Way to go Robert – spin spin spin away – the key piece of news with regard to SJ is actually that they are demanding that CHSRA sign a binding enforcable contract giving SJ approval power over any ariel design and materials – as a condition for their support of ariel over tunnel. AND they’ve given deadline of Oct 1. So SJ has finally gotten wise, and thrown down the gauntlet. And as soon as SJ gets this agreement (which they will – or blow CHSRA out of the water), all other cities up and down the line can expect to receive same.

WRT to Mt View, what’s interesting to note there is the quote from CHSRA spokesman that all the peninsula potential stations (PA, RC, or Mt View) are all OPTIONAL. And so the next two most obvious questions – lets see CHRSA ridership and resulting financial projections with NO peninsula station (because PA is entirely off the table, and RC is mounting steam against the crooked CHSRA plans) and secondly – if a mid peninsula station is OPTIONAL – then it seems to crack a giant hole in the absolute
‘given’ that HSR just MUST run through the middle of these Peninsula towns. If no stops – why run through the middles. It opens the very real possility that it be moved to 101 ariel from Millbrae to SJ.

Also Robert – just because you keep saying something over and over – doesn’t make it true. You might WISH the constituents were still in support of HSR – but they quite simply are not. The CHSRA has made that quite impossible – every day becomes clearer that the people were fed a load of pure crap with Prop 1A, and they absolutely do not support HSR under any circumstance that CHSRA can dish up. Believe it or not, these local representatives have plenty of ways to hear their constituents feedback other than by logging in to your blantant PR shit spewing machine here.

WRT to Caltrain – the message is clear. CHSRA’s power plays and bullying days are over here. The owners of that row (the people of the peninsula ) are taking their ball and going home. And frankly you’ve miss judged peninsula politics pretty severely throughout – but the bottom line is this – SF can go to hell. The peninsula is not led around by the nose by SF. Everyone and everything south of Candelstick park can pretty much care less what happens in SF. They can ‘bill’ their transbay terminal as an HSR station, as a circus tent, or as an ice skating rink. Its meaningless what kind of PR crap they want to push out. Transbay terminal is a decision to build an overblown bus terminal, stupid san franciscans made about their own city, and it has ZERO binding impact on anything south of SF. Deal with it. We’re not checking with SF on zero. Did sf check with the Peninsula before they decided to sink their eggs in TBT?

The “phased approach” is nice, but let’s be realistic about what needs to happen. Foremost is the complete grade separating of the line, the updating of infrastructure, including everything for electrification and configuring of stations for Millbrae and PA to serve as mid-peninsula HSR stations while other stations can allow for trains to pass while others are stopped. PAMPA ought not to stop this process, but at least embrace that grade separations can improve traffic flows, eliminate the blowing of the train horn and cut down on trespassing that leads to accidents involving pedestrians (whether intentional or not). Electrification will do more to speed up service, eliminate noise and emissions while offering passengers a fast, efficient way to travel up and down the Peninsula. But ultimately, one must consider that if the infrastructure is not built at the beginning, then construction could potentially drag on for years, albeit at phased approach. In this case, wouldn’t it be better to get everything done sooner rather than drag it on for additional years to come at higher cost and at higher disruption to an active HSR/Caltrain main line?

If Schwarzenegger’s plan to have the 2020 world’s fair at Moffet happens, I have to image HSR would be a huge part of that. I think at least a temporary station in Mt View would be assured. Once the people get used to living next to a HSR station I think they might fight to keep it.

moffet field is on 101. Exactly where HSR through the Peninsula belongs.

Mountain View’s City Council and residents really take issue with the station’s footprint and 3,000 parking spaces requirement. Few, if anyone, in the city want the station to encroach into downtown.

“The Rail Authority says it needs 1,000 parking spaces at the station and 2,000 more within three miles for long-term parking.”

“New buildings would take the place of the 1888 train depot [which is not actually that old] and bus turnout at the current station. A two-story, 67,000-square-foot main station building would take their place at the corner of Castro and Evelyn Avenue. A drawing presented Monday showed two four-story garages (800 parking spaces) extending from the station building to the end of the 1,410-foot platform, which is long enough to accommodate two high-speed trains attached end to end. ”

You can read the Mountain View Voice article at: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=3345

Would it be legal for CHSRA to upgrade the existing two-track Caltrain corridor rather than construct dedicated HSR tracks throughout the peninsula? According to my reading of AB3034(2008), yes absolutely:

[2704.04.] (c) Capital costs payable or reimbursable from proceeds of bonds
described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) include, with respect
to the high-speed train system or any portion thereof, all activities
necessary for acquisition of interests in real property and
rights-of-way and improvement thereof; acquisition and construction
of tracks, structures, power systems, and stations;

Nothing here about quad tracking. The language is plenty broad enough to permit sharing the infrastructure, since “acquisition” doesn’t necessarily imply securing outright ownership. It’s enough to secure rights to use in perpetuity.

A separate issue is if both the FRA and the CPUC will clear the regulatory roadblocks to track sharing. My guess is that as long as the entire corridor is fully grade separated and equipped with PTC signaling, these agencies will not go out of their way to prevent a creative solution. That said, cutting through the red tape will still take a major effort, especially if/when the GOP regains control of FRA’s purse strings. Archaic restrictions on e.g. platform heights to protect ye olde freight railroad practices could prove a real pain in the keister.

IMHO, the most serious issues are operational:

(a) can CHSRA secure sufficient HSR capacity into SF to justify the construction of the rest of the starter line between San Jose and Anaheim?

Hint: define “sufficient”. There’s nothing in AB3034(2008) that says each and every HSR train must terminate in SF. The botched design of the Transbay Terminal Center’s rail infrastructure is anyhow a hard capacity bottleneck. If and when the peninsula corridor itself were to become a bottleneck – decades from today – there would always be the option of terminating a subset of trains in San Jose. Also, future voters may want a spur up to Oakland Coliseum to improve service for East Bay residents.

The most severe constraint imposed by track sharing is on the timetable. Neither HSR nor Caltrain will have the luxury of running their respective services whenever it happens to be most convenient for them.

(b) can CHSRA and Caltrain agree on a common platform height, common PTC implementation, common electrification parameters etc?

Caltrain may have to accept changes to its plans, e.g. switching to longer, wider but single-level trains. This ought not to be a showstopper but stubborn pride and contractor greed could easily get in the way.

(c) can CHSRA meet the 2h 40m line haul target for SF-LA if it must share track with Caltrain anywhere south of 4th & King in SF?

AB3034(2008) does not require that this target be achievable at all times and on all days of the week. Indeed, it does not even require non-stop commercial service for this city pair. The time is an acceptance criterion, no more. That, however, does not make it trivial. Passing the test will mean constructing the tracks such that safe operation at up to 125mph is possible. Tight curves such as San Bruno and the Palo Alto chicane might have to be rectified and/or equipped with gauntlet tracks if heavy freight service is to be maintained with guaranteed time separation (i.e. at night).

During Caltrain’s rush hour, the HSR operator(s) would probably have to accept constraints on top speed (e.g. 90 mph) and the number of stops their trains would have to make between SF and SJ (e.g. minimum 2). This would add 10-15 minutes to the SF-LA travel times during these peak periods. Sounds like a dealbreaker, but probably isn’t: only business customers will really care and many of them will actually experience shorter door-to-door trip times thanks to the better last mile connections afforded by the intermediate stops. Moreover, as long as wireless broadband internet access is available, transit time spent on board HSR trains won’t be wasted.

(d) would heavy freight operations send HSR infrastructure maintenance costs on the SF peninsula through the roof?

The X-2000 trains in Sweden operate at 125mph, on tracks shared with heavy freight trains. However, that rolling stock is not required to also operate at much higher speeds in any part of the network.

Deutsche Bahn chose to construct a lot of slab track (“Feste Fahrbahn”) in recent years, believing this would permit medium and even heavy freight trains to run at night on tracks used for HSR during the day. Slab track is much stiffer than regular ballast track and therefore less prone to geometry degradation. However, any deviation from the design specs (e.g. due to the subsoil settling over time) will greatly increase the wear and tear on the suspension systems of HSR trains traveling at high speed. Some experts have suggested this may have contributed to the premature metal fatigue experienced by the axles of DB’s ICE3 and ICE-TD fleets.

So, the devil will be in the details on this one.

“an agency in such bad shape”
Veolia has 312,000 employees worldwide and a revenue of $34.55 bn (2009). Its transport division runs commuter and urban services in many countries, including China.
It has a great reputation as a cost cutter. For instance, Luas (Dublin, Ireland light rail) runs at a profit which it shares with the city.
SNCF’s employees say Veolia’s secret is: non-union jobs, undertrained underpaid staff, which Veolia denies.
SNCF has created a private company, Keolis, to compete with Veolia worldwide. Its first significant victory was in Melbourne. The city, which has the world’s largest light rail network, didn’t renew Veolia’s contract and awarded it to Keolis.
Although Veolia is not the type of company I like, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Metrolink accident on them. When you have freight and passenger trains sharing a single line without a proper signalling system, what do you expect? The people to blame are those who tolerate such third-world arrangements in the richest country on earth.

It appears that almost, if not all, Public Transit in California runs with passenger income only paying 20% or less of the total costs for the respective systems. The remainder of the funding is through the ever increasing tax load on the general population. I believe that High Speed Rail for California is another developer’s dream that will become a costly nightmare for the taxpayer.

Okay, I’m confused. Two questions:

1. Hasn’t CHSRA already proposed a phased approach to the Peninsula? As represented in it’s recent application for federal funds? My recollection that the they say (I paraphrase from memory) “here’s the amount of money that we might have from ARRA and other federal funds, supplemented with Prop 1A funds, and here’s how we would spend it to create an initial operating segment on the Peninsula. Other Peninsula improvements would come later as funding became available.” Perhaps Caltrain would want a different package of improvements to go into a first phase, but CHSRA has done some analysis to decide on its concept of Phase 1.

2. Isn’t the Peninsula HSR project being overseen by Bob Doty, who works for both CHSRA and Caltrain? Shouldn’t Caltrain be addressing its concerns, and contributing its best ideas, through its 50% management of the project? Or is this dual management only a fig leaf?

(1) As far as I can see, if the train doesn’t get to LA in 2:42, the bond holders can ask for their money back. A possible workaround would be to send out a nonstop train at, say, 0900 hrs. This would be the bond issue train. It would get to LA (we are told) at 1142. Then we send out a stopping train at 0930, and another bond issue train at 1000. At some point, the second bond issue train catches up with the stopping train that preceded it, but we arrange that meet so the stopping train is in a station somewhere, and the bond issue train goes through on the express track.
(2) Aren’t all the polls pretty much meaningless? The question is, “Do you want a train coming through here at 130 mph?” The honest answer is, “Beats me. What does 130 mph sound like?” The poll respondents say they support HSR, when what they mean is they support their mental image of what HSR is supposed to be.

Rafael or Robert,
How exactly would this “phased” plan look in terms of design, stations, ROW width, trackage, etc? How much time would be added to a LA-SF run? I consider myself an ardent anti-NIMBY, but this “phased” idea is intriguing. Perhaps in the future a more in-depth post could be written to expand on the actual nuts and bolts of this Caltrain/HSR “phased” plan.

As CalTrain tries to re-position itself with this new “reset” / “phased in” approach, one should really look at what is or is not possible with 2 tracks or 4 tracks. CalTrain is promoting that 4 tracks won’t be needed right away at least, maybe not for 20 or 25 years. CalTrain is saying that 10 or 11 trains each way per hour at peak times is not necessary for a very long time.

CalTrain is saying we will get by with 2 tracks through Menlo Park / Palo Alto, even at grade. Anyway that’s one way of looking at their letters.

What is really informative is to look at what has been said on this and related issues. Over at Clem’s Bog he has a link

http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/06/strange-bedfellows-indeed.html

to a transcript which paints a completely different picture. As one re-reads this, one just comes away with the sense that the Authority and CalTrain are completely at odds on this possibility, with essentially Tony Daniels saying 4 tracks are absolutely necessary.

Who is one to believe? In any case, a phased in approach would mean enduring at least 2 separate construction periods. Any City which has endured even one, never wants to endure another.

In Palo Alto, the loss of CalTrain service would result in complete chaos to their transportation system. They are so heavily dependent upon CalTrain to deliver riders to the Stanford campus, that loss of that service can’t be tolerated.