Let’s Get To The Point
Back in September 2001, I joined about 150 other people at Westlake Center in Seattle to protest the looming invasion of Afghanistan. People looked at us as if we were crazy – or dangerous. Over nine years later, the US occupation of Afghanistan continues with no end in sight.
On February 15, 2003, I joined about 150,000 other people at Seattle Center for a massive march against the Iraq War. Just a few weeks later the US invasion began anyway, and even though US “combat forces” have been “withdrawn” after seven years, the US will maintain a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
I don’t regret having participated in either protest. But neither did I fool myself into believing that my views were in the majority, or that my act of protest would actually achieve the outcome I sought. In both cases I was merely showing that not everyone agreed with the invasions, making a public statement of dissent. In fact, it was the only way I could oppose the wars – political leaders had decided to support both, and the rest of the public had already decided to accept it. I protested because it was the only way to oppose the wars. It was an act of a person who had lost the argument, of a movement that had lost the policy battle.
That’s something we should keep in mind as we read reports that about 300 people or so showed up in the rain in Burlingame today to oppose the high speed rail project. It’s a move that should come as no surprise – NIMBYism and HSR denial has been growing over the last 2 years, but they have not achieved any actual political victories. So the next logical step for a group of people whose views are not shared by the public as a whole is to hold a protest and hope that it can achieve what all their other efforts have failed to do: stop the project.
The protest itself won’t change the basic political facts – the state and federal government still support the project. Nor will it suddenly cause the rest of the Peninsula to drop their long-held support of the project and join the NIMBYs and deniers in shackling themselves to rising oil prices.
Still, this blog’s philosophy has always been that we need to push back against the opposition. So here are some things to keep in mind about the project:
• If someone conditions their support for the HSR project on the vertical alignment, they don’t actually support high speed rail.
• For all the evidence-free and nonsensical talk of a “boondoggle” (which itself conflicts with claims from some protestors that they do not oppose HSR), they have not yet explained how they will pay for a trench or a tunnel, and why spending tax dollars on a trench or a tunnel is more important than spending tax dollars on teachers or police officers. Let’s see specific answers, not vague statements.
• Aerial passenger rail structures have been integrated effectively into communities in places like Albany and Rockridge, in neighborhoods with densities and characteristics very similar to the Peninsula rail corridor. Nobody has explained why an aerial on an existing rail corridor would hurt their communities when it didn’t hurt Albany or Rockridge.
• Most of their neighbors not only voted for HSR in 2008, but continue to support it as shown in the April 2010 poll. Of course, the protestors will never acknowledge they are not in the majority, and that their views are not representative of your community. (Besides, if they were, Russell Peterson would not have come in last in the race for Menlo Park City Council.)
• While these protestors think they are attacking the HSR project, they are actually attacking Caltrain. Already their opposition has led the federal government to direct its funding to the Central Valley, denying Caltrain the ability to receive the funding they had sought for their CBOSS system. As discussions continue and grow on the Peninsula to seek a long-term solution for saving Caltrain, including funding, the NIMBY problem will again arise. For Caltrain to be viable, it needs to electrify. Electrification can be done at-grade, but the service improvements will be of a smaller scale than if the route is grade-separated and Caltrain will not achieve the desired financial benefits. And if grade separation is pursued, then this fight begins all over again.
• In short, this isn’t about high speed rail at all and never was. It’s about aerial structures. The Peninsula NIMBYs have still failed to provide any financial numbers, cost-benefit assessments, or other evidence to indicate that any potential aesthetic impact of aerials (which, if you ask Albany and Rockridge, aren’t that great and can be easily adapted) would eliminate the massive benefits that HSR provides, from jobs to energy independence to cleaner, quieter, safer, less congested communities. These protestors believe the rest of California and our state’s future should be held hostage to their own beliefs about what looks good and what doesn’t. That is simply absurd.
None of this is to say that I oppose a trench or a tunnel. But there are unanswered questions about those, from technical challenges to financial challenges. More importantly, all of the other criticisms leveled at the project are attempts to change the conversation away from what this is really all about – aerial structures. Let’s have that discussion out in the open, instead of couching it in all these other issues.
The protestors may believe that they can stop HSR from happening. They can’t. But if they were more willing to be honest about their motives, then it would become a LOT easier for everyone to sit down and figure out a solution everyone can live with.
As we all well know, NIMBY means “Not In My Back Yard”. A statement made by Gary Patton at the Burlingame Boondoggle Rally is a classic example of Nimbyism in it’s purest classical form.
“It isn’t smart to go through the the middle of our most beautiful and healthy commercial areas” Patton said, “through our great residential areas on the San Francisco peninsula, and put up elevated freeway structures. They blight the communities that they go through. It’s not acceptable, it’s a boondoggle, and we’re gonna stop it, starting now”.
I have gotten tired of hearing about the beauty of the Peninsula residential areas, about their prime properties, and about the ruin they will face if the tracks, which have been there since the Civil War, are elevated.
I live as close to HSR as almost anyone on the Peninsula, and to me my property is as prime and my residential area is as great as anyone elses.
I will be more inconcenienced by the elevated structure that will be going up close to our front door than almost anyone on the Peninsula. As far as I am concerned It IS smart to go through our most beautiful and healthy commercial areas, and it IS acceptable to go through our residential areas and put up elevated railway (NOT FREEWAY) structures. They will NOT blight the communities that they go through, it IS acceptable, it IS NOT a boondoggle, and we’re GONNA SUPPORT it, STARTING NOW.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Exactly. Like I said, this isn’t about ridership numbers or the state’s budget woes, it’s about aerial structures. The sooner the NIMBYs are open and honest about that, the sooner we can all sit down and figure out some solution.
And I wonder what Gary Patton thinks of Albany or Rockridge. Rockridge is a thriving neighborhood and it’s bisected by a huge freeway viaduct.
Missiondweller Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 11:16 am
One wonders if an elevated design could be found to appease this crowd. Just because its an elevated structure does not mean it must look like a typical elevated freeway. Perhaps an attractive design combined with stamp/stained concrete might be an attractive alternative.
This may sound remarkably naive or an oversimplification but Redwood City did just that when they renovated their own Caltrain grade separations. Nobody would argue they are ugly, they’re quite attractive and integrate the surroundings well.
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 11:48 am
More specifically, it’s about what opponents fear would happen to the valuations of their houses (=nest eggs) as a result of elevating the tracks. The implicit assumption is that prospective buyers would seek a car-centric low-rise suburban lifestyle very similar to their own. However, in the SF peninsula in particular, younger people have already switched to one revolving around the internet. Since you can’t safely use network services based on text or visuals while driving, they want safe, reliable and affordable alternative modes of transportation, above all rock steady modern trains with reliable broadband internet access and courtesy power outlets.
Full grade separation will mean improved service frequency and on-time performance plus elimination of rail-related wait states for vehicular cross traffic. Elevated tracks with architectural flair aren’t just acceptable to many GenXers and GenYers, they actually celebrate a rapidly (re-)emerging lifestyle. Perhaps folks in Albany and Rockridge felt much the same way in the 1960s, when strictly utilitarian aerials were considered modern and progressive.
However, most older individuals grew up convinced that cars provided greater physical mobility and hence, a higher quality of life, than trains. Many do appreciate the practical utility of commuter trains in rush hour on a rational level, but emotionally they’re more of a necessary evil.
By contrast, younger individuals increasingly perceive driving as hindering their electronic mobility, whereas trains with reliable broadband access would enhance it. After all, the need and desire for physical mobility isn’t ever going to go away altogether.
wu ming Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
it’s not just the electronics. there’s a real hunger for walkability, of sociability, that the car-centric suburbs just do not deliver on. at least with young people. the isolation that for whatever reason appealed to older generations is really unpleasant and alienating, and denser, walkable transit-oriented neighborhoods scratch that itch.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
You can do both. San Francisco pulls it off reasonably well. You can live without a car but if you want one you can have one at a reasonable cost. There’s places like that scattered all over, generally called trolley suburbs.
jimsf Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Post war is was trolley burbs, In the 60s, city living was in, in the 70s, country living was in, in the 80s, suburbia was hot, in the 90s-2000. another shift to cities and the new urbanism. Its goes back and forth. HArd to say whats next. But nothing is forever.
Wow. What are you smokin Robert? CBOSS is the stupidest fucking thing ever.
Eric M Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I agree with you on that. CBOSS needs to die and having funding postponed for the peninsula is s good thing, for it might get Caltrain to take their head’s out of their asses
Jian Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I also agree. Not receiving money for CBOSS (which is stupid) is the least of Caltrain’s problems.
lyqwyd Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, that is probably the best thing about the decision. CBOSS should die a swift and painless death. Anything that helps that happen has some good in it.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Agreed. Robert – you’re going to be hard pressed to find someone on this blog who thinks CBOSS is a good idea.
StevieB Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:13 am
CAHRA is years from choosing a control system yet Caltrain is directed to impliment a system by 2015. CBOSS is their plan to meet the requirement. They have little choice but to propose some plan even if they do not have the money for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:32 am
CHSRA has indicated it will choose ETCS. There’s no reason for Caltrain to go with anything else.
And let’s say the HSRA has said nothing about train control. That’s still no excuse for reinventing the wheel. A competent Caltrain would invite bids for both ETCS/CTCS and DS-ATC, and demand quick answers from the HSRA to know which to proceed with.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 7:37 am
I’m not defending CBOSS. Reread what I wrote and you’ll see that the NIMBYs are making a much more fundamental threat to Caltrain’s existence, well beyond CBOSS.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 8:51 am
If there is an existential threat to Caltrain, then it is the “shared” ROW configuration. Without a unified signal system, and without compatible platform heights, it is hard to see how Caltrain can continue running a useful express service. CHSRA gets to milk all the revenue from the very successful Baby Bullet service (which “saved” Caltrain 10 years ago).
CBOSS makes matters even worse. A huge operational headache, adding to the operating deficit. More and more, decisions being made by and for CHSRA appear deliberately calculated to decimate Caltrain service, so as to pave the way for transition to BART.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Operational funding is the biggest threat to Caltrain’s existence, followed by NIMBY opposition to grade separation, and then by other considerations like CBOSS and ROW configuration.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:12 am
BART ring-the-bay will only occur if the hsr is kicked out of the Caltrain ROW. BART’s primary argument would be a two-track subway as in Berkeley for PAMPA, resulting in major gentrification of the ROW area.
Alternately the CHSRA could usurp Caltrain entirely. Whether the CHSRA could run local mass transit under the provisions of Prop 1A is questionable. My take is negative.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:24 am
I’m sorry, but was anyone talking about BART in this thread?
CHSRA won’t run trains, anyway. Some private or public operator will, so it’s irrelevant whether that operator also happens to operate Caltrain services.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:26 am
My apologies, I missed Drunk Engineer’s statement about transitioning to BART. I retract my first line.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am
I believe the question as to whether the CHSRA is authorized to operate local mass transit services as part of its mission is very real and germane. You can only stretch Prop 1A so far, even with bendover machine judges.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I don’t even think that operating anything is part of CHSRA’s mandate, not even the HSR trains. They are tasked with designing and constructing the system, not with operating it. When they’re done building the system, they’ll hand the keys over to an operator and either cease to exist or design and construct further extensions.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 10:44 am
You mean like BART turning the keys over to an operator and ceasing to exist?
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am
BART was tasked with building and operating its system. I haven’t seen anything that states that CHSRA is planning on operating the system. I’ve heard the opposite, in fact. It’s not part of their mandate.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 11:07 am
BART is a credible model for what the CHSRA will have to be or become. ACE or Caltrain type multi-party examples are necessary because the infrastructure they run on does not belong to the state, the exact opposite of the hsr, unless you intend to sell off the hsr. I doubt that is sanctioned or envisioned by Prop 1A and it would certainly set off a political donnybrook.
The hsr will be lucky to break even with Tejon. With the loopy route you can count on operating losses, which will have to be made up with tax revenues. It will be politically difficult to keep on a subsidized private operator, as with Metrolink, which runs on a privately-owned rr. The unions will fight it tooth and nail, recognizing they will get a much richer compensation package(like BART)under government operation.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The problematic decisions are all Caltrain, no CHSRA. Caltrain could still choose to implement ETCS and have high platforms. It could also have chosen to seek a more extensive FRA waiver, as SEPTA had planned to in the early 1980s, allowing it to operate completely off-the-shelf European and Japanese rolling stock.
The only decision that’s bad for Caltrain that was made by CHSRA is SFFS, and even that is not a big deal, not by the standards of Caltrain’s own screwups.
On the one hand, you’re right. On the other hand, the political will against the protesters isn’t as big. The Iraq War was a major decision of the Bush administration, and faced token opposition in Congress. California HSR is something the Obama administration and presumably the Brown administration consider a nice-to-have, and face a lot of NIMBYism and Republican obstruction.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Please ignore the grammar fail. Why, oh, why is it impossible to edit comments?
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Well, blog admins can edit them. WordPress, Blogger etc. don’t provide a mechanism for letting commenters edit their own contributions because there’s no way to prevent edits that would render already-published responses meaningless. Indeed, it would be impossible to ensure that the edit was even made by the original author without cumbersome password administration.
However, I for one would be happy to let commenters perform edits until there is a response. After all, most identify spelling or grammar errors right away. However, that option isn’t readily available to Robert and myself. Neither of us will attempt to write the necessary code, so for the time being you’ll either have to accept that some mistakes will slip through or else, draft your response in a separate application and copy-paste it when you’re completely satisfied with it.
wu ming Reply:
November 7th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
i think you’re severely underestimating the importance of HSR to both obama-biden and jerry brown. i suspect both see getting high speed rail projects breaking ground as central to their political legacies, and would argue that, given the likelihood of severe oil shocks in the short to medium range, building infrastructure that insulates the future economy from the price of gas will turn out to define, to a large degree, the success or failure of their respective administrations.
This entire sideshow was put on by the city council members of Burlingame…Cohen is the one that put on this show and that whinney mayor..Time to tell these Aholes that 65 percent of the county voted yes on HSR and SF also OWNS this track…want a tunnel..then pay the cost difference
Jeff Carter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 4:17 am
Maybe there should be a recall the Burlingame City Council movement.
Jeff Carter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 4:22 am
“65 percent of the county voted yes on HSR”
Oh but they were “misled” into voting for HSR. “We voted for and we support HSR” but for some reason they thought it was going some other route.
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Did any of the literature for prop1A(2008) suggest any route other than the Caltrain corridor would even be considered for HSR in the SF peninsula? That decision was taken in 2005 or so.
flowmotion Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
The authority was fairly vague about the route in their official communications — I suppose they had to be for legal reasons, even if CalTrain was done deal. Imagine a map of California with the entire South Bay shaded in.
And if you listend to the Yes on 1A advocates, the Altamont route was a sure thing…
An elevated train would not be seen from the road on the majority of the HSR route thru Burlingame. It would be completely hidden by the very very tall Eucalyptus Trees they are so proud of. The same is true for Atherton. Trees would hide the elevated structure.
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
That might be true IFF Caltrain and CHSRA were planning to share two tracks via an integrated timetable involving constraints on rush-hour stop patterns and performance, respectively. However they are separate bureaucratic fiefdoms, each hellbent on implementing their independently drafted plans.
Hence, CHSRA rubber-stamped PBQD’s self-serving recommendation for quad tracking the entire route between SF 4th & King, even though bypass tracks in e.g. Hillsdale and RWC would be quite sufficient to deliver 8tph capacity for each service without over-serving any single community.
Quad tracks would almost certainly mean that some old growth but not yet historic trees would have to be trimmed or even felled to reduce the risk of trains hitting them, branches breaking due to aerodynamic forces or an accumulation of wet leaves on the tracks in fall. The latter condition seriously reduces the coefficient friction, especially after passing trains crush the sticky lignin out of them such that they become stuck on the rails.
With shared dual tracks, none of these issues would arise for the trees. Unfortunately, neither FRA nor the previous Governor have forced Caltrain, CHSRA and TJPA to fully integrate their planning by threatening to withhold appropriations if they don’t. Instead, they’ve simply chosen to concentrate their initial investments (except for the TTC) in the Central Valley. The Peninsula Rail Program is trying to paper over the cracks between the first two, but they’re getting wider. The latter two have fallen out, ultimately because TJPA insisted on running the DTX tunnel under 2nd rather than 3rd Street and CHSRA insisted on very long dwell times for cleaning and housekeeping the interior.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
that some old growth but not yet historic trees
Many of the stately old trees along the ROW are invasive weed species. One man’s “historic tree” is another man’s weed.
Jim Wunderlich Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Thank you rafael for your comment from one who is considered a NIMBY in this blog.
If CHSRA/Caltrain wanted a lot of the opposition to dwindle it would switch to a 2 track solution. Do you notice that every video and picture of high speed rail that’s presented only show 2 tracks? Everyone keeps talking about the berms in San Carlos and the like but those are all 2 tracks – adding 2 additional tracks would require widening or adding more walls – making them even more intrusive. Speaking for myself its the 4 tracks that is the scariest part of these proposals. And of course CHSRA blames Caltrain. It’s as if we are all stuck in the 20th century. We hear a lot “we cant do that” in any suggestions to mitigate the impacts.
And if CHSRA wanted to appease some people in Burlingame they could promise not to cut down the old/weed trees – but they wont commit – here is what they said to my query: “Removal of eucalyptus trees and other mature trees along the Caltrain corridor will be avoided to the extent possible.” Until they commit then anyone saying the trees wont be cut down is pure supposition.
I actually think the arguments will start to focus after Dec 1st when the CHSRA puts out its more definitive (hopefully) proposal.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 10:12 am
You really think that “opposition will dwindle” if they switch to using 2 tracks? Building 2 track aerials is ok, but not 4 track? The impacts of 4 tracks is only incremental over those of 2 tracks. That’s really unreasonable.
Regarding the trees, what do you expect them to say? “We’ll be able to save this tree and this tree, but these ones will have to go”? How the hell are they supposed to know that at this time?
The CHSRA knows there will always be opposition. They will not back themselves into a corner by making promises they can’t keep, i.e. not removing trees.
Jim Wunderlich Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 10:53 am
“Dwindle” might have been a bit too strong yes. But I think you are underestimating the foot print of the extra two rails. It might not bother you but it does me. 2 tracks means less eminent domain, some reasonable possibility of getting through San Mateo without taking out a good chunk of their less well off neighborhoods. And even smaller things like it making less likely to lose the trees/weeds.
And most important, less cost, which means more money for mitigation. Would the opposition to elevated trains go away? No – but seeing two tracks in a trench in Burlingame seems more probable and much less intrusive and expensive then 4.
At least I’ll identify this to be my “opinion”. Which is why I brought up the “tree” issue in the first place – we have people like Jeff that’s saying people are spreading lies because the trees might have to be sacrificed and serves up as proof his opinion that the culvert will stop them from taking it. Hardly facts on either side. It all depends on what will be built. I, for one, look forward to this argument getting a lot more focused.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 10:59 am
The amount of eminent domain required is de minimis. The vast majority of the ROW is wide enough for all the construction planned.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
And since the weed trees are on Caltrains’s property ain’t nothing no one can do if Caltrain wants to cut them down.
jimsf Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
¥es the trees are an invasive species not native to the bay area. They are everywhere, sf, marin, eastbay, they are a fire hazard and many environmentalists want them removed. Traditionalists see them as part of the fabric of the bay area though and they smell good. Hard call. I tend to like the trees a lot. But there isn’t any shortage so losing a few isn’t a big deal.
what is cboss? and more importantly why is it bad compared to others?
jimsf Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 4:53 am
nwvwe mins – I just found a ton of info that breaks it all down here
jimsf Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 5:09 am
well after reading all that it sounds like caltrain doesn’t have much choice but to choose something that meets their current needs since they don’t know what the future holds as far as what hsr is going to do.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 7:13 am
That’s not an excuse. CalTrain has made ZERO effort to make sure that their train control is compatible with HSR. In fact, they’ve stated explicitly that they don’t even care about that (WTF???). And they’re pouring a bunch of money into developing a completely new and proprietary system for no reason.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Caltrain has been a really DUMB agency
1) Not considering correction of curves for HSR
2) Not pursuing common platform height WITH HSR
3) Pursuing its own PTC system WITHOUT HSR
Honestly, every now and then, I think having Clem running Caltrain’s PRP would do so much good.
jimsf Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 4:57 am
but if they have to put something in place, regardless of the their screw up, then what choice do they have now. Isn’t it too late to change plans if there are deadlines to meet?
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:00 am
There are no deadlines to meet, as all the federal money is being sent to the Central Valley.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:02 am
There are still the same basic deadlines for planning – final design done by the end of 2012. The Feds are paying 50% of all these dollars.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:03 am
That’s still plenty of time to correct critical flaws if anyone was willing to do so (which they aren’t).
lyqwyd Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
CBOSS is bad with or without HSR. Building a custom signaling system is simply a bad idea, and destined for massive budget overruns, taking much longer than expected, and poor performance.
This is something else I read there ( there is a lot of info over on that blog!) Apparently they could use poles instead of headspans which would be far less visual impact. Isnt this an obvious choice?
James Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Jim, I urge you to keep reading the past couple of years of Clem’s blog. It has excellent information on the SF peninsula and some interesting exercises to explore the operation of a west coast branch line (at least for those of us who are interested and trying to learn but do not live an breath railroading). Clem makes some excellent points on how to get more value for money spent in the process of transitioning from now to the day we can add an efficient HSR operation. Check out the focus articles on sections of the peninsula that analize the options for various horizontal, vertical and linear alignments. As usual, half of the action and a little noise happens in the comments section. It would be interesting to hear your comments on Clems articles. I thought you knew about that other blog all this time…
jimsf Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I knew about it but one can only do so much blogging. Plus its more technical and when they start talking about kilometers and and algebra and light years my eyes glaze over. ( Im one of those regular americans who isnt interested in all that, just tell me where the snack car is please) This blog seems little freer and more conversational. Also I hate to focus on everything that all the agencies are doing wrong because my philosophy is that things will never change so lets just take what we can get and hurry up about it before tne round of funding disappears. I don’t want to wait 120 years to get it right. Just get a damn train on the tracks and lets go.
But Ill go browse around and see whats there.
jimsf Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I do like the “corridor to do list” those items are common sense that any crack head off the street could tell you is the right way to do it.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
A perfect example of the old saying, “voters get the government they deserve.”
just in from pres boardman
Today, we’re announcing an agreement with French National Railways (SNCF) and Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation to bid for the contract to design, build, operate, maintain and finance Florida’s planned high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando.
The consortium we have formed presents a powerful, full-service team to pursue the high-speed rail contract in Florida.
Partnership is central to our future, whether it be with states, freight railroads, or others in the industry. In this case, each partner brings its unique body of experience and knowledge. Bechtel was the leader in a consortium which brought high-speed rail to the UK (HS1). The SNCF launched high-speed rail service (TGV) in Europe on the Paris to Lyon line in 1981, bringing three decades of high-speed rail implementation and operating expertise to the team.
Bechtel offers demonstrated engineering, construction, and program management expertise; while SNCF has its proven ability to design, operate and maintain high- speed rail systems around the world. As America’s high-speed rail provider, we offer a wealth of operational expertise and know-how to the group. Combining SNCF’s international high-speed rail experience with our own amplifies what we can offer the citizens of Florida.
The Florida line is a turn-key project requiring a team that can provide all of the systems needed for a world-class high speed rail operation. We believe, along with our partners, that we can deliver that.
As I’ve mentioned before, advancing Amtrak’s role as the preferred and premier provider of high-speed rail in America doesn’t start and end with the NEC. As you may remember, we recently announced a new High-Speed Rail department, led by Vice President of High Speed Rail Al Engel, to help us advance our ambitions in the high-speed rail arena.
We need to aggressively compete to secure this leadership position, and by bringing all of our resources to bear, together with our partners in this consortium, we aim to win.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Who is providing the trains for this bid? Alstom?
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Chances are that the Florida DOT will want to retain the right to make up its own mind on that. That said, SNCF has had a close relationship with Alstom for a long time and French politicians would no doubt prefer French vendors to land both the infrastructure and the rolling stock contracts.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Alstom, like most of the world class vendors, builds trains in North America.
Robert, you’re right on target as usual, but I do need to quibble with one point. I live in Albany, and let’s not kid ourselves to think that elevated tracks have NO negative impact on the community. Every 3 minutes a train goes by; they’re not noisy like a freight train, but they’re not quiet either, especially for the people living right next to the tracks. Not “right next to” in the Atherton my-2-acre-spread-abuts-the-tracks sense, but “right next to” like houses that are 40 feet away. There is no doubt at all that BART noise has depressed property values within maybe 200′ of the track. It’s also true that BART increases property values in communities that it serves, so Albany overall does get an economic benefit by way of nearby stations in Berkeley and El Cerrito.
Rockridge is a different story because BART runs down the middle of a wide freeway and is therefore further from homes. The freeway itself probably has more of an impact on the community and property values than BART does.
The elevated tracks in Albany are ugly, but so are the overhead utility lines and poles that are all over (nearly every) town, so I don’t buy the “visual blight” argument. And if those tracks were built today, they could be made much more attractive. BART had the unfortunate luck to be built during the heyday of Brutalist architecture; anything built today including elevated HSR tracks would be much less ugly.
But if your main point is that it hasn’t destroyed the community, you are absolutely correct; Albany remains a thriving, desirable, and expensive community. It just sucks for those poor chumps who have to listen to the train go by all day and most of the night.
rafael Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
By now, BART rolling stock is very long in the tooth and budget cuts have meant all maintenance not critical to safety gets relegated to “nice to have”. This includes geometric tolerances of the rail-wheel interface. Moreover, BART constructed slab tracks attached directly to the concrete aerials. That means the underside of the aerial acts almost as a loudspeaker directed downward, since there is insufficient damping. The necessarily high stiffness of the support columns means structure-borne noise and vibrations are also dampened very poorly.
Embankments do better on on both scores, but they are often perceived as even uglier.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Please elaborate as to how PB, BART’s creator, would do better and differently with its new hsr progeny.
In particular I am thinking resilient wheels would be rejected as too dangerous and how do you dampen without running the risk of out of gauge, especially at 115 degrees.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
At extreme temperatures they would be running at slower speeds. Same as all other trains.
P.S.: What does PB have to do with how the operator operates its trains after the line has been commissioned? What does PB have to do with BART’s current operations?
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The use of elastomers prevents vibrations being transmitted to the structure. If the deck is U-shaped, little noise is transmitted through the air since most of it is trapped inside the “U”.
UpAlbania Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
rafael & andre peretti, this is very interesting to know about the source of BART noise. Is there a feasible retrofit for BART that would reduce train noise from being projected out from the structures as from a loudspeaker? Or is this another one of those things that BART just screwed up and that we’re now stuck with for eternity?
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
New railcars should do wonders for quieting BART.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 4:50 am
It’s probably too late to have floating slabs, but various methods exist to upgrade existing ballastless tracks. They don’t require removing the slabs since the elastic elements are between rail and slab.
Floating slabs are expensive, so they are generally only used on urban elevated structures.
wu ming Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
the electrified, grade-separated trains would be quieter than the current horn blowing heavy diesel status quo, though. anywhere near a HSR line, be it aerial, trenched or at grade, will have negative noise impact, if anything.
that being said, i suspect people living a medium distance from the tracks will be a bit nostalgic for the sound of the old horns blowing. you don’t realize how much a part of the soundscape it is until it’s gone.
Jerry Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
You are right. I even miss the thundering hoof beats of the Pony Express.
The hsr elevated would be higher and wider than BART, with 4 tracks, and most likely hollow-core. I do not see how it would be possible to get away without extensive security fencing in these urban areas. Trenching, though not the nec plus ultra of a tunnel, would be vastly preferable to aerials. AFAIK the gradual upgrade that has been in the planning for decades never envisioned such a massive deployment of aerials that PB-Palmdale insists on.