British Columbia and Washington State Seek West Coast HSR
Back in February, a meeting of the Pacific Coast Collaborative saw Arnold Schwarzenegger call for a San Diego-Vancouver BC high speed rail linkas part of a regional transportation plan:
He also said that developing a high-speed rail from San Diego all the way to Vancouver is crucial. “It makes no sense for our trains to move at the same speed they did one-hundred years ago. Economic power is how fast you move people and goods around.”
Yesterday in Vancouver, this idea was developed a bit further at a joint press conference between British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell and Washington Governor Christine Gregoire:
B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire promise to get moving on a high-speed train that could transport passengers far down the U.S. west coast.
“We hope it will go not just from Vancouver to Portland, but on to California,” Gregoire said in a joint news conference in Vancouver Wednesday.
That would certainly be nice, but more realistically we’re really talking about a Pacific Northwest HSR corridor that someday could be connected to the California HSR corridor:
Washington state has already won a $600 million grant from the U.S. government to amp up their rail line from Oregon through Seattle, and that also includes money for the track to Vancouver, she said.
But Campbell said he still has to convince the federal government to help out with the “significant investment” required north of the border.
“We have not had the same kind of aggressive approach in Canada as they have in the United States with regard to high-speed rail,” he said, adding that he’s working to get Asia-Pacific Gateway Minister Stockwell Day on board.
That’s putting it mildly. Canada’s right-wing federal government under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have not shown much interest in funding passenger rail. With strong ties to Alberta oil companies, Harper’s government is in fact planning to spend millions on a PR campaign to convince Canadians of the benefits of global warming.
BC has struggled to maintain improved passenger rail service on the Amtrak Cascades corridor. Ahead of the 2010 Winter Olympics, a second daily Vancouver-Seattle train was added, but the Canadian Border Services Agency was demanding $800,000 annually to cover their costs of handling the second daily inspection. After BC, Washington, and even the US Department of Homeland Security lobbied to keep the second train, the Canadian federal government stepped up to fund the second train for another year. So if the Cascades corridor is to ever be upgraded to true high speed rail, the Canadian federal government’s help will be essential.
And true HSR is indeed the goal:
Campbell said he’s behind the proposal to improve the quality of B.C.’s track and rail because it will get cars off the road and save commuters from waiting in long border lineups.
“When I’m talking about high-speed rail, I’m talking about high-speed rail. I’m not talking about a train, I’m talking about a train that gets us from one place to another quickly, so that we don’t have to use our cars,” he said.
The train would travel upwards of 175 km/h and is part of President Barack Obama’s national agenda, according to a Washington state official.
This is a welcome vision for both the Pacific Northwest corridor and the West Coast as a whole. As I said back in February after the PCC meeting in Vancouver, it helps to talk about HSR as a West Coast-wide project even if the rather challenging and less important Eugene-Redding segment isn’t built anytime in the next few decades, because BC, WA, OR and CA are going to have more success winning HSR funds if they approach their respective federal governments as a bloc.
That being said, political changes may challenge the West Coast HSR vision. As we’ve talked about here before, the November 2 election will decide whether California is led by an HSR opponent (Meg Whitman) or the founder of California’s first HSR project (Jerry Brown). Oregon is also electing a new governor next month, in a very similar race – former Trail Blazers basketball star Chris Dudley, now a right-wing political candidate, is running against former two-term Democratic governor John Kitzhaber. I’ve not yet seen HSR come up in that race, but I would expect Dudley to be opposed and Kitzhaber to be more supportive.
Further north, while neither Gregoire nor Campbell are up for re-election, neither one are likely to last much longer. Gregoire’s term expires in 2012 and she’s unlikely to run for a third term. Washington’s had Democratic governors since 1984, but Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna will present a strong challenge to whichever Democrat is nominated to succeed Gregoire. His HSR views are unknown, and McKenna is at times more moderate than other GOP gubernatorial candidates – but anything could happen.
Gordon Campbell’s tenure as BC Premier may be coming to an end as well. He and his party narrowly won the 2009 election, but Campbell has destroyed his popularity by pushing through a widely hated “Harmonized Sales Tax.” His party’s MLAs are nervous and a campaign to force Campbell to resign has already been under way. His center-right BC Liberal party supports HSR, and while one might expect the center-left New Democratic Party to back it, it’s unclear whether they’ll show the same level of enthusiasm.
West Coast HSR is a very good – and ultimately necessary – way to help provide economic growth that can sustain prosperity for the next few decades. But the current leaders of the three Pacific states and the Pacific province need to make sure that they continue to build public support for HSR, so that the projects will thrive even after they’re no longer in office.
UPDATE: To be clear, I’m not saying we should build 220mph track between Eugene and Redding. Maybe in 30-40 years once we’ve built out the other national HSR priorities we can consider doing something substantial there. In the meantime, Hans-Joachim Zierke has an excellent discussion of that section and how to upgrade speeds given present realities, with an emphasis on running an overnight service to connect to future Eugene to Redding. (h/t to Alon Levy for that link)
I read this, and I have to ask, how is it going to be built? I live in the east, and so I don’t know western geography that well, but it seems to me that photos of railroads in that area show lines running in some horrendous terrain; the former SP line via Dunsmuir comes to mind. Beautiful country, spectacular railroad, but egads, I’d hate to have to build another railroad there.
Joey Reply:
October 21st, 2010 at 10:26 pm
North from Eugene and south from Redding is relatively easy. It’s the segment in between which will be particularly difficult. My guess is that it would more or less parallel I-5, but even to get 125ish speeds in that segment would cost a lot of money for not a lot of transportation demand.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Although I cannot find it again, a German rail enthusiast had a site that mapped out imagined improvements for an Emerging HSR overnight sleeper corridor … if that ran onto an upgraded Capital Corridor and the Monterey / SLO corridor it would connect with the CA-HSR at Sacramento, San Jose and in the LA Basin.
Loren Petrich Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 am
That’s Hans-Joachim Zierke’s site: Passenger Rail for the Shasta Route: Table of Contents
PeakVT Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 am
You see the geography easy enough in GMaps. Just turn on the terrain feature. I’ve made a map of California railroads in GMaps that might be of interest.
I doubt a new Eugene-Redding line will ever be built.
thatbruce Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 am
Do you have time for similar maps of Oregon and Washington?
PeakVT Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
They take a while. Which state do you want more?
PS: I have several more rail-related maps listed at my blog.
PeakVT Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Time’s up! I’ve decided to Oregon first.
thatbruce Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Oregon is good; they’re useful (in conjunction with the terrain feature) to show where existing railroads have built and get an idea of the challenges they faced in doing so).
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:47 am
I actually think that Washington’s DOT has maps of all active and abandoned railroads online.
Kenb Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 am
An I-5 alignment would route through Medford, Ashland, and Grants Pass. There is more population in these cities than the current Amtrak route through Klamath Falls. And I believe there is more potential growth in that part of Southern Oregon. Because there are no major cities between Sacramento and Eugene, flying to these communities is less convieniant and more expensive. There are good tourist destinations in here such as Lassen Nat. Park, Mount Shasta, Lake Shasta, Trinity Alps, and Crater Lake. San Diego to Vancouver could be traveled entirely in an overnite trip. That would be enticing for rail pass options. Tourism and vacation travel don’t seem to be taken as seriously as it should be. Its late at night and I’m rambling.
StevieB Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
The Siskiyou mountains are an insurmountable barrier to high speed rail along the I-5 alignment.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 am
The BC-WA proposal would probably extend down to Portland or Eugene only. For the bit between Redding and Eugene, see Hajo Zierke’s website.
Colin Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
As to the problems of terrain there are some wonderful things called bridges and tunnels! Take a look at any high speed rail line from France to China and you’ll see the engineering is indeed substantial. Much of China’s network runs on viaducts or in tunnels. Expensive construction, but there are savings in providing access across the line and the chances of pedestrians wandering on to the track is minimised. Upgrading existing lines really isn’t an option for line at 300km/h plus.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:25 am
What you say is true, but do the potential traffic levels and/or savings in operating costs justify the expense? There are good reasons tunnels and bridges are among the last resorts in the civil engineer’s toolbox.
If any HSR line is built to connect the entire West Coast, it must run at least at the speed of CHSR (220 MPH). Even in this case, a trip between Seattle and SF would still take at least four hours, trips between the Northwest (North of Siskiyou Summit) to SoCal(i.e. LA, San Diego) would take upwards of five hours, a travel time that would not be competitive with plane travel. Moreover, the idea that such a system can be achieved through upgrades is purely delusional, what is currently being labeled as HSR in the Northwest is an upgraded railway (double-tracked, better sleepers, etc…) to allow top speeds of 110 MPH. There is no way to upgrade such a ROW further, to support 220 MPH trains, an entirely new track will have to be built to support such speeds.
Priorities, people, priorities. Job #1 is still environmental clearance and funding for the starter line of the California system. We’re still quite far from achieving this goal.
I have no problem at all with the idea of a separate emerging HSR service at 110mph between Vancouver, BC and Portland, perhaps Eugene. Each station would need to feature immigration and customs services, cp. Eurostar between the UK and France/Belgium. The upshot is that the number of stations that could be served by trains crossing the border would be quite limited. Trains operating on just the US side could stop more frequently, provided they use separate platforms at all stations also served by cross-border trains. The same model could apply for NYC-Albany-Buffalo-Toronto.
Note that Sacramento to Portland is 580 miles, which is a lot of track miles At an average speed of ~90mph, the trip would take 6h30m, i.e. it would not be at all competitive with flying. Building a system that could raise that average to 150mph or more would be incredibly expensive due to all the grade separations that would have to be constructed to meet FRA regulations.
There’s not nearly enough population at either end or in-between to prioritize that over e.g. a substantially faster link between LA and San Diego or for that matter, between the Bay Area and Sacramento.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:47 am
Some of the Cascades already go up to BC. I’m not sure how they’re handled today, but it makes the most sense to handle all immigration etc on the Canadian side, as there is only one station there.
Derek Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 8:21 am
Sacramento to Redding looks pretty flat on the map, so it should be cheap to build and therefore not too hard to justify. Ditto for Portland to Eugene. It’s only the 240 mountainous miles between Redding and Eugene that will be a problem.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 am
There is no need to have immigration controls at the stations. That would be a waste of time. I remember in the old days before the Schengen treaty in the EU, when there were still customs checks between the various EU countries. The customs and immigration officers from both countries would board the train together at the last train stop before the border from both sides of the train and work their way through the train from both ends and check all passengers until the met in the middle. Once on the train you can’t get away. They were all done by the time they reached the next train stop in the next country. Then they would get off the train and work another train in the opposite direction. Depending on the border there were several dual country teams cooperating together that way. I believe it still happens in the same fashion between Switzerland (not part of the EU) and the neighbouring member states of the EU.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
Well, that’s not how it works here. Trains get STOPPED at the border until checks are completed.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
The Cascades trains don’t: immigration is done in Vancouver, in both directions.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
Immigration procedures aren’t the 10 commandments. They can be changed. And in any case even if the train is stopped at the border while all passengers go through immigration, there is still no need to have an immigration/customs checkpoints at every station to check passengers before they depart (or after they arrive).
However if immigration procedures can’t change and adopt the European procedure of checking while the train is moving (which is obviously the most efficient), then what’s the sense of building an HSR between BC and WA? I used to drive back and forth between the two cities all the time when I was going upthere on business years ago and it was only about 2 1/2 hours unless there was a line at the border (sometimes on weekends). A train could cover that distance in just over an hour but if I have to spend another hour at the border while the “Homeland Security” checks everybody’s luggage and passports, then what’s the point? You might as well drive.
Jon Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 am
You’re correct, but good luck trying to convince Homeland Security to relax their regulations.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
More evidence that the federal government was driven towards EPIC FAIL under GWB.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
That’s what is planned for the Helsinki-St Petersburg Allegro (broad-gauge Pendolino). There will be no stop at the border.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Agreed. As I’m arguing, the concept of Vancouver to Tijuana HSR is useful as a hook to get the respective federal governments interested and to keep the 4 West Coast states/provinces in this together. But there’s really no urgency to building the Eugene-Redding HSR connection. *Maybe* in the 2040s. Maybe.
thatbruce Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 am
Each station would need to feature immigration and customs services, cp. Eurostar between the UK and France/Belgium. The upshot is that the number of stations that could be served by trains crossing the border would be quite limited.
By that comparison, I’m not sure that you’ve travelled on Eurostar, or if you have, some of the finer points of their setup have escaped you. This isn’t helped by Immigration checks being occasionally performed on the train itself.
To provide some context on the US/Canada side of the Atlantic, US Immigration/Customs currently operates a small number of Border Pre-clearance facilities at certain Canadian airports, which allow US-bound flights departing those Canadian airports to be handled at US-domestic gates, rather than US-international gates.
Setting up a similar situation, where US-bound trains are cleared by US Customs/Immigration at one location prior to crossing the border, eg Vancouver, followed by the train running with no stops in Canada and then any suitable stops in the US (vice-versa for Canadian-bound trains) would keep the number of controlled environments to a minimum, and allow a higher frequency of trains crossing the border (as there would be no need for a check of the passengers as they crossed the actual border and delay to the running time).
People seem to view west coast HSR as seomthign which would serve the “Vancouver/Seattle-LA” market only. It wouldn’t, unless it had a top speed well over 220mph. The idea is the intermediate trips pairs along the way would be faster than air travel.
This mentality that HSR only serves its end points seems routed in air travel.
TomW Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 am
I ment rooted, not routed. (Guess my accent…)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:19 pm
North of Sacramento and south of Portland there aren’t any cities to have on the other end of your city pairs, not ones that would justify the expense of HSR.
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:03 am
looking at metro areas, chico’s got 200,000, redding’s got 100,000, medford’s got 200,000, eugene’s got 350,000, and salem has 350,000. while that still wouldn’t cover the engineering costs of HSR in that terrain, pretty much all the people between sacramento and portland are on or within a short drive of that rail line. extending the CA HSR to redding and the imagined northwest HSR to eugene would at least make a sped-up overnight connection between redding and eugene worthwhile.
I’m rather familiar with the rail lines here in the Pacific Northwest. This proposed HSR line is an upgrade of the existing line between Eugene, OR, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, BC. The Amtrak Cascades service uses it, so one can ride it to get a foretaste of it.
Most of the line is fairly flat and much of it is rather straight; it does not go up into any mountains.
On the California side, I don’t know of any plans to extend regional-rail service north of Sacramento to Redding. The CA HSR system is not expected to extend north of Sacramento, though some slower service using existing tracks might.
Connecting Redding and Eugene with a HSR lines would not be worth the trouble, at least in the near future. It’s about 300 mi of very mountainous terrain, and those two towns are not very populous. Redding is 100 thousand and Eugene 350 thousand, but in between is Medford, OR, at 77 thousand, with other towns there there being less populous.
Sacramento and Portland are much more populous at 2.1 and 2.2 million people, but their separation is about 600 mi, which is a bit much by HSR standards. Portland-Seattle and Seattle-Vancouver are a respectable 175 and 150 mi, however, and Seattle and Vancouver have 3.4 and 2.1 million people.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
I somewhat disagree. I know there is a section that slows down the Cascades line in Vader, when going to Portland due to curves. Seattle-Everett has numerous curves and currently a one hour travel time. Extending the shoreline for gentler curves and higher reliability due to reduced risk of landslides would most likely be claimed as environmentally detrimental. That trip time is currently 1 hour. We may not have a choice if we want improvement but if any Native tribes have any claims to the area, it is game over. The north of the border section for the Cascades is dead slow until south of Blaine and off the coastline. There are plans to bypass White Rock along Highway 99 before returning to the mainline near Highway 91. A new Fraser River Rail Bridge would certainly be a very valuable asset for any time reduction, along with curve reallignment.
aw Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Seattle-Everett is 1 hour via commuter rail or for the Empire Builder. The Cascades does it in less than 50 minutes. They’re also double-tracking that section which might improve reliability and allow some tightening of the schedule.
Loren Petrich Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 4:11 am
I concede that I made something of an overstatement. It’s not quite as twisty as RR lines in mountains can be, but it’s still twisty in places. There are some existing projects that will provide some improvement.
The D to M Street track connection is a short bit of track that will connect some existing tracks, enabling passenger trains to bypass the Point Defiance route to the north. Though very scenic, it is nevertheless a detour. I remember riding it and seeing Tacoma Narrows Bridges II and III (Bridge I famously fell apart in a storm).
There will also be some work done to improve the track between M Street and Lakewood, southwest along the line.
I don’t know how far these projects have gotten, however.
aw Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 am
M Street to Lakewood has been under construction for a year or two. D to M Street has just recently started construction. Both are scheduled to be done by the end of 2012, then commuter service will start to Lakewood.
The state’s Point Defiance Bypass project got some ARRA funding, but is now stalled because it needs to go through the NEPA process. It’s now expected to finish around 2013. When Amtrak starts using it, it’s supposed to cut 6 minutes off the Cascades schedule and improve schedule reliability. It will probably have similar good effects on the Coast Starlight schedule.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:58 am
It seems to me that extending the CA HSR line to Redding, upgrading the Cascades to true HSR down to Eugene, and providing overnight service from Eugene to Redding would be sufficient to meet West Coast travel needs for quite some time.
People! You are talking as if money grows on trees. Anybody that has driven I-5 between Redding and Ashland knows about the asperity of the terrain. It would need tens (if not hundreds) of miles of tunneling and also a very steep grade to raise the line to the level of the Siskyou County plateau, which is pretty flat, but sits at over 3,000 ft. And all of this for what? To connect Redding to Ashland or Medford? We are not talking about going through the Alps to connect Paris-Lyon to Turin-Milan line, with millions in population. If you add all the communities From Redding to Grants Pass along I-5 you won’t reach 200K people. Sorry guys! But there isn’t much north of Sac and south of Eugene. In the long term, it might make sense to connect Redding, Red Bluff and Chico south to Sacramento and the Bay Area. The population growth in the future might justify it and the terrain south of Redding is flat. But north of Redding, for the few folks that need to go from the North Sacramento Valley to Southern Oregon (or viceversa), I-5 or the existing line will do just fine.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
Agreed. An upgrade to 110 mph is all that is worthwhile for that corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
For the Redding-Eugene corridor, the top speed is quite irrelevant; the climb in the Upper Sacramento Valley has 175-meter curves and heavy freight traffic, so that the speed limit is set by how good the train’s tilting is. Raising those curves’ speed from 45 km/h to 75 km/h is way, way more important than raising the top speed on the flat segments from 130 to 180.
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:15 am
well, there’s a bit over 200,000 in the medford area, 20,000 in ashland, 7,000 in yreka, 7,000 in mt. shasta, 6,000 in weed, and 2,000 in dunsmuir, which comes out to 242,000. add in 30,000 in grants pass and 100,000 in redding, and it comes out to 372,000.
nowhere near enough for electrified HSR, but more than nothing. a sped-up line might be worth it, esp. if it makes overnight trains competitive with driving.
Right, there will not be that much passenger demand to travel beyond Sacramento or Eugene. There is no traffic on this route. A bus could handle this demand at 1/10,000,000,000 the cost. If you want to get there fast, fly.
Nice idea, but there are much greater priorities. OR/WA/BC should concentrate on developing true 220+ mph HSR between Eugene, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. CA should concentrate on building it’s system as planned, and connecting it to Desert Xpress. If there is any money or political will left after that then spend it on connecting smaller cities to HSR stations with modern mid-speed feeder lines, so people can start and end their journey downtown wherever their destination is. A few off the top of my head:
1) Monterey Bay feeder to Gilroy, connecting Santa Cruz/Watsonville/Hollister/Monterey/Salinas
2) San Diego – Anaheim – Los Angeles, via I-5
3) Redding – Sacramento, via Chico and Yuba City
4) New transbay tube to feed the East Bay into San Francisco, then build Stockton – SF via Altamont, and Sacramento – SF via Richmond
5) Santa Rosa – San Francisco, via new crossing to Richmond.
6) Santa Rosa – Sacramento via Napa.
7) Palm Desert – Riverside, and other spurs in the LA basin.
8) Several short spurs to Central Valley cities without a HSR station
9) San Luis Obispo – Los Angeles, via 101
I’m sure a north-westerner could produce a similar list for their state(s). After all that think about upgrading Eugene – Redding to modern standards. At nearly 500 miles with not much in between except difficult terrain it’s not going to be competitive with flying. Tuscon – Phoenix – Las Vegas and Phoenix – Los Angeles would be better routes to explore for true HSR.
Jon Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
Sorry I meant Eugene – Sacramento is nearly 500 miles.
Derek Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
388.
Jon Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Not by land. A HSR railroad though that terrain would have lower mileage than driving, but it wouldn’t be as low as 388.
Emma Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Exactly! BECAUSE there is such a huge gap, trains should travel even faster in those corridors. This will increase the incentive for millions of cutsomers to use HSR over a plane.
San Diego-Vancouver really is the goal.
Emma Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
And think about how it would change the demographics of the West Coast. People, whole cities would develop along the HSR lines.
But on the other hand, do we have enough customers for such a corridor? Maybe we should have a semi-HSR/very fast commuter rail running in the less populated corridors at up to 120mph.
That would be my proposal:
San Diego – Sacramento (High Speed Rail)
Sacramento – Portland (semi HSR)
Portland – Vancouver (High Speed Rail)
To see anything get done in the near future (2030), those states would have to begin planning right now.
For the Sacramento – Portland section I would say that this route would be the one that makes sense if they plan to build a completely new rail line. On this note, I want to mention that I’m not informed about current corridors in Oregon and Washington:
Sacramento – Yuba City
Yuba City- Chico
Chico – Redding
Redding, CA – Medford, OR
Medford – Eugene
Eugene – Salem
Salem – Portland
Basically along the highway with some detours.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm
The highway is not suitable for HSR because of its steep grades (5%) and its narrow curves. There’s no way to do Redding-Eugene without major tunnels.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Hmmm, does that sound familiar to a similar ever-repeating discussion here (fomented by one commenter in particular)?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Yep. I wanted to write something like, “The base tunnels would make Synon’s wet dream about Tejon look easy.” But I don’t actually know if it’s true – Siskiyou, Upper Sacramento, and Wolf/Cow Creeks may involve long tunnels, but at least they’re seismically stable.
Emma Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Well, there are always nay-sayers. I’m not saying that we should build rails along the highway. On top of that, how do you know that we would be doomed to build tunnels there?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
In Google maps, if you click on Other and select terrain it will show you topographic information. Even without looking at the topographic information you can hazard a guess that it’s not very flat because the highways squiggle all over the place. Highway designers, like railroad designers like to build nice straight highways. When there are mountains in the way the highways squiggle all over the place. They aren’t stupid, they didn’t build all those squiggly roads for the hell of it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
4) New transbay tube to feed the East Bay into San Francisco, then build Stockton – SF via Altamont, and Sacramento – SF via Richmond
People thought about that back in the 90s, the 1890s. They toyed with the idea for a century and came up with a plan, while not ideal would have put a spacious station across the street from the current Transbay Terminal. But then San Franciscans voted on it and turned it down. There won’t be any place to bring the trains to SF from Oakland by the time they get around to building the tunnel…. instead of building the big tall office building over the train station they are going to build the big tall office building without the train station.
Jon Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Well, that’s a piece of local history I wasn’t aware of. But if there was political will to do so it would still be possible to construct a second transbay tube which joined to the end of Mission Street. Have two run-through platforms under Mission at 1st Street, and then join onto the planned DTX at 2nd street. Ideally you would connect the Transbay Terminal tail tracks to the line under Mission as well to turn the Transbay Terminal into a run-through station, but I have no idea if that’s feasible or not.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
It’s not, as far as I know. There are too many tall buildings immediately south of mission street to turn south before 6th or 7th street (though it does seem feasible to connect directly to the peninsula line from 7th street. Connecting to the DTX from Mission street, or anywhere you care to terminate the new transbay line, however, is more or less impossible.
Jon Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Do you have any reference for this? I’m not disagreeing with you, I’d just be interested to see any serious alternative analysis on the idea of a new Transbay Tube.
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Just look in Google StreetView at the buildings around the TBT. New highrises have gone up everywhere around it.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Take a look at Google Earth. Most of the buildings in downtown SF have been modeled, so you can see how tall/large they are. Now, assume that you cannot tunnel under any large buildings (or that doing so would be prohibitively expensive) and try to connect mission street to second street, taking into account that the curves need a radius of AT LEAST 200m.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
sharp curves can used at slow speeds at least according to nearly every european hsr video Ive seen of tgvs etc going in and out of zillion year old yards and stations.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
here you can see the existing high rises at each edge of the frame on mission, the older one on the right edge, and the new millennium tower on the left edge. the plaza in the front of the existing tbt – half will remain open as a plaza and half will contain the signature tower, (which will not even be constructed for at least a decade, plus legal battles to reduce the size) so there is an opening to jog tracks over 100 feet from mission into the terminal.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Try Earth View. You can clearly see the tall buildings which will be in the way.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Sorry, link fail. Try this.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
joey – like this
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
These aren’t LRVs we’re talking about. The curves you show have radii around 100 feet, impossible for commuter or intercity trains.
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I see your point, I was just hoping that some engineering firm had done something more rigorous than looking at Google Earth.
One other possibility would be to bring the new tube in under Harrison and turn north up Main to connect with the Transbay tail tracks. Not ideal, but it would minimize tunneling and avoid the high rises.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
if 2 tracks came ashore at the foot of mission, they could connect to the new tbt via mission with an underground, adjacent platform as a large section of the site will be a plaza. You could even have the tracks go into the 2nd st tunnel from mission, although I have to double check the location of the signature tower.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Believe me, the signature tower is the least of your problems when it comes to connecting 2nd to Mission.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
For reference, the curves of the viaducts that (used to) lead into the TBT have radii around 100m. High speed trains couldn’t do that, but some commuter trains might be able to at walking speeds and with a lot of wheel squeaking. Now, try to fit curves AT LEAST that wide into that space you are proposing. I don’t know about you, but it looks impossible to me.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
and you could always go deep and under. although I think the trains at slow speed could make that jog over just fine. doesn’t look that sharp to me.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Going deep under is expensive and still dangerous around tall buildings. And can we please deal with actual numbers rather than “I think they could do it” and “doesn’t look that sharp to me”? Those curves are EXTREMELY sharp in the railway world, unless you’re talking about light rail (maybe you’re just used to MUNI’s curves). Even European HSTs can’t do less than 150m, and even the curviest of mainline mountain railways don’t generally go under 100m either.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
not even at 10 mph? waht about those bart oakland wye curves – what r those?
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Around 150-200m, give or take.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
well I think there are plenty of things that can be done pertaining to future transbay travel and all them are 40 years or more away so no one here need be concerned. Besides it isn’t necessary for a new transbay connection to use 2nd street. It could either end at 2nd a mission with transfer or continue west, to serve some other corridor, bart out geary for instance. The geary bart supporters – of which I believe you are one, would like that no?
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
You could continue down Mission, stop again at Moscone, then turn down 7th and connect to the Peninsula line. I’m convinced that this is the best solution given today’s constraints. You would miss Mission Bay, though this problem would be mostly eliminated by the combination of the Central Subway (transfer at Moscone) and another stop near 7th and Townsend (or somewhere in that vicinity).
About Geary … I’m convinced that Geary needs something, though I’m not convinced that it should be BART. A MUNI subway out to Gough or even as far as Masonic, with surface LRT the rest of the way, could work too. If you want a full subway BART might be the only way to go. Though ultimately it depends on where you are trying to connect it to.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
No wonder you’re unaware of it, since adirondacker12800′s manufactured it from whole cloth.
In everybody else’s reality, 301 Mission Street didn’t exist when the grotesquely unprofessional and limitlessly stupid staff cretins and consultants (ARUP, PTG) to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Caltrain “chose” the locally preferred alternative which closed off a non-BART SF-East Bay rail connection forever. Now it does and it isn’t going away.
There was, contra adirondacker12800′s fevered imagination, no “San Franciscans voted on it and turned it down”: there was just Tony Bruzzone (then of AC Transit, now of ARUP), John Eddy (then and now of ARUP), Darrell Maxey (then of Caltrain), Mike Scanlon (Caltrain), and Maria Ayerdi (then and now the titular head of the TJPA) unilaterally deciding never to even study anything but the pre-determined, miserable alternative that the EIR consultants came up with, almost literally on the back of a paper napkin, in 1991. They all deserve miserable fates, but well, desserts are never served, and instead they’re all still raking it in and contining to make the world a worse place through their ignorance, lack of any exposure to post 19th century transportation practice, pig headedness, and massive stupidity.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
you forgot me. I voted for current tbt. I think most san franciscans did.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The location and orientation of the underground train station has little bearing on what gets built above ground. The preferable alternative Richard is talking about rotated the platforms and connected them to Mission Street in the space that is now 301 mission. None of that prevents the TBT from being rebuilt above.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
and there are zero plans for a rail crossing other than bart’s plan for a 4 track tube in 2050. What agency other than bart would be able to come up with the money? ccjpa? no. caltrain? no. cahsra? not even part of their plan phase one or two…. BArt is the only agency who has even considered a future crossing. and Ill bet it would most likely tie into an alameda crossing and arrive south of the bay bridge.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
And where exactly will the two standard gauge tracks of BART’s new tube connect to?
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
well you’d have to ak bart – they are the ones with that plan. but Id guess the tube would arrive on the emb. and connect with 4th adn townsend. I don’t know. lets call bart and ask them.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
here how bout this. it includes standard and bart tracks, the geary subway, and choice of routing for standard rail into the current system. btw whats the deal with the hsr trains making that ridiculously tight curve from townsend to 2nd?
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
That curve will be around 200m, even under the current scheme. Of course some buildings will be affected.
As for terminating the new Transbay line in Mission Bay, it wouldn’t be ideal to skip downtown entirely, but possibly acceptable given the constraints.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
no but look here first there is a plan, which I can not find at the moment, that bart has to increase capacity in the east bay with a 4th oakland tunnel and a new line parallel to the bayfair=colosseum-fruitvale line, via alameda and across the bay to mission bay. This would be two bart tracks and two conventional tracks. you can put a wye at townsend and second, tie the conventional tracks to both tbt via 2nd and run bart on top of that hsr tunnel across market to post and out geary, while also tying into 4th and townsend.
of course I don’t know if squeezing bart lines on top of hsr lines under 2nd is feasible, its looks nice and tidy on the map
Im sure everyone has reason that it cant be done though, because they’d rather complain that bart and sf have ruined the universe forever.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
My point is that standard-gauge trains originating in the East Bay or beyond would not be able to stop in downtown SF.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
joey — yes — they would – did you see the map? if a new tube – per say – the bart plan – say with two bart and two standard gauge tracks ( or if god forbid bart decided to use standard gauge for this new eastbay-new tube- line – came ashore in south beach via townsend, these trains could go north via the 2nd street tunnel. this serving downtown… look again i put it in red
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Sorry, I was still thinking of your first map. Anyway, you don’t have any excess capacity at the TBT to terminate those trains.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
close up
as for capacity. who knows what will happen. but to say that you can’t get transbay trains downtown is wrong. there are always possibilities.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
here … they can just do this
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Of course you’re going to have to do better than that with the curves, affecting some buildings in the process. And capacity is a real issue. Regardless of the track configuration, you can’t send trains downtown if you have nowhere to send them.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
As for terminating at Market, I suppose, but you’re going to have to stack the platforms if you want more than two platform tracks.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Of course you’re going to have to do better than that with the curves
that’s their curve not mine. turning left, from townsend to northbound 2nd. so turning from townsend northbound on 2nd would be no different no?
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
What I mean is that the curves will not be in the streets like you show, but rather will extend under some buildings in order to achieve a sufficiently wide radius. Again, we’re not dealing with streetcars here.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
well whatever I mean, the plan is to go up townsend yes? then go left / north up 2nd yes? in a tunnel under townsend and a tunnel under 2nd. so if they can do it from eastbound townsend, they can do it from westbound townsend, whatever depth they do it at.
as for two platforms at market. that might be enough as a supplement to tbt since we don’t really know how long it will really take to reach capacity in real life. coming onshore at townsend with a wye at 2nd would give trains from the eastbay the option of running to tbt, market or skipping downtown to continue beyond 4th. seems sensible enough.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Theoretically possible, but the curves might require some of those buildings at the end of Townsend to be demolished, along with those buildings (one of which appears to have been majorly renovated recently) along second street.
As for “three options,” you are either forcing tracks to cross, creating conflicts, or you have a very complicated, multilevel underground junction to allow trains from the east bay to access the TBT or the Market Street terminal. Think three-dimensionally, and not just in terms of “lines,” but in terms of actual tracks.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
well it works under oakland in the wye which does essentially the same thing.
The argument was that the tbt and I guess bart ( who gets blamed for everything around here from el nino to pre mature crows feet) have made it impossible for any trains to ever ever cross the bay for all eternity. Im just pointing out that if we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly get trains across the bay in the future, even though as of right now, no one even wants to do it so why are we worried.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
BART’s transition structures are much smaller than those required for mainline rail, mainly because of the greater vertical clearance required. Also that doesn’t account for the split between the TBT and Market Street. It may be doable, but it’s probably not an ideal or efficient solution.
no one even wants to do it so why are we worried
Because it may very well take that long to get the planning process finished, and because we need to build whatever we are building now to properly connect with it, and because the more development that happens between now and when it gets build, the fewer options we have.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
well personally I dont want any more growth or development in sf so hopefully the tbt and hsr will be the final exercise in all this “cram everyone on top of me in my city” nonsense. enough.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
well personally I dont want any more growth or development
I think this is the one point on which you and the city of SF have differing opinions.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
rest assured many many san franciscans feel the same way and will continue to hold city hall accountable. I can already promise you that when the time comes for those tbt area towers to go up, you are gonna see a big fight and they will be stopped or modified to suit local desires. You can bet on it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
No you didn’t vote for Dave Mansen (EIR honcho)’s Transbay Alternative. Agency boards did, in EIR certification and subsequent EIR amendment. (Perhaps you have a history of sitting on the SF Board of Supervisors, the Transbay JPA, the Caltrain JPB, or the SF Redevelopment Authority Board .
In contrast, I helped write (and expended tens of thousands promoting) the proposition that you voted for in 1999 and have a pretty damned good idea what is and isn’t part of it. I’m afraid that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and, like most people, you don’t know what you voted for or against. (California of course is ungovernable and in a free fall due in good part to all these stupid local and state plebiscites that people who aren’t professional legislators or legislative staffers shouldn’t be “asked” to even think about.)
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
says there that caltrain is to go downtown to the site of the transbay terminal. Thats what we voted for. thats what we are getting. so whats your point? and I think we voted again recently to re confirm that the new tbt be the hsr terminus. or whatever.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
and per funding it says (g) a portion of any future federal, state, regional, or local revenues which become available for transportation projects.
so that would mean hsr funds right?
So sf wanted a caltrain extension and new station.
and they wanted a new tbt
and they wanted hsr
and what they are getting is a new tbt with caltrain and hsr underneath and a mess of funding to help get it all paid for in addition the adjacent development rights.
could there have been a hundred different ways to do it. maybe. but this is what we get and most people seem ok with it. What you have to remember is that we live in a democracy and like it or not, thats the way the cookie always crumbles, especially in san francisco where you can plant begonias if your neighbor prefers azaleas, pursuant to some obscure code.
Ill be quite happy to use and have perfect confidence in, the tbt as planned thank you and Im sure everyone else will too.
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Alright, assume the Transbay Terminal will be built as planned and we can’t go back and change history. Is there any reason why you couldn’t in the future connect the tail tracks (currently planned to end on Main between Folsom and Harrison) to a new Transbay Tube under Harrison St?
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
of course there was once also suppose to be a “southern crossing” another bridge connecting to the 280x. San Francisco put a stop to that too. And a bunch of other stuff. They just didn’t consult with you first because they don’t care what people outside sf think.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Jon, greenfield lines as you propose tend to be too expensive, HSR or not. Usually the best way to construct low-speed feeders is to use existing tracks, or else build new tracks in an existing railroad ROW that can accommodate them.
Jon Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:36 am
I don’t disagree with that. The best way to approach this would be to buy existing freight lines, upgrade them to modern standards and lease trackage rights back to both freight and passenger railways. The Transport Politic had a very good post on how to go about doing this: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/
I disagree with the idea of a west coast HSR line, certainly as any kind of a national priority. The distance from Portland to Sacramento is almost 600 miles. According to what I’ve read on blogs such as The Transport Politic, 600 miles is about the distance where the line haul speed of airplanes starts to outweigh the convenience of trains. And most city pairs that would use this route such as Seattle-Sacramento or Portland-San Francisco (via Pacheo) are over 800 miles, clearly airplane territory.
Derek Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
Portland to Sacramento is only 481 miles, as the airplane flies.
Al Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Compared to SF-LA, though, there’s not much between the two cities, and they’re smaller to boot.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:48 am
This is more nonesense from Schwarzenegger. Zierke has the right idea. Vancouver to Eugene is a defensible project. Sacramento to San Diego is equally meritorious. But nobody is going to leave L.A. at 8am (hypothetically) to take a nine hour train trip to Seattle when they can fly instead. For those people who are not close to a major airport though, an overnight train would fill the gap between Sacramento and Eugene.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
there’s already an overnight train from sac to eug it leaves sac at midnight and gets to eugene at 1244p
I took that train to the Vancouver Olympics, and there seemed to be a huge market for it. Aside from a relatively short, rural area in between, both metros have huge populations that frequently travel back and forth. It’s a no-brainer.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Well, during the Olympics I’m pretty sure the trains were fuller than usual, and I assume they ran extra trains, too…
Otherwise I agree with your assessment.
aw Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
The ‘extra’ train for the Olympics started a bit over a year ago. That makes a total of two daily trains between Seattle and Vancouver. The second train was about to be cancelled because of an extortionate demand from Canadian Border Services to man the Vancouver station.
The press conference with Gordon Cambell and Chris Gregoire that Robert refered to in the post was to acknowledge the fact that some money had been found to keep the train running past October 31.
So how is everybody voting? I’m filling out my sample ballot. I want to vote for that football player who was poor as shit growing up. What does he think of trains?
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Who?
Spokker Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Damon Dunn.
How the hell do you decide whether or not to vote for a judge? I mean, they all seem okay. The gay marriage folks don’t like Ming W. Chin but he suggested government get out of marriage altogether which I support.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I try not to vote for any judge if they run on a hardline anti-crime platform.
Generally, though, a judge who has actually been a trial attorney is mostly the best option, as they will be able to make better decisions on issues arising in trial. Orange County I believe has a relatively new judge who had practically no trial experience, doesn’t understand evidence rules, and takes forever to make a decision, which is mostly wrong. That ties up the appeals system and costs the taxpayers a lot more money. For good reasons, both the DAs and Public Defenders can’t stand trying cases in his courtroom.
Spokker Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Okay I consulted the Christian voter recommendations and it helped me fill out the rest of my sample ballot that I will take with me into the booth.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Christian voter recommendations … seriously?
Spokker Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Yes, with help from the Red County blog for guidance on how to vote on the propositions. But I’m going to check on how John and Ken want me to vote before I finalize my decisions.
James Fujita Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer… and then vote the opposite direction.
BTW, beware of third-party “voter guides.” Those things are extremely unreliable. Basically, candidates pay for the “endorsement” of the political ad company which produces both “Democratic” and “Republican” versions of the same “guide”. They don’t reflect the official positions of either party.
Spokker Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I wasn’t seriously consulting those guides.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I was just now stuck on the “judge” portion of the ballot. How does one know? Its not like you know any of their names or ever hear about them. Guess Ill go with the endorsements.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:09 am
Vote against changing the two-thirds requirement, unless you want to pay a bunch more taxes. The simple reality is that neither party can control their urge to spend. Even Repubs can’t stop themselves from splurging on the military. On the national level they just slipped $2 billion in effective bribes to the Pakistani generals.
And forget about taxing the rich and corporations. Google, for instance, has manipulated matters in such a way it pays about 4.5% in taxes overall. What percentage do you think you are paying? The average clod does not have access to a high rise full of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists and will be the one to pay for the increased welfare envisioned by the machine.
Victor Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
So not true, 25 only gets rid of the 2/3rds requirement for the Budget, Not taxes. Plus You ought to read the California General Election guide and I quote from page 52 Title & Summary/Analysis:
Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
For every day the budget is late, Legislators are docked a day’s pay plus expenses. Importantly, they can’t pay themselves back when the budget is finally passed.
Unquote.
That is Prop 25, The 1st nail in Prop 13 of 1978′s coffin.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Vote to get rid of the 2/3 requirement, unless you want your government to go to hell even faster.
The simple reality is that with a 2/3 requirement, *you cannot have a functioning government*, unless you can get 2/3 of people to agree — and that’s not going to happen when 60% is considered a “landslide” (as it has been since at least 1980).
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
FYI, Prop 13 is one of the main reasons why corporations pay practically no taxes in California. Corporations never die, therefore pay the same property taxes they did in 1978… forever…
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:19 am
i, for one, look forward to someday raising taxes on you whiners, and repealing prop 13 to boot. for now, being able to pass budgets without the permission of a nutjob party that can’t win more than slightly over a third of the seats in either chamber will have to do.
At the Peninsula Consortium rail meeting this AM, it was announced that Brisbane has joined the 5 other cities, so now the group has six.
Also announced that the PA rail sub-committee recommended to their council, which will vote on Monday, that they not consider having a station.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
No station at all or no station for HSR? I’m sure no station at all will go over like a lead balloon. If Caltrain picks a compatible platform height etc, any Caltrain station could be used by HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Don’t forget the parking. I wonder if Redwood City will take the bait.
morris brown Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
No HSR station of course. Without CalTrain, Palo Alto is in really in very bad shape. The amount of traffic to Stanford and more (much more) on it sway with the proposed hospital expansion demands CalTrain function.
Big reasons cost, to be paid for by the City, large amount of land needed. Also the station itself needing such a big garage, implies a lot of extra auto traffic to get to and from the tracks.
With Redwood City seeking to become much bigger and denser, who know that they might just du. Thus far their grandiose plans have not yielded the expected results. Eventually residents should kick out the very pro development they have.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Of course, a HSR station doesn’t need massive amounts of floor space and a huge parking structure (though building a structure over one of Stanford Shopping Center’s lots wouldn’t be that bad), it’s just the CHSRA’s incompetent and inexperienced team which defines these “requirements.”
Auto access is definitely an issue, and a serious issue for Palo Alto. Though, as you say, it seems increasingly likely that Redwood City will be picked as the mid-peninsula station. Their enthusiasm for development may lead them to accept something like what the CHSRA is proposing, however bad such a structure would be for the people trying to use it, and to a lesser extent, the surrounding area.
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
incompetent and inexperienced
You’re kidding, right? They are highly competent and experienced at transferring lots of public wealth to their shareholders. Without gigantic stations and viaducts, quad-track San Francisco tunnels, double-deck Millbrae and San Jose stations, dual up-and-down double-deck grade separations, etc. they just wouldn’t be holding up their fiduciary responsibilities to their investors. The transportation-industrial complex is a well-oiled machine run by extremely astute and experienced people with extensive influence at all levels of the government’s transit appropriations bodies. They know exactly what they can get away with.
Meanwhile, of course, you’ve got right-wing libertarian types calling ‘boondoggle’ who advocate cutting down the government agencies and giving them even less oversight over the process. It’s amazing their heads don’t explode from this contradiction.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:26 am
The Libertarians, to my mind, are royalists who could care less about the lumpen. That’s why they favor phony “freedom of choice” which only the elite and wunderkinder have the smarts and/or hired resources to master.
Influence peddling is as old as the hills and is primarily what we witness in the CHSRA. PAMPA has every right and responsibility to protect themselves from being screwed over. How do you thin they got away with building the Embarcadero Freeway ca. 1954. I do not believe that PAMPA will be able to extract any kind of a viable deal with PB-CHSRA. They will have to resort to the nuclear option of voter petition for a revote of the whole damn project.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Well, that’s just stupid. PAMPA is not going to get the burghers of Bakersfield and LA, or for that matter SF, to vote down a project which very much benefits them. Good luck with your insane strategy.
The CaHSRA route map gives a distance of 588 miles from San Diego to Sacramento.
The Coast Starlite Timetable gives a distance of 968 miles from Sacramento to Vancouver.
Of California’s 38 million population, 30 million live in metro-areas with a proposed high speed rail station.
If you add the population of California north of Sacramento, the population of the entire state of Oregon, the entire state of Washington, and the province of British Columbia you get a total of about 15 million. Of these 15 million many would live too far away to benefit from high speed rail.
With ridership and cost projections for the California system under such scrutiny, I can only begin to imagine what issues would confront a Sacramento to Vancouver system.
The route from Vancouver to Portland at 331 miles (based on Starlight timetable) would come closer to matching the population density served by CAHSR, but the 600 mile plus segment from Sacramento to Portland, which would cost tens of billions of dollars if it is truly high speed rail, will be very very hard to justify anytime soon.
Victor Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
HSR would attract Tourists & Businesses, Tourists spend Money, So population isn’t totally relevant I’d think.
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:21 am
yeah, that route runs through a ton of really nice places for hiking, boating, kayaking, fishing, camping, hunting, etc. tourism is about the only industry left in a lot of towns up there.
A correction, or at least a clarification—30 million Californians live in metro areas served by the entire high speed rail system which is more like 800 miles in length.
Van Ark tells the Peninsula Cities to essentially kiss off. Front page in the local Daily Post and here in the Mercury news.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16411474?nclick_check=1
High-speed rail boss to Peninsula: forget about tunnels
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
At least he’s telling it like it is and not giving anybody false hopes.
morris brown Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Yes he is indeed telling it like it is and has been. It is not what it could be however, and an excuse that ventilation prohibits under-grounding is hardly valid, since there are certainly systems that support freight diesel etc., provide adequate ventilation and are functional. but it surely isn’t going to happen here.
It now becomes even more obvious that the solution for the Bay area is for CalTrain and the Authority to split; the MOU should be dissolved and HSR should go elsewhere or not go at all.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Explain to us why trains that are quieter and cleaner than the current service will rain destruction down on the Peninsula/
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Why is that a ‘solution’ ?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:16 pm
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky:
Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can’t be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.
StevieB Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:47 pm
That is one step away from anarchism.
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
That would be true, if there was no authority on the other side. But since we have city governments and consortia and whatnot, the burden of proof is also on them to prove that (a) They represent the interests of all, or even a majority of their constituents and (b) That the claims they make are legitimate.
morris brown Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
To be clear, at least in Menlo Park and Atherton, the position that has been taken is either under ground HSR or you don’t come here.
The Authority, through van Ark is now saying it won’t be underground, therefore Menlo Park and Atherton say go away. I believe other cites in the Consortium will do likewise, if they haven’t already done so.
CalTrain could face bankruptcy if a new funding source is not found. There is some sentiment that the cities should gather together and find a new source of funding, but surely not if CalTrain continues to accommodate HSR.
So the solution is not for HSR, but could well be for CalTrain if they come to their senses and quit this alliance with the Authority.
StevieB Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 pm
There is no incentive for Caltrain to quit the understanding with the California High-Speed Rail Authority unless they are first offered alternate funding.
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Shit.
This is starting to piss me off. Not that residents (or at least the cities representing them) don’t care about HSR in a larger context. Not that the CHSRA could care less about local residents. Not that CalTrain seems to be ignoring HSR or that HSR seems to be ignoring CalTrain. Not that CalTrain seems to care less about providing effective transportation to the people it is supposed to serve. It’s the fact that EVERYONE is refusing to cooperate on EVERY level of planning. No one is willing to work together or compromise … not the residents, not the cities, not the planning or operating agencies. Which is rather frustrating, because if everyone was willing to cooperate, compromise, and approach things RATIONALLY, we could build something that would benefit EVERYONE at EVERY level. Better transportation for the state as a whole, better regional and interregional transportation foe EVERYONE along the line, even REDUCED impact compared to existing conditions in a few cases. But no. Since we’re all bickering, we’re going to end up with something that’s worse for everyone.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Well, it’s not up to Menlo Park or Atherton. Railroad law has been clear since the 19th Century. If they don’t want the rail line to go through their town… it goes through their town anyway and they don’t get a station. Hope that’s what they wanted.
Spokker Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Caltrain is not accommodating HSR. Caltrain planners are acting as if HSR does not exist at this point. Go get updated on Clem’s blog.
rafael Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Bear in mind that his reason for rejecting long bored tunnels or extended deep covered trench sections was that UPRR will continue to use diesel locomotives, in addition to a lot of incremental cost yielding exactly zero incremental speed or ridership for the HSR network.
Someone would have to fund the delta for the environmental upgrades that peninsula cities are demanding. Realistically, it won’t be state nor federal taxpayers nor private investors. San Mateo county is still in hock to Alameda county for the BART extension to SFO and Santa Clara county is prioritizing the BART to Silicon Valley.
Victor Reply:
October 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
In which case It’s the CHSRA’s way or fund It themselves, As no one can or will help them.
Since nobody mentioned this, I should mention that the NDP by all accounts would be much more gung-ho about rail service than the BC Liberals, who actually have a very mixed record (BC Rail scandal anyone?). The Tories would of course be worse.