Why the Governor’s HSR Line-Item Veto Is Irrelevant
Last week Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger line item vetoed a provision in the 2010-11 state budget trying funding for the California High Speed Rail Authority to “fiscal accountability measures” laid out by the state legislature:
The Legislature’s provision would have required the California High-Speed Rail Authority to address problems outlined in reports from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state auditor and UC Berkeley ridership experts. The authority would have lost funding under the provision if it failed to release specific financial plans by Feb. 1 and receive the approval of lawmakers.
HSR critics and opponents have been pushing this story hard, as it fits their overall effort of undermining the project by undermining the Authority. It’s a classic “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” campaign and while there are ways in which the Authority can improve, most of the people criticizing the Authority aren’t doing so in order to get the best HSR project possible built – they’re doing so in order to convince the legislature to pull the plug on the project.
Today HSR opponent Kathy Hamilton tries to add fuel to the fire, passing along a tip from passenger rail opponent Gary Patton that the governor’s veto might be illegal:
But the multi-billion dollar question is, are the actions of the Governor legal? Gary Patton, attorney and Executive Director for Community Coalition on High Speed Rail, doesn’t think so. Patton says, “The Governor has NO power to eliminate control language from the budget bill. He is restricted to actions in accordance with the Constitution.” Here’s what the Court says:
In the context of the constitutionally prescribed budget process, the power to appropriate public funds belongs exclusively to the Legislature. With respect to a bill containing appropriations, the Governor has three options: (1) to sign the bill, (2) to veto the measure in its entirety , or (3) to “reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation.
“The Court emphasizes that if the Governor doesn’t take option #1 or #2, he can ONLY do #3, and then spends a lot of time talking about what an “item of appropriation” means. It does NOT seem to mean budget control language.” In Patton’s opinion, “What he did is a Constitutional overreach.”
What’s less clear is how to challenge this overreach. Will a member of the legislature have the courage to challenge it? Is there a vote that can simply overturn the veto and what is the timing of that vote? Or does the public once again have step in to file suit, making the Governor and the Legislature, “do the right thing?”
This is a fairly technical point, but it’s highly doubtful much will be done about it. First, the state legislature most certainly will not override the veto. For bizarre reasons that make absolutely no sense to me, the Democratic leadership simply does not believe in holding veto override sessions – for nearly 30 years they have resisted challenging the governor’s vetoes by trying to gather the 2/3rds vote needed to override the veto of a bill or a line-item veto of a budget item, even when the governor vetoed popular legislation. I can guarantee that the legislature will not hold a veto override session for the high speed rail funding – especially when they won’t do it to challenge nearly $1 billion in line-item vetoes to health and human services that infuriated Democrats.
So that leaves another lawsuit, and I’m sure that Gary Patton will happily help file it. And perhaps he’ll win in court. But it would be a very hollow victory. The case would not go to trial anytime soon, not likely by the February 1 deadline originally laid out in the line-item that the governor vetoed. So a lawsuit would not restore the provision in time.
More fundamentally, the veto itself is rendered less relevant by the upcoming gubernatorial election, which is of far more importance to the future of the HSR project than any legislative accountability provision. If Meg Whitman wins, she will find a way to stop the project from being funded and it will die for at least as long as she is in office. If Jerry Brown wins, he is likely to pursue his own set of reforms to the Authority, in order to help ensure an HSR project he quite strongly supports gets built.
I’ve been confident that the Authority can address the issues the legislators raised, just as I have been confident that those issues – including the State Auditor’s report and the Berkeley ITS study – are deeply flawed in themselves and do not provide any basis for blocking the project. It’s not intellectually honest to set up false or flawed claims about a project, then make someone respond as if those claims are true, and judge them if you find their response lacking. It’s the equivalent of the “have you stopped beating your wife?” question. So while I could have lived with the legislative provisions, I’m not going to lament their demise.
Still, we can expect that HSR critics and opponents will spin this to suit their arguments that the project is flawed and shouldn’t go forward, even while Californians voters will once again make the more important decisions that affect the project’s very viability.
Robert,
I don’t think its an issue of overriding veto. I think that the governor may not have the power to delete just one part of a bigger bill if it is not to cut an appropriation.
I also don’t know why he did it. The HSRA has had similar strings attached to funding in the past and has always squeaked by meeting the letter of the law if not the spirit. Why would you piss off the senator who happens to chair the committee that decides whether or not HSR gets money?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:59 am
He might not have the power. My point is that given the timelines and the election, the veto isn’t going to play a decisive role in the future of the Authority or the HSR project – and that would have been true had the provisions been upheld and gone forward as the legislature intended.
I have a very hard time believing that Joe Simitian or Alan Lowenthal will fight Jerry Brown over HSR funding and the Authority. I just do not see that happening. Brown will have his own ideas and at least in 2011, I expect a Democratic legislature to generally fall in line. And Whitman will just blow up the project itself.
So this veto thing is pretty much moot, given the nature of the gubernatorial election and its impact on HSR.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:56 am
don’t entirely disagree. This is back to my point – why do this?????
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
From the wording in the news article, the Governator may be trying to avoid the CAHSRA diluting its focus and thus not meeting other, useful for publicity purposes, deadlines while he is still in office.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Because he’s just doing whatever his advisors, like David Crane, tell him to do. I would guess that Pringle had a role here too.
I agree the overriding the veto won’t happen. It has been since 1979 that that has happened and there have been several attempts on what would seem to be easy overrides, but they all fizzled.
Most likely, David Crane, the Governor’s financial director on the board recommended this. I don’t understand why either.
However, an outside party would not necessarily need to be who will institute a legal action. Legislators have that right as well, and in this case one might wonder if that might indeed happen.
Of course if Robert had his way, there would be no oversight — just pass along the funds.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Morris, I’m not saying that there would be no oversight. I could have lived with those provisions. But the November 2 election will have a much greater impact on the project than these provisions would have, vetoed or not.
“I’ve been confident that the Authority can address the issues the legislators raised” Gag. You’re becoming an endangered species, Robert.
Of those issues raised and earlier ones, what have they ever adequately addressed without being forced into it with a threat of losing funding? Sad to say, but they’ve earned their “no confidence” votes fair and square.
If the legislature wants to “defund” CHSRA, all they need to do is deny prop 1A appropriations requests in the context of the annual budget brouhaha next year. The legislature could even decide to handle HSR a special case from now on and deal with such requests by way of a supplemental budget. There’s simply no need for any additional legislation. Sen. Lowenthal et al. already have all the accountability tools they need at their disposal. IMHO, his real beef is that he doesn’t have complete personal control of the $9.95 billion in prop 1A(2008) funds.
Besides, an outgoing governor shouldn’t tie his successor’s hands before an election, that would be unseemly. The future of the HSR project is a topic this time around and will be in future elections as well. One way or another, voters will want and deserve their say in a project of this financial scale and environmental impact every other year. On the 2010 ballot, the issue is not presented as a stand-alone initiative but rather, as contrasting positions from the gubernatorial candidates. That’s probably just as well, given the complexities of the state’s fiscal situation.
That said, I do hope Jerry Brown will win and institute some reforms at CHSRA. While PBQD is technically just a consultant to the board, in practice pretty much everything they’ve proposed has been rubber-stamped. Outsourcing to this extent effectively hands the keys to the castle to a private for-profit company looking to maximize its own profits, not value for taxpayer money. Hence the insistence – before regulatory options have even been explored with FRA and CPUC – that the HSR system must feature dedicated tracks absolutely everywhere. Hence the insistence on architectural confections like bi-level stations and mezzanine areas even for secondary stops. Hence the insistence on tunneling through Santa Clara and Fullerton.
The notion that hiring a few additional public servants to regain control of the priorities would present an unacceptable burden on future budgets seems penny wise and pound foolish to me. IMHO, the way forward is to achieve a little bit less for a lot less money, e.g. by figuring out how to share track with Caltrain, Metrolink and Amtrak PS and by commissioning at least a feasibility study on two-gear transmissions (electromagnetic or mechanical) that can deliver 220mph cruise speeds as well as a 6% gradient capability (obviously, at far lower speed).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 6:07 am
feasibility study on two-gear transmissions (electromagnetic or mechanical)
Nobody in their right mind would do it mechanically in 2010. You do it with software in the power electronics, shaping the frequency and voltage supplied to the motors.
rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:22 am
The issue is that the rotor components of electric motors have finite mechanical strength, which constrains maximum torque output at moderate speeds. Beefier rotors can handle more torque, but their rated speed must be lower to protect the bearings.
If you want both a rated vehicle speed of 220mph and a traction force rating high enough to let the vehicle stop on a 6% gradient and accelerate back up before the next ice age, then you need a transmission that can switch between two speed ranges. The regular one would cover 0-220mph but with moderate maximum traction force. The low range would force the rotor to its rated speed at a vehicle speed of e.g. 150mph but deliver 50% more traction force for the same motor torque and speed (i.e. power output). Therefore, even though power electronics are used to provide continuously variable rotor speed, there is still a case for a switchable final drive IFF you want both of these performance extremes.
Note that in an EMU context, there is a large number of separate motors and transmissions. If the train is cruising at e.g. 140mph on flat terrain, the total power required can be delivered with far less than the full complement. The computers would gently power down each motor in turn, have the servo switch the transmission at zero load and gently power it back up (cp. stick shift on a car except that unlike internal combustion engines, electric motors don’t require clutches). It might well take some number of seconds to switch all of the transmissions on a full-length train but that wouldn’t be a problem. Rather, the issues are higher axle diameter, larger and heavier final drive and last not least, system reliability. Operators generally prefer mechanically simple technology.
Instead of a mechanical final drive transmission with two available gear ratios, the stator windings can be set up to permit switching between two possible pole pair counts in solid state. This is more elegant but requires a rotor design with a beefier axle that still features the same rated speed, i.e. you need better bearings.
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:38 am
As nifty as this sounds, concentrating on an initial deployment with existing technology would be a more reliable way forward.
synonymouse Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Are you sure the 6% requirement could not be reduced at Tejon by introducing some short, high tunnels that would not bisect any faults? But I do totally agree that the at grade alternative does deserve honest consideration.
My biggest problem with the PB-CHSRA treatment of Tejon is that the rejection of the optimal requires a higher burden of proof than the acceptance of the sub-optimal. Tejon is the manifestly superior route in so many ways that to spurn it the case against it must be airtight and absolutely damning.
I assert that that level of condemnation must be brought against the best of all the contending Tejon alignments. That did not happen as the CHSRA always tried to incorporate Palmdale in its routes. Which is why I would like to see an outsider, like Herrenknecht, develop the best Tejon alternative. The the Techachapi foamers can go after it fairly.
rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Herrenknecht doesn’t build HSR trains, folks like Siemens, Alstom, Talgo, Hitachi, Rotem et al. do. It is they who would have to deliver a solution that would permit a route featuring much steeper gradients than is currently possible. This doesn’t require more power than running at 220 mph, just a different trade-off between traction force and vehicle speed.
My hunch is that if CHSRA asked them for input on a feasibility study, train vendors would seek a solution that would eliminate the need for mountain tunnels altogether, i.e. 6% gradient capability. In addition to raw traction force for climbing, train engineers would need to tackle braking on descents, axle loads, off-design conditions related to inclement weather or unscheduled stops on steep uphill sections and system reliability, quite possibly other aspects.
Track engineers would need to look at stuff like Y-shaped steel sleepers to maintain geometry tolerances in relatively tight lateral curves that experience large seasonal variations in ambient temperature.
I reckon that could shave as much as $2 billion off the up-front investment required for the HSR starter line, even after accounting for the steep premium such trains would command (e.g. $40m per trainset instead of the $30m CHSRA has currently penciled in). Therefore, I think a couple of years and e.g. $10m on such a feasibility study led by a qualified mechanical engineering professor at a TBD California University would be time and money well spent – even if, in the end, the concept proves infeasible.
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Für diejenigen mit einem geringeren
Kenntnisse der deutschen Sprache..
Rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Thx for these links to documentation on Y sleepers in English.
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Very interesting source. Thank you.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I look at this, and while I live in a mountainous state (West Virginia), and we have railroads here that do some amazing things. The steam-operated Cass Scenic Railroad averages 5%, has multiple sections of 7% and 8% (and routinely starts trains on an 8% stretch after a water stop), has two sections at 11%, and once had a section of 13%; all this is combined with two switchbacks and 40-degree curves. However, as you can also guess, this is anything but a high-speed line; it’s a former logging road, and uses specialized geared logging engines exclusively. Top speed–maybe 12 mph, less than 10% of what Acela does. They did try a trip up once with a diesel that is used as a shop switcher, and it overheated beautifully; no diesel has been back up on the mountain since.
My question is this: does anybody at all run at 100 mph or better up, and more importantly, down, such gradients? The guys at Cass will tell you that the latter is more important; they come down with air, and handbrakes, too.
Second question: what sort of motors are used on the high-speed sets that are likely to be looked at? Most diesel locomotives and straight electrics currently use a series-type DC motor, which has a nice attribute of pulling harder as it turns slower. The disadvantage is that it can be overheated when overloaded. An alternate motor is a syncronous AC job, which runs at whatever the AC frequency lets it run at, and has what looks like a squirrel cage for an armature; rotating magnetic fields pull it around, and the armature has no windings and no commutator. Such a motor is extremely robust, but brings up the complication of some pretty fancy control gear to get variable speeds; in modern practice, this means you have to take constant frequency AC from the overhead wire, convert it to DC, then convert it back to variable-frequency AC (which is how you get your speed control).
There were syncronous AC locomotives built in the past, but they had a problem with a limited number of operating speeds, made available, if I recall, by something called a “phase split.” The units I’m familiar with had two speeds, 14 and 28 mph; these were freight locomotives on the Virginian Railway, and what additional speed contral was available was with a liquid (water) rheostat that steamed in cold weather.
Rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
(a) There are several legacy heavy rail narrow-gauge adhesion railroads featuring very steep gradients in Switzerland. The Appenzellerbahn’s current Durchmesserlinie project to eliminate legacy cog sections and turn St. Gallen into a run-through station calls for a short new tunnel with a gradient of 8.2%. Commuter trains will run through it at around 40km/h (25mph).
The Badische Hoellentalbahn through Germany’s Black Forest has a ruling gradient of 5.5% and is used for electric commuter trains. IDK at what speed the steepest section is negotiated. 50-60km/h (30-38mph) sounds like a reasonable guesstimate.
Ergo, none of these routes is operated at 100mph, the lateral curve radii on these legacy alignments wouldn’t even permit it. Besides, there’s simply no need. Technologically, the biggest challenge is braking performance and reliability in winter conditions. Germany’s Eisenbahnbundesamt (counterpart to the FRA) requires at least three independent brake systems for any Steilbahn, i.e. any section with a ruling gradient above 5%.
The 100mph figure for a 6% gradient is probably too optimisitic even for HSR trains featuring two-mode transmissions. That said, the steepest sections are actually quite short and you anyhow wouldn’t want to cross the crest at high speed because of the additional demands that would place on the brake systems.
(b) Modern HSR trains use either three-phase AC induction motors plus fixed-ratio final drive gearboxes or the more efficient three-phase AC permanent magnet synchronous motors (e.g. Alstom AGV). Advances in ferromagnetic materials and remnance management have allowed designers to eliminate the gear box in some PMSM-based designs (e.g. from Siemens). Instead, one rotor is mounted directly on each wheelset axle of a powered bogie.
Clem Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
50% more traction force for the same motor torque and speed (i.e. power output)
That would be nice, if it weren’t for pesky things like the laws of physics getting in the way. At reasonable train speeds, the available traction force is power-limited. You can never develop more tractive effort than power divided by speed.
Rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Define “reasonable” in this context. For example, a 11-car Alstom AGV trainset (200m length) with the full complement of 6 traction units has a top speed of 220mph and a rated traction force of 275kN (p11 PDF). The diagram also includes load curves at gradients up to 4%. Note the unusual transition to a higher power level between 135 and 210km/h if and only if the supply voltage is 25kV. IDK the reason why it can’t be sustained at lower speeds.
Now, imagine an additional load curve for a 6% gradient. As-is, an AGV could negotiate that at a limit speed of around 60km/h (38mph). However, the curves would intersect in the portion of the diagram in which traction force is limited by motor torque rather than rated power. A shorter final gear ratio would increase the traction force limit at moderate speeds while reducing feasible top speed, which is not acceptable. Hence the idea of a regular plus a low gear ratio. This would obviously require beefier wheelsets as well to keep stresses within tolerance.
Extending the constant power hyperbola for 15kV to the left, you’d end up with a limit speed of perhaps 80km/h (50mph) for a 6% gradient – at first glance, such a small improvement doesn’t seem worthwhile. However, operators aren’t just interested in limit speed but also in acceleration performance up to that speed. The solution must feature sufficient traction force reserves to allow a train that has to stop on the steepest section for some off-design reason to resume climbing and reach the crest before the next ice age. It should also be possible to continue crawling uphill even if one of the six motors unexpectedly fails. A low gear would deliver exactly that margin of safety.
Now, you might well argue that even 50mph is unacceptably slow for an HSR train crossing Tejon Pass. However, the steepest section is just a few miles in length, beyond it increasingly higher speeds would be possible. The real measure of viability isn’t really top speed near the pass but rather, line haul time between Bakersfield and Sylmar compared to that for the Tehachapis detour. If the result is competitive, there is no need for additional rated power.
Note that a shortcut would eliminate Palmdale from the route. CHSRA’s program-level EIS/EIR suggests that the ridership lost there might well be fully compensated by higher boarding numbers elsewhere. For example, long-distance commuters into the LA basin might choose to live in Bakersfield instead. Btw, I reckon that city’s HSR station ought to be moved west from Truxton Ave to the CA-99 corridor if the route were switched to Tejon-at-grade. As a fringe benefit, this would also eliminate the whole issue of constructing controversial viaducts through downtown, e.g. near Bakersfield High School and Mercy Hospital.
Btw, I’m explicitly not endorsing the AGV for California HSR. Several other vendors already have or can credibly claim the ability to develop products that can achieve a top speed of around 220mph and climb a 4% gradient with direct final drive or a fixed gear ratio. None of them offer a two-mode transmission today.
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“Btw, I’m explicitly not endorsing the AGV for California HSR. Several other vendors already have or can credibly claim the ability to develop products that can achieve a top speed of around 220mph and climb a 4% gradient with direct final drive or a fixed gear ratio. None of them offer a two-mode transmission today.”
Exactly. I say, Siemens, Alstom, Talgo, etc. are probably already working on a train that could meet our needs. On top of that, they have far more experience. They will find a solution within our means.
Rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Well, afaik none if them is working on a two-mode transmission right now because no-one has asked them to even look into that possibility. Their existing customer base doesn’t have any HSR routes featuring 6% gradients, nor are they looking to build any new sections that steep. Germany’s DB recently built one with some short sections at 4%, but the general trend in Europe is to stick with 3.5% and shoot for 2.5% for future construction if at all possible. The rationale is that light/medium (intermodal) freight trains running at night can negotiate such gradients. Rail freight in Europe is based on a very different business model from that in North America, primarily because bulk goods can often be transported at lower cost via coastal and inland waterways there.
California’s HSR system is a blank slate. A starter line featuring a 6% ruling gradient would be unique in the world, but not a priori infeasible. After all, it’s not like California let alone federal voters are willing to accept higher tax rates to pay for extensive tunnel systems. The objective should be to minimize up-front capital investment so the starter line actually gets built at all, even if that means permanently higher operating expenses (electricity, maintenance, rolling stock amortization).
synonymouse Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
At this juncture I see no indication from the Jerry Brown camp that he is anything other than a reliable rubber-stamp for every detail of the PB-CHSRA plan. He could have easily at least somewhat placated those many voters who are uncomfortable or concerned about the hsr by stating that he shared their worries and promised hands-on treatment of the CHSRA once elected. I have seen no proof that he has even studied the route.
I doubt that Brown is aware there is another starter hsr route alternative that would be faster and would avoid many of the urban area controversies.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:02 am
And more importantly, the Democratic-controlled legislature will generally be a “reliable rubber-stamp” for Brown’s priorities, at least in 2011. The honeymoon will wear off, but not in the first year.
synonymouse Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Brown will enter office with no mandate as the election results are likely to be very close, especially when you grade on the curve, given the much higher Democratic registration and the large number of people receiving money from the state, employed or entitled, and hence feel obligated to vote machine.
Brown will probably delay the payback to the unions until toward the end of his term and hope to avoid the danger of recall thru lameduck status.
rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
“I doubt that Brown is aware there is another starter hsr route alternative that would be faster and would avoid many of the urban area controversies.”
(a) What makes you think Brown would make any decisions regarding HSR without first getting a very thorough briefing?
(b) If you’re referring to the “option” of running tracks through tunnels at Tejon, up I-5 and terminating in Livermore, you have no clue whatsoever just how many “urban area controversies” that would generate in SF, San Jose, Fresno,Bakersfield and last not least in LA and Anaheim. SoCal folks there have zero interest in transferring to dog-slow BART in Livermore, a place it hasn’t been extended to yet.
On top of being nearly useless, this “option” would – based on the state of the art in HSR train technology – require tunneling through two major slip-strike faults. The southern San Andreas is overdue for a “Big One”, USGS says there’s a 59% chance of one in the next 30 years (i.e. well within the lifespan of the HSR infrastructure).
The 1857 Tejon quake resulted in local slip distances of 4.5-9m (15-30 feet). The Garlock fault last slipped in 1952 and exhibits significant creep except near Tejon Pass, where it meets up with the San Andreas. A slip on the former just might trigger a secondary slip of similar magnitude laterally on the latter in that area as stress in the crust redistributes in the aftermath of a “Big One”, quite possibly with local displacements in the 30 feet range. Ergo, truly massive and expensive fault crossing chambers would be needed for both faults to permit track reconstruction after such an event.
If any HSR train vendor had a product capable of both 220mph top speed and 6% climbing ability, Tejon Pass could perhaps be crossed at grade and the detour via Palmdale avoided. The up-front investment would then be much smaller, though the funds and time required for track reconstruction after a major quake would likely still be much higher than for the Tehachapis route.
http://www.scec.org/core/public/sceccontext.php/3935/13664
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/21/local/la-me-earthquake-fault-20100821
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/nester1/sandreas.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=5D0SpiaDRTIC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=garlock+fault+displacement+30+feet
synonymouse Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
But on the other hand there was a major quake at Tehachapi in 1952. Humans of a scientific bent simply haven’t been around either Tejon or Tehachapi long enough to observe the actual frequency and severity of quakes in either location. They are still discovering new faults in the region.
Your at grade proposal is certainly worth pursuing, but I am also suggesting there could be worthwhile civil works along the alignment that could reduce the 6%.
Still am convinced the base tunnels should be thoroughly studied. My understanding is that there is an alignment where only the Garlock has to be crossed in tunnel.
rafael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 7:01 am
There’s a whole field of scientific study called paleoseismology. Researchers dig ditches to look for geological markers of past earthquakes, assess their severity and then try to tie them to at least approximately to dates. That’s why they can estimate the mean intervals of major earthquakes on a particular fault, e.g. about 88 years in the case of the San Andreas and 2000-3000 in the case of the Garlock fault. The 1952 White Wolf quake in Kern county was on a secondary fault branching off the Garlock, well east of Tejon Pass. You’re quite right to point out that new faults are still being discovered and/or created by recent quakes.
Wrt to the 6%, speaking as a mechanical engineer I actually don’t believe it’s as huge a hurdle as you seem to believe. Basically, you either put in a beefier drivetrain that can deal with the higher stresses associated with higher traction forces or, you apply transmissions with multiple gears and a suitable gear change procedure. HSR train designers simply haven’t done so to date because their current customer base hasn’t asked for it. On the contrary, the global trend is actually toward eliminating even fixed-gear final drive gear boxes because they represent an additional point of potential failure. In EMU applications, they also generate audible noise in the passenger compartment.
The only reason I’m suggesting a feasibility study into two-mode transmission concepts at all is that the state of California – unlike China, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, Germany etc. – is struggling mightily to corral the up-front capital investment for the starter line at all. State politicians simply aren’t prepared to even ask voters to accept a tax hike for the project because they fear it wouldn’t pass with the required 2/3 majority, even though voters in LA, Santa Clara, Marin and Sonoma did pass several ballot initiatives to fund local/regional rail transit projects via county-level sales tax hikes in 2008.
Btw, CHSRA never even considered constructing a base tunnel under Tejon, that would only make sense if it were needed for freight as well. Instead, the scenario they studied and ultimately rejected called for a system of tunnels at a ruling gradient of 3.5%. The longest individual tunnel section at about 10 miles stretched from Grapevine to just south of Tejon Pass, crossing both faults underground. IIRC, there was indeed one special alignment that would permit splitting that into two shorter sections, each less than 6 miles in length. That’s the threshold beyond which CHSRA’s advisors insisted an expensive third service/escape tube must be constructed. However, even that solution still called for both faults to be crossed underground plus an above-ground section ran close to (just east of) the wildlife preserve at Lake Castaic.
IMHO, the Tejon Pass alternative isn’t worth a second look until and unless advances in HSR train technology permit an at-grade alignment across both fault lines (and for a significant distance to either side). Indeed, such a scenario would have to be not yet technically feasible but also superior to (or at the very least competitive with) the currently preferred Tehachapis route in terms of both line haul time and construction cost and overall risk – including R&D risk. There’s no way of knowing until someone looks into this in more detail, which means spending some money on a feasibility study.
synonymouse Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am
We disagree basically on degree of interpretation. I like your at grade idea, but it would be helped if a 4% requirement could be achieved, because existing hsr has already coped with that gradient. I would view paleoseismology as being in the infant stage, with the distinct possibility that the seismic danger of the Tehachapi alignment being conveniently way understated.
I wish I were more familiar with the detailed topography of the Tejon area but the assertion has been made that a two tunnel alignment exists which crosses the San Andreas on the surface but bisects the Garlock in tunnel. I would like to see a cost estimate of an out-sized gallery at the Garlock fault that would accommodate the inevitable slippage. Rumor has it that the BART east bay tunnel has already used up its wiggle room.
The value of the Tejon alternative is greater than the PB-CHSRA recognizes. In relation to the
overall scope, cost, and complexity of the project the base tunnels are appropriate. California needs some bleeding edge for a change, anyway. Let’s take a hint from the Swiss, who recognize the wisdom of a monumental, agenda-changing solution.
Peter Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:30 am
One of the issues raised with the Tejon alignment they identified in the tunneling study, IIRC, is that it would have not only crossed fault lines in tunnels, but that it would also closely parallel fault lines for miles. This was seen as being more risky than merely crossing fault lines at grade.
synonymouse Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 11:54 am
I am afraid we are living in California, where we regularly “closely parallel fault lines for miles”.
Think of the Hayward Fault.
Granted you make a logical case for Tejon being more seismically risky. But the case is not proven, only real world experience will tell. I am suggesting that the relative dangers of the two routes are in fact closer than estimated today.
For one the two areas are not far apart. Secondly some profound geological processes(including seismic)have obviously been at work creating the channel thru the mountains at Tehachapi. I am snidely intimating that there is risk in the Tehachapis that has not “surfaced” as yet. Tejon is obvious and in your face whereas the other could very well be stealthy, but comparable.
Voters approved high speed rail and the last thing they want is a bunch of red tape holding up the project. That is what people are tired of, voting for something and then not getting it in a timely manner. Transportation is always at the top of the list for californians as we are a very mobile bunch and political grandstanding and nimby shenanigans are only going to piss off the public. When they vote for something they want to see results.
Colony Rabble Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 7:33 am
The HSR project we are getting bears NO resemblance to what Californians voted for in 2008.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Really? Then why is it going from San Francisco-Anahiem still? Why is it still going via the Central Valley? The route has not changed. The cost was escalated to year of expendature dollars instead of current year dollars to account for inflation. Fares STILL HAVE NOT BEEN SET. The media during the Prop 1a campaign as always took the juiciest of statistics, then comes back and claims to be blindsided by reality when reality was at the front door as always. If you did not take the media’s word with a grain of salt, that is your issue and this should have been expected. Besides, who would have predicted UP was going to be a PIA? The eventual vision is still an 800 mile system.
Really, what has changed?
John mcNary Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:33 am
That is absolutely not true.
John mcNary Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:35 am
… I refer to Colony ‘s incorrect reply that the current HSR project “bears NO resemblance to what Californians voted for in 2008″ …. which is despicable lie.
Peter Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Don’t worry. Colony Rabble is some right-wing loon from SoCal. That’s basically the only type of thing she (I think) can come up with.
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Actually is is exactly what we voted for. As someone who followed it prior to the election, followed all the details, many of which were, actually all of which, were posted right here, and someone who has continued to follow it since the election, I can say that its the same plan. Nothing changed. And people are getting impatient and asking about it everyday. “when is it gonna be done” is what I always hear from current rail passengers.
here’s a copy of railway age for anyone who wants to read it
Victor Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Neat, thanks.
In a major press release titled:
DECIDING WHERE TO BEGIN BUILDING HIGH-SPEED RAIL
van Arc spell out the new plan for construction.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/CHSRTemplate_STDwoBanner.aspx?pageid=9299
The laid out criteria are found at:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/selection_criteria.aspx
A lot to digest here.
morris
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I don’t see how they can pick any other segment but the Central Valley.
The Authority shall give priority to corridors or usable segments thereof that are
expected to require the least amount of bond funds as a percentage of total cost of
construction.
This would eliminate any construction of tunnels, I guess you could do SF-SJ. Which would be funny given the cost-constraints vs. NIMBY gluttony.
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
A project is considered to have operational independence “if, upon being implemented, it will provide tangible and measurable benefits, even if no additional investments in the same service are made.” Examples of these benefits include “operational reliability improvements, travel‐time reductions, and additional service frequencies resulting in increased ridership.” In practice, this requirement means that the improvements can be used for existing or new intercity rail passenger operations, including Amtrak and other intercity service Importantly, such service is clearly specified as being “intercity service” as opposed to enhanced commuter rail service
so does that mean that the central valley could be built, and existing service could use it for higher speeds in the interim while the other segments are constructed?
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
7) The utility of those corridors or usable segments thereof for passenger train services other than the high‐speed train service that will not result in any unreimbursed operating or maintenance cost to the authority [i.e. as long as the other train operator pays track access or other charges which cover the Authority’s incremental operating and maintenance costs for the new infrastructure]
So, they plan to build a segment, and rent it out to an existing operator in the meantime?
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Ok if this doesn’t scream “central valley segment first” I don’t know what does…
III. Minimized schedule risk, to meet the ARRA criteria of completion by the fall of 2017, considering such issues as:
‐ 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>
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Jim: yes, I think the idea is that the Central Valley segment could be used to speed up the San Joaquins to 110 MPH or so.
J. Wong Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Yeah, I think Fresno-Bakersfield is going to be it, but I think LA-Anaheim would have the most utility so it might be chosen instead. No way given the NIMBY’ism is SF-San Jose going to be chosen and Merced-Fresno is too short.
The CEO lays down the law… the five billion dollar question is whether the board will follow, or descend into squabbling?
I particularly like their “protocol” against smoke-filled back-room dealing:
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.
rafael Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
This will almost certainly degenerate into an unseemly porkfest, pitting the construction industry and its unions against those who own property abutting or at least near the proposed detailed alignment for the general route. Both elected politicians and CHSRA board members that nominally represent certain parts of the state will be caught in the middle. Some will seek to kick the can down the road, i.e. defer the decision to avoid losing out on any of the funding already on the table because problems have cropped up during environmental review in “their” neck of the woods.
Once construction starts anywhere, the sunk cost provides a powerful incentive to press ahead with completing the entire starter line – even if/when there are cost escalations related to highly profitable engineering change orders, most of which could be avoided by proper prior planning. And by proper, I mean “maximizing the value of the resulting public transportation service(s) per taxpayer dollar invested”.
The first segment should be Fresno-Bakersfiled.
It has easiest construction. flat, wide open, exiting row, cooperative bnsf, so it can meet the 2017 deadline.
Least chance for nimby lawsuits.
Two large cities actively vying for the system.
Its the longest single stretch, at over 110 miles that would done and out of the way.
Its the longest fastest stretch and includes test track and likely the location of the heavy maintenance facility.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Uh-oh, your gonna wake up castle monster with that last comment.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
While I want with all of my train-loving heart for this to be true. My overall want is for the entire project to be built. There isn’t enough intercity travel for a Bakersfield-Fresno route. “If” it doesn’t make the expected revenue, NIMBY Gluttons of PA will point and shout “See, Boondogle!!”
It needs to be connected to an end-point, it needs to not have tunnels. Make sense to me to do SF-SJ, despite all the NIMBY-Glutton push back. The more I think on it, the more it makes sense. Hammer out the opposition with the first pass, No tunnel of other BS option using the “it needs to be as cheap as possible so the entire line could be successful” It’s also a HIGHLY congested area of the state that could see real impact from HSR travel.
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
the problem with ssf-sj is that it won’t do much for that market on its own because you can already get between sf and sjc in under an hour and more importantly, you can’t get it done in 6 years. It says the segment has to be operational by 2017. There is no way they can get that stretch done in 6 years. no way at all.
J. Wong Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Also, the documents note that it’s not clear that SF-SJ would meet the inter-city requirements for the ARRA. They don’t say that about the other segments since the two Central Valley segments have the San Joaquins and the LA-Anaheim has both the Surfliners and Metrolink.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
yep
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Except for the 12 mile elevated structure through fresno
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
That wouldn’t be included in the initial segment, IIRC.
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Never mind, it was excluded from the original ARRA segment, but they’re trying to put it back in now for some reason…
J. Wong Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
They’re putting it back in through some possible supplemental funding separate from the ARRA.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
They redefined the ARRA segments in August AND added to them with the money they are hoping to get from the next round of funding (which should be announced in next week or two).
anyone who thinks california highways are fun to drive once you get to the outlying areas should see the 77 minute, miles and miles long back up on 101 in south santa clara co between san jose and gilroy…. overturned chemical truck, one lane open at eh peak of the outbound commute. nice.
Geithner likes it He really likes it! and he said so in Palo Alto of all places.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I was actually there. The report leaves out the question which is whether the $40 billion is a step in the right OR wrong direction and the first part of Geithner’s answer which was that they realize there are some “efficiency” issues with current planning which is why they would rather do things with a national infrastructure bank with the implication that you want some private money on the line to try and root out political design of transit.
Clem Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
A bit of private money might be just what the doctor ordered to increase bang for the buck. The way the incentives are set up, right now there’s almost nothing to keep costs in check. The mere expectation that the cost will double nearly guarantees that it will.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
This is a pretty big deal coming from the de facto president.
J. Wong Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“De-facto”? Really? I think it’s enough that he’s the Treasury Secretary.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
It starts to be an interesting conversation when you add Obama’s comment in this weekend’s NYT magazine cover article that one of the harsh lessons was that the idea of a “shovel ready” project is basically an urban legend.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
There’s been shovels turning all over the place. It’s just that it hasn’t been megaprojects.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
And I would bet Palo Alto residents (at least some of them) will hate him for it, along with hating him because he works for “that man in the White House.” They may also hate him for being a former employee of “Gold in Sacks!”
Elizabeth Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
What?