: 100 mph, 75 mph, or 50 mph.
As a 10 year Gilroy resident, I enjoy the country side and would like to see the downtown continue to be revitalized. The city made a lot of mistakes years’ back by putting the outlets out in the farmland area and draining traffic and revenue from the downtown area. This approach of building of where the land is the cheapest at the moment is often short sighted and leads to sprawl and only pockets of development. What we need is higher density and infilling of empty lots in downtown Gilroy. We need critical mass of shopping, housing, business, restaurants, and other services to attract people, including visitors to the downtown. Lets not make the same mistake again by contributing to more sprawl. The benefits of the downtown train location far outweigh the other options. And remember, if you are a visitor to Gilroy and disembark at that station, where are you going to go if the station is in the midst of rural farmland…. You would have to walk a few miles to get to the downtown area. This wouldn’t be practical or even safe, especially. If we must have the HSR, lets make it convenient to the users and not force them to rent a car when leaving the station in order to access the amenities of our California cities.
Joey Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
The issue being that you would then have to run express trains at around 200 mph through downtown.
HSR funding to help with regional connectivity upgrades
wu ming Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
excellent. once they get that roseville-truckee leg sped up, they can get the ski train up and running, and take part of that SUV caravan clogging up 80 every weekend off the road. all they would need then is to coordinate some kind of shuttle service from the train station to the ski resorts, hotels, etc.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Right now you can do a charter ski train via the reno fun traiin/snow train sked. But regular service would be better. You can use #6 to Truckee. Would be nice if they stopped at Soda/Sugar at least during the winter.
wu ming Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
it’s not for me, it’s just to get those people off of 80 so it isn’t a parking lot every weekend during ski season.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
You mean you don’t want to dip and twirl and kick up your heels at the onboard shindig with a cold can of coors and some cheezits?
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
just look what fun… no really you gotta see this. woo hooo
wu ming Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
yikes. that crowd/band reminds me of the T&A bar in susanville.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Ah yes. Susanville. A childhood haunt. Its a whole other cali up there. BTW if you ever to Modoc Co it is freakin gorgeous up there.
wu ming Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
never been up as far as modoc, but i worked up around lassen one summer (redding, burney, westwood, lake almanor, susanville) marking trees and stuff on a timber crew. i might have driven through modoc once on my way up to seattle, though. it is beautiful, when it’s not burning.
jimsf Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Lassen is amazing. Id dint find anything about key stopping at TI but I did find this… and It makes me wish they had brought hsr in this way you know with a nice view on approach.
wu ming Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
yeah, it boggles my mind that they didn’t build rail capacity into the bay bridge project. it will be interesting to see if we end up converting highway lanes to rail lines in a couple of decades, if higher gas prices start to cut down on the number of cars on the road.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
We spent several years failing to prevent that (Bay Bridge without rail capability) a dozen years ago.
The blame lies entirely with MTC’s then executive director, Larry “BART to the Moon” Dahms and his deputy who ran the fiasco “Bay Bridge Design Task Force”, today’s not yet indicted MTC chief apparatchik Steve “mini me” Heminger.
Criminals.
rafael Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:47 am
IIRC, the original plans for the new east span of the Bay Bridge did include the option of running light rail across it. Those were nixed when it became clear that the cost of attaching cantilevered tracks to either side of the lower deck of the west span plus tunnel construction on Yerba Buena island plus access on the SF side would be well north of $3 billion.
Around that time, Berkeley and Oakland insisted on their “signature span”, massively jacking up the cost of the project while forcing the civil engineers to permanently eliminate the rail option. The support columns for the entire new span were slimmed down, now there will be just a very expensive bike path between Oakland and Yerba Buena.
To add insult to injury, note that per unit of length, BART rolling stock is actually lighter than light rail. The rationale for that is that reduced vehicle mass translates to greater acceleration and superior hill climbing/descent capability per unit of installed traction power. HSR rolling stock weighs in at about the same mass per unit length as light rail, primarily to reduce wear and tear on the safety-critical track geometry.
Bottom line: the live load per unit length, a key design parameter for bridge engineers, would have been low enough to accommodate BART or even HSR trains on the new east span. Of course, actually exercising that option would have required additional investment in the west span, possibly several decades hence. Unfortunately, none of the decision-makers involved was far-sighted enough to stick with plan A.
Now, MTC’s long-range plan already includes a second tunnel for BART, complete with underground approaches on both sides. Shoot foot, reload.
Terminology note: in engineering terms, “heavy rail” refers narrowly to the mass per unit length of the rails themselves. Relative to the already-high dead load of the bridge deck and supports, accommodating the incremental mass of heavy vs. light rails would have been a relatively minor design challenge.
wu ming Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:59 am
could it be retrofitted in the future, at the cost of a car lane or two, or is the impossibility of adding rail permanently baked into the design?
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 5:04 am
ITs politically impossible. The public will never accept losing a lane of traffic.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Rafael is 98% wrong (his usual rate) about the Bay Bridge. I was there.
Wu Ming: no, it can’t be retrofitted. (Well, on the existing western span a new rail level could be slung below. But it can’t connect to anything on the Heminger Memorial East Span.) Game over. Thanks, MTC.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Rapheal, even light trains are heavy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgXveBf_l6k
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Multiple answers and a question or two:
The bridge bounce visible in the New York shots is normal, particularly for a suspension bridge. Wheeling, W.Va. has a suspension bridge across the Ohio (actually to an island in the river) that predates the Civil War and is still in use, and it has quite a bit of bounce to it, even though it is limited to autos and pedestrians only. The nearby Fort Henry Bridge, which carries I-70 across the same river, is an arch suspension bridge (like the famous Hell Gate on the New Haven in New York), and it bounces plenty, too, expecially when heavy trucks run across it. I’ve experienced bounce even on assorted truss bridges and modern I-system bridges when stopped in traffic but an adjacent lane is open and a large truck rolls past. About the only bridges I have not been able to detect bounce on are masonry bridges (stone arch), and maybe the large, very heavy truss bridges steam railroads would build starting in the 20th century to accomodate those monster locomotives.
Jim SF commented about the Key System approach into the San Francisco terminal. It’s my understanding that the whole upper level of the terminal, which had been used by Key System and (prior to 1941) Sacramento Northern trains was converted to bus service, and this service may have still been running until fairly recently, so you could have had the views that the Key System passengers had, but from a bumpity bus instead of a proper transit vehicle (watch somebody squawk about that last comment!)
The Key System trains used the equivelent of two lanes on the existing lower level of the Bay Bridge; the tracks were both on the right side of the lower level as you headed out of San Francisco to the island and Oakland. This bridge right-of-way was given over to auto traffic on abandonment in the 1950s.
I have a couple of questions for Richard if he would be inclined to answer about the no-rail decision.
First, what was the (flawed) reasoning behind no rail on the bridge, especially considering that the bridge had been built for rail from the beginning? Was there any concern about peak oil problems that far back? Was it proposed to restore the rail line, but did budget and/or political pressures prevent leaving this option open?
Second, how old were (or are) Larry Dahms and Steve Heminger? The reason for asking that question is that it has been apparent to me and some others on this site (notably YesOn HSR and Robert) that much of the opposition or skepticism to rail in any way, shape or form, even with positive cost benefits worked up, seems to be generational in nature–specifically, people who have no faith in rail at all and supreme faith in cars are mostly now between 60 and 90 (and I can remember when they were 40 to 70–yikes, that’s 20 years ago, I’m getting to be a geezer for real). This could have been a significant factor; this generational age would have been a bit under 50 to a bit under 80 at the time of the problems you mentioned.
Some material on the Key System and other lines that ran across the Bay Bridge and shared the terminal; be sure to look at some of the external links provided in each case for addtional material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Bay_Electric_Lines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento_Northern
Sample of what can be found in the external links–in this case, Bay Area Rails website photo gallery on just the Key System:
http://www.bayarearails.org/photogal/thumbnails.php?album=3
http://www.bayarearails.org/photogal/thumbnails.php?album=3&page=2
Photos of some preserved Key System cars, courtesy of foamer site Railpictures.net (this is the same site that I found all those Acela photos–and in regard to the Acela collection, I barely was halfway through it!). Click on pictures to enlarge, but be forewarned, this site also has some of the most annoying pop-up ads I’ve seen for their habit of comming up when you start typing to get what you want.
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php
Looking up Sacramento Northern brings up other things besides the former interuban, as can be seen here:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|sacramento northern|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=5
Some photos that are properly interurban in nature from this set:
Bay Area Electric Railroad Association now operates part of the Sacramento Northern, including this former Cedar Rapids and Iowa City car. What’s notable about this car is that it was originally built for the Cincinnatti & Lake Erie as car No. 111–and a sister car, a twin to this one, part of a series called the Red Devils, was the machine that raced an airplane in 1930 and won, with sustained running at 97 mph! I know, this says more about aviation in 1930 than anything else, but a trolley at 97 mph is still nothing to sneeze at!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=285081&nseq=5
Other Sacramento Nothern photos from this site:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=228404&nseq=14
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=221370&nseq=15
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=186732&nseq=20
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=186730&nseq=21
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=186642&nseq=22
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=177539&nseq=29
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=176575&nseq=30
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=121811&nseq=38
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=99598&nseq=43
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=70883&nseq=48
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=25166&nseq=57
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=11167&nseq=58
Have fun, and remember, if the number of people who like beer is any indication, foam is good!
Joey Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
They could have. They could have built an aerial up Willie Mays Plaza and the Embarcadero terminating where the underground Beale Street Terminal would have been (and believe me, the Watermark is pretty easy to avoid). Of course, no one would stand for a resurrection of the Embarcadero Freeway, even if that comparison is way overblown.
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:48 am
Somehow I think that an aerial hsr approach would not have seen too much opposition so long as an attractive design was offered. You’d have to avoid Beale/south beath/rincon though entirely and and stick with 2nd/3rd/4th as those are less residential. Ive always thought the most spectacular approach to downtown is the 280x from the 101 interchange to 6th.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Awesome. I wonder if the Fremont-area work might help add some trains to the San José runs.
Capitol Corridor has shown interest in an extension to Salinas, which would probably require some trackwork between Castroville and Gilroy. As you can imagine, I’m all in favor of it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Just how deep would you like us to dig this hole?
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:52 am
Yes the point of the work is to add san jose runs to my knowledge. I think there are plans for a full schedule to san jose and adding a couple more direct trains to placer county at the other end, and reno service starting with one round trip per day. I’m saying this from memory but I think that was the plan.
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:57 am
as for gilroy/SNS EIther the ccjpa will go further south or the surfline will extend further north. ( I think the latter is more likely as that’s where we have the existing thruway service for surfliner) Those buses are packed. They are very popular. They link ccjpa with surf via the okj-emy-sfc-sjc-sns-prb-kgc-slp-slo route. With more trains direct to San Jose, ccjpa pax will connect to the coast route at sjc, instead of emy. while the buses will continue to be the direct extension of surf between sf and slo. Thus the fuss over retaining capacity on the peninsula for up/amtrak future coastal route. Its in everyones sights
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 10:14 am
The Transportation Agency of Monterey County has had preliminary discussions with CCJPA about going to SNS, and the Capitol Corridor folks were interested. So we’ll see where it goes.
TAMC is also strongly supportive of the Coast Daylight (which is the extension north of the 798/799 surfliners), and plans to have stops at King City, Soledad, Salinas, and probably Pajaro/Watsonville (at least here in Monterey County).
jimsf Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Its good tha there is focused support coming directly from the communities. That’s what it takes. As I said the current bus connection is very popular with students from CalPoly and Santa Barbara, popular with tourists who want to see the coastal route ( south of slo) without spending all day on the Starlight, and with many people who prefer the single transfer rather the the san joaquin route. On top of all that, the surfliner uses a fare plan that doesn’t fluctuate based on avail. so its always like 56 bucks period. for sba-vec-lax and only 68 all the way to SD and the icing on the cake is if you get a clerk who knows how, you can price the whole thing through but include stopovers without changing the price. The tourists love it.