September 2010 CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread
I’m back from Hawaii and just in time for this month’s California High Speed Rail Authority Board Meeting. Here’s the agenda and the live feed. Included is the reapproval of the Bay Area to Central Valley EIR, to reflect the changes ordered by the judge in the Atherton v. CHSRA case, and discussion of Alignment Alternatives in the Central Valley.
UPDATE: In a move that should surprise none of you, the CHSRA board voted to certify the revised Program EIR connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley via the Pacheco Pass. The Authority also approved a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for bypassing Hanford to the east instead of sending tracks through town, and made some adjustments to alternatives through the Tehachapi Pass area.
Reconfirmed: $20 billion extra for Quentin’s super special pals at PBQD.
Ka-ching!
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
I can’t watch right now, I’m in class. What happened?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
What happened? The CHSRA prime cusultant’s BART to San Jose scam was never under any sort of threat, but at least that is safely reconfirmed.
Remember to profusely thank your brave elected and appointed public officials for their steadfast advocacy of maximum public-to-private wealth transfer.
God bless our brave billionaires!
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:35 am
Right, thanks for the clarification of what you were referring to.
Spokker Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
He means that Quentin literally put $20 billion into a sack with a big dollar sign on it and gave it to his butt buddies at PBQD.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
So Kopp’s doppelganger is the Monopoly man?
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Oh, stop being an idiot, Richard. I read all the documents in detail; I’m convinced by now that you didn’t, since you steadfastly refuse to admit that the decision that Pacheco was faster and cheaper was grounded in actual facts on the ground. Just like the decision that Techachapi was the only technically sound option.
If you want to complain about a decision in the CAHSR alternatives analyses, complain about the vague handwaving used to exclude the “second Transbay Tube” option from consideration (fewest branches due to going SF-Sacramento-LA, but *still* the fastest trip from SF to LA… highest ridership,,, local service relieves congestion on BART… but it’s “too expensive”, even with the best cost-benefit ratio….) That’s water under the bridge (ha ha) now.
“The Authority also approved a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis for bypassing Hanford to the east instead of sending tracks through town”
At least they’re starting to realize that going straight through every single Central Valley town at 220 mph doesn’t make a lot of sense…
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Going through Hanford in particular was problematic, as they would have basically taken out one of the town’s two major commercial areas.
Is this true? “The second example is to limit lateral acceleration in curves to much less than used by Metrolink and BNSF. This would result in the HSR trains going around the curves at Norwalk, Fullerton, and Los Nietos at slower speeds than Surfliner and Metrolink trains on the conventional tracks.” http://www.railpac.org/2010/08/31/comments-on-hsr-thru-riverside/
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Who knows if it’s true. It’s based on comments from an anonymous engineer and engineering firm.
StevieB Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
You could probably find the lateral acceleration in curves in the System Requirements,
dejv Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
They state 3 inches. Quite a few, if you consider that lowest minimum in Europe is 100 mm (4 in) in turnouts and up to 150 mm on plain track.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
On high-speed track, the TSI states 100 mm cant deficiency at medium speed, decreasing to 80 at full speed. The reason the California consultants decided to stick with 3″ is that it’s barely less than the European full-speed limit, and American regulators do not understand that as speed increases, cant deficiency should decrease. The FRA permits higher cant deficiencies on high-speed track (defined to be 110 mph or more) than on low-speed track; PB limits 200 km/h trains to the same cant deficiency as 350 km/h trains.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I’m surprised the maximum gradient has to be 1.5% for “passenger comfort”. The TGV tracks follow the undulations of the land with gradients up to 3.5% and it doesn’t seem to make anybody feel uncomfortable.
Limiting gradients to 1.5% would have been a lot more expensive. And the ride would have been less pleasant with tunnels and trenches.
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Page 15 of the Systems Requirements states the “desirable” maximum gradient is 1.5%. The “maximum” maximum gradient is 2.5%, and the “exceptional” maximum is 3.5%.
I didn’t see anything about passenger comfort being an issue with this. More likely to enable maintaining higher speeds, etc.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Outside mountainous sections, it’s a good thing to limit gradients to 1.5-2%. It allows trains to maintain their speed more consistently. While the 1.5-2% ruling grades of the Shinkansen are not advisable, it’s a good idea to set 1.5% or 2% as a standard grade and allow 3.5% only when it’s necessary to avoid tunneling.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 am
In suburban areas, where the mighty ranges being conquered are of the order of 7m high, and the top speeds are of the order of 150kmh or less, this is pretty much completely irrelevant.
I’m sure you know that, but it doesn’t prevent sub-cretins from CHSRA/Caltrain from outlawing perfectly reasonable and even optimal alignments (eg track elevated over Castro Street in Mountain View) based on “engineering” criteria they they pulled out of some orifice or another and then claim is written in stone.
Clem Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:56 pm
That’s ridiculous. A gradient does not affect passenger comfort. What affects passenger comfort is vertical curves (gradient transitions). Reading this stuff, you’d think that a whole lot of civil engineers out there need to study up on basic dynamics?
Here’s the vertical profile of France’s busiest high-speed line, compared to the heritage railroad it replaced. The old line was limited to 0.8%, and that resulted in a longer, more circuitous route and several tunnels.
Emma Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
And you know what that means: expensive tunnels.
There is a summary of the meeting actions in the Central Valley Business Times.
Anyone know the status of the controversy with the downtown Bakersfield station site? This was not discussed in the supplemental AA for the Fresno/Bakersfield Section.
StevieB Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
An article in Bakersfield.com yesterday says there is disagreement between city and county officials on the route.
I swear, these articles just make me want to punch these people in their faces:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18117
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=7216
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Width of 4-track aerial: 78.5 feet
Width of 8-lane freeway: Over 140 feet.
Right.
Tony D. Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:09 pm
If these people really think that an improved rail corridor will be akin to an 8-lane freeway, then they deserve to be miserable! Oh well.
Victor Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I’ve heard both, Rail Yard noises in Barstow are sporadic, Are somewhat loud sounding crashes and don’t happen after dark as switching doesn’t happen at night out here, Where as the noise from a Freeway may be loud, But It’s constant no matter what, Unless the freeway traffic stops cause of an accident somewhere or a snow storm blocks the freeway, I’ve seen all of this for 50 years. But then I’ve lived in a lot of places in Southern California over the last 50 years since I was born in Los Angeles CA.
HSRforCali Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
How funny, Atherton can’t even do simple math.
StevieB Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 pm
They can do the math. Politicians thrive on hyperbole and voters who take them literally.
Victor Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Some voters are stupid enough to believe anything, I think PT Barnum is ascribed to have said that there’s a sucker born every minute. If He said that or didn’t, I’d believe whoever said that was/is right.
dave Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I beleive that 100%, too bad an hour has too many minutes.
Spokker Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:33 am
The freeway where I live is 500 feet wide.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:01 am
sorry.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:01 am
As I’ve posted before, I went to school next to a freeway that was widened from 6 to 12 lanes. We survived just fine.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Who understands feet?
To put it in terms that Joe Public can understand, given that its now football season, if you take over on your own 20, the width of a four track elevated rail doesn’t even get you out of your own half of the field. The minimum width of an eight lane freeway puts you on the opposition 34 … comfortable field goal range and a medium pass away from the red zone.
And since the majority of the corridor is already 80 feet wide, an elevated four track railway adds nothing at all to the existing corridor for most of its length, while an elevated eight lane freeway would spill over the corridor by two to three first downs.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
They haven’t heard the noise of the 101 haven’t they. Freeways are almot more noisy than a railway. Railways do not have the constant roar of a freeway that can spread noise more than 2 miles away.
Peter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
They’re holed up inside their hermetically sealed and sound-proof Mercedes or house, so they don’t have to worry about things like that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
..then it’s not a problem is? after the staff have to get there somehow…
YesonHSR Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I live near 101 ..thats why I cant stand all this whiining about a railroad that will be very quite..those babies would be screaming all the time if this went in near them.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 am
If somebody were to build an EVIL FREEWAY near to their houses that offered all downside and no advantages to a group of people you could call them NIMBYs until you’re blue in the face, but that wouldn’t change the fact that they have legitimate reasons to oppose the freeway and will bear real personal costs.
But when it comes to people ramming through a dismally ill-conceived CHOO CHOO LINE that offers all downside (worse local train service combined with non-stop Flight Level Zero Airline Surrogate trains that offers nothing except noise) and no upside, then it’s somehow supposed to be magically completely different. Because, like, train good, freeway bad, or something.
Stopped clocks are right a couple times a day, as are NIMBYs”.
All stick and no carrot makes Jack a dull boy, or something like that.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:47 pm
A Nimby is a Nimby ..period AND were are not building a FREEEWAY..nor a foaming at the mouth pan galatic tunnel park for these babies..it will run on that 140 year old railroad ..
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:49 am
Still bonkers, eh, Richard?
Walter Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“And, the letter asks, if the train goes below ground as it approaches the San Francisco’s Transbay terminal, why can’t that be done on the Peninsula?”
What a stupid question. I guess we should just build a 500 mile high-speed subway.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:02 am
It’s an absurd question, absolutely.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Well, it was probably a mistake, but I put myself on both those articles’ response pages, essentially using my recent query to Morris. Wonder what kind of answers will come up, or will the answers stop?
Emma Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 am
You are right. It makes me want to punch them, too. Unbelievable!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Thought you might want to know, there are some interesting responses to my “questionaire” post at the Amanac News site, most notably one from a person who says he knows of an heir from a tire company that begins with the letter “F” who is changing his name because of his disputes with the family about the environment, and in doing so will lose out of an enormous inheritence, but he is doing it anyway so he can have a clear conscience.
They aren’t all NIMBYs. . .
Interesting-
Speaking about $30 billion in Bay Area projects being funded with federal stimulus money, Feinstein got a big round of applause when she mentioned extending BART to San Jose. Interestingly, the applause died down when she mentioned high-speed rail right afterward.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sal-pizarro/ci_15975362
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Many in that crowd think HSR is a waste of money and BART isn’t. For the specifications BART is a giant waste of good earned dollars and could easily build a quad track in Oakland fully electrified that could run more frequent than BART. It would also allow for faster Altamont trips, Oakland connection to HSR. So many benefits, so easily overlooked.
Anyway to improve the Authority’s PR image? I’m sure it could use a fine tuning.
Matthew Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 am
I think this is a case where people think “better the devil you know….” I really think opposition will dissolve once people see a built line. As another example, San Gabriel valley politicians are fighting over who gets the next East Side Gold Line extension while the same cities are claiming that high speed rail will ruin their communities. Give it some time, get a segment built with some new, shiny, aerodynamic trains and reliable service. Let people see that it’s not too noisy or unattractive, and all this will take care of itself.
Jon Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
BART is a fairly average rail service by European/Asian standards but it’s a huge improvement over Amtrak and Caltrain because it has frequent, lightweight electric trains on grade-separated track. For most Californians frequent, lightweight electric trains on grade-separated track means BART and BART only because nothing else in California comes close to achieving this.
Once Caltrain 2.0 and HSR is built, people’s perception of these projects will change from ‘like Amtrak only more expensive’ to ‘like BART only better’. Right now Amtrak/Caltrain is the only reference point for ‘standard’ passenger rail and these services inform people’s view on HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:52 am
The fundamental problem with BART was a massive amount of “not invented here”. Broad gauge? In the 1970s?!? Third rail — for countryside routes?? in the 1970s?? BART is ferociously expensive largely because of these unique choices.
Yeah, Caltrain 2.0 and HSR are definitely “like BART only better and cheaper”.
Spokker Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:31 am
People love that BART.
Maybe CAHSR isn’t gold-plated enough. Maybe that’s the problem.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:09 am
Maybe they’ve experienced BART to the limited extent of finding it stopped at the station every 15 minutes or better when they’ve tried it, and takes them somewhere they imagine they might want to go.
Meanwhile their experience of Caltrain is that they can wait an hour between trains and it BLASTS ITS BLOODY HORNS ALL THE TIME DAY AND NIGHT; and what they’re being sold with HSR is that it won’t stop anywhere near them, but if they’d like to somehow get to the pangalactic station down in San Jose they can go on a fun trip to LA or Bakersfield.
There’s gold-plating, and then there’s useless. Caltrain and HSR are doing their best to combine the worst of both worlds.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
The BART empire employs a sizeable management bureaucracy, bankrolls militant unions, and has impeccable political connections to the highest levels of government. Plus it is the pet project of a certain engineering company.
When it comes to jousting with BART, as with those who would dethrone Intel, many have tried and many have died. And as bizarre as it may sound BART has a corporate culture that has almost taken on all too human personality traits. BART has shown itself over the decades to be a jealous thing that pushes out competitors and hates being upstaged. Just look at the dying AC Transit, starved for funds by its big brother. No love lost between BART and either Caltrain or the hsr, which feature non-proprietary technology superior to BART’s eccentricities. But nothing really ever changes as the Palmdale detour is the new iteration of 5’6″ stupidity and irresponsibility.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:30 am
BART bankrolls its unions? I thought they hated their unions, hence their constant battles…
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
As applies to all pertaining to the Bay Area political machine, appearances are not as they seem. It is called going thru the motions, viz political theatre.. The higher the union scale, the more the managers “need” to keep pace. Symbiosis.
And why bypass Hanford – I thought the rallying cry for 99 was to go where the people are. So Palmdale gloats at a free gold-plated BART while Hanford is shafted.
Actually I initially favored the 99 alignment and I can still appreciate the argument in favor of it. But what I can’t grasp is why the foamers insist on the lame-ass loopy detour when they can have fabulous world class base tunnels thru Tejon. The taxpayers will go for a 21st century base tunnel route but scratch their collective head at a hopelessly 19th century detour. They are willing to underwrite the cost for real in your face progress. It is a one-shot expense that will save money in the long run. I can’t figure out why you guys don’t want to go for the gusto. Lose the Loop, whether it be over, under, around, or thru.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Hmmm. Let’s think about why bypassing Hanford is a good idea. Hanford has spent considerable time developing the commercial zone just west of the existing tracks. Both alignments through Hanford would have wiped that area out. If that’s not a good reason, then you come up with one.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
But trashing PA with berms is ok?
But the Loop remains the stone in the shoe. Just as BART in the early sixties should have solicited a third party opinion on the major, marked and controversial departure from standard railway practice that Indian broad gauge represented the CHSRA needs an independent submission on a Tejon alignment. Bechtel has demonstrated over and over again that some of its diktats have been dead wrong. Some one like Herrenknecht should be approached to develop what they consider the optimal and most feasible Tejon scheme without imposing specific a priori favorites, because it appears that some non-Palmdale alternatives were never in the running. Let a base tunnel builder make a presentation. Bechtel is not to be trusted.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Who’s building berms in Palo Alto? You’re just making that up.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
The same PB that has nixed Tejon has been talking up berms since the passage of Prop 1A. Besides the blighting effect of berms and other aerials is similar. And open aerials provide an ideal venue for low lifes to set up shop. I think we have a lot more bums, addicts and drug dealers than other parts of the country.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Please direct my attention to where berms are still (not were) under consideration for Palo Alto. Until then, I call bullshit on your bullshit.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Please, please, please.
We all know that PB has opposed both surface and trench from the get-go throughout the Peninsula. All we ever hear on this site vis-a-vis trenches is kvetching why it can’t be done.
All the “bs” about alternatives to aerials is just that. You can call me nimby or worse but please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that PB, or Kopp or Diridon or any of the other CHSRA
functionaries will take anything other than an aerial unless it is jammed down their throats by an outraged citizenry.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Hey, you’re the one who claimed berms were being built in Palo Alto.
Berms ≠ Aerials
You are the one conflating them, not me.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
You objected to Hanford because the hsr would conflict with their city plan. Berms conflict with lthe PA city plan. same difference. Hanford gets the kid glove and PA the mailed fist.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
There are no berms planned in Palo Alto.
You show me the commercial district being wiped out in Palo Alto (by berms or otherwise), and I will agree with you that Hanford is being favored over Palo Alto. Until then, I continue to call bullshit on your bullshit.
This is fun!
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
PA obviously considers a 4 track aerial a massively blighting and an utterly incompatible use. You can see this illustrated in reverse motion with the Central Freeway demolition which profoundly upgraded the neighborhood to the west of Sf City Hall. Bye-bye street hookers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Surely the people in Palo Alto have their prostitutes delivered, discretely, in luxury cars or at least by taxi.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Please note: He still hasn’t been able to show me where there are any berm being planned in Palo Alto. Instead, what we get is attempted distraction and misdirection.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:53 am
Still drug-addledly imagining a viable route under the Grapevine, eh, Syn?
San Jose State will be offering a graduate certificate in High Speed Rail Management.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/09/06/focus4.html
From its inception and as it became organized last year, the PCC steered clear of any definitive position, choosing process, accommodation, CSS, negotiation and even memoranda of understanding with the rail authority, as if that organization represented a well-intentioned government agency seeking only our best interests.
At that time, and even years prior, I advocated a far more assertive and adversarial style of interaction on the part of local governments charged with protecting its residents and businesses from harmful intrusions such as those proposed by the rail authority. My recommendations at PCC meetings and in my writings were politely, and sometimes not so politely, ignored. My rejection of the CSS process as a fraudulent charade converted several formerly cordial colleagues into ones that were. . . . not so much.
Finally . . . . finally comes the dawn and the realization of what the rail authority really is all about, and what its purpose and agenda intend for us on the Peninsula.
While Palo Alto (and Atherton’s) HSR resolutions are a far more determined step in the appropriate direction, they still have too many qualifiers and a long way to go, and certainly all the other cities on the Peninsula corridor must come to understand the real nature of this adversarial hardball game.
To be brief, I advocate lawsuits. There are many opportunities, given the reckless and feckless conduct of the rail authority. These are the only legal means at our disposal to get the CHSRA’s attention. One example is the recent re-certification of the program-level EIS. That should not stand unopposed.
But, I wish to go further than that.
At some point in time — perhaps next year or in 2012– if this rail project is not terminated and it continues on its determined path, I advocate civil disobedience.
For example, I believe that if each city on the corridor agrees on a concurrent moment in time, they simultaneously each park several of their respective city vehicles, like their police cars, directly on the tracks of Caltrain at each at-grade street crossing, bringing all rail activity to a halt.
What do we want? We want to be taken seriously. That has not yet happened.
We will be listened to; we will be heard!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one’s government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.”
I advocate that we citizens join our respective city’s cars on the corridor in our marches and rallies in large numbers in protest to the intended destruction of our cities. If such a public expression of rejection is carried out in a peaceful manner, we can make a sufficiently visible statement that will be impossible to reject. It will be guaranteed to become a national media event. It will be a statement of ‘We The People’ against one small part of our government that has persistently ignored our concerns.
Does this shock you? Does it seem wild-eyed, irrational and extreme? When your streets along the rail corridor are close to hosting their first bulldozers, you will no longer think so. We are confronting a multi-billion dollar relentlessness most of us have never experienced. We are threatened by a government force determined to ignore our concerns, and built whatever they damn please on the rail corridor with reckless abandon.
There will come some point in time when push comes to shove and we must make some hard decisions. Will we have the courage and fortitude to make it? What I am saying is that we better fully understand and acknowledge how far this conflict may heat up.
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!”
Martin Engel
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Civil disobedience in the service of protecting an unsafe railroad corridor and blocking efforts to address rising oil costs and global warming? These people are insane.
Spokker Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Is this even real? Was it copied/pasted from somewhere else?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Martin Engel has an email list that he routinely sends his anti-HSR commentary to, and this reads like one of those messages.
Daniel Krause Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 9:06 am
I guess laying down on the tracks makes sense for these folks, as that is what is going to happen to more of their children (or grandchildren) in the future, except they will be dead. It is time to begin making the arguement about why HSR is a moral issue. Quite simply, more people will die if HSR is not implemented as soon as possible. Every day that goes by where people must drive more, and have limited choices for getting around in safer alternatives, more people will die. The statistics are so obvious. 40K+ American die on our roads every year. This doesn’t even get into the issue of injuries due to car accidents, pedestrian fatalities, etc. Everyone who is against HSR, which is proven the safest form of transporation ever invented, must look themselves in the mirror and say to themselves, my opposition, for whatever reason, if successful in killing HSR, will lead to the deaths of people that would otherwise have been prevented if HSR were implemented. Sorry folks, that is just the math. You can’t deny it. Cars kill and HSR is incredibly safe. So go ahead and do all you can to kill HSR, but understand you will have blood on your hands.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“We are threatened by a government force determined to ignore our concerns, and built whatever they damn please on the rail corridor with reckless abandon.”
Hehe, lawsuits. They’ve gotten you pretty far, haven’t they?
Are you going to park your vehicles on the tracks every day of the week? Won’t that be detrimental to the cities involved (who we all know are SWIMMING in money right now) by taking essential manpower and resources away from CITY SERVICES?
I thought Spokker’s vision of a result of “civil disobedience” against trains was entertaining.
nobody important Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:59 pm
So you want to deny the rest of California a safe, fast, energy efficient alternative to driving and flying just because you don’t want to see it or hear it in your backyard?
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@ Martin Engel
If you want to be taken seriously you will have to take your cause statewide. The ChSRA refuses to alter their scheme on the grounds they have cast-in-concrete mandate from the people of California in Prop 1A.
Protests, polls etc. will not overturn this mandate. Only a re-vote. Meantime you should re-consider you ties to the machine which is now as much growth-monger as the loyal opposition or the Vatican.
Spokker Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
The last person who deliberately parked their car on train tracks was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Manuel_Alvarez
StevieB Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
For city bureaucrats to ask the police force to break the law by blocking the railroad with their cars would result in a very short career. This is an appeal to emotion that has no foundation in reality. Readers are intended to be swayed by the extreem nature of the rhetoric. I am not convinced that structures carrying the tracks over the four street grade crossings in Palo Alto is a “harmful intrusion”.
Travis D Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 6:27 am
Writing what I really think of you and your wrong headed ideas would pollute this blog much bad language.
Think about what a terrible person you are and what a terrible thing you are advocating here? Do you really want that to be your legacy? To be remembered for being on the wrong side of history and advocating such measures to ensure it?
Your movement is pathetic, ethically void and will ultimately fail.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:55 am
You are frankly lying about the behavior of the PCC… the history is public information. It never operated in good faith.
O/T: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nkmVF94pxI
*sigh*
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Curious, why was the first one so much louder than the second? Also, why was it so loud in the first place? I’m assuming BART trains are comparable to Washington DC Metro trains, and the Metro doesn’t sound like that, and for that matter, neither do the Amtrak trains on the Northeast Corridor.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The only third rail system I know that is that loud WAS the old S-Bahn in Berlin. When they were still using cars built in the 1920s all the way into the 1990s.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 pm
BART is the noisiest blinking piece of **** imaginable. Bring along your ear plugs. And the funny thing is that it is at its most clamorous on the new tunnel track in San Mateo County on the way to SFO.
The same people who are responsible for this broad gauge garbage are the ones who insist on a 40 mile hsr detour in Socal.
Tonite’s news show Whitman leading by 7 points in the latest poll. I don’t care how much of an arrogant and obnoxious jerk she is she has my vote if she is willing to meet the CHSRA-Palmdale-PB gangsters out in a cornfield with a trunkful of Louisville Sluggers.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:15 pm
I like how the length of your detour keeps changing. Last time it was 30 miles.
synonymouse Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
You know I don’t remember. Maybe it was. Humor me – I was on a roll. That’s what happens at 65. You’ll find out.
Perhaps you guys are starting to discover what brutalism is all about. Something as incredibly wretched as BART can’t possibly be by accident. Bechtel made it that way on purpose – it is some sort of perverse statement on modernism ca. 1960. The Jettsons in hell.
Peter Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
It’s just further entertaining evidence that you’re talking out of your ass.
synonymouse Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 12:03 am
No matter – I am in a splendid mood tonite. Whitman’s not going to renege or be intimidated by PB-Palmdale. She would lose her base quickly and permanently. So I think she will put the issue back before the public. If y’all win you can blow the $100 billion tho I don’t know where you will get the operating subsidy later on.
Peter Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Have you ever even looked up what it takes to get a proposition on the ballot? The governor can’t just decide to put one on the ballot. The Legislature has to do it, or you can do it with a signature drive (which costs WAYYY more than anyone is willing to spend on this issue). So, how are you going to get enough votes in the Legislature to get the measure on the ballot?
synonymouse Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Whitman has the cash but I don’t think she will have to given the public has turned sour on the CHSRA. All she has to do is indicate she will not move forward without a public reconfirmation as the project is enormously expensive and controversial. The politicians sense the palpable loss of support and will be only too happy to toss the entire matter back onto the ballot. It’s a lose-lose for them.
All Whitman has to do is say no, but I will be willing to yield if the voters insist in a recast.
Peter Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Whatever, I know that you can never give a straight answer to anything. It’s late and you bore me.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Washington Metro clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bVs9Eo-PAw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx6wOO-N0Bw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lpalny2feY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_705150&v=phTG1TiMoqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDuuk-TX0l0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FGPhV92spY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_OlQ612ieI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO3A_H6vx4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gip5BniR9rM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHrRjDx5Kg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ_zUD1IlMc&feature=related
Amtrak on the Corridor; I have always been impressed at how quiet those electric trains were, at least compared to diesel (and steam!) trains I am normally around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x27DBHQljtw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isITksFINXU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPPmxl0CpIE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYsS7v6sA_I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkL5hR08_iU&feature=related
It won’t convince the NIMBYs, but maybe someone here can enjoy it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Now that this is up after moderation, is there anybody here who has ridden both the DC Metro and BART and can comment on similarities and differences, including soung?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
They are both much quieter than the NYC subway was during the summer with all the windows open. Especially when a local and express met up between stations.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Sources of rail noise:
(1) Sharp curves. NYC Subway has lots of those. This gives wheel squeal, the worst.
(2) Badly maintained track. NYC Subway has lots of that.
(3) Narrow tunnels (creating more concentrated echoes). NYC Subway has lots of those.
(Sensing a pattern here?)
(4) Everything else.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 5:28 am
The RER A has worse noise issues than the NYC Subway. The main culprit: the older trains don’t have air conditioning, so the windows are kept open when the train is in motion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Well, went looking for BART video clips, in my opinion the best of the ones I’ve seen is this one (and the poster has two others I didn’t check, I was getting sleepy); it’s a cab ride, apparently by a BART employee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpJkQEhHJ9o&feature=related
Opinions and observations: The system may be louder than the DC Metro, but am not sure from these and other clips; overall sound is different in subtle ways, perhaps due to a different control system; as I recall, a company called Rohr built early cars for both BART and DC Metro; overall, the cab ride footage (surface running) looks remarkably like something from Washington, with the digital speed readouts, the trees, the block signals, and the white fiberglass covers over the third rail; a lot of the video clips of BART show very empty trains and platforms, at least some of which may be late at night, which is a great contrast to the often sardine-can conditions in the rush hour on the Washington Metro, which I’ve never seen looking that empty; DC Metro wins hands down in station architecture, which may be at least partially due to a railfan who was a member of the architectural team, in fact headed up one of the companies involved (Arthur D. Dubin, of the firm Dubin & Dubin, and author of the books “Some Classic Trains,” “More Classic Trains,” and “Pullman Paint and Lettering Notebook”); architecture on BART, as suggested by Synonymouse, does look like either a perversion of “The Jetsons,” or a vision of the future from 1960, or both; what it really looks like is an early George Lucas movie called “THX 1138″ (which is because Lucas filmed part of the movie on the system while it was still under construction); BART’s own website, with the “ba” logo on the blue background, reminds me of NASA graphics, which again fits with a vision of the future from 1960 (and I hope that doesn’t change, somehow it now has a nice retro feel to it–and that itself is interesting, as the Internet as such wasn’t around then); BART’s own website makes no mention at all of the odd-ball track gauge, even in its history of the system; it would be interesting to know what the rationale for it was, or at least what was given out for public consumption;
http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/research/specialcollections/oralhistories/dubin.html
http://library.lakeforest.edu/archives/ArthurDubin.html
Spokker Reply:
September 4th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
No need to sigh. 50 people have seen that video and most of those people were us.
I didn’t get a chance to watch the meeting, but saw this:
http://voiceofoc.org/blogs/article_5cfeffc0-b7a0-11df-b4cc-001cc4c002e0.html
Did anyone else watch the part of the meeting dealing with Conflict of Interest? I heard it went on for an hour and will be continued next month.
I’m surprised no one has posted about the recent Caltrain settlement where they paid almost a million dollars to the family of a dumb ass south city teenager who stepped in front a train a few years ago.
Nathanael Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Well, it happens occasionally. Good argument for HSR, with total grade separation. Unfortunately it seems we have to protect idiots from themselves these days.
Spokker Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Another good argument for grade separation is silencing horns.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It is not the sound of the train that annoys people, it’s the sound of a horn. It’s a dealer breaker for my girlfriend, who is willing to leave near train tracks if there aren’t any horn blasts.
HSR would silence the horns. That’s the best part in my opinion.
Awesome blog I loved reading your information
party supplies