Rod Diridon to Return to CHSRA Board?
It’s more than just idle speculation that Governor Jerry Brown might reappoint Rod Diridon to the CHSRA board soon after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger chose to not reappoint him. Palo Alto Online has the interesting and potentially important backstory on Diridon’s ties to Brown:
Given a longtime caveat that in politics nothing is real until it is done, there is both a longtime friendship between Brown and Diridon and — perhaps a deciding factor — Diridon was co-chair of Brown’s initial campaign for governor in 1974.
The vacancy on the authority board could occur because board member David Crane was appointed Dec. 30 to an opening on the University of California Board of Regents, a 12-year appointment also made in the closing days of Schwarzenegger’s governorship. There has been growing attention to “incompatible” appointments on the authority board, and if this is deemed one of those Crane almost certainly would opt for the regents.
Diridon, 71, describes himself as a “staunch Democrat,” and points to a record of chairing or serving on environmental bodies. But he is best known for decades of advocacy for public transit, and during 20 years on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (1975-1995) became known as “the father of light rail” in the county.
Brown has indeed shown a preference for bringing back old advisers and aides from the 1970s. Further, Diridon has the kind of experience in transportation policy that the CHSRA board needs to be effective. While I have nothing against Thomas Richards and Matthew Toledo, the two new CHSRA board members, and have every reason to believe they’ll do well on the board, it is unfortunate that they do not have the kind of transportation experience of Diridon and Richard Katz, whom the new appointees are replacing. Governor Schwarzenegger believed that having business experience mattered more than having transportation experience – but then he also believed that was true about being governor, and we all know how well that turned out.
It’s especially unfortunate that Diridon was seen by some as being an unfit public spokesman for the project, with reports that he and Quentin Kopp were being asked to not speak publicly on the Peninsula:
But his own words have also contributed to the sturm und drang, notably when he publicly referred to opponents of a rail line up the Peninsula as “rotten apples.” He later qualified his reference to mean about a score of individuals who had opposed high-speed rail, as far back as Proposition 1A on the 2008 state ballot that approved the concept and provided $9.95 billion in bonds as a down payment.
At one point, Diridon announced that he and another board member, Quentin Kopp, had been asked by staff to avoid speaking on the Peninsula because their appearances would be attended or disrupted by opponents interpreted as a “gag rule.” But Kopp called the Weekly to protest that he was a state Senate appointee to the board and “no one is going to gag Quentin Kopp.”
Diridon was absolutely right in his “rotten apples” comment – he wasn’t saying that the HSR deniers were themselves rotten, but that they were a small group of people that could “spoil the bunch” if their inaccurate attacks on HSR were listened to. More importantly, the HSR deniers had every reason to play the victim, and HSR supporters should know better than to let opponents define the terms of debate. This was a manufactured controversy, ginned up by sore losers who have spent the last two years trying to find ways to undermine a project that is popular in their own community and around the state.
That controversy should not mask the important work Diridon had done with local officials up and down the project route. Diridon often helped deal with and resolve concerns and issues cities had with the project. He had a manner of blunt speaking, but just because he speaks truths some people didn’t want to hear doesn’t make him a voice to silence.
I’ve heard Diridon speak about HSR on a number of occasions and found him to be an articulate and effective supporter of the project, with knowledge and skill in explaining its benefits to the public. That, combined with his expertise in transportation policy, makes him an important asset for the Authority board.
So too does his assessment of what the Authority can improve:
He said he feels the authority has failed in some areas, such as spending greater effort to get the word out about its benefits.
Most HSR supporters have agreed with this, and we have seen recent evidence that the CHSRA has indeed improved their outreach, including CEO Roelof van Ark’s recent visit to Gilroy. Again, sometimes that outreach doesn’t provide what certain people want to hear, such as how Burlingame’s desire to get a free below-grade track is not realistic. But that isn’t a sign of bad outreach, it’s a sign of totally unreasonable expectations on the part of cities that need to be willing to step up and help fund gold-plated infrastructure.
In short, Rod Diridon is an asset to the HSR project and did well in his time on the CHSRA board, and deserves to be reappointed at the earliest opportunity.
A couple years ago I spent some time on the board of a private college. The board was intentionally made up of a people with a variety of skillsets. There were a few folks with construction expertise, some PR/MarCom experts, some bankers, some academics, and a number of alumni who’d been successful. The broad mix allowed the board to properly oversee all aspects of the colleges operation.
Since CAHSR in now moving into the implementation phase, I’d rather see my tax money overseen by a board with a bit more construction expertise and at least one PR-type who can help improve outreach.
A politican and transit advocate (Diridon) is probably better suited for the initial stages of the project where the decisions were more political and a BOD with political connections could help keep the project afloat. I hope those days are behind us!
//dan.
In the NFL they keep on recycling losers like Wade Phillips and Norv Turner, when there are many better choices out there like the Jim Harbough types. Well in CA it seems like there are like 3 or 4 clowns who we keep recycling who are “experts” in transportation policy, even though some of these guys have made many questionable decisions in the past and there are plenty of other candidates out there who are probably more forward thinking.
It is great the Diridon has lots of experience and is a great public advocate, but this is the guy who designed the worst light rail system in the country, and is pushing for the the San Jose Dirdon Inter-Galactic station. Isn’t there anyone else younger who has a smaller ego, a moderate level of experience in CA transportation policy, and ideas that are actually good? I want to see someone who will push for track sharing, bare bones stations, and other efficiencies in the system.
Daniel Jacobson Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Agreed. Diridon has a record of supporting poorly-designed, cost-ineffective boondoggles like VTA Light Rail and BART to San Jose at the expense of Caltrain and other projects. He’s had his opportunity to leave his mark on HSR–now it’s time for some fresh ideas.
synonymouse Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:04 am
The SF Chron is taking the tack that Jerry Brown’s June tax increase initiative will need a two-thirds vote to be paced on the ballot and thus will require some Republican support. I would expect some wheeling and dealing on Prop. 1A. The Repubs would be stupid to cave as they would lose what little is left of their base. Especially when virtually everyone recognizes that the welfare state is tottering and that the explosion in spending can’t continue.
So, to some degree it is going to be welfare advocates vs. PB-Palmdale. I’ll go with Tiny Tim on this one.
Robert, I’m growing increasingly disappointed that your posts are growing more politically partisan. Given that Democrats hold about 90% of elected office and appointments in California it seems to have nothing to do with getting HSR built. Furthermore, the citizens that are fighting HSR are often left wing democrats rather than republican. Either way its sad because getting HSR built in CA will require support of both parties, even if one party dominates the state. It requires all of us to look around and come together to build the transportation infrastructure to keep California competitive.
Political sniping is not helpful.
wu ming Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
left wing democrats opposing HSR? on the peninsula? LOL, yeah atherton is a *hotbed* of left-wing activism.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Huh? Where do you see political sniping here? The fact is that Jerry Brown is a Democrat, has appointed almost entirely Democrats to fill his offices, and Diridon’s historical ties to Brown makes it possible that he would be high on the list of potential future appointees to the board. While it is absolutely true that HSR has bipartisan support among California voters and among many elected officials, we can’t be blind to the various ways in which party identity impacts things like who gets appointed to the board.
I strongly disagree with you that “the citizens that are fighting HSR are often left wing democrats” – they usually self-identify as Democrats and surely are socially liberal, but their opposition to HSR stems from a deep reservoir of right-wing economic views – that government money should not be used to support passenger rail, or that wealthy homeowners deserve a veto over a project that benefits other people.
I fully agree with you that for HSR to succeed, we must welcome all supporters regardless of party identity, and I do practice that on this blog – and I’m not quite sure how you reach the conclusion that in this post I’m doing anything different.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Thank you, Robert, for even allowing nostalgia hounds like me around.
Jim SF has pointed this out, sometimes a historical view can lend additional perspective. And one of those perspectives can be how the “olde tyme” railroaders made rail travel pleasant, and how this country looked before we sold our national soul to the oil industry.
Interestingly, there is a touch of that in this delightful British theatrical film from the 1950s, “The Titfield Thunderbolt,” in which a community wants to keep its branch line running in the face of motor travel competition. Don’t be looking for serious material here, this is a British comedy, but the scenery is grand, and it touches upon what makes those old trains such objects of affection for us train nuts.
Off topic? Heck, yeah, crazy off topic, and it’s so far off I’ve got to ask Donk and the rest of you for forgiveness for it, but sometimes we need to let our hair down a bit, and that’s why I have it here. . .
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3DC6AD97BEB32334
Equally interesting, but very sad, are these then-and-now clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWlbZnBPtOM&feature=related
Enjoy.
A dim geriatric with a record of unmitigated failure of every single transportation project with which he;’s been associated? Just what we need and deserve.
LA Metro and CHSRA may team up to buy the recently sold LA Union Station. Apparently the new owner, which acquired the station along with a number of other holdings, doesn’t have much interest in holding on to it.
Al Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 12:57 am
I visited LA recently, and man! That’s a nice station. Felt like a time warp to the classy age of travel, with the great hall, and the courtyards, and the old-style fixtures. I can only hope that the transbay terminal in SF will match it (though obviously in a radically different style). Fantastic place to have HSR passengers pass through.
wu ming Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:32 am
i love union station.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:24 am
Los Angeles Union Station is considered to be the “last great American passenger station,” despite being relatively small compared to some others, and not necessarily the last big-city station; two others that date from the post-war era include Toledo, Oh., and New Orleans, La.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Station_(Los_Angeles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Plaza_(Toledo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Union_Passenger_Terminal
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:27 am
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/neworleans.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/toledo.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/losangeles.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:45 am
Another post-war era station is in the town of Prince, W.Va., population 100 (Ha! At least that’s what’s supposed to be there, but I think that number is generous!) This station was intended as a prototype for several other stations in larger cities, including Waynesboro and Richmond, Va. (both union stations, incidently), but it turned out to be the only one as the Chesapeake & Ohio suffered financial reverses in the late 1940s due to coal strikes (the road was the single largest coal-hauler in the country in terms of originated tonnage, and actually had a heavier tons-hauled-per-line mile than the Pennsylvania). This station also helps to illustrate Bruce McF’s “area capture” concept; most of the patronage for this station comes from Beckley, W.Va., with taxicabs handling much of the patronage that was once handled by a branch-line train to Beckley (station name was Raleigh on the C&O):
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/prince.htm
Perhaps the most interesting features of this station are its great photo mural of the Crab Orchard coal mine at the west end of the interior, and the inlaid image in the floor of the road’s mascot, Chessie the Cat:
http://www.wvepostcards.com/railroads-prince-station/
The station still had its orignal blonde wood interior furniture into the 1980s, but sadly that’s gone now.
The station it replaced was an earlier standard type for this road, very similar to the one still standing in Alderson, W.Va. Alderson is notable for having a women’s prison nearby; one of its more famous tennants in recent years was Martha Stewart:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/alderson.htm
The orange and white paint is authentic for the C&O prior to 1924 or so; later, the road changed to a multi-toned grey-white-black scheme.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Also in what I would call the “modern” station category from the era of private railroad operations is the station in Burlington, Iowa, built during WW II as a replacement for a structure destroyed by fire.
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/burlingtonia.htm
http://www.apopkapostcardshoppe.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=15108
http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/BRL/Station_view
Scott Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 10:04 am
I would add Union Station in Denver to the list of “last great American passenger stations”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Station_(Denver,_Colorado)
Emma Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
It’s also nice to travel around LA Union station in Google Maps.
The old union station could still function as a separate station for commuter rail and metro only. You will find such proposals in many European cities:
Look at Paris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_stations_in_Paris
I also want to mention that European union stations are largely the result of a compromise. It is impossible to replace them without shutting down the whole infrastructure so they decided to modernize the old ones. The result is a beautiful mix of both,: Old on the outside, completely modern on the inside.
California must take the chance and build state-of-the-art stations. Someone has to make the first step in modern design. I’m looking forward to stations who look similar to Chinese HSR stations:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/5/6/0/2560.1269886484.jpg
Note, the designers of those stations are usually from the Western world. They simply couldn’t realize their plans because there was no demand, it was too overcrowded, or because of NIMBYs.
James Fujita Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
The only real problem with Los Angeles Union Station is finding a reasonable access route from the south. Find a good route into the station and there’s no reason why Union Station couldn’t serve as Metro Rail, Metrolink AND Cal HSR station in its current form. Those links are important.
The most historic part of the station is far from the tracks, and so there’s no need for the “hollowed out shell” look. Keep in mind also that there is a more modern half of Union Station, the “East Portal”, on the opposite side of the tracks from the historic part of the station.
bixnix Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
it’s also going to need an expansion of that east-west walkway (concourse?)… it’s crowded already, and with HSR, it’s going to be a big squeeze. needs more headroom, too.
James Fujita Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
heh. well, crowded corridors are a hallmark of big railway stations.
but I suppose there’s no reason why they couldn’t widen the tunnel underneath the tracks. that’s not a very historic part of the station.
they might want to create some new access corridors for the bullet train. the bullet train’s probably going to be elevated above the existing tracks, so they could aim pedestrian traffic away from the tunnel and more towards the east portal (which is less crowded and way overbuilt as it currently exists.)
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I was at a community meeting at Union Station and spoke 1 on 1 with one of the staff on the consultant side. They said a second hall is being planned because the main hall would be over capacity.
James Fujita Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Interesting. I’m not sure what they mean by “hall”, but they might add a second tunnel.
J. Wong Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Part of Union Station’s historical significance (and charm, dare I say) is the interior. I hope they use it for HSR!
James Fujita Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Some parts of Union Station would be easier to modify than others.
I’m glad that they built Famima!!, Wetzels, Subway where they did and not directly in the waiting room area.
I do hope that they use Los Angeles Union Station for the bullet train, but I also hope that they avoid changing the front end too much.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:47 am
London St Pancras International, once a dilapidated station that many wanted to demolish, is now the most admired in Europe.
There is a social downside to this transformation: the surrounding streets have become fashionable and rents have skyrocketed. Many middle-class families can no longer afford to live there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Penn Station in Newark, usually pointed to as one of the first examples of integrated inter-modal travel.
Robert, your post is reminding me of the good roads movement’s rhetoric from the 1920s. Every road is good, and the more overbuilt, the better – unless it has tolls. The gas tax and other user fees are an imposition and must never be raised or spent on things other than roads, but it’s perfectly fine that half the cost of road construction and all cost of road maintenance comes from the taxpayers. And serving urban transportation needs, rather than grand suburban and intercity schemes, is not a priority. Change a few names and the mode of transportation under discussion and Diridon’s life story looks identical to that of any road flak.
I heard Diridon speak a couple of years ago at a RailPAC conference at LAUS. I was not impressed. He was nothing but a cheerleader who was trying to whip the audience into cries of “What do we want? High speed rail! When do we want it? Now!!” Literally. During a break, I was discussing it with the people I was with, and we all agreed it was an amateurish, embarrassing performance.
well the above criticisms aside. the fact remains that in order to get anything done in california, you have to be well connected to and be able to find your way around, sacramento. The people who have a history of getting things done, are, the ones who get things done. like them or not. less than ideal results or not. No one else will get anything done. Besides the bulk of the plan for hsr has already been laid out and overall its a good one, not counting some errors here and there ( whatever the hell is going on on the peninsula for instance) but its early in the game and these things will work themselves out. And ultimately the system will be workable if not pristinely optimal. But nothing here in the states history has ever been done in a perfect manner. Its a big state, and compromise is ever present in everything that gets done. A trail of disgruntled perfectionists can be found under every projects unturned stones.
My advice. get over it. Thats how its gonna be. no one here is going to make it be any thing other than that and the end we will have a high speed train system the people will use and the perfectionists will be bitter about and thats it.
I don’t let it bother me cuz I know this is how it always works here. But soem people have a lot of excess energy and youthful idealism and can’t accept that. so go on and blow your emotional perfectionist wads, youre entitled. But in the end. itll be what it is. and that will be good enough for the majority of us.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
in order to get anything done in california, you have to be well connected to and be able to find your way around,
Thats the way it works everywhere. Even places without palm trees.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
probably but point it out to the ones who will never be happy with the results or who gets them.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“But soem people have a lot of excess energy and youthful idealism and can’t accept that. ”
Uh-oh. Doesn’t fit DP Lubic’s stereotype. What now?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
“But some people have a lot of excess energy and youthful idealism and can’t accept that. So go on and blow your emotional perfectionist wads, youre entitled. But in the end. it’ll be what it is, and that will be good enough for the majority of us.”–Ji, SF
I admit to having problems with it–I had a lot of enthusiasm and energy, and it all got frustrated because middle-aged to old geezers wouldn’t listen. Now I’m just ready to retire, and I’m only 55.
I do feel for the younger crowd, it seems their opportunities are blocked by more senior types who will not listen, nor will they get out of the way, at least around where I am. I know, I had to deal with it and flopped terribly.
I would feel better if we had gotten something here, or if I had been able to accomplish something, but we got nothing but a dinosaur road.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Jim, you misunderstand the criticism of Diridon. The problem isn’t that he’s imperfect. It’s that he’s offputting, and makes people less supportive of HSR every time he opens his mouth. 1920s-style rhetoric was persuasive in the 1920s; nowadays, everyone thinks they’re being hoodwinked.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
oh I see. well I don’t know anything about him – I only know the name from the station and Ive never heard him speak nor do i have any idea what he looks like. So ill take your word for it. But I guess my point of frustration comes from more of the overall seemingly constant unhappiness about every aspect of everything. I mean I understand it because I I very clearly remember when I was in my teens twenties and thirties, being forever confounded with why “they” ( the powers that be that I had no control over) never seemed to do anything right. Then I finally realized that in the grand scheme of life. it just doesnt really matter much. as long as theres a train and I can afford a ticket and it goes really fast and takes me to the roughly top ten cities in the state give or take, then screw it, its good enough for me. lord knows ive paid enough taxes over my working life to pay for enough things I never asked for. Maybe Im just easy to please now. I watch these people over at civic center protesting this and that, yeh I used to do that too. but after a while youre like whatever. Is there beer in the fridge or not? SO I cant get too excited about every technical detail.
Ill stick with the fun stuff like naming the trains and picking the colors. regular (non eggheaders) like that stuff.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Don’t take my word for it – I haven’t seen him, either. I’m just channeling the other people here from the Peninsula and San Jose.
The bit about the colors and names is a general issue with all projects like this. The problem is that even the people on the board usually don’t know much more, so they spend a lot more time discussing colors and names than important issues like how to minimize tunneling.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Of all the board members, both Diridon and Kopp are off putting. I know. I have attended many of their meetings. They both have very abrasive personalities and huge egos. They have let power swell their sense of self-importance, too. You can’t say “HSR is coming so get use to it” to someone you are trying to win over. You can’t call people “rotten apples” when you are trying to win them over. Pringle, on the other hand, is just as smooth and charming as can be and he comes across as very level headed in the meetings. The only boos I have ever heard during board meetings came in response to something Diridon said. He has a way of trying to put words in people’s mouth they they don’t agree with, and people have a visceral reaction to him. Bottom line: Diridon has been terrible at building public trust for the HSRA.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Pringle has his own problems. I take it you haven’t heard about the Anaheim Station saga…
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Great plan, except for the Pacheco routing, the Peninsula revolt, and inevitable Caltrain bankrupcy. Amazing coincidence how all those ‘errors’ originate with Diridon.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
first of all. I for one support pacheco. always have. so I as a lifelong calfornia resident and taxpayer, and rain rider, I don’t find it to be a problem. its just one of those choices that some people will like and others wont.
as for the peninsula nimbys. thats not diridons fault. I am very familiar with those areas and those people would throw a hissy fit if you called the sky the wrong color of blue. and that goes for most of the bay area. thats how we are here, like it or not. and espcially among the crowds who were young yuppies back in the reagan era. you could have put santa claus in charge and theyd still be throwing a fit.
can caltrain is bankrupt because it was geared heavily toward the dotcom boom era, and then global economy collapsed so did the ridership and revenue. you cant blame that on one guy either. its just reality. caltain has no steady revenue source and the counties are broke.
Clem Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
I doubt you would find such virulent and litigious NIMBYism anywhere in the East Bay as can (and will, in spades!) be found in Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. You ain’t seen nothing yet. The transportation industrial complex, and its enabling agencies–Diridon, in this context, having been just a tool–had no obligation to kick this particular hornets nest. But they did, and will have to deal with the ramifications, such as for example, routing via Altamont a decade later rather than a decade sooner.
As for the causes of Caltrain’s current predicament, look no further than MTC, the agency charged with undermining Caltrain (a decades long process!) and replacing it with the final link in the BART Ring Around The Bay… One Ring To Rule Them All. Your blabbering about dot-com nonsense notwithstanding.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
uh caltrain was doing fine until the economy tanked and ridership dropped and left them broke nothing complicated about that.
Clem Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Ridership is doing just fine, thank you very much. As you can see from the report that I linked for you, it came down by a whopping 6 percent from a 2009 peak that was well above anything seen in the dot-com years. As you can see in the latest monthly report on ridership and revenue, year-to-date ridership has already rebounded 4 percent upwards from last year. Revenue is up nearly 10% since last year, near record levels.
Caltrain is doing very well, recovering from the farebox nearly 50 cents on each operating dollar, which is 2x better than MUNI, 3x better than SamTrans and 4x better than VTA.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a nice story of Caltrain going bankrupt.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:15 am
but apparently its not going bankrupt either. because ridership is back up. and they are planning to increase service. I just read something like that which means then they are doing ok so whats the problem.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
CalTrain’s lack of a dedicated funding source will remain a problem, even if disaster has been averted in the short term.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:01 am
They decided to add the weekend Baby Bullets only on a trial basis, notwithstanding their current financial difficulties. I guess they hope the added Baby Bullets will be financially self-sustaining.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
this blog is full of conspiracy nuts I swear.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
And a fair amount of ostriches, too.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
You start to believe it when you look at a lot of the technical details of what’s being designed. Sure, one or two bad decisions would be understandable, but when you look at the massively overbuilt, pedestrian-hostile stations (I’m not even talking about Transbay), tunnels through Millbrae, and aerials above existing berms, you start to notice a pattern. You should visit Clem’s blog sometime – it follows this kind of stuff.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
as long as the train gets me from the transbay to terminal to the valley and socal in under 3 hours I dont care if they build aerial over old mother hubbard. can we please just get it done. Im not gettin any younger and id like to ride the thing without having to sit in the disabled section.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
You know, a more efficient, less concrete-intensive plan could probably be built faster and incur fewer delays/cost increases (which also end up costing time) down the line.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:17 am
im all for saving money but there is no way a new bay crossing is going to be less expensive anyone who thinks it will is delusional. ( regardless of what any initial estimate may say)
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:27 am
I wasn’t talking about Altamont. I was talking about all the other bad decisions they’ve made.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Basically, what I’m saying is that your philosophy of “let them do what they want, I just want to get it done” will cost a lot of time (also money) in the long term, whereas fixing the plan could speed up construction a lot.
And do you consider yourself qualified to make accurate cost estimates? The EIR of course had to take into account this bay crossing in its cost estimates. And as crossings go, it’s not even that difficult, as long as it’s managed by people marginally more competent then those at CalTrans. The bay is shallow, and yes you have to mitigate for the wildlife refuge some, but that is pretty straightforward. Heck, at, say, Spanish construction costs, tunneling wouldn’t even be that expensive.
Caelestor Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Like I said, the debate btwn Altamont/Pacheco has passed and it’s somewhat pointless to keep bringing it up. On the other hand, ensuring that reasonable cost and functionality are still preserved on the peninsula section is VERY important.
Jerry Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Right on.
Jerry Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
That’s ‘Right On’ to getting it built before we all have to sit in the handicap section.
Caelestor Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Pacheco’s the least of my worries right now. How about we fix the stations and get rid of the crazy tunnels and viaducts?
^The problem is that unwise spending should be avoided at all costs, esp. if it slows down the train.
Victor Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
The Moon must be full,Somewhere.
having san jose on the mainline between sf and the rest makes sense and the alternatives would have us here for another 20 years fighting over how to get the trains through fremont and how to get them across the bay and how to get them through menlo park and how to get them through livermore and instead of having nimbys you can hold up and say ” these are wealthy enclave dwellers who don’t like working people” in order to diffuse the opposition, instead you have working people nimbys being put upon. its a lot easier to dismiss the privileged. YOu have tea party out there in the altamont ya know.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
The way I see it, you have NIMBYs either way. Pacheco makes for simpler operations, BUT Altamont gives you probably the best route to Sacramento (better than the CC), saves you a few billion on Phase 2 construction, and plus you don’t have to build an overlay.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I dont see altamont as being better to sac. why would head south from sf to go to sac when sac is northeast. not to mention all the points in between that id miss.
right now i have plenty of access to the east bay, stockton, the 80 corridor cities, but terrible access to south santa clara and monterey counties areas. by using pacheco we arent duplicating existing services, but bring new service to an unserved area.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
why would head south from sf to go to sac when sac is northeast
One would think so. The current Capitol Corridor route is about 55 miles shorter than the Altamont route. Now, the Coast Starlight makes the run from Sacramento to San Francisco in about 1:45, suggesting that, with a few billion in upgrades, an express could probably get about 1:15 along that route. Not too bad. But listen to this: by the CHSRA’s own numbers, you could get from SF to Sacramento via Altamont in just over an hour (better speeds really do count for a lot). So similar travel times, but guess what? You’ve just saved a few billion (at least!) dollars. And of course you could maintain some service along the existing route (though obviously less) to serve the intermediate stops.
The Gilroy/Monterey Bay region is definitely a question, although having an HSR station in Gilroy wouldn’t make it significantly easier for people in, say, SF, say, you and I, to reach the Monterey Bay Region. Though in truth, with all the money you’ve saved on Phase 2 + Altamont Overlay + CC Upgrades, you could probably upgrade the entire coast corridor to be time-competitive with driving.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
my point is that none of this matters. six one half doZen or the other. at some point ya pick a plan and go with it. the plan’s done been picked so lets get on with it already.
no matter what you do someone wont like it. and anyone who thinks that the altamont would be less fraught with problems than pacheco is kidding themselves. the bay crossing issues alone would be a giant can of worms. and the trains from altamont to san jose would go where again? from the pass to the bay and the pass to san jose theres nothing but untold mile after mile of residential nimby sprawl.
the altamont plan I would have supported would have been a single line from downtown oakland via 580 all the way out. oakland to los angeles via 580/99. but the proposed altamont mess. forget it.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
no matter what you do someone wont like it
Exactly. So you might as well choose the plan that costs less money in the long term.
Donk Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
I’m from LA and am fed up with hearing about Peninsula NIMBYs and all of the Pacheco and Altamont blather. Both sides make good points. You people just need to do the honorable thing and setup some sort of academic/athletic decathlon between both sides, and have the outcome determine who is right – it worked in Revenge of The Nerds, Old School, and Billy Madison.
What most people want is a way to get from SoCal to the San Jose area, the Palo Alto area, and SF, which are obviously the most important destinations in the Bay Area (at least for someone who is not from the Bay Area). I am sorry but most people just don’t give a rats ass about the East Bay or Sacramento.
However, if I were to pick, I would say build the Altamont route thru Fremont to SF, then just scrap HSR to SJ and force people to take BART from SJ and Oakland to Fremont. This will save even more money since we won’t have to get to San Jose (or Oakland), and we are already pouring billions into the BART extension. People in the Bay Area want BART so give them BART. This basically the same thing that West LA gets with the Purple and Expo Lines.
It is great that they tabled the Peninsula section for now and focused on the other parts with less whiners, because it is looking more and more like we are only going to get HSR to San Jose Diridon and Caltrain (or BART) from there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Altamont supporters assume that the Capitol Corridor route will never ever be upgraded. For instance that street running is Oakland is going to be there forever…
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
thatll be dealt with and speed upgrades are in the works.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
How much are those upgrades going to cost, and how much time will they save?
Reality Check Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
@jimsf: So what’s the plan & cost & schedule for “dealing with” the Oakland street running?
Caelestor Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
It’s very difficult to upgrade a route that winds along the coastside…
wu ming Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
grade-separating the route as it putters through valley cities,to say nothing of the oakland segment, would help a lot, even keeping the narrow curves from benicia-richmond.
wu ming Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
pacheco is better for sac than altamont boosters assume. first of all, an upgraded capitol corridor will probably be adequate for getting between sac and SF as it is, and services the 80 corridor nicely. the time difference between an altamont HSR and sped-up CC is negligible, but dropping pacheco has disadvantages as well to the sac-area rider. namely, instead of providing fast direct connection between san jose and sac (where there is a significant demand that is very poorly served by the capitol corridor at the moment, given its 3 hour running time), it skips san jose in favor of running through fremont, which is a less useful destination.
as a sac-area rider, my interests are best served in getting pacheco built ASAP, speeding up the CC, and getting sac connected to merced ASAP. tinkering with the sac-sf speed is secondary to linking my region into the new trunk line itself.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
The official Altamont alternative does too serve SJ. The split means the Sac-SJ frequency wouldn’t be the greatest, but with Pacheco the frequency would suck even more with a 1:30 trip time via Merced and Gilroy.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
For the beneift of those who won’t read the actual EIR, here are the travel times:
SAC-EMY via Amtrak Capitol: 1:40
SAC-SF via Amtrak+bus connection: 2:00
SAC-SF via Pachecho: 1:47
SAC-SF via Altamont: 1:06
In other words, Pacheco is barely better than the craptastic Amtrak Capitol Corridor service, whereas Altamont would be time-competitive with automobile. And for those who say CC corridor can be improved: tell us your amazing plan to shave 1hr off travel time without spending $10+ billion on a new bridge.
Oh, and here are the SAC-SJ travel times:
Altamont: 0:49
Pacheco: 1:18
Amtrak Capitol Corridor: 3:00
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 12:01 am
So upgrading CC is a impractical because it requires a new bridge across the bay but the new bridge across the bay required by the Altamont alignment isn’t an issue?
If crossing the bay costs $10b, then you’ve just shot your own argument in the foot.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Crossing the bay from SF to Oakland is quite different from crossing the bay at Dumbarton. Besides the obvious width of the crossing, the south end of the bay is a lot shallower, shallow enough that a bridge could be constructed pretty cheaply. You do have the wildlife refuge to worry about, but that can be mitigated without breaking the bank as well.
Also, upgrading the CC will require A LOT more then just a new bay crossing.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
my point wasnt about the engineering, but the politics, once you start doing anything that involves the bay. and the upgrades to cc, and I didnt think to look for the info today at work, but I think it has somthing to do with the completion of double tracking for the entire route, ( and all that work is done to my knowledge) and the soon coming implementation of something about train control that is a requirement. As for UP they have been extremely cooperative lately when it comes to amtrak california. AC and UP have been working together and communicating quite well. ( playing very nice if you will) as of late and lots is getting done. DOnt quote me but I could swear they actually plan to increase operating speeds on stretches of cc, above 79 once this train control thingy is done. Im sure thats what I read. So really no additional cost except train control.
you have to look at it from the states point of view. they have decided that hsr is for taking people from nocal to socal and ccjpa is to serve the reno-san jose corridor.
you can disagree with them, but thats where all this comes from. I can’t engage in woulda coulda shoulda, I can only deal with what is. and what is, is. There’s just no point in getting worked up. Even if I were to agree wholeheartedly with all the criticisms about AC and HSR and caltrans and every other thing in this state. what would be the point of worrying about it when it is what it is regardless of how i felt. Im happier to just go with, “ok fine, well wake me when its ready” Thats just me. I save my frustrations for the elliptical.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Wait, when did Sac-SJ become 1:18? The website says 1:24.
wu ming Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:48 am
the capitol corridor is already nearly time-competitive with automobile between sac and SF, when you factor in commute traffic. and god help you if your drive coincides with the weekend migration to and from tahoe. you don’t need to wrest an hour from the CC, even relatively small time improvements along the line will make it faster than driving.
HSR’s utility is more for north-south travel than sac-SF travel.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:05 am
exactly. altamont supporters ignore the obstacle like the bay crossings and wetlands and the new nimbys in teh eastbay, and the fact that theyd still have the menlo park nimbys anyway.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:49 am
even relatively small time improvements along the line will make it faster than driving
Exactly how much are those “relatively small” improvements going to cost, and exactly how much time are they going to save?
HSR’s utility is more for north-south travel than sac-SF travel
Let’s say, hypothetically, that Altamont was built, and that you are in SF and are trying to get to Sacramento. Now, you can either take the trains over Altamont, taking you about an hour if you catch an express, or you can take the CC because that other line is “better for north-south travel,” costing you an additional hour (maybe half an hour if we pour a few billion into the CC). Which will you choose?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Nonsense. CC mode-share is vanishingly close to zero in the I80 market. No amount of money will ever change this, as long as it is FRA-compliant museum trains held captive to UP.
wu ming Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 11:38 am
market share is related to a bunch of things, namely capacity, transit connections, frequency, ticket cost v. fuel cost, etc. i was speaking to time driving or riding, and when the commute is on it can be faster to take the train. speeding it up another 20-30 minutes would make it unambiguously faster. i’d love for it to be electrified and grade-separated the whole route, and the stupid FRA rules junked, but that’s a while off still.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
And how do you propose to do that?
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:12 am
the paln to speed up the ssjpa trip is a bit of news I stumbled across last week but I dont know where I saw it… somewhere in internal news it think. and it was something like 10 or 20 minutes between sac and emy.
the trip from emy to sf doesnt actually take the whole 20 mins. plus the advantage ( and people seem to prefer it) is that that shuttle drops off and picks up at several locations around town. When people come out fo the govt buildings at 5 near civic center, they have service from civic center direct to the train.
shoppers get dropped off in the heard of the retail district, and tourists get dropped off right at pier 39 and calrain riders get picked up in front of the caltrain station.
they like that. and this applies to the sjq trains and the 5,6 adn 11,14 as well. in fact its my understanding the route 99 ( the emy-sf route) is the oldest or longest running amtrak bus connection in the country. I rad that somewhere once.)
I have suggested making it only one stop to simplify things, but apparently its too popular the way it is. just sayin.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Even with A LOT of speed improvements, the CC doesn’t make sense for people in SJ. Even with Pacheco, HSR is more than twice as fast as the CC. With Altamont, the CC’s outlook is even more bleak.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:10 am
No it’s not. The Capitol Corridor provides more than service just between Sacramento and San Jose alone. It provides reliable service to many communities along the route. Additionally, they are planning on extending service to Roseville (hence adding an extra track between Sacramento and Roseville), in addition to likely providing service to Monterey County within a couple of years. That might mean that Caltrain will cease service to Gilroy, which would be just fine with me (they would have no excuse to keep their current diesel fleet running after electrification).
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I’m not saying that the CC should be eliminated entirely, just that Altamont is superior for SF-Sac and anything is better for SJ-Sac.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Altamont is longer, much longer for SF-Sac. It’s only “better” if you assume no upgrades to the Capitol Corridor route.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Even if you assume significant upgrades (shaving off half an hour), they come out about even. And not doing those upgrades saves you a few billion dollars.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Im still looking for details on PTC implementation. but there is mention here of purchasing the right of way outright from UP
The Proposition 1A (CA High Speed Rail) bonds, approved by California voters in the November 2008 general election, offer another potential funding source for the Capitol Corridor. Of the $9.95 billion allotted for the high speed train system, $190 million is designated for the State’s intercity rail corridors to connect with high speed trains. Each of the three existing corridors is to get $47.5 million, with the remaining $47.5 million to be allocated on a competitive basis. Currently, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) is developing guidelines to allocate these Proposition 1A bond funds to connecting intercity rail and mass transit services. The CCJPA is optimally positioned to be a distributor and connecting service to the high speed trains. As such, it has identified a list of track infrastructure projects between Sacramento and San Jose that will improve reliability, decrease travel times, and add Capitol Corridor trains to/from San Jose (a major high speed train terminal) and Sacramento (a later phase high speed intermodal terminal)
and something about dumbarton rail
As underscored in the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill, the CCJPA is a partner with other rail operators and local jurisdictions where we share a route. Most notably, the Dumbarton Rail project involves several communities and Caltrain as its lead. The project has been negatively impacted by rising cost estimates, while the MTC simultaneously modified the programmed funding for the project. At this time, $35 million remains in the project budget, which is the only funding available to purchase the portion of the track right-of-way along the Oakland Subdivision from the UPRR. The Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee (DRPAC) has authorized CCJPA staff to be the lead negotiator for the right-of-way purchase and the CCJPA Board has approved the CCJPA’s role. It is likely Federal funding will be a key component to address any funding shortfalls once negotiation has commenced
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Even if 30 minutes could be shaved (where!?) Altamont would is still be a good 30 minutes faster — and without all the horrible Amtrak delays.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Jim: Ten Year Vision for Capitol Corridor, page 18.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
what delays, ccjpa has in excess of 90percent otp. anyway, im just finding general plan info here not talking about speeding it up by 30 minutes as that is not the goal. the goal is improved and increased service throughout the corridor.
so i got this on the ptc short termCaltrans/CCJP A/ Union Pacific RR
Positive Train Control Upgrades: Train Equipment and Track Side$30M Federal Rail Safety Program; State funding sources (Prop 1B Transit Safety/Security Funds)
Overhaul of Capitol Corridor share of Intercity Passenger Train Fleet and share of costs for improvement to UPRR’s signal system for implementation of Positive Train Control system (estimated install 2013-2015)
and this on the oakland freight and auto interface longer term but still not a ton of detail.
Oakland Embarcadero Track Improvements 27mFederal Intercity Rail Program or State funding sources
Improve track layout between Oakland Jack London Station and Emeryville Station to allow for reduced conflicts with Port of Oakland rail traffic, and improve interface with vehicular traffic along Embarcadero
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
anyway theres a lot here in the updated version but theres a lot to filter though to find anything one might be interested in.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
and for those of us who wonder why agencies won’t cooperate more at least theres this positive effort…
The CCJPA has set forth and adopted a Train Service Policy supporting future extensions to new markets beyond the Capitol Corridor. It encourages partnerships between several passenger rail services and local/regional transportation agencies. The goal is to ensure that these proposed service extensions provide mutual cost savings through the use of joint facilities and equipment. In addition to the Capitol Corridor extension to Reno/Sparks and other proposed regional commuter rail services, the CCJPA has developed working relationships with:
• San Joaquin Corridor service • Amtrak National Network (California Zephyr and Coast Starlight) • Altamont Commuter Express service (Stockton – Livermore – San Jose) • Caltrain service (Gilroy – San Jose – San Francisco) • California High Speed Rail Authority • Proposed new passenger rail services to Monterey (Transportation Agency of Monterey),
Redding/Chico (Caltrans), Napa/Santa Rosa (Napa/Sonoma counties), and San Francisco- Los Angeles via the Coast Subdivision in Salinas/San Luis Obispo (Coast Rail Coordinating Council)
• Other service extensions/expansions within the Capitol Corridor as identified in current, ongoing interregional rail studies such as the MTC Regional Rail Plan
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Peter, thank you! there it is! • Years5‐10(2015‐2020) – Gain speed increases (90 ‐ 100 mph) after install of PTC yay!!!
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I seem to recall something about express trains on CC, too… Is that still in the works?
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
and as it relates to high speed rail, there’s this ( im not sure what they mean by “pulse” but ill assume its something good)
Years0‐2(2010‐2012) – Capital grants for design/environmental work to support
service expansions to San Jose and Placer County – Begin Oakland‐San Jose Phase 2 Expansion Program
• Years2‐5(2012‐2015) – Start Oakland‐San Jose Phase 2 service plan (22 trains) – Initiate construction of Sac‐Placer County service expansion – Begin planning for Oakland‐San Jose Phase 3 Expansion
• Years5‐10(2015‐2020) – Begin Oakland‐San Jose Phase 3 service plan (up to 32 trains) – Pulse schedule at San Jose with start of CA High Speed Trains
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
What does Amtrak define as on time? Even if that means less than five minutes, 90% isn’t great by international standards.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
what if anything that america does is great by international standards? no point in comparing apples with oranges. you have to judge by american standards, or better yet, california standards as its other parts of the cali transport pie that it competes with.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
“Pulse Schedule” refers to what could be timed platform transfers, i.e., several trains arriving at once to make connections, then departing at about the same time after making connections, and doing this on a regular basis, very often on a timed interval of a “pulse” every so many minutes or whatever the time unit is. Michael Setty and Leroy Demery can talk a great deal about such things, explaining them better than I can.
What I find interesting is that this specifically refers to San Jose, which I would take from reading here (I don’t live there, you know!), means that at least initially, the high-speed operation will be having to rely on a Caltrain connection at San Jose, with what I would assume would be a tightly coordinated schedule. Does this imply no direct HSR service to San Francisco, at least until 2020? Does this mean you will have to get off a high-speed train for a relatively short connecting ride into San Francisco on a diesel train? Does this mean electrification and/or grade separation of Caltrain is at least temporarily on the back burner?
Am I reading this correctly? Is there another interpretation?
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
So you think we don’t deserve a world-class transportation system?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
D.P. I’m assuming that they will be coordinating so that people along the Capitol Corridor route can transfer in San Jose. There’s a wye north of San Jose’s station. Trains to San Francisco take the western leg and trains to Oakland take the eastern leg. I’m assuming they are going to collect passengers from the East Bay and points towards Sacramento and deliver them to San Jose where they can transfer to southbound HSR trains ( or collect them at San Jose for their northbound trip ) Last time I looked the fastest way to get from Los Angeles to Sacramento, once SF-LA service is up and running, is to transfer to a Capitol Corridor train in San Jose.
Joey Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
(that was directed at jim)
and D. P. — don’t expect them to come up with anything as useful as a coordinated schedule, let alone a tightly coordinated one.
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
joey, one, no we don’t deserve a world class transportation system because americans have decided by the priorities that they don’t want one so Im not gonna force it on them. Im talking about realistic. How many times do I have to say it. I only deal with whats likely to happen, not what I wish would happen. I don’t have the strength to ve emotionally invested in what will be eventual disappointment. I just assume business as usual and that way I’m usually right.
as for not expecting “them” to come up with a coordinated schedule, i just freakin posted the part of the plan the cleary states that is their goal. Of the various rail agencies, ccjpa is probably one of the best run in the state, and the people there are experienced, they understand the need for doing such things. I have a more confidence in ccjpa, than any other agency frankly.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
D. P., there’s a Human Transit post about the subject called Finding Your Pulse. There are a couple of links there to articles explaining how this works in Switzerland, which has a world-class network of timed connections.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:13 am
Adirondacker, thanks for the comment about the wye–I’m not terribly familiar with California, and normally don’t comment on specifics for it for that reason, although I have some understanding of things about railroads in general. . .
Alon, thanks for that note about “Finding Your Pulse;” just looking at the link as it showed up here suggested to me it was about “finding your pulse,” i.e., medicine (i.e., the way search engines look things up just by words). And I’m glad you pointed out how almost the whole of the Swiss system is a pulsed system.
As to Joey and schedule coordination, well, we can hope and dream, can’t we? :-)
wu ming Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 11:40 am
agreed. HSR will basically replace sac-SJ CC traffic. there may still be a fair amount of east bay-south bay CC ridership, although if they ever get the damn BART extension built that would get soaked up by that, i’d imagine.
Caelestor Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
I agree that CC should still be upgraded. There’s a lot of traffic along I-80, and the communities from Oakland to Sacramento could use the improvements.
That said, there still would be no quick one-seat ride from SF to Sacramento unless another Transbay tube is built.
Rod Diridon absolutely needs to be on the authority board. He has been a tireless advocate for this project and has traveled the world promoting the idea of High Speed rail in California before there was ever a ballot measure.
Rod also has extensive experience in transportation projects and has a keen understanding of how the system will work. At the end of the day everyone who is a supporter of this project needs to ask themselves is the board stronger with Rod or without him?
I would say the board is much stronger having Rod as a member. He has the personality skills necessary to handle folks like Pringle and Crane. We need representation from San Jose and the Sliicon Valley. The fact that no one from the South Bay is not currently on the Board is a huge mistake for this project.
If all the other board members put in as much personal time as Rod and understood the complexities of this project I believe we would be even further along. At the end of the day this project is going to need the silicon valley folks to not only promote this project but help with the
economic plan. (I still say the authority Board needs to present a plan much like you would market a project to a venture capitalist)
Mike Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Yes, Diridon has been a good advocate for HSR, the project, and the San Jose/Silicon Valley area. But that is not what is needed at this point in the project. For all the love showered on Rod, he has zero expertise in transportation planning, engineering, or finance, nor would he claim to. His skill is in maneuvering local politics and in building local coalitions that will get projects done. While this talent is badly needed on the Peninsula, Rod has never been a powerhouse on the Peninsula, and he is positively toxic there now. It’s time for us to give him a big round of applause, thank him profusely for everything that he has done for the project, and start agitating to get a new Bay Area member on the Board, someone who can get things straightened out on the Peninsula with equal amounts of head-banging and kumbaya-love-sharing.
I have no idea who this person should be; maybe readers here would want to come up with some names.
Two nice articles this morning:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/09/3310406/farmers-say-itd-be-hard-to-cope.html
(apparently the bees will be disrupted, but the one farmer they chose to interview was completely reasonable about the whole thing), and:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-06/opinion/27013067_1_california-high-speed-rail-authority-peer-review-group-senate-transportation-committee
(just plain lazy journalism)
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:52 am
No, the last one isn’t lazy “journalism”, it’s an opinion piece by a known anti-rail activist.
Reality Check Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
An attorney who has been engaged to represent rabidly anti-HSR NIMBYs in Burlingame and other Peninsula hotbeds of NIMBYism.
datacruncher Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
The SacBee did not run the entire article as it was originally posted by the Fresno Bee. The part not posted by the SacBee includes comments about Madera County farmers lobbying for a UP route north of Fresno, comments from an attorney about eminent domain, etc.
The missing part of the article is at this link, which is page 3 of the Fresno Bee’s original article posting.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/01/08/2225457_p3/rail-project-worries-valley-farmers.html
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
They have concerns about problems with bee pollination due to wind vortices off the trains? Beyond 20 feet or so, there shouldn’t be any appreciable wind off the trains, am I right?
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
well according the news wind and bees are a bad combination.
OT: I just saw my first advertisement by the CHSRA on sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com. Wasn’t even on a page about HSR (it was on Brown’s proposed budget). Good to see they’re starting to get the word out.
OT: Holy Crikey – 2011-2012 Proposed Budget for CHSRA is $192,025,000 including $179,344,000 for Infrastructure Expenditures.
That’s … a surprisingly high amount.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Three quick comments:
1) This is inline with this year.
2) “Contruction” actually means engineering and environmental clearance
3) Don’t understand why Fresno- Bakersfield section so low http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/2000/2665/infrastructure.html
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
I just meant it was a surprisingly high amount in light of the fact that massive cuts were supposed to hit everything except K-12 education. Although other departments don’t have a $10 billion bond fund to fund their activities with.
My guess is that Fresno-Bakersfield is so low because there is little engineering work left to be done on it, and that the main challenge on it at this point is completing environmental clearance.
It looks as though the main priority right now is linking LAUS with San Jose. I think that’s a wise course of action. SF-SJ and LAUS-ANA are going to be more technically and politically challenging, so prioritizing construction of the “easier” sections seems pretty smart to me.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Half the money is coming from the feds.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
On first glance, the total is much lower than we would have expected.
Emma Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Huh? $192 million is the tip of the iceberg. It’s likely that the budget will peak at $2 billion and above at some point. And for a state government, it could have been more, even in a recession.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
As I stated above, it only seemed high in light of the fact that supposedly every other field other than K-12 education is slated to take a thumping.
Also,
Phase 2 (san Diego, sacramento and altamont) planning is zeroed out.
some good info here but still not what I found concerning upgrades other than mention of ptc and and 12 percent time reduction.