CHSRA Seeks Private Partners for Central Valley Route
The California High Speed Rail Authority is beginning the process of finding private partners to build the Central Valley high speed rail route between Fresno and Bakersfield:
Welcome to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s request for expressions of interest in designing and constructing the initial construction section in the Central Valley (or part thereof) and/or participating in the future design, construction, funding, operations and maintenance services for delivery and service of the first phase (or part thereof) of the California high-speed train project.
This is not a formal solicitation. The purpose of this request for expressions of interest is to assist the Authority in shaping its approach to the formal procurement process for elements of the project. Submissions will not be evaluated, and they are not a prerequisite for participating in the procurement process.
Respondents can expect to receive information regarding an industry forum to be held in Southern California in spring 2011 to further discuss private sector interest in the California high-speed train project.
Further details, as well as the process for responding, can be found in the request for expressions of interest, available for download below.
Interested parties have until March 16, 2011, to respond.
There is every reason to expect a lot of interest in this. Private companies have shown they are willing to bring money to the table to get the project built in Florida. They may well be willing to do the same in the Central Valley. And we will need to learn exactly what the proposed track segment will cost – the estimate is $5.5 billion.
We know that CARRD is suggesting the total project cost will be higher – $65 billion, not the estimated $43 billion – but their estimates are merely based on extrapolations, and as such merely remain estimates. The actual cost could be closer to the CHSRA estimate, closer to the CARRD estimate, or wildly higher than either one projects.
This RFEI is the first step in the process of finding out the answers to these questions. Later today I’ll take a closer look at the CARRD analysis – I hope they considered the cost of doing nothing, which as we know, is not zero. The private sector’s interest will also help us determine what level of confidence they have in the estimates. I have every reason to believe that level will be high.
Fresno is taking high-speed rail seriously. Fresno downtown plans published the 20 page High Speed Train Station Alternatives showing 3 alternatives for parking, mixed use development, and connecting streetcar lines. Planning for the Fulton Mall adjacent to the station site is also ongoing.
It’s not the private companies willing to finance, but foreign governments willing to finance in exchange for their companies landing contracts.
Matthew Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:45 am
The point of the article is that the CHSRA is soliciting people who will *build* the tracks, not finance the tracks. I expect that there are plenty of construction companies that want work.
datacruncher Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:54 am
It is more than track construction. The RFEI also is gauging other interest by asking for answers to questions like these, see page 18 of the RFEI at the link in the post:
“9. Indicate whether the Respondent would be interested in an Operating concession for the HST system passenger transportation for the Phase 1 Program (“TransCo”) taking some or all of the ridership risk. Details of any applicable schemes should be provided.
10. Indicate what percentage equity and private funding the Respondent would consider to invest in such “TransCo”.
11. Indicate whether, as a potential Operating Concessionaire, the Respondent would be willing to supply the rolling stock as well as maintenance facilities as part of their private investment into the project.”
datacruncher Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:58 am
I also meant to include from the RFEI these questions in relation to tracks and infrastructure, also on page 18.
“h) To gauge conceptual viability of pursuing private investment in the Phase 1 Program or components thereof, please provide brief responses to the following, ideally with justification and precedents if appropriate:
1. Indicate whether the Respondent would consider the concept of structuring an Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance agreement for the Phase 1 Program or component thereof (“InfraCo”) based on Availability and Milestone Payments with deductions for underperformance.
2. Indicate what percentage equity and private funding the Respondent would consider to invest in such “InfraCo”.”
Clem Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
That’ll be interesting.
Having a private consortium take on the entire ridership risk of a build-to-print system design imposed on them by Parsons Brinckerhoff (with concrete-maximizing but speed-killing obstacles like the San Jose iconic bridge, Gilroy trench-cum-sharp-curve-to-Pacheco, CV downtown aerials, Palmdale detour, etc.) will be a tall order. I would imagine such a consortium would be extremely interested in reducing trip times to the maximum extent possible, and that’s not really the primary focus of the design as currently dictated.
It would be interesting to do an analysis of the detailed alignments under consideration in the various AAs to tally up the trip time from SF to LA. Just like CARRD found that $65B > $43B, I would not be at all surprised if best trip time was now well above 2h38m, a timing that was arrived at using very optimistic assumptions about speed and train performance.
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I suggest the primary reason for private investment and involvement(even above getting the taxpayers somewhat off the hook for complete funding)is to inject business expertise and savoir faire. I honestly believe the venture capitalists would see a brighter future for a gadgetbahn like maglev than the CHSRA as presently conceived.
peninsula Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I was actually thinking about asking Elizabeth if CARRD had a new tally on total trip time yesterday, but assume that its more of a technical/engineering question (rather than a financial/business question which seems to be her area of knowledge)… The question is probably better suited for a smart technical guy, interested in truth, such as yourself.. Clem…..?
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
The only impediment to trip times is the fact that they’re planning on slowing down the trains through Gilroy (if they pick the aerial alignment) and possibly Morgan Hill to 300 km/h, last I heard. That wouldn’t be a problem, of course, if they picked Gilroy East.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Trains wouldn’t be able to get above 300 km/h in that short a segment anyway.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
What do you mean? Express trains would be going as full-tilt as noise and curvature allow through there.
Clem Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
They would, actually. Supposing curvature and noise are not constraints, an AGV-11 could start at Tamien at 50 mph, and hit 220 mph around Morgan Hill, just 20 miles out of Diridon. Coming down Pacheco the other way, there’s no question they could be going full tilt.
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Do you have a definitive equation for calculating this? I’ve been trying to get one for a while…
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Joey: yes. Clem, who’s in something applied, will tell you to numerically integrate a differential equation. I, who am in pure math, will tell you to do it exactly.
My way: figure out the train’s performance parameters from the datasheets. You’ll need the power-to-weight ratio, k kW/t; and the track resistance parameters: a m/s^2 (constant term, basically friction), b s^(-1) (linear term), and c s/m (quadratic term, i.e. air resistance). The time it takes to accelerate from speed u to v, both in m/s, assuming u is large enough for full motive power to be available, is given by the following formula, ready to be plugged into Wolfram Alpha:
int_u^v (x/(k – ax – bx^2 – cx^3))
The distance over which such acceleration takes place is:
int_u^v (x^2/(k – ax – bx^2 – cx^3))
The trick is then to figure out the constants. The data sheet will almost invariably tell you k. The rest are harder – both in the sense that they’re harder to find, and in the sense that they’re usually given in units of force, not acceleration, so you have to convert. The CAHSR technical memo contains the a and b values of several HSR trains, but it assumes a uniform c value, given in units of force. I think it works fine for a Velaro; for everything else, you have to convert again. You can also try to estimate it from published top speeds achieved in tests, e.g. 385 km/h for Velaro.
A bigger issue is that this method assumes level track, or at worst track with a constant grade, in which you’ll need to add grade resistance to a. For track with nontrivial grades and grade changes during the acceleration phase, you need to be fancier and break it into segments (doable with something like Pacheco, not with track with frequent grade changes), or do it numerically. As someone whose highest grade in a computational class was a B+, I would do anything to avoid numerical computations. Your mileage may vary.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 1:00 am
And of course, I made an error in dimensions. Replace the relevant item with c m^(-1).
Clem Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 8:37 am
That’s where you see the practical limitations of analytical solutions… grade variation and the non-linear behavior of braking deceleration is something that numerical integration takes into account without additional difficulty.
Nadia Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Trip time is definitely not something CARRD has calculated. Is the Authority crunching those numbers and if so, what are they?
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
That we have to ask CARRD or Clem for these answers is kind of funny.
Clem Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The easy part is the numerical integration of differential equations. The hard part is getting accurate elevation and curvature data… that requires lots of sleuthing through CHSRA maps, measurements in Google Earth, etc. I don’t have the appetite for that right now, but someone should definitely compile that data set. Once the data set is built, it is relatively straightforward to accurately simulate the performance of various train types. If there’s a GIS expert out there willing to put together the data, I’ll be happy to crunch the numbers.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
The sad thing is that some maps put out by the HSRA’s contractors include curve radii, but others don’t. Beats me why they wouldn’t include that on all maps.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Getting curve radii from a map is pretty easy. I routinely eyeball these on Google Earth (=figure out beginning and end of curve, and compute arc distance and change in azimuth), and the numbers are within a few tens of meters of what I get when I apply a circle generator.
Elevation is the tricky part.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Still, it can’t be difficult for the people designing the damn things to put on there what the bloody radius is. THEY know it, so why not just make it available?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Because that would make too much sense.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Because they have 8 different prime contractors, which is kind of the definition of insanity. (Which is why coordination and communication are not going so well.)
Victor Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
It’s a Huge project, So 8 sounds ok, Hoover Dam needed three different contractors to combine to do the Job, The 3 were named Three Companies… So 8 doesn’t seem to be too big, You’re just thinking too small.
Actually the two You cite are cause of a lack of staff, Cause the CHSRA has been kept small by the Legislature, Which is really why coordination and communication were not going so well, Van Ark has been working to fix that.
Nadia Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:54 am
@Victor – at a recent meeting it was announced they have 604 full time consultants.
CARRD has supported the Authority getting more staff – but only once they get rid of some of the consultants. It is PB’s job to coordinate those contractors.
Victor Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 8:53 am
It seems Parsons Brinckerhoff has built more than a few transit systems according to the Wiki.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 3:57 am
PB has built many projects, but outside the US it’s supervised by people who care about cost control more. The same is true for Skanska, which is doing good enough work in Europe to get more contracts but is fleecing the US and Latin America. Ultimately the consultant chosen matters a lot less than whether the local political structure encourages low or high costs.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Especially with this ARRA basically funded section it will be people wanting to build it… not finance it ,That will come in the later segments and with the trainsets and possibly the power infrastructure. I would say good segment that we totally 100% private finance will be the Bakersfield to LA segment if Obama’s plan does not come thru.
Useless Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
@ Matthew Reply
> The point of the article is that the CHSRA is soliciting people who will *build* the tracks, not finance the tracks. I expect that there are plenty of construction companies that want work.
Keyword “funding” says otherwise.
The thing is, tens of billions of financing from somewhere is required for SF-LA corridor, and this kind of financing is beyond the means of private companies and only sovereign entities could provide that kind of amount, on the condition of it being a complete package deal(companies originating from the foreign country providing the financing takes it all, from track construction to equipment supply and maintenance contracts)
This would mean that the primary contractor of CA HSR system would certainly be Asian, because European and Canadian governments are unwilling to provide such financing.
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Which would likely mean Japan. This could be a good thing if the Japanese insisted on a profound, no sacred cows, agonizing reappraisal of the whole project from A to Z.
James Fujita Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
letsee… keep high speed trains separate from conventional rail. *check*
public-private partnerships *check*
aerials through populated areas *check*
group harmonics is more important than individual NIMBYs *check*
“We will take Tolmach-san’s opinions under consideration” **proceeds to build tunnels through Tehachapi and tracks over Pacheco**
I don’t see a problem here…. domo arigato, synonymouse-kun ^_^
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
More like:
Fast enough to compete with airlines and make money?
…Sound of samurai sword coming down hard on neck of sacred cows.
Ah, California, home of Hollywood, very good place to demonstrate 300+mph maglev, tech of the future.
btw I have gotta see the new sci-fi being trailered on tv – how can someone from the Bay area not enjoy a flick with aliens just trashing LaLa. Even Craig Ferguson complains why does LA have to be so ugly. “With our aerials you too can be as ugly as Burbank” Go PB
James Fujita Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
gomen nasai, synonymouse-kun, but bullet train planning team has already made decision. Train will go where passengers in Palmdale and Central Valley are. That is wise choice, yes?
Tolmach-san is not being team player. Tolmach-san not even on organizational chart.
please consider that maglev is very expensive alternative. we will consider it when bullet train is running full and when California has better rail transit.
again, my apologies.
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Let’s build maglev on the Caltrain corridor. Then none of it will be at-grade.
James Fujita Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
ke ke ke ke! ah Spokker-kun, always good for laugh, ne? ^_^
but would maglev stop at every station?
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I don’t know what maglev would do, but talk about gold-plated stilt-a-rail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
just because the the Chinese decided to place alllllll 30km of the only revenue service magleve train on stilts doesn’t mean it has to be on stilts everywhere.
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Some guy from the Maglev Coalition says we can build maglev for $10 million per mile. Let’s get this party started.
James Fujita Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
@ adirondacker: okay, I’ll bite. what would a maglev grade crossing look like?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
There won’t be any grade crossings on a maglev line. There won’t be any on the high speed part of a conventional line. That’s doesn’t mean the tracks have to be on stilts. They can sit on the ground .
Alon Levy Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Siemens’ Transrapid is meant to be all-elevated. Siemens even cites the low footprint of the stilts as an advantage.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
While Transrapid is the only one ever built that carries ticket holding passengers, that doesn’t mean maglev trains have to be on stilts.
synonymouse Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I suspect one could build a monorail more or less at surface level. The issue here is that PB seems to be totally out of control with the concrete thing – the infrastructure is so overblown and overbuilt and so expensive you might as well take the next step – quantum leap if you wish – and move on up to maglev. What’s to lose, since the CHSRA does not want to interface with other operations,a nd there is much to gain. Like maybe 100 mph faster. Plus lighter and so much more techno sex appeal. Just the pure tourist novelty business will be substantial.
Something to think about – unless you are ready to crack down on PB’s excesses.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
I did think about it. Your post made my head explode.
wu ming Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
LOL you’re killing me with the -kun stuff, james.
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Makes me wanna drop another bomb and finish the job.
Alex2000 Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
no funny. not called for….
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
seems like that’s par for the course. when in doubt, tell a bad joke. or a joke in bad taste. right, Spokker-kun?
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“I’m a niiiice guyyyy!”
Gotta love Fox news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jijn9FLqC3I
Victor Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
No surprise there, Fox doesn’t really like Rail, Vice President Biden did make a valid point, People wait or are delayed at Airports for hours and yet their delayed for 5 minutes and they still scream and bitch? Some people really don’t know when to can It, I’d take a 5 minute delay over a few hours any day, But then I’m not spoiled rotten like some people clearly are.
mrcawfee Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
in watching that they never claimed that rail was bad at all, nor the standard “no one will use it” argument. It really seemed like most of it was a “unions=bad” rant
Robert,
Our analysis is not based “merely on extrapolation”. Our analysis is primarily based on significant differences between the actual project and the project that was priced out in 2009.
We are in complete agreement that it would be better to have the actual numbers that the Authority is using rather than our “extrapoloation” but they have chosen to keep that row in the excel spreadsheet hidden.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
How did you arrive at that extrapolation? I’m not seeing it in the documents you posted.
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
They compared the 2009 estimates to the RFEI. The RFEI doesn’t have cost information but does have unit information. The RFEI simply has more units (i.e. stuff that needs to be constructed).
Of course, that’s the theory. There may be other reasons for why the units are different, and that’s up to the CHSRA to let us know.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
It seems slapdash and not very accurate. I’d like to see someone go out and price all these materials, labor, etc. Extrapolation strikes me as not particularly reliable – and that goes for everyone, not just CARRD.
For example, assessments of peak oil take into account observed rates of oil usage, evidence of production capacity from existing producers, known reservers, EROEI, etc. It’s pretty rigorous stuff, and is endlessly debated.
This $65 billion number just seems designed to make the project look bad. And the fact that it lacks a comparative perspective – the cost of doing nothing – is even more concerning.
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I imagine they took the RFEI and multiplied the units with the 2009 unit prices and came to $63 billion. That’s my theory, though. I don’t know what they did specifically.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Robert writes, “I’d like to see someone go out and price all these materials, labor, etc.”
I’d like to see the HSRA go out and price all this themselves, if they haven’t already. Then I’d like them to fill in the rest of us. This is exactly the point where I entered the conversation.
Don’t understand why you’re not demanding the same of them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Like there won’t be cost escalation for the alternative road building and airport construction to provide similar capacity if HSR isn’t built.
Clem Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
The RFEI is too new to matter in this debate. If I understand correctly, CARRD tallied up the costs provided in the voluminous appendices of the numerous alternatives analyses that have already been published, as well as the ARRA grant applications which were predicated on providing semi-reliable costing information to the feds. The least difficult, piece-of-cake CV section costs went through the roof because everything is inexorably evolving towards a Stilt-a-Rail concrete orgy. Nobody’s extrapolating anything about that.
You can cast doubt on the $65 B figure, but the $43 B is laughable.
Elizabeth Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
That is more or less it. The RFEI was a happy coincidence – the HSRA cut and pasted together most of the relevant pages from the AA and actually gave some units in the appendix. This was a task we had set ourselves but now we don’t have to do it.
The ARRA grant apps (on the CHSRA website) have some specific budget spreadsheets, which show exactly what is included and at what cost and what is not.
We got the original 2009 spreadsheet in April 2010. We knew then that the project priced out was VERY VERY different (and cheaper, across the board except for Anaheim) than the one being presented to the board in the AAs, but we were busy with other stuff and we assumed there would be another update to the biz plan.
For most sections, we looked at costs a couple of ways – units x unit costs, taking ARRA budgets and adding back the missing elements (electrification etc), and really rough cost per mile based on which other sections it resembled. For the numbers where we had the lowest level of certainty (the non-ARRA segments), we went on the low side.
No, it is not perfect but it is in the right ballpark at least.
You can spend your energy trying to pick apart our effort or you can ask the Authority to publish new cost estimates. Or do your own !
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/contact.aspx
And in the meantime, the Capitol Corridor sets new ridership threshold . It also carried 1.62 million riders in the last 12 months. If the Capitol Corridor can carry that many passengers in a year, imagine how many millions more the SF-LA hish speed rail line will carry!!
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Nobody will ride it.
Since there are people on trains today and people will probably ride high speed rail, the implication is that the people using the service are nobodies.
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I’m a nobody. Does that mean I get to ride it?
Joey Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Amazing! That’s almost as many as Millbrae BART!
Peter Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Pretty frakkin good for only 32 trains per day, some of which only go between Oakland and Sacramento…
Eric M Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
I still like this though, even though it is a few years old. BART ridership at 100 million riders a year!!
Oops, I messes up the link. Here it is again:
100 Million Annual Riders!!!!!
Eric M Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
and this should be a reply to my reply above ^^^^^^
Spokker Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Damn you’re just fucking up all over the place tonight. Take some posting classes and come back with some Internet skills, my friend.
Eric M Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:54 am
I was in a hurry last night. I definitely was all over the place. LOL
Eric M Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:56 am
And nice link for your name too!! LMAO
speaking of PPPs, it looks like the ayn rand crowd has learned to stop worrying and love the HSR.
Caltrain has released their draft schedule effective July 2nd, 2011.
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Public/48TrainScheduleDRAFT_02-09-2011.pdf.
I’ve got a solution. Pull up the tracks and build a bike trail. That way the homeless guys have someplace to sleep.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 7:22 am
wow. that is not even acceptable at all.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Not really much to run!! guess I will be staying all day when I go to Stanford ..this has got to be a worst case/shock everyone schdule
Spokker Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:41 am
Yeah, they are going to cut the trains that have more conductors than riders.
I kid, I kid.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 7:54 am
NO HSR and run they can run a better schedule than this lame one.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 8:02 am
Id rather see one train per hour with longer trains, and earlier and certainly much later, operation times.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Forgive me for saying this, but you need to ride something other than Amtrak once in a while. Hourly services don’t work for commuter systems because peoples’ schedules aren’t that rigid. If you miss one train, you’re stuck waiting an hour for the next one, and moreover, that model doesn’t fit many schedules. For instance, you might be required to go into work nearly an hour early just because the next train might make you late. Given such an incredible lack of flexibility, most people will just drive, even if it means waiting in traffic. So congratulations, you’ve successfully managed to kill 75% of CalTrain’s ridership.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Yes, a minimum half hour service in peak hour for commuter services is really important, and ideal is at least three service per hour through the day and four or five in the peak.
That has to be taken into account if thinking of a two track interim before completing dedicated express tracks through the Peninsula.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
well I rarely use it and when I do its never at rush hour. It might be a midday trip. And I’m thinking more of the nightlife people. I don’t want the drunks on the road. Better to use caltrain to shuttle fun lovers for evenings and games and big events. Let the commuters drive I guess. I don’t drive so I guess I don’t care about traffic really. But I get what you are saying. The thing is, if the people along this corridor want good service, they are going to have to step up and figure out a more stable funding source and it sounds to me that its the management at caltrain that failed to see this coming, and has failed, over the decades, to come up with a feasible funding plan, to push in sac, or to work with the counties, or whatever. The entire responsibility lies with them. That was there JOB and now they’ve run it into the ground. I’d just give the whole mess to bart and let them salvage it.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
no offense Jim, but I don’t think you nor the weekend karaoke crowd are Caltrain’s core audience.
And as tempting as “shut down and restart” sounds, I suspect the “shut down” part would be easier than the “restart”.
And what would BART do with it?
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
well, whats caltrain gonna do with it? I think bart has money at least.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
The trouble with BART is that the technology is completely proprietary. The only bit which isn’t is the Clipper Card, and to my knowledge, BART doesn’t own that.
IF IF IF… BART were standard gauge and overhead wired, you could do some interesting things for the right amount of money.
Electrify CalTrain, and have Millbrae be a direct link between the two commuter train systems — the West Coast equivalent to Wakoshi, where the difference between an inbound Yurakucho subway train and a Tobu Tojo commuter train is the route (and number of stops, and the paint job).
I won’t pretend that this would be cheap or easy, but it would be possible IF…..
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am
The Clipper technology is totally proprietary. It’s just owned by Cubic instead of BART. Oh, Suica, I hardly knew ye…
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
the Suica in Tokyo is based on technology from Sony, as is the ICOCA card in Kansai, which is why the cards can interchange with each other.
The Clipper Card technology is owned by Cubic, but it was originally developed by Motorola. Los Angeles’ TAP is also Cubic, and most transit smart cards in the United States use a Cubic-chipped card.
so yeah, it’s proprietary, but it’s proprietary tech that’s sold to whoever wants it. There’s no reason why CUBIC couldn’t make Clipper, TAP and San Diego’s Compass compatible.
It’s all RFID technology no matter who owns it.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
No, the frequencies and such are a proprietary, Cubic-owned implementation. Which is not true of FeliCa, which is open, or the ISO standard used by MIFARE and Calypso.
And while most cards are Cubic if you count agencies, if you count riders then the majority of people ride in New York, which is using a MasterCard-owned implementation compatible with the ISO standard but requiring you to use your credit card (can’t do anything without kickbacks), and of the rest, many are in Chicago, which doesn’t like its Cubic card and is planning to switch to something compatible with New York.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
maybe the fares are too low compared to the cost of driving to the city for work. Parking downtown is about 28 bucks a day in the garages. The lowest in the faraway lots is 10 bucks a day and those are limited. So the min. fare should be ten bucks one way.
Oakland to San Jose on ccjpa is 15 bucks
SAn Francisco to San Jose on caltrain is only 8.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
A monthly unlimited from OKJ to SJC on CCJPA is 240.00
A monthly unlimited from SFP to SJC on Caltrain is only 112.50
no wonder they are broke.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
correction. thats the discount price. The caltrain monthly is 225.
still lower than the ccjpa monthly. They should both be 240. In fact, sf is the higher demand, so they could charge even more for the caltrain monthly.
It should be 300. Thats 75 bucks a week. You cant drive to the city from san jose for 75 bucks a week.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Like the Capitol Corridor (and most public transportation), CalTrain is funded partially by farebox revenue and partially by taxpayer subsidies. The difference is that CalTrain’s source of subsidies has nearly disappeared.
jimsf Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
but how did they allow this to happen. wasn’t anyone paying attention? Theyd better find some.
Joey Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Okay. So CalTrain is normally funded by contributions from its member agencies, MUNI, SamTrans, and VTA. Not a specified amount, but this model generally provided whatever operating funds CalTrain needed. Now, as you may be aware, all three agencies are facing huge budget shortfalls, and have decided to stop funding CalTrain. I suppose no one noticed because it wasn’t a problem until recently. What they need is a dedicated funding source, like BART (which has its own dedicated taxes).
Clem Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Maybe one train a day. And go back to jointed rail and hat checks. I think Amtrak’s chances of winning the next operating contract are vanishing…
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Complicating the issue is the emerging public perception of private transportation companies. Veolia is taking the brunt of the blame for the Chatsworth wreck as their engineer caused it. I felt it had less to do with a lax culture of safety than with a guy who began to act irresponsibly in his career, which led to the accident, but my opinion is often very distant from consensus.
In any case, Amtrak won Metrolink’s contract after Veolia got the boot. If a private company wants to operate Caltrain, they will have to prove that they are going to put safety ahead of profits.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Given that they were also involved with the accident in Germany recently, their poor safety record continues to look poorer. Incidentally, the freight train involved there was also operated by a private operator.
Clem Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
The German wreck was caused by the freight train engineer. Veolia had nothing to do with it.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Then I retract my statement, I was misinformed.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Where by “involved with the accident in Germany recently” you of course mean “in no way at fault”.
Even by the abysmal standards of evidence, statistical reasoning, inference, and outright misrepresetnation that are de rigeur for this blog’s contributors and comments, this is quite something.
Just think: if only your BART/VTA pals, not evil Veolia, had been awarded the HarzElbeExpress passenger service operating contract it would have been impossible (somehow) for somebody else’s freight train to have blown through several reds.
Peter Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
See my above reply to Clem.
In the meantime, again, try being less of an asshole.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
it depends on the private company. Why is Veolia the only company we ever hear about?
Crazy thought, but Caltrain should ask around. Ask Kintetsu if they would be interested. They build and operate commuter railways in Japan, they build light rail vehicles for the U.S. (as Kinki Sharyo) and their support may be key to the Regional Connector (as owner of the Miyako Hotel, one of the major business players in Little Tokyo).
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Haha, enough about Japan. It’s a crazy, racist and weird ass xenophobic, superstitious country, America’s problems notwithstanding. Among first-world nations, their culture is the absolute worst.
swing hanger Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
With that comment, you lose all credibility, what little you had previously.
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
You lose credibility when you treat Japan like any other country and don’t put it on a pedestal? Right on.
The Japanphiles are as bad as the Parisphiles.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
you know, I think I like this reply better than my own. Thanks, swing hanger.
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Dude, you called Japan crazy, racist, weird ass xenophobic, superstitious and the worst culture in the first world.
First of all, that’s xenophobic in its own right, or at least racist/ nationalist.
But more importantly, how does any of that relate to rail transit?
Spokker Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:08 am
It would be nationalist if I propped up another nation while putting Japan down. I despise nationalism.
Here’s how it relates to rail transit. You go on and on about Japanese companies and the Japanese railways. I like them too, but you conveniently forget differences between the two nations that are going to dictate how differently we build up our own railways compared to theirs.
The most glaring omission from your comments is that you forget about Japan’s legendary population density. Throw darts at any two points on a map of Tokyo and build a rail line between the two. Chances are that you are going to do fairly well. It isn’t just a cultural difference where trains are just a fact of life in Japan, but statistically there are probably going to be more people around at any given railway station. It’s just easier to attract customers.
California’s population density is nothing to sneeze at, and while I get annoyed when people say “the car is king in California,” it cannot be discounted. Throw down a Japanese style rail system (or by extension a Taiwanese rail system that’s 75% aerial) and you’re going to waste a lot of money. Robert is right to make comparisons to Spanish high speed rail. It isn’t a perfect comparison but makes more sense than bringing up Japanese railways every other post.
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:21 am
*shrug* People have a tendency to relate to that which with they are familiar.
In my case, when it comes to rail transit, that happens to be Japanese rail. It’s a good thing, too, because if the Japanese rail system weren’t so amazing compared to California’s, I probably wouldn’t have become a rail transit fan and a rail transit advocate. I was taken by the rail transit sytem.
Japan is not a perfect comparison, but there are things about the Japanese rail system which I think we can afford to imitate, or perhaps even improve upon. Los Angeles is currently building a rail transit system. When Tokyo built its subway system, it put stations directly underneath buildings. That’s a great idea. SUICA is a great idea.
You don’t agree with me on fare gates, so maybe that’s a sticking point.
If California is to be more rail-oriented and more car-oriented, it may have to grow more dense. Some people will have a problem with that; those are the people we routinely label “NIMBY”, but it is the density, and not just the trains that they oppose. Rail-oriented growth is denser than car-oriented growth.
Are we willing to accept denser growth? I am. In the Central Valley, denser growth would mean less farmland taken, in cities it could mean more parkland (Japan may be ridiculously dense, but they have some fairly large parks/ shrines/ castle land).
We won’t be Japan. But we can’t ignore Japan, because the California we are trying to build will be more like Japan in the future.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 8:56 am
The delicious irony of Spokker’s gallows humor is that most of the time he says what everyone is thinking but is perhaps afraid to say.
This time, I found what he said to be just too tangential a point. It’s true that Japan has incredible population density–in her cities. But there are places in Japan just like California that are sparsely populated or almost “empty”. Secondly, and this is a point that we will likely talk about at length over the next few months the advantage of Japan’s expertise is that it’s a country about the same size as California…and in the same general shape. That means that their technology has been in some sense influenced by the physical environment involved, and the same environment has influenced its personnel, it’s management style etc. Is this enough to give them a prohibitive advantage? That remains to be seen….but the key thing to realize we you look at a map is that Spain, France, China and other have successful systems, but they have population distribution that doesn’t match ours necessarily. Japan, although not analogous, is pretty close.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Japan’s expertise is that it’s a country about the same size as California…and in the same general shape.
Meh. The Northeast Corridor is the same general shape and size. The end result was very different .
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 10:01 am
people seem to think that the suburb is a uniquely American phenomenon, and of course it isn’t. If you head out beyond Tokyo to Saitama or Chiba prefectures, and you will find small towns that used to be farm towns, or local manufacturing centers or even minor castle towns, and these towns are growing into Tokyo suburbs.
what’s interesting about these places, from a rail transit advocate point-of-view, is the degree to which the growth of these towns, and their density, was and remains influenced by where the local train station was placed. (of course, there are still rice farms and empty land between the Japanese suburbs)
development will follow rail construction, and trains can encourage density. there’s the lesson there for California, especially the areas which haven’t yet reached full growth potential.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 10:25 am
The pre WWII suburbs in California, most of which are still there and still suburban, clustered around the train station. I’m sure you’ve heard of a few like Palo Alto….
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 11:59 am
The main expertise of Japan is not the shape, which is quite different on the details from California. (For one, California requires three long tunneled sections, but is flat everywhere else and does not need as much tunneling overall.) It’s that it has decades of experience running trains safely, and has perfected the technology, if not the construction methods, far beyond what anyone in Europe has done so far.
Risenmessiah Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
The Germans, Chinese, Spanish, and French all built great systems that serve convex shaped nations that can or will huddle around a single capital. The Japanese have a long, thin country that required not a multitude of line running this way or that…but essentially one long line stretch from end to end. That’s what California has to build, even if it adds a little more capacity as time goes on.
Japanese thinking, technology, and experience all goes back to that need for a thin, long, line, not a hub of lines radiating out from a central capital.
Joey Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Germany is highly polycentric, and the Chinese network is definitely not centered on Beijing. But you’re right in that the orientation of the Japanese network is similar to that of California’s. What’s quite different is the terrain – in Japan, you’re either crossing mountains, dense urban areas, or both. Contrast to California’s farmland, desert, and suburban sprawl.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Dude. I’m glad you at least acknowledged that America has problems. Because there are plenty of “crazy, racist and weird ass xenophobic” Americans out there who wouldn’t touch a taco because it comes from that country below us.
As for the absolute worst first-world culture….. that’s entirely subjective.
What I can tell you is it’s entirely possible to get from Narita International Airport to the Nara Deer Park without getting into a car, bus or taxi for a reasonable price and just about any time of day, any time of year, and that’s something truly AMAZING. Tokyo is ridiculously walkable, and definitely bicyclable, and that’s a wonderful thing.
So yeah, maybe I do go a little crazy on the Japan. There’s plenty about the Japanese rail system that we would love to imitate.
Hey, at least I’m not beating dead horse topics. Or obsessing on steam locomotives.
Spokker Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
People go on and on about Japanese people being so polite and so clean and so industrious.
I went over there and the people weren’t any more polite than Americans, there was graffiti and litter and plenty of homeless. In fact, salary go to the park and pretend to be working so their wives don’t find out they got laid off because of a decade of stagnant growth.
Japanese people go crazy when they visit Paris and it wasn’t all they thought it would be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
Tokyo didn’t quite make me go crazy, but I didn’t gloss over its problems and praise it as every single opportunity.
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Is Japan perfect? No. Does Japan have problems? Yes.
Do they have a first-class rail system? Yes, yes, yes.
As for polite…. man, politeness is a two-way street. I don’t know what sort of traveler you are, but I know that people respond to rudeness no matter where you are.
Oh, and my very Japanese father was a Francophile. He loved Paris, didn’t go crazy if he encountered dirt, homeless people or rude waiters. It was just “c’est la vie” for him.
wu ming Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:09 am
where you went off the rails, spokker, is when you stopped talking about trains and started trying to make huge generalizations about whole nations.
stick to comparisons of the rail networks. the rest is noise at best.
synonymouse Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“they are interested in loaning us money and getting paid back with interest.”
That is precisely the issue with private(or sovereign)financing. The CHSRA scheme cannot be profitable and will require taxpayer-derived operating subsidies as it is. To pay off private financing you will have to tap the taxpayers even more.
Even with the optimal Tejon-I-5-Altamont route “standard” hsr will be hard pressed to even break even, imho. Maglev would fare better financially and really ought to be considered if you can’t get rid of PB.
This is where the TRAC-Tolmach fill the gap between Bakersfield and LA via Tejon proposal comes in. Between the feds and the state and bonds you can come up with the financing for this project and the operating subsidies will be more or less in line with current levels. Cope-able, in other words. After that build your quasi-TEE incrementally as monies come forth., perhaps with new trackage(as in I-5).
Electrification is desirable, but expensive and the biggest drawback is what do you do about existing passenger service on diesel freight rr’s both instate and in neighboring states. Approach the freight railroads about electrification, with incentives.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Electrification is desirable, but expensive and the biggest drawback is what do you do about existing passenger service on diesel freight
It’s not a insurmountable problem. Railroads have been coping with it or it’s variant, what to do with the steam trains where the electrification starts, for a century.
swing hanger Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:09 am
Spokker, this blog is about HSR and its associated aspects. Japan does this well, that’s indisputable- not perfect, but very well nonetheless. I’m well aware that Japan has many problems, just like any other country in the world. By holding up Japan as an example (on a pedestal in your words) when talking about rail transport is not being a “Japanophile”- it’s being realistic. Now James’ cheerleading may be tiring sometimes, but I think it’s just like Jim’s francophilia- just ignore it if you don’t like it. Jokes about the a-bomb are not relevant here.
Spokker Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Hey, I’m just saying, maybe the radiation fried their DNA and made schoolgirl panties a desirable commodity. I applied for a permit and hope to have my business up and running soon.
(Yes, yes, I know there was a public outcry against the practice, but it’s a joke, you see.)
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:23 am
If I cheerlead a bit, it’s only because I care. I do apologize if it gets to be a bit much.
I have yet to see Spokker apologize for any of his off-color comments.
Spokker Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Good James. Now drop your pants and fire a rocket.
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:45 am
Spokker, I have no idea what you’re getting at???????
==
I could seriously care less about 9/10ths of Spokker’s jokes. I don’t even expect an apology anymore. I know guys who say the f-word every third word and a cluster-f-bomb every fifth. “Atomic bomb” crossed a line, but I wasn’t going to say anything about it. “Xenophobic” crossed a line but I see that he was pushing a button on my half-Japanese heritage. Fine.
Japanese railways are relevant, because I would love to see California get half of what Japan has, and Japan sounds interested in helping us achieve at least one of our goals. If I’m going to cheerlead, it’s going to be in Japan’s general direction.
Spokker Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:46 am
You forget the economics of dark humor. The likelihood of lost wages, relationships and public scorn is a direct function of the instances, funniness and edginess of the humor for a given context. I’m not sure whether to call it a linear function or an exponential function, but it’s positive for duration and edginess and negative for funniness. Since the context is often misunderstood anyway, I disregard it.
Edgy jokes fall on a scale from “white men can’t jump” to “dead baby joke.” Instances is measured in punchlines. A long joke about a dead hooker and a one liner both count as one punchline. Racial jokes increase the likelihood of consequences the most, with religious and sexual jokes bringing up the rear. Funniness is difficult to measure because it’s so objective. It could be a binary variable, where funniness=0 if you got fired and 1 if you didn’t. But since bosses often have little tolerance for offensive jokes, this metric is somewhat meaningless in an office setting.
The likelihood of suffering consequences is also related to the tolerance to offensive jokes of an individual or public. Both can cause you trouble. This function increases but at a decreasing rate, suggesting people eventually reach their rage threshold.
There are many other variables, such as whether or not you are doing a character, but it complicates the model.
I wonder, though, if you could quantify the damage done by offensive humor (lost salary, ad revenue due to boycotts) by taking high-profile incidents of celebrities saying offensive things and running a regression of how offensive the joke was, how funny it was, whether the person was doing a character, etc. This happens a lot in radio, where the DJ says something and they get fired. I wonder if I could ever say, “Increasing the offensiveness of a joke from 7 to 8 on the Spokker Offensiveness Scale results in a negative decrease in ad revenue of 8% because some woman complained to Yoplait.”
By the way, if you could care less, that means you care now. And Japan is not interested in helping us, they are interested in loaning us money and getting paid back with interest.
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 4:14 am
“Why is Veolia the only company we ever hear about?”
Just because it’s the world’s largest private transit operator.
James Fujita Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Fair enough, as large companies often get more media exposure. However, largest is not always the same as the best. Otherwise, McDonald’s would be the best hamburger on Earth.
Of course, hamburgers are subjective to one’s own taste, while transit is not. I simply question whether Veolia the best option, or the only option available. Do transit operators cast wide nets, or do they go for the usual suspects?
Mind you, I have nothing against Veolia, but I do wonder if they are the “only game in town.”
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Veolia has the reputation of operating with little or no funding from municipalities. The Dublin “Luas” light-rail system even makes a profit. It is the company SNCF unions love to hate. They say it cuts costs by sacrificing safety, but nothing has proved their point, so far.
Veolia has lost several big contracts in the UK, France, Sweden and Holland under pressure from human rights group because of its involvement with transit linking illegal settlements in Israel.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
It’s the world’s largest transnational private operator, maybe. The largest private operators are the JRs and the big private railroads in Japan. The MTR is stuck somewhere in there, too. (The MTR is starting to become transnational like Veolia, but its core operation is still the Hong Kong system, which it runs like it did before privatization.)
Veolia is most certainly not the only option available. The UK has a zillion, of which the one you’re most likely to have heard of is Virgin Trains. Germany and Switzerland have many as well.
Reps Mica and Denham will hold a Transportation Bill “listening event” in Fresno on Feb 22. The public is invited to attend and can RSVP to Denham’s Fresno office at (559) 449-2490.
Mica and Denham will hear from witnesses about “how to improve transportation program performance, consolidate programs, cut red tape, speed up the project delivery process, how to better use private sector resources in building our infrastructure, find creative ways to responsibly finance projects and any other issues of concern.”
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/02/11/1768046/denham-and-rep-mica-to-hold-listening.html
I have to expect one major topic Mica and Denham will be hearing about will be HSR starting in the Valley and the need to continue expanding California HSR. No word yet on the witnesses speaking but I expect it will be people like Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin who is a big HSR supporter, along with various Valley business people, etc.
John Mica of course is chair of the House Transportation Committee. Jeff Denham is the new chairman of the Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. Denham’s 19th District runs from Turlock up to Yosemite circling back down to the northwestern areas of Fresno which explains the meeting site.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
well, from a Republican point of view, Denham makes sense. Mica’s not going to invite Jim “bring HSR to Merced” Costa (wrong party), and Devin Nunes isn’t involved in transportation.
datacruncher Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“Mica’s not going to invite Jim “bring HSR to Merced” Costa (wrong party),”
I think the correct way to say it is Jim “bring HSR to downtown Fresno” Costa. Costa does not represent Merced, he calls Fresno home, and when he was in the Legislature he organized task forces and held hearings to keep government agencies from moving offices out of downtown Fresno.
Denham and Nunes got into a feud last year and I’m not sure they like even being in the same room together.
James Fujita Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I may have confused Costa with Cardoza. My bad.