Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere
One of the most obnoxious things in American politics today is the fact that people now feel free to lie with impunity and just get away with it because the media has stopped calling people liars.
We saw this in recent weeks with the first construction segment of the California high speed rail project. Even though the segment included stations at Fresno and Hanford, it was reported by some as being a “train to nowhere” since its endpoints were, for the short time being, the small Valley towns of Borden and Corcoran.
One of the most intellectually dishonest forms of this claim came in the Sunday San Jose Mercury News, in Scott Herhold’s misleading column that repeated the lie. Herhold only casually mentioned that Fresno and Hanford would get stations; he spent most of his time in Corcoran, population 25,000 (including one Charles Manson), and from the two or three people he talked to, concluded that nobody cared about the project.
Neither Herhold nor the infographic that accompanied the article noted that Fresno, with a metro area population of 922,000 (the city itself has over 500,000 people), or Hanford-Visalia, the state’s 9th largest metro area with over 400,000 people, were being served with a station. That didn’t stop his column from running, however dishonest it was.
Now Herhold and the other “train to nowhere” critics are going to have to find a new lie with which to attack the project, because Bakersfield has been added to the new segment:
The first part of the valley’s high speed rail line has suddenly more than doubled in size.
Just last week, the high speed rail authority announced the line would run 54 miles from Borden on the Fresno-Madera County line, to Corcoran.
But Friday, the authority announced the line will be extended another 60 or so miles to Bakersfield.
What exactly is meant by “Bakersfield” here is unclear – will this include a station at Bakersfield, or will the tracks merely end at the city’s edge as was previously discussed for this construction phase? And what does this mean for Hanford-Visalia, which finally got the station they have long desired?
We’ll find out the answers to those questions a week from today, when the California High Speed Rail Authority board meets in Sacramento to approve the new recommendation.
I’m sure that HSR deniers will find a way to claim that Bakersfield, with a metro area population of over 800,000, is somehow “nowhere.” Sure, the Bakersfield and Fresno metro areas are each larger than the city and county of San Francisco, and Bakersfield was one of the fastest-growing areas of the country before the recession. As we knows, facts haven’t stopped HSR critics before.
There are obviously some issues to resolve with the HSR alignment in Bakersfield (Go Drillers!) – but the fact that Bakersfield is now included in the first construction segment is big, big news, showing that this project is not only alive, but well, to quote Vin Scully. That’s 800,000 more people to mock derisively the anti-HSR claims that their city, like Fresno, is somehow “nowhere.” These towns are going to pioneer high speed rail in California – and will be transformed as a result.
UPDATE: The US DOT is now “insisting” that Bakersfield be included in the first segment, according to the Bakersfield Californian:
Initial construction of California high-speed rail must extend to Bakersfield if the project is to qualify for $616 million in federal money announced this week, a U.S. Department of Transportation spokesman confirmed Friday.
I’m only speculating here, but I have to imagine that the Hanford station will get cut in order to get the tracks to Bakersfield. I also wonder if the tracks will begin at Borden as originally proposed, or whether the segment will just be shifted southward and more closely resemble the original Fresno-Bakersfield concept.
They won’t claim that Bakersfield nowhere; just that its on the border to nowhere. Good news for the track being extended to within city limits of a place that people have heard of however.
Jerry Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
While the San Jose Mercury News column may put a negative spin on HSR there is positive screening of modern trains in the movie, The Tourist. Stars Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp spend over 10 minutes of the movie on the Italian AV Express Train going from Paris to Venice. The movie’s train segment includes train station, passenger car, and dining car scenes. There are at least 3 overhead shots of the train racing through the country side in all of the big screen’s glory. The first 40 seconds of the following movie preview shows you a few examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBPpbgJMrMc
Many Californians will see these scenes in the movie. Hopefully adding positive images of fast train travel.
Dan S. Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
But seriously, we have Fresno to Bako in the bank-o? That rocks! (Sorry for the lame-o prose.)
In other feel-good milestones news, check out the latest construction cam footage from the Transbay Terminal website. The old facade is tumblin’ down!
Can we say this project is soundly underway now? (Hah, not if your name is Herhold!) :-)
Herhold’s column was very frustrating. It reminded me of the power reporters have to influence people and how crucial it is for them to thoroughly research the topic. He aparently does not appreciate the damage his article can do when he plays on the ‘train to nowhere’ meme drawn from the ‘bridge to nowhere’ of recent fame. How many people who read his article and are just waking up to the reality of HSR got the wrong impression? What a waste. Herhold could have spent those valuable inches informing and educating people on the facts instead of playing games.
OT: The Alaska bridge has become a political joke but it is not without merit. They want one bridge to link a town to an airport across a shipping lane. Emergency access alone makes it worth while. Also consider the thousands of pre-stressed concrete bridges across the 48 states. If Hawaii can have an interstate freeway, Alaska can have one bridge.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:51 am
50 people live on the island. It was going to connect the island with the thriving metropolis of Ketchikan. Population of Ketchikan is under 8,000. The ferry carries in a year what the Golden Gate Bridge carries in two days. The bridge was going to be bigger than the Golden Gate…. it was a bridge to nowhere. From nowhere…
James Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Not that it matters but: Ketchikan, the seventh largest town in Alaska. Yes, 50 people…and the airport. From the map it looks like you cannot drive more than 20 miles in any direction between the mountains and the water. Many areas in AK are not accessible by car. It is not like they are going to ask for 10 other airport connector bridges. The other 48 states have spilled more concrete than it would take to make this bridge. There is a maze of flying concrete to link SFO but as far as I know nobody lives at SFO. If every other overpass was scrutinized to the level of this one we would not have, for example, bridges over I5 for a farmers cows etc. This is not my issue, just that it is a shame that the project’s merits were bulldozed by the political spin. The Ketchikan bridge may still be built. I think it should. End my comments on this OT.
James Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
What, a bridge to nowhere in Kodiak?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KodiakAlaskaAerialView.JPG
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
They have a ferry. Gets them to the airport in minutes just like the bridge would.
Clem Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:32 am
He should direct his criticism at the proposed “iconic bridge” in San Jose, which will be the Bridge To Nowhere Fast
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
while I like the san jose bridge, is there much addition cost for it versus an aerial without the towers? Its is cable stayed and spanning and area the can’t be spanned safely using a plain viaduct structure?
I do hope fresno does something fun with their elevated. Like line it with colored neon or argon like this or
like this very cool or maybe any of these
( I had no idea this was actually being done anywhere until I just did a search.!! kewl!)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Well, it’s no secret around here that I’m a traditionalist, but I have to admit to having always being impressed by bridges that look like a delicate spider web of steel–even if, when you actually get to said bridge, it’s the most massive thing you’ve ever seen!
Some examples:
http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=High_Steel_Bridge
http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34236
A rather large bridge on the former Chesapeake & Ohio, built in 1930 and spanning the Ohio River at Limeville, Ky.; the continuous main span (spread over three piers) has, if I recall correctly, a length of something like 1,700 feet. I do wish CSX would get a paint gang on it:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=86924
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
The Forth Bridge deserves a mention here.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Fresno is a kind of “blank slate” combined with “nothing to lose” kinda place. So they could, in the spirit of going all out to make the city grab everyones attention, afford to do some pretty bold and splashy things with their viaduct, station and their downtown skyline. They don’t have the preservation issues that places such SF have. They have the room. There’s likely no objection to heights and lights. Giving the place some colorful uplighting and a bit vegas touch would be great. I mean they are way out there in the middle of “nohwere” after all. They need to make a big splash. They can be a littletacky
YesonHSR Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Glad to see you left a reply..Robert!!! We need alot more rebuttles to this nonsense reporting.. I’m sure all have noticed the oil funded Reason/Cato and their paid mouthpieces are cranking it up a notch again now that the new Congress is coming in.
jay taylor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Or like the Rainbow Bridge in Tokyo Bay.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
luv it!
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
What is really sad is these aerials, as in San Jose, will create a linear slum that will prove absolutely incorrigible and unmitigatable. They will be an enduring walk of shame for the city planners and city fathers. Elevated freeways on rails.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:31 am
Incorrigible? They are going to be juvenile delinquents when they hit their teens and will have to be sent to juvie?
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
For their iconic crimes no doubt.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:04 am
How can an elevated bridge over a freeway add blight? Is the freeway invisible or something?
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Your run-of-the-mill surface freeway already constitutes a no man’s land wherever they are and elevated freeways are even more blighting. PB evidently is resolute on imposing many more miles of such structures throughout California.
About 20 years ago when I was working in the City I used to start out the day at a Vietnamese coffee and doughnut shop in the ‘Loin. It was a very comfy place but was constantly harassed by the ubiquitous bums, drug dealers and miscellaneous low lifes of the neighborhood. The cafe kept getting their windows broken. Anyway one of the habitues was a big guy who looked a lot like the Rubias Hagrid of Harry Potter fame and who was very friendly and worked for the city welfare department. One day he made the memorable observation that in every city or town there was an area where all the disreputable activities and elements were concentrated. He called these combat zones “designated shitholes” I always thought that a truly apt description.
PB Palmdale intends to deploy a brutalist piece of dreck on stilts across the state that will be one long designated shithole.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Um, this is not what I’m saying. I know damn well that huge freeways create decay. What I’m saying is that the San Jose aerial is just a bridge over a freeway. You can’t blight what’s already blighted.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
True. That’s why I advocate the 101 alignment, or even better, Altamont-Dunbarton to SFO and leave the Peninsula to Caltrain in solitary splendor.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Swapping the Peninsula Nimby’s for the Altamont Alignment Nimby’s isn’t a win … indeed, its a massive loss, since the whole EIR/EIS process begins again and then there is another lawsuit with everything including the kitchen sink and then if there is an uncrossed eye or undotted tee, another revision period, and another lawsuit on the revised bits.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Isn’t that the plan? Endless revisions and studies so that it never gets built?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Don’t play whack-a-mole with us. Pacheco/Altamont is a separate discussion. If you believe that freeways are already creating blight, why complain that there will be an aerial over a freeway in San Jose?
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Hmm, the BART aerials don’t seem to have created slums. Why is that, according to you?
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
They are a visual and audial nuisance – that’s why Berkeley had the foresight and the cojones to go subway. The hsr aerials will be much more massive – FRA massive and with speeds twice that of BART’s top.
Check out BART’s opus brutalismi in Daly City. I am assuming second declension neuter
singular genitive
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
So BART aerials in Daly City created slums? You’re sure it wasn’t the 280 freeway?
As for Berkeley, they have aerials too, just not through downtown (but pretty close). They were lucky BART was being built at a time when it was easier to get money from the state and the Federal gov’ts. So you’re arguing we should try to spend even more money on HSR for aesthetic reasons? Really, Caltrain is going aerial with or without HSR so adding HSR doesn’t seem like a big deal.
(I’ve used the Daly City BART station and dropped off my kids there often.) You
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
He must believe that the Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland and the city of Albany are huge slums. Especially Rockridge, which not only has a BART aerial but an 8-lane freeway aerial structure – and yet is one of the most prosperous and desirable neighborhoods in the city.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
You are really are limitlessly delusional if your propose for a nanosecond that the Highway 24/BART overhead is anything but a blight on Rockridge. The neighbourhood exists despite it, not because of it.
Much of Oakland was raped by the freeways 40 years ago and is yet to recover from the decimation.
But wow, kewl, concrete! Bulldozers! Only a NIMBY wouldn’t love it. Pour, baby, pour!
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
That still doesn’t change the fact that neither the freeway nor the BART aerial turned the neighborhood into a slum. I believe that was the point.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Why would the aerials for San Jose be built to FRA specs? There’s no plan whatsoever to run FRA-compliant trains on them, not even as a backup plan a-la Fresno.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
On the iconic bridge, the curve radius will limit trains to BART speeds. BART is unusually noisy, and I have no idea why; you look at other aerials designed by PB, even huge ones like 125th Street station on the 1 in New York (designed by Parsons himself), they’re noisy but not outrageously so.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I don’t think it’s the design of the aerials, but the trains themselves, and possibly the tracks. The trains are deafening even to the people riding them.
now you know why people in the valley have such a persecution complex.
Actually, the column is not that bad. Sure it uses the trope “train to nowhere”, but it doesn’t argue that it shouldn’t be built That’s a plus in my book.
J. Wong Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
He does report on why the Central Valley was chosen as the 1st segment, namely, ease of engineering, which indirectly implies that it is only the 1st segment of many.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
He says the segment is “a camel’s nose under the political tent. It will create an argument to rescue the train to nowhere by finishing the line to the Bay Area and Los Angeles.”
What positive language and the Central valley is desperate, “area where unemployment hovers above 16 percent, [where] the promise of 83,000 new jobs offers a powerful reason to embrace the line.”
Once this desperate part of CA has it’s segment, we’ll be forced to “rescue” it.
The column’s bad.
So this is really a positive article since it doesn’t outright say not to build HSR.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I just got around to looking at this just now, and to me, it sounds like the writer has the jitters. Funny thing, though, no mention of oil dependency, no mention of highway underpricing, no mention of problems for people without cars. The barber in town hasn’t been on the train, but what’s the big deal? If he’s like the barbers I know, he has to be in that shop to earn money; I don’t see cutting hair as paying well enough to take frivolous trips for him. His daughter has ridden the train, too–better opportunities, good for her! As for me, between money and other reasons, I’m probably one of the few posting here who has never been in the air! Does that mean I think airports are useless? I’ve never been on a ship, either; does that make the ports of New York, Seattle, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc., useless? Horsefeathers!
I am reminded, if my memory is correct, of Bruce McF, posting some time back on his own Midnight Oil site, that killing the rail project in Ohio was important for its opponents not because they thought it would fail–but that they were afraid it would succeed. . .
Dan S. Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Yeah, first note that he is a “columnist.” That’s not “reporter.” He is free to inject his own opinions and rhetorical style, and, given all the success of O’Reily, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, it’s no surprise that today’s newspaper columnists are also trying to create their own personality cult. (Not to mention bloggers. ‘Sup, RM?) It’s why I don’t like reading Moureen Dowd anymore, her stuff is just so smothered in ridiculous rhetoric that there’s no there there.
He mentions project critics almost every chance he gets, but has no space for supporters or the strong majority that 1A collected. Okay, he says that some people like it because it will bring jobs. (Implying of course that it’s simply a welfare project supported by Labor interests.) But he never once mentions that HSR provides a transportation service. In fact, he introduces the project by stating that the big question in CA is “whether to build” the train at all. (And derides the whole thing with that insipid barbershop anecdote.)
Well, that’s the relevant question if you want to fuel a controversy, and for preening pundits and free rags like the PA Daily, there is no “fourth estate” sense of responsibility anymore to reel in the breakneck pace of wanton wailing and pandering pronouncements driven only to maximize circulation and ad revenue. Ted Koppel’s take on this media de-evolution is an instant classic and comes highly recommended (by me).
If you’re taking any of these guys at face value, you’re being had! ;-)
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
How much does the Mercurynews charge readers for columnist opinion?
I’m better informed elsewhere.
Ironically their TV ad says they have better coupons and are half the price of the other paper (SF Chronicle).
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
So that’s a reason to read them? Gag me.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Most newspapers only charge for newsprint, the content is paid for out of the advertising budget.
So divide square inches occupied by total square inches of paper, times the newstand price.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
It’s is a Thomas Friedman trick, quote a cabbie or barber as a common-sense source for his bais and then take it form there.
Dan S. Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
In Friedman’s case, I find his “bias” to be more of a “position,” one that he defends well with reasoning, arguments, and yes, anecdotes. I find his take on current events to be the most intelligent and germane of any source I’ve found. Your mileage, clearly, varies.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Tommy Friedman can’t be biased, he has positions.
I hear the next six months are critical for High Speed Rail’s success.
So what is “The Mustache of Understanding’s current position on HSR?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
He loves it, as long as it features sleek trains and high top speeds. Integration with local trains is strictly optional, as the MOU takes taxis in cities he visits and thinks the subway is for little people.
Sorry, but Hanford needs to take a backseat right now. Any further funds for station construction after Fresno gets theirs need to go to Bakersfield. I’m not opposed to a Kings Station as an infill (even soon), but for a host of reasons, funding must be guaranteed for stations in Fresno and Bakersfield (which, as thatbruce put it, are places people have heard of) as soon as possible.
Once they can actually extend the tracks to a station in Bako, the Authority needs to grab the reins on this narrative and market it as the Fresno-Bakersfield segment, or the Trans-Valley segment or something that sounds better than “Borden to Corcoran” or “Madera to Shafter.”
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
The only individuals who would take umbrage at this article are rabid hsr foamers and PB cheerleaders. It’s perfectly innocuous and accurately the public’s amusement and skepticism about everything CHSRA.
C’mon, fess up; it will make feel better. PB is a shill for the concrete industry. And it feels compelled to get something, anything, started before the ticking political disaster in Sac goes nuclear.
J. Wong Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Well, I didn’t find the article all that inflamatory except that it repeated the “train to nowhere” meme without explicitly saying that it really wasn’t a train to nowhere.
joe Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
This is inflammatory:
“By laying the first section from Corcoran to Borden, the high-speed rail authority sticks the camel’s nose under the political tent. It will create an argument to rescue the train to nowhere by finishing the line to the Bay Area and Los Angeles.”
That explanation is his very own creation. No need to hunt down a 3rd party to cherry pick a quote. “Camel’s nose, “rescue”.
The fact this segment is usable if the HSR is terminated isn’t enough and the columnist needed to explain the real reason.
tony d. Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Publics amusement? You mean YOUR amusement. The greater public actually supports HSR, unlike yourself.
synonymouse Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Sorry, but the “greater public”, the one that voted to slap a two-thirds straightjacket on fees no longer supports the hsr bait-and-switch. They did not vote for hundreds of miles of railroad on stilts in the boonies.
No it is the Pelosi patronage machine which is steamrollering the CHSRA scheme. The public is yucking it up at the frantic antics of PB-Palmdale in the same manner they laugh at the Bell bozos. Same MO.
PB & friends must stand to make more money with embaracadero freeways on rails than tunnels.
bleh Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 10:11 am
You overestimate Pelosi. You have to ask yourself which nefarious group would profit the most from building a 800 mile long, 300ft high monument of stone? Isn’t it obvious?
This is the work of the Freemasons; they want to bring about the downfall of California to make Palin president. Then by using their puppets from the Zionist World Conspiracy they can blow up Saudi Arabia to send Earth on a collision course with the sun.
The signs are obvious, you can’t miss them.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Pelosi is the de facto jefe of what was the Burton Bay Area political machine but which is now pretty much synonymous with the California Democratic Party. bleh evidently doesn’t follow California power politics. There are so many voters whose bread and butter depend on Party patronage that Pelosi wins by like 80%, a record Saddam Hussein would have envied.
Freemasons and WASPS in general way passe. The Bohemian Club or Commonwealth lub entourage would give you a more accurate picture of who is in the power elite of California.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Why do you think that Pelosi’s wins reflect anything other than San Francisco’s liberalism?
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The pols help public employees get raises, part of which goes to union dues, a significant part of which is given back to the pols in the form of legal campaign contributions and some goes to political organizations and their campaign advertising.
That’s just one of the techniques of building effective patronage and yellow dog party loyalty.. Phil Burton was very skillful at creating his machine. Of course a monopoly on power invariably leads to excesses like erecting monuments to oneself. See PRI in Mexico.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Despite all that effort you’re describing, San Francisco isn’t voting for Pelosi by higher margins than it votes for liberalism in general: against 8, for Obama, etc.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Facts are just facts, and pale in comparison to the strength of conspiracy theories, Alon. You don’t stand a chance. Although it’s fun at times.
flowmotion Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Actually Alon and Peter, you are coming off as rather ignorant of local politics, and politics in general. synonymouse has rather effectively reeled you in on this argument.
Let’s just say that Pelosi isn’t the Democratic leader just because she is a nice lady.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
You’re right, if Pelosi didn’t paid voters off, they’d elect someone more in line with the politics of John McCain, who the city enthusiastically embraced in 2008.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Yeah, I too am wondering if Hanford-Visalia is suddenly going to lose what they had just won.
Victor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Me too, I’m hoping the Hanford stop would stay and that We’d have a 3rd station in Bakersfield too, But We’ll just have to wait and see as to what happens next.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
If at all possible, I would prefer to see Fresno-Hanford-Bakersfield as the first stations.
Eliminating the Hanford station altogether would be bad for public relations so soon after announcing that the first segment would go to Hanford. This has been exciting news for the Central Valley.
Adding Bakersfield would be a huge victory for Cal HSR. However, a lot depends on whether Cal HSR would be able to resolve the issues with the approach into Bakersfield station. “Playing it safe” could mean building as far as Shafter and linking up with BNSF there.
Walter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
But that’s my point–if a Hanford station limits the southern end of the line to Shafter, that’s a loss. The extension to Bako is worth so much more than a Kings County station right now.
It sucks for the people in and around Hanford and Visalia, but for the sake of getting this done for the millions in other places along the route, the Authority has to make this look like an important first step. Stopping in Shafter isn’t that step, and everything must be done to ensure full funding for AT LEAST Fresno to Bako before we talk about stations in Merced, Hanford or anywhere else.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Or Bakersfield could pull a Peninsula and drop a NIMBY lawsuit in Cal HSR’s lap, which would slow down the process even further. Remember, they are still miffed about Bakersfield HS. And we still have more than one route to choose from.
I would hold back on Bakersfield until we know how we are getting into Bakersfield. I would like to see BOTH Bakersfield and Hanford Regional. But if it is a choice of one or the other, Hanford is obviously the safer choice.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I’m hoping it’s possible to build a *cheap* Hanford-Visalia station.
If the station is at grade level, it could be built as a four-track section with outside platforms, each with separate street access, using the nearest overpass as the connection (main cost: two turnouts and some concrete pouring). We’ve been generally agreed here that PB is planning to overbuild and overdesign stations, and perhaps a campaign to “Keep It Simple” would get more stations faster. It’s always possible to improve station facilities after the fact, provided the basic location and platform layout is decent.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Cheap, but not too cheap. How expensive would a pedestrian tunnel be?
Just some back-of-the-envelope thinking here:
The station is supposed to be near the intersection of Hwy. 198 (east-west highway) and Hwy. 43 (north-south). Train follows 43. 198 ducks under 43, so assume a bridge/ flyover over 198. Lacey Boulevard is directly north of 198, so assume that the 198 bridge jumps over Lacey as well. Railroad tracks (shortline, but potentially important as a DMU link between Visalia, Hanford and Lemoore) are about 1000 feet north of Lacey.
Any station in that area is not going to be ground-level, but it doesn’t have to be a viaduct either. A pedestrian underpass would mean that a person who parked at the northbound side of the station wouldn’t have to walk too far when he returns home on the southbound train.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
p.s. a berm would do. Uh oh, don’t tell Palo Alto XD
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
No need to get to a Bakersfield Station to call it Fresno/Bakersfield ~ get over the municipal boundary, and your there. The two stations are to satisfy the explicit Prop1A(2008) requirement, and since the segment has to go through Fresno for independent utility and can connect to the BNSF quite readily at the southern end, Fresno and Hanford make sense for the Prop1A(2008) two station requirement.
Does every segment constructed have to have a tie-in somewhere to maintain independent utility? Is there some “point of no return” that says that enough HSR track has been built that finding points to tie in are no longer needed/relevant? I ask because that was their argument for having to go through Fresno to Madera to find a tie-in to BNSF. At what point, if any, do they achieve independent utility without having to tie-in to a rail ine? Does Fresno to Bakersfield achieve IU, even if the tracks dead-end in the middle of the cities?
Bret Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Also, BNSF is in talks to possibly move their train yard to the city of Barstow (against much resistance of course), east of the Kern County line. Does anyone know how that could affect the alignment as the tracks passed through downtown Bakersfield?
Victor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
It would mean there might be a lot more room in Bakersfield for the Tracks and a Station there.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
It might open up some extra options for selecting a track alignment.
Victor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
True and I’m becoming a Big BNSF fan too.
thatbruce Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Only with regards to segments constructed using funds that come with the ‘independent utility’ string attached. Future federal funding might not come with said string and hence, segments constructed with that funding won’t need to tie into existing non-HSR infrastructure.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Hypothetically, but what are the odds of getting that out of committee, let alone through the Congress?
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:28 am
In the context of no true HSR segments currently existing, let alone operating in the country, none. In a future context of HSR segments existing and operating, I’d give it (no ‘independent utility’ strings attached to federal funding for HSR) maybe a 20% chance of getting out of committee, as there will always be states without HSR wanting HSR, and the risk is always there that some of those projects will fail leaving isolated and unusable bits of infrastructure lying around.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I find it more likely in that circumstance that we’ll get infrastructure banking, so whole usable HSR segments can get financed on a capital basis out of a possibly smaller annual funding on a current basis.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Future funding from the Fed’s can come through legislation similar to the ARRA, i.e., specifically targeted for HSR (or improved non-HSR service on the road to HSR) or through direct legislation (probably not likely, but who knows). If it’s the former, then it will likely have the `independent utility’ restriction.
But that said, it seems to me that once we have the Madera – Bakersfield segment then additional funding for anything relative to that segment such as the San Jose – Madera segment, electrification, train-sets, or the maintenance facility would not require any `independent utility’ since it will be a true HSR upon completion. Or at least, truly independent by definition in the case of San Jose – Madera (in theory, one could run a conventional service from San Jose through Bakersfield somehow since there would be no track sharing).
Note that
BruceMcF Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
When they are ready to commit to getting train service established on the tracks when works are completed, then there is no need for independent utility. Independent utility is a requirement on funding partial segments of the works needed for a HSR service.
aw Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Is it perhaps more precise to say that once there is an operating segment, any extension to a new terminal station has independent utility?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
The question of independent utility becomes moot with the application for construction of a segment that allows the target type of service to begin. There is no need for HSR projects to be able to provide utility that is independent of the HSR operation if HSR either starts with or is extended by completion of that segment.
So, to take a hypothetical, suppose the State of Ohio decided to apply for funding for the trackwork for the Emerging HSR class 3C corridor. The trackwork alone would not allow HSR operation to commence, so it would require some other use, such as a “Quickstart” Amtrak-speed service, in order to gain funding. That would also be the independent utility on level crossing upgrades to prepare for HSR operations. But an application to finish the upgrade to a segment and to buy HSR trains, it wouldn’t need any utility independent of the HSR service, because it would itself get the HSR service started.
The US DOT is now “insisting” that Bakersfield be included in the first segment,
Does this mean that they will be more likely to avoid an insane elevated structure in Corcoran, so that they have enough money to get down to Bakersfield? We can only hope…
“A spokeswoman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority said engineers were trying to determine how far south the new money — $1.2 billion when combined with matching state bond money — would allow work to proceed.”
By the time construction begins, they will have more money and will be able to complete the Bakersfield station without a problem.
One of the most obnoxious things in American politics today is the fact that people now feel free to lie with impunity and just get away with it because the media has stopped calling people liars
Thanks god someone said it out loud. Best quote of 2010.
As for HNF. How complicated does a station have to be. A raised concrete platform (center) or two (wayside) a cover. ticket machines. An air conditioned lobby/waiting area. and a small parking lot.
Thats all they need to get started. A place where a train can stop. They can fancify it later with TOD and more pakring.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“One of the most obnoxious things in American politics today is the fact that people now feel free to lie with impunity and just get away with it because the media has stopped calling people liars”
It’s not just here. A certain nationally syndicated columnist recently had an editorial in which she lambasted the federal unemployment tax, claiming it cost (working from memory here) something like 6.7% payable on the first $7,000.00 each employee makes per year. I don’t know where she got that figure; the federal level is 0.8% per year. It’s a difference between $469.00 per year and $56.00 per year.
She also quoted somebody in her editorial as getting “bills” from unemployment agencies following claims; these were for-profit agencies. For the record, for-profit employing units, or businesses, are contributory employers, who pay unemployment tax every three months; claims are paid out of those contributions, very much like an insurance program. The only entities that get “bills” for unemployment are non-profit and government agencies that are on a reimbursement agreement; they are essentially self-insured, an option that can be granted because they so seldom actually have claims.
Where did she get such horrible misinformation?
I’ve been working as an auditor for this agency for only 30 years; I should know a little bit about it by now.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
certain nationally syndicated columnist … lambasted the federal unemployment tax….. something like 6.7% payable on the first $7,000.00 each employee makes per year.
Sloppy sloppy research. After seconds, maybe even ten of them, I found the US Dept. of Labor’s webpage explaining the tax. It’s 6.2 % of the first $7,000. 5.4% of it is rebated if the employer pays the state unemployment taxes in a timely fashion. ….FUTA taxable is still $7,000? it was that back in the 80s when I worked with payroll a lot….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Yes, it’s still $7,000.00 on the federal level. My own agency had a wage base of $8,000.00 from 1981 to 2009 (it went to $12,000.00 in 2009).
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f940.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i940.pdf
Do you think it’s just sloppy research, or a deliberate attempt by a syndicated writer who is also a Fox news commentator to discredit the current administration? Certainly there is much one can argue with about any administration, but this borders on slander in my opinion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
For the record, here is the column:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/08/small-biz-killers-who-pays-for-jobless-benefits/
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
On her best day, Michelle Malkin lies less than Wendell Cox. And she doesn’t have many best days.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Um, she lies more than Cox.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Oh, *her*. She is beyond a lunatic, if you look at her record. Crazy crazy shit, over and over again. The disturbing thing is how many people like this are employed by supposed newspapers.
There’s a name for it: Wingnut Welfare.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:26 am
“Wingnut Welfare”
Ho, ho, ho, ho!
“The disturbing thing is how many people like this are employed by supposed newspapers.”
And how many of our fellow citizens fall for this; there are times I am truly frightened for our future.
Interestingly, I think most younger citizens reject this nonsense; the strident tone alone can turn them off. What is bothersome are the Reagan-era coming-of-age people, who are not against rail, but have no clue about the real costs of our fly-drive lifestyle. Of course, if those costs got placed out where everyone could see them. . .
Maybe we can turn this talk of the conservatives upon themselves. Cut out the rail support–and also cut out everything else, zero budget. No federal highway program (and no federal gas tax), no federal air program, let the states pay for all their roads, and the airlines for the air traffic control system. It would be risky, but it might also finally discredit those goons.
Do the Democrats have the nerve to try this?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Hell, there are entire mantras devoted to this. California is routinely described as the worst state for business, but the reality is that we have the most manufacturing jobs of any state and add the most value in our manufacturing than any other state (although Ohio probably tops the list for per-capita manufacturing employment).
What’s worse about that particular Malkin article is that she is either extraordinarily lazy or an out an out liar who trusts that no one will actually click on her link that she uses to cite the 6.2% claim since it immediately goes on to mention that there is a 5.4% credit against the tax and “Since all States have approved programs, 0.8 percent is the effective Federal tax rate.”
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
oh yeh I get so tired of the “california is bad” arguments. Yeh we’re one of the worlds largest economies because we are so bad for business. People have always flocked here and will continue to flock here because they know a good thing when they see it.
The only ones who are bitter are the ones who are bitter about just about everything. Mainly because they’ve been feeding at the right wing trough.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
California’s light years above some of the backward states.. they try and compare us with manufacturing or something that they used to have.. but outside of the military defense industry we never were a giant steel producer or other heavy industry.. right now the state is changing all the old 1950s middle America transplants are dying out or moving to them of course it’s horrible everything is downhill.. California will always renew itself and in 2020 when the high-speed rail opens they will be staring again and what California has done.
simple as this
Elizabeth Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Jim,
The project description has used the phrase “bare bones” for both Fresno and Hanford. I don’t think you have to worry about there being big bucks in the budget. The complexities of grade separating HSR from an active freight railroad with spurs and grade separating country roads when the train parallels a non-grade separated highway (43) are budget busting enough.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
ok. good. I mean Im all for big fancy stations and all but I think that should be up to the locals not only to pay for, but, more importantly, to decide on what type of style, architecture, and adjacent development should proceed. I do not want the authority to spend money on anything but getting the trains running and I don’t want them dictating architectural style to locals. ( minimum requirements of course)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
but I think that should be up to the locals not only to pay for….
San Francisco is giving back all the State and Federal money being sunk into Transbay?
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
From what I understand, Transbay, just like ARTIC, is going to be a multi-modal terminal, designed for more than just high-speed rail, but for all sorts of local transportation. The state and federal money could probably be justified on the basis of the other modes of transit.
If Fresno, Hanford or Bakersfield were to design something which could serve as a local bus depot or transit center, (eventually light rail or commuter train station?) as well as a regional Cal HSR station, I’m sure they might be eligible for outside funds as well.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
All you need for buses is a curb and sign that says “bus stop” works the same way for streetcars too but the sign would probably read “streetcar and bus stop” and probably “no standing”
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
That might be all you need, but cities like to make things the compliment there development plans and people want something attractive. EAch city will put is own “signature” on the location.
Martinez built this
Corcoran did this
Oakland built this
for example
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
What a boring world you must live in.
We’re not talking about the bus stop outside of Rite-Aid, we’re talking about a place where people will be getting off the Fatest Trains On Earth, coming to visit friends and relatives, maybe going to a national park. We’re also talking about a potential transfer point for local buses, potentially a starting point for streetcars/ light rail.
How about some bus bays? How about some benches? Covered to keep the rain out?
How about an information booth, a place for visitors to get some information, some maps, a clock tower?
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
the fatest train on earth! oh that will never do in california. Get those trains to the day spa immediately! ;-)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
“!!@#$%^&*!!! Stupid program! No edit function!”–James Fujita
I don’t know if he actually said that, but I bet he did!!
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I hate the no edit.
Victor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Fastest in North America, Yes, In the world? I don’t know.
@ Robert: How about implementing Your *[new] tag that uses Java for New Posts? You have It setup on Calitics to differentiate between which posts there are New posts from those posts that aren’t. It would make the Newest blog posts obvious.
So can You do this Robert? Please.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The tag is coded in the Soapblox software that Calitics uses. As always, if anyone can point me to a WordPress plugin that offers the desired comment functionality, I’m all ears – I’m still not ready to cross the “edit comments” bridge, but I’m all for a way to mark posts as new.
I have virtually no web design skills at all, so if there’s not a plugin for it, it ain’t happening.
Victor Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
@ Robert: I think this could help, Maybe: Here(Detecting WordPress 2.7)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I live in a world where the bus companies – plural – are able to use the train station wor things like information booths, waiting rooms etc. This whole multi modal thing has been going on on the East Coast since the first train came to a river’s edge and the river was too wide to bridge. …well the train probably went to where the existing multi modal ferry/stagecoach terminal was….
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
well out here, everything is being done from scratch, and it has to get the cali treatement. I has to be just so. we like things to be nice Even the airport as seen here at the sonny bono concourse of course.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Oh, you are absolutely right! The Baltimore & Ohio’s first station in Washington, DC was a former tavern! (Coaches had stopped there, too, before the railroad came in 1835.)
The current station in Martinsburg, W.Va. is a former hotel; Stonewall Jackson burned the railroad facilities there, including a roundhouse and the station, in 1861. The B&O moved into rented space in the Berkeley Hotel (Martinsburg is in Berkeley County), and later bought the hotel outright. Over the years it got added to, parts of the additions got torn down, then new additons were built. Not all the floors lined up between sections; an elevator installed in a restoration a few years ago has doors on two sides to stop in seven locations in a building that is only four stories tall!
I think it’s a cool station, but I’m not sure you would want to build something like that new. . .
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/martinsburg.htm
The lower level of the two-level porch visible in one of the photos was the perch from which three old guys watched as crew members of the Capitol Limited and local policemen took a drunken passenger off the train after he had propositioned a 14 year old girl. They chided the officers for taking that drunk’s whisky and pouring it on the ballast; they thought it looked like good stuff, and would have liked a drink!
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I’m hearing a lot of arguing over semantics here.
Call it a train station or call it a multi-modal transit center, but it should still be able to handle trains, buses, light rail, commuter trains, cars, taxis, etc. And I don’t think that the local bus system, be it Fresno FAX or Hanford KART or whatever should have to necessarily make do with a “sign and a bus bench”.
Even the existing Hanford Amtrak station has a KART transit center next door to it. The link between the train station and the bus bays isn’t perfect (there needs to be a bridge or an underpass or something).
But the fact remains that local communities are going to want these additions.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
If I remember correctly, Transbay costs more than Tokyo Station City. The bulk of the project’s cost is the train box and the DTX tunnel, not the bus bays and shelter.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Hmmm. Good question. I haven’t been to Japan since they started this, and Tokyo is NUTS when it comes to new development. They just can’t get enough of it.
Also, I have no idea what the public/private partnership must look like in something like Tokyo Station City. Somehow the contracts must get paid and the construction gets done, but I haven’t the slightest idea who pays for what. Very results oriented people.
Of course bus bays and shelters are cheap compared to building an HSR station, no matter who pays for it. I’m surprised anybody would be opposed to the idea.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
The problem isn’t just that the HSR station costs money. It’s how much money it costs. At $4 billion, the box plus tunnel would be the most expensive tunneling project in the world outside New York City, beating Crossrail. It might even beat some NYC projects, I’m not sure.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
4 billion isnt for the box and tunnel. 4 billion is for the whole thing, including the temporary terminal and all five levels of the center.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
ARRA funds 400 million ( this isn’t from the authority’s budget )
and est. 429 million in land sales. and lots of local and regional money as it will serve the region and the region’s operators.
see here
and those are not today’s dollars either but year of expenditure dollars.
and Im not getting into this bash the tbt discussion.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
as for the tunnel. Its was going to be tunneled no matter where you put it, and thats between caltrain and hsr to work out. If you want to blame caltrain for for not paying for the tunnel and elextrification a long time ago then go ahead and blame them but don’t blame san francisco for that.
hsr and caltrain need to get their shit together.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
okay, so how much of that 4 bil. would be bus bays and shelters? people complained about the art on the Metro Red Line. well, as it turns out, the MTA art budget is something like 1 percent of the whole budget. Bus bays will be more expensive than art, but I don’t see it busting the budget.
Hanford doesn’t need a Transbay. But building more than a HSR platform couldn’t hurt. Let phase one be tracks, platform, ticket machines, shelter. But leave room for the other stuff surrounding it. And that goes for the other stations as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Jim, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that they need a tunnel. I have a problem with how much tunnels cost in your part of the world, or in mine.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
where are you anyway? LA?
things are expensive. yes. but that won’t change. Its all gonna get done. And somewhere there will be something for everyone to dislike about the entire hsr project. but in the end the trains will run, we will ride, and the sun will come up over the eastbay hills.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
New York, for the next few months. LA’s construction costs are not yet at NY and SF’s level of insanity.
Things are already changing, in the wrong direction. Fifteen years ago, a billion dollars per kilometer of tunnel was unheard of. New York’s RPA predicted construction costs in the $300 million per km region for its late 90s fantasy map. And it’s not getting much better despite the recession; individual bids are coming under the inflated budgets, but there’s no major downward revision of cost estimates.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
The interesting thing is that the actual tunnel drilling is coming in within estimates or below. It’s the utility relocation and related miscellanea which eats any extra budget up. I’m pretty sure we’d be better off if (like London) we’d mapped out every utility in a government register long in advanace, and if any inaccuracies were the responsibility of the utility company. But then in NYC deficient buildings don’t get fixed by the landlords, even though it *is* their legal responsibility, so there’s clearly something *very* broken.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:07 am
I’d believe it was all the fault of utility relocation, if the cost of everything else weren’t so out of whack. The cost of the drilling not including the stations is already $1 billion for less than 3 km, which would be very high by global standards. The bridges cost too much, ESA (i.e. drilling and a cavern) costs even more too much, light rail (on preexisting railroad ROWs!) costs too much. The same overruns persist in too many types of project for this to be a problem of engineering.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:28 am
How much of the high cost is likely to be related to increased cost of cement and steel? China is gobbling up a LOT of it on the world market. I tried to find how much the cost of cement had gone up over the last couple of years, but all the articles were ones I would have had to pay for. Does anyone else have access to that information?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:35 am
European and Japanese projects built at the same time showed much smaller cost increases, and started from much lower budgets. Even the 3.5-times-over-budget L9 subway in Barcelona is still at one tenth the per-km cost of Second Avenue Subway.
Caelestor Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Who’s got a way to bring infrastructure costs back down? Otherwise, this whole place is screwed.
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@ Calestor
The only way I can think of to get costs down or at least to try to determine what the true non-inflated cost is to have a private interest construct a chunk of the project. Let’s imagine the incredible and say a tycoon like Larry Ellison suddenly became a railfan and resolved to build the Tejon base tunnels and donate them to the state. He could hardnose negotiate with a tunnel builder like Herrenknecht and come up with a plan and a pricing structure with contingencies. I suggest he could get a better deal than the CHSRA. I grant that’s pretty far-fetched cost-cutting idea.
On the other hand you could induce a real railroad like the UP or the Santa Fe to build inhouse a project a project or a segment thereof. I do not think this is beyond the realm of possibility if approached right. Of course forget pouring concrete stilts in every direction, real rr’s only do viaducts when absolutely required.
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
No matter how you might wish it, ‘SELECT count(*) FROM Segments WHERE Location LIKE “%Tejon%”;’ still returns 0, while ‘SELECT count(*) from Stations WHERE Location = “Palmdale”;’ returns 1.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
But the high cost of tunneling in the US only increases the cost over-run from designing a system to require three tracks through the tunnel to gain two tracks worth of capacity.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
@Caelestor: I don’t think anyone has a way. Best that can be done is complete the few projects that are cost-effective with US costs, and then have a zero infrastructure investment policy. The losses of pothole-ridden roads and low traffic capacity are lower than the costs of fixing most transportation in America.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
@ synonymouse
And why don’t we all just fly to the moon while we’re at it?
At least you admit that it’s unlikely that Larry Ellison would build base tunnels. And how would you induce a real railroad to build a segment? The railroads are in the business of moving freight not constructing track. They do the later, or contract it out, only as necessary for their primary business. There’s no way you can get any private entity to construct a segment unless you’d offer them a significant premium to do so, and there go your costs. Hey, I’d bet PB would do it!
synonymouse Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
http://trainnews.dyndns.org/photos/121010_0001.jpg
I believe you are underestimating the abilities and resources of a class one rr like the UP or the Santa Fe. Double tracking the Abo Canyon is a pretty sizeable undertaking.
How about something on the order of a consortium of the UP & Santa Fe loaned the money by the state to construct and operate something straightforward like LA to Livermore via Tejon. They just might be able to break even from the onset and maybe pay off the very low interest loan in a hundred years. The upside is they would know how to get the best price.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 4:39 am
The railroads have always had first-class engineering talent available. What they do not always have are cash and/or leadership. The latter is particularly lacking in the Wall Street crowd (who also play games with railroads, along with everything else). Ask the former management of BNSF when they were in a big system expansion project almost 20 years ago, and were forced to go slower because the Street’s boys got nervous about all the money being sunk into new track and locomotives.
Interestingly, at that time, UP was more the darling with those investors–and would get burned in a huge traffic surge in Texas partially as the result of that.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
The locals can use state and federal money as well they have access to funds in many different ways. They can access tax money and developer fees just like san francisco did.
The portion of transbay that the chsra budget is covering is the train box, which is the basic station structure. They aren’t paying for the bus level, shopping park etc from the chsra budget.
Likewise, the basic train structures for other locations should come out the chsra budget as well while thing such as retail/housing/local transit transfer centers/ and signature architecture should be decided locally, just like in sf.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
If the get a State or Federal grant outside of the HSR processes that isn’t “paying for it themselves”
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
it is to the extent that cities and towns do this all the time. in otherwords, doing the required work to get the money, if you want to argue over semantics. but you knew what i meant.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
and further, the funding part of my point is secondary to the more important point, which is local control over what kind of station, architecture, parking, TOD, and other features get built.
Smaller cities such as Gilroy, Hanford, Palmdale, Merced, Redwood City and others should have the station design they want to fit into their local architectural fabric, not some monstrosity imposed by the authority.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I agree. Of course, monstrosity is in the eye of the beholder.
If Fresno wanted a monstrosity, they could probably find the funds for it. Monstrosity, IMHO, is the abandoned nut packing plant next to the tracks. Tear that out, and there would be plenty of room in Fresno for something nice to replace it.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
of course. my point being that the locals should decide. Fresno in particular, has shown a can do attitude. What I can see happening there is most likely a local design competition, with entries put to some kind of vote or general public consensus.
Not only is this a way to avoid pissing people off, but it gets people involved and makes them a positive part of the project. ( you know, the kind of outreach the chsra has been accused of lacking)
The last thing you wanna do is have them go in with something that the people of fresno, hnf, mcd whoever, don’t like, and shove it down their throats, creating all kinds of animosity. That would be exactly the wrong way to go about it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Or any number of commuter rail train stops. Parking lot, concrete platform, TVM, and some overhead cover so you don’t have to stand in rain or snow. Although even that can get expensive (I’m not sure what exactly was supposed to make the Mission Viejo/Laguna Niguel station cost ten million dollars, but I’d put my money on the undergrade crossing to the far platform).
thatbruce Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Constructing something out of concrete, cheap. Constructing a replacement or upgrade something out of concrete while ensuring that whatever is currently there can still be used, pricey. For everything else, there’s always filling in the holes.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
The platform itself ought to be pretty minimalist, no matter what the rest of the station eventually looks like. Bare basic necessities. Of course, since we’re talking about high-speed rail, a pedestrian underpass ought to be included in “basics”. Nobody should be on the tracks without permission to be there.
As for the rest, it seems to me like the station building is something which can be planned for off to one side and be added later without being too pricey. You just have to make sure that there are hook-ups and connections in the right places, a few markers to indicate what goes where.
There are temporary tents and huts which can be replaced when the local community comes up with a design and the funding to do something more.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Thats often what happens. Just like the temp tbt we have now. And in other cases, at bfd when the station was in a trailer while the city designed and built the station it wanted. Same thing in martinez, amtrak ticketed out of a temp trailer until the city of MTZ designed and built the station it wanted. This is also happening at Hercules, and is planned at vacaville/ Dixon or Vacaville/Fairfield I forget which. ITs also happened in Hanford and Corcoran and Fresno and Modesto. In fact in every city in california its the the cities who own the stations to my knowledge. The railroads, neither freight nor amtrak, own any of them. The older stations are all under the jurisdiction of local preservation/historical societies, and the new stations are built, with local, federal and state transportation and development monies acquired by the well established means.
In every case, from the smallest stations, to tbt artic, and union station, chsra will pay a portion required to make the station fit for hsr, but in every case, all the extra bells and whistles have other funding sources.
Victor Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Temporary Trailers for Stations, I like that idea, I also like Cities building the Station as they want. The CHSRA should build the platforms though, As It’s in and near their tracks.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
The platforms should have canopies. I do consider that a basic necessity, even in California.
They don’t need to be particularly fancy canopies.
Calling all structural engineers.
We need to factcheck something that only a structural engineer would know. Email ealexis@gmail.com if you can help.
Thx
Eric M Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
What do you want to know? I know some.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
We have some questions about the requirements for heavy slower trains vs fast lighter trains.
Eric M Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
So you can figure out how much more money will have to be spent on the valley viaducts, or if the buff strengh of the proposed viaducts will support the heavier Amtrack trains?
Elizabeth Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
yep.
Does anyone have that link to the renderings of teh BFD station that were posted the other day?
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
There were renderings posted?
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
yeh well just drawings. Some one posted the link to them. I think it was an chsra doc. But im still seraching.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Is this what you’re looking for?
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
yep thats it. it downloaded but how do I get the link to it?
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
oh never mind. Duh. I can email the pdf. to the person I wanted to share it with.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
well, that’s interesting. It’s obviously preliminary, just giving enough information to give people an idea of what it would look like.
What I notice is, it seems to be east of the existing station, when there’s already development (Marriott, convention center) to the west of the Amtrak Station. And it seems to be pointing south, when there’s currently not much there.
I suppose they’re thinking it might not fit into the space west of the station, or that there would be room to do more new development. But it’s too bad they can’t incorporate the existing development into the station.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Ow. Getting out of Bakersfield to the east isn’t going to be easy. I knew that, but the 13th slide, showing the land uses in that area, really brings home the challenges.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
we were discussing that the other day. at length. You can’t take out that whole nieghborhood. and running and aerial down the middle of cal blvd would be rejected by locals too. they are gonna have to stay in the existing row.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Not even the best option I came up with for 150 mph was “in” the existing right-of-way. It certainly ran next to it for a lot more distance than any of the 220 mph options, but there’s not room to build without any impacts whatsoever.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:16 am
Yes, but there’s no need to charge the owners of parking lots that get a bit of extra summer shade. They should be allowed to get that extra amenity for free.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
they may be able cut corners on the blue line by using truxton from kern street to the junction.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Just from trying to draw orthogonal lines and looking where they cross, I think that’s also a
1.75mile curve radius, so similar to the speed of bringing the aerial over the top of the UP
yard … but it would be (1) closer to Bako Stn, so a smaller slow zone, (2) would avoid the
UP yard, so cheaper construction (smaller straddles on the straddle bents) and (3) the taking
would be airspace above Kern county probation center parking lot, so probably less controversial than Bakersfield High School
One question I have about American train stations. Why do we think of the actual train platforms as an afterthought and not really part of the station? The typical design of a train station here is a building with some commerce, and then you leave the building and go to the tracks out back. That seems fine for tiny stations in smaller towns, but in bigger cities, it be nice if we did a better job of integrating the platform areas with the mezzanines. A good example would be Berlin Hauptbahnhof (the central station). Here are two shots I could find:
http://www.berlin-motive.de/berlin/Sehenswuerdigkeiten/Mitte/Hauptbahnhof/pages/Hauptbahnhof20_%A9HorstStiller_7748.htm
http://typophile.com/files/berlinHaupt2_5543.jpg
You can find more on Google images: http://www.google.com/images?q=berlin+hauptbahnhof
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I thinks its for the same reason we don’t like our peas to mix with our mashed potatoes.
speaking of potatoes…. no matter how bad things seem in america today, just remember, we lived through this so we can live through anything.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
It’s not just America, Japan also has a habit of separating station retail with the platforms. (They do have newsstands and small vendors on platforms, but restaurants, convenience stores and shops are always separate.)
Of course, Japan is also a very compartmentalized society.
There’s also a question of whether a station is a terminal station and everyone is expected to get off, or if there will be express trains zipping through. And then there’s also ticket control points to consider.
Frankly, the Berlin station looks a little too wide open for my taste. People might want to be able to get away from the noise of a platform.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
People might want to be able to get away from the noise of a platform.
Like, for instance, by getting on a train? …which they won’t have to wait very long for, as they arrive on predictable and reliable schedules?
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
It depends on if people arrive early for the train. Or if the station becomes a hub for more than high-speed rail. Like bus transfers. Or commuter rail transfers if the Central Valley gets so lucky.
Or even, if I lived at Mozaic at Union Station, I’d shop at Famima!! at Union Station.
These uses wouldn’t require a wide-open station. I’m not sure Transbay is the way to go, but I’m not sure Berlin is the answer, either.
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:55 am
The Berlin Central station isn’t a station; its a shopping center that happens to have station platforms at its base. The design of the atrium tends to channel the train noise upward, and not much of it is audible away from the atrium.
That said, Berlin Central is a poor example for a station that isn’t intended to have an integrated development.
Peter Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
The architectural design is about the only thing Berlin Hauptbahnhof has going for it. It may be “centrally located”, but it is not really built near where any large numbers of people live. And it’s less accessible to the people living in the western part of the city, where the U-Bahn is their main mode of public transit, than it is for the people living in the east, who have much better connections to it via S-Bahn. The only U-Bahn line there connects to Brandenburger Tor, and is planned to connect to Alexanderplatz at some point. It’s almost as if they intended to cut out people living in the western part of the city.
Not to mention that is doesn’t link up with the Strassenbahn at ALL.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:06 am
New South Wale’s Cityrail separates station retail from the platforms ~ the main urban Cityrail platforms are controlled access, so they’d have to be. The busiest downtown destination station is Town Hall, which connects under the street to the Queen Victoria Building.
Eric M Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Hell, I would be happy if they made the bottom of the Transbay Terminal the same as the second picture you posted, instead of the planned dungeon.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
or for gods sake it isn’t going to be a dungeon. Its no different than any other platform, bart, muni, what have you, that we all wait on every singe day around here. Not to mention no one is gonna be loitering around down there for more than a few minutes.
Eric M Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
But when you are building something from scratch, there is no reason for is to be a confined, cememt forest. Get over it Jim, SF screwed up.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
no, sf did not screw up. sf did not design the train box. sf had long standing plans to rebuild tbt. hsr is a johnny come lately that wanted in, so they made a place for it. talk to pelli.
or hsr is welcome to stop at the county line.
Eric M Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Al the more reason to design it better. Even if it was originally for Caltrain only.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
well you should have been adding your public input during the years of planning.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Public input was soundly ignored. I may not like Richard’s attitude, but he’s right that the planning of the TBT was effed up.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
well what would you do other than run the trains into town on elevated. like the 280x and james lick. I actually would have preferred that. Then they could have run the trains onto the top level.
But in the end ot doesnt matter and I have to be up at 4a so I can’t have this conversation or Ill be here all night.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
all of you who dont live here pay rent here and put up with all we put up with here please quit criticizing my home town. only I can do that. go fix your own towns. they arent perfect either. they wish they were as great as we are. jealously thats all.
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Objection.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I actually think the alternative where the tracks were slightly skewed towards Market St would have been the best. Turn into the station was wider, platforms were wider and there was more room for things like escalators, and it would have permitted a future Transbay connection without taking out additional skyscrapers.
Peter Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
We’re not criticizing your hometown. I like SF. We’re just saying the planning of the TBT was poorly done.
Dan S. Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Does that mean Jim is going to stop criticizing Palo Alto, cuz he doesn’t live there? :-) BTW, I agree with Jim, I never saw it as a dungeon either. It’s 6 platform tracks, underground, looks like modern new construction, and has a small light well in the center. Check it out, and judge for yourself. Sure, it’s no glass palace, but if you think its a dungeon, I think you’ve got a pretty cushy image of dungeons! ;-)
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:05 am
So, jim, that means SF is going to hand back the Federal money allocated to building the train box that was designated by you SF residents as the HSR terminus without then actually being designed with that purpose as a priority?
Does it mean that SF is going to fund the extra cost of a three track tunnel that has no more capacity than a two track tunnel?
Designating an HSR terminus a decade ago was a far-sighted thing for SF voters to do. Too bad the Transbay JPA dropped the ball.
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:10 am
and its under budget
Alton in Big D Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:42 am
@ Dan S. / jimsf
Sure, the rendering doesn’t look like a dungeon, but that’s an awful lot of light and glow that it;s showing on the platform for being several floors down.
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
yes because now, in addition to running water, we also have electricity.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:42 am
4th and King would have been fine..OO no lets not start this again!!
Donk Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:02 am
I still don’t understand how the TBT is going to cost $2B to fully build out. It will be $1.2B for the main station, plus $400M for the train box, plus more money for the actual train platforms etc. How is this possible? What a frickkin waste of money. $400M more could have gotten us to the wye or to the mountains past Bakersfield.
Oh, and the building design looks hideous.
Victor Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Cause Materials like Steel and Copper cost lots of money(blame that on the Chinese buying Steel & Copper like there’s no tomorrow) and the cost of skilled labor here I’d think.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
HSR is certainly not a “johny come lately”: the TJPA had a responsibility to the voters of San Francisco to design an HSR terminal, because the proposition that approved the project designated it as the San Francisco HSR terminal.
CHSRA may be a johnny come lately, but give their mandate from the outset to design it as an HSR terminal, when CHSRA came on the scene, CTJPA should have consulted with them regarding things like appropriate column spacings, platform parameters, station throat curve radii, etc.
Likely CHSRA would have screwed the pooch if given a chance, but the TJPA did not give3 them the chance, and since it was an original design target as passed by local majority vote, that leaves TJPA as the one who dropped the ball.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
you get over it.
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
oh no its new and built from scratch!
oh no the horror!
et tu la France? Zut alors!
Joey Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Yay for brutalism :/
jimsf Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
of course tbt may not be as glamorous as this japanese hsr platform area.
or this german number
I think this looks fine and I see nothing wrong here. Its not even dark nor does it have a low ceiling at all.
James Fujita Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Point of order: Taiwanese. If you’re talking about the trains themselves, then yes, they are using Shinkansen designs.
Clem Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Another point of order: Spanish, not German.
And finally, that TTC rendering is many years old and bears no resemblance to what has actually been engineered. It will look more like this.
MGimbel Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Actually, more like this: http://www.metro-magazine.com/images/news/TransbayRenderingPlatformFULL.jpg
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:01 am
no it won’t. That’s just being overly dramatic like the PA berm-o-phobes.
Joey Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Clem’s picture is remarkably accurate, minus however they might have textured any individual surfaces.
Caelestor Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
@MGimbel: I thought HSR + Caltrain weren’t going to have similar platform heights?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Not unless y’all raise the platform height limit on lines shared with freight from 8″ to 1′ 8″.
MGimbel Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@ Caelestor: They won’t, the person who did this rendering probably didn’t know the difference between Caltrain and HSR platform heights.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I’ve been to the Dank Hole. It’s got better lighting and much friendlier crowd. The beer is cheap, along with many of the patrons. SoMa just off one of the alleys.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
@ Bruce: not even then. The standard boarding height for HSR is about 4′.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Ah, yes, “Section 4.2.5 Passenger step “The passenger step for access to vehicles shall be optimised for the two platform heights of 550 mm and 760 mm that exist on the network, unless the trainset can only operate over a part of the network with a single platform height.”
550mm=1ft, 9.6″, 760mm=2ft, 6″
… is not the level boarding height, which is a bit above the old UK 3ft platform.
I prefer the EU high platform to the EU low platform, but of course I am biased by my experience with the Ozzie high platform, based on the old UK 3ft. platform height.
Clem Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Go straight to the source, people!
Requirement INF – 3-20.4 – Platform height
Platform Height. The elevation of the station platforms shall be set to be the same as the nominal car floor height at the doors of the vehicles. The design of the boarding platforms shall be coordinated with vehicle design such that the car floor shall be within plus or minus 5/8 inch of the platform height under all normal passenger load conditions. For preliminary design, the nominal platform height shall be 3.0 feet above the top of rail. Once the rolling stock is selected, the platform elevation for the station platforms shall be set to be the same as the nominal car floor height at the doors of the vehicles.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 12:40 am
How does this platform height requirement coordinate with the CV plan? Seems to me they’re going to need to know the platform heights well before they’re ready to commit to choosing the rolling stock. Does the CV construction force them to make these r.s. decisions sooner than later, even though they won’t be running HSTs for potentially a long time?
In other HSR systems around the world, who typically chooses the rolling stock: the service operator or the track operator?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
They need to know the minimum platform height, and they need to know the maximum platform height, but if they are wayside platforms with access at the edge away from the track, they can be designed to height of the platform is fine tuned once the rolling stock is acquired. After all, you only need 10′ to cross 6″ with a shallow 5% gradient.
But resizing or bi-leveling the standard European commuter rail 2’6″ high platform would indeed be a lot easier than resizing or bi-leveling the standard European commuter rail 1′ 9.6″ low platform.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:57 am
Brutalist architecture in France is largely due to compliance with anti-terrorist regulations. No ornaments, no urban furniture, nothing which could block the view from surveillance cameras. Any suspicious behaviour like parting with a piece of luggage has to be instantly detected. Gone are the old-style cozy platforms. Everything now is geometric, stark and naked.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:29 am
For visual impact of renderings, the most important element of feeling crowded fades into obscurity and less important aspects are magnified. More critical for high traffic platforms is how easy to get from the street to the escalator to the place where you are going to wait on the platform, which translates on arrival into how each to get from the arrival platform to different points around the station building. For eight car trains, as in Cityrail, a single crossing mezzanine halfway works well in terms of spreading passengers along the platform, so I expect for 16-car trains, two crossing mezzanines at a quarter from each end would work well.
That allow for escalators down to a mezzanine from the outer direction along the long axis and at two different points along each side of the building, and distributing passengers in the escalators along the axis of the platforms.
Of course, with the support pillars off-center because the architect of the TBT didn’t give a damn that the support pillars spacing would be off-center in the train box underneath, that seems to complicate the provision of walking lanes that don’t interfere with escalator egress/access and waiting zones.
I’m sure that within the design parameters of the building, ignoring the fact that it was supposed to stand on top of a train box, it seemed like an effective design choice, just like saving the expense of two express lines by having the express line at 4th and Townsend be shared between inbound and outbound trains saved money at 4th and Townsend … at the expense of expanding the tunnel from a two track tunnel to a three track tunnel.
Is the headline on this blog talking about the nested conversation? I’m just asking ;)
Jack In Fresno Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 8:02 am
Comment Train to Nowhere! This is exactly why we need a new comment system, try to follow the over 160 comments in this thread…
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
On the contrary, I think that with so many comments, threading is critical; otherwise, it’s easy to derail the conversation with sub-issues.
However, a feature showing which comments are new would be very useful.
Daniel Krause Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:42 am
I find it very difficult to navigate as well under the new system. For a blog that gets, say 1/4 of the comments this one does, the thread system is easy to navigate. But when it get this large, I find myself having to scan all comments just find new ones that I missed (il.e. the recent comments that have been bumped off the sidebar). Once solution I asked Robert to look into was to see if it is possible to have a 20 or more of the most recent comments listed in chronological order on the sidebar (which would require the ability to scroll).
Alex2000 Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Yes, this is terrible. But a non-threaded system would be worst.
But something has to change, with comments going into the 200 range this is getting
impossible to read.
Can’t there be a way to highlight comments that are “new” since your last visit?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 11:17 am
It’s much more difficult than it sounds. Again, I am not a web designer or coder, so I would need someone to step up and help provide that functionality.
I’ve been exploring some different WordPress plugins that claim to promise this functionality and testing them this morning, but so far none appear to have worked. There may be a conflict with threaded comments.
This isn’t going to happen by people asking for it – it will only happen by people stepping up to help build it. Much like high speed rail!
Alex2000 Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Give the DISQUS plugin a try. A lot of popular commenting sties
(like the Atlantic) uses it.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 10:04 am
When TTP tried Disqus, it was a disaster that destroyed the threading. Some subthreads got broken up, and others got jumbled up.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Yep. I’m familiar with Disqus on other sites, but not sure it meets our needs here.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Actually here is a link to a page a blog post at The Atlantic with over 500 comments:
http://bit.ly/ed8c18
The comments are threaded. But you can sort by age (newest/oldest) popularity, best
rated. It is very good.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
More useful would be a facility to close all comment threads and then only open the one that you wish to open. When closed it could display “8 comments, 4 new, last comment Month ##th, 201# at ##:## am/pm.”
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I like this kind of thread on skyscrperIts easier to read the lines run wider so theres less scrolling down. the replies are easy to read. etc.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
If the nesting box margin indent was finer, there would be less problem with the text box running into the side bar. Its only a couple of letters indented four in, but it gets problematic indented seven in. It might be indented relative to the text margin of the box, in which case the indent ought to be set at 0.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
also if the text area was twice as wide the comments wouldn’t go so far down the page.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Yes … don’t know if its possible in the system, but the comments could start below the last item in the sidebar, and go the full width of the page.
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but will this new high speed line initially just see bullet trains provising a shuttle service between a string of small towns? Or will trains continue via existing rail routes to more important destinations? And if so, does this mean diesels will drag the trians when they are away from the bullet line (a lot of dead weight being dragged) or will the approach lines be electrified (a lot of money for a temporary measure) or will the high speed line initially just be used by Amtrak-style inter city trains with diesel locomotives and so not be used to its full speed potential and so not deliver its full benefit.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:38 am
If things go according to plan, initially it will see bullet trains running from San Francisco / San Jose / the Valley / LA / Anaheim and visa versa as well.
“Independent utility” is just about the use of the individual segment in case you Californians decide to abandon the rest of the project (which would be foolish, of course, but we’ve seen foolishness with state politics and rail recently, so its a risk that the Federal government has to take into account when granting a capital subsidy for a part of a larger project).
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
No. The proposed line is only the first segment of the planned line. Only if they cannot get funding for additional segments would it ever be used for conventional passenger rail.
Still to come: Additional segments, a maitenance facility, electrification, testing (including of train-sets), and purchase of train-sets before any actual high-speed rail is run.
Andy M. Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Thanks,
Earlier posts on this blog created the impression that the first section was to be a type of demonstration line that would help bring the sceptics and fence-sitters into the fold of HSR supporters. If it will not be operated in isolation this cannot be.
If I understand you correctly, passenger service will not commence until the entire line has been completed from end to end. Is that so? In this case California HSR is fundamentally different from HSR in France or Germany for example which is phased over several decades and even in the very long term future will not be able to function without some through running onto conventional infastructure. It is more like the Japanese system that is totally separate from any other rail system. Is this so?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
There’s not too much of a point to buying trains a few extra years early just to provide service in the Central Valley and that could be a political misstep as anti-HSR folks jump on lower ridership levels. Phase 1 (LA-SF) is best thought of as being similar to individual lines such as Paris-Lyon rather than as a network which is phased in over decades. There is also some additional run through in the urban areas I believe.
thatbruce Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
The completed CAHSR system will be sharing facilities and track with existing commuter operations in a small set of locations (European model) but will otherwise be completely separated from existing rail operations (Japanese model). As for revenue operations using HSR trainsets by a CAHSRA-nominated operator; I doubt that there will be any until either San Jose or Los Angeles is connected to the Central Valley segments. The CAHSRA of course likely has other plans.
There will be HSR trainsets operating much sooner than that time, in demonstration mode on the Central Valley segment. These demonstrators (both of HSR trainsets and possibly also any HSR-compatible commuter trainsets) may, as a public-relations exercise, be used for regular passenger service as a supplement or periodic replacement for the Amtrak San Joaquins within the Central Valley (with the San Joaquins still continuing outside the Central Valley).
However, the Central Valley, on its own, probably won’t have sufficient ridership and revenue from intra-valley HSR operations to cover the operating budget. With the system as specified for Phase I, or even a part of Phase I that connects the Bay or LA areas with the Central Valley, then the operating budget should be covered by ticket revenue, and certainly with the complete Phase I.
Another thing to remember is that the CAHSR system is a game changer. It isn’t building atop a successful (in terms of usage and destinations served) system for state or country-wide rail transport similar to what France, Germany, or Japan had before they embarked on a gradual program of building HSR lines. Instead, California is leapfrogging several of the sidetracks that the cited countries went down, and hoping to reap the long-term economic benefits possible through a working HSR system.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Covering operating budgets at what schedule? A route that cannot come close to sustaining 1tph can sometimes easily cover 4tpd~6tpd. And the run would be so quick you can get both down and up for a single set within a single peak demand period.
If a franchise is offered, the train vendor might pick it up, and put any early year operating loss down as a marketing expense.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Didn’t you express support for running at high frequency from the start in order to attract ridership? What argument for running 5 tph LA-SF from the start rather than 3 tph wouldn’t apply to running 1 tph Bakersfield-Fresno instead of a train every four hours?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Yes, precisely so, there should be a high frequency of service at the start of service on Phase 1, from LA-SF segment.
A run along these lines would be earlier than that, and so would be building ridership in advance of completion of Phase 1. Your engaging in crude stereotyping again, oversimplifying the argument that the first service should be as high frequency as sustainable to build ridership by dropping the “as sustainable” and overlooking the fact that any service initiated before Phase 1 is complete is higher frequency relative to a frequency of 0 until Phase 1 is completed.
Off topic by about 80 miles— Gilroy has lost 10,300 daily boardings according to the CaHSRA Route Map (we’re back to 4,700). And San Jose is back to 7,600.
J. Wong Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Just so you know: The Web is not an “official” document (and this shows you why).
John Burrows Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
A fair number of people use the CaHSRA website, and I would guess that the route map is one of the first things they click onto. It is important that the information it supplies be as accurate as possible.
Eric M Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
If you add all the daily boardings from each stop in Phase 1, then multiply it by 365, you still have a heafty amount of boardings.
Looks like the senate has matched $1 Billion the house allocated for high speed rail.
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=9ac3518e-7e19-4328-bf52-16a6c2a1d333
Disappointing but not unexpected. Also looks like the Amtrak budget will be $563 Million. Not sure if I’m reading this right. Anyways shame Obama requested the lower amount.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
$563 million for Amtrak operations, $1,338,484,000 for capital investment and debt service, of which no more than $277,000,000 can be used for debt service.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Is that a lot or a little?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I believe it is slightly more than last year, but not significantly so.
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I don’ know the numbers but the operations budget seems lower than usual, but the capital and debt service I think may be a lot more. Seems amtrak used to need 800m for operations or have to shut down but I’m wondering if the gradually shrinking workforce combined with big jumps in ridership and revenue are gradually lowering the need for additional operations money.
Thats just speculation. I really have to look it all up to know for sure.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
In FY05/FY06 when the operating grant was over $700m, the general Capital funding was under $500m, and under depreciation. The operating loss net depreciation in FY2009 is listed as (1,154)-(563) = $591 and the operating grant as $563. With capital grants exceeding depreciation, Amtrak is on paper not a net depreciating operation at the moment.
jimsf Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I have no idea what that means.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
In the early part of the decade, under the Bush effort to defund the system, Amtrak was getting by by running down the system (as railroads under financial stress have done for over a hundred years). And when funding was restored, with very few capital grants, they had to raid operating funds for urgent capital work to keep the system operating.
With the levels of capital funding the last couple of years, they haven’t needed to do that, and that is a big reason they can get by with a lower operating grant than five years back.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Did I hallucinate David Gunn?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The zero operating grant years were FY2000 and FY2001. The big increase in spending on deferred capital maintenance and maintenance capacity was under Gunn, which you will see on p. 60 of the 2009 annual report, where in FY2004 depreciation net gains from leaseback is listed
at $551m with general capital funding of $462m, while operating loss net depreciation is $780m on an operating subsidy of $756m, in FY2005 that is general capital funding of $492m and net depreciation as Amtrak reckons it of $558m, while operating loss net depreciation is $663m with an operating subsidy of $711m
I have no idea whether the reduction in payroll started under Gunn reduced operating costs relative to a baseline of not doing so, but the operating costs are not lower than they were in FY2003.
FY2006, starting just about when Gunn was sacked, saw capital funding of $772m against depreciation of $446m, and FY2006 saw capital funding of $848m against listed depreciation of $454m.
YESONHSR Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Did he personally ask that it be lowered? He had proposed 1Billion for HSR for 4years It was the House2010 budget that raised it up to 4 then it was set at 2.5 after the Senate lowered it. For this year the House set the amount at 1.4 and the Senate at 1 Billion ..as was in the presidents budget. There seems to be some confusion as to who actually set the amount and maby some unfair judgement for the President
BruceMcF Reply:
December 14th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
He requested 40% of the amount that had passed the previous year. That’s a lot of level crossing upgrades, but not very many miles of Express HSR corridor.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
The President personally requested that it be lowered for FY2011, after the House requested more. What can I say.
Once we get solar cell efficiency to 30%+ (hopefully I’ll be doing some research on that in college), the whole world will change for the better, mark my words.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the theoretical maximum is 32 percent. Solar thermal can produce more electricity.