Roelof van Ark’s Visit to Gilroy
Yesterday CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark visited Gilroy and met with city council members from both Gilroy and Morgan Hill to discuss the HSR project. Among the news that was broken at the meeting: the CHSRA will pay for the cost of both stations AND parking garages. More from the Gilroy Dispatch:
After the CEO for the California High-Speed Rail Authority met face-to-face with members of a Gilroy and Morgan Hill joint task force this morning, three things are clear.
Roelof van Ark and the CHSRA will return in late January, build the entire station in Gilroy along with a parking garage and conduct a noise study associated with the bullet train.
The article goes on to clarify that all cities will have a station and parking garage paid for by the Authority (which hopefully will create internal pressure to reduce the size of the parking requirements). The Authority would work with cities on the design, but that any “frills” (not sure what that means) would have to be paid for by the cities themselves.
Van Ark also discussed trenches:
During the meeting, it was revealed trenching would not be an option in any city, unless the city wanted to pay for the trenching itself.
Overall this is a sensible approach – the Authority, responsible to the taxpayers of California, builds a basic and functional HSR system, and if localities want special things, like a trench or a tunnel, they fund it themselves. While I would love nothing more than for this state and this country to get over the absurd notion that we should build infrastructure on the cheap – and instead realize that it’s perfectly OK to pay more for something if it provides greater utility and value – we all know that’s not how politics works these days. Funding the entire SF-LA route alone is going to be a challenge given Republican control of the House, and the Authority will simply not be in a position to fund anything other than the basic infrastructure.
Overall, van Ark’s meeting seemed to produce more positive feelings about the project and the Authority from Gilroy HSR critics:
[Councilman Perry] Woodward, who pays close attention to transparency, said he was worried about Gilroy getting railroaded by a state agency with a lot of money and its own agenda.
“I feel better coming out of the meeting,” he said. “I thought it was very positive, very encouraging and I look forward to the meeting next month.”
That’s welcome news. Van Ark and the Authority appear committed to improving outreach and communication with localities, and that can only be to the project’s benefit.
This makes me wonder what the M.O. is for ARTIC — is Anaheim still on the hook for it, or is CAHSRA going to cover most of the station?
frozen Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
(Same goes with LAUS, TTC, so on and on.)
tjon Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I think the fact that it includes multiple transit agencies under one roof is a “frill” in itself; I doubt CAHSRA would cover the whole, or even most of the cost of the station.
Reality Check Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I assume van Ark was talking HSRA completely building “entire” smaller mid-line stations and parking (like Gilroy) and not major ones like SF Transbay, SJ Diridon Pan-Galactic, LAUS or ARTIC … but we shall see.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Is Diridon a major station?
(“All cities are equal, but some cities are more equal than others.”)
Clem Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I do believe it is the largest terminal in Diridonville.
tony d. Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Well, considering Diridon will serve NorCals largest city and the economic engine of the state, you figure it out Sherlock.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Not according to CHSRA. Their ridership model shows Diridon having less ridership than even Palmdale (psst, don’t tell synonymouse).
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I’m sure Palmdale will be busy as it’s regional mass transit. The question is whether high-end, gold-plated hsris the proper mode for a transit need that would be better and more appropriately served by something on the order of a modern Pacific Electric.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I expect that with a stop at redwood city/palo alto and a stop in downtown san jose, high speed rail is going to steal about nearly all the intra state air travel from mineta once full build out is complete. With the mid pen stop, it will be much more convenient than driving to sfo and mineta – a huge time saver. ( by the time you drive from the mid-pen to either airport, park, get to terminal, go thru tsa and make your way to the gate, you could already be in frenso, half way to socal on hsr. The mid-pen stop will suck up all those folks and the diridon stop will get all the milpitas-cap expwy- berryessa-los gatos-highway 85corridor- sunnyvale/santa clara folks.
I would like to see them build direct access off ramps from 87 and 280 directly to the parking structure at diridon. this would really make it easier than going to mineta.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:31 am
SAn Jose is northern california’s largest city and its the largest city in northern california’s largest metropolitan region. But It’s not “the” economic engine of the state. California’s strength comes from its diverse economic portfolio not from a single place or industry.
California Economy
California supports a large and diverse economy with the highest economic production among the states. If California were a country, it would rank around tenth in the value of goods and services produced.
California’s service industries, as a group, make up the largest part of the state’s gross product.
Agriculture
California leads all of the other states in farm income. It’s positioned as the agricultural powerhouse of the United States. About 73% of the state’s agricultural revenues are derived from crops while the other 27% of revenues are generated by livestock commodities.
In terms of revenue generated, California’s top five agricultural products are dairy products, greenhouse and nursery products, grapes, almonds, and cattle and calves.
Crops
California grows over 200 different crops, some grown nowhere else in the nation. Crops include grapes, almonds, strawberries, oranges and walnuts.
California produces almost all of the country’s almonds, apricots, dates, figs, kiwi fruit, nectarines, olives, pistachios, prunes, and walnuts. It leads in the production of avocados, grapes, lemons, melons, peaches, plums, and strawberries. Only Florida produces more oranges.
The most important vegetable crops grown in the state are lettuce and tomatoes. Again, California leads the way. Broccoli and carrots rank second followed by asparagus, cauliflower, celery, garlic, mushrooms, onions, and peppers. Only Texas grows more cotton than California.
Hay, rice, corn, sugar beets, and wheat are also grown in large quantities.
Livestock
Livestock and livestock products include milk, beef cattle, eggs, sheep, turkeys, hogs and horses. Dairy products are California’s most valuable products followed by cattle and calves and chicken eggs.
California is the second ranked producer of livestock products behind Texas.
[ More ]
Manufacturing
Manufacturers add value to raw products by creating manufactured items. For example, cotton cloth becomes more valuable than a boll of cotton through manufacturing processes. California ranks first among the states in manufacturing.
Electrical equipment, components, and military communication equipment are California’s leading manufactured products including electronic systems for aircraft and missiles.
Other products are audiotape and videotape, lighting equipment, and telephone equipment.
Manufacture of computer machinery ranks second in production, followed by food product processing of baked goods, beverages, canned fruits and vegetables.
Mining
California is also among the country’s leading mining states with producing a greater variety of mined products than any other state.
Oil is the number one product.
California mines all of the boron that is produced in the United States.
It’s the leading producer of diatomite, sand and gravel, sodium compounds, and tungsten and among the top producers of gold, gypsum, magnesium compounds, molybdenum, perlite, potash, and pumice.
Fishing
With 840 miles of coastline, it’s probably not surprising that California’s commercial fishing operations rank the top spot among the states.
With a catch larger than any other state, Tuna is the most valuable fish caught by the fleet.
Swordfish is the second most valuable catch.
Halibut, herring, mackerel, rockfish, sablefish, salmon, shark, sole are also important to the industry.
Abalones, crabs, shrimp, and squid are also counted as part of the California commercial fishing industries catch.
Services
The service industries of California, like most states, generate the highest portion of the state’s gross state product.
Community, business, and personal services form California’s leading service industry, including private health care, law firms and engineering companies, hotels and entertainment companies, and repair shops.
Real estate, finance and insurance form the second-ranking service industry in California followed by wholesale and retail trade in food products, medical supplies, motor vehicles and petroleum products.
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:37 am
so to imply that silicon valley ( which isn’t even in san jose) is somehow the economic engine is kind of a slap in the face to the multi millions of california who work in all the industries that make the state’s economy hum. No offense the trendy hipsters making cute gadets at apple of course but let’s get some perspective.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Even those trendy hipsters usually agree San Francisco is the better city, and choose to live there rather than in the Silicon Valley sprawl.
Roger Christensen Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
In LA, Metro is rumored to be in talks to purchase Union State. Hopefully there will be a good dialogue between them and the Authority re design.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
I hope they do buy it, it’s the largest train station in private hands in the US (not counting Grand Central in NYC, which is technically in private hands but Metro-North has something like a 999 year lease.)
When will the station be built?
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
When there are tracks to run trains to the station on.
Victor Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
And when they has the Money for It.
CEO van Ark was scheduled to speak at the California Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission (PIAC) today. Any information about what he said at that meeting in LA?
I’m glad to hear that they plan to pay for the basic parts of the stations needed for high speed rail and that the cities must find funding for the extras.
I think they should standardize a basic design and build it in each location and design it for easy add ons, architectural frills etc.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
2 basic designs:
#1. Track is above grade. There is a pedestrian underpass to connect the platforms, entrance at underpass level.
#2. Track is below grade. There is a pedestrian overpass to connect the platforms, entrance at overpass level.
Track at grade could use #1 or #2, but with entrance at track level.
This is not rocket science.
TomW Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 7:35 am
If it’s at grade and local geology (or other deisng features) requires you to do a lot of digging anyway, then underpasses are cheaper. Otherwise, overpasses/bridges are cheaper.
Victor Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Either will I’d think require an elevator for Wheel Chair access of course.
Al Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Seems to me that stations should be built with significant retail space whenever possible, especially when the stations are in the downtowns. Then the rents can help pay for the projects, and they can share the public access functions (cafe tables double as waiting areas, parking lots and transit serve both, cleaning and maintenance are shared). But the cities can manage that aspect on their own.
This is bad news for HSR and infrastructure in general:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BD5C320101217
With the senate dropping the budget for a continuing resolution, I’m going to bet on zero dollars for HSR in next year’s budget if there is even a FY 2011 budget. The amount of dysfunction in the government is astounding. They can’t even get a budget done. I think this shows that the senate is going to bend to republican’s every desire despite having a democratic majority.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
With the extension it puts things in flux. There is a very real chance that we could get increased funding as well. If someone could make the case that the pittance that has been funded so far isn’t enough to show results, we could get more.
Brandi Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I understand that it puts things in flux. I thought that CRs only fund the essential parts of government though? So for example, if the CR takes the current budget to Mar 30 does that mean that there will be $1.25 billion for HSR for half the year because there was $2.5 billion for the whole year the prior year. My understanding was that CRs only fund the “essential” parts of government. Though I’m not sure what this mean. Anyways it seems bad for infrastructure with such a high level of uncertainty.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
It still would have to be reconciled with House legislation. However, in setting $1b into the budget in response to a Republican promise of 9 votes if the budget was brought in at $1.1T with the various bits of pork they wanted ~ which the Republicans reneged on, since reneging on deals is what they do ~ that $1b now seems to be a ceiling, with $0b as the floor. If the budget had simply held spending at last year’s budget, $2.5b, now there would be room to “cut it in half”, and still end up better than what now looks like a best case.
MGimbel Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
We the people of California hereby secede from the United States. ;)
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Where do I sign?
Brandi Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
You can sign right here on this blank check that I kindly borrowed from your wallet.
wu ming Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 1:03 am
not yet, wait for more infrastructure money first.
Al Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Well, if CA secedes there will be plenty of money that’s now sent to other states.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Three hundred billion dollars worth in fact.
Parking garages are “frills” too. They’ll just encourage more people to drive to the station. Induced demand, anybody?
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
People driving to the station is just a reality of HSR we’re going to have to accept in the U.S. We don’t have the density to serve everyone effectively with transit, and with stations like Gilroy, which serves more of a regional market than a local market, I suspect drivers will be a major part of its ridership. Transit’s modal share could probably be increased somewhat by massive investment in regional and local transportation, but that doesn’t seem to be happening for the time being. Anyway, driving + HSR is better than driving the whole way or driving + flying…
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
with the exception of downtown san francisco, all other stations are going to have more passengers arriving and depart by car than any other mode, including downtown los angeles.
joe Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
People being driven and parking are not the same first off.
Car use depends on how much oil costs in 2020, parking fees and the extent of alternative infrastructure built to the Gilroy Station.
When 101 HW was 2 lanes and we had better service, there were Caltrain shuttle buses to surrounding areas.
If trains connected Salinas/Monterey to Gilroy and the Caltrain line with Buses like today’s MST and shuttles to Hollister, there is a very good change the parking requirements will be far less and 6,600.
Do I want to subsidize parking? No. Let’s see cost recover on parking spaces. That’ll suppress car centric
jimsf Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
honestly though, people are going to mostly go to all the stations except tbt, by car. They aren’t gonna take their bags on the mst bus that takes all day.
Dan Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
My wife is French, and we visit France about once per year to visit the extended family. In most places outside of paris, there is no other option but to drive to the train/TGV station (or take a taxi, or a bus in larger cities). The French TGV system is excellent, but all systems must succomb to the reality of limited mass-transit in smaller locals. The limited parking availability around some TGV stations results in some rediculous parking scenarios near the stations which are not describable (sp?) to someone who has not experienced them.
a 2/3 occupied parking garage is probably a good idea…. a 1/10 occupied garage is definitely overkill, but my point is not to underestimate the need for parking
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
The worst example I’ve experienced is Aix-en-Provence TGV station. The SNCF had predicted a ridership of 2000 a day but it is now 6000 and growing. Only 700 parking places are available (not counting those reserved for Hertz, Budget, etc…). After going round and round, many people just abandon their cars on the roadside.
Al Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
I suppose raising the parking rates and funding some shuttles is politically impossible, or something?
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 3:41 am
There are shuttles but some areas are not covered. In fact, the original flaw was underestimating the station’s attraction zone. It has proved far wider than the 10-mile radius originally considered.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 7:13 am
The CHSRA ridership model uses a 100 mile radius btw.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
As long as the model takes into consideration the very long travel time from the outer end of the radius to the station, it’s not stupid.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Using public funds to build large parking garages near HSR stations is a terrible idea. It would essentially be a direct subsidy to drivers, and it’s precisely what is wrong with suburban BART stations. If a private developer wants to build and finance a parking garage near an HSR station, then fine, but public money should have nothing to do with it.
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:29 am
The problem is that if you don’t offer the free parking, it’s just an incentive to drive the rest of the way to work because driving is still artificially cheap. You have change the entire way driving is priced before charging the true cost of transit station parking.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The idea of using transit or HSR money to subsidize driving/parking is absurd on its face. Wake up! If rail passengers absolutely insist on parking at stations, then the demand will be sufficient for private developers to build parking garages financed by parking charges. The public purse should have nothing to do with subsidizing parking that undermines local transit and other alternatives.
Even public financing of parking garages with the “promise” of market-based parking charges to recoup costs should make one very wary, because the public bears all the risk if the forecasts don’t work out. What happens if the public builds a 5000-space parking garage in Gilroy based on a financial assumption of total parking charges equivalent to $25K/day to recoup costs, and it turns out that people aren’t willing to park at the HSR station in sufficient numbers at the price required to recoup the public cost of the parking facility? The public is on the hook for the loss and the broken promise, yet still has to deal with lots of pressure to discount the parking cost to entice more HSR riders. The parking scheme is a bust for the public.
Private developers are shrewd in analyzing their risk when assessing parking demand, because they are bearing the risk. It’s their shirt if they overestimate demand. That’s the way it should be.
jimsf Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 4:52 am
its true. if parking is a hassle at the origin they wont take the train. Bart built more parking because people demanded it. If you don’t give them what they want they won’t ride.
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:18 am
You can’t make parking a hassle until you make driving a hassle.
jimsf Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Im not sure what it will take. If the 405 and eastshore arent incentive enough. i give up.
Andy M. Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Are parking fees being levied and if so, are they sufficient to ultimately cover the construction costs? I think this is an important argument that should be consideed in deciding whether or not to support such projects.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Hopefully the CAHSRA-constructed car parks are free to park with purchase of a HSR ticket (ie, an incentive for people to use the HSR services), and fee-based parking otherwise (a disincentive to use the structure for access to local shops by locals, as there is already existing parking for that purpose).
Provision for a small rental car facility at any CAHSRA parking structure where there is not adequate public transit would probably also be a good idea.
I highly recommend the book ‘The High Cost of Free Parking’ to get a greater understanding of the economics behind the costs of parking.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 11:52 am
An effective way to include a partial parking recovery would be to include a transport surcharge in all tickets, paid to the parking garage capital costs to those who park and to connecting local public transport services for the balance.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Local transport surcharge in all tickets?!? Oh yeah, let’s make all HSR/transit riders pay for the parking costs, even if they didn’t park!!!! What if they walked or rode their bike? What if they were dropped off? It’s a fool idea.
Subsidized parking undermines local transit and alternatives such as biking and walking. It’s only when a driver is made aware of the relatively high cost of real estate rent of their parking space that will begin to consider the economy of alternatives.
Peak-oilers have a duplicitous way of thinking.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
They get a free shoeshine/bike parking/croissant, depending.
Subsidized parking undermines local transit
Hence why BruceMcF had the transport surcharge going to the local transit service if the user didn’t use the parking facilities.
and alternatives such as biking and walking.
Then those users are subsidizing the local transit service.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Using public funds to subsidize parking and public zoning mandates in to require parking provision is indeed a subsidy, but since the car only needs to be parked once at an HSR station no matter how many locations are visited at the final destination, its arguably more capital efficient to provide it at outer metro HSR stations than to provide it in urban areas.
Obviously One-Size-Fits-Allism will be a problem ~ the amount of parking provided and the rates charged should be in line with concentration and public transport provision in the region of the station.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
The most capital efficient strategy is not to spend any public capital on parking whatsoever. If the demand to park one’s car at a station is strong enough, private developers can meet that demand… at a price that recoups the costs of construction and maintenance.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
That’s how it’s generally done in France and it’s very unpopular. I doubt Americans used to free or cheap parking would appreciate it.
An example: I paid €19 for one-day parking at Avignon station. My TGV ticket to Paris, bought online, also cost me €19. Thus, parking my car for one day cost me the same as a 420-mile TGV ride.
That’s what you get when you rely on private developpers to solve problems. They will try to get the highest profit from the smallest possible surface.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Short-term parking near the terminals at SFO is $33 a day. People pay it, because there is demand for it. Parking further from the terminals with shuttle connections is cheaper, but still about $14/day.
If you don’t want to pay these costs to drive, here’s the message: don’t drive! Other alternatives become more viable when the price of driving/parking is fully revealed.
Matthew Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
SFO is so easy to get to by public transport, and a cab from the city is only about $30 anyway. Anyone who is still complaining should really just take the train. I don’t hear anyone complaining that overly expensive parking is threatening the existence of SFO.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Last week highways around Paris were paralysed by ice. Many people decided to leave their car at home, only to discover that many trains were cancelled. The unexpected reason for it: train drivers were stuck in their cars on the icy highways and could not reach the stations.
So, even the SNCF is car-dependent.
Derek Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
This would help to reduce the amount of parking needed at the stations: http://www.streetfilms.org/dr-shoup-parking-guru/
on station design. Is something like this really all that’s necessary? I seem to find lots of stations like this in videos. Its doesn’t look like high speed trains need anything special beyond what normal trains need. AM I missing something? track. platform, catenary. I really think thats what they should build until the train is running. Then later the areas can be further developed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
The buses from Oakland seem to be doing quite nicely in the glorified parking they are in in, why does San Francisco need 4 billion dollars worth of bus terminal?
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
why does any city built anything. It has nothing to do with the hsr budget ( except for the part needed for hsr the tunnel and train box) The rest of it has nothing to do with the chsra. so what does it matter?
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
and by the way. The project is joint between all the operators. samtrans, muni, ac transit, greyhound, amtrak, all are involved in the big bus station and thats between them and the city.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
So if Fresno is able to scare up the money for some faux bleached Stegosaurus bones-like station what’s it to you?
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I don’t have any problem with that. Thats what Im saying if you paid attention. the authority covers the basics and the localities pay for the extra bells and whisltes byond the basics. They can go as big and bold as they see fit. That was my whole point. It keeps the chsra budget in check, and it allows locals to decide what type of station/architecture/size/ additional amenities they want. Its a win for everyone.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Yes, track, platform, catenary, two or three pedestrian subways. All this airport on the ground stuff seems to be people who don’t understand that with no runway to get to and doors spread all along the vehicle, many of the features of airports needed to cope with the awkwardness of getting into a pressurized tube that throws itself into the air are simple redundant, and therefore mostly a waste of resources.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
“All this airport on the ground stuff seems to be people who don’t understand that with no runway to get to and doors spread all along the vehicle, many of the features of airports needed to cope with the awkwardness of getting into a pressurized tube that throws itself into the air are simple redundant. . .”–Bruce McF
It’s not just airport people. Here in West Virginia, we were going to get a new station (just a shelter, really) for a stop on the MARC service in Duffields. The money was coming from some enhancement program, which meant it came through West Virginia’s Department of Tar–er, Transportation. This DOT, as is typical is dominated by highway thinking, and the first design that came up for the shelter measured 30 feet by 30 feet–with a platform that long on one side. My station-restoring friend in Shepherdstown had some connections, and he got to go to some meeting, in which he asked the highway department to reconsider the design. One of his comments was just what Bruce brought up–that a passenger train might be 800 feet long, with doors all along the side. Why build this like a bus station? You need a platform that’s proportioned like the train–long and skinny. The highway department for once had the sense to listen, and we got a long platform and an appropriate short shelter.
I had a similar experience in promoting a light rail line instead of a four-lane highway. My little paper on the subject included cross sections for both the highway and a possible double-tracked interurban, both drawn to the same scale. The engineers from the DOT were rather amazed at this crude little drawing; one of them told me he “didn’t realize the difference in width was so great.”
These fellows don’t know how to do railroads because they don’t have the practice, which means they don’t have the feel. Now, if only their top management would have the sense to listen. . .
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
There’s a fine line between not having experience designing railroads and not having common sense.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Ha! So true! We had some Secretary of Transportation here some years back who was just about the biggest, most arrogant jackass I’ve ever seen, at least first-hand, and I’ve seen a few. He once gave a newspaper interview in which he stated that if automobiles had been around in 1776, the Founding Fathers would have had driving as a basic right, along with freedom of religion, lawful assembly, the right to bear arms, etc. This was after he had left West Virginia and was working in Kentucky; these remarks were part of his dispariging comments about a proposed light rail line across the river in Cincinnati.
One of the things that now strikes me as funny is that this guy, being a “jackass,” could be the symbol of the Democratic Party (i.e., the donkey)–but he is actually a Republican! A Republican jackass! Oh, the irony! Ho, ho, ho, ho! Oh, we need to change our symbols!
Considering how some other things are going, the national animal should no longer be the eagle, but the turkey! (And Ben Franklin thought that bird should have been our symbol! More irony!)
Victor Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Interesting.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Its common in bureaucracies for all common sense that exists to be the result of the experience from a prior mistake, often provided with a protective wrapper of new nonsense that had been required to move the common sense through the committee that was formed in the post-mistake phase of CYA.
Reality Check Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
If would really help (and be heartening) if HSRA and/or their consultants would drop the station-cost-inflating plan to make all HSR platforms “secure” areas. You see, this is why they say stations need mezzanines and waiting/holding areas. Have a look at ICE stations sometime. They platform-share with other “regular” DB trains and there are no security or ticket checks required to walk off the street and onto a platform. This is why I love POP … it makes stations and the whole experience so much more convenient. The onus is on you, the passenger, to prove you paid well after you’ve boarded and the train has left the station. Germany’s (and I believe Austria and Switzerland) has been more or less all-POP at least since I used to pass lazy summer days in the 70′s riding trains and streetcars all over Stuttgart’s VVS (Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund).
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Absolutely. The security theater MUST STOP. It’s very expensive. And what does it do? It makes it slightly harder for people to bomb trains. Not *significantly* harder, because people can still bomb stations, and people can still throw bombs over the side of the fencing onto the tracks.
This secure-area bullshit needs to be stopped.
jimsf Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 4:59 am
its only going to get worse. especially since this is being built from scratch.
jimsf Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:06 am
It doesn’t have to be too overblown though, something along the lines of the basic bart station design should suffice. ticket vending, fare gates leading to a paid area, and a single agent booth for problem solving ( machine breakdowns, questions, ticket problems) I see on eurostar it looks that way, where pax either scan or process tickets through a fare gate.
For safety reasons and fare collection this is a good idea.
Victor Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Of course, Just not with High Explosives which includes Plastic types of Explosives, Unless they make It themselves of course, As HE is highly regulated here in the USA and has been for over 100 Years.
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Technically every Amtrak platform at Union Station is secure. You’re technically not allowed to wait for your train on the platform. You must wait in the waiting area and listen for the boarding call.
It’s simply that there isn’t enough manpower or money to enforce it all the time. I have been told only once to get off the platforms while waiting for a Surfliner train. However, the other hundreds of times I have never been bothered on a platform.
Unfortunately, high speed rail brings in the funds to stage these ridiculous security theater shows. More so than NIMBYs or cost overruns, I’m worried that California High Speed Rail will include airport-style security.
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:27 am
I feel that passive security, such as dogs sniffing around, should suffice. No random bag checks or checkpoints.
MGimbel Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 7:04 am
A walkthrough of a soon to be opened Shinkansen station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTXxWAITU6k&feature=player_embedded#!
Alex2000 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Hey great video fined!
I was trying to find a video like that last weekend when it (Shin-Aomori)
opened. Simple, functional, yet not unpleasant visually. At least the non-platform area.
Now on to Hokkaido!
James Fujita Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Nice video! I see some artwork already installed, a bookstore/ newsstand, a waiting room area with a view (of what appears to be the bus/ taxi entrance to the station), and the Shinkansen comes in on the top floor. That, I think, would be more than adequate for a Cal HSR station.
And that lovely Japanese “pay attention, this is a service announcement” chime.
Victor Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:10 am
I agree, It should suffice.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 11:47 am
We live in a Great Rip-Off Economy in which genuflections to the “free market” are used to justify by corporations as excuse for corporations to get their snout into the public trough, whether wars fought in part to generate windfall profits to mercenary provider firms because there are not enough Marines to provide security to diplomatic personel or extremist mandatory sentencing guidelines to plunder state budgets in service of the prison industrial complex … or to sell an ongoing stream of “passenger security” equipment to airports.
Fighting back against the boondoggle will take organization and commitment, since barring those, the boondoggle always wins. Often using “do unto others before they do unto you” charges of boondoggle to pave the way.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You are correct. High speed trains don’t need anything more than normal trains.
Long, straight platform; track; overhead catenary; and either an underpass or an overpass so that pedestrians don’t walk across the tracks. That is it.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
TGV stations (except terminal ones) are very simple. There are only four tracks. 2 platform tracks, and 2 inside tracks for non-stopping trains.
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
That configuration isn’t specific to France – it’s pretty standard on HSLs throughout the world. It’s also more or less what the CHSRA is planning for most intermediate stations.
DC Metro is starting random bag checks. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/dc-metro-to-start-random-bag-searches.html
The staff report for Monday’s board meeting has been posted.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9485
The recommendation is to continue building south toward Bakersfield. The exact route/distance is unknown until selections are made between three route choices: going thru Corcoran or building a Corcoran bypass; going west or east of Allensworth State Park; and going thru Wasco & Shafter or building a Wasco/Shafter bypass.
It is a little hard for me to tell from the maps but it looks like they believe, depending upon final route choices, that the additional money would in the most expensive route option only build from Corcoran to Allensworth and in the least expensive option build south from Corcoran to Shafter.
It appears they still plan a connector somewhere to the BNSF to allow independent utility into the Bakersfield Amtrak Station.
With the Merced-Fresno route still undetermined the staff calls applying the funds to that section “high risk” since there is no guarantee that enough money would be available to make a connection to the BNSF north of Merced for the Independent Utility requirement.
Donk Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:28 am
These decisions all make a lot of sense. I don’t really see how the Merced people can dispute this. I just hope that they end up not having to build the bridges to spec for heavy Amtrak trains and can then milk some more miles out of this money. I’m really curious to see the discussion from CAHSRA about the impact this will have on cost.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:53 am
We’ve posted a note about Monday’s board meeting and the possibility you may only get to south Corcoran. http://www.calhsr.com/board-meeting/california-high-speed-rail-project-how-far-does-1-232-billion-get-you/
mike Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Have CHSRA given any rationale at all for the absurd 12-mile viaduct at Corcoran? Even if you choose to go right through the city, I don’t see why you need a viaduct that’s more than one-tenth that length.
Approaching from the south on the BNSF ROW, start the viaduct just before Oregon Ave, and come up to a height of 40′ by the first BNSF spur, cross Sherman and Whitley Aves on the aerial, and then transition down to a 15′ berm by Brokaw Ave. Continue the berm north until you cross Orange Ave, and then come down to grade level.
That’s a 1.2 mile aerial structure + a 0.8 mile berm, with a maximum gradient of 2.5%. What am I missing here?
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Nope. As a matter of fact there have only been cryptic references to “Tulare wetlands mitigation” area.
datacruncher Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
A few years back I remember that Wildlands, Inc was looking at the creation of a mitigation bank near Highway 43 and the Tule River which would be somewhere just south of Corcoran. If that bank was actually created it would cause problems that need to be addressed.
Mitigation banks are permanently preserved (like land conservancies) wetland and species habitat areas created by selling credits to offset the environmental losses due to development elsewhere. They are approved by the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.
I don’t know what options would exist for CHSRA if the route would impact a mitigation bank. An aerial might be one of the few options to pass thru or near a mitigation bank.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Thanks!
It looks like that whole 43 corridor from corcoran to Allensworth to Pixley is a center of conservation efforts to create a contingous wildlife area. It is just to the east of the Tulare Lake Basin.
From my initial research, it seems like not a great area to try to go through at grade. Can someone remind me again why the 99 corridor was rejected (other than UP)? At the current costs, you could do some pretty fancy stuff there.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Could it be that PB’s obsessive-compulsive need to stick concrete stilts in the gound is compensation for some kind of corporate erectile dysfunction?
Oh, but we don’t have to worry about earthquakes so long as we are up in the air, right?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Their concrete phalluses seems to get you in a tizzy.
Monday’s meeting materials : South to Bakersfield!
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9485
Intends of the future House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/build-america-bond-program-poised-for-a-reincarnation-house-s-mica-says.html
“Mica said the bond program may be part of a broader measure he intends to introduce that would include spending for roads, transit, rail and waterways.”
Quakes closing in on Palmdale?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-earthquake-risk-20101217,0,1518879.story
Better super-size all that concrete, PB.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
You probably intended to cite this one about the Palmdale bulge instead. I’d be delighted for you to weave that into your various reasons why not going through Tejon is a bad idea.
As for Palm Springs, which is the only ‘palm’ mentioned in the article that you cited, yes, it is in a very earthquake prone area, having the San Andreas fault going through and being on sediment. No-one has been silly enough to suggest boring tunnels through to that valley due to concerns about geology, cost and whether it would actually be worthwhile. And that’s just one fault, let alone two intersecting faults as is present at Tejon.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Nope, the “Palmdale bulge” was total news to me. I was referring to the LA region as one big earthquake zone and that you don’t have to be standing on a fault to get hit.
And the supreme hypocrisy and duplicity of the Palmdale-Tehachapi Loop faithful in condemning Tejon as hopelessly risky and then erecting aerials in the Tehachapis. Whatever happened to the argument that the hsr should be at grade so as to be able to reconstruct faster?
The reality is that Palmdale is all about “Bell”-wether corruption. Blinking LA County should be required to create a use district to pay extra tax for the construction of the detour and extra tax to defray the extra cost of operating and maintaining those gratuitous extra route miles.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I was referring to the LA region as one big earthquake zone and that you don’t have to be standing on a fault to get hit.
Indeed. This includes your base tunnels, which go through two faults.
then erecting aerials in the Tehachapis. Whatever happened to the argument that the hsr should be at grade so as to be able to reconstruct faster?
The core of the argument was that HSR should be above ground, preferably at-grade. Getting out of Bakersfield, E2A is still around (partially at-grade) which is good, and E3 has been eliminated. Going through the Tehachapis, all of the alternatives have some portions elevated as they cross valleys; this is inevitable given the geography. T3-1 is probably the winner there. Continuing onto the Antelope Valley, AV3A, all at-grade through the Antelope Valley, was withdrawn due to incompatibilities. AV3B is still on the table, being partially elevated (ie, berm).
So, yes, out of the alternatives being carried forward, there would be some sections between Bakersfield and Palmdale which would use aerials, and in the event of an infrastructure-destroying earthquake, said aerials would be damaged for a period of time. So too would the short (compared to Tejon) tunnels used to get through parts of the Tehachapis.
Based on previous incidents of quakes destroying elevated infrastructure and/or tunnels, the period of time required to replace aerials is still less than that required to replace tunnels through a geologically unstable region, with the length of the tunnel being the deciding factor. With none of the Tehachapi alternatives seeming to have tunnels longer than 3 miles, their repair would be faster than a single 20+mile long tunnel.
Blinking LA County should be required to create a use district to pay extra tax for the construction of the detour and extra tax to defray the extra cost of operating and maintaining those gratuitous extra route miles.
We’ve had the cost argument before. The ‘detour’ is expected to be cheaper than the construction of your its-straight-on-a-map-and-I-don’t-care-about-any-rock-problems-in-the-area Tejon base tunnels. The ‘added’ expense in operating the detour will be well recouped by the added population available in the Palmdale area, compared to going straight through and ignoring them.
the but-it-looks-straight-on-the-map tunnels through difficult-why-should-I-have-to-know-about-rocks
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The seismic hand-wringing is a cover story for a “Chinatown” political fix in LA county. I would have more respect for the Palmdale foamers if they would just drop the spin and come across like Tony Soprano. Something like “We have an arrangement with our friends in LA and we will speak no more of this.”
The Tejon option that should be given what is actually a first look, as I understand it, involves 2 r tunnels rather than a one long base tunnel, parallels the Grapevine to the east and stays away from Palmdale.
Realist Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I have a question. People offer lots of what seem like reasonable reasons for why synonymouse’s base tunnels won’t be chosen (even if they are cool / faster / and have earthquake issues). One thing I don’t understand though is assuming you go via Palmdale, why do you then go all way NE of Mojave… it seems like the mountains between Palmdale and Bakersfield are much wider (more annoying to cross) along highway 58 than further SW (which would be a more direct line between Palmdale and Bakersfield anyway). Obviously it’s not under considration, but I’m just curious why?
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I have to add that I could probably get behind the Tehachapi Loop upgrade if PB did it cheap and dirty and made it compatible with diesel Amtrak such that service from the Bay Area to Chicago lthe Santa Fe original main line(thru Abo Canyon etc.)could be restored.
Then the Tejon alignment could be added at a later date.
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
cheap and dirty … compatible with diesel Amtrak
These two are somewhat mutually exclusive because running FRA-compliant diesels adds additional structural requirements to aerials and ventilation requirements for tunnels.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Cut the top speed; you will have to beef up the aerials anyway to meet the increased earthquake danger, and you should be able use dual-fuel locos to cut down the ventilation requirements.
Dumb down further the overall specs. If you insists on gold-plated you should cost it out again against the best Tejon alternative. The difference could not that great given you have added at least 30 extra route mils with Palmdale.
And Rafael’s at grade climb over Tejon promises to be cheap and about as fast as Tehachapi.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
@Realist: An aerial view of terrian involved may help, along with a vertical elevation profile (page 12 of that pdf).
Swinging NW from Palmdale, or even from a point near the CA-14 and CA-138 intersection (to avoid the built-up area around Palmdale) to say Twin Lakes, would then involve crossing the mountains at a steeper gradient than that encountered by following CA-58 through Tehachapi (the town). To ease that gradient, you’d either need to tunnel earlier (and then be underground crossing the Garlock fault), have some stupendous viaducts in the Central Valley, or continue the descent while hugging the terrain as you proceed north to Bakersfield along the west side of the mountains. None of these are particularly appealing in terms of monetary or travel time costs.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
The nature of the arrangement which you have concocted and your mindset is such that the non-existence of said arrangement cannot be proven to your satisfaction.
In the same vein, you have thus far been unable to provide proof that such an arrangement does exist.
Without proof that such arrangement does exist, your postings on the subject are treated as objects for amusement. Thus, all you have to do to be listened to as a serious poster on the subject, is to provide proof of such an arrangement, preferably in the form that the LA Times could use for an expose similar to that given the goings-on in the City of Bell.
As for your suggestion regarding routing, good to see that you now have one. Overlay your suggestion on a fault map and get back to us regarding the wisdom of paralleling a major fault.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Now why would the LA Times want to investigate a fix they endorse? “It’s for the future, Mr. Geddes.”
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The reference to the LA Times was in terms of the quality of evidence (for the existence of a ‘fix’) that you need to supply, not in terms of the LA Times performing an investigation.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
The “fix” is not in and of itself illegal, but unethical and very selfish. It is hard to violate laws
you had written to enable whatever power plays the future might entail.
So the rest of the state has to cater to LA’s needs, whims and lifestyle. And pay for it. What else is new.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Much more likely that LA subsidizes the rest of the state except for a few counties in the Bay Area.
Btw. Take a look at the at the NEW 2050 Regional Transportation Plan by San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG).
http://www.sdmts.com/marketing/regionaltransitplan2050.asp
I will take a very close look at the proposed trolley sections which seem to bypass high density areas AGAIN. SANDAG seems to think that public transit is for tourists. The extension that goes North-South from Mid City to Mission Valley is the only one that makes sense in this map.
Honestly they should have built that one before the propaganda UCSD extension.
Donk Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
What is wrong with the University City extension? It goes right through a pretty dense area and connects to two major destinations (UCSD and UTC area).
Which high density areas would you prefer that they go to? Most followed existing rail ROWs, so these were most practical. There aren’t that many high density areas of SD. They had studies of sending LRT thru Pt. Loma and Mission Beach/PB, but they concluded that it would be way too disruptive and expensive.
Note that they have HSR terminating at Lindbergh Field
I’m somewhat familiar ( but not in great detail) with san diego and it looks like they covered everything with that plan. What specifically is wrong? Just curious.