Central Valley Wins $700 Million In Federal HSR Funds
Today the US Department of Transportation announced recipients of the $2.5 billion in HSR grants that were available under the FY 2010 budget appropriation, and California is getting nearly 30% of that total – around $715 million – for a Central Valley HSR segment:
The Federal Railroad Administration has allocated $715 million in federal funds for the portion of California’s high-speed rail passenger train route that will run between Merced and Bakersfield, says Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno on Monday.
The amount is to be matched by funds from the state’s $10 billion bond issue approved in 2008 for the bullet train system.
Construction of the high-speed rail system is expected to generate more than 135,000 full-time one-year job equivalents, Mr. Costa says.
The LA Times has more on other California rail projects that also got funded:
Officials for the U.S. Department of Transportation said the money would be distributed to 18 rail projects, including $100 million to buy rolling stock and almost $25 million for the installation of an automated braking and train control system from San Onofre to San Diego.
Another $16 million was earmarked for a length of the high-speed rail project between San Francisco and San Jose, and $7 million for signal, bridge and track improvements in Del Mar, a coastal town in northern San Diego County.
The big news is of course that the Central Valley segment got the HSR funding. It’s not exactly clear which of the two segments – Merced to Fresno or Fresno to Bakersfield – got the money, or if it’s to be split between the two. But this may be a sign that the $2.25 billion in federal ARRA stimulus funds might be headed to the Central Valley too. Realize that in the selection criteria CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark recently proposed, a funding breakdown of each segment was included. It specified that if ARRA funds, FY 2010 Service Development Program (SDP) funds, and matching Prop 1A bond funds were included, then either of the Central Valley HSR segments could be built in their entirety – except for electrification.
This could well be a signal that the USDOT is planning to send the rest of the ARRA funds to the Valley as well. The CHSRA board will meet soon to discuss which segment they want to prioritize, and one of the key criteria as laid out by van Ark is matching federal funds.
I wouldn’t say it’s a done deal by any means, but the likelihood that a Central Valley segment will be the first segment of the California High Speed Rail system just rose by quite a bit today.
The good news: the worthless cretins at Caltrain didn’t get hundreds of millions to piss away on making the public’s rail line worse.
The bad news: the worthless cretins at Caltrain do get to throw away $16 million of your earmarked tax dollars, probably in the direction of their very very special (also “special” in the “special needs” sense) CBOSS PTC buddies.
jimsf Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I have to agree with you there. Caltrain has to be made to stop what it is doing and cooperate with hsr in a way that makes transportation sense and which gets the very most out of the funding. This going off on its own direction as if hsr doesn’t exist is beyond irresponsible.
lyqwyd Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Not to mention that CBOSS is a bad idea even if there were no HSR system. There is simply no situation in Caltrain developing it’s own PTC system makes any kind of sense.
Yay! Can’t wait!
Ben Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@Jack in Fresno:
I hope Fresno voters remember how supportive Rep. Jim Costa has been of high speed rail in CA.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/ca/california_20th_district_vidak_vs_costa-1344.html
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
It is just shocking, shocking that this news would have been leaked 3 days before official award.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Costa has been one of the key leaders for the HSR project. If this helps him, I’m all for it.
Roger Christensen Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
KMJ Fresno right wing radio has wasted no time in declaring the award “a rabbit out of the hat magician trick” suspiciously timed for the election.
KMJ has been ramping up anti-Costa rage for some time. I hope this helps him.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
They’re just mad that the CV got ANY money. If they hadn’t, they’d be talking about how he failed to get any funding.
Victor Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
And how, But then their Nutz…
Ben Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
This is no joke. If you want to see dedicated funding for high speed rail, we need to make sure there are supporters such as Rep. Costa in Washington. The latest poll has him down by 10 points. Even if you don’t live in the districts of Ami Bera, Jerry McNerney, or Jim Costa, they could sure use your support for Get Out the Vote activities, to make sure supporters show up on election day.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/ca/california_20th_district_vidak_vs_costa-1344.html
Ben Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@Elizabeth:
I’m confused by your post. This poll was released in the middle of September.
Nadia Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
@Ben
The announcement of these awards will officially be Thursday – per HSR and Caltrain officials. But obviously, this has already made the news
James Fujita Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if this will help Costa or not. I’d vote for Costa if I were in his district.
But HSR is just one issue of many in this election. For example, there are plenty of political signs blaming Costa for causing the drought. Don’t ask me….
Robert,
Even if the Authority had received full billion, it would not build the full Fresno-Bakersfield segment.
The concept was to stop in Shaftner. You would not build the Bakersfield station.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Right – thanks for that correction.
James Fujita Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Correction to the correction: Shafter. Either way, I do hope this funding leads to something.
Even with controversy over Bakersfield HS, Hanford station, where to put the maintenance yard, I can easily picture the San Joaquin Valley segments moving forward much faster than the other segments.
And then, just watch the jaws drop when engineering and construction actually starts on a HSR-capable segment of track…
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Sorry – as soon as the comment went up I saw that!
YesonHSR Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
This is excellent news.. I’m betting that the Fresno Bakersfield section will be the first to start construction and is by far the easiest to build when it comes to cooperation.. the city of Fresno is 100% behind behind high-speed rail and the BNSF is a willing partner.. this is where we see groundbreaking in late 12!!
This would only require a state match of 34% of the additional federal funds, versus the 30% that they had budgeted in the revised bid.
Sen. Boxer’s site has the press release with the full breakdown of all of the projects awarded funds in California today including the Central Valley HSR money:
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/102510.cfm
Project: Funding will go to a California high-speed rail program in the Central Valley.
Grant Amount: $715,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Statewide Rolling Stock Acquisition.
Grant Amount: $100,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the San Onofre-San Diego Positive Train Control implementation.
Grant Amount: $24,900,000
***
Project: This grant award is for San Francisco-San Jose High-Speed Rail.
Grant Amount: $16,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Moorpark-San Onofre Signal and Communication System Improvements in California.
Grant Amount: $13,500,000
***
Project: This grant award is for San Diego: PE/NEPA for Double Track.
Grant Amount: $10,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Del Mar: PE/NEPA for Second Track, Bridge, Signal Improvements in California.
Grant Amount: $7,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Oceanside: PE/NEPA for Bridge Replacement with Double Track.
Grant Amount: $4,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Pacific Surfliner: PE/NEPA for Double Track, Curve Realignments.
Grant Amount: $4,000,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Raymer-Bernson: PE/NEPA for Double Track, Grade Crossings, New Bridges, New Platform.
Grant Amount: $1,564,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the California State Rail Plan.
Grant Amount: $1,500,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo Corridor Plan.
Grant Amount: $1,360,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Seacliff: PE/NEPA for Track Realignment, Siding Extension.
Grant Amount: $950,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Van Nuys Boulevard: PE/NEPA for Bridge Widening, New Platform, System Improvements.
Grant Amount: $800,000
***
Project: This award is multi-state (AZ, CA and NV) funding for the western high-speed rail (HSR) alliance service area plan.
Grant Amount: $500,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Pacific Surfliner: PE/NEPA for Double Track.
Grant Amount: $400,000
***
Project: This grant award is for the Los Angeles-San Francisco Corridor Plan.
Grant Amount: $300,000
***
Project: This grant award is for Bakersfield-Oakland-Sacramento (San Joaquin) Corridor Plan.
Grant Amount: $300,000
jimsf Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
wow look at all that stuff. Are the links to the details of each?
datacruncher Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I can’t find links. Maybe when things are confirmed later this week more details can be found.
Donk Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
So the total funding to date dedicated to CA HSR is now:
$2.250B ARRA
$0.715B FY10 Central Valley
$0.016B FY10 SF-SJ
————————-
$2.981B Total
When you include CA Measure A:
$11.981B Total
Am I missing anything?
mgimbel Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
When they say $100 million for rolling stock, do they mean additional equipment for Amtrak California?
jimsf Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
in part yes.
jimsf Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
wait I take that back, I was thinking of the state rail plan. Im not sure what rolling stock they mean. Clearly its too soon to buy hsr stock though.
Also, for someof these curve re alignments down south, I wonder if any of those sections will be part of the hsr route in the area north of san diego?
Kenb Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
The Surfliner qualifies for federal HSR funding because it can reach a top speed of 110 mpr. That also includes rolling stock.
orulz Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am
It’s not too early to buy HSR rolling stock at all.
If they are hoping to combine all the stimulus and Prop 1a money so far to build a minimum operating segment in the central valley (two stations plus all the track and maintenance facilities between them) then they will clearly need HSR rolling stock to use on that minimum operating segment.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
But they don’t have the money to build the segment AND electrify it. Since the likelihood of HSR using locomotive-hauled trainsets, even HSR ones, is pretty much nil, it makes no sense to buy any non-EMU equipment at this point.
Spokker Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Seeing Pacific Surfliner + Double Track is a good thing.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:10 am
some of us at amtrak ( in no official capacity) would much rather have seen single level, like talgo, used in california to being with. Its is apparently ( and this is through the grapevine hearsay) caltrans who has the love affair with the double deck, custom built, “california cars” and who didn’t want to use something off the shelf. It doesn’t make sense on a route with as many curves as capitol corridor and surfliner. Talgo would I think, have been a much better choice. Of course what do I know.
I’d like to see the state switch. But I doubt that will happen.
Victor Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I agree jimsf, Talgo would be better than the doubledeck stuff, Their just thinking more capacity, Not more speed which is where You’d think they need to emphasize instead.
James Fujita Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Let’s not jump to conclusions, the Pacific Surfliner is a very busy corridor, with many more trains a day than the Talgo Cascades. The Capitol Corridor is also quite busy, and the San Joaquins are often crowded.
Speed is important, but there are other factors to consider, such as cost and “buy American” requirements. (The first California Cars all say “Morrison-Knudson” on them.)
It’s easy to look back in hindsight and say that Talgo (which is now manufacturing trains at a relatively new plant in Wisconsin) would have been better.
However, the Talgo trains and the original California Cars both date back to 1993.
I’d be happy if California switched to Talgo. But it would be difficult transition, with a lot of rolling stock to replace.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39837303
Florida getting $800 million, supposedly putting them close to full budget for their train to nowhere.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Phasing Morris. Phase two is Tampa-Orlando-Miami. Phase-sometime-after-that is to Jacksonville.
Immediately useful to get people from the Orlando airport or the Tampa airport to the resorts southwest of Orlando.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Don’t even bother with subtleties with these guys. They only see things in black and white.
Donk Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
FL better put some money behind Phase 2. This is ridiculous how the feds are giving them $2.05B – have they even contributed a dime of their own money yet? Did they end up providing a 20% match for the $800M FY10, or are they somehow arguing that they are going to give their freeway ROW as in-kind cash?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
They didn’t get the extra wide ROW for free.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:07 am
The Feds want a true HSR system under construction and up and running ASAP.
StevieB Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
All the money cannot go to California, sorry morris brown.
Walter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Not like that would make him happy either.
Too bad these projects don’t qualify for AB3034 appropriation.
Is there a way we can specifically purchase California HSR bonds, or are these bonds wrapped into the normal California general obligation bonds?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
My understanding is they’re wrapped in the normal state GO bonds. It would be great if the public at large could buy these as well.
Visalia lost the “put a station in our zip code” competition to Hanford, but they’re still enthusiastic about the news:
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20101025/NEWS01/101025014
jimsf Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
who won the fresno I want my hsr video contest?
datacruncher Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Not announced yet. The top 3 videos will be highlighted Thursday at the Fresno EDC’s high speed rail luncheon meeting. I’m not sure how or where in the agenda they are scheduled around the various speakers like van Ark and Diridon.
http://www.fresnoedc.com/about/2010annual.html
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I would say the chance of a hanford station anytime soon is approximately zero.
1) In the applications for Fresno to Bakersfield, the station is excluded. No money, no station. A station costs more than one might think as they need 4 tracks for quite a distance so that 220 mph trains can pass through and it will be elevated at that spot.
2) There are big environmental sprawl issues with a station between Hanford and Visalia. The easy way to avoid them is not to have a station.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Agreed. This would at best be an infill station once the system has opened from SF to LA.
James Fujita Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:37 am
I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second. Sprawl is already a pre-existing condition in all parts of California, including the Central Valley.
This sprawl has many causes, but car-centric development has obviously been a major cause in Southern California, the Bay Area and everywhere else.
The train station, as currently proposed, would be much closer to the center of Hanford than it would be to Visalia. Tulare County residents would still prefer Hanford over Fresno, but the station is undoubtedly in Hanford. The draw would be similar to a regional airport, with links to a wide area.
As such, the station would undeniably cause some growth, but it would serve as a focal point for new growth in the area. Instead of a TOD, Hanford would likely gain “HSR-OD” around the station, as would most of the lucky cities to get HSR.
[ To be honest, the situation reminds me a little bit of the international environmental negotiations between the U.S., Europe and Japan on one side; and China and India on the other — those who have already caused environmental damage are now telling others what they can or can't do. ]
The Central Valley is growing. That is inevitable. What will ultimately make the difference is whether that growth is directed in a positive direction or not.
Freeways bring sprawl. HSR will bring positive growth.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:14 am
And the type of sprawl has less to do with hsr and highways, and more to do with what type of housing homeowners want. The people who move to the valley are the young families who want to get out of the density and have a backyard barbque for the kids. They still want that. Maybe not the singles and the DINKS, but families still want it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The only affordable choice offered to families is a single family house on a individual lot surrounded by a lawn behind a white picket fence with 1.3 dogs, 1.4 cats and three quarters of a goldfish. Many of them would love to live in an apartment with a deck or small communal backyard but zoning doesn’t allow that sort of thing.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
actually we have that sort of thing all over, apartments and condos all over every city and town. There’s plenty. They don’t want it. They WANT the 2.8 gold fish and 2.3 kids and 2.033334 iguana.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
This is typical in every county in california. widely available, and very affordable. but this and this is what they want.
and this being california, having those, seems to always mean winding up with this and this and this and this
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
They can’t afford it. which is why they drive until they qualify. To ;places where they don’t zone for small lots in walkable neighborhoods.
jimsf Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
not really. all the smaller cities in cali have loads of apartment and condo housing with community areas and most are located within walking distance of shopping centers. Pretty much every neighborhood’s worth of housing has a shopping center. Small affordable towns such as merced and hanford have this. Most subdivisions have a combo of single family, high density (apartments) and retail, and the larger ones will include a new school. Its a pretty typical california pattern. They want the house because they want the house and the lot. They don’t want a small lot. They want a yard for the kids and dogs in an area where they live next to people who are just like them so they feel comfortable. True they move as far out as they need to to afford the price, but they do it cuz they want a house and yard. They dont WANT urban. Urban to them represents all the things they want to stay away from and keep their kids away from. ( you know cuz its better to immerse them in drive thru mall culture instead)
My understanding is that the authority has not clarified whether the entire Merced to Bakerfield corridors were both funded. My reading on this is the authority is deciding whether to fund Merced to Fresno corridor or Fresno to Bakersfield corridor not both. Does anyone else have that same read?
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
That sounds more or less correct. Anyway, they don’t have enough money for both, even with this.
Nadia Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I believe that is correct – but to spend AB3034 money – they must meet the guidelines and the law defines a segment as between 2 stations – so the big question is which 2 stations and is there enough money?
Also, before any bond money is spent, the Independent Peer Review committee needs to review everything – and to my knowledge, they haven’t even fully staffed that group.
datacruncher Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Costa’s press release says “FRA will work with the state to determine whether to first begin construction on the Merced to Fresno segment or the Fresno to Bakersfield segment.”
http://www.costa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=685&Itemid=1
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
The two stations are going to be Merced to Hanford. Merced to Fresno will be with the expressed intent of immediately upgrading that line as if it would be put into service. Hanford to Fresno won’t carry service on it…it will be used as the “test track”. That way Fresno gets both the benefits of added mobility…but it also gets the test track and the need for a rail yard.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Did you notice that Hanford station is not included in any proposal?
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Of course. But given the amount of money available, one has to think that a segment isn’t conditional on actually building a station…but rather the alignment between two stations.
peninsula Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
AB3034 says its exactly that – conditional on an usable segment, defined precisely as two stations and everything in between.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:38 am
It is a little complicated, but whoever gets this money, also gets the original $3.3 billion ($1.65 ARRA + state match).
There is a possibility that this money doesn’t buy what the Authority says it will. For instance, the whole 12 mile viaduct in Fresno is priced out as a 2 track thing, which it is not. Land is valued at a couple of thousand an acre. The farmers are throwing out $100k an acre including losses of fruit trees, irrigation costs, severance costs. This is probably a negotiating number, but chances are you end up way higher than the current cost estimate, particularly as you need. There will be time pressure to get the land acquired…
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Most of it is 2-track. Only a relatively short section for the station is 4-track. I would assume (possibly incorrectly), that the cost of the station includes the extra two station tracks.
Clem Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:48 am
The 4-track section is necessarily long to allow stopping trains to decelerate and accelerate without decreasing the throughput capacity of the main tracks any more than absolutely necessary. These “merge tracks” have their length driven by the fastest turnout you can build, specified in TM 2.1.3 at 150 mph. (That’s a #59 turnout, for the model train enthusiasts.) To first order, the four-track section will then be 2x the distance for the train to accelerate from 0 to 150 mph. That’s going to be a heck of a lot longer than a 400 meter platform.
Elizabeth is correct, the four-track section in Fresno will need to be approximately 6 miles long.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:52 am
But is that section included in the cost of constructing the station?
mike Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Elizabeth is correct, the four-track section in Fresno will need to be approximately 6 miles long.
I understand the argument, but I’m not sure it applies. The necessary turnout spacing depends on how you schedule the trains (e.g., through trains should not follow immediately behind stopping trains) and overall train density. Sure, if you’re running 16 tph through Fresno then no scheduling is going to save you. But even CHSRA’s very aggressive business plan estimates still “only” call for a max of 7.2 tph through Fresno during the peak period.
Real world example: Lyon Airport TGV Station, France.
5 tracks (3 platform, 2 run-through).
Northern points are 0.45 miles from platform end.
Southern points are 0.70 miles from platform end.
Total distance between northern and southern turnouts is 1.4 miles.
It’s not trivial, but it’s nowhere near 6 miles.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
It has to support 5min. headways, so it has to support 60/5 = 12tph.
mike Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Bruce, 12 tph shouldn’t pose much of a problem. The old LGV PSE supports 12 tph (according to some website called “TGVweb” by some guy named “Clem Tillier”), and they only put 1 mile or less between the northern and southern points at their intermediate stations. Technically it depends on the stopping pattern of the trains. I don’t know whether those patterns are specified in the requirements or if it’s just a generic “should theoretically support 12 tph” statement.
Also, the ability to merge back into traffic at 150 mph is very limited use. Extra track *after* the station stop is only useful if the stopping train is being overtaken by a through train that is running a substantial distance behind it. But having a very high speed reentry is not that useful because once the stopping train is going 150 mph, it’s very difficult for the through train to overtake it.
Remember that blocks will be set to different speeds. You’re a stopped train at Fresno that just got passed by a through train. If you merge in 0.5 miles past the station, the first aspect allowing you to proceed will be relatively low speed. So little is lost by merging in at that point. If you merge in 3 miles past the station, yes, you will see a higher speed aspect when you do the merge. But you’d also have seen a higher speed aspect by that time had you merged in earlier. Not much is gained.
Realistically you might have triple track for up to 1.5 miles on either side of the station, but nothing more than that.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
If I remember correctly, the four-track segments at the Shinkansen stations are about 1,600 meters long, much less than the acceleration distance from 0 to turnout speed.
swing hanger Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Sounds about right Alon. I took a Kodama service Hiroshima-ShinOsaka this Sunday, and the turnouts were located relatively quite close to the ends of the platforms. Slower services such as Kodama will negotiate turnouts at slower speeds and really open up once on the main to get to track speed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Correct. (Incidentally there are a number of good Shinkansen route cab ride videos out there that show these sorts of details. This (first of 8 parts) is one of my favourites.)
However if you then look at what this limited infrastructure means in terms of the trade-off to the timetable that can be operated using those very short station passing loops, it should be readily apparent that extreme constraints manifest themselves, in terms including extraordinary operational discipline, major constraints on service intervals, fleeting of service types, and very long station dwell times for stopping trains are apparent. (In fact the “latency” of stopping, ie the line capacity penalty of slowing a stopping train on the mainline and then accelerating it again on the mainline, is such that quite often the cost of doing a stop is sometimes amortized by having a fleet of two homogenous-speed non-stoppers pass it.)
Infrastructure versus operations versus rolling stock is always a matter of compromise and trade-off in search of an engineering-economic optimum (of course not at CHSRA, where all that matters is cost maximization, but in some other places in the world): the Shinkansen trade-off of maximum line operations constraints for an absolute minimum of quadruple tracking is at one extreme, and one I can guarantee you that the scheduling and operation divisions wish they did not labour under.
In short, it can be done, but there’s a price and there’s no free lunch.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Thanks for sharing this cab ride set (and also thanks, if delayed, for the search on the Civil Rights material a while back–I appologize for not getting around to it sooner).
Impressions (besides noting the short passing sidings referred to): The biggest one is how much this railroad has the look and feel of a Metro rather than an intercity rail service. This includes high platforms (looks like the NEC standard here), station architecture that also looks like a transit line, a sound very reminiscent of the Washington Metro (especially in slow-down sequences), and the speed indications for permitted and actual speeds.
Other items of note: the uniforms with white gloves of the motormen, the calling and pointing of signal indications, a roller-coaster portion of the allignment, a safety check of the train as it leaves a crew transfer point, one station on the main line with no passing tracks–and in a couple of places, the translation of “river” in Japanese to “liver!” Ho, ho, ho, ho!
swing hanger Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Richard is right about the long dwell times on the local (Kodama) services. On the stretch I rode, they averaged 3~4 minutes, with a 7 minute stop at Mihara, plenty of time for me to get off the train, go down to the station concourse, and buy a cup of coffee to go. In the meantime, two fast Nozomi services streaked by. The Kodama services mainly serve customers travelling within the prefectural area (one or two station stops) or getting to a bigger station to transfer to a faster Hikari or Nozomi service- it functions exactly like a local service on a urban transit or suburban line, as either a “starting leg “or “last leg” service with the main part of a passenger journey taken on a limited stops service.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:12 am
The currently awarded $715m funding does not require a station, since the [i]mandatory[/i] match is within the amount of seed money allowed for in AB3034, but if they wish to leverage the $1.65b ARRA funding into releasing an equal amount of AB3034 funds, they would need two to form a usable segment.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
From what I can gather, the Authority is presuming that prior to beginning construction, they will be have enough funding from the Prop 1A bonds and federal funds to actually complete a “usable segment” under AB3034. Without additional funding, the construction would not happen.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
However, since the ARRA funding does not have to be matched unless the DoT insists on it (sure, CA said they’d match 50:50, but then they asked for enough to build a usable segment with that match, so they could say the Federal decision to not give them their request prevented them from matching) … and since the match for this round is within the scope of the seed money tranche of AB3034 bonds, with DoT approval, they could well break ground before they get to the AB3034 thresholds for the main tranche of bond funding.
That would place CAHSR in good shape for additional increments, since then a smaller amount of Federal funding would be required to hit the criteria for the main tranche of AB3034 bonds, releasing AB3034 bonds up to 50% of the total Federal funding for that segment ~ which would include the ARRA and this $715m as well.
And the system planning funding is low match or no match (I forget which), so that long list of planning project funding relieves the CHSRA from funding that from the seed money tranche of AB3034 funding.
Certainly the maximum flexibility is if the DoT allowed them to backload the matching funds, so they broke ground with no-match ARRA funding, and then if they could do the above release of AB3034 before the seed money is required for matching funds, that match could be provided with regular AB3034 funding and the seed money with its greater flexibility is still available.
CAn someone summarize these different monies. I can’t keep track any more.
There are 10 billion in prop 1a bond funds that can be used to match other funding sources.
There was some ARRA money for hsr, 2.25 billion which went entirely to cali?
and separately, 2.5 billion of high speed rail grant money ( not part of arra) of which the valley got 715 million.
and what else if any have I missed.
Also, can 1a money be used to match all other funding sources? essentially doubling the amounts at each step of the way
cali gets 715 million from hsr grants and can use 715 million of 1a money to match
cali gets 2.25 billion in arra funds so we use 2.25 billion in 1a matching?
so does that now give us
2.25 +2.25 is uh, 4.5 billion plus, hmmmm 715m +715m is uh…. hld on I need my calulator… 1,430,000,000
1,430,000,000 + 4,500,000,000 is , wait are those all billions? Ok I think its like 6 billion dollars to work with ???? Or did I get that wrong?
and so if that leaves like 7 billion in 1a funds left over, and if matched by federal dollars, you wind up with another 14 billion, and 14 billion plus this 6 billion is 20 billion, before any private money is even needed and the total price I last heared was 37 billion.
so with 20 billion in initial public money, enough to build a good chunk, only 17 billion more in private money is needed which, once they see how far we got, should be easy to round up.
n’est ce pas? Or did I totally screw that up?
maybe Ill stick to choosing livery colors.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Actually the prop 1A bond was for 9.9 8 billion though only 9 billion is set for high-speed rail.. thats one thing I don’t really like.. the remaining 980 million was for other transit systems in the state that connects to a high-speed rail system.. as far as this new money I believe it’s matched at a 30% rate so no they will not use 715 million from the prop 1A bond.. we need to save the rest of our bond for future matches
Alan F Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
If there is $980 million available in the prop 1A bond funds for transit systems that connect to the HSR system, then could it be used for upgrades to the Surfliner, Capital Corridor routes? Or Metrolink and local light rail connecting stations to the HSR system? How is that a bad thing? If California can use the bond money to match and leverage several billion of federal funds for major improvements and expansion to the Surfliner and Capital Corridor routes, that is a good use of the bond money. The more rail connections the HSR system has, the greater its value.
Donk Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Prop 1A was actually $9.95B, so there is $950M for connecting systems. My question is when are they going to identify the connecting projects and spend that money? You would think that they would already have some sort of plan in place for spending these funds asap on improvements to the Surfliner, Capital Corridor etc.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:59 am
The $995 was basically an earmark for BART, dressed up as “connecting transit”.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Oh, they’ve changed this language? I wish there was a place were such events were recorded. Way back when, it was:
So presuming that BART takes over the three Amtrak-California routes and provides 100% of statewide track miles, annual vehicle miles and annual passenger trips, this would indeed be an earmark for BART.
However, I seriously doubt any of these are true, let alone all of them, so I am guessing you are reporting that this language was stripped out somewhere along the way and replaced by “BART gets it all!!!”.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:27 am
No, that language is still in AB 3034.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:49 am
A very large portion of the money is going towards BART’s project to replace some of its train cars. Yes, there is some money sprinkled around but there is NO requirement whatsoever that any of it actually helps connectivity.
In a more ideal world, the different transit providers would compete for the money and be wareded it based on who delivered the greatest improvement in connectivity for the least cash.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
But what the voters of your state voted on was a formula allocation.
There is indeed a lot of leeway for each eligible system to determine how it wishes to use its share, and it may be that BART’s share will go to something you would prefer it not go to, but fixing up governance of each local transport authority around the state is not really the proper role of legislation like AB3034.
But unless LA and San Diego hand their share over to BART out of the kindness of their heart, I don’t see any reason to trust the validity of your claim that the lion’s share of the total $950m goes to BART.
Clem Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Is this the allocation we’re talking about?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
bingo
BruceMcF Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Yup, that’s it ~ BART has 55% of vehicle miles and 33% of trips, and gets 27% of the money.
Not “the lions share” no matter how overheated the rhetoric.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Yes it would be better for direct rail connections(Amtrak) but its apperars to be going for local transit agencies..ie BART /Muni that will connect to HSR and I dont know of any funding matches for this money
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:30 am
5% of the total is reserved for each of the three intercity rail corridors, and another 5% available for either those or other intercity services. So $47.5m is reserved for intercity rail, the balance for local rail. For the local rail, there’s a formula that seems to guide the allocation based on share of track miles, share of vehicle miles, and share of passenger trips among eligible recipients, and there’s a 50:50 match.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Sorry, that’s $47.5m for each of the three intercity corridors, and another $47.5m to be allocated between them or to some other intercity services, $190m total for intercity rail. There’s a 50:50 match for all of the $900m.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:16 am
Its not a bad thing its a good thing. who thinks its bad?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Round 1 of federal money: 8 billion
California gets 2.25, 1.85 goes to the Rail Authority and 400 million goes to transbay terminal.
Of the 1.85 billion, 194mm is allocated to planning.
There was another $2.5 billion of federal funds made available. This is what California applied for in August. Apparently, they got $715 million. They had requested $1 billion and had offered a “30%” match. The 30% is in quotes because the way they do the math is to figure out what number would be the total spend amount such that 70% of it is $1 billion). In normal people math, this looks more like 43% match. Coincidentally or not, it happens to be that if California matched the $715 million with $715 million, they would get to their $1.43 billion project budget.
At this point it is not clear whether or not the money Caltrain got was for items that were in the budget or not for HSR.
In addition, California has already spent some amount of the bond measure on planning.
So in grand total, they have from the feds
$1.85 billion + 715 million = $2.6 billion
There is some portion of this that the Authority can match without a problem. $675 million of the bond money can be spent on planning and buying land and constructing test tracks without a lot of strings attached, although some portion ($200 million ?) has already been spent. The rest requires a lot of conditions to be met, including the requirement that there be two stations and it be ready for high speed rail service, be profitable etc etc. The whole concept of these measures was to make sure that if you built something you had all the money lined up to have a self-supporting high speed rail service. This is why the current north of Fresno to Shafter plan is potentially a problem.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I forgot to mention that all bond money outside of the $675 million requires a dollar for dollar match from some other source (feds, local, private) so the bond money is not money in the bank until that shows up and until the requirements (the two stations etc) are met.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am
The dollar per dollar match is not a binding constraint, since the bond funding is less than half the total cost of the project anyway, so a better than dollar for dollar match is required in any event.
peninsula Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
must be able to operate as a Usable Segment of HSR – ready for revenue operation, without subsidy. So whatever segment (including two stations and everything in between – including electrification) must come with a ridership study and a business plan showing how this segment turns enough business to operate without subsidy. AND must show 100% environmental clearance ‘ready for construction’ as part of the appropriation request. The authorities own criteria document admits that none of these segments qualifies under AB3034 because none build an operable HSR Usable Segment. And they’ll never in a million years show this segment profitable without operating subsidy as a stand alone segment.
Not to mention the requirement that they show 100% funding for the Usable Segment, including sources, terms and conditions of funding.
Not happening. If they get a legislature willing to approve the appropriation, it’ll be in court well past any federal deadlines.
J. Wong Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I haven’t read it so I don’t know for sure, but I have a hard time believing that they would have written it as an all-or-nothing proposition. That is, “must be able to operate” doesn’t say immediately, just eventually. They knew that the segments would be built separately. The revenue operation is for HSR on the _whole_ route not just for each segment independently.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:54 am
And the Authority knows full well that the “usable segment” language is in place. If you read the language in the criteria for selection of the first corridor, they discuss the fact that they are presuming further funding will appear prior to construction beginning. This is the same whiny argument that morris brown has been raising forever, and that pretty much everyone ignores.
About going to court over this, have fun. The Authority’s attorneys are not stupid, and will have crossed their t’s and dotted their i’s.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Well you could build fresno shafter as a high speed section. Use existing conventional train on it, at incrementally higher speeds over that portion and still bring those trains into bakersfield station. That makes it a useable segment. AS for subsidy, while there is a subsidy for the current operator, that is separate and not part of a subsidy for hsr operation. so it wouldn’t count as being subsidized. Ok thats a bit of trickery, but still, maybe it would fly.
Joey Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 6:42 am
The requirement for no subsidy does bring into question the validity of running Amtrak in the mean time. I’ll bet that they can weasel their way out of it though, considering how non-specific the wording is.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 6:44 am
exactly – amtraks operations funding is seperate.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:31 am
So, in other words, since the $1.85b is ARRA funding, where no match is mandated, and the match offered for the $715m is reportedly around $260 (36%) … and since the DoT would certainly be happy to accommodate the match being spent on things its allowed to be spent on …
… there’s no problem with providing the matching funds for the $715m grant.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:44 am
There was no mandatory match on the $1.85, but California offered one so they are on the hook for that. California matching the dollars was probably a huge mistake, but water under the bridge at this point.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:45 am
“but California offered one so they are on the hook for that”
I haven’t seen a federal requirement for a match. Do you have a reference to it?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
There was not a requirement, but there was an opportunity to offer a match as part of the application, which California did.
It is there in the applications and it is fairly black and white on last page of this:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6326
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I know they “committed” to offering a match, but my question is whether this is enforceable against the Authority. Even if it is, I haven’t seen anything indicating that the Feds would in fact enforce it against the Authority.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Since there is no match requirement in ARRA, then whether or not they are on the hook for the match is in the details of the grant agreement between CHSRA and the USDoT. I haven’t seen those details, so I don’t know.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Exactly. I’m not saying there aren’t such terms, just that I haven’t actually seen any.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
They have not signed the funding agreement yet for the $1.65. They have signed it for the $194 million going for planning and the rail authority is matching dollar for dollar.
If the state does not match, there is not enough money to do enough of the project to achieve “independent utility”, so even if the Feds wanted to let them out of it they would have a hard time doing so.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I don’t disagree with you, I’m just pointing out that you were stating things as that were not yet legally resolved.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Don’t confuse together independent utility on the Federal funding and usable segment in the AB3034 criteria. There’s ample scope in the CV to provide independent utility to the San Joaquin.
The State has ample grounds to argue that their offer of a match of the ARRA funds was contingent on getting enough funding to allow release of the main tranche of the AB3034 bond funding. If they were not awarded enough to allow them to release that bonding, that was the decision of the DoT, not the decision of the State of California, which have to operate under the mechanism as passed by the voters of the state.
As a face saving argument, it has the benefit of having substantial merit, when face-saving arguments often are lacking in that regard.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Oh, and the 30% match is ordinary people’s arithmetic. You got a project that cost a certain amount, you promise to pay 30% of the total, that’s a 30% match. 70:30. Watch Boardwalk Empire if you don’t believe me, where the boss of Atlantic City is negotiating with Chalky for how they will share the proceeds of the sale of bathtub whiskey. Its 25:75, 50:50, 30:70, 35:65 … that’s not some weird new language invented by CHSRA.
Maybe people are familiar with the phrase “fifty-fifty” for an even split. Under Elizabeth’s proposal to reform our language, the phrase would have to be changed to “hundred-hundred”.
mike Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
They had requested $1 billion and had offered a “30%” match. The 30% is in quotes because the way they do the math is to figure out what number would be the total spend amount such that 70% of it is $1 billion). In normal people math, this looks more like 43% match.
I understand that it’s a confusing way of stating it (technically it’s called a 70/30 match, with funds being matched at the rate of $3 state for every $7 federal). However, it’s completely consistent with the way that USDOT has been using the language for decades now. They are just conforming to established standards.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I know, I know. Most of us are not familiar with USDOT standards and it is not immediately obvious why a 30% match for a $1 million grants is $430 million. I thought it was useful to go through the math.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Also note that just because for most of the Prop1A bonds there is a minimum 50% match from outside of Prop1A bond funding does not mean that it is prudent to do dollar for dollar matches.
Indeed, exactly the opposite: the closer that California can get to providing the minimum 20% match, the further the Prop1A funds can go in terms of access to federal transport funding. Especially since it seems likely that there will be a two-year delay in getting federal funding up to the level that California would wish, barring a legacy lame duck vote for the George Voinovich Federal Transport Infrastructure Investment Bank.
OT but no surprise, Palo Alto Council votes no on a station (unanimous):
http://paloalto.patch.com/articles/council-shoots-down-station-plan
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Their loss.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
people living in Paloalto in the future will want to just choke these people for this nonsense
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Too bad we couldn’t just have a compatible corridor where whichever stations HSR trains happen to stop at didn’t require 67000 square feet of retail/security “theater”/waiting areas that no one will use/whatever and 3000 parking spaces. That way, HSR trains could stop where there is demand for them, and we wouldn’t have to deal with this nonsense.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Nah, all Palo Alto needs is to get the Caltrain electrified, and there’ll be a convenient connection to wherever the Peninsula HSR corridor ends up.
It would make still make sense for that to be a proper HSR train station, wherever it is located, and not the deformed imagination of some airport designer.
wu ming Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
no doubt they’ll be whining for decades about how come we pay all these taxes and the gummint screwed us out of a HSR station? and without irony, because that’s how the peninsula NIMBYs roll, 100 proof hypocritical entitlement.
Nadia Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 7:59 am
I watched just a piece of the meeting – but they actually cited the concerns that too many stops between SF and SJ would induce more car demand. In order to encourage more folks to take Caltrain to HSR, they thought it was better to not have any stop on the Mid Peninsula. Too many nearby station options with parking was actually worse. Without a Mid-Pen, stop, people would likely make more use of the “feeder” networks to get to HSR.
Of course, there is also the frustration that the only option they were given was this huge cookie cutter station without any room for creative discussions around what actually might work.
I agree that if we don’t get them to wake up to platform height issues and PTC – we’ve got a continuing problem.
In addition they discussed the fact that the elevation of the station plan is actually 9 feet higher than it is today – the quip was “at-grade is the new berm”
Doty has been pretty vocal about not wanting a mid-peninsula station – I wonder how that will play into all of this.
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Less HSR stations is likely to lead to more driving and parking, not less. Yes, people will use Caltrain more to get to HSR stations, but what is the value in forcing people to use two trains system rather than one? That transfer will likely get more people in their cars, either going to Millbrae or San Jose. Further, if people need to park to get to a mid-peninsula station, many of them are also likely going to need to park to ride the feeder Caltrain.
As for Palo Alto’s situation, the way I see is, they will still need to beef up parking as many HSR riders will want to park and ride to Caltrain so they can catch an express train to the San Jose HSR station. However, the increase in parking will not be as great if they were to have an HSR station. Nonetheless, advocating for a feeder system will definitely placing significant parking demands on cities with Baby Bullet stops, and to a lesser extend those that only get served by local and limited stop trains. I suppose in PA council’s mind, it is better to have less parking demand increase than would have been necessary with an HSR station, but of course all the urban design benefits, the access to Stanford, and all the economic benefits that come with having a station will be lost. I believe palo alto, if being constructive could have reduced the HSR parking significantly, as SF doing (from 10K spaces to zero). But being so negative, they now will get parking demand increases nontheless, and have no benefit in return. The negative players always ultimately lose out. RWC still has a chance to play ball and if they do, they will be all the better off for it. But given that the Authority is leaning towards no mid-peninsula station, then more park and ride will be needed, but where to put all the cars? I guess SJ and Millbrae will be getting yet more large parking structures and HWY 101 will be gettting more traffic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
some of them, a small but measurable percentage will walk to a Caltrain station. They paid a lot of money to be able to do that and will do it whenever they can. Since Caltrain stations are close to wide areas of the Peninsula many people will take a short taxi ride to the Caltrain station. Or find a ride. It’s much easier to find a friend, relative, neighbor who will drive you to the Caltrain station which is only a few miles away than it is to bum a ride to the HSR station 20 miles away.
Nadia Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
@Daniel
I agree with Adirondacker here – Why would I drive to San Jose when Caltrain is just blocks from my house and I could transfer onto HSR? Or, why would I pay to park my car at SJ if I could get on near my house. I would just take a cab and get on Caltrain. (By the way, I’m imagining my family of 4 – including 2 small kids and luggage heading to Disney – otherwise, I would just walk!). I wasn’t at the station meeting – so I can’t comment on the amount of push back on the parking issue. From what I understand the discussion was very much – here is the offer – take it or leave it. There was no room for taking a strong stance against parking. During the piece of the City Council meeting I watched last night, they have zero confidence in any of the numbers or engineering and at this point see engaging in a station discussion as a waste of dollars they don’t have for what seems like a pretty half-hearted discussion by the HSR folks anyway. The comment was made by a consultant that they aren’t even sure the Authority wants a mid-pen station – so why go through the darn exercise? And if they’re not sure – then why not be flexible about bringing back ideas?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
The issue I have is that Palo Alto doesn’t appear to have made any real effort to try and improve the station proposal.
In my new post, I make it clear that I think the city made a big mistake for itself. As you note, there will be other ways to access the HSR station, no doubt about it. But now the benefits will accrue to Redwood City (assuming a mid-Peninsula station happens) and Palo Alto will be left increasingly dependent on the automobile. Not a good step for the city’s future prosperity.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Meh, they’ll have BRT to Eastridge and claim it’s the cat’s meow. If VTA can get the funding.
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Their is a significant penalty to transit usage if one has to transfer, especially more than once. While folks that can walk easily to a Caltrain station will likely use Caltrain, people that have to get a cab or drive to the station will be deterred from using Caltrain, thought a certain number still will and that is why more parking will be need at Caltrain station (thought not nearly as much). However, a lot of people, once in their cars, will likely drive to an HSR station to cut out the hassle of carrying bags etc on Caltrain and then to HSR. They will likely to prefer to just stay in the car for an extra 20 minutes and park at the station. Two modes (car-HSR or Very short walk-Caltrain-HSR) is usually the maximum for high usage. A third mode (long walk/drive-Caltrain-HSR) will likely capture significantly less of the market share. All this said, I still think Caltrain will serve a good feeder, but a mid-peninsula station would have reduced driving a lot and now that reduction in pollution, traffic, etc. will likely not happen as much now. This is why we need TOD around rail stations everywhere, so people can walk easily.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Long long walk from the parking silos at the HSR station is far less convenient than being dropped off almost at the platform at the local Caltrain station and then walking 30 feet across the platform to the HSR train. Lots cheaper too because parking at the HSR station is going to have rates simialr to rates at the airport.
Clem Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Across the platform? Try up and down several banks of escalators, through barriers and waiting rooms, etc. The cross-platform transfer is a quaint 20th century concept which belongs to antiquated Euro trains and the decrepit NEC. We’re reaching for the stars here!
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
good grief can’t people just get their fat asses out of their cars for any damn thing for 5 freakin minutes. They gotta drive EVERYWHERE FOR EVERYTHING all the damn time? Honestly, its just pathetic…. and its not like americans can’t use the walk , hello…
Dear America, set the brake and drop the chalupa sweetie.
got its annoying, gotta drag 4000 pounds of freakin steel and plastic around with you everytime you leave the house for anything. Thats not transportation, that’s the security blanket your mom took away from you to soon. Thats what I think.
Dan S. Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 12:14 am
+1 good rant! (Now where did I park my Hummer?)
StevieB Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The Mercury News reports Palo Alto argued against a station in “that it could adversely impact regional airports such as San Jose International”. It is argued that high speed rail could help the airport relieve conjestion and increase airline profits by allowing longer flights to take the place of short range California flights. What is their adverse impact arguement?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
So when does this negative value old time BART Bechtel loser with all the insane schemes to make his old buddies rich (sole source globally unique rail cars! sole source globally unique PTC! etc) get pushed under a bus anyway?
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
It’s looking more and more like it’s going to be Redwood City.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
My best guess is no station. Again, there was no money for one in the SF-SJ application http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7898
The station meetings were worse than a joke. If they were serious about a station, this is not the approach they would have taken.
I am trying to understand why they can’t just say this – they wasted a ton of state and federal dollars and created a lot of hostility.
StevieB Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
The ARRA grant application did not include removal of 5 at-grade crossings in the mid-peninsula or connection to the statewide high speed train system. Both are necessary to the system and demonstrate the application provides a means of using the available ARRA funds only. The grant application does not preclude building a station in the mid-peninsula using other funds.
Walter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
They are still under the delusion that California HSR might not happen or that it might not happen in Palo Alto. Or something else us mere mortals can only guess at. Who knows.
The point is that once the segment through the valley is up and running, PA will realize that it’s gonna have trains going through their city that can stop there or stop somewhere else. By that time, the current bums on the council will be gone, and a new council can look at the facts and say they were for a PA station the whole time. Their choice is going to be easy and so is the rest of the state’s–that’s where the station belongs.
dfb Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:49 am
I think this goes back to past discussions about requiring a single platform height for all passenger trains in California. Then no confidence and no-votes relating to a station will not matter much in cities that already have passenger rail stations — the trains will still be able to stop some date in the future.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:22 am
Good I don’t want them to have one anyway. I’ll never shop or dine in PA again and will instead make a point of going to RWC instead.
I believe the CHSRA’s Selection Criteria document has the Merced to Fresno segment costing $1,077,955,000 and the Merced to Bakersfield segment costing $1,429,000,000 respectively for a grand total of $2,506,955,000. Wouldn’t the total amount of the ARRA funds, this new 700m for the Central Valley, and the State’s 30% match be enough to fund both Central Valley segments?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Those are just the amounts of the second phase of each segment. There is a first phase which must be done which costs about $3.3 billion in each case.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:31 am
I’m still lost as to where the money comes from…. is everything ARRA funds, or is some of it ARRA funds and some of it regular rail funding, and or some special non arra, hsr funding?
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:44 am
The first $1b+ tranche was ARRA, this latest $700m tranche was from the $2.5b annual HSR appropriation that was passed last year. ARRA does not have a mandatory state/local match, but the annual appropriation has a minimum 20% state/local match.
dave Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:23 am
The $2.25B from earlier this year is ARRA from the $8B available nationwide. the $715M is from the total $2.5B from the transportation budget for Year 2010. This is the funding that was being fought to be the $4B that was pushed back down by Congress or Senate (Can’t remember) to $2.5. We will have a round like this every year for the next 4-5 years. I don’t know if every year the amount is changed or not but we will have a similar ammount available in those upcoming years.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
ok well, keep the billions pouring into cali one way or another!!! AFter being screwed by bush and texas ( don’t think Ive forgotten what enron did to us, and bush’s response when davis asked for help — remember enron screwed us and laughed about it, then bush told davis and ca to gfy – I must say, while this money is pouring into cali, I havent heard a peep about texas getting a plug nickel for anything… and that makes me do a very happy dance. Every federal dollar that comes to cali warms the cockles of my heart cuz its a dollar the people of texas didn’t get.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
first kennendy, then bush and enron…. no one the star is all alone.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:40 am
AS for stations. Usually the way it is now, is cities, not the railroads, build stations if they want a station. So will fresno pay for its station and apply in part for hsr funding to complete it?
Speaking of cities building stations, I just found out that in martinez they plan to put a ferry terminal next to the train station to make it intermodal and in the same place I read about WBART, which I have never heard of. Its like eBART but with heavier DMUs and they want to use it to extend bart service from richmond via hercules ( connecting to another new ferry terminal-intermodal) through martinez and over the benecia rail bridge to vacaville and fairfield.
Joey Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 6:38 am
BART isn’t actively pushing WBART right now. In fact, it looks like it’s barely progressed past the idea stage, and there are few remaining references to it on their website. Don’t expect it anytime soon.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Exactly. One project at a time.
I am waiting to see what the 16 million earmarked for the high-speed rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose is for.
StevieB Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
4th and King Street Station will receive the $16 million award in the latest funding for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor.
jimsf Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
4th and king is closing. No more customer service there. just platforms and tvms. I wonder what improvments they need?
booyah. i hope they build the whole bako-merced segment. let the bay area reflect a bit on why they’re letting these penny ante NIMBYs delay a much-needed rail upgrade.
Another article on Palo Alto rejecting the train station:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16435465
With the most likely change in power at the Federal Level, this may well be the last of funding for the project from the Feds for quite some time. In pont of fact, it might be that actually awarding of the funds might well be stopped — who knows — new congress — new objectives.
Certainly all Federal funds allocated thus far along with matching Prop 1A funds must go into one segment, in order to make it usable and be able to fund it completely, conditions of Prop 1A.
What is really ironic, is that this was basically the plan rejected by the board, but proposed by Morshed. Morshed got let go and so did Tony Daniels. All is not peaceful and quiet at the Authority. Pringle must be figuring out some strategy to somehow still get LA to Anaheim done first; he has the support of Schwarzenegger in that effort.
CalTrain is now left hanging in the wind. The cheapest segment, the one that needs the least amount of Prop 1A funds, to build is supposed to, under Prop 1A be built first.
I don’t know which is cheaper. I doubt that either can be built with the money thus far in hand, but I may be wrong on that.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 6:14 am
This si good news. I am more in favor of RWC anyway. And I have heard little in the way of opposition from RWC compared to the other pen cities ( the ones with the largest senior populations seem to protest the most) RWC has a younger and more working class demographic. They are more sensible, and will most likely approach the prospect of a station and station development from a more practical, less emotional, less hysteric, standpoint. I’b betting RWC will take a “how can we make this work to our advantage” approach.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Since an HSR station means a permanent anchor for all other rail services, express as well as local, and an anchor in any express bus services … if RWC lands the Peninsula station it will be a gift that keeps on giving.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I agree that RWC is a better location for it, but I think that Palo Alto is dumb for not trying to get the station.
Victor Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
If they don’t want one, So what, I’m sure another nearby City will accept It, It’s PA’s loss and some other cities gain.
jimsf Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
maybe we should just never say “palo alto” again. pretend they don’t exist. they hate that.
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
The likelihood of any mid-peninsula station is very low unless a RWC begins actively lobbying for it (which would be smart of their leaders to do) and is willing to accept an elevated station. If they are smart, they would get creative and drive a station design that would that enhance their downtown’s urban design. A dramatic elevated station design could add a true landmark in downtown, giving RWC massive visability. However, I am not hopeful anyone is really able to lead in such a bold fashion on the Peninsula. It would take real courage for local politicians try to convince the hoards of naysayers that can’t conceptualize how a dramatic landmark station could make downtown RWC a great place to be.
The point is, no way is the Authority going to pay for a below grade station – way expensive.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
… unless the sub-cretins at Caltrain pull their heads out of their asses (anatomically impossible for them — termination of all of them is the only way out for us) on their “technical” standards for platform heights, platform geometry, station accessibility, track and platform sharing, and station footprint.
What peninsula cities need to lobby for is not to be reamed over by a triple the necessary footprint, utterly useless, passenger hostile “station” monstrosity (think BART Millbrae, doubled) that is shat upon their downtowns, but to lobby for mass terminations of grossly unprofessional staffers of public agencies who actively and systematically and deliberately seek the very worst possible public outcomes.
Clem Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Placing the station in RWC also provides the option of sub-dividing SF-SJ into two segments: SF-RWC and RWC-SJ. That could help factor SF-RWC out of the litigation over Pacheco / Altamont, which I believe will continue for some years. Everything north of RWC is useful no matter what alignment is finally chosen, and can provide immediate value to peninsula commuters.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 9:04 am
I like this line of thinking, Clem, although Diridoni and his San Jose pals aren’t going to like it one bit. Kopp is also determined to fight against Millbrae-to-SFTransbay, because it will make his BART-SFO project even more of an epic failure.
Donk Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:51 am
However the BART-SFO segment will see significantly increased ridership when HSR connects to Millbrae.
tony d. Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Pacheco/Altamont litigation that will last for years? In your dreams Clem. Like WWII, that war is way over.
See $16 million awarded to SF-SJ (as in SAN JOSE!) high-speed rail; not SF-RWC or SJ-RWC.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I don’t disagree that the litigation is doomed, but the Feds don’t have a say in which alignments California certifies in its state environmental review.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
They most certainly do. They can either say “violates these environmental laws, go back to the drawing board” or “it’s not cost effective, build it if you want to but we aren’t giving you any money for it”
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Hence why I said “state environmental review”.
Maybe I should have specified under CEQA, for those out-of-staters.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
California could specify organic concrete or anything else they want. If they want Federal money they are going to have to convince the Feds that organic concrete is the way to go. Of fund it themselves.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Which is what the EIS under NEPA, certified by the FRA, if I understand it correctly, is for. I was talking about CEQA. What part of “state environmental review” don’t you get?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
and if California doesn’t want to pay attention to what the Feds will fund they are more than welcome to ignore that interesting little tidbit while they spec out organic concrete with sparkle bits made out of unicorn hoof shavings….
Off topic, but thought some of these might be of interest:
The first one has no location identifiers; can anyone tell me where this is? Also of interest, the coversations between head-end crew members, including calling signals.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/162/Q_11IBhWKbI
“Mateo-Hillside”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#g/u
“Mountain View-Lawrence”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/135/TGfxb_-EW5A
“Lawrence-Santa Clara”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/126/m_RRIlaoMA0
“Santa Clara-San Jose”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/125/lwerepA4MKk
Caboose ride on a work train; no locations specified, again, can someone point out anything?
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/171/i85JToW8izc
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fjcaron#p/u/170/Ew5RSrT3Acs
“Tamien to Diridon”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=tsgmultimedia#p/u/54/eMS-3lK1Mpg
“Bayshore to San Francisco”
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=tsgmultimedia#p/u/53/4-tqKx9XKz8
Comments: Based on this very limited view of the Caltrain right-of-way (and this is but the tiniest portion of it, and it doesn’t include the key opposition towns of the Peninsula), most of the right-of-way looks like it should be able to accomodate at least three tracks and possibly four. Most of it also looks to be industrial, with a very prominent scrapyard outside San Francisco, and a lot of freeways built over the railroad, which would complicate expanding track there. There will be some expensive portions (areas with stations that may need to be demolished and rebuilt, places with bridges over roads that are only wide enough for two tracks); the worst portion, based on this limited view, is approaching San Francisco itself, with those overhead freeways and the need for additional tunnels–”Ouch,” says the wallet.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Looking at some of these clips, I have the impression that the Pensinsula division has CTC; the clue is that the line has bidirectional signals for both main tracks. This is a considerable capacity enhancement if this is what I am seeing; can anybody confirm this?
And, given that it has been anounced that money is available for a PTC system, and that it is to be compatible with UP and BNSF, where does that leave Caltrain and its CBOSS system?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 12:16 am
The FRA has mandated PTC on every line with passenger trains, not just CTC. On top of the general mandate, Caltrain’s waiver specifically requires it to have PTC before it can switch to lightweight trains.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 4:46 am
That’s going to be interesting on the steam and trolley heritage lines, most of which don’t have block signals at all (an exception: the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum in Washington, Pa., and the Strasburg Rail Road, also in Pennsylvania); indeed, some don’t even have grade crossing flashers, just crossbucks (or ancient cast-iron oval signs warning you to “Look Out For The Locomotive”) where they cross some farmer’s lane, and at least one uses manual flagging on a principle highway next to a station. Another, a narrow-gauge outfit in Maine, doesn’t even use radios or air brakes! Then there was, and perhaps still is, the amusement park railroad in Ohio that still uses link-and-pin couplers (a former employee said he loved working there, but felt he put his hands at risk every time they had to change a consist or make up a train). I’m going to guess such lines are exempted.
At the same time, this should be the end of that controversial CBOSS system. Really don’t need it now. . .
One interesting award in the set that could have long term effects that I have not seen any comments on:
Project: This award is multi-state (AZ, CA and NV) funding for the western high-speed rail (HSR) alliance service area plan.
Grant Amount: $500,000
This could provide the impetus and seed funding for the state DOT and rail planners & engineers in Arizona and Nevada to begin to work together with the California HSR staff to lay out real plans for expanding the CA HSR system to Las Vegas and LA to Phoenix. What happens with the Desert Express plan remains to be seen. But once much of the planned CA system is under construction or built, adding connecting corridors to Las Vegas and LA to Riverside to Phoenix are obvious expansions to the current plan. Not going to happen overnight, but funding to get the Arizona and Phoenix planners looking at their role in a combined SW HSR system is a start.
Does anyone know what will happen to the “non winning” segments when the selection process is closed.
Does all planning stop for the other segments until the winning segment is completed?
How much funding will be allocated to continued planning for the other segments(environmental survey/ route alternatives etc )
YesonHSR Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
No as Robert new post states..this is just one step in getting the entire system open in the fall of 2020..
J. Wong Reply:
October 28th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Funding has already been allocated for planning on each segment from the ARRA (Federal stimulus) with 50% match from Prop. 1A. This was a grant separate from the construction requests and grant.