Gilroy Approves $150,000 For High Speed Rail
It’s not every day that a city’s decision to spend $150,000 to study the best route for the high speed rail project makes news. But it did make news tonight that the Gilroy City Council, in a vote seen by many as a key decision whether Gilroy will continue to support involvement in the HSR project, voted to approve that sum of money in hopes of making HSR work for the city.
A recent Gilroy Dispatch article did a good job of explaining the study and the surrounding issues:
Up for vote will be $150,000 to fund rail experts and grant applications for the highly-criticized California high-speed rail project that could not only split downtown but has divided the Council in the past….
The staff is eyeing a $150,000 Community Design in Transportation grant – not to be confused with the amount requested from Council – from the Valley Transportation Authority. It’s meant to help cities in transportation-related planning studies, and requires cities to match the grant by 20 percent.
In Gilroy’s case this means a $30,000 matching fee and $7,000 to pay a bullet-train expert to help draft the 20 to 30-page application. According to the VTA, the deadline is early January.
The remaining $113K of the $150K amount approved by the Gilroy city council tonight would be used for “future bullet train grants and related issues,” including hiring consultants to study which of the proposed routes would be better for Gilroy – going along the current UP/Caltrain corridor, or going east of the city:
“The concern is that we don’t want HSRA coming in and saying, ‘well, we’ve selected the station here’ and in six months we have to react,” [Gilroy City Engineer Don] Dey said. “We have a limited time to react and if we don’t do our homework we can’t respond adequately.”
This is in response to an October vote by the Gilroy city council, narrowly approving a resolution showing a “lack of confidence” in the CHSRA’s oversight of the project. By following up with this expenditure, Gilroy city leaders are saying they do support the HSR project itself, and are rejecting the NIMBYism and HSR denial coming from the usual small but vocal group of people who have found their own prosperity and prefer to deny Gilroy – a city that could use an economic boost – a shot at becoming a major center of the 21st century economy in California.
Gilroy is further saying that if they aren’t totally happy with the CHSRA, they’ll start doing their own research to ensure the outcome is a good one for their city. I read this as an effort at constructive engagement – which is apparently how the NIMBYs read it too:
“It really sends the wrong message,” said Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo, Gilroy resident and high-speed rail critic. “The message it sends is that we’re supporting their process and we’re not. Our no confidence resolution says, ‘we don’t have confidence in your process,’ so why are we going to spend money to engage in a process we don’t believe in?”
Sheets-Saucedo has been a prominent critic, the Morris Brown of South County, but as we’re seeing, her views are not shared by her neighbors. In fact, tonight the Gilroy city council seated a new member, Peter Leroe-Muñoz, who ran a pro-HSR campaign calling for a downtown Gilroy station. If Gilroy didn’t actually support HSR, he would never have won that election.
Tonight’s vote also helps boost Gilroy’s position when Roelof van Ark comes to town later this month:
It comes on the heels of the California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO, Roelof van Ark, announcing his Dec. 16 visit to the area after a vote of no confidence sent Oct. 18 by the city.
The resolution had critics claiming a small victory after the Council voted 4-3 to tell the CHSRA that it didn’t agree with its policymaking.
I love how the Dispatch framed the October resolution – “a small victory” for critics that basically said they disagreed with the CHSRA’s process. However, it is quite clear that Gilroy very much wants HSR, and its leaders understand that their city’s future depends on this project getting built. We’re starting to see momentum coming together for Gilroy and the CHSRA to reach some sort of common ground that will enable project planning for this very important segment to continue. That riles up the NIMBYs, because they’re realizing that their neighbors reject their desire to keep Gilroy economically destitute.
There’s no doubt that the Authority’s public outreach has needed improvement. But it is good that cities like Gilroy are refusing to use those problems as an excuse to attack the project. Instead Gilroy is going to spend its own money to figure out how to make HSR work, a constructive and assertive approach that will produce more positive outcomes for its residents than the confrontational and negative approach adopted by cities further north. Their council is to be commended for making the right move tonight.
Note: Those of you looking for my comments on the recent California High Speed Rail Peer Review Report – you can wait one more day for it.
This could turn out to be a double-edged sword. If Gilroy is genuinely looking for a solution that will deliver the greatest transportation benefit to the region without breaking the bank, hooray. However, if this is merely a ploy to try and get the tracks below grade, that would be problematic.
Gilroy lies in a topographic depression and is therefore subject to a 100-year flood. Ideally, the tracks should therefore be constructed on higher ground well east of the city. If that’s not possible or cost-prohibitive, the next best option would be tracks on an aerial in the area at risk.
The Gilroy HSR station will only be served by a subset of trains. Most will run through at high speed, possibly even at 220mph. Note that this is much faster than trains will run in the mid-peninsula, the sound level peaks could be 6x higher (though they will only last about half as long). If the tracks in Gilroy are elevated to mitigate the flood risk, a wider area will be affected by this noise. Even with mitigation measures, it would IMHO be inappropriate to subject a downtown area to this environmental impact. I’m not aware of any HSR trains anywhere running that fast through any city center anywhere in the world.
In addition, the Gilroy HSR station will serve Morgan Hill, Hollister, Watsonville, Monterey and Salinas. Even if connecting rail or bus transit were available, many out-of-towners will still arrive by car. The requisite additional road and parking capacity would be harder – i.e. more expensive – to deliver for a city center station.
Finally, UPRR has made it quite clear that it isn’t interested in selling any of its ROW or even air rights above it to CHSRA. Since the state of California has very little leverage over the federally regulated freight rail industry, it’s unclear where HSR tracks could possibly run through downtown Gilroy.
For these reasons, I would prefer that the city’s HSR station end up east of 101, near the huge factory outlet mall. Local/regional buses could provide connecting transit into the city center and beyond. I fully expect Caltrain to eliminate service south of Tamien once HSR begins serving Gilroy, if not sooner.
Note that there might be a case for a rail shuttle between Salinas and Gilroy HSR, even if that entails construct a few miles of additional track south and east of the city. It really depends on real-world HSR ridership forecasts for residents of northern Monterey and southern Santa Cruz counties.
Nathanael Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Could be a SMART move by Gilroy. If they design an appropriate station and get local opinion behind it *and* local funding, everyone else will probably just go along with their plans.
FYI, other railroads and transport agencies have the power to force UP to sell air and/or underground rights for ‘crossing’ the UP, provided the STB approves. So California has real leverage over UP, *provided they make their move while the STB is friendly*, and therefore I strongly encourage them to move fast.
The plans for E101 call for a station out at Leavesley Rd which is clearly Ag land all around – not near the outlets.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Yep, and Gilroy had fought and won a battle recently to keep Wal-Mart out of that site and maintain it as ag land. Even if the location were closer to the outlets, that’s still a crappy place for TOD, and it makes connecting to other rail services (Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, Coast Daylight) very difficult. We need cross-platform transfers, or at worst same-station transfers, not cross-town transfers.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Don’t be ridiculous. If hsr does come to Gilroy, there will be no point for having archaic Amtrak services too.
thatbruce Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:28 am
CAHSR is only ever going to be part of a transit network, which includes other services such as Caltrain, Amtrak, VTA, BART, Metrolink etc. In the case of Amtrak, there are cities and routes served by the Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight which will never be served by CAHSR. Suggesting that these services be cancelled is ridiculous; suggesting that extended lengths of overlap be trimmed is not (for instance, it would make no sense to continue the Capitol Corridor from San Jose to Gilroy in the presence of a completed CAHSR phase 1 ).
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Overlapping Amtrak Coast Daylight + HSR on Peninsula: ridiculous
Overlapping Amtrak CC + HSR to Gilroy: ridiculous
Continuing Caltrain beyond SJ: ridiculous
Steven Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:03 am
First off, when your comment was displayed in the recent comment section on the blog front page it read:
“Drunk Engineer in Gilroy Approves $150,000 For High Speed Rail” :)
Secondly, Amtrak/Caltrain and HSR aren’t overlapping, as they are completely different services, offered at different rates and on different time-tables. You would not argue that NJTransit; Amtrak’s Northeast Regional; and long-distance trains like the Carolinian, Silver Service/Palmeto, the Vermonter, and the Crescent all shouldn’t use the NEC between Trenton and NYC because they “overlap” with Acela! Amtrak won’t always use the same tracks in CA, but they may very well stop in the same cities, particularly if they are offering different service and– in particular– rate plans.
That said, I doubt many people will take Caltrain from SJ to Gilroy, only to transfer at Gilroy to go to LAUS.
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:20 am
That said, I doubt many people will take Caltrain from SJ to Gilroy, only to transfer at Gilroy to go to LAUS.
No, but they might do so from Morgan Hill/San Martin/Blossom Hill etc.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:31 am
IIRC, Caltrain’s electrification EIR was updated to end at San Jose. Without catenaries, what’s the plan for SJ-Gilroy Caltrain service?
Peter Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Keep Caltrain’s newest equipment, and use it for Baby Bullet services as well as for Gilroy shuttle. That includes the MP36 locomotives and the Bombardier cars, as well as some (3, I believe) of the F40PH locomotives and some of the gallery cars.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Caltrain’s SJ-Gilroy service should be assumed by the Capitol Corridor operation, especially if/when Caltrain electrifies.
If HSR ever gets to SJ-Gilroy in the coming decades, the Capitol Corridor service can be replaced.
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Caltrain’s plan is nuts. What’s the point of electrifying and getting an FRA waiver just to keep on running slow heavy diesel trains? Keep all diesels south of San Jose.
Replacing Caltrain’s San Jose-Gilroy route with the Capital Coridor is a good idea. Alternatively, run a Caltrain San Jose-Gilroy shuttle using the old Caltrain diesels. Even better, run San Jose-Gilroy-Hollister and San Jose-Gilroy-Salinas. Even better again, fix up the dodgy bits of track in Watsonville, Santa Cruz and Monterey, and run a proper regional rail service feeding Gilroy HSR and San Jose HSR.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
The key to a Capitol Corridor extension is Monterey County. We want that train to serve Salinas, and it could pick up the Caltrain slack on the stations south of Tamien. But that would mean we’d want that service to be preserved even after HSR opens.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
… to justify operating under FRA regulation, insane FRA over-staffing, and requiring that Caltrain’s in-house very very very very very special CBOSS consultant friends laugh all the way to the bank — and get to do so for a couple decades..
Because, like, our, like sacred requirements, and, like, stuff require us to spend $200 million extra in order to keep using our awesome “new” (only 20 years out of date when it was purchased) $20m worth of freight RR equipment — the same stuff that other stone-age Commuter Railroading around North America might actually have an interest in taking off our hands for real cash money anyway.
Mixed traffic! CBOSS! They’re the gift that keep on giving — giving straight from your pocket into the consultants’ and contractors’.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Wow. What an awesome plan!
So, just to summarize
* We, the public, pay hundreds of millions to build a super awesome kewl electrified 350kmh alignment from San Jose Interdimensional Hypergalactic Station to Los Banos via Gilroy.
* The operating plan is then to not use those tracks except for one or two (realistically) Flight Level Zero airline flights per hour, and instead to …
* Extend a chronically unreliable and slow and over-extended dino-train even further past its breaking point, and
* Even if there were a snowball’s chance that Gilroy-Salinas-Hollister rail could possibly be justfied in this, the real world, that rather than operate a post-19th-century (DMU, low-floor, single operator, low cost, friendly) shuttle service connecting to the several billion dollars worth of taxpayer-funded shiny new tracks screaming past Gilroy, instead you intend to operate freight train locomotives with stone age Amtrak passenger cars parallel to but entirely separated from those spanky new tracks, mixing it up with random freight train derailments and under-maintenance.
It’s thinking like this that qualifies you for any position in rail planning you care you name at any salary you care to ask anywhere in the USA, son! Start with the Peninsula Rail Program and CHSRA, but really, the sky’s the limit. Good job!
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
So Richard, what’s your alternative plan?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Ummm… how about taking each Powerpoint-friendly “bullet point” of the summary of the awesome cashrblog scheme and appending “… NOT!”.
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
No, that’s not a plan, that’s a negation of someone else’s plan. Opining on what not to do is something you’re very good at, but what I was asking is what you think should be done.
Let me put it this way. There is no passenger rail system to speak of in the US, certainly not in California. There are closed non-FRA metro systems (e.g. BART) and heavy FRA-compliant freight-style passenger trains running on poorly maintained tracks owned by freight railroads (e.g. Amtrak, Metrolink, Caltrain.) Given that FRA-compliant trains are extremely slow and building new passenger-only track is extremely expensive, what is your solution for developing passenger rail services to connect to HSR?
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Richard and others. The reason amtrak would run trains to SNS has nothing to do with caltrain or high speed rail. It has to do with the missing link between ccjpa and surfliner trains. Currently buses fill the gap and those buses are very popualar and often sell out. ( students are the number one useres of this service so far as I can tell ( sba and slp)
The plan is to run a surliner train further north and or run a ccjpa train further south to fill that gap. the amtrak gap. it has nothing to do with caltrain or high speed rail. Its a long term plan that is part of the state/amtrak partnership per caltrans. Further I understand that there is much support for rail service along the 101 central coast corridor. Which will never be served by hsr.
Whatever caltrain and hsr do is their business. What Amtrak California does is what AmtrakCalifornia does, to complete its system. And it happens to be very reliable.
Not liking something personally, doesn not automatically make it bad. Those are two different things.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
In principle, a fully noncompliant regional rail system, running off-the-shelf Euro-DMUs, etc., could work. But there’s no hope for making the run time-competitive with driving. US 101 and Route 1 are both full freeways for most of the way, whereas the rail line is too circuitous. Best that can be done on rail is an hour including turnaround time (i.e. 2 trains for an hourly takt), which would be marginally competitive on Gilroy-Monterey and a joke on Gilroy-Salinas.
Based on this, I think California should write off rail service to Monterey County as a total loss and spend its money on more productive feeder lines elsewhere in the state.
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Alon- thanks for that reply. If you’re correct, it’s one less reason to locate Gilroy HSR downtown. If you’re going to connect to the HSR station using buses it doesn’t need to be on the existing rail line.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Even if a rail line were feasible, I’m not sure a downtown option would be best. Under European rules, you could run the DMU as a tram-train on city streets for the last few hundreds of meters between the rail line and Gilroy-HSR. The cost comparison in that case would be between locating Gilroy’s station downtown (expensive urban construction) and running the regional trains slightly faster (more infrastructure upgrades south of Gilroy).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Currently buses fill the gap and those buses are very popualar and often sell out.
Both of them? Maybe they just need bigger buses.
Joey Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Currently buses fill the gap and those buses are very popualar and often sell out.
Given the current Coast Starlight schedule, buses would probably be faster than anything we could run on the current rail infrastructure.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
again, I’m not saying what would be better. I’m saying that amtrak california is going to fill that bus gap between the ccjpa and the surfliner routes as part of the caltrans rail plan and per request of the communities served.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Both of them? Maybe they just need bigger buses.
Ill assume your joking since you obviously know the schedule. 10 – (5 each direction)
Its well illustrated on the full coastal sked under pacific surliner page 6 ( full)
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
The problem isn’t that buses are faster than rail could be. It’s that cars are faster than rail could be.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
its about the cost. With limited money, new stuff isn’t always the best thing. For intermediate markets, the goal is to usable rail service in, then over the decades as the trickle of funds drips in, you can gradually make upgrades.
Now on the other hand what could happen… is… that HSR is such a gigantic overwhelming
success that makes so much money for the state and the operator, that suddenly you see a push to start building it everywhere. suddenly the tune changes. next thing you know, coastal nimbys not withstanding ( I like most californians are fiercely protective of the coast) you might see 101 hsr. and redding hsr and more!
by the way did you know that in the 60s, all the models for californias growth ignored the central valley as a palce where no one would want to live, and that it would remain a place for feeding the nation. while the 101 was suppose to become an NEC style megalopolis. with a nonstop urban corridor stretching from san diego to san francisco along the ocean. They did not foresee the envirommental movement.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Yes, it’s exactly about the cost. Unless you close down 101, rail will never be faster than the roads from Gilroy to Salinas. The money would be better spent elsewhere in the state, like Burbank.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
the gap between san luis obisbo and san jose. – where there are currently 5 round trip buses, the plan is to extend one of the surliner trains north from SLO to SNS or SJC I believe, as a start.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Ironically, trains can be faster between SLO and SJ, as long as the FRA doesn’t get to meddle. The line is straighter and less circuitous between Salinas and the mountain pass north of SLO, and trains could speed up in the middle to make up for the slow sections at the ends.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
its not always about speed either. Do you know that alot of people have their preference. some want BFD some want SLO as a transfer point. They will ride from Davis to Oakland on a ccjpa train, then take a surfliner bus from OKJ to SLO, then catch a surf train from SLO to LAX or San Diego.
Can you beleive it. Cux they can do it for $68 dollars. Sure if you shop you can get a plane ticket from SAC to SANdeigo for that price. But they wont. They would rather take two trains and a 6 hour bus ride to get there.
Tres Bizarre.
Lots of regulars though. Theres the lil old lady who goes to Capistrano ( not to be confused with the one from pasadena) and the gal who goes to visit her mom every month. A surprising number of people who have “court dates” in other counties. Lots of people who are afraid to fly.
( more than you think) It baffles me. I wouldn’t do and I can go for free. But they love it. go figure.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Sorry I overestimated by 100% because I seriously doubt there is anything more than one bus at the station going in one direction at a time. If they needed two buses they wouldn’t schedule both of them at the same time. They’d add frequency to the schedule since that would cost little.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I’d much rather spend money on rail that’s useful enough that the people still driving are the bizarre ones.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
yes but all public transit is incremental. so you have to start somewhere. sjq had one in each directions. ccjpa had 4 trains a day. not 32.( back when caltrans started it) and so it goes.
imagine trying to convince people to build hsr, if the state hadn’t already shown success withthee state rail plan, and built a ridership base so that we have something to look at and say “wow you mean southern californians actually will get out of their cars and pack a train to standing room only, along withe bikes and boards” who would have believed it?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
You can do incremental projects while still caring about cost-effectiveness. If you can’t build good regional transit to the Monterey Bay area then the money won’t be given back as tax cuts to the rich; it’ll get spent on better transit, for example giving Burbank enough access that it grows as a transit-oriented destination (“Wow you mean they can do good TOD outside Arlington, Virginia?”).
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
What’s the deal with burbank? They already have transit right. I thought burbank was a dumpy run down suburb in the valley thats fairly seedy.
Jon Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:34 am
jimsf: what Amtrak really needs is a sleeper leaving the Bay Area in the evening and arriving in LA in the morning, and visa versa. No-one wants to sleep on a bus, but if you’re travelling overnight you don’t really care if the journey takes a bit longer than driving. I looked into doing this journey recently and baulked at the coach + Pacific Surfliner Combo simply because I can never sleep on coaches.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Burbank is a major secondary downtown, which has shitty transit. The only connecting transit to the station is Metrolink. The Orange Line busway terminates a little bit further west, at the North Hollywood subway station; there are long-range plans to extend the busway to Burbank, but the 30/10 plan only includes extensions of the busway in the other direction, deeper into suburbia.
What Amtrak needs is a day train leaving the Bay Area multiple times an hour and arriving in Los Angeles less than three hours later. Since it has no intention of providing such service, CAHSR has been created.
Jon Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Alon: yes, when making that suggestion I took the fact that Amtrak will not be providing high-speed service as a given.
Well you’ve convinced me that regional rail for the Monterey Bay area without new lines is a waste of time. New passenger-only tracks leaving the HSR line at Gilroy and following 101 to LA, perhaps sharing ROW with Metrolink from Oxnard and connecting to the HSR line at Burbank, might be a good long-term plan if HSR is a success.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’d say if HSR is a success, and UP softens up, then a good tilting train service on the Coast Line could work. It wouldn’t be terribly successful, but if costs could be kept under control (no FRA, shared track, etc.), it could be workable. The main purpose of such a line would be to connect the Central Coast to Gilroy (and thence CAHSR) and LA, since for LA-Gilroy service HSR would be a lot faster.
thatbruce Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
@Drunk Engineer:
Overlapping Amtrak Coast Daylight + HSR on Peninsula: ridiculous
I’ve never caught an Amtrak Coast Daylight. Perhaps jimsf can help me out here.
If you mean the Coast Starlight, it overlaps CAHSR phase 1 between LAUS and Burbank, and between Gilroy and San Jose. Since it continues onwards up the east side of the Bay to fun places like Oakland, Sacramento, Eugene, Portland and Seattle, breaking it in the middle of its service path just so passengers can travel a few miles on the CAHSR is ridiculous.
Overlapping Amtrak CC + HSR to Gilroy: ridiculous
Indeed. Good job catching that omission, as I would never have commented on that otherwise.
Continuing Caltrain beyond SJ: ridiculous
You missed the overlap of Caltrain and CAHSR up the Peninsula between San Jose and SF there. Better class that as ridiculous too, as no-one would ever want to use a commuter service that completely overlaps with a HSR service.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
There are plans to add an Amtrak Coast Daylight train from LA to SF 4th and King. One of the stated reasons for Caltrain’s decision to go with low platforms is compatibility with the Superliners.
James Fujita Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
They’ve been talking about a second Coast Starlight/ Daylight train for ages. See also: Spirit of California.
If they do get the Coast Daylight up and running, and if they end up with high platforms on the Peninsula, they could always switch rolling stock to something which can toggle between low and high platforms. California Cars can’t, but Amfleet could.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
You’re thinking too far outside the box right now.
James Fujita Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Okay, so Amfleet cars would be too old. Unless you develop Amfleet III cars. Or any passenger car which could handle low and high boarding. Am I getting closer to the box?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
The box is that California is used to the Superliners and thinks single-level cars are so last year.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
you have to take that up with caltrans Alon. Its my understanding that that was totally caltrans call.
thatbruce Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 10:01 am
FFS Caltrain. Keep a low platform or two at 4th&King, and you’re done. IFF said service does eventuate, it won’t be stopping at every station along the Caltrain corridor (ie, no need for a low platform at every Caltrain platform), and being a passenger service, wouldn’t be a factor in high-platform restrictions due to CPUC (ie, only FRA-freight services need a high-platform bypass track, mechanical platform movers or CPUC waivers).
@Drunk Engineer: My apologies; I was not aware of the Coast Daylight plans. The point about not cutting back a given service simply because it overlaps with CAHSR still stands however.
Jon Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 10:07 am
What thatbruce said. Every other country that has developed HSR already had a decent passenger rail service, and HSR simply sped up the longer journeys and made them time competitive with flying. California will likely do this process the other way round. Once HSR is built most people will drive to the stations and park, but in time people will demand better connecting transit so they start and end the journey at their own city’s rail station.
I’d love to see some thought put into how Amtrak could reconfigure itself to serve this function, in fact I was hoping that was what the last post would be about. I was in Santa Cruz last weekend and noticed the ‘bike church’ had started a campaign for a combined rail line and bike trail connecting the Monterey Bay area. With an extension to Gilroy HSR station that route could be cost effective and might actually happen.
thatbruce Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
With few exceptions, the current Amtrak service patterns in California do not duplicate the CAHSR system. Certainly there are overlaps in city pairs, LA SJ Sacramento being the most obvious in the case of the Coast Starlight, LA SF for Pacific Surfliner, and SJ Sacramento for the Capitol Corridor, but the fact that the Amtrak trains serve different cities along the way between those pairs would indicate that most Amtrak services would remain in the long term.
That’s not to say that all of the present Amtrak services would remain operated by the same heavyweight equipment (discounting required upgrades over the years) in the long term. For instance, the Pacific Surfliner between LA and SD via LOSSAN is a good candidate for conversion to lightweight (HSR-compatibile) stock owing to the relatively short distance between the two HSR (electrified) endpoints of Anaheim/Irvine and University City, the low freight traffic, and the owership of the line by commuter agencies instead of freight railroads.
James Fujita Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I certainly hope that Cal HSR will spur California to upgrade its passenger rail network. My guess is that it will.
When Cal HSR comes zipping into Gilroy or even into Fresno, Bakersfield and Hanford, there will be a ridiculously and embarassingly serious drop off between the level of quality in HSR and the heavyweight Amtrak and commuter trains we have now.
Unfortunately, people tend to be “I’ll believe it when I see it,” and people in this state aren’t familiar with electrified commuter rail on the scale seen in Europe or Japan (or even NYC). There will be an awkward few years (call it “HSR puberty”) while cities, counties and the state scrambles to find fund to electrify. (Electrification can be pushed as a clean air initiative).
In the meantime, I disagree completely with the person who said that Amtrak would be superfluous. Obviously, HSR won’t solve everything — for example, there’s a huge, growing stretch from Santa Barbara to Salinas which won’t be part of Southern California or Bay Area transit.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
What happens with electrification is that new rolling stock plus electrifying lines requires large capitoal investment ( is anyone else sick to death of the typing lines going off into themargin where you can’t see what your typing or if its spelled right???) what was I saying.. oh yeh, the capital investment goes up against spending money on existing increasing exisiting service.
as in: electrify and re equip surfliner for a huge cost or add more frequency and extensions for muc less cost using the existing infrastructure. As long as public transit and rail budgets take a backseta and have to pinch pennies, the latter will be the case.
In other words, Gilroy is arming themselves with 150K worth of ammunition to fight the CHSRA when they come sauntering in to town. Good for them.
J. Wong Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Do you really think that means Gilroy doesn’t want HSR at all? I don’t. The future is HSR. Get aboard or get left at the station.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Gilroy does want HSR. That much is obvious. They do want to have a greater say in the location decision process, and that’s where the real battle will be – between those who want a downtown station (keeping in mind the obstacles Rafael mentioned) and those who want an east of town station out on Leavesley.
I’m very much in the downtown camp for a variety of reasons, including better urban development and better connectivity to other rail services. But we will see what happens.
StevieB Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:25 am
The downtown alignment has the problem of a trench requiring the demolition of the buildings on the east side of the street through downtown. A station to the east of town would encourage development around the station and may eventually become a second downtown that supplants the first. The consequences of either alignment are difficult to predict.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Why would Gilroy want to build a “second downtown” at the expense of the one they’ve already got? At the expense of valuable and desirable ag land and open space? It makes no sense. Demolishing buildings on the east side of the street is a small price to pay; many of them will need to go when downtown Gilroy gets denser anyway (lots of mid-century 1 and 2 story buildings that won’t be missed).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
In case you’ve missed it, the world’s economic history of the entire last thousand years has essentially involved taking “open space”, subdividing it, declaring it to be developable, and then banking the takings.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Oh I’ve not missed it. Global warming and peak oil are starting to force an end to this practice of enclosure and subdivision to bank the takings.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
OK. Peak Oil! How could I have forgotten?
Everything will change.
By next year. (Just like the US taxation system did.)
Thanks again for setting me straight!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“OK. Peak Oil! How could I have forgotten?
Everything will change.”–Richard Mlynarik
Maybe it won’t–and maybe it will. Regular gasoline here just jumped 10 cents overnight to $3.09.9; it had been $2.89.9 just a couple of weeks ago. I think there is a possibility of it hitting or approaching the $4.00 level again this year.
One of the problems of our current drive-fly transportation system and its reliance on oil is that the oil market is truly global. Oil that is produced here goes into that global market place, where the price is set. In effect, we wind up having to bid against China, Japan, and everywhere else for our own oil, even if that same oil never leaves the country.
We need to get off the oil diet and quit paying tribute to oil kings, despots, tyrants, terrorists, and companies.
Millions for rail, but not a penny for tribute!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millions_for_defense,_but_not_one_cent_for_tribute
Spokker Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Peak oil or not, probably best not to rely on insane shit heads in the desert for your energy needs.
The full costs of securing this oil is immense. Forget about the pricks at Parsons, we’re talking real money here.
thatbruce Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
With the ‘taking’ frequently done in modern times by adjacent cities annexing the land (because insufficient votes can be mustered by the few occupants of the land), rezoning it against the wishes of the rural inhabitants (the plans have been on file in a hidden basement cabinet for the last 5 years), increasing the rates until they sell to a developer, and so forth.
mike Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
At the expense of valuable and desirable ag land and open space?
Ag land is, almost by definition, not valuable. If it were, it wouldn’t be ag land – it would have been sold off to developers.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Not valuable in a financial sense – which I would argue is the worst, most inaccurate definition of “value” we have.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
The specific land being discussed is a special agricultural preserve. It has long been eyed by developers and long fought for by environmentalists who see it as the linchpin towards maintaining green space in that area.
StevieB Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Gilroy does not want an area of development east of town sucking the life out of the downtown but that would take tens of years to happen while taking the east side of the street would have an immediate impact. What is chosen will depend on if short term interests take priority over long term.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
There’s going to be more development in the area. If there were no environmental restrictions, Gilroy-HSR would be a prime candidate for intense development. The question is then to compare the environmental cost of developing it with the environmental cost of developing other sites. Chances are development there would look good: Gilroy-HSR has a chance to be compact and mildly transit-oriented, the region’s relatively mild weather means lower energy consumption, and it’s probably not more valuable as ag land than alternative sites for Bay Area exurbs like the Upper Central Valley.
joe Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Knowledge is power. A study is the only serious way forward.
HSR shot itself in the foot by blindsiding Gilroy with a requirement for a 6,600 car parking structure.
I want HSR downtown and with a smaller parking structure and greater emphasis on using buses/shuttles/taxis/trains to get riders to/from the downtown HSR station.
Is my preference feasible? Let’s find out.
The large parking lot in-front of the Target mall complex S of 152 is about 1100-1200 spaces. Putting 6,600 spots on the east side of town would make HSR an island in a sea of parking. It’s not going to make a new downtown and we will not see many visitors leave that HSR island and visit our City.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
That development you mention, there at 152 and 101, is a perfect example of what Gilroy does NOT need. Those stores should be downtown, near the Caltrain station and surrounded by walkable TOD.
I fully agree that the CHSRA’s parking requirements are absurd and not useful. Let’s hope Gilroy can counter with their own evidence and arguments for a downtown station, as you describe.
joe Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Gilroy’s invested in renovating the downtown and has built up, adding new 3 story live work spaces. The City also helped finance infill on the east side of the tracks – “Cannery District”. Affordable homes and building in, not out.
To connect the city to the Shopping area, Gilroy connected the N and S malls with a bridge and hoped 6th Street connection would lure people to town, a mistaken idea but the intention was to draw people and help downtown. It also opened a walkable/bike route to the shopping area.
We didn’t renovate the downtown this for the sake of building a 2nd downtown for a HSR station. The city wants the HSR station to keep what we have alive. The 6,600 parking space demand was poorly communicated and soured local gov’t supporters who were blindsided.
J. Wong Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I’m wondering if the 6,600 space garage was like the ridership numbers for the EIR, the worst case scenario. In that case, the actual number probably is negotiable with what Gilroy wants with some minimal amount for HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:39 am
$150,000 compared to the budget of CAHSR is not even bringing a knife to a gunfight. It’s coming bare-handed to a thermonuclear war.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Yeah, but it’s either that or walk in with their fingers crossed.
Nathanael Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 7:58 am
Designs with *no* funding have won in other places due to popular backing. $150K may be enough to get a design with the “HSR-ready” stamp of approval which is *also* popular within Gilroy. At that point the consultants go “Why fight it?”, and accept the design.
Nathanael Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Um, what I mean is designs made by amateurs or pro bono by architects. Obviously there has to be funding for *construction*.
Speaking of Gilroy:
If you go to the route map at the CaHSRA website and click on Gilroy, you get the following info:
15,000 boardings per day
86 trains per day
Connections; Caltrain, Santa Clara Light Rail, Buses, TX, LM, SH.
If you click on San Jose, you get identical information. Since Santa Clara Light Rail does not go to Gilroy, I assume that the info for San Jose Diridon accidentally found it’s way to Gilroy. I also wonder about the 15,000 boardings per day for Gilroy.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:46 am
It all depends on whether the fare to SJ and SF will be affordable for commuters.
J. Wong Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 10:27 am
It depends on the commuter. Some don’t mind paying a premium while others are more price-sensitive. That said, I don’t expect that HSR will be price-competitive with the existing Caltrain service to Gilroy or to San Jose for that matter. You pay a premium for speed and take the slower trains if you are price-sensitive.
joe Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Gilroy services the ~1 M people living on the Central Coast and connecting to HST via Gilroy and also visitors to/from that prime tourist destination. Another reason to have the station connect downtown and further develop the local garlic/wine/olive industry.
Most commuters will take Caltrain – car pool subsidies cover month pass costs. Those wanting to connect to the SFO airport would use HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
No, it depends on price. The higher the HSR premium is, the fewer commuters would be willing to pay that premium for the travel time reduction.
There aren’t separate piles of “price-sensitive commuters” who’d take Caltrain in response to any HSR premium and “time-sensitive commuters” who’d take HSR no matter what. There are degrees of price-sensitivity, which are captured in serious ridership models. Businesses all over the world in every industry figure these out to know what price to set; it’s not something you do by gut feeling.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Is that 15,000 boardings and 86 trains a day in 2020 or eventually in 2050? They never make that clear.
John Burrows Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
The 2010 addendum to the 2009 business plan gives 4,700 boardings per day for Gilroy in 2035 (Tickets at 83% of air fare). Other than in the media the only place where I have seen 15,000 boardings a day mentioned for Gilroy is on the interactive map. Hopefully CaHSRA didn’t accidentally put down the San Jose numbers for Gilroy.
Off subject. From Gilroy to Worldwide.
The 7th World Congress on High Speed Rail, or UIC Highspeed 2010, will be meeting in Beijing Dec. 7 thru 9. The website is:
http://www.uic-highspeed2010.com.cn/en_content.php?c=10&id=25
CAHSR Board member Diridon will be attending on behalf of the Mineta Institute and will be giving a speech at the meeting.
San Jose is thinking of spending $100,000 on consultants and another $100,000 to pay the salary of an architect from the public works department—with the goal of working with CaHSR to get the best possible design for the elevated sections that will pass through the city.
Sounds like Gilroy is thinking along the same lines as San Jose—That cooperation is better than confrontation.
Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park have decided that confrontation is the way to go and have hired lawyers.
This approach has been an attention grabber—national, even international media attention, and I am sure it is high on the radar screen at CaHSRA. In the long run it may be helpful in that the Rail Authority will go out of its way to work with experts hired by other cities that are on the route rather than fight their lawyers in court.
Peter Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
San Jose and Gilroy WANT HSR, whereas PAMPA does NOT. Hence the different approaches.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
PAMPA does want HSR – it’s just a small group of NIMBYs and their allies on the city council who do not.
Peter Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 9:14 am
“their allies on the city council”
That’s who I meant, should have been more specific.
Since the question of the Central Coast seems to have come up a lot in this discussion, here’s a novel idea: Switching the main CAHSR alignment to Altamont (Wait! Hear me out!) would save a few billion dollars each in the following areas: (1) An additional HSR commuter overlay (2) Capitol Corridor upgrades (Altamont would probably be more competitive for SF-SAC than the CC could ever be) and (3) Less track would have to be built to connect to Sacramento in Phase 2. If instead, that money were spent on the coast route, say between San José and Los Angeles, it’s quite possible that it could be made at the very least competitive with driving. This would be accomplished by (1) using tilting multiple units (2) double-tracking the entire route, perhaps triple-tracking in some areas to separate freight and (3) Building a number of cutoffs, curve realignments, and tunnels (including a couple of not-incredibly-long base tunnels. This of course assumes that any of the things mentioned above (Altamont overlay etc) would be built anyway, UPRR’s cooperation or at least consent, and, of course, reasonable construction costs. New/upgraded tracks could also be shared by regional/commuter trains in some areas (north of Salinas, south of Ventura, and a couple of small sections in between, for instance Goleta-Carpinteria or the SLO-Santa Maria area, though I don’t pretend to understand commute patterns in those places).
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
well that would leave all the intermediate cities on ccjpa without any upgraded service. ( only the people of sacramento benefit, no one else) and the problem with the coast row is as always, UP for starters.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
What’s done is done. I fully expect to be having people tell me “Altamont would be better” as we’re going through the Pacheco tunnels on the inaugural HSR train. I’ll try not to spill my champagne as I laugh at them.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
You should really wait until the ridership numbers have been corroborated a few years after opening before you laugh.
joe Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Why ? That’s arguing a counter-factual would be better than a existing route servicing the bay area and CA connected by rail running along a natural N/S and E/W corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:43 am
The natural E/W corridor is Altamont. That’s where the exurbanization is going, and that’s how it’s easiest to get from SF to Sac.
Let’s just say that if CAHSR opens (with Pacheco, since Altamont is all but dead) and the ridership turns out to be 30 million a year, Richard and Elizabeth will have the last laugh.
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
It could turn out to be even less, possibly much less. Americans are profoundly attached to the freedom of driving. For your typical San Joaquin Valley large poor family going to LA by auto will still be cheaper, more flexible, more mobile.
I am thinking more and more that since the CHSRA is hopelessly committed to the dumb-down to a TEE instead of an ultra-hsr, why not go all the way and make the whole damn thing diesel Amtrak compatible? FRA-AAR-whatever you want to call it, but at least possible for Amtrak to run east-west service over your moronic Tehachapi detour. I know Richard will be appalled, and possibly rightly so, but put in the fans for diesel or at least accommodate dual-fuel locos.
The detour is so stupid, misguided, shortsighted. So if you can’t go freight, at least Amtrak long haul.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Americans are profoundly attached to the freedom of driving.
Except for the ones without cars. There’s quite a few of them even in California.
For your typical San Joaquin Valley large poor family going to LA by auto will still be cheaper, more flexible, more mobile.
Yes it will. Most people aren’t members of large poor families in the Valley with a yen to go to the big city. Even member of large families in the Valley will have members who want to go to the big city without the rest of the family. Or have families that are uninterested in going to the big city.
of an ultra-hsr, why not go all the way and make the whole damn thing diesel Amtrak compatible?
I don’t think there’s a non-standard gauge HSR line in the world except for the maglev line in Shanghai. You could plop an Amtrak train down on any of those lines and run it successfully. There’s a lot of reasons why the owner of the track wouldn’t want you to but it could be done.
synonymouse Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
This project is being pitched on this site as welfare for the San Joaquin Valley and that’s where the large poor families come in. I assume the people who own Foster Farms and Harris Ranch have corporate jets.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I do think that Russian line might be broad gauge, but the difference isn’t that great; as I recall, the former Soviet system is a 5-foot gauge, inherited from an American engineer early in Russian rail history.
That 5-foot gauge used to be very common in the states of the former Confederacy, whose first lines had been laid out by the same engineer before he went to imperial Russia. They all got changed over to standard in a huge effort that took place over a day or two! This was in the 1880s. That took some planning, including having a stock of converted and new locomotives and cars to run services following the conversion.
jimsf Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I’m an american and I hate driving. I specifically got rid of my car and moved back to sf and got a fast pass instead and no decision has ever been more freeing. Not having to drag a 3000 pound chunk
of exhaust spewing metal and plastic around with me every time I need to leave the house is like cutting loose a ball and chain and escaping from the evil kind’s tower. Parking? HA! I laugh at
the poor frustrated fools circling like buzzards over a fresh kill. Tolls? No more thrice weekly trip to the gas station, the climbing out into the weather to pump stinky cancer causing, brain damaging fumes into the tank. No more trying to save a nickel by running from station to station trying to find the
one that’s 2.59 instead of 2.63 and then stressing and sweating as the dollar numbers spin 3 times faster around than the gallon numbers.
No more insurance company to deal with. Even though nothing says 2 hours of afternoon pleasure like resolving an insurance issue does.
No break downs. No “oh crap its time to buy tires where do I get the 550 bucks for that this month when I just had the brakes done.”
I’ve eliminated the DMV the CHP and the DPT from my life. You can’t put a price on that.
And I’m a hell of a lot more likely to live to see retirement.
Take a good hard look at these numbers. Not just the human cost but the financial burden and then lets talk about the cost of high speed rail versus driving in a more honest fashion. Pay paricular attention to the total cost per person and to the nation each year:
National Car Accident Statistics
* There are more than six million car accidents each year in the United States.
* A person dies in a car accident every 12 minutes and each year car crashes kill 40,000 people.
* The leading cause of death for individuals between 2 and 34 years old is motor vehicle crashes.
* Someone is injured by a car crash every 14 seconds and about two million of the people injured in car accidents each year suffer permanent injuries.
* Over 25% of all drivers were involved in an auto accident in a five-year period.
* Excessive speed is the second most common cause of deadly auto accidents, which accounts for about 30% of fatal accidents.
* Car crashes cost each American more than $1,000 a year; $164.2 billion is the total cost each year across the United States.
* Car accidents are the leading cause of death for kids between 2 and 14; About 2,000 children die each year from injuries caused by car accidents.
* Each year, almost 250,000 children are injured in car crashes, meaning nearly 700 kids are harmed every day.
* Car accidents are the leading cause of acquired disability nationwide.
jimsf Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Now you want to talk about total freakin’ insanity – and pardon me because I just found these numbers and had no idea it was this bad- but look at it, 40,000 people per year dead due to our car
culture ok? at a cost of 164 billion dollars. So what happens. 3000 die on 911, and thats wen we freak out? And we use it as an excuse to spend another trillion dollars and purposely send thousands more americans to die, in order to protect our lifestyle, so that we can continue to send another 164 billion dollars a year killing americans at a rate of 40,000 per year.
Am I missing something here? What is this just some assbackwards population control method? Maybe its a way to keep the unemployment numbers lower? I don’t know. But whatever it is, its freakin insane. I mean like something a mad scientist would dream up.
And we think its normal and continue to defend it. wow. And if you are a conservative, how do you look at numbers like this and come to the conclusion that we are using the right model?
That may be considered “conservative on Planet Claire, ( where all the trees are red, and no one ever dies there, and no one has a head) but not by my dictionary’s definition.
Donk Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Yeah man, totally agree. Sometimes I do things that many un-adventurous people think I am nuts to do, like scuba diving, overnight backpacking in the backcountry, or traveling to countries like Indonesia or India where they have “a bunch of muslim terrorists.” My reply is always that I am much more likely to die in the car on the way there (or on the roads there) than I am doing these “dangerous” activities or getting killed by muslim terrorists.
I also love how people trip out so much about a train crash (Metrolink) or a subway crash (DC), and forget about how there are 40,000 annual automobile deaths in the US.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The last figures I recall seeing for car ownership put the average cost, including gas, repairs, depreciation (or your car payment), insurance, etc., at $5,000.00 per year. As an auditor for the unemployment agency in West Virginia, I can tell you there are a lot of part time jobs that pay between $5,000 to maybe $10,000 per year, and some don’t pay that much. Some people have wondered how others will prefer to stay on welfare or some other state support instead of earning more money. The problem is that without a good transportation alternative, you wind up working for nothing, or less.
About one-third of the people on unemployment have transportation problems, i.e., no available car. This again emphasises what I’ve been saying about a need for a change in lifestyle that’s not so car-oriented; we need high speed rail, AND all those local and regional transit services, too.
And we also need to quit paying those tributes to oil dictators, kings, despots, terrorists, and oil companies.
I want that freedom now!
jimsf Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
not to mention the great contribution oil production has made to the beautification of our coastlines form alaksa to california to the the gulf. The nice thing about going to the beach on the texas coast is that you needn’t apply your own suntan oil.
15,000 at 86 trains a day is 174 people boarding per train.
15,000 people boarding per 24 hours is 625 people per hour. or minus non operational hours, then 174 x 4 trains per hour, is about 696 per hour.
174 people boarding trains in gilroy every 15 minutes is not going to happen in 2020.
I don’t know how many people commute from south santa clara/Montery counties, to san jose/PA/SF each day. I see that the hsr travel times are 15, 27, 44 minutes. So if there are lots of commuters and the can make those trips on hsr with monthly passes or multi ride passes for a good price, then it could draw the 15,000 at some point. But when it opens itll be more like 500 per day.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
But if its 5,000 by 2035, and 15,000 by who knows when or where, that’s 60 people boarding per train. If the establishment service is around 25 trains per day, and they board at that rate, it’d be 1,500 per day at the outset.
The principle assumption, of course, is that we will have the same One-Size-Fits-All approach to transport in 2040 as we do in 2010. if a quarter of those people walk, pedal or take a neighborhood vehicle to their local transport to get a connection and half quarter drive (their electric/biofuel vehicle) to that connection and get to the HSR from there, there goes 3/4 of the parking demand at the HSR station.
The more capital efficient approach would be to require the parking plan to cope with the long term projected parking demand, actual parking to cope with projected establishment demand plus a contingency, and a system in place for expanding it in phases as existing parking congests.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
typing/editing blind: “half quarter drive” ~ half of the total drive
By the way if any is wondering.. I can say the traffic in the mry/sns/scz/watsonville area is unbelievable. Those people need some kind of serious transit help down there locally.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Yeah, it is fucking crazy here. The Sunday afternoon backup heading out of Monterey sometimes lasts from Castroville all the way to Gilroy. Santa Cruz County is even worse. And in Santa Cruz County, much of the gridlock is due to Gary Patton’s successful efforts to defeat passenger rail service proposals. Now Patton is leading the Planning and Conservation League’s charge against high speed rail, presumably to make the oil companies happy. He has done immense damage to this region.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I just know that the drive home from carmel to sf via sand city to scz/17 was a crawl from mry-scz – some of which is still one lane each way.
(But now I know where Sand is made. I saw the big pile of it at that Sand Factory in Sand City ;)
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Most people avoid Santa Cruz County entirely and take 156 to 101 to get from here to the Bay Area – Gary Patton broke transportation in SCZ because of his opposition to trains.
A few days ago I saw a Caltrans sandplow out there on Highway 1 in Sand City – the recent storm had blown part of a dune onto the roadway.
There is already a huge parking lot at the gilroy train station and tons of room. I vote to put it here.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I dunno about “tons” of room, but I agree that the HSR station should be downtown and have an easy transfer to connecting services.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
no, look, there’s tons of it. room for a nice simple station, all that existing parking all around, and the local bus transit center area already in place.
joe Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
6,6000 spaces is immense.
Yerbua Buena in SF is 8 Floors of Parking, 965,600 Sq. Ft. and yields 2585 Parking Spaces. That structure alone would dwarf the downtown area and is why the city council choked at the HSR parking demand.
There needs to be some structure for short term parking and a larger off site area but really if the goal is to be 21st century, make the train station area a trans bay terminal like facility.
Peter Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I have a feeling that, based on the community backlash, the Authority will be reducing its parking “requirements” by quite a bit.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Parking garages loose lots of space in support structures and access. A long, linear two-level can get up to twice the spaces as a parking garage with the same square footage.
But 6,600 is still immense ~ and if its off by a factor of 4, a tremendous waste of resources, which should be incorporated into the risk management.
There’s hundreds at Gilroy Caltrain. I don’t know the status of that lot across the rail corridor from Gilroy Caltrain, but that space’d be hundreds more, double deck you are getting over halfway to a thousand, easy to get elevated pedestrian access from the top deck, a third deck connecting across the corridor and you’ve got 1,500. A staged plan to get to 1,500 on site and contingencies to expand beyond that seems reasonable.
There are easily 2,000 spaces in the shopping mall and big box stores nearby, which would require agreements with owners to allow decked parking and running shuttle buses.
Or in the Asphalt Jungle dreams of the projection, if there really are 6,600 they are mostly coming up the S Valley Fwy or 152, which overlay at their closest proximity to Gilroy Caltrain, so a deck over the Freeway between Pacheco Pass Rd and IOOF Avenue yields 1,500~2,000, and could have closed access/egress to the Fwy. That’d be people mover connection, but its in the outer realm of possibility, and seems far from likely that it’d be needed.
Looking at the capital cost of 6,600 would be really impressive … but if there are 6,600 places required, that capitalizes into a far more massive amount of transport demand, and there’d be some way to monetise a small part of that transport demand into support for the capital works required to get it. Its demanding that 6,600 be built in case there might be 6,600 required, with all the risk born by Gilroy, that’s what would be an unreasonable distribution of risk leading more likely than not to a waste of economic resources.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
in fact all you have to do there is put in a couple raised platforms and ticket vendor and youre good to go.
thatbruce Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am
‘All you have to do’. I love that phrase. It implies that the designated planners are clueless (in some respects they are), and that a simpler solution exists (and frequently it does).
If this was just to service a low-tph high-floor commuter train, while retaining the ability to accommodate a twice-daily low-floor train, I’d say have a single combined low-platform (station-side) and high-platform by way of sinking the relevant track slightly, with commuters, gasp, crossing the first, low, not-frequently-used track to reach the high-platform trains.
For higher tphs, any combination of terminating and through trains using the high platform, or no-grade-crossings, you need a slightly more complicated structure. Keeping at-grade, you start needing subways or overbridges for pedestrian access to the platforms. Below grade, you have to go down even further to allocate space for a pedestrian subway (assuming the current at-grade tracks are still present and thus the at-grade space cannot be used for pedestrian access between sub-grade platforms). Above-grade has a similar issue resulting in a somewhat high structure. And all of this is before other requirements are put into the mix, such as misguided attempts to separate HSR, Commuter and other ticket holders. ugh.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
And taking into account status quo bias, that if tph of connecting rail is wrong, its wrong on the low side, and if parking demand is wrong, its got a much higher chance of being wrong on the high side.
Given high much easier pedestrian subways are to build before the track is laid than after, and the distribution you get from a pair of pedestrian subways reached by direct low gradient ramps from the ticket counter and then direct low gradient ramps in both directions along the axis of a long platform, jumping the gun on pedestrian subway capacity pretty much flips the risks around compared to jumping the gun on parking capacity.