Weekend Open Thread
Things are getting rather busy for me this month, with the election approaching, so posts may be a bit shorter than usual – I’ll be back up to my usual in-depth reportage after we learn whether California will continue the HSR project under Jerry Brown or whether it will get the Chris Christie treatment under Meg Whitman.
A few items for the weekend:
• San Gabriel Valley residents still concerned about the HSR route, even though a final design isn’t anticipated until 2013 and construction is many years – perhaps a decade – away. Union Pacific’s cooperation would help immensely here.
• HSR opponents pack another HSR meeting in Palo Alto, this time to show opposition to a mid-Peninsula station. They must not care for their property values much, which are dependent on easy access to job centers in San Jose and San Francisco. One reason why many New Jersey officials are outraged at Governor Christie’s decision (which he may be reconsidering) to pull the plug on the ARC Tunnel is that it would have given a boost to property values in New Jersey, which are dependent on having more reliable access to Manhattan. But no, I guess the Palo Alto NIMBYs are right that it will always be 1985.
• Siemens will sponsor an HSR event in Fresno on October 28th. No word yet on whether they’ll be bringing a trainset to it as was recently done in Florida.
• Turner Construction will manage the Transbay Terminal project.
• State Senator Gloria Romero, author of the 2005 law spelling out the “incompatible offices” rules, says Curt Pringle and Richard Katz are breaking that law and should resign one of their incompatible offices, whether it’s the CHSRA board office or the other one they hold. No word yet from Sen. Romero on whether Pringle’s upcoming retirement as Anaheim mayor and consequent departure from the OCTA board will satisfy her request.
Robert,
I can assure you that if you had been at the Palo Alto meeting, you would have voted against a station too.
The entire process is so messed up that commonsense is not allowed to enter the decision making.
In this case, they are starting with “design standards” that have been created by Parsons Brinkerhoff that use the Cambridge Systematics numbers as of they were destiny.
They described the project requirements as a massive station building, the 3000 spaces of parking and traffic impacts that would be essentially unmitigatible.
Palo Alto is a very built out small scale city with small narrow streets and very little undeveloped land, but with Stanford and other businesses that go well with High Speed Rail
Even the MANY consultants from a multitude of various engineering firms had a hard time mustering enthusiasm for a station of this scale in the town. It was a surreal event.
Residents tried to reframe the questions and the approach to be about figuring out what could fit in Palo Alto and what changes would required to the current plans AND then seeing if the Rail Authority thinks it would be worthwhile but were rebuffed.
Everyone walked away believing they had wasted an evening and the state of California had wasted a lot of money (some of the consultants had flown in for the meeting) and no forward progress had been made.
This is why people on the ground level are losing confidence.
jimsf Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 11:41 am
This is why Redwood City should get the station. Enough pussyfooting around with Palo Alto and their inability to get their act together.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Here’s a really crazy idea: what if the CHSRA and Caltrain used compatible platform height standard? That way, high-speed trains could stop at any Peninsula station, based on existing market demand. No need to designate a “Peninsula stop”.
And even crazier: what if the CHSRA worked with stakeholders to develop stations according to local’s needs, instead of top-down planning? Who knows — we might end up with sensisible station design, one that does away with the “mini-airport” station footprint, and TSA security theater.
Crazy ideas, I know!
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
You convince Caltrain to go with single-level high entry cars, and we’ll give you a medal.
jimsf Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I agree. There should really be a standard station design for the entire state for all trains. So that all equipment can use all tracks and all stations. God forbid we do something simple that makes sense. Imagine the horror of it all !
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Yes the kind of thing Northeasterners have had for over a century. It’s awful.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Starting to believe we need a state passenger rail agency that operates all public trains, so that stupid design inconsistencies like this aren’t happening. Caltrain, BART, HSR, Amtrak California, Metro Rail, etc – should be operated by a California version of SNCF. (Yes, I know SNCF isn’t the sole operator of all French passenger trains, but it’s the concept of a state-owned company I’m after.)
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
SNCF isn’t necessarily the best model. Because its main focus is the TGV, it neglects regional rail. In Paris it works out at the end because the design decisions and funding are coordinated by a local autonomous organization, STIF, and most of the trains are run by RATP anyway. In the provinces, it doesn’t work as well.
Much better would be to have between 1 and 2 Verkehrsverbünde for California – either one for the whole state or one for SoCal and one for NorCal. Those would coordinate all local and regional rail, including Amtrak California, as well as the portions of HSR within their territory. If there’s one statewide organization instead of two, then it should also get some say over HSR; if there are two, then they’d get more limited say, but would be able to control transit funding.
The important thing is not to create a situation in which the people in charge of local transit decisions think local transit is an albatross on HSR’s neck.
Nathanael Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
French regional rail remains almost an order of magnitude better than *UK* regional rail, let alone the decrepit third-world regional rail we have in the US. So, well, I don’t know what to say.
“The important thing is not to create a situation in which the people in charge of local transit decisions think local transit is an albatross on HSR’s neck.”
That seems right. You don’t want the “kill all the branch lines” attitude which has done so much damage in the past.
Victor Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:35 am
As long as It’s mostly free of interference by the Governor and the Legislature.
Peter Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:31 am
Maybe modeled after DB? As long as they don’t skimp on maintenance in an attempt to make the books looks better?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 9:29 am
California Dept. of Transportation already has a Division of Rail. Perhaps you may have heard of them — Richard Tolmach used to work there.
Peter Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Was he with them when they drove the Capitol Corridor into the ground? Before BART took over running them and saved their bacon?
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
EXACLTY!
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Based on daily personal observation, I assure you that CC service was just as unreliable after BART takeover.
The purpose of BART takeover was to delay, indefinitely, any further expansion of service south of Oakland.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Tolmach was a scheduler.
Peter Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I guess that qualifies him as an expert in rail planning? NOT.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
How different America is from Europe! In Europe city councils fight to have a station. In America they fight to not have one.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Just to be crystal clear -
The meeting was not about whether Palo Alto wants a station.
The meeting was about whether the massively overscaled proposal resulting from “design standards” is appropriate in a town like Palo Alto.
The game is definitely rigged, although it is unclear who is running the game and what the object of the game is.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
The object of the game is to gift contractors upwards $500 million taxpayer dollars (i.e. cost of one gold-plated train station). If the station can be situated in a location with “prime” development potential, they’ve scored a two-fer.
(Prime development potential == parcel which can be gifted to politically connected developer)
jimsf Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Its not about developers and contractors. It just depends on your perspective because as much as there will be impacts, there will also be revenue. Does PA want or need revenue? Perhaps their coffers are flush with money for roads, schools, and everything under the sun and they aren’t suffering the way other municipalities are. I doubt that though. Development brings tax revenue. 3000 people parking downtown brings parking receipts. Ask the franchise owner of the nearby Starbucks if he wants to see and extra 3000 latte’s each day. My guess is that he would like that very much.
It just isn’t always about these crazy conspiracy theories and how the big the bad and the powerful are corrupt and screwing us all, and I’m by no means fond of the rich, at all, or developers and big business, but the reality is that we live in a capitalist democracy, with freedom of information the the right to vote. Californians voted in favor of high speed rail and no amount of “sore loser” qualifying statements is going to change that. Cities, business, developers, etc, they are within their rights to do their best to get their way. There isn’t any conspiracy. It is what it is, then we move on to the next thing.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
$500 million? What? I sometimes want to believe the worst about the contractors, but it sounds too high to me for one above-ground train station. To put things in perspective, it costs $600 million to $1 billion to build each subway station in Manhattan, which has by a large margin the world’s highest construction costs, at about three times those of San Francisco.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
CHSRA contractors have figured out ways to inflate costs of all the other HSR stations along Caltrain line to at least that much, what makes you think Palo Alto would be any different?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
In PA, there isn’t as much of an excuse to inflate costs. Millbrae-SFO has the tunnel, Transbay would be expensive no matter what, and Diridon has the grossly oversized multi-floor 14-track arrangement. Perhaps I’m not creative enough, but I don’t see the potential for anything comparable on the Peninsula. Maybe a huge parking structure occupying prime real estate would contribute, but I still can’t imagine that it would inflate costs enough. In Manhattan they’re knocking down a few apartment buildings on the Upper East Side to make room for ventilation shafts, and even that costs in the low tens of millions.
Or maybe they could just borrow from New York’s contractor selection process: write inscrutable specs for every project, and then get just one bid every time, from a joint consortium of contractors too dishonest or incompetent to get any private-sector work. This can raise costs by a factor of 2 at a minimum, no matter what design decisions are made.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Bingo.
($150 million parking + $75 million station) X 2
BTW, don’t assume the Mid-Peninsula stop won’t have some kind of tunnel; esp. if it is located in Mountain View.
Nathanael Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
If you want to advocate for a better design, *advocate for a better design*.
NJARP and NARP’s advocacy for “Alternative G” for additional Hudson Tunnels to New York City — a better alternative than NJ Transit’s plan — has left them as respectable rail advocacy organizations.
Palo Alto is not visibly advocating for a better plan. You have to actually walk into the meeting with a viable alternative.
bleh Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
In Europe many central stations have 0 long term parking spaces, yadda, let alone 3000. You can argue whether or not PA’s got enough public transport to dispense with the need for local parking but they’re not even taking public transport into account.
I’m with Elizabeth on this one, no one in his right mind would support something like that in Palo Alto.
I’d understand if they wanted to show PAMPA the finger for all they’ve done but this seems to be SOP for the authority everywhere. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by plain stupidity.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I didn’t know about the 3000 parking spaces. No French HSR station has large parking lots, except the beetfield ones.
Many cities have built “decentralized” parking lots. Parking there often entitles you to low-fare tram or bus rides. The French name for them is “parking de dissuasion”. The aim is to dissuade people from bringing their cars downtown.
Some just park their car on a supermarket’s parking lot. It’s customers only, but who checks?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Many of us agree that the parking requirements are absurd. The issue is how you deal with them. Assuming they are fixed in stone because it helps an HSR critic turn people against the project doesn’t strike me as the best way to solve the matter.
Victor Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Problem is some/most cities/towns in California aren’t as small as those in Europe, So parking is needed, Also the average person on the street who’s against a parking structure isn’t qualified to say that said structure isn’t needed and yep I’m not either, I’d rather yield this to the real experts, Not the average citizen, As they don’t have all the info or the education to say if said structure is needed or not. No offense, But I’d rather ride a system designed by smart and well educated group of engineers, Than on one designed by a semi aware mob who may be barely computer literate.
Brian Stanke Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
As I mentioned in another comment the Authority itself declared it only needed 850 parking spots for Palo Alto in the re-adopted 2008/2010 EIR.
It then threw out those well researched numbers and came up with the 3000 number using a far cruder and less realistic process than the one it used to get the 850 number. So the “experts” are disagreeing with themselves. As one of the presenters at the ULI HSR conference in Anaheim stated a couple of weeks ago, “parking is a political question.” The HSR station can do with or without parking. It is a political choice how much downtown space to displace for parking and how much HSR related traffic the community wants to attract via a parking structure.
Nathanael Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
If the people showing up to the Palo Alto meetings were making a big fuss about the parking and demanding a station design with no parking, and with public transit and biking and walking connections improved instead, they would find a much more sympathetic audience among rail advocates.
Unfortunately all too many seem to be simply using the parking as an excuse to attack the HSR.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I don’t know if you need 3000 in PA, but you can’t compare EU to US. Most people in the US will access the station by car simply because the urban development pattern in US is basically sprawling and because of that feeder transit is infrequent or not available since density (or lack thereof) doesn’t justify it. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future. HSR will be viewed only as an alternative to flying and therefore people will view HSR the same way they view airports, basically a place you drive to (or get dropped off to). Only few will take a train or bus to it simply because most people live in suburbs not conveniently served by buses or other transit. Therefore short and long term parking will be necessary at or near most stations, the more, the better.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am
That’s taking for granted that no new solution will be found for a new situation.
You could imagine a minibus service with a website. You type in your address, the time of your train and the screen displays the time when the minibus will stop at your doorstep. This operation could also be part of booking your train ticket on the net.
Americans are known for always finding a solution when a new situation arises. Why not in this case?
Peter Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Because people think change for the better is impossible. They also, paradoxically, believe that change for the worse won’t happen to them, therefore no effort to counter future negative change is necessary.
The assumption that things are never going to change, and that therefore new development is undesirable and unnecessary is depressingly similar to the situation the Empire found itself in in Isaac Asimov’s classic “Prelude to Foundation”. Infrastructure was slowly decaying, with no one being willing to invest in maintaining, much less improving it, no money was spent on new research because the scientists didn’t think that anything radically new could be discovered, etc. I apologize to those who haven’t read it, but the Empire collapsed on a pretty spectacular basis, with the entire human race fracturing into small fiefdoms. I’m not saying this is what WILL happen (God, I hope not), but this is EXACTLY how it started in the book.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Hello, Peter.
Your comment about people believing “change for the better is impossible” reflects much of the opposition, and in my opinion, a chunk of the generational component.
This generation that seems to be doing the fighting, at least in my experience, came of age when the auto was very ascendent, and sees the revival of trains, of railroads in general, even high speed ones, as an “attempt to bring back the horse and buggy” and as a Communist/Socialist “plot to take our cars away.” I’ve seen this first hand, have been called a Communist to my face. I’ve also noticed the age spread, and noticed how the whole age spread has gotten older. It was observed by Amtrak’s marketing department, and most recently by the people at Advertising Age (how I wish I could have had some input into that article, and gotten some money for it, too). It was also mentioned fairly recently in “Destination Freedom,” the electronic newsletter of the National Corridors Initiative, based in New England:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09072010.shtml#And
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09132010.shtml#LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR
I can’t say I entirely blame them for this outlook. The future looked awfully good from a perspective of 1950 or 1960; the free world had defeated the terrors of the Nazis and Imperialist Japan, and could stand against what was seen, with some accuracy at the time, a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was in reality a cruel dictatorship with world domination ambitions. Domestically, things never looked better, as science, formerly driven by the taskmaster of war, had brought out new technology and medicine and so many other things that seemed to have the potential to truly change the world for the better (provided we didn’t blow ourselves up first). The good times rolled, too, with greatly improved automobiles, washing machines, television, even TV dinners–all sorts of things that seemed unobtainable dreams through the Depression of 1930s, if not outright science fiction–and plenty of work making these things.
The United States was a collosus that stood high in the world, and a benevolent one at that. The future was bright. God seemed to be on our side.
We know things didn’t turn out quite the way we hoped they would. Environmentalism (such a whipping boy in recent years), lead to quesions of all sorts. Music taste went from the sophisticated jazz that ranged from Duke Ellington to Charlies Parker, and the smooth, smooth sound of Glenn Miller and the Dorseys to what some thought a horrible wailing from a kid with hips that wouldn’t hold still, to music with too much percussion, too much electric guitar, and just plain too much volume. The movie industry moved into what, in retrospect, was something of a shock mode, with bad language and nudity seeming to replace what had been seen as a fairly moral production code, even if it was a form of censorship. Drugs and attendent crime cast a pall on the land. Riots burned and scarred some of our grandest cities. Leaders died from bullets. Politicians promised positive change, but turned out to be crooks, culminating in the resignation of a former Communist fighter from the 1950s. There was Vietnam, too.
In short, much of the American dream turned sour. In our current recession, it is still so, and on top of that, the financial obligations of the past are becoming frightening. And then we come along, and suggest we bring back an improved version of a technology that is almost 200 years old, that was supposed to be replaced by automobiles, and that we spend a pile of money on it, too.
The opposition has been burned by promises of a future that never seemed to arrive, and instead delivered a great deal of dissappointment. They have been burned so many times they believe nobody in any position of authority is trustworthy, at least not with a big project like this. (Interestingly, this does not seem to apply to the military, seen as a protector of the land, despite some apparent problems with vendors of expensive equipment to this organization.)
I wish I had an answer for them, and for us.
About the only one I can think of would be for Robert or Clem to take over both Caltrain and the CHSRA, as a single builder-operator. They would want the right thing, and know enough to work it out. Unfortunately, we all know how long the odds of this happening are.
P.S.: Robert, Clem, if the really strange thing does happen and you get to run the show as suggested, can you use a fairly decent if steam-era writer as a PR man? Most PR I’ve seen for either side could stand to be written better, or at least punchier. And the simulation movies could use better music, too. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Some other comments you may find of interest:
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2010/10/failure-of-right.html
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2010/10/failure-of-left.html
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
the communist thing is funny. I’ll bet the kids under 30 don’t even know what a communist is. lol. But there is still a huge chunk of the population who thinks its still 1958.
Peter Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:35 am
It’s entertaining how things like healthcare and welfare get labeled as “socialism” in this country. One of my college professors at SJSU asked the class once who was against welfare because it was socialist. When half the class raised its hands, he pointed out that they were all on welfare because most of their tuition was paid for by the State. All their jaws dropped, having been thoroughly, but not incorrectly, “insulted”.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
NO this is 33 Nimbys..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
What is to stop Palo Alto city officials from saying “yes, we want a station, but we don’t want the 3,000 parking spots? We want this to be a transit-oriented station.”
Palo Alto city officials seem to believe they only have negative leverage – “give us our tunnel or we kill the project.” They’ve yet to explore “yes, we want this, we want it more than you can possibly imagine, but we want it without these damn parking requirements.”
This does not have to be a top-down enterprise. It is being framed as one by HSR opponents who have gotten involved in the process merely to show others that “see, we told you this project sucks, their ideas are crazy! you should just oppose it outright.”
There is room for compromise, collaboration, and pushback. I’d much rather have Palo Alto helping to fight to change the parking requirements than to use the parking requirements to justify a pre-existing opposition to the project.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Robert,
Exactly such questions were put to the consultants, along with others on phasing. The answer was a non-answer. None of the multitude of consultants in the room appeared to be empowered to have that kind of a discussion. The city is in a catch-22. They are being asked to endorse the 67,000 square foot station building and then, maybe conversations can happen.
The process being used is the opposite of context sensitive. It is context free.
Until you get rid of the Parsons Brinkerhoff model of overseeing 9 regional contractors overseeing teams of subcontractors, there is no room for collaboration and the only thing you get is a lot of billable hours for those working on the project.
Brian Stanke Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
The 2008 EIR states 850 spots for Palo Alto or 200-400 spots for Redwood City.
Anything above those numbers is increasing the environmental impact beyond the level approved in the 2008/2010 EIR. Therefore the Authority staff and/or their consultants had better had good documentation on why they have decided to worse the environmental impact of the project.
Also parking capacity is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA, (http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/publications/1513.pdf?wt.mc_ID=1513.pdf) so the consultants should not be evaluating it as such.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
The same EIR failed to mention even the concept of an east of 101 station for Gilroy. So what are you going to do, sue?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
There is also the 67,000 square foot station building planned.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Trust me, even if nobody acts like they’re empowered to do anything, if the city showed a *unified front* behind a particular station design — one which satisfied the ADA and fit around high-speed elevated tracks –
Then the consultants, or their bosses, would eventually decide that doing what the city wanted was the easy and cheap way out.
You don’t have a unified advocacy for a “done right” design (since you’ve got too many “must have tunnel” and “no HSR” people mixed in) and you don’t even *have* a “done right” design to advocate for.
As long as you don’t have a counter-vision to the Parsons Brinkerhoff vision, you are left with advocating for “nothing”, and will be seen as hostile to HSR.
Look at what the opponents of the Columbia River Crossing came up with in Portland — a pretty decent design for arterial and light rail crossings which offered a compelling alternative. And they were fairly disorganized. You can do better, surely?
Peter Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 7:33 am
They don’t want to do better. They just don’t want ANYTHING done, except for a time machine back to the 1980s.
synonymouse Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:02 am
And the Loopy detour is a time machine trip back to the 1880′s.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
There’s already 1000 spaces right here and all you’d have to do is add two levels and you get 2000 additional spaces simple as that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Shush. You aren’t supposed to bring up the fact that Palo Alto is already full of wide fields of parking when the topic is how awful parking is…..
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Maybe they are afraid that a new parking lot will detract from the beauty of the existing parking lots. You know, the bucolic ones.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
That’s in the Stanford Shopping Center, which already has plans for that spot. Given the choice between additional hotel/retail sales tax dollars, or a 5-story parking garage monstrosity, which do you think Palo Alto is going to prefer?
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Uh, ill bet if the city built the much cheaper garage rather than the retail, and owned it, and collected all the parking revenue, they’d make a lot more in direct no overhead receipts/revenue than they would collect in sales tax. And a nice garage is no more pretty or ugly than a department store. concrete is concrete.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Oh really?
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
and really – “monstrosity” is subjective.
nice one
AndyDuncan Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
That one doesn’t look so great during the day, actually.
However, Palo Alto does have some experience in building parking structures that integrate rather well into the streetscape.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
It leaves a lot to be desired during the night. A garage that screams at the top of it’s brightly colored lungs “look at me!”
lyqwyd Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I agree that the parking requirements are ridiculous and poorly thought out, there are many options other than just building massive parking structures. If I remember correctly the majority of BART’s parking structures are free to park in, and they still don’t get filled up. As I’m just going off vague memory, I could easily be wrong about that, so please correct me if that’s the case.
At the most they should create a couple surface lots with a few hundred parking spaces, and once it’s shown that there is a large demand for parking at market rate prices, then build structures. Better yet just build the station and allow for private to provide any parking needed, or have off-site parking with free shuttles, etc. Building thousands of parking spaces right off the bat is just plain stupid.
Joey Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
BART parking is $1 per day. Not free, but pretty cheap. And BART does know how to overbuild parking structures.
Victor Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Well more parking is better than too little and yeah It’s a fine and possibly murky line as to what would be enough, As they had the right intention at least.
StevieB Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Upward of 10,000 parking places are planned for a San Fernando Valley station. The authority wants to maximize ridership by providing maximum parking but there should be a balance between increased automobile traffic and public transit connectivity. I have yet to see a question put to the authority on parking receive a response.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:04 am
The public transit situation in the Valley — still the home of car culture, and attracting people from a *very* large catchment — may perhaps justify a huge parking garage (specifically diverting cars away from downtown LA).
Not so in the mid-peninsula (the comparable location would be Gilroy…)
“I have yet to see a question put to the authority on parking receive a response.”
Maybe it’s time to start a unified “less parking for HSR” advocacy organization? You might get a better response with an organization with thousands of members.
There is a good deal of talk around here about how steep a grade can be. For reference, here are some video clips of operations on a really steep main line, Saluda Grade in North Carolina, which has a back-breaking 5.1%. This line is no longer in service due to the expense and difficulty of running up and down it, but it is being maintained by current owner Norforlk Southern, just in case it may bee needed again some day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMgXGPYwA6s&feature=related
Steam excursion actually starting on this grade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP5_SArsHf8&feature=related
The Authority just announced that they will hold a meeting on October 20th. The main item will be adoption of “objective” criteria for selecting a corridor. The corridor then will be selected in November. Both of these meetings are prior to the end of Pringle’s terms.
peninsula Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
hasn’t the corridor been selected?
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Only between SF and San Jose. All others are in a state of flux.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
This is not about where the tracks will go. This is what section of the state will be recipient of the first (and potentially only) $4.7 billion in construction funds.
Clem Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
With nearly $5 billion in play, expect major shenanigans to start.
Clem Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Forgot to say, this will be a fascinating test of whether the CEO can keep his board in line. Van Ark has stated that the SF – SJ anode LA – Anaheim segments aren’t really high-speed rail (in his recent speech in SJ). If the first batch money doesn’t go to building the start of a high-speed backbone in the central valley, HSR will die by a thousand cuts of local pork delivered wherever the political winds blow strongest.
Clem Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Sorry, ‘and’ not ‘anode’… Damn iPad
Nadia Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
no complaining about the iPad Clem – you get no sympathy for that. ;-)
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Seriously.
Clem Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I just apologized to my iPad.
datacruncher Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Looks like Van Ark is one of the keynote speakers at that Oct 28 Fresno event. That will be 1 week after the meeting. I wonder if he will say anything about the criteria adopted.
The other speakers at the Fresno event are Rod Diridon, Siemens Transportation CEO Oliver Hauck and William Schroeer from Smart Growth America. Details at:
http://www.fresnoedc.com/about/2010annual.html
StevieB Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Van Ark said recently that a segment from the central valley to either Los Angeles or San Francisco should be a priority. Since both contain the central valley it would be a logical place to start building.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I don’t know about the death of a thousand cuts, but obviously it is advantageous to build in the Central Valley first, both because of cost and because it will enable HSR class speed. If I had to guess, Merced and Fresno will get the largest amount of money, enough to build everything but the heavy maintenance facility. Then, LA – ANA and SF – SJ will get some token funding to ensure their alignments can begin planning.
Where it gets interesting is what happens next. The urban constituencies are then going to want the next round of funding to improve commuter systems and let the tough segements like Pacheco and Tehachapi wait until the end. But given the circumstances, it would seem best to make the urban areas wait until last and solve the hard segments first.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Bakersfield-LA is ridiculously important and should be done as soon as possible, as it connects cities unserved by passenger rail and with a disturbingly large car commuter population.
i for one look forward to people in palo alto bitching for decades about how the state screwed them by not giving them a HSR station, and how it’s bullshit that they have to pay taxes for something that doesn’t benefit them, and raised the property taxes in redwood city instead of their city.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
The numbers from Bergen County, NJ are pretty significant – major property value increases at a time when hardly anyone’s property values are going up.
Palo Alto simply deludes itself into believing that the conditions of the late 20th century will last forever. When 280 and 101 are even more traffic-choked than before, and when Caltrain keeps slashing service, the transportation system will hit maximum capacity, and future generations will scream about how those fools in 2010 destroyed Palo Alto’s chance to get out of the mess.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
All 33 of them !!
Fresno is currently in the middle of a “I want my high speed train” video contest.
10 finalist videos have been selected and the public can vote until October 21st to select the winner. The winning video receives a $2012 cash prize (signifying an expected construction start year) and will be featured at the October 28th event mentioned above.
Anyone who wants to see the videos and vote for a winner should visit:
http://www.fresnoworks.org/fw/publicvote.html
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:03 am
I love it! Some of those are pretty funny…. and they thought all the talent was in hollywood… who knew! I’m glad Fresno doesn’t let its reputation hold it back.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:18 am
I voted for this one LOL… who doesn’t love a good musical.
I’m surprised no one did an hsr rap though. It would seem like an obvious choice.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Got to agree with you, that’s the best of the lot!
And did you notice almost everyone in all the videos is pretty young? Does that fit the generation thing some people think I overplay?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
It’s a different generational thing, I think – online video contests tend to be oriented toward younger people.
I’ve been wondering. Union Pacific is insistent that its freight easement for the Caltrain right of way not be disturbed. Have any of the graphics and plans shown at the bay area meetings show how the freight lines will run and whether they will be grade separated?
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
The freight lines = the slow tracks planned for the Peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 6:19 am
“slow” depends on your point of view. The P&W runs conventional freight trains over the same tracks that Acela runs on. Even the “fast” tracks on the Peninsula will be slower than long stretches of the Northeast Corridor.
Peter Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:39 am
“slow” tracks, as in the tracks planned for primary use by Caltrain, versus HSR.
Excellent Op-Ed in today’s SJ Mercury by Paul Krugman titled “America’s road to greatness is blocked by penny pinchers.”.
(sorry all, don’t know how to link from my Blackberry). Talks primarily about that idiot GOP governor from NJ and the cancellation of the second rail tunnel under the Hudson.
I don’t know anything about NJ’s constitution , but at least a Meg in California won’t have similar draconian powers here.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Sure she would. If and when CHSRA goes way over-budget the same way ARC did, where would Gov. Meg get the money?
(And, no, her eBay stock isn’t worth THAT much)
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
She’d sell train paraphernalia on eBay.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
They’ve barely begun to send surveyors out to mark the places where they will build the staging areas for construction. While the project probably will go over budget, they’ve barely spent any money. If they haven’t spent much money it’s hard to be over budget, even on what the parts of the budget they’ve already spent. In this economy, it’s probably under budget.
dfb Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Sure she will. California has a line item veto. She could use it to veto at least some funding to the Authority.
here’s the link
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:43 am
here’s the link
also this one on brown for gov
For the past few months I have become increasingly sour on this project. The breaking point, I feel, is the reluctance on the Peninsula to openly embrace “any track, any time,” Caltrain’s insistence on developing CBOSS and Anaheim’s lack of foresight in preparing ARTIC for HSR.
I don’t care about Pacheco vs. Altamont, Palmdale vs. the Grapevine or NIMBYs, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no way that our disparate transportation entities can come together and deliver a good HSR project with cross-platform transfers and real, measurable improvements to current train service, for example. This project, as proposed, will not complement our existing rail infrastructure, but become a cancerous growth that sucks the life out of it. California can afford a good HSR route that can and should use the Caltrain right of way to reach San Francisco, but it cannot afford to build a bad one. You can only defend the CHSRA so much before you realize that they and other agencies are not doing the right thing.
My opposition means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but if a vote were taking place today I would vote to cancel the project (such as rescinding Prop 1A).
tony d. Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
“My opposition means nothing in the grand scheme of things…” let us all be thankful! And let’s also be thankful that the vast majority of Californians still support HSR, including this Californian.
Spokker Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The city of Anaheim and Caltrain are acting like the HSR project doesn’t even exist. How exactly is this getting done?
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
What’s even more frustrating is that there is no one who can , and no way to, force them to get together and fix the problem.
StevieB Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Trains won’t start running for another 10 years. A central valley to Los Angeles section will probably be built first. Anaheim increases ridership but because of the enormous cost of dedicated track, both monitary and political, is likely to be on a shared track running the same speed as Metrolink.
The peninsula will not be the first section built so Caltrain will not be getting money for improvements from CAHRA for several years as their deficit increases. The peninsula cities say they are committed to Caltrain but have offered no solution to financial problems. Meanwhile Caltrain recently increased fares while removing four midday trains. Political pressure will increase as Caltrain requires funding for new control systems and replacing trainsets.
The High Speed Rail project will take many years and administrations to complete.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I think caltrains days are number. It doesn’t look good over there. I’m surprised BART hasn’t come up with a plan to take it over as an e-bart route. If you look here you can see how the pen. should be done with bart and hsr.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
adn bart already does timed transfers all the time. Integrating ebart with bart at millbrae and bart at san jose would be a cinch for them to pull off with their timed “same agency” transfers and reliable schedules, high frequencies, and 4am-1am hours of service. And they would easily coordinate timed xfers mid-pen with hsr. Plus you wind up with a single ticket ride from your choice of bay area hsr/bart stations, to the entire bart system without having to transfer and ticket through caltrain first. There isn’t enough financial and political support to bail out caltrain as we are now seeing. I always though that pen residents would have a fit if caltrain service was threatened but they are not willing to cough up any money after all. Bart will always find the money.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Fine paint HSBART on the side of the local trains toddling along the old SP ROW on the Peninsula. It shouldn’t really matter who owns them or operates them but if it gets you willy all tingly to thing of BART circling the Bay, go for it.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
well it does count who owns/operates them though – because the current owners don’t have any money and have a crappy funding method. If bart runs it you can count on them to at least make sure its fully integrated, has long operating hours, acceptable frequencies and is reliable.
I don’t have high hopes for this new fly by night outfit that just got the operating contract. They are going to be the final nail in the coffin.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
plus bart/ebart wouldn’t have probably using level boarding since they’ll want it anyway for their own transfers. I’d bet a happy meal that bart and hsr would get along better with each other and play nice a lot more than hsr and caltrain will.
Clem Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Like this?
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
wow thats what it would look like! although that looks like low floor boarding – Im assuming they would use the high floor like the one in the video for x platform xfer like this
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
The vehicles in that eBART simulation appear to be low floor (in the vicinity of 24″ ATOR). It’s irrelevant anyway, as level boarding is level boarding as long as the platform matches up with the train floor. The issue arises when you have two rail systems which share tracks and should be compatible but are not.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
The ebart sim shows the ebart passengers level boarding onto a platform that is a standard high level bart platform so its not a low floor dmu.
I actually like this one though it looks more like a bart train buts its still diesel… they woldn’t even have to electrify. ( only the two hsr tracks)
II like that one. looks nice.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I don’t suppose you’ve considered that the the rails could be at different levels on each side of the platform, which would probably happen anyway because BART uses a completely unique platform height. If you look closely at the eBART cars, they resemble pretty standard low-floor multiple units, not unlike those used on San Diego’s SPRINTER service, with higher windows near the ends above the powered bogies.
Also, that thing us ugly. Anyway, electrification does have certain benefits, such as (under normal circumstances) reduced operational costs, independence from fuel prices, no pollution, etc. Usually the only reason not to electrify on busy lines is that you can’t come up with the capital funds to do so. Oh, and why do you still insist that peninsula commuter rail (which you suggest should be something like eBART) and HSR should have separate tracks, when, with this plan, they would have the same rail gauge and hopefully the same platform height. Oh, and you wouldn’t be saving that much money by only electrifying two tracks … certainly not half of the electrification cost — you’d only be creating an operational flexibility nightmare.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
okay well then make all four tracks and platforms compatible. electrify everything and let bart run the commuter portion after caltrain collapses, using whatever type of emu is appropriate. That way we get bart around the bay, bart and hsr who can work together, and at least a step towards consolidating the 40+ bay area transit agencies. Tracks can be compatible but for operations the caltrain(ebart) stops are still to close together to run at 125 so you still need sffs or whatever.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
okay well then make all four tracks and platforms compatible. electrify everything and let bart run the commuter portion after caltrain collapses, using whatever type of emu is appropriate.
So the important thing to you is what logo is painted on the side of the train? .
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Of course you will need four tracks (almost everywhere). The issue is when you designate two as exclusive commuter tracks and two as exclusive HSR tracks. Ultimately, you can come up with a surprisingly effective timetable by having the HSR trains on the express tracks, the commuter locals on the local tracks, and the commuter expresses weaving between the two (and yes, there is plenty of capacity to do that). Cross platform transfers should exist between commuter express and commuter locals as well as HSR trains and commuter locals.
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:47 am
So the important thing to you is what logo is painted on the side of the train?
The important thing to me would be that I can buy a ticket from Orinda to Belmont or From El Cerrito Del Norte to Hillsdale… if I wanted to…. and that it be run by an agency that is going to be around for a while.
thatbruce Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
@jimsf: Budd-derived, now part of Bombardier. From the same system/manufacturer (ok, I like the raised vantage point for the driver).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
The important thing to me would be that I can buy a ticket from Orinda to Belmont or From El Cerrito Del Norte to Hillsdale…
It doesn’t need to be all run by one agency to do that. I know it must be earth shattering to hear this but even NJTransit and Metro North manage to do that in specialized circumstances. Not ideal because you still have to go to two TVMs but you can buy tickets in 30th Street Philadelphia for any NJ train station at the NJTransit TVMs. So you can buy your ticket from 30th Street to Montclair NJ at one station.
and that it be run by an agency that is going to be around for a while.
If you are riding the train in 2010 do you really care all that much if the same agency will be running the service in 2022? or 2011 for that matter.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
BART has one, maybe two timed transfers in the entire system. And only one of them is cross-platform.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Joey they do timed transfers at 12th and macartur for years and both were cross platform and thats pretty much the only place they are needed at the moment. POint being, that bart can and would be able to do reliable timed transfers with itself, ebart, and hsr whereas caltrain isn’t going to do anything because it is disintegrating before our eyes and has no way to get funding. I realize this is a blog full of bart haters but the fact is they get the job done better than anyone else, they find the money when they need it and they are the most reliable system in the region and in spite of the usual bitching by some of the public, overall bart is very well liked by the people of the bay area and has broad support for extensions and improvements.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
The 12th (now 19th) and MacArthur transfer is the one cross-platform transfer I was talking about. If you think that this means that BART is good at making efficient transfers, then you are sorely mistaken. eBART will of course have a timed transfer because (a) Operating it that way is so obvious that even the most incompetent transit planners (which we have, btw) can see it and (b) eBART’s schedule isn’t dependent on anything else. But I’ll bet you anything that BART won’t have timed transfers with HSR. It’s just not how these people think. As it is, BART is unable to imagine timed transfers with CalTrain, Amtrak, or anything else that happens to cross it’s path.
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Joey the fact that they don’t time transfers with those other agencies is those other agencies fault not bart. Bart for years tried to work with cccta and actransit to get buses to hold for incoming trains and they finally had to give up. They put in signal lights to let the buses know there was an incoming train. Also, bart is frequent enough that there is little wait time. With 15 minute bart service and 15 minute hsr service, there wouldn’t be a problem. There is a problem however with caltrain. It is going to disintegrate and bart is probably the only agency that can save it.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
What can save CalTrain is a dedicated funding source and better planning over at the PRP. BART is not the answer to all of the world”s problems.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Oh, and I’m not saying that the lack of timed transfers is always BART’s fault, but they have made ZERO effort to coordinate with CalTrain, CCJPA, and other regional operators. And BART service is frequent enough, sure, but do you really think that the ridership for a little-known, untimed transfer will be even marginally comparable to that of an advertised, timed transfer?
jimsf Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
ha. don’t hold your breath.
It may not be the answer to all the world’s problems but it can take you to number of fabulous champaign brunch locations where, over mimosas and benedict, you can forget about them.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Jim, is BART really more useful for that than just walking around San Francisco?
GoGregorio Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 9:04 am
How does BART taking over exactly save Caltrain? BART has enough of a revenue source to pay for its own system; how would taking on 80 more miles of trackage do anything but begin to sink BART?
I can only think of two ways for this to be a successful maneuver for BART:
1. Have SamTrans pay at least part of what is required to operate the San Mateo County portion of the system. Oh wait, SamTrans is already unable to pay for Caltrain operations because of its obligation to BART to SFO…
2. Create a BART tax in San Mateo County. Except that this is precisely the thing that Caltrain needs to survive.
I know that the image of BART ringing the Bay might look cool on paper, but the things that will make BART succesful along the Caltrain Corridor are the exact same things Caltrain would need to survive.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 11:11 am
How does BART taking over exactly save Caltrain?…. the things that will make BART succesful along the Caltrain Corridor are the exact same things Caltrain would need to survive.
It would have a BART logo on the side of the trains. That would cause stampeding herds of automobile drivers to abandon their cars, just like they did when Millbrae opened. … …
BART is faster than a speeding MUNI bus , more powerful than a cable car, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. Look down on the tracks! It’s a rat, it’s a train it’s SuperBART!
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
well since everyone seems to be a comedian around here I’m sure you’ll appreciate this thought provoking new approach to solving the infrastructure crises
thatbruce Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
but they have made ZERO effort to coordinate with CalTrain, CCJPA, and other regional operators
Having missed a few BART -> Caltrain connections at Millbrae due to BART ensuring that its passengers have ample time to admire the tunnel construction, I think you’re being too generous with ‘zero’.
Spokker Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“The High Speed Rail project will take many years and administrations to complete.”
This is a part of the problem. Any governor can work against the project and contribute to its demise. Under Schwarzenegger, despite his incompetence, the project somehow got to a point where there’s a state contribution and some kind of “planning” (if you want to call it that). Only in some alternate universe where there are two or three like-minded governors in a row will this thing be built.
However, if Whitman gets in and works to kill the project, I would be disappointed that the project was not fixed instead, but I wouldn’t shed tears if it were canceled altogether and the CHSRA dissolved. At this point I care more about Measure R, Caltrain, Amtrak California and the local bus than any HSR line.
synonymouse Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Rethinking the hsr does not mean the project is dead. The current CHSRA version is the creation of a handful of insiders. It is important to separate the general mandate for an hsr for a mandate for a particular scheme. The voters did not pay enough attention to the details of Prop 1A, but of course the average citizen is not a rail buff and has many other immediate worries on the mind than the hsr.
In any event Whitman is unlikely to become Governor. It is no longer possible for a real Repub to be elected Governor in California because the we now live in a welfare state dominated by big city political machines. Pols like Rangel and Pelosi are like the Pope, in office for life no matter what. Businesses are resigned to this fact; that’s why so many are relocating to places like Texas.
But if she did get really lucky and win she could probably be persuaded to put the whole hsr issue on the ballot. Hardly the end of the world. This is a huge project, very expensive and complex, and merits careful study before plunging ahead. Let the voters decide which hsr they prefer: Kopp-Diridon-PB-Palmdale’s or Tolmach’s.
StevieB Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Few jobs leave California each year.
synonymouse Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Friends and relatives working for companies who moved out of California.
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:56 am
I knew the whole “jobs leaving” thing has always been bogus. The ones who leave are the ones who don’t want to do their part to contribute to the state that made them a success. YOu wanna leave? I say go. We don’t need anyone here who doesn’t want to be here. We don’t need “bad” californian’s who undermine the spirit. If you are good at what you do you will be successful, you will make it here, be able to pay your taxes and employees, and have a good life. If the only way you can make a go, is by moving to a state that gives you a free ride, (ahem, corporate welfare anyone) then you aren’t the type of business we want. There are what, hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small in california, how come they can make it just fine?
Same goes for residents. If all you do is whine then move to kansas or Idaho and see just what it means to live in a state that embraces conservatives philosophies. Just don’t forget your snow shovel, and your storm shelter.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 5:37 am
Jim, California has one of the worst K-12 public education systems in the US. If you leave at 18, the state has contributed jack shit to you. California isn’t just the state of Harvey Milk and Pat Brown and Cal; it’s also the state of Ronald Reagan and Prop 13.
Missiondweller Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Let me guess Stevie, you work for the State?
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Alon, the biggest problem with education isn’t the educational system its the fact that we have too many kids who not only aren’t fluent in english but aren’t even literate in their native language and even more importantly, parents have failed to take responsibility to prepare their kids for school. hell, they don’t even feed their damn kids before they send them to school. What in hell is a teacher suppose to do with that? All you have to do is look at the schools in the “good” neighborhoods and see that the system works just fine. Those parents are involved and they prepare their kids. No amount of money can take the place of that. Don’t make excuses for the ones who don’t make the effort.
Missiondweller Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Well said.
J. Wong Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
California spending per pupil is 49th among all the states just ahead of Mississippi all because of Prop. 13. It’s true that involved parents make a big difference, but I don’t see how you can have a world class educational system with the amount that California spends. Prop. 13 has beggared the state.
jimsf Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 5:03 am
yeh I just don’t care that much about the education budget. really. They took large a percentage of the budget. If you want to spend more on it then find a way to do it that lowers the overall percentage of the state budget and give the difference to infrastructure. Given the choice of nice roads, sidewalks, and landscaping or schools. I want the state to look nice. Let local communities tax themselves for their local schools if they want more.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
The answer isn’t to stop when the going gets tough. If this project is canceled or put on hold, not only will it take a decade to revive, but California’s economy and transportation system will be unable to shoulder the burden in the absence of HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:15 am
OK, for a horrible historical comparison, back in Victorian times, the UK Parliament refused to let the South Eastern Railway take a rational route out of London on the grounds that only one route out of London to the south was necessary, so they should go along the existing route heading southwest (!!!!) before turning east.
Eventually it got fixed, decades later, but it was a gross mess. Nevertheless, the South Eastern Railway was worth supporting.
This design isn’t nearly that bad. It’s very, very far from being as bad as the misbegotten mess of non-connecting stub-end stations which London, Paris, Moscow, Chicago, and New York were left with, which are taking over a century to fix. It’s not bad enough to be worth opposing.
Platform heights are easier to change than downtown alignments, and despite being a massively stupid error, are not one which is going to haunt the system for a century.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 3:48 am
You’re absolutely right. For decades Paris stations had platforms of different heights. To get on some trains you had to climb one or two steps while TGV platforms were level with car floors. This minor inconvenience never created big problems.
On the other hand, all of Paris stations being stub ends is a real and insolvable problem.
Put a prking lot by 101 (maybe use the airport) and by 280, with shuttle service to the station, and Bob’s Your Uncle.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
There’s also the issue of running nonstop trains at 200 mph through downtown.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Not on the Peninsula, there isn’t.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Sorry, thought he was talking about Gilroy. My bad.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 10th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
What Alon said. I want to add that trains go through green leafy suburbs just as rich as the Peninsula all day every day, right here in the US, at speeds higher than what will be used on the Peninsula.
In 1947 and again in 1976, special trains were operated to celebrate America itself. These were the Freedom Trains, mobile history and citizenship lessons that drew huge crowds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Train
http://www.freedomtrain.org/
http://www.themetrains.com/html/main.html
Maybe we should call HSR the Freedom Train from Oil? It’s a bit of a stretch, I know, because of the need for non-oil connecting transit, but it might be good marketing. . .certainly wouldn’t be a bigger fib than some other things out there. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:06 am
One more, with Bing Crosby and Andrews Sisters for the soundtrack:
http://www.lincoln-highway-museum.org/FT/FT-Index.html
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
hey where’s the music?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Should just come up; that’s what it does for me. Alternately, there is a link on this portion of the site that is supposed to go to the recording; strangely, this doesn’t seem to work here, but it might for you.
http://www.lincoln-highway-museum.org/FT/FT-04-Song-Index.html
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
oh yehthere it is – and who doesn’t love the andrew sisters
I’ve commented before about how a local commuter rail service had real advantages for me, despite a huge number of stops and a schedule that averaged less than 35 mph. I thought you might want to look at it, and make comparisons with what you have in California.
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/schedulesSystemMaps/Brunswick_Jan10.pdf
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/schedulesSystemMaps/Camden_Jan10.pdf
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/serviceInformation/Penn_Aug2010.pdf
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/brunswickcamdenconversion.cfm
http://mta.maryland.gov/services/marc/pennconversiontable.cfm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
MARC photos.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=340300&nseq=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=336508&nseq=8
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=336479&nseq=10
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=330633&nseq=13
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=327976&nseq=17
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=327466&nseq=18
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=326239&nseq=19
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=322104&nseq=25
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=321465&nseq=27
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=314606&nseq=30
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=313857&nseq=37
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=310557&nseq=44
Do the passenger cars in this shot look familiar?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=309434&nseq=45
One of these was still around in 2006.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=338842&nseq=5
Enjoy.
Half mile wide right of way through farmland reported by Don Curlee in the Visalia Times-Delta last week.
I do not know where he got his information but you could put tens of tracks in a half mile right of way.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Crazy. Insane. Sounds much like the farmers from 175 years ago who thought their cows would go dry and their hens would quit laying. Must be fear-mongering from the anti-rail crowd.
Peter Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I just wrote them a Letter to the Editor setting the facts straight.
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
This just in: High speed rail will cause California to fall into the ocean.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
In nice round numbers half a mile is 2500 feet. In nice round numbers a track takes 25 feet with it’s signal towers and emergency zones. or 100 tracks.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
The reason for the (so-called) half-mile ROW at that location is due to the alignment, which cuts diagonally across the middle of 40-acre parcels. With the farm bisected, there is easy no way to get equipment across the ROW without miles-long detour. According to the owners, it renders the parcels useless for farming.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am
So, not actually a half-mile-wide ROW.
This is how this normally works:
(a) The owners of bisected parcels will be paid not only for the ROW but also for half of the parcel, the half on the “far side” of the road access.
(b) For each bisected parcel, the part on the “far side” will be bought by the neighboring farmer (who still has road access from the other side) and will continue to be farmed.
But perhaps they don’t know how to farm in the Central Valley. I’ve noticed incredibly wasteful practices seem to be common there, particularly in the matter of irrigation. Maybe they don’t know how to farm an oddly shaped parcel, the way our farmers in the Northeast do.
datacruncher Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
The Farm Bureau had a much better article last week discussing the concerns of farmers in that area about the potential route and the impacts on their operations.
http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1612&ck=52947E0ADE57A09E4A1386D08F17B656
Besides equipment movement, farmers there have concerns about everything from having to rewrite/renegotiate farm loans on the land, to irrigation wells on one side of the ROW but crops that need water on the other side, to lost buildings, to the lost efficiency from a contiguous field being split in half, etc.
Nathanael Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:21 am
All this stuff has been solved in the past and is not exceptionally problematic. In places like England, where farmers seem extraordinarily averse to “land swaps” with their neighbors (which is what seems to happen most often in the US), farm-access underpasses and overpasses end up getting built.
tomh Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:51 am
datacruncher – You don’t think it’s possible for irrigation pipes to be placed under the ROW?
datacruncher Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:58 am
You might reread what I wrote. I’m not saying that is what I think, I am pointing out the concerns of people in that area.
StevieB Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 5:32 am
False issues raised over high-speed rail is the rail authority issued rebuttal to Don Curlee’s opinion on farmland issues.
tomh Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Exactly. People are acting like this has never been done nor figured out before.
Robert mentioned this item from New Jersey — here is a full story…
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001804-the-hudson-tunnel-issues-new-jersey
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sent shockwaves through the transportation industry on last Thursday when he cancelled the under-construction ARC (Access to the Regional Core) rail tunnel under the Hudson River from New Jersey to New York (Manhattan).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Tea bagger grandstanding. He doesn’t have the authority to stop it. I’m sure commuters all over Northern and Central New Jersey are busy collecting debris for the bonfires they are planning to light in Trenton. Also making sure the pitchforks are nice and sharp and the torches are well soaked. He going to have a change of heart sometime soon.
StevieB Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The planned rail tunnel under the Hudson River may not be quite dead yet.
jimsf Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
so the pitchforks were pretty sharp then…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 11th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
You’re way behind the curve, Morris. I’ve been dancing on ARC’s grave for about a week now.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Why?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Perhaps because he’s too well-behaved and polite to introduce what would inevitably be a long-winded and uninformed and off-topic flame war onto a CHSR forum?
“Train project” ≠ “Good project”.
• HSR opponents pack another HSR meeting in Palo Alto, this time to show opposition to a mid-Peninsula station. They must not care for their property values much, which are dependent on easy access to job centers in San Jose and San Francisco. One reason why many New Jersey officials are outraged at Governor Christie’s decision (which he may be reconsidering) to pull the plug on the ARC Tunnel is that it would have given a boost to property values in New Jersey, which are dependent on having more reliable access to Manhattan. But no, I guess the Palo Alto NIMBYs are right that it will always be 1985.
HA THIS IS REALLY FUNNY. PROPERTY VALUES DEPENDENT ON EASY ACCESS TO JOB CENTERS IN SAN JOSE AND SF? COME ON. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE FROM SF AND SJ RIDING THE TRAIN AND DRIVING TO JOB CENTERS IN PA AND THE PENINSULA. PROPERTY VALUES IN PA ARE HARDLY DEPENDENT ON EASY ACCESS TO SJ AND SF.