Sunday Open Thread
Some quick HSR-related items for your weekend:
• Burlingame votes against joining the newest HSR lawsuit, after hearing legal advice indicating the suit had little chance of success. Kudos to Burlingame for being open to a more constructive approach – they’re not happy with the proposals either, but recognize that a lawsuit will accomplish nothing but the waste of precious taxpayer dollars.
• New study estimates Kern County would get between 1,500 and 2,100 permanent jobs if the HSR maintenance facility were built in Wasco or Shafter. My guess is that Fresno and Merced have the inside track to land the facility, but wherever it goes, it will bring desperately needed jobs to the Central Valley.
• Amtrak hires Al Engel to head its HSR unit. Engel has worked for SNCF and as a consultant on other rail projects.
It only makes sense for Burlingame to sit this one out. A route change to Altamont would not help them. The residents joining the lawsuit, on the other hand (“Mid-Peninsula Residents for Civic Sense” my ass), are just obviously trying to kill/delay the project overall.
Clem Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Spot on. The Atherton lawsuit (and its upcoming sequel) essentially seek to change the alignment from Pacheco to Altamont. Either way Burlingame ends up in the same place… unlike PAMPA.
Meanwhile, construction begins on a new Dumbarton tunnel bored for five miles under the Bay and through (yes Rafael, THROUGH!) the sacrosanct Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. While this tunnel will carry only water, and is a mere 15 feet in diameter, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the sort of tunnel that the EIR said would be geotechnically and environmentally impossible to build. It will also cost just $570 million.
Maybe that ought to be fodder for the next lawsuit?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Maybe there’s a difference in ventilation costs, or even in the quality of contractors used. Let me point out that in New York, water tunnels get built on time and on a reasonable budget, whereas subway tunnels do not.
Matthew Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Ridiculous. Comparing to a water pipe is really clutching at straws.
James Fujita Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
human beings are roughly 75 percent water. it’s the remaining 25 percent that causes all the trouble ;)
Elizabeth Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
It will actually only cost $215 million. https://infrastructure.sfwater.org/fds/fds.aspx?lib=SFPUC&doc=587389&data=226144765 and includes a shaft 141-feet deep and 58 feet in diameter.
The $500 million figure includes other parts of this massive project.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
The water tunnel project was also put out to a genuninely competitive bidding process, so that is an important factor in keeping costs down.
Look into how PB became the prime contractor for the CHSRA project.
A future Dumbarton rail tunnel could effectively and efficiently use the geotechnical studies from the water tunnel that goes, yes, right through the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, aka smelly industrial salt ponds.
StevieB Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:19 am
So if a steel lined 9 foot diameter tunnel 5 miles long costs $215 million. How much would two tunnels 27’6″ diameter of 5 miles length with ventilation and track and electrification cost? The outside diameter is about 30 feet so 4 times the volume of soil removed and there are two tunnels so 8 times the soil. You would need two digging machines and 2 crews running them. Look to comparable railroad tunnel costs for your cost estimate.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:42 am
The total cost is less important than the cost differential between the two options.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:29 am
That was a lame statement. I withdraw it.
Joey Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
No it’s a valid question. If a tunnel costs a few billion, but only marginally more than a high bridge, then it might make sense, for various reasons, to go with the tunnel.
mike Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:36 am
FWIW, the same group that is constructing the bay tunnel is also constructing a 3800 ft bored tunnel for the Seattle Link light rail extension. The contract there is $154 million for a 0.7 mile tunnel, or $220 million/mile.
However, these light rail tunnels have an internal diameter of only 18.1 ft, while Clem claims that HSR tunnels need a diameter of ~26 ft. This means that the HSR tunnels are twice as large per mile, driving costs higher than $220 million. On the other hand, the contract also includes initial excavation of the space for the Capital Hill station, which will offset some of that size difference between the HSR and light rail tunnels.
Clem Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
HSR tunnels need a diameter of ~26 ft
That’s an inside diameter, for a 125 – 150 mph tunnel. Add 3 feet of concrete and +/- 6 inches of error for an overall bored diameter of 33 feet. And that’s for one track only; you need two bores for fire safety. Rafael’s calculation of a 10:1 ratio of excavation volume (comparing HSR to the Dumbarton water tunnel) is correct.
What is in doubt is whether bored tunnel costs are proportional to the volume excavated. For example, the amount of tunnel lining is only ~4 times greater, not 10x.
The literature seems to bear out Richard’s point that costs are dominated by geotechnical risk, which would be extremely low for a Dumbarton HSR tunnel.
mike Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
No one doubts that adverse geotechnical developments can have substantial impacts on cost. The question many of us are wondering is what impact tunnel size – irrespective of (or possibly in conjunction with) geotechnical factors – has on cost.
According to the Hong Kong MTR, tunnel size is a major factor in tunneling costs. To quote the article:
The cost of a tunnel depends primarily on its size and the method of excavation. For tunnels built using tunnel boring machines (TBM), a small reduction of say 100 mm in the tunnel diameter can result in a cost reduction of 1 per cent or more (the actual percent- age could vary, the savings in absolute terms would be substantial). For railway tunnels, the tunnel diameter would be dictated by the kinematic envelop, catenary system, track-form, walkways, and trackside services, as elaborated below.
Note that a 100 mm reduction corresponds to a 1.3% reduction for a tunnel that is, say, 7.5 m in diameter (5.5 m internal diameter + 1 m of concrete lining). So they’re saying that a 1.3% reduction in tunnel diameter cuts costs by “1 per cent or more.” This suggests that a modified version of Rafael’s claim – “the cost of bored tunnels rises roughly in proportion to the volume of rock that must be excavated” – is not outrageous.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
150mph Fremont-Redwood City is very unlikely indeed, considering the alignment possibilities through Fremont and the merge into the Caltrain line: both south of 100mph.
On the other hand, grotesquely and transparently fraudulently over-stating and over-costing the “requirements” for this eliminated “alternative” are very clearly in the interests of the “professional” consultancies that “scoped” and “evaluated” the route alignments.
dejv Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:38 am
The smaller bore diameter itself (more precisely width) can make tunneling way easier. One to two NATM classes out of six, specifically.
rafael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:54 am
@ Clem -
Crossing the DENWR via a bridge or immersed tube would do unacceptable harm to the wildlife, last not least because of methyl mercury in the Bay mud, the toxic legacy of cinnabar mining in Almaden (south San Jose) during the Gold Rush. The local newspaper isn’t called the “San Jose Mercury” for nothing. Boring rail tunnels under Dumbarton would obviously avoid this problem, but they would be too expensive. To illustrate, let’s first look at some key specs for the SFPUC project:
The water pipe will have an internal diameter of 9 feet. The TBM will have a diameter of 15 feet, i.e. the wall structures will be 3 feet thick. The tunnel length will be 5 miles, the maximum depth 100 feet. Note that the length of a bored tunnel is always greater than the line-of-sight distance between its portals. Source:
http://sfwater.org/Project.cfm/MC_ID/35/MSC_ID/393/MTO_ID/649/PRJ_ID/259
Compare that to in an internal diameter of 26 feet required for a single track HSR tunnel, which implies an excavation diameter of perhaps 35 feet. Per linear foot of tunnel, 5.5 times as much rock would need to be excavated. Since we’d need two tunnel bores, we’re really talking 11 times as much. Throw in cross passages and a third service/escape tube if CPUC or FRA requires it and the multiplier goes up even further. As a rough first estimate, the cost of bored tunnels is proportional to the volume of rock that must be excavated.
At the location of the defunct Dumbarton rail bridge, the Bay is about one mile wide. However, just as for the the water pipe, additional tunnel length is required to descend to the depth required for overburden safety at acceptable gradients. Any HSR bores would have to descend substantially deeper than the one for the water pipe, on account of the greater buoyancy generated by the large internal diameter.
Moreover, the lack of a suitable and available right of way for HSR in the Newark/Union City/Fremont area implies a tunnel system of even greater total length. One possible route would leverage the CA-84 corridor and a tunnel under Decoto Rd for an intermodal station with BART in Union City. If the section between (roughly) the toll plaza and I-880 can be implemented at grade after widening the freeway, the very much active Hayward fault could be crossed above ground. Even so, track repairs after a major quake there would be expensive and time-consuming.
All told, the $570 million price tag for SFPUC’s bored water pipe project isn’t remotely indicative of what HSR track construction between Redwood City and Union City BART would cost. Figure 10-15 times that amount, i.e. a nose-bleed expensive $6-$9 billion.
Note that additional tunneling would be needed to reach Pleasanton, but in the context of Altamont vs. Pacheco that more or less weighs up against tunneling through Pacheco Pass. I’ve therefore excluded it from consideration.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:28 am
This message brought to you by the letters P, B, Q and D.
Clem Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:23 am
As a rough first estimate, the cost of bored tunnels is proportional to the volume of rock that must be excavated.
Is this actually true, or just truthy? I’m curious to know if there are any studies on this.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:59 am
The first order cost for tunnelling is dominated by geotechnical risk.
See just for off the top of the head examples Channel Tunnel, HallandsĂĄs.
Get that wrong and it doesn’t matter whether the internal diameter is 3m or 8m.
Interestingly enough (or not, if you’re a fanboy. or if you’re the sort of consultancy that thrives on competition elimination, cost maximization, schedule delays and change orders), the geology of both Redwood City-Newark and Fremont-Sunol are understood in detail, due to immediately parallel adjacent, large, and safety critical SF water projects.
rafael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
In fact, the geology under the Bay at Dumbarton will be even better understood after this SFPUC project is completed. That’s why I didn’t even mention geological risk as a factor and focused instead on the volume of excavated rock.
Note that one reason the water pipe is going underground is that the amplitude of seismic excitation there is smaller than at the surface, a consequence of how waves reflect on free surfaces. A bored rail tunnel would benefit from this effect as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
All else being equal, it should be true. JRTR ran an article in 1998 about slab track versus ballast, claiming that slab’s lower track height was a major cost saver in tunnels.
The emphasis is on “all else being equal.” Urban tunneling is always way, way more expensive than any other tunneling. At $25 million per km, the Romerike Tunnel was a serious boondoggle, leading to government investigations that showed massive inefficiency; at $50 million per km, MetroSur was an example of low-cost subway construction that railfans still gush about.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:33 am
$215 million for the bored tunnel. I don’t know where the $500 million number comes from. Here is a list of all the projects:
http://sfwater.org/msc_main.cfm/MC_ID/35/MSC_ID/393
There is also:
-$61.6 million contract installing a 7-mile, 6-foot diameter welded steel pipeline that will go through the cities of Newark and Fremont.
-A 9 mile pipeline passing through Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.
-Relocation of some existing pipes
You can even watch a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffzQR5VV_9A&feature=player_embedded
mike Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Elizabeth,
You’re missing the 3.5 mile Irvington tunnel, which is the most expensive of the three tunnels ($227 million).
Also note that these are just construction costs, not total project costs. The construction cost for the entire BART SFO extension sans stations (i.e. tunneling, structures, track work, and systems) was “only” $526 million.
Clem Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Where did the other billion go?
mike Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
A great question. It must have gone two places:
(1) Stations. South SF + San Bruno + SFIA + Millbrae cost at least several hundred million combined. Supposedly the SSF + San Bruno contract was just under $100 million, and SFIA and Millbrae are far more complicated than those two.
(2) Design, engineering, EIR, implementation, overhead, whatever? It’s a mystery to me how these things become so expensive…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:29 am
NATM? WTF? EPBM.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
A water tunnel needs *no* ventilation (that’s correct — it *requires* no ventilation, it’s under pressure) and can therefore be bored under practically anything. More interestingly, there are no limitations on grade changes in a water tunnel, unlike a rail tunnel. ‘
Build a nice deep rail tunnel under the Wildlife Refuge and you may have trouble reaching the surface for your station.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Nice try. An awesome argument in some parallel universe or another. But completely irrelevant to Redwood City and to Fremont. Look at a map. Thanks for playing.
Rafael Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 2:47 am
@ Nathaniel -
it’s perfectly possible to ventilate a tunnel from a fan plant several miles away. HSR trains are electric, so their tunnels don’t need nearly as many fan plants as trains for diesel trains do.
A more valid concern is safety. While derailments and electrical fires are extremely rare in passenger-only rail tunnels, an escape/rescue strategy is absolutely necessary. In addition, tunnels need to be maintained. CHSRA’s tunneling workshop in 2001 concluded that an expensive dedicated service/escape tube is only required for individual tunnels of 6 miles or more and, FRA has signed off on that in the sense that it has signed off on the statewide program EIS/EIR.
However, even though one of the options studied very early on included a bored tunnel between Oakland and SF, this was discarded even before the documents were submitted to FRA so it could render a Record of Decision. If CHSRA were ever to reverse itself and actually advocate boring rail tunnels under the SF Bay, the issue of the service/rescue strategy would surely be re-examined.
The plaintiffs in the Atherton case have filed a preliminary objection to the filing of the Revised Program EIR with the court. They gave no substantive basis, just a basic “They didn’t comply with the court’s order. We don’t know why yet, but they did.” The plaintiffs will file a more in-depth objection by October 4.
I’ve created a map of most past and present railroad lines in California that might be useful to someone here.
Matthew Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Thanks, that’s actually quite an interesting map.
thatbruce Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:38 am
What is the copyright of and source for this map? It certainly seems to be one of the more complete maps around.
PeakVT Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I pretty confident that’s its the most complete available online. The sources are GMaps itself (the railroad layer), USGS topos, other maps available online from various universities, and Wikipedia. I’ve drawn everything using the GMaps interface.
rafael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Caltrans Division of Rail produced a report on rail rights of way in California a few years ago. It contains maps as well, but peakTVs leverage Google Maps’ superior visualization features.
http://svgcdap1.dot.ca.gov/rail/dor/assets/File/Report_Files/rowreport.pdf
PeakVT Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
The ROW report was concerned with potentially usable corridors, so it is a bit less comprehensive. For instance, there’s not much chance the original alignment between Redding and Delta will host a rail trail anytime soon, so it wasn’t included in their data set.
James Fujita Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
That’s a great map, although a disappointingly huge amount of that is red (abandonned).
The red includes most of the old Pacific Electric trolley lines, and there are quite a few rail trails and bicycle paths in there.
It would be hard, if not impossible to regain those lost lines, especially the ones which regrettably have self-storage buildings and apartments on them. That’s unfortunate, because there would be huge rail transit potential for some of these.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
That’s part of the reason the UP is being so defensive about its property. All those abandonments occurred in the era of rail retrenchment. Even the class one rr’s came to believe the the trucking industry party line that railroads were obsolete and carried out an orderly retreat.
With deregulation and a lot more capital they don’t have a defeatist attitude, but they are very wary of government-run operations like the CHSRA out of fear of reregulation and nationalization. I don’t think the UP has any lines in California left that it considers redundant or for sale.
Joey Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Except for the ones it sells to BART.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
BART is from outer space – it turns politicians and rr’s into pliant pods.
Joey Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 6:29 am
I seem to remember you saying that HSR is similar to BART in every way possible not too long ago.
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Only if it fits his argument du jour.
synonymouse Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Unlike BART, basically a broad-gauge version of the NYC subway transported to suburbia, the CHSRA version of hsr suffers from a deep-seated Freudian UP envy. PB-Palmdale compulsively
stalks the UP all over the map.
Speaking of high desert development scams, you still want to turn Palmdale into another LA?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28mead.html
PeakVT Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 11:46 am
the CHSRA version of hsr suffers from a deep-seated Freudian UP envy
Lol. Is this what the voices inside your head are telling you today?
synonymouse Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I am hearing the voices of the talking heads at UPRR saying “no, no, no”. PB-Palmdale needs to take a hike back to I-5.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I also hear the voice of the I-5 routing troll
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
The serious problem is severed corridors. It *is* possible, albeit difficult, to reclaim a trail, a bike path, or a road for railroad use; or even a bunch of back gardens. It is practically impossible to reclaim housing and apartment buildings. (Self-storage buildings might be low-value enough to be sold.)
Joey Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
It’s called eminent domain.
Joey Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I should clarify – if the owners won’t sell, eminent domain should be relatively easy to use against self-storage buildings and small numbers of single-family homes. Apartment buildings and other higher density uses are somewhat more tricky.
Joey Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Single-story self-storage buildings should be relatively easy and cheap to acquire and demolish. Residential uses are much more challenging, though it depends on a number of factors (for instance, a small row of single-family homes probably wouldn’t matter in the context of a high-value transportation project).
Kenb Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I didn’t know there were rails going all the way to the national parks. I wonder if the route from Merced to Yosemite could be reclaimed? Close off Yosemite, Sequoia to automobiles. Train access only. (well…maybe bus option as well)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 5:41 am
The railroad industry was instrumental in helping to establish the national park system. The Santa Fe lobbied for inclusion of the Grand Canyon, and had a branch built to there even before the canyon became part of the park system; Grand Canyon Railway operates the branch today, and connects with Amtrak trains at Williams, Arizona. The Empire Builder still serves Glacier National Park, on the route of BNSF predecessor Great Northern; Yellowstone was once served by another BNSF predecessor, Northern Pacific. And Yosemite was served by the beautiful, and sadly gone, Yosemite Valley; a film, “Color of a Brisk and Leaping Day,” was very loosely based on an attempt to save this line in the late 1940s. Flawed film, I’m old-fashioned enough that I still am uncomfortable with undressed people in one scene, but OK anyway.
http://www.yosemitevalleyrailroad.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Valley_Railroad
http://yosemitevalleyrr.com/
I also highly recommend two books, “Trains of Discovery” and “Allies of the Earth,” both by Alfred Runte. The first covers just what we’ve been discussing, how the railroads helped build the national park system. The second is a plea for trains to make travel worthwhile again, and in the process, to preserve America the Beautiful. The latter sounds silly, but it’s not, when you consider some places where a railroad runs, and how it fits so well into the landscape, particularly in some narrow canyon, and then try to imagine an Interstate highway in its place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Runte
I had the chance to speak to Mr. Runte quite some time back, and readers here would appreciate Runte’s remarks some years ago to members of Congress when he had the chance to speak there on the subject of Amtrak subsidies. One of the delegation he was addressing was very critical of Amtrak’s intercity operations, particularly the western trains, saying all they did was service tourists, and that they were just “irrelevent” to transportion. Runte replied that then the whole state of Nevada was also irrelevent, as it’s economy is so heavily based on tourism. Runte said this got quite a laugh, and I wonder if part of the reason for its effectiveness was that the said Congress Critter was from Nevada!
Ho, ho, ho, ho!
Kenb Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Thank you for this information. I must read Mr. Runte. Congress needs to be told that tourism is in fact, an industry that creates jobs like any other industry. Also, gas consumption is gas consumption, whether its for business or vacation.
Al Engel was the CEO of the American branch of Systra, an engineering and consulting firm whose capital is owned by SNCF and RATP.
Among other things, Systra has patented the U-shaped viaduct which is increasingly used for elevated railways in urban zones. It has the advantage of reducing noise (no soundwall needed) and visual impact. It also keeps derailed trains from falling off the structure. As the top of the U is generally at car floor level, it is easy to combine it with a station, as done in Dubai. Systra also claims it’s more economical to build than conventional structures.
I’m not sure these details are likely to convince the tunnel-or-nothing sect, though.
Amtrak should really consider to invest in Southern California. In 10 years, about 30 million people will live between LA and San Diego yet we still don’t have overhead lines. However, I don’t see it as a problem but rather as chance for Amtrak to create a state-of-the-art system that could fill the gaps.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Just California? Actually, the whole country needs more trains (and connecting services of all types, too) and fewer cars. The problem is, we are still in a phase that someone on another weblog called “no car left behind.” I wish I had an answer, for you and the rest of the nation, other than waiting for enough dinosaurs to die, and even then there is no guarentee.
It’s extremely frustrating, as you know and as Jim in SF has so strongly pointed out at times. And on top of that, I have some relatives who think I’m the crazy one.
Glad I don’t see them too often.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
I wish Amtrak had the chops to run a modern electrified rail system in LA. Then maybe it wouldn’t be butchering the Acela as much.
thatbruce Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am
‘Amtrak’ or ‘Amtrak California’ aka Caltrans? The latter funds the Surfliner in that high population corridor between LA and San Diego and would be one of the driving agencies for electrification, not ‘Amtrak’ itself. At this point, the missing link would be between Anaheim/Irvine and University City where the proposed CAHSRA overhead would end/take a different route.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Amtrak. I presume that people who say “Amtrak should invest in SoCal” mean the national system and not Caltrans.
StevieB Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Sections of the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor are single track. $51 million from ARRA is going to improvements adding track and crossovers in the corridor. Amtrak funds are spread thin over the entire nation. A large percent is being spent by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor to replace large bridges over rivers between New York City and Boston.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Amtrak’s consistently received less than its federal funding request practically every year, and it inherited clapped-out infrastructure. It’s stretched very thin. They managed to fund a small new car (railway passenger vehicle) order out of operating surplus this year, but that’s unusual.
They will only have enough money to electrify SF-LA if we get Congress to back it, not otherwise. And even this year’s Congress underfunded Amtrak.
Re: Burlingame not joining yet another silly lawsuit: “…after hearing legal advice indicating the suit had little chance of success.” Music to our ears!
In Fast-track for US high-speed rail Allan Marks proposes more Public Private Partnerships funding high speed rail projects in the United States.
My question is can such partnerships be set up so that they are profitable or will politics cause the same type of problems of the Taiwan high speed rail project?
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Britain isn’t really a positive example. Its PPP funding has made projects go over budget and underperform, as each partner tries to wrestle control away from the other.
France does not use PPPs to build high-speed rail, unless PPP is taken to mean a national government-local government partnership. I believe that neither does Spain; Drunk Engineer will probably correct me if I’m wrong there.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 4:00 am
“France does not use PPPs to build high-speed rail”
Now it does: REUTER March 30
Most French freeways (which are not “free”) were built on a build-and-operate basis by Vinci, Eiffage or Bouygues. Vinci is world N°1 construction company, Bouygues ranks 2nd.
About Tours-Bordeaux HSR: truffle growers are now trying to block construction because the passage of trains could distract truffle-seeking dogs.
NIMBYs of the world, unite!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:19 am
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
Bah, who wants those smelly fungi anyway? Here’s a place with my idea of truffles–best chocolate in the state of West Virginia and quite a few other places, too, and made right on the main street in Matinsburg.
http://defluris.com/
http://defluris.com/main/guide
http://defluris.com/main/truffles
http://defluris.com/main/about
http://defluris.com/main/philosophy
http://defluris.com/main/factory
http://defluris.com/main/awards
This is a really neat place. Only problem is, it smells so good, you put on a pound walking into the store!
Alon Levy Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Will you hate me if I point out that the per-km cost of the Tours-Bordeaux LGV is twice that of the LGV est?
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
You’re absolutely right. All future lines will be more expensive to build for geographical and other reasons. If RFF had to finance them, they would take decades to build. That’s why the decision has been made to involve private companies on a build-and-operate basis. One of the advantages of the system is that the builder’s interest is to keep costs low and to complete the work as soon as possible.
The system has its limits. I can’t imagine any company bidding for Marseille-Nice. That line (if it is ever built) is going to cost a fortune and will never pay for its contruction costs.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
The word you’re looking for is “expressway”. “Toll expressway”, perhaps.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
The UK PPP are bass ackwards. Using private participation to raise long term debt and public participation to guarantee income gets higher financing costs and crony capitalism.
A better approach to PPP is for the public participant to provide income subsidies for public debt to own the infrastructure, with the private partner paying for access and use and the access and user fees refunding the original capital cost. Those projects that have the strongest access and user fee streams will pay off the capital cost at a faster rate, and the interest rate subsidy will leverage to greater total capital spending.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
What Bruce said. :-P
In July we, along with several hundred others in Santa Clara County, received a letter from CHSRA asking for permission to enter our property for the purpose of making various measurements such as noise levels, ground vibration, etc. the purpose being to help CHSRA complete an environmental review.
We do live close to the tracks:
The Diridon VTA station is directly opposite our front door–The VTA light rail tracks are from 65 to 85 feet away
From 105 to 180 feet away, 4 new tracks and 2 loading platforms are being added–primarily for Caltrain. The laterals for the new pedestrian tunnels to these loading platforms are also opposite our front door.
From 200 to 280 feet away are the 5 existing Diridon tracks. Track #1 (280 feet away is used for freight trains). It just happens that all of the Capital Corridors and all of the Altamonts as well as most of the Caltrains begin their trips from San Jose with the engines parked directly opposite our condo.
As far as sound and vibration go, I have noticed several things:
1. The VTA trains are so quiet that their sound is largely masked by the warning signals.
2. Diesels are much noisier than electrics, particularly when they fire up in the morning. Two diesels running together can resonate, sending the noise level way up.
3 The freight trains on track #1 cause vibration–The gravel cars are particularly bad both for noise and for vibration.
4. The worst noise and shaking that we have experienced has been caused as a result of the ongoing construction of tracks #6 to 9.
I am thinking of buying a decibel meter, opening up the top floor window facing the tracks and seeing what results I can get. Who knows–Maybe I can contribute something to this blog besides opinion. Can anyone recommend a good, reasonably priced decibel meter that would be easy to use?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 4:46 am
This is also linked below; you may find it of interest.
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/09/train-noise-calculator.html
John Burrows Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Thanks.
PeakVT Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Radio Shack sells two different models. They seem to be the most popular ones for under $100. Ones that can be calibrated accurately enough for legal use cost a lot more.
Clem Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
These devices measure Lmax. To compare apples to apples you will need Leq(hr) (power-averaged over one hour) or Ldn (power-averaged over 24 hours, with +10 dB penalty at night)
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
John,
I’m curious, has the noise from construction gotten better once they finished hammering the retaining walls into the ground in order to excavate the pedestrian ramps?
John Burrows Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Difficult to answer your question since we both work. My wife was off work for 2 days about 3 weeks ago, and that’s when the construction noise was an issue. On one day (I’m guessing they were digging footings or drilling piers) her desk was shaking to the point that had she been working at home it would have been a problem. On the other day it was just noise from heavy equipment– roughly on a par with the usual train noise.
I was off work today and heard nothing other than the usual train noise. It looks like they’ve pulled the excavator and they’re getting ready to pour concrete for the ramps. Probably our next chance for shaking will be when they break through into the main tunnel or if they use vibrating rollers for back filling or compacting base rock.
Dan S. Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Diesels are loud, I can attest to that! I remember one night I was waiting on the appointed platform at Diridon for my Caltrain to take me home to Palo Alto and while I was sitting on the (Southern) waiting bench, a running diesel loco pulled up on an adjacent track. As that one sat there idling with a veritable thundering roar, there was apparently (I was told later) an announcement on the station PA telling everyone that the train I was waiting for had been rescheduled to depart from a different platform! Of course I couldn’t hear it at all. So I missed my train and made an annoyed call to Caltrain to register a complaint! :-)
Please, please, electrification!
Hah, I also remember a visiting colleague of mine who was from India taking Caltrain for the first time and expressing such surprise that America was still running diesel commuter trains!
Go USA!! We’re the greatest nation in the world!! (…as long as you don’t actually compare us with other nations in the world!)
A link worthwhile to read–even if it is depressing:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/09/26/asdfasdf-4/
A lot of people here read this site as well, but I’ve provided a link for it to be handy:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/09/train-noise-calculator.html
!!!@#$%&##!! cars! !!@#$%&**#$%!! flat tire! Well, so much for my working appointment for today, and a trip to the shop to get the tire fixed once I get the spare on. While I’m here, might as well take advantage of the delay to put on a couple of things for Jim SF and Nathaniel.
Can a light rail line or trolley line handle freight? Of course! Check out this electric railroad, Iowa Traction, in Mason City, Iowa, that still does so today with electric trolley locomotives from the 1920s and even older. Oh, and Mason City is the hometown of Meredith Wilson, who wrote a wonderful play called “The Music Man;” Mason City is very likely the pattern for “River City” in the play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEZpUPSzOvQ
Passenger operation on the Iowa Traction, in this clip, puting the car away at the end of the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcBb3zcbQ5Q&feature=related
Iowa Traction is not entirely alone, although Texas Transportaion is no longer around, as the brewery it served has since been closed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oQXaV6FfVE
Enjoy!
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:46 am
For a current light rail line carrying freight, I present to you the CarGoTram.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Thanks for the link, and for something to look up.
Cargo Tram in motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhLKcvOc_hU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRKTTC6MYIw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLJ6XAriKXg&feature=related
German railfans must be fascinated by this thing, and I have to say I am, too. And isn’t it ironic that this street-running rail freighter hauls auto parts?
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Hence why it’s called the CarGo Tram.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Interestingly, I’m curious whether something like this might make sense for the new and improved NUMMI plant. Run light freight across the rebuilt Dumbarton Bridge to run as a parts vehicle between NUMMI and Tesla’s Menlo Park facility. This way the Bridge gets some real use, rather than just be used for a couple of commuter trains a day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:10 am
They are going to be building hundreds, maybe a thousand Teslas. You don’t need a railroad bridge for half a truckload of parts a day.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:12 am
True, but isn’t Toyota going to be building there as well? Also, we’re not talking the Tesla sportscar, they’ll be building the Tesla sedan there.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Order of magnitude reasoning: not generally a strong skill among h. sapiens.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Does this count as your one “I’m an asshole” comment of the day?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
They’re building the major part of the Tesla Model S (powertrain) in the same NUMMI complex (perhaps even the same building) as the body. Can’t get much more efficient than that. The next largest part not manufactured on site is the wheels; it will take a lot of expansion before they get enough wheels shipped in to make rail transport worth it for the cargo.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
They ain’t gonna be shipping stuff from the Peninsula to a plant in Fremont. There’s no places on the Peninsula that make that kinda stuff, unless it’s the control electronics. That’s the kind of stuff that gets shipped in a FedEx or UPS envelope.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Wow. That is the quietest freight train I have ever seen in my life, at Iowa Traction. It is literally drowned out by birdsong.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Though there’s some rail noise in one of the later clips; bad rail alignment I’d guess, one doesn’t usually bother with great alignment for 15 mph.
More for Nathaniel, and Alon, too–the GG1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC6W0XEqOLw&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtcjqoGnpm0&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTNZDfqmbU&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyb86R8rRyY&feature=channel
Have fun.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:14 am
More on the GG1–admitedly, from a PR film aimed at a rather young audience, but the footage is from the classic era.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4SuiSURDyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9058M3QK9Q
Alon Levy Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
D. P., you should know that most of the time I check blogs at work or at home when my roommate is around. I watch YouTube links once in a couple of months.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Ahhh… nice train. The famous GG1. And it was over 50 years old at that time…
Electric trains are soooo quiet. The main noise (aside from bells and horns at level crossings) is from testing the air brakes; you can hear every single track imperfection because the train itself is so quiet.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
An interesting comment that appeared in print about the GG1 (and for that matter, the freight motors on Iowa Traction) was that one essentially sounded like a trolley car, or in the case of the GG1, like about 10 trolley cars, underlaid with a lot of wheel clumping on switches from all those wheels, and two big thumping air compressors.
A thought occured to me–a GG1 weighs about 200 tons, spread over 10 axles. That gives you an axle load of 20 tons, quite light compared with some steam locomotives built at that time and later, and much lighter than what is under freight cars and modern heavy diesels. This, along with a lack of dynamic augment (additional forces from unbalanced weights in wheels, which every steam locomotive has to some extent, and sometimes in considerable quantity), would make a GG1 quite easy on the track. That articulated frame with pilot wheels at each end helped, too. Probably rode quite well, especially considering that the Pennsy would later lay what would be the NEC with whopping 152-pound rail!
Electrically, a GG1 is controlled by tapping into various points in a variable transformer to get different voltages for the motors. What’s really funny to me about this is that this is the same basic method of control used by classic Lionel toy trains, which run on stepped-down AC!
A variation of it was used by earlier Shinkansen sets, a difference being that the stepped-down variable-voltage AC then went into a rectifier to get the DC for the traction motors. And again, this was used in model train controls by a firm called Scintilla in the late 1940s, and for that time and even now, provides smoother control than the usual method of a rheostat. (I know, I dabble in the models a bit, and guess who wound up with some of this old electrical gear?)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Did some more fooling around on YouTube–
Of course, heavy-duty electric railroading was not limited to the east. The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific had two electic divisions. Sadly, in what can only be described as a horrible miscalculation, the electric operation was discontinued just before or about the time of the first oil embargo in 1973.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BShIzYEIhE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD9TYI48T8w&feature=related
Jim SF also said he was fascinated by streamlined steam engines. Here we have a couple of the Milwaukee Road’s prewar Hiawatha streamliners, pulled by steam engines built specifically for this service, with high boiler pressure, oil firing, and very high driving wheels measuring 84″, or fully seven feet tall. These engines, with their boiler and running gear proportions, were actually designed to cruise at 90 mph with a six-car train. Although not running fast in the territory seen here, these locomotives and the trains they pulled introduced daily, regular-service 100 mph running to the world in the mid-1930s; in fact, the route between Chcago and the Twin Cities became noted for anomolies such as speed limit signs reading “Reduce to 90″ approaching certain curves, and a speed restriction in the employee timetable of 100 mph going over a level crossing with another railroad at Rondout, Ill. And it was said with some real authority that the top limit for the steamers seen here was never determined!
That story runs that one of these engines was taken out for an acceptance test, pulling a train that consisted of the regular six-car consist plus a dynomometer car to measure performance. This test run was also to check some final tweeks in the timetable. On the return trip, the road foreman of engines, who was riding the cab, told the engineer to “open her up” in an unofficial speed run. The brand new locomotive accelerated well past 100 mph, its engineer and the road foreman noting that the engine rode better as it ran faster. The speed kept climbing, pegging the speedometer and its recording tape at 127 mph, yet speed was still increasing. At this point, people started getting nervous, so the train was brought back to its comparitively leisurely (but still plenty hot) schedule speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cph7KwNMon8&feature=related
Enjoy!
Jim SF once commented on how he was amazed that steam’s “clunky mechanical monsters” could become fast and graceful in motion. Among the most graceful of steamers were what were called “American” type locomotives, with a 4-4-0 wheel arrangement–four leading wheels, four drivers (with the main rod to No. 1 driving axle), and no trailing wheels.
Eureka & Palisade No. 4, the “Eureka,” an 1870s vintage narrow gauge wood burner that runs today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9d2WhZ7kHo
A similar vintage standard gauge engine from the Virginia & Truckee, at the Nevada State Railroad Museum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeEgN_jLq0U&feature=related
The Strasburg Rail Road in Pennsylvania for many years had, on loan, a Pennsylvania Railroad D-16sb 4-4-0, No. 1223. This engine had a little bit of a movie career in “Broadway Limited.” Note at the begining of this clip that there is an electrified railroad in the background. That is Amtrak’s Keystone Corridor, recently upgraded to 110 mph operation. The Strasburg has an interchange track for the freight customers it serves; how I wish there was an Amtrak station here, too! Imagine getting off an Amtrak train, walking across a pedestrian bridge or even just a platform, and then getting onto the Strasburg’s steam train! Time warp! Twilight Zone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsjmOV6qMsw
Freight on the Strasburg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQM4BVd0W1M
Even bad boy Union Pacific gets into the steam act, and with a freight train, no less! Publicity stunt, but still impressive, as Challenger type (wheel arrangement 4-6-6-4) 3985 hauls a long, heavy container train over a hill at an impressive (considering the tonnage) 35 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhgHrDbN4EU
Also from the UP–a classic, dual-service 4-8-4 844, American Locomotive Co., 1944–UP’s last new steam engine, and never officially withdrawn from service. Those driving wheels are 80″ in diameter, meaning the engine is moving something over 20 feet per revolution–gives you some idea of the speed- – -and this is with the engine essentially loafing along- – -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl736E_VnB4
Southern Pacific’s counterpart to the UP engine were its various GS classes, the GS standing for both “General Service” and “Golden State” (guess which departments on the SP, as in mechanical and public relations, used which designation). This is the still operational GS-4 No. 4449, giving a glimpse of how things used to be in Palo Alto. I wonder what the Peninsula people would think of her coming back to handle the HSR connection from San Jose, until the wires and grade seperation come, assuming that’s the way HSR comes to California? Like the 844, this thing can go fast!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllF93zEqIM
The 4449 and a friend, the 2472; is this on the Peninsula?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drTWDdgKehs&feature=related
I wonder how steam would play as a public relations ploy on the Peninsula. I say this because up in Canada, in British Columbia, there was a city that had a “quiet zone” because people didn’t like horns or the railroad. Matters weren’t helped much by the railroad having segment of its right-of-way that was inactive to the point of having its track removed, but never being officially abandoned; years later, this came back to life, and in the process they had to bulldoze garages, sheds, rose bushes, and other things that were now on the right-of-way. Years later, they decided to get into the tourist business, with steam. The engine, a Canadian stream-styled beauty, was apparently quite an ambassador; the town voted to rescind the quiet ban so they could hear the whistle!
The British Columbian ambassador:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUe-rKGnzzk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFGrXyBTBQA&feature=related
Enjoy!
Oh, headache–too much fun in one day! Bah, no such thing!
Are some of you actually trying to compare a water tunnel to a full-fledged rail tunnel?
Talk about reaching! FWIW, the 4-mile BART tunnel through downtown SJ will cost $4 billion.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Yes, and the BART tunnel through SJ would rank third in the non-New York world in per-km cost, after Crossrail and the Yokohama Subway. Even the Central Subway is less expensive, marginally.
It will be interesting to see if there is any mention of the hsr in tomorrow’s debate between Jerry and Meg. I kinda doubt it. Both candidates seem to be refraining from substance.
Personally I think Meg should go for the jugular and just flail away at the consultant-contractor-labor complex. And certainly bring up Etheridge, Jerry’s “Bell” moment. She is probably going to lose anyway but she would lead the pack in a Brown recall election. It is always better to do something, take a position, than remain passive. Recoiling from a failed Brown tax increase. the State would be ready to go in Whitman’s direction.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Flailing away would be highly entertaining.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Nothing wins a televised debate as much as reeking of desperation.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I want to know how the polls are going to look once they take into account Meg-alomania’s Fresno-Detroit comparison. No polls have come out since that comment.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It does show that she is aware that Fresno exists and is in the economic pits. I don’t think Jerry has any idea about the hsr really is. He probably thinks it goes via the Grapevine.
Like Nixon Jerry has a secret plan.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
If it’s secret, then how do you know about it?
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Jerry’s remark run something like “I have a plan but you’ll find out what’s in it after the election.”
Anyway that was the gist of it. Tricky Dick lives.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Tricky Dick lives.
Or it’s the way Roosevelt came into office.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Comparing Jerry to FDR is like comparing Dr. Phil to Sigmund Freud.
FDR pledged to repeal the Volstead Act. Too bad Jerry can’t see his way to repeal Prop 1A.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Pretty absurd comparison there, Syn. Jerry should pledge to decriminalize marijuana, if he wants to be like FDR…. huge injection into the budget from the taxes alone….
synonymouse Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Au contraire Prop 19 will lead to the collapse of weed prices. Forget revenue – who’s going to pay taxes on something you can grow in your back yard.
The Pelosi machine is against it presumably because of loss of profits to be incurred by friends of the regime. That is precisely why I am voting for it.
James Fujita Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“Better to hold your tongue and be considered a fool than to speak up and remove all doubts”
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
The mouth is closed and the lights are off.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Reeking of desperation, yes, if what she says is fabricated by her advisors. But if she resolves to come out and say what she really thinks, that’s not desperation. Her handlers would probably call it foolhardy, but the voters might welcome a little candor. I don’t care for ebay and I think she is a jerk, like a lot of rich people, but we need someone with a brain who can crack heads in Sac. That place is a cesspool of iniquity, ever bit as corrupt as when Jess Unruh ruled over it.
I question Jerry’s residual competence, in light of the Etheridge scandal. Do we need another Ron Dellums in the Governor’s office?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“but we need someone with a brain who can crack heads in Sac”
I question whether she has a brain, and I don’t think cracking heads is going to help when you need 2/3 majorities in both houses to pass a budget or raise any taxes. You can’t crack that many heads; there are too many legislators who just *know* that they can obstruct until they get what they want. And has Whitman proposed repealing prop 13′s insane 2/3 requirements? No she has not.
mrcawfee Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
sorry to break it to you, but no one is ever going to spend millions of dollars to recall a governor because of a choo choo train.
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Of course not. Jerry will come under extreme pressure from the unions and welfare interests to increase spending and of course raise taxes. He will be all alone if he tries to play the frugal card or threaten vetoes as the Repubs don’t trust him and will have nothing to do with him. Eventually he will give in and try to raise taxes and that will prompt the recall effort. Remember Gray Davis played moderate and centrist and look what happened to him.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Or, Jerry could be the outspoken liberal he used to be. As you say “Remember Gray Davis played moderate and centrist and look what happened to him.” Perhaps Jerry will be smart enough to do the exact opposite and win massive support.
synonymouse Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Gray Davis caved to the public employee unions and gave them a substantial pension increase. This is the disaster we are now coping with.
Jobs, jobs, jobs = HSR, HSR, HSR! Meg knows this; hence her virtual silence on the subject.
So stop with your wing-nut fantasies of Meg=no HSR!
synonymouse Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Since she has come out against the hsr your comment doesn’t compute. Why make enemies out of hsr foamers and then flip-flop and make enemies out of hsr opponents. Her primary asset is being an outsider and not a flake and political opportunist.
She would be blowing her political capital faster than Barack.
Peter Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
What are you going to mouth off about after the election?
StevieB Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Conspiracy theories are unending because they are easy to start and difficult to disprove because they exist in the ether.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Meg not a FLAKE? Not a POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
That’s a good one, Syn. That’s a really good one. Even her supporters have admitted that she’s a flake. And a political opportunist.
OT: The California High-Speed Rail Authority committee and Board meetings for October 6-7, 2010 have been canceled.
The Board meeting will be re-scheduled to a date, time and location to be announced and posted on the Authority’s Web site, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov, ten days prior.
and CARRD has posted a report about the “Messaging Survey” that was recently conducted by Ogilvy. The full report and the raw data are available at: http://www.calhsr.com/resources/carrd-analysis-messaging-survey/
Dan S. Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
The CARRD report on the Messaging Survey seems to take umbrage at the sample size for the split-message testing done during this survey, pointing out that there were only 3 participants from PAMPA, and only 18 from SF and 18 from SJ. But the full survey itself was by 1200 people in total, and (I thought) only claimed to represent the views of California voters in general. I’m not sure I see the point of this CARRD response? These split questions don’t seem to impact the actual conclusions of the survey, which tried to put percentages to the support for the project.
The survey itself even says that 400 people came specifically from “San Francisco,
San Jose, Menlo Park/Atherton/Palo Alto, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Anaheim”. Getting out my slide rule, 400 people, 7 localities, assuming an even distribution, that makes about 57 participants from each of those areas. Seems misleading to put front and center in the analysis that there were only 18 from SF, 18 from SJ, and 3 from PAMPA. Maybe I’m missing the point? Were there 300 respondents from Bakersfield? :-)
In general, though, it’s a nice summary of the survey, I thought, and it resonated with my own belief that there is pretty strong support for the project in the state. The couple concluding statements saying that the survey was a missed opportunity seem to not follow from the content of the report, though, to my reading.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
What I take from the survey and the analysis is that Californians generally don’t have a lot of informed opinion about the project – they like the concept, think it’s a good idea, worry about the cost (which is reasonable enough given the overall economic situation) but don’t see any reason to stop now.
Basically, the public is saying “carry on.”
We just posted on our website the letter from the legislative counsel about Curt Pringle and Richard Katz holding incompatible offices, along with related research.
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/incompatible-offices-conflict-of-interest/
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Please note that this letter is simply one lawyer’s opinion on what the law is in this situation. This holds as little effect as a letter from the Attorney General’s office, or a letter from any citizen, for that matter. Just because any particular person, even a high-level government attorney, writes a letter expressing a particular legal interpretation, does not mean that that interpretation is valid or that anyone has to follow it.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
At first we too assumed that this must be a gray area. But then we actually read the law and all recent Attorney General opinions on the law and talked to as many lawyers as we could find.
It is an unbelievably straightforward law.
There are three tests.
1) Are both offices “public offices?” YES
2) Is there a potential conflict of any kind whatsoever? YES
3) Is there an explicit exemption in state law for someone to be on the HSRA board and another office? NO
YES, YES, NO = Incompatible offices
That’s it.
Anyone who wants to call this “gray” has either not read the law or doesn’t like the law.
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Assuming arguendo that that’s the case, then what’s the remedy?
I foresee two alternatives: 1) The AG decides not to act under CCCP Sect. 803 (highly likely); 2) The Legislature passes legislation containing an exemption for the HSRA Board.
I think this is yet another pyhrric battle that HSR opponents will fight and lose.
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
So Nancy Pyle, Chuck Reed, Ash Kalra, Sam Liccardo, Nora Campos and Rose Herrera have all “resigned” either their membership in the VTA Board or the San Jose City Council, or who knows what other possible boards? Ridiculous.
Why is CARRD asking for the AG to take action against the CHSRA Board, and not against the VTA Board or San Jose City Council?
This statute appears to be overly broad and overly vague. There is a reason why this hasn’t been seriously litigated in California since the 1940s.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
There are specific statuatory exemptions for those individuals to be on VTA.
Violations are not common, because people have to take ethics training and are aware of the law.
As a matter of fact, put yourself in Curt Pringle’s shoes and take the state ethics training that all state officials are required to take: http://www.ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/doctrine.php
Anything gray?
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
So, what you’re saying is that the easiest solution would be for the Legislature to pass an exemption?
Elizabeth Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Read our entire statement on the website as to why we think the hard work of fixing the authority is the better route.
http://www.calhsr.com/resources/incompatible-offices-conflict-of-interest/
Peter Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
It seems to me then that this was simply a legislative oversight. No one thought of this when the Authority’s governing legislation was drafted. Therefore, the easiest and most direct solution would be to amend the Authority’s governing legislation. End of problem.
CARRD appears to be heavily involved in shit-disturbing at this point.
Alan Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
“Fixing the Authority” , in CARRD’s view, is synonymous with “Find a bunch of guys
who will kiss butts in Palo Alto”. No thanks.
mrcawfee Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
There probally is a conflict, however their conflict had them reopen the track sharing from la to Anaheim could end up saving us money
The Authority just sent us a copy of the July 30, 2010 letter that the Attorney General sent to CEO van Ark about the conflict. Interesting.
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/AG-letter-to-van-Ark-re-Incompatible-Offices.pdf
Other interesting news tidbits.
First, did you catch the latest David Brooks piece? The dateline is Atherton!! Unfortunately he doesn’t chime in on the HSR controversy! But he does stay true-to-form as being a true centrist Republican and points out how our policies, particularly in California, are leading to a quantifiable national decline. Methinks he still gives too much credence to the magic abundance and benevolence of the markets, but I basically agree with him on this one.
Let me underline one point he makes: In the last 30 years, California has reduced infrastructure spending from 20% of the state budget to 3%. Anyone here want our state to have a future? (Sorry for the loaded question.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/opinion/28brooks.html?ref=opinion
Next, how about we all drool over Amtrak’s latest proposal for actual HSR on the NEC?! I read about it over on some *other* blog! Dang, if only we had some serious infrastructure interest in our citizenry, and thereby a twinkling of a spark of interest in our governing class, it might actually come to pass!
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/09/28/amtrak-unveils-ambitious-northeast-corridor-plan-but-it-would-take-30-years-to-be-realized/