Build HSR in Central Valley First?
The California High Speed Rail Authority has four of its segments eligible for federal stimulus funding: SF to San José, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, and LA-Anaheim. Since those segments were awarded stimulus funding in January, a debate has emerged over which segment ought to be funded first. Today’s San Francisco Chronicle includes an op-ed from a former FTA planner who argues that the Central Valley should be funded and built first:
At an estimated cost of $6.75 billion for the 168 miles, the third segment is cheaper to build per mile ($40.2 million) than the other segments. Also, by extending the third segment an additional 114 miles to Sacramento, the state would tap the largest travel market in the state, within and between the San Joaquin Valley and major California cities.
This plan would create a viable showcase of high-speed rail that could help generate the outside investment needed to complete the system.
At speeds of nearly 200 mph, the running time from Bakersfield to Sacramento is cut to about two hours from 5 1/2 hours, and to the Bay Area to about 3 1/2 hours from six.
It’s an interesting point. The CHSRA would be able to crank the trains up to the maximum 220mph speed – and they’ll need a “test track” anyway to test the trainsets before they’re put into service. That would be a great “showcase” of the speed of HSR technology, and would make it real for Californians, who could come see the trains and thus generate public support for completing the system.
The construction cost would indeed be less expensive. There is widespread political support for HSR in the Central Valley – though there’s also widespread support for it along the SF-SJ and LA-OC segments, and there are growing debates between farmers and cities about where the tracks in the Central Valley ought to go, a debate that can only be resolved by one side or the other being made unhappy.
The op-ed author, Walter Strakosch, did make an important error in his justification for this option:
The projected cost of the 282 miles from Bakersfield to Sacramento is $11.34 billion. The $9 billion in bond money, plus the $2.25 billion in federal economic stimulus money, is nearly enough to build this entire stretch.
Unfortunately, the rules of the Prop 1A bond are that it can only be spent 50/50 with federal funding, so the full $9 billion cannot be spent until the feds pony up $9 billion.
Strakosch’s overall argument is that the Central Valley segments are likely to attract more riders as well:
A return on investment is doubtful if the system only cuts about 20 minutes from present rail time between L.A. and Anaheim and 30 minutes between S.F. and San Jose. Yet, the authority is preparing for just that scenario. If further funding were not to materialize, California would be left with improved commuter rail in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas only.
I’m not so sure I agree here. 30 minutes between SF and SJ is cutting the current best travel time by train in half. A 50% time savings is pretty significant. You can’t even drive from downtown SF to downtown SJ in 30 minutes, unless you are willing to break the law by speeding. Hell, it would be a shorter journey in terms of travel time than going from downtown SF to many neighborhoods in SF itself. A 30 minute train trip would be a big draw for riders in the Bay Area and shouldn’t be discounted.
The LA-Anaheim time savings would be another 50% improvement (Pacific Surfliners currently travel that route in about 40 minutes). Given that the segment is in the heart of the nation’s second-most populous metro area, it’s entirely possible that it would indeed be cost-effective to operate the LA-Anaheim service. Further, it would be an extremely high profile service, being in the backyard of the media industry’s headquarters. We all remember the pilot episode of the new Fox TV show Human Target, set on board the California HSR system on opening day? I can imagine TV productions flocking to use the trains, just as they have the LA subway, giving a major publicity boost to HSR, in addition to the improvement in transportation service and the increase in passenger rail ridership.
In many ways, this debate resembles the old and now settled debate between supporters of the Altamont and Pacheco Pass routes to connect the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Like that choice, there are good arguments for and against each of the eligible segments being the first one to be built. In my estimation, however, they balance out, just as the Altamont/Pacheco choice balanced out.
So Californians For High Speed Rail currently takes a position of “positive neutrality” on this question. We think each of these segments deserves to be funded and built, and will be happy with whichever one is built first. Of course, we will continue to evaluate these segments and reserve the right to change that view as new shit comes to light. But for now, our view is that whichever of these segments comes first, it will be a good choice for not just the HSR project, but for the state of California as a whole.
Building a segment in the Central Valley is not a new idea. It was part of the origional plan with one argument to build and provide a train testing/commissioning area.
Going to Sacramento fisrt… well, LA and SF would have a fit. San Diego would too, except politicians and other decision-makers down there are brain dead to teh opportunity that HSR brings.
morris brown Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Going to Sacramento first is clearly illegal under Prop 1A, since the SF to Anaheim corridor must be constructed first. You can thank Senator Yee for that restriction, which was certainly supported by Kopp/Diridon.
Why even discuss this article written by an author who doesn’t know the rules.
Victor Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Since It’s illegal currently, Then It could be modified to make It legal I’d think, As It’s not impossible, It just needs some effort in Sacramento to get the job done.
rafael Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Sorry, I think Morris is actually right on this one. AB3034(2008) does state that the proceeds from sae of the the associated bonds can only be used for the construction of network segments other than SF Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles and Anaheim if that doesn’t interfere with getting this starter line built as quickly as possible. Since that law was passed by plebescite, it can probably only be changed via a second ballot initiative.
However, there are no legal roadblock to prioritizing the Merced-Bakersfield section of the starter line over other sections. Politics is a different matter, representatives from both the Bay Area and the LA Basin want a large chunk of the money to be spent in their respective districts, which is also where most of the state’s tax base happens to be.
D Tappan Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:26 am
“Going to Sacramento first is clearly illegal under Prop 1A”, and “Why even discuss this article written by an author who doesn’t know the rules.”
Saying it’s “clearly illegal” is somewhat disingenuous. Assuming you’re referring to 2704.04.b.2 which reads:
“(2) As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim.”
However, Section 3 (and thus also 2704.08.f) pretty expressly permits the construction of other corridors as long as they don’t have an “adverse impact” on the construction of Phase 1 (SF-LA-Anaheim):
“(3) Upon a finding by the authority that expenditure of bond proceeds for capital costs in corridors other than the corridor described in paragraph (2) would advance the construction of the system, would be consistent with the criteria described in subdivision (f) of Section 2704.08, and would not have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train project, the authority may request funding for capital costs, and the Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed train corridors:
(A) Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno.
(B) San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno.
(C) Oakland to San Jose.
(D) Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station.
[and the rest]…”
So, then, what are the specific criteria set forth in 2704.08.f?
“(f) In selecting corridors or usable segments thereof for construction, the authority shall give priority to those corridors or usable segments thereof that are expected to require the least amount of bond funds as a percentage of total cost of construction. Among other criteria it may use for establishing priorities for initiating construction on corridors or usable segments thereof, the authority shall nclude the following: (1) projected ridership and revenue, (2) the need to test and certify trains operating at speeds of 220 miles per hour, (3) the utility of those corridors or usable segments thereof for passenger train services other than the high-speed train service that will not result in any unreimbursed operating or maintenance cost to the authority, and (4) the extent to which the corridors include facilities contained therein to enhance the connectivity of the high-speed train network to other modes of transit, including, but not limited to, conventional rail (intercity rail, commuter rail, light rail, or other rail transit), bus, or air transit.
So there it is. It’s not expressly illegal for the Sacramento corridor to be built contemporaneously, or even to be fully completed first. The law doesn’t specify anything about the order of completion if it’s in the best interest of the system as a whole; just that we begin with phase 1, and that phase 1 not be adversely affected by other corridor construction. At the VERY least, it merits a discussion of alternate corridors and analysis of the impact that would have on the SF-LA corridor and the system as a whole. So, I suppose that’s still a pretty good reason this article “written by an author who doesn’t know the rules” merits discussion rather than a terse dismissal.
jim Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
The rules bind only CHSRA and the Bond money. Suppose CHSRA built Bakersfield to Merced, fully electrified and signaled. There is nothing to prevent Caltrans from independently upgrading and electrifying Merced-Stockton-Sacramento and Stockton-Oakland. It wouldn’t cost much more than two billion and they could get 80% Federal funding, I’m sure; you don’t think Caltrans could lay its hands on $400M? There is nothing to prevent Caltrans from seeking and receiving a waiver from the FRA to run lightweight trains on those routes, assuming that PTC is installed on them. There is nothing to prevent Amtrak from acquiring lightweight train sets to run on the San Joaquin routes. Bakersfield-Oakland in under three hours (vice a bit over six now); Bakersfield-Sacramento in about two (vice five and a half now). Amtrak would have to pay CHSRA access fees, of course. They would be set so that CHSRA did not have to subsidize the operation of the segment.
That would create pressure to connect LA-Bakersfield. It would also create pressure from San Francisco interests on the cities of the Peninsula.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
I like your thinking, jim. Wouldn’t even have to electrify it to speed it up by a lot. Just run ICE-TD or Talgo XXI trains. Then electrify as funding becomes available.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Peter, the cost of electrification is small compared to the cost of building tracks to HSR standards. It may actually be smaller than the cost of all those high-speed diesel trains, which would be illegal on US track anywhere else and useless once the tracks are electrified in the future.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
The North American version of the Talgo XXI locomotives is going to be FRA compliant.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
FRA-compliant = locomotives so heavy they’d require HSR track to be beefed more than is standard. Either way, it’s a cost premium.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Alon says they may be considerably heavier than the normal variant, but I’m curious enough to ask, what do both versions actually weigh?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I’m not sure how much the compliant version weighs, but the regular version is constructed to weigh 68 metric tons, as to just meet the 17 tons/axle limit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
The Northeast could snooker them and sell them all the AEM7s and HHP8s really really cheap.. But then the Northeast would have to order up a fleet of ALP46b…. I know “lend” them all of the Amfleets we can so it would build some consensus to get something on the NEC that isn’t modern for 1950… Maybe this idea that they could just um um borrow stuff from the Northeast has charm.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Why would California ever want to run 22 t/axle trains on track constructed for 17 t/axle?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 8:42 am
…so that we can get rid of them….
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Interestingly, according to wikipedia, “The North American version states four axle power cars in compliance with United States FRA regulations.” If that’s the case, then there won’t even be a need for a waiver to run them on legacy tracks, which is a very juicy thought.
rafael Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Interesting idea, Jim, but it ignores an important political reality: lawmakers in Washington DC are only going to make a limited amount of money available for HSR construction in California. Whether that money goes to CHSRA, TJPA, Caltrans Division of Rail or another bureaucracy is largely irrelevant if the total amount on the table stays the same.
I’m not sure what’s worse about the article: the pretense that nobody wants to travel between NorCal and SoCal, or the pretense that a metro area of 2.5 million is more deserving of HSR than a metro area of 18 million people.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Yeah, that first pretense is an issue. Meant to address it in the post. We need to think of this as serving a statewide market.
Matthew Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I can just imagine the headlines and conservative anti-HSR talking points when it’s announced that California built a high speed train system that missed the top 5 metro areas (LA, SF, IE, SJ, SD). I think this could really backfire as people label it a train to nowhere. Central valley first could be OK, provided construction on the next segment starts before or immediately after completion of the valley segment. That means environmental review process completed and at least enough money to move some dirt on the way to LA or SF before completing the valley segment. In terms of independent utility, I could deal with just an LA-SF route without subsequent phases if it really came to that, but being stuck with just a Sacramento-Bakersfield route would really be a disaster.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Given the current timetable for completion of environmental review of the starter sections, they would easily have construction of connecting sections begun by the time the CV sections are completed.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C4mDW4olvw Speaking of conservative anti-HSR talking points. Reason Foundation decided to get on it and say it is “behind schedule” and “over-budget”.
I’ve long thought that a SF to Sacramento route would make the best sense as a first segment. As that trip is really too short for air travel, but long enough of a drive (especially if leaving SF during rush hour) that it would save a lot of time to take the train. And half of the route would be going through the middle of nowhere, so it shouldn’t be as expensive as the SF-SJ and LA-OC routes.
Evan Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Totally agree that we need HSR between SF and SAC, or even SAC and the Peninsula. I know people who commute all the way from Davis and Sacramento to the Peninsula for work, it’s nuts. It’s a heavily traveled corridor, and having driven it frequently, traffic is often horrendous. If they could somehow turn the Capitol Corridor into HSR and get it across the bay to SF or the Peninsula, it would see heavy use.
Joey Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Funny thing – SF-SAC via Altamont would take just over an hour – and then you’re building one high speed line instead of three.
Samsonian Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Good thing our fearless leaders put a stop to that.
There are certainly trade offs between the central valley and the two more urbanized ends.
While building in the central valley offers more miles per dollar, a test track and a 220mph showcase, the north an south ends would likely provide the ridership numbers and revenues that are more likely to silence the critics.
If the central valley is chosen I think it would be important to promote it as a “test track” to avoid criticism of ridership. I assume it would also be less technical to build and allow the engineers and construction managers to “ramp up” and gain expertise.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 7:27 am
No, it is no less technical. That is regardless of the fact that the test area will be mainline track used for revenue operations too.
Morshed’s plan was indeed to do the central valley first. That may well be one of the major reasons he is no longer on the job.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 7:33 am
You’re throwing rubbish on a good man. Don’t be a thoughtless tool.
Boarding a train and blasting through the Central Valley, averaging around 180 mph. topping out at 220. I will be on one of the first trains. Usually on Amtrak or Caltrain, when you look out the window you watch the cars and trucks pass you by. The idea of sitting in a comfortable seat, working on a drink, and passing a line of traffic at 200 mph plus— sounds OK to me.
If a Central Valley segment is built first and opens for business in the next 6 or 7 years,there
will be nothing like it on our continent, and the system would, I believe be among the world’s fastest. I wonder how many tourists, people like me, would ride a bullet train just for the ride.
Kenb Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:39 am
You can get from nowhere to nowhere very fast.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:37 am
The first TGV line went from nowhere to nowhere and connected to legacy lines at both ends. The problematic parts (built-up areas south of Paris and north of Lyon) were dealt with later.
Although the gain in average speed for the whole line was not dramatic, it allowed passengers to appreciate the difference between legacy and HSR lines. They were especially thrilled when they had a glimpse of a highway with all cars apparently speeding in reverse.
From that moment the SNCF had the public (and the media) on their side and many political obstacles magically disappeared. It made building the rest of the line all the easier.
matt Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Unfortunately the south end would connect to nothing but buses since there is no passenger service between Bakersfield and points south.
Victor Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Then I think We should do the same as the SNCF did and start with the construction of the rail line in the Central Valley and hook It up to the legacy track on both ends for the moment, asap.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Good luck getting the waivers from the FRA and have fun with complying with the ADA if that’s the approach you want to take.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
SNCF was able to connect to existing electrified track too. You need are realllllly reallly long extension cord to get from Bakersfield to LA.
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@Victor: Or to phrase Peter’s comment another way; the SNCF (and other European HSR operators) are able to run HSR trains on legacy track due to entirely different requirements for rail vehicles compared to the US. The lightweight HSR trains are never going to be allowed to intermix with FRA vehicles except under certain very specific conditions.
That being said, your suggestion is workable if you turn it the other way around; run FRA trains across the growing HSR segments until such time as the HSR tracks are long enough to provide a ‘true’ HSR service along their length. Borrow some electric locos from the east coast if you want something using the overhead.
This would also avoid the political disaster of having the tracks go unused for extended periods of time.
You do have a remaining issue, as Peter pointed out, of ADA compliance, specifically at the platforms. Whichever height the CAHSR trains and platforms will be at, it is pretty much a given that it won’t be properly usable by the FRA trains, to say nothing of the side clearance. Temporary platforms (using the non-platform tracks) or raising the rail up enough (extra ballast) to use the HSR platforms are the solutions here; both of which Richard will poke holes in for one reason or another ;)
orulz Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
That’s actually a pretty damn good idea. With a small dose of sanity (by restricting train men from riding on the side of cars) the system could be built with all NEC-level high platforms of 48 inches. That affords maximum off-the-shelf compatibility as German, Japanese, and French high speed trainsets all have similar floor heights. Caltrain trains that venture off into low platform territory could be bi-levels with both high and low doors.
Rumor has it that Amtrak is already planning for the Acela’s replacement; maybe CHSRA could add some high floor FRA trainsets onto that order. These trains would probably be good for 160mph, but potentially you could require that they be spec’d for higher speeds on dedicated tracks. For now, tow them into SF or LA at 79 or 90mph with a diesel. When the line is complete into LAUS and SFTBT and it’s time to buy lightweight trainsets, sell the FRA trains back to Amtrak for use on the NEC.
thatbruce Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
(by restricting train men from riding on the side of cars)
That is already a given; this is an all-passenger network. The only non-passenger trains going over it will be involved in the construction and ongoing maintenance.
system could be built with all NEC-level high platforms of 48 inches
The new German and French designs are for 550mm or 760mm, not 1220mm (Japan HSR is ~1200mm), owing to the harmonisation of platform heights that the EU is going through atm.
Caltrain trains that venture off into low platform territory could be bi-levels with both high and low doors.
No, don’t go there. Any new equipment that Caltrain uses on the HSR-compatible network won’t be going into low platform terroritory (aka FRA-land).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Re Acela replacement: I hadn’t heard about that, but it makes sense. The trainsets are already about 15 years old, which is almost half the normal service life for rail equipment (and already well over the average for a bus). Considering the long lead times we seem to be stuck with by having no real domestic railcar manufacturing capability (not to mention the problems with politics), this is a logical approach.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Borrow some electric locos from the east coast if you want something using the overhead.
Yeah, like any of the East Coast agencies has extra locomotives just laying around.
Samsonian Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Given the fact that money is tight, I think SNCF approach is likely need.
I actually kind of like the idea of Sacramento-Bakersfield corridor. It’s cheap and quick to build, it enables 200+ MPH speeds, and shows off what’s possible. It could be what’s necessary to create the political demand to complete the system and get the money to do so.
180mph thru Fresno, Modesto, yada yada? Try I-5 if you want a natural born racetrack.
In an perfect world, LA-San Diego would be first.
Spokker Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:44 am
And I mean LOSSAN. Of course, in our imperfect world there are unstable bluffs and beachside NIMBYs who make Peninsula NIMBYs look like YIMBYs.
Samsonian Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
I also like LA-SD via Coast. It’s a shame that good corridors like these aren’t even on the radar for HSR.
Spokker Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:21 am
It was on the radar. It was eliminated early on.
Samsonian Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:50 am
I know, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad corridor for rail.
All those cars on I-5 say otherwise. Just like all those cars on I-580 and I-680.
Nathanael Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 2:28 am
Oh, it’s a good corridor for rail, and LOSSAN is going to retain a lot of passenger rail, but the Coast route is a terrible corridor for *four track high speed* rail. All that track built on sand and decaying cliffs. I-5 route unusable due to grades and curves.
LA-SD via inland was chosen for a reason.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:16 am
“All that track built on sand and decaying cliffs. I-5 route unusable due to grades and curves.”
Not to mention NIMBYs who would have a shit fit if they set up OCS that blocked their pristine views of the ocean. Irrelevant that that view is occasionally blocked by a bilevel train roaring past…
If CHSRA, DXpress, and the Feds coordinate, then LA-LV could be completed in 5 yrs. This means building LA-Palmdale first. This would showcase HSR on a route that can demonstrate ridership.
Feds would fund the Victorville to Palmdale segment. Since Victorville to Vegas is mostly privately funded, and LA-Palmdale can qualify for California’s 9bil, this could be the most complete route of truly hsr, built in the shortest time, at the least cost to the federal gov. They might find that appealing. I also like the idea of connecting SoCal to the Central Valley as soon as possible.
StevieB Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:51 am
The economic benefits to California of building to Las Vegas are very limited.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am
But the ridership and publicity would be quite high, leading to a lot of enthusiasm for the project as a whole.
Matthew Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
All California would have to pay for is LA to Palmdale, which they’re planning to build anyway. It wouldn’t be wasted effort, just reordered.
StevieB Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 4:41 am
I have not heard of anyone filing a “notice of preparation/notice of intent” to start the EIR process for the Victorville to Palmdale alignment.
Nathanael Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
If anything is done entirely privately (i.e. without triggering NEPA), Palmdale to Victorville will be.
Unfortunately the crucial LA-Palmdale-Bakersfield work seems to be somewhat behind others in its design.
I absolutely support the valley first approach. The bay area la already have reasonable travel times and ample transportation options. Granted there is always room for improvement but they aren’t nearly as lacking in investment as the valley. ( by the way, I wish people would call it by the right name, its the san joaquin valley, the “central valley” as it relates to the state is the sacramento valley and san joaquin valleys combined) If you can build the longest, fastest, cheapest segment including the needed test track, and get the thing up and running sooner rather than later, you have something for california to showcase, something tangible for the rest of the state to look at and say “oh its not the horrible monster we thought it would be>” You make sure california is first in the nation. That’s important. You get a home grown version of hsr as an example for people to see. To see how it works, how comfortable it is, how fast it is, and you do it in the part of the state where it will have the most impact…. be the greatest leap forward. SAn Franciscans and Angelinos are not going to be that impressed or drop what they are doing to suddenly start riding a 125mph train, but folks in the valley will certainly go on and on to the rest of the state about their 220mph version. Having that segment up and running will put uge political pressure on the two urban end point regions get it together more quickly when constituents demand we be connected to the system immediately.
EXCEAR Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you pointed out. In essence, build and demonstrate the spectacle, convey the benefits in full running form, and make the big cities jealous. At the very least you’ll avoid some NIMBYism in SF and LA, which could dissolve anyway once the starter line proves that HSR isn’t the big, bad monster it’s made out to be.
Spain’s AVE is a system that didn’t try to connect its two largest metro areas (Madrid and Barcelona) in the first phase of the system. Rather, the starter line went from Madrid to Sevilla. I don’t know all of the details of the AVE plans, but CAHSR could take a similar phasing approach and build in the Central Valley first, then prioritize an extension to either LAUS or Sacramento. That will at least make it a viable alternative between Fresno and LA, or Fresno and Sacramento. A line of that length would also be long and fast enough to demonstrate the potential of the full LA-SF line.
If la-ana were built first. One, I don’t see the ridership being all that much. Big whoop, the train goes up to 125 from 79? I see little increase in ridership over current ridership and the rest of the state’s population is not going to sit up and take notice because we are so used to the “oh that’s something else that la got/did that doesn’t have anything to do with us” syndrome and as someone who’s lived up here nearly 5 decades, I can tell you that the attitude in the rest of the state concerning anything that socal gets/does is just that. “oh, its an la thing, has nothing do with us. we’ll never get it, we never do” but plop that sucker down smack in the heartland and the bay and la will sit up and take notice quickly. “hey wtf, they did/got what? where? quick, where’s ours!”
J. Wong Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
There would be tourist traffic from LAUS to Anaheim. You can bet that Disney would be running shuttles to the station.
I am thinking that this might be a good idea to build the open faster sections first.
The station won’t be ready in SF for some time although I can see the argument of a SF-SFO-SJ section being very important.
But building through the valley first you get a longer, faster section that really needs to connect at the ends. So I see it holding more political pressure to get the issue done.
The benefits of building the San Joaquin Valley segment first (Bakersfield to Merced) is actually monetary. It is cheapest to construct, but is also will likely be the hardest to find other funding. The SF and LA projects are more expensive, but there are also more tools at their disposal from either local or federal dollars.
Secondly, the existence of HSR in the Valley would encourage more density in the cities urban planning. That would help preserve agricultural production in some places, and retain more balance in those counties’ economies.
But the catch is always this: federal money always has an intended recipient, and the Authority has to keep its options open.
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
wow three whole people on this blog agreed with me on something. That’s a first. My astrologer must have been right when he said “good news, this week, the sun is Uranus”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
..that sounds painful..
Risenmessiah Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Oh come on now, the broken clock is right twice a day ;-)
I doubt many people would ride from LA to Anaheim. If the Central Valley segment is built first, the next one should be Bakersfield to LA, ideally…
matt Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:30 am
LA-Bako and Fresno-SJ would both have the most benefit as they bridge the current gaps in rail service, but they are also going to be the most expensive and take the longest time to build.
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am
The commuter trains operated by Amtrak and Metrolink between LA and Anaheim are usually packed at peak.
Re Bakersfield to LA (Lancaster really), if you want basic rail service over that segment any faster than the CHSRA is able to do it, talk very nicely to Warren Buffet.
LA to Anaheim is not HSR. Now being designed for 90mph. Ridership? Minimal. Disruption to existing services? Major. Return on investment? Negative, by any measure. I doubt if SF – SJ would be much better and more could be accomplished in the near term with upgraded “baby bullets”. Bridge the Gap, build south of Bakersfield first.
PD
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:24 am
I doubt though that extending the San Joaquins to LA would get much ridership, either. This is mainly due to the slow speeds the trains would still be traveling at between Sacramento and Bakersfield, and Palmdale to LA.
A think that SF-SJ would be a better investment, as well as being easier to implement. Cutting travel time for the Baby Bullets would be a very effective way to improve service and increase ridership.
Just my two cents.
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:37 am
You should reconsider Tolmach’s scheme.
If you want to improve the viability of the hsr return to Tejon. I wonder if anyone at the CHSRA-PB bunker is secretly aware of this. Maybe the new European dude?
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am
All that does is cost us a huge portion of the ridership we would have otherwise (all the PEOPLE in the Central Valley who would like to ride a PASSENGER railroad).
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Apparently people in Santa Clarita are starting to bitch about the hsr scheme, in particular having their station ripped off.
http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/33287/
The more the locals everywhere in California get pissed off the better.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Actually, their main concern seemed to be “why are we building antiquated steel-on-steel rail, when we could build maglev instead”.
*Headdesk*
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Gotta love these arguments, I’ve seen this in Seattle for too long where they cannot make up their damn mind due to factions wanting different routes, options etc. synonymouse, besides trumping up the Tejon option, do you have a report and factual evidence as to why it would be better? Going over the Grapevine would require much longer tunnels unless you have topographical evidence using 3% grades that it could be done. Tunneling is alot more expensive per mile than laying more HSL track.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Not to mention his base tunnels would cross at least one fault line well underground.
I think the I-5 alignment portion is a bigger loser than even the Tejon tunnel portion as skipping the towns and cities in the Central Valley would sacrifice a HUGE amount of ridership.
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The cost of the 99 in town route catering to a relatively modest passenger market for a starter route is too high. And the Tejon base tunnels are a one time cost balanced against a 24-7 year in, year out savings in maintenance and operating costs and faster timetables. Real railroads knows shorter trumps, unlike PB-Palmdale.
And speaking of hand-wringing over tunnels traversing faults, the surface is more dangerous. This morning I am reminded of this, as I turn on the boobtube only to see you head homie, Him Wunderman, touting the glories of PG&E and smart meters against a backdrop of blitzed neighborhood, thanks to them. No 24 inch gas mains in the Tejon tunnels but how many would cozy up to your invincible aerials?
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
And the Tejon base tunnels are a one time cost balanced against a 24-7 year in, year out savings in maintenance and operating costs
Only if Fresno and Bakersfield never get connected to the mainline. Which, as we’ve previously determined, would require an extra 20+ miles of double-track more than simply including them on the mainline to begin with.
No 24 inch gas mains in the Tejon tunnels but how many would cozy up to your invincible aerials?
So you’d rather have a gas main explode over or beneath a cut-and-cover tunnel?
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
The Tejon bores are base tunnels, way too deep for cut and cover, which would be used for conceivably for a BART two track subway thru PAMPA. The extra mileage of the Palmdale-Tehachapis detour only means extra exposure to damage, which turns out to be likely on the surface than in tunnel. It would be interesting and useful to see how professional insurers would assess the relative liabilities.
I would add a branch to Bakersfield and Fresno off the I-5 main. Incorporating a complete wye here would be a good idea in any event. In any scenario Tejon is faster than Tehachapi.
Unlike the foamers I envision a much higher possibility of failure of the hsr starter line. The honeymoon could wear off pretty quickly. Those massive aerials could prove really clumsy and noisy and controversial once they are up in the air. The Tejon base tunnels are the real image saver, the ace-in-the-hole, unlike anything the freeways or the airlines have to offer
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The Tejon bores are base tunnels, way too deep for cut and cover
Duhh.
I’m talking about cut-and-cover tunnels for the Peninsula, where the gas mains would be.
I would add a branch to Bakersfield and Fresno off the I-5 main. Incorporating a complete wye here would be a good idea in any event. In any scenario Tejon is faster than Tehachapi.
And that right there is your plan’s Achilles Heel. You sacrifice any initial capital cost, maintenance and operations funding advantage that the I-5 alignment MIGHT have by constructing well over 50 miles of additional track over what a pure I-5 alignment without branches would have. That negates any advantage over Antelope Valley.
synonymouse Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
You could do Tejon and 99 and it would still be faster than the Loopy detour. The I-5 route
savings would be conditional upon using the median with very little modification to the overpasses. I preferred 99 myself but the problems look to be formidable with either downtown or greenfield. This selection is open to debate clearly, but Tejon is another matter. It is a manifestly superior alignment. We ought to get Herrenknecht to make a proposal because PB had already ruled against it for political reasons.
This project is much more borderline than the foamers realize. It is going to be a financial
burden at a time when the state budget is in protracted crisis. Tejon locks in too big(and fast) to(let) fail
PeakVT Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Oh, that’s pure FUD.
How about showing us a sensitivity analysis comparing the program route to whatever you envision instead of throwing out wild arguments. Have you even put a map together?
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
How about showing us a sensitivity analysis comparing the program route to whatever you envision instead of throwing out wild arguments. Have you even put a map together?
He thrives on making shit up. From one week to the next he can’t even remember what he made up previously. Cost doesn’t appear to be an issue he understands, either, as he now wants to build BOTH an I-5 and an SR-99 alignment, while decrying how Antelope Valley would be too expensive to build and operate.
PeakVT Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
He thrives on making shit up.
Yeah, I know. Asking for numbers is a win-win, though: we either get something we can actually talk about, or we have proof that his criticisms are baseless.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
It also makes more fun when we can prove that he is full of shit.
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
And the Tejon base tunnels would be a one time cost
The similar-length Gotthard Base Tunnel is costing in the order of USD 9 billion, in a geologically stable part of the world. The shorter Lötschberg base tunnel cost USD 3.5 billion, and that tunnel is yet to be fully finished. A Tejon Base Tunnel, with the added costs of being built in the US and in a geologically unstable region, are likely to be much more.
Not that this is going to change your mind or anything.
synonymouse Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:51 am
There would be two tunnels east of and parallel to the Grapevine, somewhat along the lines of the sr 138 option but not going to Palmdale.
PB gave Tejon short shrift due to political machinations. We need to consider an unabashedly pro-Tejon proposal from a professional base tunnel builder.
A Whitman victory may open some minds to a re-examination of the details of the entire project before we plunge on at least $50 billion megaproject. The long term question is whether California can afford to build sub-optimal infrastructure that will not be able to pay for itself. We already are carrying a huge backload of undermaintained infrastructure, which the super-rich and corporations insist the little people pay for or they will simply pick up and leave the state. I am suggesting that Tejon will prove a major enhancement to the hsr’s bottom line. Palmdale is not germane to the hsr’s primary north-south mission. The Santa Clarita station should be reinstated. The Antelope Valley belongs on a different route.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I see. So, instead of a proposal allegedly biased towards Antelope Valley, you want one definitely biased towards Tejon. Isn’t the idea to come up with an unbiased plan?
synonymouse Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am
It is somewhat the thesis-antithesis approach. PB’s treatment of the issue was so skewed towards Tehachapi we need to see a proposal from a source that we can trust not to be negative from the outset. PB’s advice has to be taken with caution – they have made major mistakes in the past.
In the end it is a political problem. Insiders at the CHSRA were able to impose their personal preferences on the plan. I believe the public should be able to vote on the major route options before committing to such a large expenditure, the exact amount of which we all know to be essentially guesswork. The final tally could come in cheaper due to the recession or we could go down the route of the Bay Bridge. If the public is really so gung-ho for the CHSRA Tecachapi-Pacheco scheme what do the foamers have to fear about a re-vote? PB-Palmdale will reign supreme.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:10 am
No, sorry, that’s not what you said. You said: “We need to consider an unabashedly pro-Tejon proposal from a professional base tunnel builder.”
THAT means that you want someone to come up with a new plan as biased as you allege the current plan to be. Equivocation won’t save you here.
synonymouse Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
PB’s treatment of the Tehachapi option was unabashedly optimized; we need an equally optimized scheme for Tejon to make a fair comparison.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:23 am
“PB’s treatment of the Tehachapi option was unabashedly optimized; we need an equally optimized scheme for Tejon to make a fair comparison.”
Pure equivocation and backtracking. Do you enjoy being called out on your bs?
synonymouse Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I simply fail to see the gist of your arguments. Ultimately it still remains a political issues – by this time next year the picture will be much clearer.
Nathanael Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Syn’s just making up stuff again. Obviously hasn’t actually read any of the technical analyses of the mountain crossings. They really wanted to go via the Grapevine, but it’s far too risky. A bypass to the west (!) was also briefly considered but it’s even worse than going via Tehachapi.
synonymouse Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
They never wanted to go via Tejon because that would bypass Palmdale, home to real estate developers who have compromised the CHSRA.
The hsr will never achieve 220mph for very long. Like BART it will soon wear out and with perennial operating losses and paltry subsidies from a broke state government they will have to reduce speeds to spare the equipment and track.
And the Feds apparently are finally getting wise to consultant-contractor sleaze and mendacious pr flacks:
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/nj-halts-work-on-hudson-rail-tunnel-20100912-apx
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 14th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
they will have to reduce speeds to spare the equipment and track.
Many times running at higher speeds means you can carry more passengers with same staff and equipment. Even with the increased maintenance costs it lowers per passenger and per passenger mile cost and improves the bottom line.
And the Feds apparently are finally getting wise to consultant-contractor sleaze and mendacious pr flacks:
Having watched New Jersey and Port Authority of NY & NJ politics for decades, the Governor leaned on someone to make the Governor look good to his base. Actually stop the project? Trenton would have roving bands of Wall Streeters with pitchforks and torches hunting down who ever is responsible.
Peter Reply:
September 14th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
It’s also simply a one month suspension of new activity, not a cancellation of the project. Apples are not oranges.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:22 am
The only people who think the valley isn’t an important and significant part of california’s current and future population are people who clearly don’t know what they are talking about.
About 6.5 million people live in the Central Valley today, ***and it is the fastest growing region in California*** There are 10 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the Central Valley. Below, they are listed by (MSA) population. The largest city is Fresno, followed by the state capital Sacramento.
Sacramento Metropolitan Area (2,136,604)
Fresno Metropolitan Area (1,002,284)
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area (827,173)
Stockton Metropolitan Area (664,116)
Modesto Metropolitan (505,505)
Visalia Metropolitan Area (410,874)
Merced Metropolitan Area (241,706)
Chico Metropolitan Area (214,185)
Redding Metropolitan Area (179,904)
Yuba City Metropolitan Area (165,081)
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:26 am
adn these populations, unlike the bay and socal, are separated from each other at distances and by terrain, that make the true high speed part of high speed rail feasible. In the future, provided they don’t do some major greenbelt planning, these cities will grow together just like the cities and towns of the bay and socal have grown together and when that happens, the valley population could well dwarf its southern and western neighbors where anti growth sentiment has already taken hold.
synonymouse Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:54 am
And the CHSRA scheme only touches a few of these locales.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
And Tolmach’s would completely ignore even more. What’s YOUR argument?
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Syn, what the heck are you talking about? it touches all of them except the Northern Sacramento Valley areas ( redding, chico, and yuba city)
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Maybe he says that because it bypasses Visalia?
I’d in favor of dropping the station between Fresno and Bakersfield, unless the cities involved can come up with a way to get passengers to the station by some sort of mass transit.
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Here’s my idea for linking Northern California all the way up to Redding to the overall HSR network. Run it as an improved San Joaquins with Talgo XXI all the way from Bakersfield to Sacramento, with less frequent service between Redding and Sacramento, and I think we’d have a winner. Total distance between Redding and Sacramento of 159 miles, I’m guessing it would take about two hours with a top speed of 110 mph…
With Talgo XXI you could run it faster through the curves, as well not have to worry about FRA waivers, since the North American Talgo XXI will be FRA compliant.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
There is already a plan in place to extend san joaquin trains to redding. In fact they even know which trains. There are four san joaquin trains that currently head north to sac from stockton instead of terminating in oakland and those are the trains that will extend to redding. They are waiting for the usual things, funding, for the north counties to ask for service in a serious manner, and for UP to cooperate.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
There aren’t enough people north of metro Sacramento to justify four trains a day.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
^how do you know? First of all they will start with two trains just like the san joaquins used to have two trains ( then built up to 12.) Then go to 4, then add two more that go from bfd to sac in addition to the current ones.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Every ten years the government goes around and counts people. After they collect all the information they sort it and sift and organize it well. Once it’s all neatly arranged they publish it. People who are interested in this sort of thing then combine that information with other interesting information about thriving metropolises like Yuba City and put all in tidy little articles on Wikipedia with links to the information from the Census. So within seconds one can find information like this
“Yuba City is the principal city of the Yuba City Metropolitan Statistical Area which encompasses all of Sutter County and Yuba County. The metro area’s population is 164,138. It is the 21st largest metropolitan area in California ranked behind Redding and Chico. ”
or
“Redding is a city in Northern California. It is the county seat of Shasta County, California, USA. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 80,865.”
.. no one has gotten around to digesting information about Redding’s metropolitian area and writing a Wikipedia article about it. I’m not in the mood to rummaging around in the Census’s webs site to find it.
Or since there is a train running through there now, check Amtrak’s statistics at:
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA09.pdf
Redding had 8,985 boardings and alighting last year. Or 24 a day if passenger volume was ewaul every day of the year which it won’t be. They aren’t going to be running first class cars up to Redding, so even if they managed to get ten times as many passengers you are talking about a carload or so a day. Trains tend to run less than full so four trains a day would mean at best a half a car to Redding. …. at ten times what Amtrak carries there now. It would be faster and cheaper to run Thruway bus service to Sacramento. Better service for the passengers too because they could think about running a smaller bus every few hours instead of 4 times a day .
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Yes, as a 46 year resident of northern california I am very familiar with it, but thank you for the information. I didn’t say anything about what should or should not be done. I just said there is a plan. You may disagree with it. And current ridership is not the only thing that comes into play. Most of, if not all of, the existing thruway motorcoach that exists in california was put there because caltrans wants it there, including buses that are not full on every run. Many of the capitol corridor, san joaquin, and surfliner trains are not full, sometimes they are nearly empty, either, but the state wants them there anyway. The hsr trains are not going to be full either but we are building that too. I don’t know what you have against northern california but its not up to new yorkers to make the call.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
The Southern Pacific had marvelous plans for a lovely terminal right across the street from the Ferry Building. I’m sure you’ve seen the plans for the cantilevered bridge across the Golden Gate. People can plan for all sorts of things.
Californians who have to pay for this are going to ask why the state is paying to run empty trians. there aren’t enough people up there to justify it. Unless it’s one of
http://www.ltv-vwc.org.uk/wheelspin/ws_feb_2001/vw-railbus-front.jpg
…..
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
The state rail plan 2008-2018 has a whole mess of info in it. Including service, which I think would be redunant, but it’s been talked about for at least the last 10 years, for adding a commuter overlay between oakland and auburn ( or as I had always heard proposed while living up there, a sac commuter service that would serve the fairfield sac aurburn corridor in addtion to ccjpa). See page 170 for caltran’s take on commute service to redding..
“Operating Plan:
The Department’s ten-year operating plan includes one daily round trip between Sacramento and Redding in 2015-16. This rail service would be supplemented by bus service that would run over the same route as the train, but at other times of the day.
The Department believes this extension is a good candidate for rail service because:
• Amtrak currently operates the Coast Starlight on this route, with existing stations at Sacramento, Chico, and Redding.
• The demographics of the route are positive: the northern Sacramento Valley has a rapidly growing population; Redding represents the urban hub for the northern part of the State; and California State University, Chico is a focus of activity and population.” See I didn’t make it up. I just heard it from caltrans ( and the usual buzz at work that goes on) So call caltrans and argue with them about it.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Of course Im sure californians everywhere certainly appreciate and value the concerns and opinions of yorkers when offered but I think we can probably figure it all out.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Oh heres the whole big fat plan. There’s lots of good stuff in here, including my wish list of trains to coachella valley and expansion of coastal services.
And we all know that you can wait till there is demand or you can stimulate demand. Its an age old question of transit philosophy. Many would say, “we can’t afford hsr now, lets wait till later, when we can afford it and when there will be more demand” while others would say, ” lets build it now and build ridership so that when the pop increases it will be in place”
There is value in nudging people towards better solutions and the government does this a lot right? From quitting smoking, to recycling, to transit, sometime you do have to put the cart before the horse.
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
oh yeh I forgot the plan… the plan….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Passenger railroads carry people. If there are few people there will be few passengers. .. until Disney decides that the land they own in Anaheim is worth more as condos and move Disneyland to Chico. ….
Peter Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@ adirondacker12800
The plan that jimsf links to actually states that they’re only looking to start with one roundtrip daily to Redding, supplemented by thruway buses throughout the day.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The sort of Sac-Chico-Redding service envisioned in Hans-Joachim Zierke’s Shasta Route plan is nothing like the clunkers Amtrak is running. It involves trains doing Sac-Redding in 1:54, running on a predictable takt multiple times a day, and should get comparable ridership to what lines connecting cities of similar size have gotten abroad.
Nathanael Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Adirondacker, *extending* four trains a day — trains which are already running — to Redding costs remarkably little. If the train crew haven’t hit their hours of service limits already, it doesn’t cost that much more in train crewing; it costs fuel and maintenance. The breakeven number of additional passengers is much smaller than for a whole new train. This changes the question of whether there are “enough people north of Sacramento”.
synonymouse Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I have no problem with your Talgo idea other than the likelihood of undermaintenance, which bedevils the current San Joaquins. A friend of mine who likes trains well enough but is not a buff rode it last month and complained about how rough the ride was. Welcome to the future scenic route extension over, under and around the Loop.
Eventually the California public will realize that the CHSRA scheme is not just a scabbed-together collection of regional mass transit lines but but a state railway in the European sense, a chronic money loser and progressively wearing out due to inadequate and/or deferred maintenance. The only US parallels would be Conrail and the NEC. The former the country decided it couldn’t afford and the latter hasn’t really broken out
In a way a gadgetbahn approach, like maglav, might have been preferable, as the issues of funding and profitability would have come to the surface faster. Pretty soon it will be obvious to everyone that the hsr concept has splintered into local BARTs, stone money losers, and that the long distance part is just a glorified TEE, yet too circuitous and too slow to compete with the airlines for the first class market, where the money is.
Nathanael Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Wow, now Syn has degenerated into attacking European state railway companies as being “chrnoic money losers” (Republican nonsense, does he attack roads as chronic money losers?) and “progressively wearing out due to inadequate and/or deferred maintenance”, which is just false (though it sure does happen to US railroads).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:41 am
No. Not even close.
Caltrain’s ridership is limited by door to door travel time, and ratcheting up top express trains speeds to 200kmh or whatever is largeklt irrelevant to the overall trip time, and certainly is the least utile and most costly way to have the smallest effect.
First, miserable headways (up to an hour at some stops even at peak service hours.)
Second, miserable station to destination connections.
On-train travel time for the largest ridership markets (both current service-determined markets and, to a smaller degree, all potential markets even with less awful service) is a minor part of the travel time equation.
Speeding up the fastest parts of a trip is nearly always the least cost effective way to decrease total trip time. (CHSRA suffers from this disease in spades, of course: far better to improve operations stupidity and some really bad speed restrictions than to do heroic costly engineering and waste energy going from 350kmh to 370kmh or whatever to compensate.)
The solutions to Caltrain’s problems are what they always have been and always will be:
* Taktverkehr (good, regular, predictable, base level of service from each station.)
* Coordinated local-express service.
* Better access to and from the stations (the opposite of what Caltrain’s professional engineering state produce)
* Real coordination with acceptably fast local transit
* Less wasteful station stops (post 19th century equipment and platform-vehicle interface.) Again, this is the basic principle that doing less stupid slow stuff is hugely more valuable than speeding up top speeds. Duh.
* Addressing insane 19th century FRA operating cost (staffing levels) and insane 19th century maintenance costs.
Making the more or less acceptably fast express trains more expressy is of negative utility — indisputably so when the cost is many billions of dollars.
Emma Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
So true. Many already fail on the Taktverkehr.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Yeah, you’re right on all those solutions.
For example, if my wife misses her train, she gets home faster if I then drive from south San Jose to Menlo Park to pick her up than if she waited to catch the next train.
I’ll rephrase my statement as follows: I believe that using the funding to start construction of the Peninsula section would be more cost-effective than connecting the San Joaquins to LA, as doing so would require construction of possibly the most technically challenging section first.
joe Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Constructing the Peninsula section would have the benefit of helping coordinate with Caltrain electrification.
I disagree with Richard. The purpose of the improvements is NOT to cost effectively improve travel time between SF and SJ. HSR has the added benefit of improving the SF to SJ leg BUT that’s not the primary purpose of HSR or the purpose of the improvements along that segment of a state wide system. The speed is needed to make the trip to LA competitive and reasonable.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
The problems & solutions Richard outlines are not unique to Caltrain. Why do so many transit operators suck? Seriously – not a rhetorical question. AC Transit: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/ac_transit.php
J. Wong Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Although I agree with everything you wrote (I ride Caltrain about a quarter of the time), I also agree with Joe about you missing how SF-SJ HSR work would benefit Caltrain even if HSR was not ultimately built: 1) Grade-separation will enhance Caltrain reliability significantly since 80% of the problem seems to be people or cars on the tracks! 2) Electrification, which would also benefit from the HSR work, would help address two of the items on your list. Namely, better local-express coordination and less wasteful station stops. This is because better acceleration and deceleration (ie. stopping) possible with electric motive power means more trains can be run and less impact to speed because of station stops.
So faster trips would only be a side-effect of the major benefits to Caltrain that can be leveraged from the HSR work!
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Problems with your theory (a theory I held at one time):
* Caltrain’s sub-simian planners aren’t planning to have coordinated express-local transfers. Ever.
* Caltrain’s sub-simian planners aren’t even planning to have any stations at which any direct transfers are possible.
* Caltrain’s sub-simian planners project (and remember, they’re the project sponsors!!) trivial operating speed improvements (“most Caltrain users would experience average travel time savings of 1 to 8 minutes from faster”!!!) and increased operating cost.
* Caltrain’s sub-simian planners appear to have no plans whatsoever for level platform-vehicle boarding, and certainly no remotely coherent plans.
Remember, these are the people who, if you write them a blank check for $200 million for anything at all that their hearts desire, will spend it on a grade separation in San Bruno that actively impedes both Caltrain and HSR service and screws up the track configuration for the entire corridor. These are the people who are “designing” and implementing their own, globally unique, custom, cost plus-plus-plus-plus train control system … because their mighty 50 mile corridor and 16 trains in service have Truly Unique and Special Needs.
The best thing to do with Caltrain is to close down the agency and to terminate everybody concerned with it with extreme prejudice. Throwing money at these clowns is just a way to make things worse.
So, nice theory. But the historical record, both distant past and up to the regrettable present, indicates that the cast of clowns involved are incapable of doing anything with public money that has any public benefit. Die, Caltrain.
synonymouse Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I would suggest that BART is out to accomplish that very end
Emma Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Ah. Give me a break! Who in the world told you that CAHSR will travel only 90 mph between LA-Anaheim??? In fact, the Central Valley section is not only the cheapest part, due to the distances between the cities, it will also be the fastest track with train easily traveling at 350 kmh.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
If they build the track-sharing alternative, the speed limit would in fact be 90 mph. Note that this would only work if BNSF is ok with limiting itself to a perpetualy maximum of 3 (?) tracks in that section. Otherwise they have to build the separate alignment for HSR, where the trains would be able to travel faster.
Emma Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Track-sharing should not be an option. Track-sharing has always been a bad idea and it will definitely affect nearly every aspect of HSR. Coordination, catenary system, etc.
Again, we shouldn’t even think about this. Because once our politicians open up to a worse alternative that serves private corporate interest, they will use it.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Well, track sharing with Metrolink is being looked at between LAUS and Palmdale, as well between LAUS and Anaheim. Not to mention the Caltrain corridor. It reduces the construction costs and ROW impacts.
How much time would be saved at 125 mph between LAUS and Anaheim versus 90 mph? I don’t think it is enough to warrant a dedicated HSR alignment.
Spokker Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
LA-Anaheim is going track-sharing. If you don’t like it, get involved.
However, you’d be up against some tough interests. Metro CEO Art Leahy and OCTA CEO Will Kempton sent a joint letter to the CHSRA asking them to put shared trackage back on the table and it worked.
StevieB Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
The transportation boards of both Orange and Los Angeles counties wrote a letter favoring track sharing so it will be studied. There are many problems that are not easily resolved and the environmental reports for this section can easily go over schedule.
Emma Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Track-sharing will harm CAHSR’s punctuality. We should really look to Shinkansen when we want to build real high-speed rail.
”
* Shinkansen routes are completely separate from conventional rail lines (except Mini-shinkansen which goes through to conventional lines). Consequently, Shinkansen is not affected by slower local or freight trains and has the capacity to operate many high-speed trains punctually.
* It uses tunnels and viaducts to go through and over obstacles rather than around them, with a minimum curve radius of 4,000 meters (2,500 meters on the oldest Tōkaidō Shinkansen).
* The Shinkansen system is built without road crossings at grade.
* Tracks are strictly off-limits with penalties against trespassing strictly regulated by law. ”
The result. Shinkansen trains are always on time. No crash in the history of Shinkansen. What is a high-speed rail when it is not on time?
Paul Dyson Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
We will have track sharing because you can’t take the whole Lionel set out of the box this Christmas and have it instantly ready to run. It will take years to complete and we’d better be smart and have something useful in incremental stages. Better to take 5 minutes longer to get from LA to Anaheim and put the money saved into construction north of L.A. And yes, we really should be planning to run “FRA” diesels and coaches for at least the first 5 years. No sense in buying expensive HS train sets to run 30 mile shuttles.
PD
Matthew Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
If the LA-Anaheim section simply gets some grade separation, electrification, track improvements, a few shiny new HSR trains that people can see from the freeway and get excited about, and most importantly a one seat trip from points north to Anaheim, it would pretty much fulfill my expectations, and I would say money well spent. Even these slower components have value when connected to dedicated track high speed segments elsewhere in the system. Once that base system is in place, it’s always possible to upgrade sections or build new dedicated track. I think it’s a good initial goal to build a cheaper option first, and save some money that could be used for actually getting any system built at all. In some ways, the LA-Anaheim section is there to satisfy Pringle, justify building ARTIC, add a major destination by connecting HSR to Disneyland, etc. There are a lot of things that we could do to improve Metrolink service, which is really the correct model for improving regional rail transit. Targeted grade separation and electrification is what I would prioritize given limited funds, and this option achieves that. In my mind, this segment’s function for high speed rail is less important aside from providing a one seat ride to Orange County.
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Shinkansen trains are always on time.
They’re pretty damm close, but not ‘always‘.
What is a high-speed rail when it is not on time?
British.
Anyway, look at CAHSR track-sharing with commuter rail as part of an upgrade path for those commuter railroads, and cheaper, initially, than a full HSR buildout. Otherwise, you may end up in the same situation as the Shinkansen with excessive debts incurred when the system expanded too fast from its initial success and with political interests dictating the routes, even when they made little economic sense.
Joey Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The Shinkansen cannot share tracks because of the gauge difference on legacy lines. This probably helps with punctuality, but to an extent I think it’s a cultural thing (i.e. the Japanese put a lot more effort than many into making sure the trains are on time).
Spokker Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
You’re correct that high speed trains will be more likely to be late with a track sharing option. One way this might happen is that Surfliner and Metrolink trains arrive in Anaheim late and muck up the train slots. Or diesel trains break down or spontaneously burst into flames (Surfliner). However, on-time percentage could also improve because freight trains will not be allowed on the passenger tracks.
But is 99% on-time percentage worth the extra cost in dedicated tracks? Also, shared tracks would lead to improvements for Metrolink and the Surfliner. There are major hurdles and we’ll have a clearer view of how feasible shared trackage is when the next round of environmental reports are released.
If shared track is not possible, I would like to see the Anaheim-LA leg canceled.
Emma Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
“But is 99% on-time percentage worth the extra cost in dedicated tracks?” Hell yeah! Being 90% on time sounds better than being 70% on time. I think most Californians supported Prop 1A having a grade-separated high-speed rail network in mind. It just doesn’t make sense to travel through the whole Central Valley within an hour and then spend another hour just because your train has to share tracks with regional trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Emma, instead of copying bullet points from Wikipedia, think why Japan, Taiwan, and Spain generally have full separation of HSR and legacy rail, and why France, Germany, and Korea do not.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Emma, just for your reference, here are maps and feasibility studies for the shared track and dedicated alignment alternatives for LA – Anaheim.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701141550_AppendixB.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701142140_AppendixC.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701143718_AppendixD.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701145146_AppendixE.pdf
Emma Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Thank you.
Samsonian Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:10 am
It’s been a while since I read LA-Anaheim HSR documents.
But the long term gist I got was that from Redondo Junction to Fullerton 4 dedicated freight tracks will be eventually needed (this is BNSF’s all important Transcon line), and that 2 dedicated passenger tracks shared between Amtrak, Metrolink, and HSR was all that’s really practical for passenger service in this corridor. And if 2 tracks are all you can use to Fullerton, that’s all that’s needed to Anaheim (and beyond) as well.
I know 4 tracks for freight seems hard to believe. But BNSF already has 3 tracks over Cajon Pass that they built with their own money. If freight rail volumes really do double over 30+ years as projections say, BNSF really will need 4 tracks just for themselves.
Nathanael Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Pity it seems impossible to take the ROW of UP’s branch through Downey, Buena Park, and West Anaheim. (Why stuff everything into the poor-geometry Santa Fe corridor?)
People are talking like if the central valley test track is picked first, everything else will be put on hold until it’s done. I don’t think so. Rememmber, the other segments will have construction work as well as money comes in. It’s just a piece of the whole system, not a segment which will put everything else on hold until finished. A few yesrs down the line, all segments will have construction taking place, not just the valley.
Two good choices. The same good choices as ever.
1. BART Dublin-Livermore (separately funded but coordinated) undertaken together with HSR Livermore-Tracy-Stockton and Tracy-Fresno (going further north or south as funding permits.)
2. San Jose-Fremont-Livermore.
For state political reality reasons, something needs to be done in the LA basin even through the benefit would be lower. LAUS-Sylmar-Palmdale, certainly not LA-Anaheim.
StevieB Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Now you just have to demonstrate independent utility of building to Livermore and provide EIR by the deadline to get the ARRA funding.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Oh OK. Righty-o. My job. Not that of America’s Finest Transporation Planning Professionals.
I’ll get right on it and pop it in the post first thing tomorrow morning.
You’re welcome.
StevieB Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Hurry it up because the EIR will take more time than you have before the ARRA deadline because of the public comment periods. It does not take a professional to identify potential independent utility, you just have to name a passenger railroad that would benefit from new tracks to Livermore if the remainder of the system is not built.
thatbruce Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Why not propose using the existing BART ROW across the hills to Dublin for a HSR feeder service? Say San Jose – Fremont/Union City – Hayward – Castro Valley – Dublin – Livermore – Tracy and beyond? Operationally it seems that that branch is underused and rather expensive for BART to run. Politically I understand that the very thought of BART relinquishing any of its trackage is verboten.
( Yes, this is a strawman proposal )
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Replacing BART makes no sense, even if it were technically realistic to do so through Dublin Canyon.
BART as BART makes a fine Stage 1 “HSR feeder service” especially as, as you perceptively note, the Dublin line is a ridership and subsidy basket case. Make the most of what you have, even if you wish you didn’t have it, and all that.
Samsonian Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:42 am
1. BART Dublin-Livermore (separately funded but coordinated) undertaken together with HSR Livermore-Tracy-Stockton and Tracy-Fresno (going further north or south as funding permits.)
The problem I have with this (and I’m sure you do too), is that BART to Livermore is insane. $4B+ for such a short extension, including unnecessary tunnels in suburbs. It’s second only to BART to SJ in ridiculousness.
For less money they could restore standard gauge, passenger rail service on the Iron Horse Trail. It could run from Concord over to Dublin/Pleasanton BART (intermodal, zomg! *high fives* all around) with a wye in Pleasanton to connect to rail in the Altamont corridor. BART could provide that connecting local transit for HSR, and run service from say Concord to SJ (I-680 corridor), or Livermore-SJ, or even Fremont-SJ.
If you ask me, we should build the longest section (which is the Central Valley) first. Once that is built, there is no way back. But if we built LA-Anaheim or SF-SJ, there would always be the fear that some stupid politicians kill the project and use the already built section for either Caltrain or the Pacific Surfliner or even worse, sell it to BNSF.
You start with the torso, then add the head (SF-SJ), arms (LA-Anaheim) and legs (LA-SD).
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“we should build the longest section (which is the Central Valley) first”
Agreed. Build that, bring in some 125 mph diesel trains, like the Talgo XXI, and let them rip. Upgrade it to electric as other sections get connected. San Joaquins would suddenly become a relatively first-world rail service.
PeakVT Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
That’s a rational approach, but we live in an irrational country. The whole SF-LA segment needs commitment at the same time, or the project will get picked to pieces.
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Well, just because we start building one segment right now does not mean that no other segments will be started shortly thereafter, as funding becomes available.
joe Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Local segments in high population areas have value as stand alone projects BUT that’s not a negative. Local riders would still want to travel longer distances on a system that was built to move people those longer distances. The fundamental problem motivating HSR isn’t going away. Once the segments are built with a common architecture, we’ll want to connect them.
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I agree.
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
with Emma.
J. Wong Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Emma, don’t think that you can use non-completion as a threat against the politicians. They’ll just argue that it was a waste because there is no other utility and that they’re just stopping the waste in leaving it uncompleted.
There are political and technical reasons that SF-SJ and LA-Anaheim are first up for the stimulus funds, not entirely because of “soonest-to-completion” either. SF-SJ is definitely going to be the last completed segment no matter how you look at it because it’s going to take the longest. But it’s visibility (given the population) and its stimulative effect to the local economy will be the greatest. LA-Anaheim is furthest along with the EIR and planning so it can be completed the soonest. And again, it’s visibility and simulative impact on the local economy will also be larger.
Any San Joaquin construction will largely be “invisible” until it’s actually finished!
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Actually this is a time-honoured and successful technique.
When Quentin Kopp’s BART to Millbrae boondoggle was experiencing its “unexpected” (nudge nudge) “budget” problems, they started construction at the far end of the line and, as a last resort contingency plan, proposed not to complete the intermediate stations in San Bruno and South San Francisco.
You can bet the same cast of PB-Soprano criminals will stage CHSR the same way. For good reason. It works.
J. Wong Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Yeah, it does work sometimes, but it’s not such a sure thing as you think, especially with the sums needed for HSR. So I wouldn’t want to bet on it.
Isn’t the test track part of the Federal stimulus funds? So construction will start in the San Joaquin Valley about the same time as SF-SJ and LA-Anh.
The problem with just a SJV segment is that is probably isn’t going to be a game-changer with respect to SJV travel by itself; there simply isn’t the market. But SF-SJ definitely would be since the grade separation even without HSR would benefit Caltrain, whose major reliability problem today is people and cars on the tracks! Also, I believe LA-Anh is the least technically difficult of the segments, which is why it is scheduled to complete first. And, I believe it would attract a significant amount of tourist traffic from LA to the theme parks (really, why do you think Anaheim is the proposed terminus anyway?) You can’t beat a 20-minute ride @ 90mph even by driving (plus paying for parking). But if they do the dedicated track option @ 125mph, think of the publicity!
J. Wong Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
>> Isn’t the test track part of the Federal stimulus funds? So construction will start in the San Joaquin
>> Valley about the same time as SF-SJ and LA-Anh.
Apparently not. Here’s what I gleaned from the ARRA (stimulus) documents:
SF-SJ:
Starting: 3/2012 Ending: 9/2016 50 miles
Totally focused on infrastructure that would benefit Caltrain including electrification. Does not include any HSR track or electrification beyond that shared with Caltrain.
Merced-Fresno:
Starting 3/2012 Ending: 12/2015 50 miles
Track to nowhere. Does not include electrification or any viaduct or station work in either Fresno or Merced.
Fresno-Bakersfield:
Starting 9/2011 Ending: 12/2015 98 miles
Track to nowhere. Does not include electrification or any viaduct or station work in either Fresno or Bakersfield.
LA-Anaheim:
Starting 9/2011 Ending: 12/2015 30.1 miles
Mostly benefits MetroLink immediately, but does include HSR stations and track, but no electrification or other support systems. Also, top speed is 110mph (assuming dedicated track).
The Fed’s awarded $2.25B out of a requested $4.47B but didn’t specify how it is to be used. So with matching from 1A bonds the total is $5.5B. Completion of the design work and documents was included in that as a separate item, which of course has to get done (but I think it’s less than $100m), so I don’t know how they’ll allocate the rest to actual work given they are short $4.44B.
I expect they will actually start work in the San Joaquin Valley as planned along with the other two segments, which they must do because of ARRA requirements, assuming that they will get further funding at some point to complete the proposed segments (and completion of the proposed segments is not completion of the HSR system so that is even more funding that needs to be allocated.)
StevieB Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 2:03 am
The ARRA award specifies $400 million for the Transbay Terminal. The remainder will be allocated to one of the four segments, which were separate proposals, to be determined by the Federal Railroad Administration. Because they are recovery funds to provide near term stimulus of the economy there is a deadline for breaking ground. The segments outside the central valley seem less likely to meet the deadline.
J. Wong Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Actually, LA-Anaheim seems closest to starting, and is scheduled to at 9/2011, although Fresno-Bakersfield has the same proposed start. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the completion of the PE/NEPA/CEQA reports, which were included in the ARRA awards, to see what they decide.
P.S., I’m just curious: What’s your source for your information?
The system is obviously going to need a test track. Can’t we get that much built with the promise that Anaheim- Los Angeles will get built as quickly as possible?
And the test track goes into revenue service when the Valley tracks connect with the Bay Area or with Los Angeles.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Only if you are an owner or investor in a US based transportation consulting mafioso racket.
Otherwise, the way you do things is
(a) to to build things exactly to the technical specifications of systems which are known to work (contrast with PBQD’s Only In California limitless rent-seeking sleaze); and
(b) to buy things that area already know to work in service from people with a record of delivering functioning products (contrast with …)
There are plenty of “test tracks” already in the world.
James Fujita Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Um, no, it’s not the mafia who’s demanding test tracks, and it’s not the Tripartite Commission either. It’s the federal government.
If I were in charge of the FRA — and I’m not — I would demand an immediate overhaul of the stone-age railroad safety rules and regulations which absolutely ruined Acela. I would expedite the import of Shinkansen, TGV, AGV, etc. etc. to the United States.
However, you can’t get European medication into the U.S. without extensive testing, why would high-speed rail be any different?
Now, you can argue for a more libertarian process, but that’s only going to add a whole lot more time to the process — unless that’s your goal in the first place.
Much better to get started on construction of a flat, uncontroversial piece of track, compare and contrast Japanese, French and German design, and be that much more closer to actual HSR running between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Spokker Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Come on, I agree that Richard is annoying as hell, but the physics in this country aren’t any different in France and Spain and we aren’t going to be swallowing the goddamn trains in pill form. There’s no need to build any segment for the sake of having a test track.
StevieB Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 3:37 am
Are you advocating putting whichever train set is purchased into operation carrying passengers without testing on California tracks?
Spokker Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 4:14 am
There is a difference between testing before service begins and a test track.
Testing will happen before revenue service begins on a minimally operable segment as with any rail line. But that’s my point, only minimally operable segments should be built. You don’t stick a worthless segment in the middle of the Central Valley just for testing trains.
James Fujita Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 9:13 am
I sympathize with what you are saying. The physics aren’t any different.
And yet, it sounds like that is precisely what the Cal HSR authority is planning to do. Both this blog and others have talked extensively about the big giant fight between Fresno and Merced over the construction of a maintenance yard facility (another one of those little details that should really be taken care of before revenue service starts). That contract is supposed to include a test track.
The major benefactors of such a track would be: 1) the FRA, which being a government bureaucracy, doesn’t believe in things it can’t see (and regulate) on U.S. soil and 2) the general public, which also hasn’t seen HSR before and doesn’t know what to expect, noise and safety-wise.
A test track could also help out Cal HSR by demonstrating that high speed rail isn’t a threat to freight railroads.
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Every section of track and every trainset will go through extensive testing before any passengers are allowed on board. That doesn’t mean we should build a section of track just to test things on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
The “test” track will become revenue track someday.
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Certainly, but that doesn’t mean that a section that will be more useful in the short term shouldn’t get higher priority just because it can’t support 220mph operations.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Until it’s completed there won’t be any 220 MPH service. The aren’t going to drop trains off afer a long ocean voyage or even a long transcontinental rail voyage, turn over the keys to a Metrolink engineer and start running revenue service.
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
So what? Our goal is to transport people, not to run trains at 220 mph. If a slower segment will provide more transportation value in the short term, it absolutely makes sense to build that segment first.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
And where do the trains to run this lower speed service magically appear from? NJTransit, may briefly for a week or two, have excess equipment in 2018. SEPTA will be looking to get rid of some 40 year old Silverliners soon but rebuilding them to run on 60Hz isn’t going to be cheap. I’ve read Utah is looking to get rid of some old Metra cars, once they strip out the parts they can use on the old NJTransit cars they have.
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Legacy or upgraded local services can be run on the new tracks in many cases. This is particularly true of the LA-Anaheim and SF-SJ sections.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The reason you can’t import medicine into the US is lobbying by corrupt
drug cartelspharmaceutical companies. I’d rather the US tried to make its transit work better than its health care.I still think this is gorgeous and I’m keeping my fingers crossed its what we get.
Eric M Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Nah, we want something with distributed traction, like the Velaro or AGV
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
WAtch this!!!. Its trains galore… and I love how much of this looks almost exactly like northern california. I can see these train in cali cuz they look like they belong here. They can hold more people per train, and even that paint job – with the orange slant across the doors looks just like this
sure its just a pint job but still. I like how they kind of match.
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
AGV yes for sure.
Eric M Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Right now, I obviously haven’t been in an AGV, but I would pick the Velaro over the TGV. I do like both of them though. The Velaro is sleek and makes the coolest sound when leaving the stations!!
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
but sncf has that signature tone… which is apparently popular enough to be a ringtone.
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
in fact they’ve practically got a whole club mix !
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I must spend too much time on the internet, having run into so many things–in any event, here is a link from a site run by a fellow in California, does a lot of statistical analysis, but sometimes has fun, too:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=1
Why bring this numbers man up here? Check this out, and be sure to take note of the links in the articles:
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/Heykens_2010_04_01.htm
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/LibCribLoath_Subliminal_2_2010_04_01.htm
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
I remember the first time I saw a drawing for a proposed double-deck TGV car, and the first thing that came to my mind was how much it looked like an Amtrak Superliner. Totally logical, of course, the French people may be skinnier than we are, but they aren’t much shorter. . .
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Interestingly enough, the TGV Duplex provides as much power (measured in kW/tonne for the entire train) as most EMUs.
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:21 am
It just looks very substantial. Like a real workhorse. Which eventually, we will need here.
Joey Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Okay, but we’re trying to measure things objectively here.
faster
Not that anyone cares but I remember when all trains had one of these. Most of you have probably never seen one. When they went away. Kids all across america suddenly didn’t have any one to wave to. There was a momentary sense of loss, until we all became distracted by pong.
jimsf Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
these
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
I knew it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Wow, and I thought I was the only nostalgia hound around here. . .
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=330421&nseq=25
Better put on your sunglasses for this one. . .
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=251075&nseq=140
Of course, being the crazy steam fan that I am, I can’t ignore the other end. . .
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=252028&nseq=139
What brings this on, Jim? I expect this sort of thing from me, but not normally from you!
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Wow nice caboose! ( not in a sexual harassment way lol) well sometimes I’m just reading here and and it prompts me to go poking around the net, and you know, you poke around the net and this stuff pops up and and you click and “oh that’s pretty cool” and you share it because sometimes it just gets a little boring when we go back and forth about “segments” and “tehachapi!” and sf-sj,” or loading height or gauge or whatever it is… and…. “Bechtel and Parson and Brinckerhoff Oh My!!”
LIke every american boy, I liked trains, and I’m not a foamer ( I don’t care much about technical details at all) but I do have a little more than a cursory interest since I work for a railroad and have used public transit almost exclusively for at least the past 30 years, enjoy travel, hate flying, and when I wasn’t working for the rail road spent the previous 20 years on the front lines of the tourism/ hospitality industry, plus being from a top tourism city… well it is very very clear to me and very strange, that while the rest of world sees trains as an “of course we do, don’t you?” Americans have this odd aversion, in spite of the fact that we all know from american history that it was the railroads who played a key role in so many ways, from westward expansion to winning world wars. And while we endeavor to go forward in california you don’t do that by ignoring the past cuz it was the past that got you here so you honor it you don’t badmouth it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Honoring the past as you move forward–my sentiments exactly, even if my variation includes locomotives that people would like to move away with all the other smokers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn23zhBnb4A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNYxj-d9zLQ&feature=related
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Actually rode the train today which I rarely do. Very nice. First, dreaded bus ride over the bridge that some people blog negatively about, nothin’ to it, which explains why the passengers don’t seem to mind it. Ferry Building to Emeryville. 16 minutes in a comfortable quiet climate controlled coach, with spectacular sunrise views of the city and bay and smooth jazz on the sound system. ( on the way home, 17 minutes, with even more spectacular views from the upper deck – a view that I have been seeing since the mid 60s and still find as awesome as ever) The train ride itself was quiet and pleasant, along the bayshore with some morning coffee. ( the breakfast burrito left a lot to be desired, I used to serve that crap and eat it everyday and its just as bad now as ever and I pray to god that HSR gets a real dining car with a real chef. bleh.) but the ride across the wetlands and farmlands was gorgeous. For those of you who haven’t been, the CA state RR museum is a must. They’ve got this 1940 streamline diner – gorgeous – and they’ve got all the old railroad china from all the old railroads. The old guy said they’ve got a warehouse full of it cuz the old railroads donated all of it in ’71. Besides the enormous steam locomotives that used to to travel at 100+ on a regular basis, they have these model people who look so lifelike they must have been done by disney. It was startling.
It would be nice to shave 20 minutes off the trip which could be done if they could just a bit faster but all in all completely acceptable journey. Perhaps I ride the train again sooner than another year from now.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
which explains why the passengers don’t seem to mind it.
People who do mind it don’t show up for the bus to the train, they get to where they are going some other way.
I pray to god that HSR gets a real dining car with a real chef.
There isn’t going to be a real chef. Carting around raw food and cooking it at 200 MPH isn’t cheap or easy. Much better to install some sous vide vats and open some plastic pouches.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Just some clips of SP classic operations from YouTube, featuring the distinctive cab-forward locomotives of that road; the last one in existence is in the museum at Sacramento:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gylvu9Dxyo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ky9WrRaHoI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ErZ5SgkVw&feature=related
Enjoy.
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
last one in existence is in the museum at Sacramento yep I was inside the cab of that very loco this morning. Designed for getting through the donner snow sheds and tunnels because according to the old story telling guy, the engineers were passing out from the smoke in the cabs that were behind the smokestacks.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
More old SP footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4jmaJtQ0oA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wku9H0HmRHc&feature=related
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
that coast daylight! my god we’ve gone backwards since then. bring it back now!
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
we all remember this story
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
WAtch out Atherton… here it comes
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
wow, this is way better than muni LOL They should extend it to tbt. Muni could sure learn a thing or two.
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
( no one on muni ever looks this happy!)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 7:20 am
I’ve noticed the same thing on every steam trip I’ve made.
Walt Disney knew what he was about; Disneyland, billed as “the happiest place on earth,” was really an excuse to run a nostalgic steam train attraction.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Continued comment on Disney and trains:
It’s fairly well known that Walt Disney was a railroad enthusiast, along with a number of his staffers and animators, best known among them the late Ward Kimball, who actually preserved a pair of narrow-gauge steamers on his property back before WW II.
At least partially inspired by his employees, Disney got into model railroading, in what is called “live steam,” miniature locomotives that, like their full-sized counterparts, run on fire and water. He built a minature road in his back yard, called the “Carrolwood Pacific” (reporting marks, CP, like the long-merged Central Pacific). He had the money and the space for a fairly elaborate arrangement in that back yard of his.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolwood_Pacific_Railroad
http://www.burnsland.com/sdra/index.shtml
http://www.sci.fi/~animato/rail/walt.html
(To be continued)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
A little more:
http://www.justdisney.com/Features/disneyland_railroad/
I’ll let you explore for other links if you have the mind to do so. In the meantime, since we are on lighter material today, here are couple of Disney animated shorts, both inspired by Disneys and his animators’ enthusiasm for railroads, and the latter definitely inspired by the Carolwood Pacific!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbTBk4pDIHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVCzUV-sjiw
These links and things are mainly for fun here, but I do think they carry a lesson. That lesson is that we should, as much as possible, have an attractive, enjoyable transportation system, a concept that often seems lost on the anti-rail crowd that too often seems to treat those who don’t drive as second-class citizens. Granted, there are limits to what you can do with this (a subway train won’t begin to have the amenities of a classy intercity train), but the principle remains the same. And let us not forget, you can have very basic transport that’s still enjoyable, at least in good weather, as the “Little Puffer” in the park demonstrates. . .
jimsf Reply:
September 12th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
These links and things are mainly for fun here, but I do think they carry a lesson. That lesson is that we should, as much as possible, have an attractive, enjoyable transportation system
I have a coworker at amtrak who’s first job was working the disneyland railroad. I guess once you’re hooked you’re hooked.
Nathanael Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Well, their function is replicated in push-pull consists, dontcha know…. :-)
Bombardier advertisement:
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bombardier-launch-of-eco-4-technology/c18d7765f55498c8c2e5c18d7765f55498c8c2e5-231340703939?q=bombardier%20rail%20video
TGV Duplex cab ride, over what looks like a legacy line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-mCvYfW7Sc&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh+div-1r-3-HM
Somewhere on the internet is a Bombardier ad for a DMU, looks like it is in France, lots of sexy-looking people in it (but in appropriately modest and typical looking clothes, actually), and including a relatively young man in a wheelchair (demonstrating accessability)–I’ll get it up if I find it. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 12:30 am
Another ad, from Canada, featuring equipment in China. . .wonder what the conservatives would think of this one if it played in the US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtVPWFo3uI
jimsf Reply:
September 11th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
That was great.