SF-SJ Draft EIR Postponed
Big news today regarding the San Francisco-San José segment – the draft EIR, which was to be released next month, has been postponed:
Robert Doty, director of the Peninsula Rail Program (a partnership of Caltrain and the rail authority), released a statement Friday afternoon saying that the decision by the FRA and the rail authority to give Central Valley the priority “will likely impact the prioritization of the environmental review process for all high-speed-rail sections currently under study.”
“This means that the scheduled December 2010 release of the Draft EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose section will need to be rescheduled for a future date,” wrote Doty, who is responsible for the design of the Peninsula segment.
He did not specify when this document will be released.
This is good news. Californians For High Speed Rail voted at our board meeting last weekend to support a delay in the publication of this EIR. We were actually in the process of drafting up a letter to call for the delay when we got the news that Doty was indeed going to do it.
However, the delay should NOT be indefinite. Our proposal is to delay it to April, enabling more discussion and collaboration on the Peninsula but also keeping the project on track and moving forward in a timely manner.
There’s a good reason why the Peninsula should want this done soon – uncertainty is not good for anyone involved. While I’ve never believed that HSR would hurt property values, I can envision property values being hurt if nobody is sure what will happen on the corridor. Even a “stale EIR” would at least let businesses, residents, and planners know and price in the impact of whatever vertical alignment is chosen.
HSR is going to be built on the Peninsula, and it’s going to be built soon. We should keep this process moving in a timely manner, for the benefit of everyone involved. The delay is the right thing to do, but it must not become an indefinite “kick the can down the road” delay that just serves the interests of the small minority of HSR opponents. Residents along the segment route still support the project and expect it to be built. Let’s make sure that we use this delay to make the project better, instead of making the project stop.
I’m not sure that ‘an indefinite “kick the can down the road” delay … just serves the interests of the small minority of HSR opponents.’ I’m increasingly coming to the view that the Peninsula would be best served by a perhaps fairly prolonged period of benign neglect. There are a bunch of issues, not all of them NIMBY-related, on which people have wedged themselves into uncompromising positions. A cooling-off period will do everyone good. The delay shouldn’t be so long that construction along the Peninsula ends up on the critical path, but longer than until April.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:56 am
I probably agree, however, I hope that is not the strategy. Actually, I am sure it is not… too beligerent or overt.
I think the postponement serves other purposes, such as allowing the Authority and consultants to focus their time and energies toward the Valley. Instead of a 4-pronged approach to California HSR development, perhaps the State and its population can only digest 1 or 2 at a time.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 11:55 am
I’m glad the authority is putting a delay on this as it should focus their time and energy towards the first valley segments. Over the next 18 months high-speed rail system will actually start construction and people will see the growing excitement though at this point funding is uncertain. We may obtain all the funding for the Central Valley and the original plans to link San Jose thru Pacheco though I doubt anyone wants to fund this 50 miles. They have to downsize all these plans from San Jose to San Francisco, the authority really needs to look at how to get into the city for the least cost and construction along the Caltrain ROW. If it involves only electrification and some grade separations and the current track configuration with some expansion at critical points this is what they need to do as there is going to be no money for these superexpensive tunnels and trenches or maybe even aerials. A time delay of an additional 15 to 20 minutes is not going to destroy the high-speed rail business plan these trains will still be full and profitable.
Andy Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
“A time delay of an additional 15 to 20 minutes is not going to destroy the high-speed rail business plan”
I’d argue that it might. HSR is supposed to be overall faster and easier, and no more expensive and no less safe, than flying from LA to SF. If we add 15 to 20 minutes to the Peninsula journey, plus another 10 minutes here, another 10 minutes there, HSR falls short, and the advantage of HSR becomes less clear. The train has to be really, really fast.
Peter Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
But HSR is not going to be primarily competing with flying. It will be competing with cars, as well as relying on induced demand.
Most people won’t be traveling from SF to LA. Most will be going between points in between. They would not be served at all by the airlines.
J. Wong Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Caltrain Baby Bullets take 1 hour to get from San Jose to SF so you’re not talking an additional 15 to 20 minutes. The 2:40 time becomes 3:40 compared to 2:20 flying.
Caelestor Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Actually, it’d be 3:10, since SJ-SF HSR would take 30 minutes.
J. Wong Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
@YesonHSR is proposing that SF-SJ be downsized, which I’m supposing means no HSR so it’s 1 hour, but you’re right, my totals were wrong: it’s not 3:40 it would be 3:10 since LA to SJ would be 2:10 on HSR plus 1 hr Baby Bullet Caltrain to SF. That’s still 30 minutes over the 2:40 strict HSR from LA to SF.
Clem Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Plus five minutes for transfer at SJ. Better yet, you’d just run the high speed train into San Francisco on a regular Baby Bullet schedule. Platform compatibility anyone? Anyone?
Caelestor Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Why aren’t the planners considering this? Do the agencies really just hate each other that much? And don’t tell me that they’re criminals, that adds nothing to the discussion.
J. Wong Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
They just have different criteria. Note Caltrain has existing platforms. Seems like HSR should conform to it. Why do they want high platforms? I don’t recall the HSR in Italy having high platforms.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
First, level boarding, or at least mid-level platforms, is nearly universal; 8″ platforms are an open invitation for people to trespass on the tracks, which is disastrous for safety. Europe is moving toward 55 or 76 cm platforms.
Second, for commuter trains, level boarding is also essential for low dwell times, translating to higher average speed and schedule reliability. There isn’t a train anywhere with a 8″-high floor, and the reliable off-the-shelf models start at 55 cm.
And third, Europe has much larger legacy systems to deal with than the US. California has so little legacy rail that adapting it to very high platforms has very low cost, less than the premium of buying low-floor commuter trains. The HSR export models are not even built for the European legacy platforms; they assume new, very high platforms, higher than a meter.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 12:06 am
Stairs are to be avoided if at all possible. They restrict efficient boarding and there’s little reason to have them when most of your infrastructure is going to be new anyway. Anyway, won’t the ADA mandate level boarding?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:48 am
Most of the existing Caltrain platforms will be torn out to make way for the additional tracks. Many of them are little more than an asphalt or concrete pad. Not worth saving. Definitely not worht designing a 30 or 40 billion dollar train system around.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:12 am
The key cost choice between “high” and “low” platforms relates to whether you can do a single concrete/asphalt pour (which you can still do with 55 cm, barely, and wastefully) or need to build a structure. If you need to build a structure, you can build it to any height short of ten feet and it’s pretty much the same cost…
YesonHSR Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Yes exactly what I was saying…. could even be five or 10 minutes faster than the current CalTrain baby Bullets with the electrification and only one stop
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Except for those pesky Caltrain locals in the way.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
No I’m not advocating what the Nimbys want..ie change to a Caltrain Baby bullet which would destroy ridership I’m just saying that there may be a very real possibility that the high-speed train sets will just have to use a slightly upgraded Caltrain ROW to get into San Francisco at first.. and then over time make upgrades. This may be the outcome we will be forced with because of all this brouhaha over these tunnels and no aerials in a very tight budget to get this all done by 2020. You could probably get the high-speed train sets between San Francisco and San Jose on the current CalTrain right away with the upgrades in about 40 to 45 minutes.. does anyone else think the timetable can be adjusted to these times?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Well, hasn’t it been noted here that trains can run over grade crossings at 110 mph with 4-quadrant gates? Could this speed be maintained the whole way to San Jose without stops on an upgraded Peninsula line?
Would love to hear the horns at that speed!
There was once published, in Trains, a recollection of Sundays in a church in New Jersey along a line to Atlantic City; I think it may have been on the Reading subsidiary Atlantic City Railroad, which would predate the 1933 merger of the rival Pennsylvania and RDG lines into the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line, or the P-RSL. The fellow doing the recollecting recalled that his church was located adjacent to this line, which I got the impression ran right out of the city involved (Camden, N.J.?) over many streets and between buildings, down a right of way that practically was an alley, and at high speed! He mentioned he could hear a regularly scheduled steam train departing from the station some distance away, during the sermon, and noted that the whistle blasts for the crossings every block would grow louder as the train approached, and also that the time intervals between these signals got quite shorter as the train was accelerating. By the time the train was approaching the church, speed was quite high, the whistle sounding continuously by the time the train passed the church, shaking the building and drowning out the pastor.
He recalled he couldn’t remember the pastor ever having an uninterupted sermon.
I wonder if that pastor thought steam trains were devil wagons, interfering with the word of The Lord!
I live in the wrong time.
Peter Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:54 pm
“Could this speed be maintained the whole way to San Jose without stops on an upgraded Peninsula line?”
No. Please see Clem’s blog for a discussion on curves.
While the FRA is apparently considering increasing the permitted superelevation, I’m not quite sure how much time that would save without straightening some of the curves.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:55 pm
This speed could be maintained, with some slow zones imposed by curves.
The problem is twofold. First, it’s not usual for high-speed lines to have grade crossings; the specs call for full grade separation, and the Caltrain corridor has been defined as a high-speed line, not a low-speed commuter line hosting HSR trains. Second, although it’s legal to retain level crossings on four-track railroads, it’s very difficult or impossible to get approval for new four-track crossings.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Well, hasn’t it been noted here that trains can run over grade crossings at 110 mph with 4-quadrant gates? Could this speed be maintained the whole way to San Jose without stops on an upgraded Peninsula line?
hmmm, good point. I wonder what the time difference would be since they were only gonna run at 125 anyway.
probably add what, 5 – 8 minutes to the trip?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I’ll have to check on Clem’s post, and see how close one can come to this. You may have to live with it for a while, due to budget constraints. I do agree, though, once the service is running with that new line where you can build, it will help get the grade seperations you need on the Peninsula.
Peter Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Also, don’t forget that certain trains would likely not be permitted at all on tracks with grade crossings. Some of the Chinese and all of the Japanese (except for the as-yet-nonexistent efSet) high speed trains are not even UIC-compliant, which it appears will be the minimum in terms of crash-safety, so they would all be completely excluded from running on CA’s HSR system.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Nobody in any official capacity in the US has even hinted at making a distinction between UIC compliance and Japanese compliance. The FRA’s thinking is that if it can crash, it should be FRA-compliant.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
True, but so far the only non-temporal separation waiver approved permitting at least limited mixed operations, namely Caltrain’s waiver, basically required UIC compliance. One of the reasons for this, grade crossing safety, can be inferred from the waiver itself. While Caltrain did request the waiver only for UIC compliance, I highly doubt the FRA would allow less for both mixed traffic and a line with grade crossings.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Caltrain’s “waiver” was designed to promote one particular obsolete design from one manufacturer as compliant, just as Caltrain’s “specifications” for CBOSS are designed to exclude anything not pre-selected by the staff-consultant mafia that run the show. Don’t look for any old UIC EMU to come in and win the “bidding” sham, no more than you should have expected anything remotely rational (ie low floor) at SMART, or have expected Los Banos not to be at the core of CHSR.
Gaming “requirements” to pre-determine outcomes (generally the worst possible) and winners (never the public) is the oldest play in the book.
CHSR and Caltrain are poster children for that process.
We get the worst and most expensive every single time because that’s very very much in the interests of the fraudsters running the show.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Which EMU is it targeted at?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
Not a specific one, but Caltrain involved Alstom, Bombardier, and Siemens in the application for the waiver, locking out smaller vendors like CAF and Stadler.
Peter Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
That’s what I thought.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:27 am
I voted for High Speed Rail and not the Toonerville Trolley, thank you.
At the end of the day, CHSRA should assume the local/regional rail service currently operated by Caltrain. This will provide the greatest effeciency in minimizing frastructur and consolidation of services and minimizing operating costs.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Yes, yes, just like the Pennsylvania Railroad with its commuter and intercity services back before everything got divided by commuter agencies and Amtrak–still the best way with common management, in my opinion.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 am
Railroads benefit astoundingly from centralization. Network effects, natural monopoly, etc. Just like telecommunications systems (phone, for example).
Heck, so do roads.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 am
They’re gonna want four tracks north of San Jose most of the way, or at least three, and because of that they’re going to need to eliminate grade crossings. There’s no real alternative to fairly long viaducts and berms. Not that there’s anything wrong with either, give it a year or two and nobody will even blink at them. Especially if the underpass gaps are built to be inviting for pedestrians to pass through (which, I think, is why large Victorian brick arches worked so well).
San Francisco comes up with money for subway
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_16667636?nclick_check=1
Robert Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I still can’t believe how much it’s going to cost compared to the total bill for CA HSR.
Also I can’t imagine what those stairs are going to be like in Chinatown trying to get on… not to mention the virtual traffic jam the elevators will be with all of the senior citizens riding up/down three stories to get to the light rail, only to get off at market street again.
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
you have to remember this isn’t a about a subway from market street to chinatown, its the extension of the t line which serves/will serve the largest developments to come on the entire eastern shore of the city… the only developable part of town that is left and what will become a major residential and biotech corridor. Further, this will provide the ability to link the northern waterfront to downtown at a future date.
Peter Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Are they still planning on only having the stations being long enough for 3 car trains?
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
yes, thats all they need. These trains travel mainly above ground for the rest of the route and muni rarely runs more than a two car train now, even thru the longer stations. For one, they don’t have the rolling stock to run 4 car trains, two, because the trains run as one and two cars on most of the system, they have to waste time uncoupling mixed trains ( KKMM LLKK JJNN etc) at church and west portal. They used to do this but it was very inefficient. They have opted for shorter trains 1 – 2 cars, more frequently to increase frequency on the sections beyond the main subway. AT such time when the t line reaches heavy demand, the solution will be more frequent 2 car trains, not longer -4 car trains. And that saturation won’t be reached until all the eastern waterfront development is completed – which will be over the next 10-25 years or so.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
and what do you do in 25 years? Rip out the billion dollar subway and use buses for a decade while they build the new subway?
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Thats not what I said. Try to follow along. in 25 years or so, is when they will need to run frequent 2 car trains, thats not when it will reach capacity, after that all they have to do is increase frequency – by then is when they will be extending the northern dead end to create through traffic. Muni will never run 4 car trains through there, just like they dont run 4 car trains now through the main subway. Like I said, don’t worry about it ok?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
so they are never ever going to need 4 car trains?
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
no, muni isn;t going to use 4 car trains. not even in the main subway. The stopped doing it. Understand the design of the system here with the majority of it running as streetcars. The T line is mainly a a streetcar line, like the green line in boston. At the north end, ( future) the line would likely also run on the old stree car tracks, including the fort mason tunnel out to the marina. The subway portion is to get it all under the downtown core. Its pretty simple. And again, as for the rest of the metro system, there is only 2-3 miles of subway. EVerything runs as streetcars beyond that, one car and at rush hour, two car consists. What this does is avoid the uncoupling and recoupling at west portal and church. Its time consuming and inefficient, and with the shorter trains, 1 and 2 cars, it allows them to utilise the fleet more effectively through the tunnels, more frequent short trains to more variety of destinations versus less frequent longer trains, which means waiting at powell way too long for your reseptive line. JKLM etc. Its just the nature of the sf system. Unlike boston, which has the green line, but also has traditional subways (blue orange red) muni only uses the green line type and they are going to run 4 streetcars connected together, thru the neighborhoods and all the lines go thru the hoods. If SF had a more traditional ny style system, then the short stations wouldn’t make sense but we don’t and the cost to build such a system in sf would be impossible. So we make do.
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
The short way of saying it would be
sf doesn’t have a subway system. Sf has a streetcar system and in recent times, decided to put portions of that streetcar system underground in the downtown area.
Half the subway section isn’t new, it consists of the twin peaks tunnel which was built to spur growth on the sand dunes. It was built as a <a href="http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/agr/SF-WestPortal-6-41.jpgstreetcar "base tunnel" of sorts
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
sfsubway
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
You can see here where the street cars used to emerge from the west side on the east side and market and castro, then they proceeded down the surface of market until they put them underground in the late 70s. I remember riding these cars from the beach.
There is one original station midway in the twin peaks tunnel at laguna honda foresthill which is deep station and served only by elevator not escalator even today I believe. So all the fuss about the chinatown station is just, well, much ado about nothing, and most of that fuss comes from new people or young people. You don’t found good old fashioned san franciscans worrying about the escalator being too long. I mean really. We are people routinely deal with this environment
Missiondweller Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
My understanding is that Muni is reaching capacity under market. Its simply too difficult to increase frequency especially given the outmoded software for controlling trains in the subway.
Shouldn’t we be looking at building out the system for eventual use of four car trains? I realize this would be a massive undertaking.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
muni is not reaching capacity. They still run mostly one car trains. They don’t have the rolling stock to run all two car trains, so the first step would be to go to all 2 car trains, then the step after that would be to shorten headways, which there is plenty of room to do as we often wait a lot more than 3 or 4 minutes for a train. Its an operational choice for them to turn back equipment at embarcadero rather keeping a high level of throughput out the mission bay line. They don’t have the equipment nor staffing, nor money to do it. It has nothing to do with the tunnel or train length.
synonymouse Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
The Central Subway, in its current iteration, is comparable in value for money spent to the Oakland airport connector people mover.
Even with the vastly superior 3rd & Kearny alignment this project should have taken a back seat to rail on the Geary corridor.
I would have to assume that BART insisted on a boiler plate damage clause.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 10:11 am
just some perspectives
one
two
three
Bryan Costales Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
There is little justification for the new line to cross Market street. The project would have been cheaper and better had two separate lines been built with a bubble turn on each side of Market street. Too bad the plan to cross Market was drawn on a napkin by WIllie Brown and nobody ever thought to question the plan.
jimsf Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
This corridor is one the most dense areas in the west. The areas to the north are not efficiently served by bus due to the amount of congestion. The area from market south to the county line includes the convention center, south beach, mission bay, the new uc campus, biomed/cancer/ and an industrial/residential corridor, candelstick and any future development there. Be patient. There is a method to sf madness.You’ll see.
In addtional, the other corridors also all have plans at various stages. So everything is covered. Don’t worry about it. The tunneling is expensive going under all this stuff including the existing subways and next to the underground convention center. The geography means a deep tunnel. And as I have pointed out before, many subways have long connecting corridors to traverse. so just relax we san franciscans are very comfortable with our terrain and all its quirks. Leave us alone.
(SAn Francisco with Jeanette Macdonald is on right now, and you know, at its heart the city hasn’t changed since those days. We still can and still will. Don’t be hatin’ on us.)
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:53 am
The southern half of the “corridor” you outlined is not incredibly dense by any standards. As for the northern half, the Central Subway in its current form only extends one stop north of Union Square, meaning that many of the dense areas are not served and will probably not be for a couple of decades at least. As for deep tunnels vs cut and cover, it’s possible to pass above the Market Street Subway if you align it just east of Powell Station (this space is usually occupied by station mezzanines). Moscone is apparently not an issue either as the station there is going to be cut-and-cover rather than mined.
synonymouse Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
3rd & Kearny would be much easier to cut and cover at the mezzanine level and that was always the plan over the years. A much better plan serving both Chinatown and the financial district with a natural station at Portsmouth Square and very close to the new SF City College tower.
This alignment would make a turn onto Broadway feasible and continuation under the existing auto tunnel avoiding neighborhood unhappiness with digging up Columbus Avenue. From Broadway and Van Ness a deep tunnel could be mined to the general area of Fillmore and Lombard. This routing follows the existing Stockton express line to the Marina.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Yes, it will take a couple decades to extend the line, but thats they way it works, same as hrs, its going to take a couple decades or more for full build out. As for the southern end, again, the eastern waterfront from south beach/mission bay to the county line is the only place left in the city where high density residential and industry are going to be built, and the planning and zoning for it are in place. Corridors such as geary, which are overwhelmingly 2 story buildings, are not going to densify because the neighborhoods are not going to allow it. So while the richmond and sunset remain static, the 3rd street corridor will see the highest percentage of growth and the the most densidfication.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Density has little to do with the imperativeness of the Geary corridor. The 38 alone has more daily riders than any other bus line in the city (including the 15 while it was operating). When you include the 38L, ridership surpasses any other MUNI line by far. If you had ever visited Geary street during rush hour, you would know that however frequently the buses may run, they are all packed and that the corridor is in dire need of better transit options. Future transit need is a consideration, sure, but immediate transit need should take priority.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Did you read what the doc said. It said exactly what everyone in town already knows. People in the richmond didn’t want it. One the one hand many opposed it, and on the other hand, the rest were indifferent. Meanwhile, china town and bayview did want it. Its exactly like the valley versus the peninsula with hsr…. so look whos getting hsr construction first. Sure someday the whole thing will get built out, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease in this town. What anyone thinks of the merits of the decision is irrelevant water under the big orange bridge. or as Judge Millian would say, “too bad, so sad”
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
So you consider NIMBYism to be an effective gauge of where transit is needed?
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Its not nimbyism, it that the community has a big say in everything that happens here, decisions are made from the neighborhood level, up, not from city hall, down. Thats the small town difference here compared to larger cities. The people of san francisco want it that and have worked very hard for a very very long time to make sure it stays that way. So yes I always support what the neighborhoods want. 100 percent.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Its not nimbyism
I fail to see a distinction. Opposition exists for personal reasons despite an obvious transit need for the entire corridor. I am also wondering if this is not-so-different from what is happening on the peninsula where a silent majority support HSR (specific details notwithstanding) but a loud minority make it look like everyone is opposed.
decisions are made from the neighborhood level, up, not from city hall, down
I think you’d be surprised how much this is not true.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I think you’d be surprised how much this is not true
I think you’d be surprised at just how many things have been stopped dead in their tracks over the decades. San Franciscans, from small groups of ethnic minorities, to document toting bands of little old ladies, to hippies and yuppies and guppies, have stood up to big money and big development in this town for years and years and won over and over again, against high powered lawyers and deep pockets. San Franciscans have removed freeways ( in what city in america has a freeway ever been removed?) and capped heights and bulk in the downtown core. In my hood, mid market soma, we have a 45ft hieght limit because those of who live here want it that way, even though we are but 4 blocks from 4th and makret and 7 blocks from the new transbay terminal. — and done more in the way of preservation than any major city out west no doubt. Our district election ensure local accountability at the neighborhood level and if you want a education start watching several thousand hours of sfgtv to see the inner workings.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 am
Portland, Oregon has removed freeways, and New Haven, CT is doing so as we speak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 am
The West Side Highway went away. partly of it’s own volition, back in the 70s. And while it’s not really a freeway being removed, the Big Dig in Boston got rid of the elevated freeway….
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
not to mention the geary plan is already set. so it is being addressed, and faster and cheaper. ( and even this upgrade has been met with resistance by the neighborhoods)
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
And it’s BRT instead of LRT because large sums of money have been spend on megaprojects elsewhere, despite the fact that this corridor could probably support a full subway.
Anyway, much of the resistance is unfounded and uninformed. One of the major opposing arguments was that narrowing Geary from 3 LPD to 2 LPD would cause congestion and put more traffic on side streets, ignoring the fact that a large number of car trips would likely be diverted.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
i t d o e s n ‘ t m a t t e r a t t h i s p o i n t y o u a l r e a d y m i s s e d t h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e s s!
and the brt can become lrv at some point. Why do I feel like Im beating my head against a wall? The ones who wanted what they wanted got it and the ones who’s attitude was somewhere between “no” and “meh whatever” lost out. The richmond and fillmore could just has easily lobbied city hall and got a project if they wanted to and the city would have given it to them.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 am
Converting the BRT to LRT will require exactly the same expenditure as building the LRT fresh. Though I suppose having the exclusive lanes MIGHT make it politically easier.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:50 pm
The inner parts of Geary, between Union Square and Little Osaka, are in a near-tie with LA’s Koreatown for highest residential density in the US outside New York. Even Outer Richmond is fairly dense.
The low-end napkin estimate of the ridership of a subway along Geary should be about 100,000 per weekday, the same as the ridership of all the east-west buses from Richmond to the CBD. The high-end estimate should be about 200,000, depending on how much induced demand there is. At normal-world tunneling costs, which may well be achievable on Geary, it’s a $2 billion project, giving a low cost-per-rider figure by US standards and a semi-decent one by non-US standards.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
irrelevant – see comment above 4:02pm. Sorry.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 1:22 pm
and chinatown got the subway in return for giving up that most hated despised freeway. And there isn’t a san franciscan worth his salt who would trade that back.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
please scroll down to page 9 to see where development will occur in san francisco. Those areas not included and mainly under very no/slow growth restrictions per the people the of san francisco.
also see executive park
and
india basin plan
and
easternhoods
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Joey, please see pages 60-61-62 of this doc for enlightenment on process.
Missiondweller Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Why on earth was this idea abandoned?
Many of us here in SF support the central subway but are perplexed by the “deep tunnel” that is partially the reason its so expensive.
Stories in the papers always say the alternatives were too difficult engineering wise but crossing at the mezzanine level seems to make the most sense and I would imagine be the easiest.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
cut and cover would disrupt all the transit on market street which Is probably the most transit dense stretch of street in the nation. They ruled it out for that reason.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Station construction will disrupt street traffic in certain locations anyway. Anyway, it’s not like it blocks everything. When they were constructing the Market Street Subway they built temporary structures above the pits in order to maintain traffic. The problem could further be alleviated by banning private vehicles from lower Market altogether, which planners have been making moves toward recently anyway.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
It doesn’t matter. Don’t you get that this stuff has been vetted for decades by everyone from city hall, to the neighbors, the community groups and all the politicians. This is the end result. It doesn’t matter whether you have a different opinion now. The process has been going on for 15-20 years and everyone has had their say. Thats how it works here. Thats what Im trying to tell you. Its too late for you to disagree.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:13 pm
WTF. You’ve gone from arguing that “this is the right way to do it” to “this is what we’re stuck with.” Our discussion was about which option WOULD have been superior, not about what can be changed at this point. On the other hand, if no one ever discusses anything, no improvements will ever be made and we’ll always be stuck with shitty planning. Certainly, the Central Subway is pretty far along and changes to the design aren’t likely at this point (though ground still hasn’t been broken yet), but your philosophy seems to be to stay quite while planners mess up present AND distant future projects, saying “that’s what they are planning so we can’t do anything about it.” But if you want to just sit there while the future of transit in YOUR city and YOUR state is twisted and disfigured, I guess I can’t stop you.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:21 pm
No, what I am doing is one, trying to explain to you that the project was not some bad decision handed down from on high to dismay of the people, the decision was vetted for untold years, plans were offered to the people and rejected, and so forth, this isn’t some big thing that nobody was allowed to have a say in. There is no point in discussing woulda coulda shoulda, cuz woulda and coulda have already been discussed to death and a conclusion reached. Shoulda, doesn’t matter. The time to say something was back in the 90s. Thats all Im saying. Im not saying we are stuck with it, I happen to like it because the people who got involved, did their thing and made it they way they wanted it and Im glad I live in a city where people can still do that. Just like the mission bay neighbors wanted an above ground stop in their neighborhood instead of a subway. The city had planned a longer subway south of market. So relax. You’ll get used to this place some day.
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:30 pm
What makes me skeptical is that you seem to take the same stance toward HSR planning, despite the fact that the time for discussion is HERE and NOW.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:36 pm
As for HSR my stance is simple. I like the current plan. Its the one I voted for. I like it just fine. What’s to discuss? I’m not interested in how its managed locally in other communities. I don’t live in other communities. I just want it to follow the route and maintain the promised travel times.
HSR in SF, I have a big problem with what it is going to do to the neighborhood next to mine, I don’t like it one bit. But I want the TBT and I want the close access to hsr, so I hold my nose and put up with the impacts that this project is going to have. Its a compromise like everything else. The greater transbay area plan horrifies me. But its a trade off Ill have to eat. ( later on no doubt, the public opposition will scale down that overblown plan for giant towers, you can count on that)
Joey Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Its the one I voted for
So you voted for incompatible platforms and uncoordinated operations and two terminals and poorly designed station throats and massive viaducts through the Central Valley and unnecessary tunneling in Millbrae and new deep tunnels under SF and massive overbuilt station complexes in urban and suburban areas alike etc etc?
The greater transbay area plan horrifies me.
And you still think that planning goes from the neighborhoods up and not City Hall down?
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
And you still think that planning goes from the neighborhoods up and not City Hall down? yes because as I said, the actual results are going to be different than the preliminary proposal. First of all, there was some consensus to sacrifice that area to a. get the tbt and hsr, and b. focus on preserving nearby areas (western soma for instance where I live) so it was vetted by the public. Like I said its compromise. If I had my way, nothing would be built here and no one else would be allowed in, but short of that I can live with this. That said, once the actually individual projects is put forward, there will very likely, in fact I promise you there will be, new restraints put on bulk and height as the residents of the area will oppose these buidings. Its a very very long drawn out process. None of that stuff is gonna get built for a decade or two anyway and when it does go forward, each and every building with have to face the board and the neighbors and can potentially be stopped. You just have to understand the process here.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
If I had my way, nothing would be built here and no one else would be allowed in
I’m sure the the Indians in what is now the border between Sonoma and Marin said the same thing about the Spainards and the Russians. Or the people living in San Francisco when your great grandparents arrived. What happens ins 15 years when the zoning restriction of 45 feet means your landlord can’t sell your building for three times what it’s worth as a 45 foot building and the community collectively decides that 45 feet is a relic of the anti growth 90s and rezones for 20 story buildings?
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I’m sure the the Indians in what is now the border between Sonoma and Marin said the same thing about the Spainards and the Russians. Or the people living in San Francisco when your great grandparents arrived.
I’m sure they did and I feel their pain.
What happens ins 15 years when the zoning restriction of 45 feet means your landlord can’t sell your building for three times what it’s worth as a 45 foot building and the community collectively decides that 45 feet is a relic of the anti growth 90s and rezones for 20 story buildings
First it will a lot more than 15 years before that happens. Second, by then, the infill will be completed. And height limits don’t mean much on resale because its agains the law to tear down existing housing anyway.
Third, my building is part of a market street corridor project and is brand new and 24 floors, it happens to be on the mission street side abutting the western soma hood. Which is under historic preservation and height limits.
and finally, it wasn’t the anti growth 90s, ( the dot commers actually stopped paying attention for a minute and thats when we had a growth spurt that everyone then flipped out over) it was actually the anti growth 60s 70s 80s 90s and 2000s. Yes growth happens, we just slow it down as much as possible to avoid the kind of . knee jerk spur of the moment profit making consequences be damned mess you get in dallas and houston. don’t worry about it, everythings under control.
synonymouse Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
A poster on the Altamont site asserts that there are to be no escalators in the Union Square
station and that subway patrons will be forced to negotiate 400 feet of stairs.
Nathanael Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
A drug-addled poster, perhaps?
Dunno about escalators, but elevators are mandatory for new construction. ADA.
synonymouse Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:12 am
Elevators are prone to breakdowns and vandalism, especially in San Francisco.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
“Elevators are prone to breakdowns”
As is any piece of machinery constantly being used.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:46 am
And what part of “Elevators are prone to breakdowns and vandalism” is relevant to the fact that they are mandatory for new construction?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:54 pm
market street which Is probably the most transit dense stretch of street in the nation.
You have to get out more.
Gianny Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:20 pm
McArthur Park in Los Angeles is probably the densest area in the country….5 families to a 1-2 bedroom apt.
Before construction can begin on the Peninsula segment the right-of-way will have to be secured. At this point we don’t know how many properties will be effected. Most likely the number of properties seized in their entirety will be few, but there will be quite a number of partial seizures. A larger number will be effected by diminished access and by other conditions that will be spelled out by the attorneys who will certainly explore in great detail the boundaries of eminent domain law.
It will take a while to complete this process: It will also take a lot of money—possibly more than the $391 million budgeted for right-of way. The 2012 starting date for this segment would have been a stretch, even if the money were available.
Peter Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Ahh, actually eminent domain is a very straight-forward procedure. If I understand it correctly, all they need to do is first offer to purchase the property required. If the owner refuses to sell, the government condemns the property. Then the amount to be paid to the landowner is determined.
You are vastly overestimating a) the amount of money needed to purchase the very narrow strips of property at the locations where the ROW is too narrow, and b) the amount of time this would be “tied up” in litigation.
John Burrows Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I hope you’re right
Peter Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Yeah, the only time eminent domain gets complicated is when there is an issue of whether the government even has the right to exercise the police power and seize the property by eminent domain. For eminent domain to be exercised, it used to be that the condemnation had to be for public use. Now, however, since Kelo, the government must only show that there is a public purpose, which is a much lower bar.
Here, the seizures would easily pass the public use test, and would definitely pass the public purpose test. So, the only question would be how much money would have to be paid.
John Burrows Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
There is no doubt that CHSRA has the right to seize property as necessary, and that even in the case of condemnation proceedings (if I am reading this right), the process can be completed in 4 months.
But I think that the question of how much money would have to be paid might be a big one. Apparently the vast majority of eminent domain cases are settled by contract and only a few involve condemnation. If eminent domain proceedings were begun on The Peninsula now, I would bet that many property owners would go the condemnation route complete with jury trial, and that those slivers of land would become very very expensive in the eyes of the eminent domain attorneys retained by the property owners.
Peter Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Eminent domain = condemnation.
“those slivers of land would become very very expensive in the eyes of the eminent domain attorneys retained by the property owners”
You’re not going to get much money for a sliver of land. Even in PAMPA. Land use attorneys know that.
Nathanael Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:59 pm
The modern eminent domain procedure is explicitly designed to avoid delay in construction.
As soon as a judge rules that it’s a valid public use (which would be pretty much instant in the case of a passenger rail line) and that the authority made a good-faith offer to buy (which would also be pretty much an instant ruling), the authority can take the property and start construction.
The court case is then just about how much compensation to pay, and while it can drag on, the construction can happen in the meantime and the compensation doesn’t get paid until the end of the case. So, no delay.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
Exactly.
There is sos much stuff that they do wrong in the peninsula. I would rather see them start all over again, than to see a messed up, slow SF-SJ section.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/11/20/2167751/valley-high-speed-rail-numbers.html
Some pretty darn interesting comments from HSR rail representative (barker) about the quality and value of the current ridership projections.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I have come to the conclusion that this doesn’t matter, other than to make sure you get the route right. In terms of satisfying critics, that is impossible; they are still (though in falling numbers) ideologues of the 1950s “Happy Motoring” life style (and in denial about the peak oil question), or else they are in cahoots with the oil and car industries.
I’ve been through too many such battles to think otherwise.
Nathanael Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Yup. It’s proven practically impossible to predict ridership very accurately on new lines, anywhere, ever — it depends too much on macroeconomic trends, for one thing.
What is more often possible is to predict the *relative* performance of different lines. The relative sizes of numbers for different route choices can all be correct, and then in actual fact in your ‘target year’ everything can be 50% below prediction (due to massive economic collapse, for example) or 10 times larger. This is pretty unavoidable. Get the ballpark right and get the relative numbers right, and you’re doing pretty well in the transportation predictions market. (Note that road predictions are subject to the same kind of variation, only generally worse because they use crummier models.)
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 20th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Congratulations! You came across OLD NEWS! Looks like the spin machines have run out of new lies (cough) stories (cough to come up with (cough) publish (cough). This is like forecasting snow, it is hard to get right on the money. Besides, growth will come. Only took one year for France’s TGV ridership to quadriple.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:59 am
“Only took one year for France’s TGV ridership to quadruple”.
HSR was
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 4:24 am
Sorry, something went wrong…
HSR was a new thing and the SNCF didn’t know it was a game changer.
Its predictions were based on existing airline and highway ridership and totally ignored “induced” ridership. HSR creates ridership just because it’s there.
Basing ridership estimations on an existing situation has proved wrong because HSR completely modifies the situation taken as a basis for calculations.
As no-one can predict what the new situation will be, criticism based on ridership predictions is just idle talk.
dave Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 9:21 am
Thank You! What I’ve been argueing for a long time. HSR will create its own ridership wich Cannot be calculated and has nothing to do with current car and airplane ridership. Some people who normally don’t have any business going to other parts of the state will actually want to travel if they think it’s fun or easy and a confortable experience. I know I did when I’ve ridden Amtrak not even knowing where I’m going but just enjoying the experience.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I concur that the anti-rail crowd is running out of arguments (although that doesn’t stop them, even when the arguements are disproven or discounted; see that idiot Wendell Con, er, Cox). We see the same garbage against light rail transit and semi-high speed stuff, too, as in Ohio and Wisconsin. Those bozos don’t take the obvious check to see if their road and air systems truly are profitable; hell, they don’t even check to see if user fees cover the cost of the system, when we have plenty of documentation that they don’t, and that doesn’t even include external costs, among them the use of our military as an oil-company protection racket!
I’ll ask Syn, Morris, Arthur, and the rest, do you think Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden could throw their weight around like they do, if we didn’t guzzle oil for transportation like we do? I’ld be you that if we got to that oil-free transportation system Bruce McF and I have been talking about for forever, that the Saudis and Bin Laden would just be a bunch of crazy people in the desert, killing each other over sand. Instead, we’ve got our people, in many ways badly underpaid for what they do, standing guard there so we and the world can have that black goo available to put in our cars, while our presidents hold the hands of kings. In case anyone has forgotten, kings went out of style here in 1776.
I’m sick and tired of it. We need to get away from the “Happy Motoring utopia” that has defined the “American dream” for the last 60 years. We need rail, particularly electric rail in various forms, to help us quit paying tribute to kings, dictators, terrorists, and oil companies.
Now, get the hell out of the way!
J. Wong Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 9:34 am
It does state that the ridership numbers were worst case for the EIR not for revenue projections. So claims that the ridership numbers are way off is unfounded. They never made ridership numbers for revenue projection.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 10:15 am
“They never made ridership numbers for revenue projection.”
Then how can they know that the revenue is sufficient to keep them out of trouble with AB 3034 and the “no revenue guarantees” issue? Something doesn’t add up. Either they DID do ridership numbers for revenue projection, or they damn well should have. If they didn’t, this is a serious oversight on their part. As a taxpayer, I want a straight answer from the HSRA.
@D.P. Lubic,
“I have come to the conclusion that this doesn’t matter, other than to make sure you get the route right.”
BINGO!
J. Wong Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:20 am
They’re not in trouble with AB 3034 since beyond the initial planning nothing has been built. I expect you’ll see better (i.e., more reasonable) projections before they start the contracting process.
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
That’s like saying it’s okay for them to spend a shitload of money on planning, so long as they figure out whether they’ve got a revenue-viable system before they start digging. This should have been figured out before voting. Water under the bridge. At least do it before any more tax dollars go to planning.
If they don’t figure this out now, and it eventually turns out that there are insurmountable problems with keeping the project within the constraints of voter-approved law, then what? Do we have to give the money back to the feds? Do we plow ahead and say oh well?
This is not a debate about how likely it is that the ridership pans out to be revenue viable; the point is that you’d think we should know this up front and not wait until it’s too late. Unless that’s part of the Big Plan.
J. Wong Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Look, the Authority has access to lawyers. If it’s so obvious they’re breaking the law, surely the lawyers for PAMPAS would have called them on that already.
It’s just your opinion not a legal one that they should have reasonable revenue numbers before starting planning. And clearly you think that no way could they come up with reasonable revenue numbers, and I think sure the numbers will work out. Oh, well. Just our opinions.
Peter Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:37 am
He’s just cranky that his planet was destroyed by the Vogons.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I’ll have a post on this later today (kind of hard to do in-depth writing on the iPad since I forgot my keyboard dock at home). Short answer is that the article profoundly misstated what the Berkeley ITS study said – and that Barker is right about how the projections were made and used.
Good. Lets build the SJ-SF and LA-Ana segments only after we finish SJ-LA. Hopefully they also delay the LA-Ana segment.
Caelestor Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Theoretically, the LA-Anaheim HSR could run on a slightly upgraded track for little to no cost and still remain competitive with driving, considering the atrocious traffic on I-5.
Off topic, but fun, at least to me, and I hope you too; a bit from the past, when railroading, especially air brake work, could be an art that seperated men from boys:
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30460
Off topic again, but maybe of interest for Alon, Adirondacker, and Nathaniel, for its images from New York way back, with elevateds and trolleys among the motor traffic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Cy6BLKlLs
Alon Levy Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Remember: I do not watch video links, unless they’re critically important. I usually post while multitasking and/or at work, both of which make it impossible for me to watch videos.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Sorry, forgot about that; have to say it’s a little sad, sometimes we see so many things we were so foolish to throw away.
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Here’s one you might like Dp L
jimsf Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:36 pm
and note, that K car at the beginning and the neighborhood shown at the end ( at west portal) look like this today.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Thank you, both are fascinating to me, particularly the old clips.
Impressions: huge crowds at the opening, look at all the hats. . . the construction scenes are very reminiscent of photos taken during the construction of Cleveland Union Terminal in Ohio about 10 years later, with temporary streets and trolley tracks and mud. . .love those pot-bellied officials inspecting the work. . .looks like they took their lives into their hands, walking in the tunnels with construction trains moving around so, everyone would be so nervous today. . .interesting to look at the transition going on between horse-propelled wagons, steam-powered shovels and other equipment, and internal combustion gear. . .fascinating to also watch the crews use black powder to blow out trees. . .wonder if this would pass environmental review today. . .
I’ll have to see if a friend I know has some way to see this; he’s in the construction field, loves to check out old machinery like this, and has had some experience, in his younger days, with 1950s gear, when things were all mechanical, with clutches and cables, bet he would love to see this.
Thanks for sharing.
Donk Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Dude, seriously. And what is with all the links? Who has time to go to all these links, let alone to find them and post them…
Caelestor Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 10:34 pm
He’s old enough to be retired, methinks.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 am
Old enough to be retired, but unfortunately not rich enough to afford it. . .phooey!
Finding those links isn’t really that big a deal; I find I am only on about 4 or 5 sites with any regularity. This is one of them, and easily the one I spend the most time with; the others are Railway Preservation News, Bruce McF’s Burning the Midnight Oil, YouTube, and a model railroad site. Don’t have cable or satellite, nothing current worth watching on TV, so I don’t blow time there. Movies are too expensive, so I only rarely go there. Did go to see “Unstoppable,” and went to an afternoon show where the tickets were four bucks. Some bargains are still around!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 9:52 pm
D.P.. most of those Els are still around, even one of the shots in Manhattan. It’s of the Broadway line crossing the “Valley” in Harlem. The Broadway Local – the 1 – still runs on it. D’ya notice that they are conduit cars, not trolley cars, in some of the shots?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:22 am
Oh, yes, it looks strange to see cars with poles down, and others with no poles at all!
Washington, DC had conduit cars, too. The proposals to bring back trolleys in DC are running into a problem with this, as that wire law is still in effect, and no one wants to build conduit track. There’s a good reason for this; Capitol Transit’s experience put conduit track at three times the cost of track with wires.
Special for Jim SF, although you may already know about this. . .
A website, run by railfans, with photos and things for Amtrak’s stations.
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/stationlist3.htm
Examples: Richmond, Va.:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/richmondmain.htm
Martinsburg, W.Va. (my station):
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/martinsburg.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 9:16 pm
A few more examples:
Philadelphia, 30th Street:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/philadelphia.htm
Los Angeles:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/losangeles.htm
Santa Barbara:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/santabarbara.htm
Enjoy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Had to toss in a couple more:
Cincinnati, Oh., built in the 1920s and opened just in time for the Depression; the interior photos do not do justice to all the art-deco colors inside the station.
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/cincinnati.htm
Toledo, Oh., opened late 1940s/early 1950s; this city was famous for glass, and a lot was used in this building, plenty of windows and sections of walls of glass brick.
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/toledo.htm
Why am I not impressed by this modern station, built by Amtrak?
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/cleveland.htm
Oh, well. . .
Nathanael Reply:
November 21st, 2010 at 11:48 pm
I’ve found that site very useful for figuring out what I’m going to arrive at when I get somewhere.
Per the Authority’s web-site, SF-SJ, Fresno-Bakersfield, Palmdale-LA, and LA-Anaheim are all at stage 3, which is the furthest along even with the delay of the SF-SJ draft EIR. All other segments, including Merced-Fresno, are at stage 2, which was a non-mandated stage added by the Authority for alternatives analysis.
I’m wondering if the progress difference between Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield will have an impact on the chose initial segment, or will Merced-Fresno “catch-up”.
Peter Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
According to the latest Progress Report from May 2010, Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield were, respectively, at 52% and 55% progress toward ROD/NOD. Merced-Fresno was even scheduled to have the Draft EIR/EIS released a month ahead of Fresno-Bakersfield at the time. I’m not sure when they’ll be releasing those documents now, but I have the feeling they will be released in January or February for whichever segment is chosen next Thursday.
It’ll be Merced-Fresno. You heard it here first. ;)
datacruncher Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The July 2010 operations committee materials (Sept board meeting) showed Fresno-Bakersfield at 65%, Merced-Fresno at 58%. See page 6 at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7689