CHSRA CEO Lays Out Segment Selection Criteria
The California High Speed Rail Authority has taken a lot of criticism over the last two years for its process and practices, with critics and supporters agreeing that some sort of reform is needed. Today CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark, still new to the office and the Authority, has taken a big step in the right direction by laying out a rigorous selection criteria for the HSR project. As van Ark explained in the press release:
“It is absolutely critical that we invest these funds where they will do the most good – and position California to ultimately create a true high-speed rail system that connects major cities to one another,” said Authority CEO Roelof van Ark. “We want our board of directors to have all the facts when they make this decision, so we are spelling out both the legal requirements and a clear assessment of the benefits and risks in each eligible section.”
The staff memo includes a very clear and strong process by which the board members will adopt the criteria, designed to reduce backroom dealing and ensure the Brown Act is followed:
Based on the advice of legal counsel, it is essential that the members of the board comply with the following protocol:
1. Each individual board member shall provide his or her written comments, if any, concerning the proposed selection criteria to the Chief Executive Officer by October 27th, 2010.
2. Board members shall not share their comments with anyone else.
3. On a date to be determined by the CEO, but before the next Board Meeting, all comments received from board members shall be published on the Authority’s web site.
4. Following publication of the comments, it is essential that board members refrain from any communications with one another concerning the comments or the proposed selection criteria. The proper time for any discussion, deliberation, or action is at the noticed public meeting that will be held at a date and time yet to be determined.
The emphasis – bolded and italicized – is in the original staff memo van Ark wrote, showing how serious he is about respecting a fair and open process. I hope it will be followed when the board discusses the actual route selection as well.
The selection criteria themselves are laid out as a scoring sheet, with some criteria being “pass/fail” and others being scored on a 0-10 scale. This is standard practice in determining how to fund California transportation projects; I have used something similar myself when serving on an ad hoc committee in Monterey County last year to disburse ARRA transportation funds. This ensures that the projects (or in this case, the segment) that is selected is done so in a fair and accountable process that prioritizes facts and minimizes, if not eliminates, political considerations.
The criteria are as follows:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/FRA Requirements (Pass / Fail Criteria)
a) Construction must be completed by fall of 2017
b) The project must have “operational independence”
In short, each of the four segments will be scored on a pass/fail scale on a and b. Simple and straightforward.
Then come four other criteria, designed to follow the Prop 1A (AB 3034) rules, minimize risk, and cost savings:
I. Logical expansion and evolution of the alignment to an operational HSR system.
‐ Ensure the first investment forms the core of a state‐wide 220 mph system that can be logically expanded and extended as additional funding becomes available
‐ Ensure the earliest startup of a high‐speed rail service with the least funds required
‐ Consider connectivity of sections, availability of control centers and maintenance facilities, and phasing of future expansion
All of this is very sensible, matching earliest startup with most affordable segment.
II. Minimized construction risk.
‐ Right of Way [ROW] availability and ability to reach
agreement with stakeholders to acquire easements or operating rights
‐ Least construction complexity equating to lower cost volatility
‐ Least impacts to existing railroad facilities and operations
Also very sensible. The legislature and HSR critics constantly crow about risk – well, here’s a criteria that directly addresses it.
III. Minimized schedule risk, to meet the ARRA criteria of completion by the fall of 2017.
‐ Probability of achieving ROD/NOD by fall of 2011
‐ Ease of construction, reduces probability of delay
‐ Possible risk of delay due to litigation.
‐ Future construction and equipment procurement sequencing
This is certainly relevant given the situation on the Peninsula, where folks feel like they’re being rushed – but I cannot imagine how the SF-SJ segment will score well here.
IV. Builds the most useful HST infrastructure for the least cost.
‐ Builds HST infrastructure that will not result in unreimbursed costs to the Authority
‐ Builds HST infrastructure that promotes current and future connections to other modes of transport
‐ Builds HST infrastructure that can be expanded to complete the entire CAHSR system in an efficient manner
‐ Builds the most useful segment of HST infrastructure that does not require additional federal or state funding
Alan Lowenthal and Joe Simitian in particular should be pleased by all of this. It gets at exactly the kind of risk and cost concerns they have been mentioning all year. These criteria strike me as pretty straightforward and sensible, and though I’m sure HSR critics and HSR deniers will find things to dislike about it, this is a very positive step that shows the HSR project will move forward in a clearly defined and meritorious process.
In the comments to yesterday’s post, some have speculated that this criteria is almost certain to wind up favoring one of the two Central Valley segments (Merced-Fresno or Fresno-Bakersfield) as opposed to the Bay Area or SoCal segments. That may well be the outcome, but it doesn’t seem as if the criteria were created with that goal in mind, especially when you look at the details of the segments below.
The board members’ comments the segment criteria are due by October 27 (next Wednesday). So we’ll see how the board reacts.
Appendix C goes on to describe in more detail each of the four corridors, notes that California has $3.312 billion with which to build the segment (when ARRA and Prop 1A funds are combined), and then explains what in each of the four corridors could actually be built with the funds:
• Fresno-Bakersfield: The tracks would depart from the BNSF mainline at Borden, go through Fresno and include the HSR station, and head south to Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF mainline. The Authority proposes not going all the way to Bakersfield with the ARRA funds in order to build the Fresno HSR station, but believes that the FY 2010 Service Development Programs (SDP) grant application can get the tracks to just outside Bakersfield. The Amtrak San Joaquins would use this, providing independent utility.
• LA-Anaheim: The funds would build new tracks from just east of the LA River to Carmenita Road in southeastern LA County, on the edge of La Mirada. The tracks would be used by the Pacific Surfliner and most Metrolink services (except service to Riverside/San Bernardino). Hobart Yard would be bypassed. No new HSR station would be built at Norwalk, since they haven’t yet decided whether Norwalk or Fullerton will be picked. The FY 10 SDP grant would fund construction of the remaining segment to Fullerton Junction, and “update” at-grade crossings in Anaheim.
• Merced-Fresno: As with Fresno-Bakersfield, the HSR station at Merced would be built with ARRA funds and the FY 10 SDP grant would fund the rest of the trackwork to Fresno. They’re now proposing a bypass of Chowchilla to the west, then heading out to use the BNSF line to get to Fresno.
• SF-SJ: As with LA-Anaheim, the $3.312 billion available wouldn’t be enough to build the whole segment. They propose using the funds to do work to upgrade the line south from 4th and King in San Francisco and to build tracks along the Peninsula. Importantly, though the document proposes those tracks be aerial from Brisbane to Redwood Junction, using existing tracks from Redwood Junction to Mountain View, and an aerial from Mountain View to Santa Clara, the document notes that trenching is still an option (so don’t get your panties in a wad, Peninsula NIMBYs) but would mean that “less infrastructure could be implemented.”
Judging by this, it could well be any of the four corridors that get selected for ARRA funds. I don’t necessarily think the Central Valley is in the lead, or any other segment for that matter. We have a clear process that will be followed, and that is a very good step forward for the HSR project.
Ok, I’m thinking Fresno-Bakersfield and LA-Anaheim will be the top 2. The former has the most trackage and I’m feeling that the latter has the most independent utility (the most trains get separated from BNSF).
Spokker Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
That’s if shared track between LA and Anaheim is even feasible.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The options seem like gibberish to me. I mean independent utility to me means a viable HSR service. Amtrak or Pacific Surfliner is not HSR.
StevieB Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Independent utility means what is built is useful if no other construction ever takes place. Other trains being able to use a section satisfies the utility requirement.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Question
If they use steep grades for the aerial structures in Fresno, can Amtrak still use them?
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Probably, though I don’t know for sure. I think the more pressing question is how they would accommodate low-platform trains at the new aerial station.
thatbruce Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
IFF low-platform trains are to be using the new aerial station for handling platforms, you can either assume that either low-platform trains will be using the station until high-platform trains are introduced, or that both low and high-platform trains will be using the station together for an extended period.
For the first assumption, raise the tracks to match the platform height. Ballast is good for this, especially if while the low-platform trains are operating, there are no overhead wires, and it can be easily removed when no longer required. If its a 4-platform station, you only need to do this with one pair of tracks, and it lets you meet the second assumption as well.
For the second assumption, and you only have 2 platform tracks to play with, simply have one end of the platform be for low-platform trains, and the other end for high platform trains. Design the low platform such that it can be raised (by way of another layer, not any sort of mechanism) when there is no longer a need for low-platform trains to use it.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:05 am
While they are required to show that the current San Joaquins can use the high platforms at the new aerial station, it is highly unlikely that the San Joaquins will ever use the new stations. Construction on the other segments will begin pretty much as soon as their EIRs are completed (with the exception of SF-SJ, which will most likely be held up in litigation for a long time). Funding won’t be a problem, with the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans already having made offers, and the Europeans not yet having made their play.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I would expect that Amtrak would dig out some of its single-level cars, which have level boarding at high-level platforms and steps at low-level platforms.
mgimbel Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Amtrak should be fine on the steep grades, especially since one engine generally pulls/pushes at most five cars. Freights are the ones that would have problems.
James Fujita Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Hell no to freights to HSR tracks. UP isn’t budging on their anti-HSR stance, why should HSR accommodate them?
Joey Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
No reason. I think mgimbel was just making the distinction between heavy passenger trains and heavy freight trains.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:41 am
That’s not necessarily a problem for freights, either. Remember, such a grade is quite short compared with a mountain crossing. Very often a freight train is so long that only part of it is on a grade like this at any one time. All you need is enough power to pull the portion that’s on the grade. The freight roads regularly use grades as steep as 4% in such a situation. Main concern is vertical curvature, which can, if too sharp, cause coupler seperation with very long cars, and might be uncomfortable at high speed on a passenger train. The freight roads would also be concerned if there were a bunch of these in a relatively short distance, in which parts of a long train are going uphill and downhill in several places at the same time; makes for wonderful antics in slack action.
Victor Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Freight trains go up and go down Cajon Pass with helper engines, How many and of what type is determined mainly by the size of the train, So in the case of a Container Train the front end will typically have 4 or 5 engines, On the rear of the train they might have 4 or 5 depending on how much braking power and tractive effort is needed.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 9:56 am
A 2.5% grade to a 30 foot height is less than a quarter mile. The lower of the two Cajon pass grades are 2.2%, and the Youtube machine suggests that Amtrak can at least handle that. However, that is not the only issue … if the Amtrak trains have from 20 tonne to 25 tonne maximum axle loadings (22 tons ~ 27 tons), that’s substantially more than the 17 tonne that is more normal for HSR.
1) For state agencies, the relevant open government law is Bagley-Keene, not Brown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagley-Keene_Act
2) This is worth looking at: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9309
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
According to that Appendix D link, Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield won’t get electrification, yet their top speed is 220 mph. ??
Joey Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
They will be designed to support 220 mph, but nothing will run at 220 mph until there is electrification as well as trains that can actually travel at 220 mph.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
In other words, the top speed of the tracks is 220 but this ARRA money won’t actually give the CV high-speed service. Feels like false advertising.
Joey Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Yeah, but what can you do? It’s really not worth buying any 220mph trainsets until you have a long, relatively high-demand segment (likely including one of the mountain crossings) to run them on.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Okay. Do people understand that when they look at the spreadsheet? I mean, what is it exactly that we’re getting in the CV? Upgraded Amtrak? They don’t even use that route. With the ARRA package, the CV segments give us the backbone tracks but not the backbone system or service.
Reading Appendix A, there are a half dozen comments in bold with a reference to “ensuring the construction of an operable high-speed rail system at the lowest possible cost.” (emphasis is theirs.)
What about testing?
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The emphasis is on operable high-speed rail system.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
the cv will get hsr at the completion date of the sf-ana segment as planned per prop 1a which the voters approved. what happens in the interim is that you go ahead and use the sections that are completed prior to the grand opening, to improve any existing services along the way.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I don’t think so. the objective is the start HSR service ASAP.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/selection_criteria.aspx
Appendix A, page 5, Criterion I:
“Ensure the earliest startup of a high-speed rail service with the least funds required.”
tomh Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I don’t understand what jimsf said that’s inconsistent with what you just said. What jimsf described is the process to that end. Remember, we’re talking about limited initial funds.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Jim said the CV will get HSR at the completion date, with other use in the interim. I’m pointing out that the project criteria suggest that starting up segments of HSR service as soon as possible is a desirable objective.
I’m not arguing for or against CV, just pointing out that there are probably a lot of people under the false impression that if the CV gets selected they’ll have HSR service at the end of this round of funding. Apparently, thanks to Joey’s clarification, that’s not true. Buyer beware.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Well, y’know, they have to build the maintenance facility, buy the trains, etc…. and it really is not worth buying or running the trains until at least one of the mountain crossings is done. Here’s hoping Bakersfield-LA gets accelerated.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
These “criteria” are likely best described as factors to be weighed, based upon which they work out the best compromise possible. One factor may not necessarily take precedence over others. You can’t just pick a particular factor and base your entire argument on it.
Fresno-Bakersfield is definitely in the best position to be the first segment constructed. Followed by Fresno-Merced. With Fresno-Bakersfield we’ll have a test track, access to the HMF (probably), and it’ll move people from SoCal to NorCal faster (with transfers to other transportation in the two cities) by 2017. It’s the cheapest, fastest, and simplest part of the entire system. This will be one of the easiest decisions the board will have to make.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Don’t be so sure.
The Merced-Fresno alignment is the best candidate in my opinion.
The reason is that the San Joaquins service could start using the Acela Bombardier trains on the route as a way to shorten times between Fresno and the Bay Area. Right now, Oakland to Fresno is a little over 3 hours by car. If Amtrak with a Merced-Fresno track can get to within 3 and a half hours, that is critical mass.
The other benefit is that it keeps Merced and Fresno both competing for the heavy maintenance facility.
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
The Acelas can’t be used on any infrastructure that isn’t electrified, which none of the rest of the route is. In fact, electrification isn’t even planned on that segment for the moment. Oh, and there are no Acelas available until Amtrak replaces them, and they haven’t done anything beyond announcing their eventual plans to do so at this point.
Oh, also: the competitions over maintenance facility locations have more to do with counties than cities. In fact, many of the proposed sites are far from the cities. So Merced-Fresno would eliminate sites in Kern County, and Fresno-Bakersfield would eliminate Merced County. Actually, maybe not, because it’s pointless to build a facility until you have high-speed trainsets to maintain, which isn’t going to happen until much more of the system is built.
mgimbel Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Too bad Bombardier’s Jet Train never caught on. It was powered by a gas-turbine engine (no electrification required) and capable of speeds upwards of 150 mph.
tomh Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
But CA HSR is supposed to be 220 MPH.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
But if the already-built tracks can be used by someone else until HSR is running, why not let them?
tomh Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Sure. That would be great, especially if that someone else paid for access to those tracks and for the 150 MPH trains. But I wouldn’t support it if *we* bought 150 MPH trains only to replace them later with 220 MPH trains.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I wouldn’t support buying any sort of insane Bombardier special-US-conditions trade-protection garbage design.
But ~150mph trains are used on high speed lines all the time, all around the world, even when faster trains exist and even when faster trains share some of the same tracks.
Good engineering is about making good trade-offs, such as those between “maximum performance” and “adequate and affordable performance”.
Not that CHSRA, driven by cost maximization and thriving on sloganeering, is about good engineering.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Use them on the parts outside of the core system once the core is finished.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
It was an inefficient energy-hog with very poor ride.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:56 am
The gear for the kind of service proposed by Risenmessiah is more like the Talgos operated on the Cascade Corridor, which use the same locomotive as the F59HI used by most of the California-Amtrak state-owned trains.
Top speed is determined by gear ratio ~ the Wikipedia machine gives the standard EMD F59H gearing as 56:21 with a top speed of 110mph. That is, I am sure no coincidentally, the next step up from 79mph, but a Cascades style set with incremental improvements elsewhere on the corridor could allow for stretches of 110mph running beyond the HSR corridor.
And I’m not an engineer, but it seems that if you swap the push-me / pull-me configuration with a two headed configuration you’d be able to raise the gearing on that for higher speed, and combined 110mph running on stretches of the existing route with 125mph or higher running on the HSR corridor.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
^wow now that would be pretty fancy stuff.
Clem Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
With more than 30,000 kg axle load, that’s probably not a good idea.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Hence why they should purchase a few Talgo XXI locos.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Now there you go … and one suspects they’d be compatible with the Talgo cars.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Ouch. They didn’t give the axle loading in the Wikipedia machine. Peter might be right that the 22.5 tonne (25 ton) axle load Talgo XXI would be more appropriate, and in any event it has gone 160mph in testing, so 125mph in operation seems like it’d be comfortable.
Isaac Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Hello.
First post here, even I’ve been reading the blog for months.
I have to say that I’m not a rail specialist, nor a worker of Talgo, but as Spaniard that likes HSR I have some “privileged” news about that company. There are mixed news:
The bad news: The Talgo XXI was never put in commercial mode is only used as a test train in Spain for the new HSR tracks before the catenary is set, and I red somewhere that Talgo had some operating problems that lead to the dissapointment. Although, the Talgo website still includes it among their products (by the way, max. speed is 137 mph if my conversion is correct).
The good news: Talgo is developing an hybrid version of the Talgo 250 that is capable of running on diesel mode and is going to be commercial in 2012 (pdf spec. data here). The drawback, it only tops 180 km/h (about 110 mph) on diesel mode.
Best regards.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Technological considerations aside about engine types aside, my point was merely to illustrate that there is existing passenger rail service from Northern California to Fresno and that the Merced-Fresno alignment would allow rail to become competitive with auto travel both to Sacramento and to Oakland. My point is that pulling Fresno closer in time to Bakersfield or vice versa is important when HSR is complete. But pulling the Bay Area and it’s 10 million souls closer to Fresno’s million…or vice versa could be the decisive action that changes travel patterns statewide.
Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield is by far the most logical choice. Why ?
Less buildings / homes / business / NYMBYs to move out the way. I am sure the cheapest. The flattest, straightest geography that will allow the trains to go top speed. This is what we are trying to sell all Californians and the rest of the country. When they see these trains reach 220 mph and above and how fast we can get to from Fresno to Bakersfield then demand for completion of the entire system will definitely increase.
Joey Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:57 am
There will be no 220 mph trains for the time being. Unless some manufacturer wants to lend one for a demonstration/test run.
tomh Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I’m sure manufacturers will do that when competing for the contract.
They’ve modified the Fresno-Bakersfield segment to start north of Fresno and end north of Bakersfield. This means it would include the massive 12 mile aerial structure through Fresno. My question is: WHY? Other than that contractor’s wet dream of an aerial structure, of course?
Paul H. Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I think its so they can build the new station in Fresno.
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
But without any high-speed trainsets and Amtrak being limited to low-level platforms, what purpose would it serve?
Jon Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
It’s the opposite of independent utility, and intentionally so. It would be a lot easier to justify pulling the plug on HSR after the first segment is built if that segment was just track that could be incorporated into the Amtrak system. It would be a lot harder to justify leaving a huge white elephant in the middle of Fresno or Merced, as would be the case if a HSR station was included in the first segment.
This I suspect is why they reconfigured the two central valley sections to include HSR stations. A more charitable interpretation would be that they want to build something impressive that people in Fresno or Merced could see for themselves without driving out into the valley to see railroad tracks.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Amtrak is not limited to low-level platforms, although it would have to switch trainsets.
The problem I have with the la-ana section is mostly political. Its going to look like, as always, that la gets everything and the rest of the state, waits and waits and waits and pays and pays for it. Just once people north of the tehachapis might like to get something first.
fno-bfd completes the longest fastest stretch and one could conceive that the it would be cheap and easy to accelerate the mcd-fno segment quickly as its failry short and simple That would complete the bulk of the trunk of the system. and with maybe some 110 service in the meantime, it would pressure la and sf to get their nimby problems solved and get moving.
StevieB Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Van Ark said recently his vision was for an initial connection from the central valley to either San Francisco or Los Angeles. It will be of interest to see how much influence he has with the authority board who makes the final decision.
Joey Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:59 am
This probably would have been best, though both mountain crossings are way behind the other sections in terms of planning. Maybe it’ll work out though…
mgimbel Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Los Angeles-Anaheim is also far too short to truely demonstrate the potential of high-speed rail (only 30 miles) versus Fresno-Bakersfield’s 113 miles. Also, if the Authority decides to go with shared-tracks for LA-ANA, maximum speed would be only 90 mph. The advantage, however, would be in removing a huge bottleneck for Metrolink and Pacific Surfliner trains between Hobart Yard and Fullerton.
Robert, could you score each segment according to the crtieria? It would be intersting to see how they turn out, especially compared with the board.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:51 am
I second this, since you have experience with distributing funds it would be a fun exercise. You still don’t have to endorse a segment, and can remain neutral.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I think what we’ll do is have a blogwide scoring exercise. I’ll post a Google form that dumps into a spreadsheet, and I’ll post the responses as a chart. I’ll also let people post their written remarks. This will be fun!
Ask Robert to score each segment ! REALLY!
Gilroy voted and passed a no confidence resolution So Robert can’t even keep his local communities on board with this boondoggle.
Burlingame took down its story poles a few days early due to protest from CalTrain. In any event they made the case for why an aerial should not be tolerated.
Menlo Park has similar plans for such a display.
The big money is going for LA to Anaheim to get the funding. Seems now almost 100% certain.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Actually, it makes a lot of sense for the public to do our own scoring. I like that thinking.
LA-Anaheim is no shoo-in. But SF-SJ is clearly in last place.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Which should give Morris maybe half a second of happiness before he fixates on his next end of the world fiasco he must stop.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Man, if I was Caltrain, I’d be lobbying HEAVILY for SF-SJ. It would pay for PTC AND electrification, if all the grants come through.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:10 am
It’s a mixed bag for them though – it would indeed buy PTC and electrification, but would also potentially be on an aerial, which many of the Peninsula cities are opposing (despite the fact that it would increase property values).
I would be stunned if SF-SJ gets this. I agree with the others who say it’s Fresno-Bakersfield or LA-Anaheim.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:20 am
I’m just thinking that without PTC and electrification, Caltrain is dead meat. They would be done for and gone by 2012.
I agree that Fresno-Bakersfield would be the best use of the funds.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I should be clear that I’m not saying my personal preference is Fresno-Bakersfield or LA-Anaheim, but that’s what I would expect to be the top contenders if this selection criteria are adopted.
As to Caltrain, I expect to see a move to approve a local funding source for it, maybe at a 2012 election, though that might not be soon enough.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Fresno-Bakersfield is also the furthest along in terms of reaching ROD/NOD.
Jon Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Much as I like and rely on Caltrain to get around the peninsula, it might not be a bad thing if Caltrain as a political entity ceased to exist and was replaced with one with more political clout. Here’s a possible sequence of events:
1) SF-SJ is not picked as the first segment. Peninsula NIMBYs continue to frustrate project. Caltrain faces bankruptcy.
2) Bay Area politicians realize that the death of Caltrain would be unpopular, put together proposal for BART to take over ROW and run EMUs on shared tracks with HSR- basically Caltrain 2.0 with a BART logo slapped on the side. This would allow for one Bay Area local rail system and simplify connections at San Jose and Milbrae.
3) Peninsula NIMBYs are now seen as the people trying to stop BART (which everyone likes) rather than HSR (which some people fear.) Support for delaying lawsuits disappears. San Mateo county joins BART district.
4) Shared HSR/BART system is built much the same as currently planned HSR/Caltrain 2.0 system would be.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
thats just the scenario that I suggested but got grief for. It makes sense to me. It settles some long term goals for everyone and puts some things to rest.
Jon Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Well I think a lot of people are opposed to the idea of broad gauge locals-only BART filling in the gap between Millbrae and San Jose, and rightly so. But so long as the technology used is the right one I would be perfectly happy if the trains said BART on the side rather than Caltrain. BART are already planning a standard gauge DMU line between Pittsburg and Antioch so the possibility of them running a standard gauge EMU line as well is not that far fetched. And the idea of having two independent railways (BART and Caltrain) connecting at several points along the line (San Jose, Santa Clara, Millbrae, Transbay via Embarcadero) seems kinda nuts.
I think my point is that getting rid of the Caltrain bureaucracy with their insistence on CBOSS and dual-level cars might help the peninsula line and HSR integrate a little better. It’s no guarantee, of course.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
yes wiht something like 43 bay area transit agencies, it might be ok to get rid of one.
GoGregorio Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
The reason is that neither you nor Jon have explained how BART taking over Caltrain would save Peninsula rail. All it does is sink BART.
In Jon’s case, I see that the solution is San Mateo County joining the BART district, which I think, while extremely unlikely on the one hand, is also far into the future on the other. I’m still not convinced that this would be a winning proposition for BART or Peninsula rail.
thatbruce Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
All it does is sink BART.
This is a bad thing? ;)
The main things gained by having BART operate along the current Caltrain ROW (with re-badged Caltrain equipment) are:
*) Guaranteed funding.
*) Integrated ticketing.
The first point is where Caltrain currently loses out, due to the respective places BART and Caltrain occupy in the California transit funding hierarchy. Caltrain is decidedly lower on the totem pole, hence its current shortfall in operating funds.
The second point is simply BART being a royal PITA about integration with other transit agencies.
GoGregorio Reply:
October 21st, 2010 at 9:09 am
This doen’t have any way of guaranteeing SUFFICIENT funding. BART draws its revenue from its fareboxes and from the BART tax from its three-county district (Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco). If it were to take over the Caltrain ROW, the San Francisco portion of Caltrain tracks would lose its funding (SFMTA contributes to Caltrain in addition to the BART tax, so BART could maintain this funding by convincing SFMTA to shift this Caltrain contribution into BART, but I that seems like a bad proposition for SFMTA, to me). Then, the bulk of the system, in San Mateo County, would drag all of BART down. San Mateo County cannot afford Caltrain because it’s struggling to pay for its relatively small BART extension. If you go and add another BART extension onto it, stretching the length of the county, San Mateo would be crippled by the cost. The only conveivable solution would be to have San Mateo County join the BART district so that BART can tax San Mateans directly, but I also don’t see any good chance of such a thing happening any time soon.
From what I know, Caltrain and BART have similar farebox recovery ratios, so BART absorbing Caltrain would keep its fares rolling in at the same rate. However, the several million dollar budget hole that Caltrain is currently facing would have no logical source of relief from BART. Funding doesn’t just appear when BART builds an extension. It has to come from some where, and so far, BART’s extensions into new counties have caused substantial issues.
StevieB Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The is the question as to SF-SJ qualifying under the “independent utility” clause of the ARRA funding.
Previous CAHRA documents have opined Caltrain as not qualifying as intercity service.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
And that’s exactly what Caltrain (= the staff, the consultants, and hence the board who do what staff tell them, as with all public boards) wants: maximum capital spend on what may well be the very, very, very worst technical rail projects in the entire world.
What “Caltrain” wants (= useless pork for them and their very very special friends) and what is of the slightest benefit to Caltrain passengers and Caltrain taxpayers and Caltrain neighbours are diametrically opposed.
The very best thing for Caltrain the service is to not give a single dollar to the unethical unprofessional sub-cretins of Caltrain the organization, the people bringing you CBOSS, incompatible platform heights, service terminating short of the SF CBD, and promises of degrading regional service offerings forever.
“Primum non nocere“, as they say in Icelandic.
tony d. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Morris,
The Gilroy city council decided to go with their “no confidence” crap WITHOUT consulting with its citizens (I’m one of them).
I guess in your eyes, the hell with Democracy if it means anti-HSR.
Nadia Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
If you are a Gilroy citizen, then last night was your opportunity to talk to your City Council members. Did you attend the meeting to voice your position or send them an email ahead of time? That would be the proper protocol.
tony d. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Nadia,
I’ve attended HSR presentations and written in my support as a Gilroy citizen in the past. Did not however attend
last nights meeting (didn’t even know about). Also take in consideration I do shift work and raising a 4 year old;
Currently don’t have much time out side of family and work. Besides, decisions like this shouldn’t be made based
on how many people have the time to pack a council meeting. I, like a lot of Gilroy residents, voted yes on
Prop. 1A; that’s all that should matter at this point.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:55 am
And at the time Prop 1A passed, HSR was presumed to go straight through Gilroy.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Well, now it looks like it is going through the agricultural preserve.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
*Shrug*
It has to go somewhere. Otherwise you’re espousing a BANANA argument.
Nadia Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Diridon thinks it should absolutely go downtown. Morgan Hill and Gilroy have since signed a resolution saying it should go East of 101 (which was not studied in the Program Level EIR). Without UP’s consent, there is a problem because East of 101 will bring out every environmental group in the area.
@Tony – are you signed up on the City Council’s website? Do they send out alerts? It will help you at least be able to send in your comments via email before a meeting. CARRD is concerned about Outreach and we’re very interested in hearing how the city is communicating with its residents. If there is an email list and you’re on it and still not getting updates, there is a problem. If there is no email list, there should be.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I agree with Diridon that it should go downtown. Connectivity to future public transit to Santa Cruz and Monterey counties is critical, IMHO.
I also think it should be trenched through downtown. Trenching would eliminate most of the complaints people have about noise and visual impacts. Since they wouldn’t have to excavate an 80 foot deep trench (the way they would have to for the Peninsula), it wouldn’t bust the budget, either.
Nadia Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
@ Peter,
Well – my guess is your ideas pretty much encapsulate what many folks in Gilroy want/voted for – a downtown alignment in a trench (b/c that is what most people just assumed – whether that is correct or not is another matter). Instead, they are no being told it will likely be East (that is what the city supports) and an aerial. Hence the people now talking about a “bait and switch” –
That’s why people are upset down there…
BTW – I suspect many here would argue against a trench for Gilroy for the same reasons they aruge against trenches on the Peninsula – if Gilroy gets them, so should others and that would break the bank…
@Tony D – thoughts on a downtown vs. East of 101 alignment?
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I understand why people would complain about Gilroy getting a trench when the Peninsula doesn’t get one. The problem, like I stated above, is that a trench through Gilroy is technically and financially feasible. A trench down the Peninsula, while technically possible, is technically VERY difficult (many creeks and other “gravity drains”), and would therefore break the bank for that section.
tomh Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Why would a trench down the Peninsula have to be 80 feet deep? And where do the Peninsula NYMBYs like Morris brown think the money will come from to build such a trench?
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Gilroy is making a drastic and critical error that future generations will regret. Not developing a rail hub in downtown Gilroy is just madness. This is simply short sightness. Gilroy’s downtown is currently under developed and would be a whole lot nicer if it had more development. A nice station downtown, even an elevated one, done with good architecture, would improve the urban environment there IMHO. If the rail is placed east, then no rail hub for Gilroy (just a park-n-ride station) and very little benefit economically for Gilroy. A trench should be continued to be looked at, but to stick the station out in a field with no possiblity of connecting to future rail services from the south is ridiculous. Future generations from Gilroy to Montereey will rue the day when Gilroy leaders choose myopia over vision. There are many examples of smaller cities in Europe and elsewhere with peripheral stations that have crappy performing stations in terms of ridership and their has been no appreciable economic development as a result of HSR station. Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield understand this and their cities working with the Authority to find creative elevated solutions that they can design well with development (potentially as part of the tracks/station structure). They get the economics. Gilroy doesn’t at this point and their city will suffer the consequences going forward.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Mr Krause, again, one has to ask, have you ever been to Gilroy?
TOD! Transit hubs! Thriving urbanism! TOD! Visionary!
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
@ tomh
According to the Plan and Profile documents, it will be 80 feet at its deepest, which is just north of the Menlo Park Caltrain station. I’m not quite sure why it has to be 80 feet right there. It is 60 foot deep most of the time.
And Morris Brown et al are thinking that if they can delay long enough it will never be built. Which would suit them JUST fine.
Clem Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Why on earth would a trench be built one inch deeper than it absolutely needs to be?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I don’t know, Clem. Why on earth would a station be built
one incha hundred forty feet wider than it needs to be?tomh Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Peter – Hmm. So by “trench” do we mean “tunnel”? In my mind I think of trench as having an open top with overpasses (for cars and pedestrians) at ground level. Why in the world does it need to be the depth of 60-80 feet? That’s the height of an almost a 6-8 story building.
StevieB Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
City councils have limited interface with the public so attending council meetings is very influential. The Gilroy Dispatch article “hear it for the speaker, or not” indicates those opposed to high speed rail were very vocal at the last meeting.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Daniel,
What do you do about the impacts of 220 mph speeds? This is not a dilemma that european cities have faced.
I think this is a really tough one.
Paul H. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
220mph where? Not in Gilroy. In the valley, I would venture to guess that the trains won’t be at max speed going into and through the stations. Probably reduce speed to 180-200mph for the few miles into the station area.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The HSRA has said explicitly they are planning for 220 and are engineering the curves through gilroy to be able to handle that speed. Whether they end up going that fast is another story.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Eh, it’s not an incredibly big deal. It’s quieter than living next to — or even within several miles of — an airport.
Especially if the appropriate noise mitigation tech is used (which probably means trench in downtown Gilroy).
Clem Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
You can use my noise calculator to see how charming a 220-mph elevated viaduct would be for downtown Gilroy (or Fresno, etc.). I think it might be a better idea to build some TOD between terminals 2 and 3 at SFO, walkable to Starbucks, restaurants, and bookstores.
Paul H. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
No I’m saying that the trains won’t be getting to 220 mph in Gilroy, only in the Valley will it be able to reach those speeds.
So the board has to get their comments in by 10/27/10. The election is 11/2/10. So does this mean that the decision is a done deal once the current board decides, or will the newly appointed board end up reversing the decision of the old board and turn this into a debacle.
BTW, I live in LA, but support the Central Valley segments (hopefully Fresno-Bako) 100%. Lets get the meat of the system built first!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:06 am
The board’s comments that are due on 10/27/10 are on the selection criteria themselves. The actual decision on the segment comes in November or December.
Tony D. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Sorry Donk and Robert,
Ran out of “reply”s above to answer Nadia, so I’ll use this thread.
Gilroy re: downtown vs. East of 101 alignment? I’ll take either! Downtown would be closer and more convenient for me, but east of 101 may be easier to build. FYI, the area’s just east of 101 are mostly agricultural in nature, not protected wetlands or reserves; don’t know why environmentalist would go ballistic over a route that parallels an existing freeway corridor.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Just use the last reply button you can see.
The first segment should be the one that guarantees the most volume of passengers. That is how the other countries managed to win the critics when they started theirs.
The first lines in the world were all lines that guaranteed huge volumes of passengers, and that choice helped to silence the critics and gain support for further government investment. Tokyo-Osaka (which opened for the 1964 Olympics), Paris-Lyon, Rome-Florence (which had no commercial airport at the time), Madrid-Sevilla (which opened for the Seville World Expo of 1992) all guaranteed a sufficient critical mass of passengers to justify the venture.
Fresno to Merced (less than 1 hr drive door to door) or Fresno-Bakersfield (1h 45min drive door to door) could not do that, because I doubt there are sufficient passengers that ordinarily go between those city pairs. Additionally the time of travel by car is very short since highway 99 is not congested between those city pairs and the car is a very competitive alternative. It might be an easy stretch to build, but low volumes of passengers will fire up the critics.
The first Segment should start from either LA or the Bay Area and connect to the Central Valley (Fresno or BFL or both). That’s the only way you’ll immediately have sufficient passengers to show the critics it’s a worthy cause.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Agreed that they should start by connecting the CV with LA or the Bay Area.
However, they currently don’t have the funding to immediately build the entire link. Note that just because they are “only” planning to use the funds for one segment, construction for the other segments is very likely to begin very shortly thereafter. I expect construction to begin on each segment within less than six months after certification of the respective Project EIR is certified.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Gah, drop the last two words.
thatbruce Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Unfortunately, connecting to the Central Valley from either SF/SJ or LA means that a long lead time is present due to the tunnelling involved (irrespective of the route). It makes more political sense to have a long stretch of easily constructed (relatively speaking) track to demonstrate the operation, then it does to expect the political will to complete the project to remain long-term without something to show for it.
Donk Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Your argument makes perfect sense, but it is not possible to get from SJ to the CV or LA to the CV with the limited funding allocated to date. Therefore the next best option would be to build out the central valley segment so that the trip from LA to SJ is shortened. Building LA-Ana is a step in the opposite direction.
I think people here are thinking too short term and the fact that Van Arc may have already given his preference to what gets built. If you read the letter he wrote, it said the “backbone” of the system, which of coarse if the central valley, not because of ridership, but because what it can achieve for the total journey time between SF and LA. This is where TRUE HSR will happen for a great distance and will be the test gounds for new equipment which will help the FRA make new rules regarding anything over 150 mph.
Also, the short sightedness I mentioned has to do with people thinking no other construction will happen until this segment is done. Within a couple of years, all segments will have started, so the pieces of the pie will start coming together even before the valley segment is finished. Of coarse, the last two segments to be finished will be the mountain crosses which reqiure more engineering. They will finished the SF to LA system.
synonymouse Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:00 am
You are all working on the presumption that there will be no major political challenge to the entire project, which I suggest is premature.
We in the midst of a major political and economic ideological debate between austerity and pump-priming, with the latter becoming associated with corruption, boondoggling, and insider backroom deals like the Palmdale caper.
Eric M Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Seriously, get over your Tejon pass BS. Its not going to happen. That has been decided LONG AGO!!
BruceMcF Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Sure, and austerity is associated with the pristine purity we have come to expect whenever decision making is on Wall Street without any democratic check or restraint.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I think that if they do fno-bfd first, that shortly upon completion or even prior to completion, a smaller additional amount of funds could be coddled together for the mcd-fno portion as well as it is short and easy. It would be so quick to wrap that piece up to then you’d really have something, whole trunk of the system done… and just over the hilll at each end to the bay and la…. where it would taunt and beckon the local pols to light a fire.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
cobbled together not coddled together. ( I don’t think funds need coddling)
thatbruce Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
no?
Actually, look at how other countries phase construction projects that include major mountain crossings. Tunnel construction always comes first because it’s the most difficult in engineering terms. Only after there is a high degree of confidence about the date at which the tunnel sections can be completed at the approaches to either side constructed. Tackle the choke point first.
On the basis of that logic, it would make sense to shoot for either San Jose-Fresno or Bakersfield-Los Angeles first. Neither city pair currently has even a moderately fast passenger rail connection at all, air fares are sky-high if available at all and, driving takes a really long time through a congested choke point (applies especially to Tejon Pass). Ergo, an HSR operator would essentially have that city pair market to himself.
Keep in mind that when lawmakers spelled out the requirement for “independent utility”, they were thinking of trains running at (or at least capable of) HSR express speeds. Letting legacy FRA-compliant behemoths gradually chew up fancy new HSR tracks ought to be a measure of last, not first, resort.
That said, there are two other component projects that should also be considered. One is the SF end of the whole shebang. Commenter Richard Mlynarik has suggested, sensibly I believe, that the entire 4th & King yard should be moved below ground and the DTX tunnel reduced in scope from three to two tracks. Air rights to develop the land above the newly electrified yard would help pay for this. The tracks would probably need to remain below grade through 16th Street, though, because of the Mission Creek outfall. This would provide significant independent utility to Caltrain by boosting ridership numbers, keeping the service viable. It would also create a viable anchor point for the future fully built out starter line – especially if the SF-SJ leg of that is then implemented by integrating timetables such on just two tracks with some overtake locations. Dear Santa: common platform height, car widths and PTC/corridor traffic management, please.
The other is LA Union Station, complete with run-through tracks to either side. Constructing those will entail significant changes to the built-up areas immediately north and south of the transit hub, so city officials could leverage that for a transit-oriented development plan that will boost ridership on legacy services as well as create a viable anchor for the future fully built out starter line – especially if the Sylmar-Anaheim leg is then implemented by fully integrating timetables on just two tracks with some overtake locations. In this case, only the PTC/corridor traffic management solution has to be in common as Metrolink Norwalk is in too tight a curve to support full-length HSR trains and Burbank wants HSR to stop at a new station near the airport.
There is less risk of legacy equipment chewing up the geometry tolerances of the new tracks in either of these “anchor point” concepts because trains will anyhow be traveling at standard speeds (=<90mph) there anyhow.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Those other countries have the advantage of already having a track record for HSR, so they have less of a public perception and political willpower hurdle to clear. This means their priorities can be different than what we have to deal with.
tony d. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Rafael,
Like your SJ-Fresno idea! By extension that would also include SF, even if initially it meant upgraded
Caltrain. Question: “impress” first with true HSR in the Valley, or move people now
sooner rather than later (with LA-Ana, SF-SJ)?
thatbruce Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Which tunnels have a completed or in progress EIS?
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Well, SJ-Merced is a LOT closer to certification than Bakersfield-Palmdale. As of the last Monthly Progress Report, SJ-Merced was 48% of the way to completion, and Bakersfield-Palmdale was at 23%.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I don’t see what the delay is on Bakersfield-Palmdale, which is remarkably straightforward, though expensive.
Palmdale-Burbank and Burbank-LA, of course, have numerous problems….
J. Wong Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
It would be cool to see San Jose to Fresno with true HSR. I’d have to plan a trip to Yosemite via Fresno. But they’re not planning it that way at this point.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
(the connection to yosemite is at merced via YARTS several departures per day.)
datacruncher Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Fresno has been looking into starting bus connections to both Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon. They want to do a downtown visitor center for all 3 parks with buses picking up from both rail and the airport to the parks. That would also provide a complete transit circuit of the parks for visitors when combined with YARTS at Merced and the Sequoia Shuttle out of Visalia.
jimsf Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
hopefully they will integrated with the san joaquin service the way YARTS has. We ticket straight thru and issue the yarts tickets along with the whole ticket set. Another connection from FNO would be very useful for the people who are connecting to YOS from the south not just via MCD from the North. Also many people are using rail passes and looping through the state bay=mcd-yos-mcd-bfd-lvs-lax-san for instance is common so going from sf-yos via mcd then back down the other way into fno to continue south would be SO unbelievably helpful for ticketing and routing.
BTW yosemite is probably my most ticketed destination from sf after capitol corridor. I ticket yosemite all day long every day.
Tourism, not business, is going to be high speed rails biggest market. I guarantee it.
Paul H. Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I think Fresno needs to gets it’s act together when it comes to the National Parks. Run buses to Yosemite (up the 41 through oakhurst and coarsegold) and to Kings Canyon/Sequioa (Hwy 180) all from a bus depot at the new HSR station in downtown Fresno. That is some tourism business that this city has yet to capitalize on.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
I believe the Bakersfield-LA segment is progressing as fast as the engineers can manage. I’m not sure why it is not one of the the four “options”.
build the two central valley segments first, they need the stimulus the most, and real estate is so amazingly depressed out there at the moment that it would be a very cost-effective time to start breaking ground. that, and you solidify political support for the system in inland CA, where voters took a leap of faith that this system would direct infrastructure spending their way for a change. let the rich NIMBYs make hay on the coast, just build the main trunk segment ASAP, and run some screaming fast test trains down it with pols and investors riding comfortably on board, and observers measuring decibel levels and filming youtube videos on the platform.
Mike Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
What’s the fastest demo train that could run on the un-electrified CV tracks that would be built in this first phase?
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Umm, they could maybe import some ICE-TDs for the demo tracks. They can get up to 125 mph in operation. Or they could try and borrow the Talgo XXI trainset from Spain, it can also run at 125 mph and up.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Or they could resurrect the Bombardier JetTrain, which would run at 149 mph when equipped with two power cars, same as Acela.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Or they could slap some 40 year old Amfleets on the track.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
More importantly, given that electrification costs $2 million per km, why even bother getting special diesel trains instead of electrifying from the get go and showing people what a real HSR train looks like?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
If electification costs $ 2 million per km, why is the cost given as close to a billion for the Peninsula (80 km)?
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
If it’s $2 million per track km, that would come up to $640 million. Not sure where the balance would come from. Maybe the supporting infrastructure?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
The New Haven-Boston electrification project was about $2 million per route-km; generically, the Northeast builds transit for more money than California, whose Transbay project is perfect by the standards of East Side Access. Maybe electrification is an exception, I don’t know.
The cost scales with route and not track length, because most of it is building the substations. If the substations are in place, stringing catenary has trivial cost. In particular, given that HSR is coming, electrifying the parallel Metrolink lines is almost free.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
electrifying the parallel Metrolink lines is almost free.
The size of the substation scales with the amount of traffic on the line. Adding Metrolink trains means bigger, more expensive substations. Or many substations instead of few.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
HSR trains are much higher-powered than commuter trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
And if you size the substation for only HSR when you try to run Metrolink trains at the same time there a collective groan from all the passengers when the circuit breakers at the substation trop, the lights go out, the train stops moving and the engineer has trouble reaching the control center because every other engineer on the line just lost power….
Alon Levy Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Meh. The difference in power requirements is almost trivial. By law, they need to be able to support 5-minute headways, which means something like 10 trains in the LA Basin at a time, each powered at up to 19,920 kW. 6,000-kW commuter trains, running at frequencies dictated by demand and not by law, aren’t going to break the substations.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Capable of 5 minute headways means they buy a piece of land big enough for ten transformer and install 4. With lovely blueprints for the other 6 and neatly mowed lawn until they need them.
Clem Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
$1.2 billion includes a new fleet of trains and management reserve. No matter, 3/4 of a billion is still an outrageous amount compared to what is practiced worldwide.
Emma Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Agreed. Start with the “torso” then add head and legs. It would also be the fastest segment with the least number of NIMBYs and currently the only segment not under thread to share with slower fright and passenger rail.
While computer simulations are just as good and at least a 100x cheaper, test trains are good PR, remember the TGV train record? They were actually testing the segment.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
And testing the technology developed for the AGV.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I don’t agree.
You always start from the largest city and from there you head toward the next city along the line. If starting from SF is too controversial because of the Peninsula NIMBYs, then they should start from LA and work toward Palmdale and Bakersfield. The test track could be between Palmdale and Mojave.
By doing so you’d immediately gain people’s support (and revenue) because lots of people would start using the rail line right away, even for just commuting from Antelope Valley to LA.
Starting with a segment between Fresno and Bakersfield (or Merced) is like building a bridge in the middle of nowhere with no roads for miles on either side.
Nobody (or very few) will use it, and critics will gloat about Obama’s huge waste of money in California. Support will vanish and so will further funding. Then you’re stuck with the bridge to nowhere and the Republicans in the White House for decades to come, all ready to invade any country that starts with “I” (including Indiana and Idaho if the President is the geography challenged Sarah Palin)
Donk Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I totally agree with the point that people here are making about building the LA-CV and SJ-CV segments first – however, this is a moot point. I would prefer to throw all the money at starting tunnels from LA-Palmdale. But they have already decided on putting the funds to one of the 4 corridors listed above. So the next best thing in that line of thinking is Fresno-Bako.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I really don’t know what the LA-Bakersfield delays are due to. I guess it’s much more complicated than Bakersfield-Fresno, but still.
They should probably focus on building a railroad so people can buy tickets to ride on trains and use them to go places.
Spokker Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The point being is that I’m sick of hearing about jobs and stimulus and deadlines and pollution and congestion and densification. The primary goal is moving people around, in that the railroad should not be designed to create jobs, provide stimulus, meet deadlines, cut pollution, temper congestion or promote densifcation. The project should be designed to provide good service. Everything else is secondary to that. Once you provide good service, all those other things may come naturally.
Spokker Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Example: While I make no excuses for dirty NIMBY scum, the project would be a lot easier for people to swallow if it actually provided transportation benefits to the Peninsula. Caltrain and the CHSRA have dropped the ball here. Caltrain is acting like HSR doesn’t even exist and keeps banging the CBOSS drum. The CHSRA’s proposed stations are too goddamn big. Neither agency is coordinating on any track, any time and cross-platform transfers.
The hardcore NIMBYs will probably never change their minds, but if you show that Caltrain service will improve on the Peninsula, those on the fence may come to your side. As of now, Caltrain service is either going to be the same, worse or not exist at all.
The counter-argument to anything NIMBYs say isn’t “Oh, it’ll create jobs. It’ll cut pollution. It’ll let people avoid traffic. It’ll create a liberal livable streets utopia where all cars are banned and people ride their bikes to the train and put on organic deodorant in the morning and they all smell like onions.” The counter-argument is, “Okay, here are the benefits HSR will provide to Caltrain.” And then you show them a proposed timetable, how transfers might work, what kind of service patterns they could expect, etc. Since there are little to no benefits, this argument is rarely made.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I try to raise the argument of how it will help Caltrain. Unfortunately, they’re not giving me much to work with. Right now the only advantages are faster locals, possibly faster express trains by being able to share tracks with HSR to some as-yet-unclear extent, and level boarding. That’s it.
Spokker Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I would say that the only defense the CHSRA and Caltrain have is that they have to work around freight. But because there is little freight on this corridor, I think someone should develop some balls and kick freight off the Peninsula. Oakland is where all the freight goes, if I recall correctly.
J. Wong Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Obviously not. The UP is a business. They wouldn’t run a train on the Pennisula if there wasn’t money to be made. As for the businesses that are using the freight service, obviously they are doing so because it is cost-effective compared to trucks. (For example, one of the business is a rock and gravel company that gets hopper cars full of product.)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Nonsense.
They’re doing it because the long-term payoff of having their “profitable” business bought out exceeed to short-term loss of engaging in a business (far worse than marginal, short line) that they’ve abandoned everywhere else they possibly can. You know, investing in a longer term payoff, thinkig beyond the next quarter, the sort of thing we always decry organizations for failing to do.
UP is a business, for sure.
But that doesn’t imply that that they’re stupid.
On the other hand: Caltrain is not a business, and Caltrain’s staffers are about as boundlessly stupid as it is possible to imagine human beings to be while still managing the breath and excrete independently.
Eric M Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I agree and with the slight, very slight, possibility of more freight comig into a San Francisco port, they do not want to shoot themselves in the foot. Besides, that gives them even more leverage for more money on a buyout.
Clem Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
UP potentially faces significant termination costs. They prefer to operate at a small loss than to face those costs.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The UP bottom line is doing quite well.
http://progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24826
I hope they use some of that money to give PB-CHSRA a thumping good hard time throughout.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I daresay most of those companies dealing with bulk aggregates would be better served by barge. Anyone considered that?
thatbruce Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Are the companies consuming bulk aggregates on the Peninsula next to the same barge-navigable body of water that the companies producing bulk aggregates are next to?
For instance, I don’t see a canal leading to that quarry tucked behind Cupertino, but I don’t know whether freight cars from there are destined for the Peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
What Bruce said and to effectively use a barge you need someplace to load it. That might exist someplace on the Bay or one could easily be built. When pigs fly unless you can find unused dockland somewhere. Then there’s the small problem of where to unload the barge, it’s not as though the Peninsula supports a thriving coal industry that is shipping product to the steel plants in Sacramento….
thatbruce Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Ignoring anything that TOD might give you (which is secondary to the basics of the project), and in absence of a published timetable, you’re left with:
*) Grade separations; No more waiting for the crossing gates to clear.
*) Noise reductions for those living next to an existing rail corridor used by HSR; electric trains vs diesel.
*) Trains running on time; in-region commute times by rail slightly sped up.
*) Price for SF LA competitive with airlines; most likely quicker door to door despite longer station/gatestation/gate time.
*) Providing long distance and commute options for some areas that do not currently have such.
wu ming Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 12:23 am
the mistake, common in most online political debate, is mistaking the NIMBYs for the target audience. at best they’re useful foils, the target audience isn’t the usual screamers with their minds made up, it’s the bystanders who might not be following things very well, but can be convinced either way.
Off topic, but it is California passenger rail:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-desert-train-20101018,0,6841004.story
I have an idea. Just for fun we should have a vote on which segment we think should get built first. Robert should set up a pull.
Spokker Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Two polls. First, which segment do you think is the most likely to be picked first based on current information?
Second, which segment should be built first?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Could do that too, though I also want to have a public scoring process as well.
just a reminder for the fno-bfd section
here is the corresponding real life version of that row. ready and waiting. simple and quick.
Sure beats the hell out of the drive.
I think that one people need to realize is that the Heavy Maintenance Facility (HMF) is slated to be built somewhere in the Central Valley. As Jimsf pointed out, the land between Fresno and Bakersfield, while it may not provide the highest ridership initially, is primed and ready for development. Also, if you look at the independent studies that have been done, the two sites in Kern County (Shafter and Wasco) are head and shoulders above the site(s) in Fresno for the HMF (check out Kerncog.org for a copy of the chart). They are the only sites that have no “negative” ratings of any of the proposed sites, and Shafter recently had land donated to them by Paramount Farms for the HMF. The only logical solution is to build a Fresno-Bakersfield track where the HMF is located and can be used for testing, the other extensions will fall into place from there.
AB3034 does not require “Independent Utility” it requires a USABLE SEGMENT of HSR, with 100% funding. Any appropriation of ca bond funding must be for a plan that the CHSRA shows will build a complete USABLE SEGMENT of HSR, including 2 stations, ready for revenue generating, non-subsidized operation, that CHSRA can show 100% funding for. Anything short of this does not qualify for AB3034 bond funding. So NONE of the segments qualify.
In their selection criteria, CHSRA staff acknowledges the AB3034 USABLE SEGMENT requirement, acknowledges none of the segments qualify, and immediately tries to wiggle out of it by switching to the ‘independent utility’ terminology. FAIL.
CA voters DID NOT authorize bond funding for general improvement in train infrastructure that provides for ‘some’ or ‘any’ kind of utility, that may be convertible into HSR some time down the road when the rest of the funding somehow materializes. Voters approved AB3034 explicitly and to build usable segments of HSR only, on the condition that 100% funding is obtained for those usable segments UP FRONT, before any AB3034 bond funding is allowed.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Have fun getting the Legislature to agree with you.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Independent Utility is the requirement of the ARRA funding for a portion of an HSR corridor. There is no state match required for ARRA HSR funds, but it cannot be put toward an initial investment in a part of an HSR system unless that part has independent utility. All four segments qualify on those grounds.