February CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread

Feb 3rd, 2011 | Posted by
Leave a comment

The agenda is here and the live stream is here.

Not much of note on the agenda, although station area planning will be discussed, and officers chosen. Use this as an open thread on the meeting or on anything else related to HSR.

Tags: ,
  1. StevieB
    Feb 3rd, 2011 at 16:44
    #1

    The news reports coming out of the meeting are of authority matching funds for transit oriented development planning around stations of up to 40% with a limit of $200,000 per station.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    that’s not a bad idea. the first stations will be in the Valley, where they could use more TOD, have little experience with TOD, and may not be able to afford much. $200,000 is better than nothing.

  2. Peter
    Feb 3rd, 2011 at 19:56
    #2

    Scary shit from Caltrain: Caltrain proposes shuttering half its stations

    Caelestor Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    This proposal has been on their website for a month now, but they’ve finally named the stations on their list.

    My suggestions:
    End service south of Tamien, there’s just not enough demand.
    Hayward Park lies between two express stops, close that station.
    End Broadway and Atherton service permanently (do people ride on the weekends?)

    College Park is probably for Bellarmine commuters, and there’s only 4 trains stopping there each day, so I wouldn’t advocate ending it yet. Same for the special-service stations.

    I believe everything else should be prevented.

    Joey Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    College Park is used for a grand total of 193 trips every day. This is the least of any station north of Tamien, followed by Bayshore (278) and Hayward Park (458) (source). For reference, all of the Baby Bullet stations have more than 2000 trips.

    Now, the cost of keeping stations like College Park open is minimal, but it is not zero. You have to worry about maintaining station equipment including ticketing machines, longer trip times for everyone not using the station, additional fuel costs for slowing down and speeding back up, and the scheduling penalty for deviating from the average speed.

    Caelestor Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Thanks for the response and link (though I’m not sure where you’re getting those rider numbers, they seem awfully high. I saw 59 or so for Tamien, 157 or so for Hayward Park, and so forth).

    I guess another option is to remove all the stops with less than 400 boardings (Bayshore, S. SF, San Bruno, Hayward Park, Belmont). That would make the stretch into SF reasonably faster.

    Joey Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    I’m counting total weekday trips which use the station(sum of boardings and alightings). The only reason I did this is that those two numbers are quite different for College Park.

    J. Wong Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Note that Belmont currently has a shuttle that runs to Hillsdale during commute (rush) hours. I’m wondering what it’s status would be, and whether it would continue even if Belmont were removed as a stop.

    Caelestor Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    If you close the stations btwn 22nd St and Millbrae, it appears you can cut off about 10 minutes for the locals during rush hour, since they wouldn’t have to wait for the Baby Bullet to bypass them.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    If you close the stations they aren’t local trains anymore. From the viewpoint of the stranded passengers they aren’t even trains anymore.
    With four tracks south of Bayshore the local trains can service the local stations using the local tracks. The expresses or the Baby Bullets or the SuperDuperExtraSpecial Speeding Bolts of Lighting can use the express tracks.

  3. Roger Christensen
    Feb 3rd, 2011 at 20:11
    #3

    So the first operable segment is described as “150-200 miles”.

    Fresno to LA?
    Fresno to Palmdale?
    Bakersfield to San Jose?

    Roger Christensen Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Was there a decision on the Fresno station? East or west of the r-o-w?

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    hopefully west. There’s more room, especially if they take out the empty nut packing building for sale.

    Daniel Krause Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    I believe the draft EIR is due out this month, but I still need to confirm this. The EIR should indicate the preferred alignment/station location for Fresno. I personally leaning toward supporting a station on the east side, however, though am still talking with folks before recommending a position for CA4HSR. How it ties to downtown will be critical for walkability. That said, I think there should be an excellent connection to the Chinatown/Japantown area. I also worry the station structure and track structures (60 feet in height) will overwhelm the disrupt the smaller scale of the urban design of Chinatown/Japantown, as compared to the stuctures just east of the tracks (i.e. Chuckchansi Park, etc.).

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    you’d be replacing a big, tall ugly empty rusting nut packing plant with a brand new train station, hopefully with some shops involved. it may be big, but I don’t see that as a problem.

    and I’m thinking entrances on both sides of the tracks. the hardest part will be the fire department between the tracks and the ballpark.

    Roger Christensen Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    I would think the city wants it on the east.
    There is a BRT proposal (that should be light rail) that combines an eastside to downtown on Kings Canyon Ave with downtown to northside on Blackstone. If it came all the way to H St, it could serve HSR, the baseball stadium, and utilize the two busiest bus routes in Fresno.

    datacruncher Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Fresno’s BRT plans that I have seen have the first route leaving an east side HSR station then heading south to Ventura Avenue then east to Clovis Avenue.

    I also read Fresno’s “downtown czar” Craig Scharton saying in an interview that he prefers it be as close as possible to the Fulton Mall to bring passengers to the core area.

    Personally I think there is more opportunity to increase density by placing the station on the east side. A west side station would put a lot of development pressure on the Chinatown area, leading to calls for taller buildings in the traditionally low rise Chinatown area.

    I also seem to remember tracks on the west side of the UP would take about 100 feet from Roeding Park the entire length of that stretch, not something that would go over well.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Whether the train station structure ends up on the west side or the east side of the UP tracks, I don’t see why you can’t have a west portal and an east portal. Pedestrian bridge over the ground level UP tracks if necessary. Either way, you are going to be extremely close to both the ballpark and Fulton Mall.

    You could have the light rail (preferred option) or BRT on the east side, and other entrances on the west side.

    And taller development in Japantown/ Chinatown wouldn’t hurt, either. It hasn’t hurt Little Tokyo.

    Daniel Krause Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 9:56 am

    They will definitely have portals on both sides of the tracks. However, I believe they need to have mulitple station portals, especially on the east side so walking is shorter to various downtown destinations. If the station is on the west side, then people will all be funnelled to overpasses located in above the center of the platforms (it is unlikely they will build multiple overpasses). When they reach the downtown side east of UP, then people will have a longer walk to Convention Center area (which will be a big draw for HSR users) in the SE part of downtown and cultural arts district area in the northern part of downtown. The west side option will require a lot more walking, thereby deterring some from walking between downtown and the station, requiring more shuttling, taxis, etc. It is not the end of the world, but as an urban planner myself, I really hope to see a bulk of the people being able to walk from HSR stations to most locations in the downtowns.

    BTW, the station structure in the plans seems small, not very dramatic. I hope Central Valley cities view HSR stations as an opportunity to create a real landmark. It could really stand out and give the cities more identity and visibilty.

    Roger Christensen Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Daniel, I’m very excited about the TOD recommendations for the Fresno station in your study. Particularly like your plans for Mariposa St. Great job!

    Daniel Krause Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Thanks. The good news is, it appears Fresno is already planning to position the station so its center point is at Mariposa, regardless of the station platforms are on the east or west side of the UP tracks.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Mariposa would do nicely. Put the new station on the west side, and they might be able to incorporate the old station on the east side into the design somehow, although it would need some remodeling as it looks like somebody tried to turn it into an office building and failed.

    Greyhound is next door, as is the county retirement office, so I’m not sure what Fresno is planning to do about that. At least the Fresno FD doesn’t end up as an unintentional NIMBY.

    Daniel Krause Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    The old station is actually currently occupied by offices and heard there may be a charter school in there as well, though I need to confirm this.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    last time I was in that neighborhood, the old station looked awful IMHO. obviously a charter school would trump any other uses anybody might have planned for the site, assuming that there is a school there.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    and by site, I mean the old station building. a school can learn to be good neighbors with a high speed rail station, and vice versa.

    Paul H. Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    This plan commissioned by the City of Fresno has the tracks on the west side of the UP ROW, with the building structure going over the top of the UP to a main station entrance building along H street onto Mariposa Mall. I actually prefer this to and east side track allignment because it opens up more options with the land along H street. That plan maps out a vision of a Park/Bike Path/Solar Farm/Community Garden/Sports courts and field along H street from Divisadero to Freeway 41, which I believe would be a great landmark for downtown Fresno.

    datacruncher Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 9:12 am

    I just found plans dated Jan 28, 2011 for station areas for both east and west alignments in downtown Fresno. They are part of the work by Moule & Polyzoides on Fresno’s downtown plans.
    http://fresnodowntownplans.com/media/files/110128-High%20Speed%20Train%20Alternatives_reduced.pdf
    Moule & Polyzoides’ projects in other cities is at:
    http://www.mparchitects.com/index2.html

    It looks to me like station entrances from both sides of the tracks no matter which alignment is used.

    But it appears Fresno’s Chinatown will end up with several 5 story parking garages totaling anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 spaces no matter which alignment is used. There would also be several new 3 to 5 story office and residential buildings in Chinatown.

    Most density would be on the east side with new retail, office and residential. Also appears the BRT route and a bus station would be adjacent to the east side entrance.

    The main focus seems to be to place the largest amount of new development to the east between the station and Fulton Mall.

    Eric Fredericks Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Thanks for sharing. I thought they were looking for a bit higher density near the station, so I’m a bit surprised by this. Maybe it has something to do with the express trains. Would be a nice tie-in to the Fulton Mall either way. BRT and streetcar connections would help support additional TOD in the long term.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    I like these plans. They don’t look that much different from the Web link Paul H. gave, except it is a bit more focused on the train station itself, rather than overall downtown development. Either way, it’s good to know that somebody in Fresno is concerned for their future. Both sides of the tracks will need some sprucing up, and in that aspect, the east side has something of a head start. It’s already denser.

    I suppose a transit purist would have a problem with the parking garages, but I think that is to be expected for a fairly wide-spread community which is just starting to come to grips with rail transit.

    The streetcar is definitely needed. And they need to get either light rail or BRT towards Clovis up and running. Being able to walk around downtown is important, but it looks like it will be about the same distance from the train station to the convention center no matter which alignment they choose.

    (And in the summer, there will be a lot more people wanting to hop onto an air-conditioned streetcar than walk five blocks.)

    And for Japantown/ Chinatown, 3-5 stories does not a skyscraper make.

    Travis D Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 1:33 am

    A certain amount of parking will always be needed because some people will be driving in from rural areas. For example the nearest station to me will be a 1.5 hour drive.

    Emma Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Thank you. I really like the plans. This company seems to do a great job of designing buildings that fit into California society. Thanks again.

    Paul H. Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:45 am

    Thanks for linking that report, surprised I hadn’t heard about it. After looking at the different alignments, I like the west side alignments even more now. It just give more options with the land on the downtown side, more density specifically. The tracks eat up a lot of room, so if we can keep them on the lower density side of the UP I think that would be best. I think we’ll see the Fresno Cross alignment selected by the authority when the draft EIR comes out sometime this month.

    Paul H. Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 6:49 am

    West Alignment B is my favorite. What do you guys think?

    datacruncher Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    I think one of the key considerations is the stretch alongside Roeding Park. There are already organized activists concerned about the expansion of the Fresno Zoo taking more land in the park.

    The B1 West UPRR alignment requires taking about 9 acres along the park’s east side to either relocate Golden State Blvd or for use for the aerial. There are federal regulations about taking land from areas like parks. Add that to the political problem of adding more fuel to the “Save Roeding Park” group’s concerns and I think B1 is likely the lowest choice.

    That leaves either B2 East UPRR or the Crossover B13 to avoid park impacts. The station site (east or west) is probably the big driver next.

    I see pros and cons for both station sites. The east side places the station closer to existing density and appears to be better for TOD. Based on the numbers in the plan I posted
    http://fresnodowntownplans.com/media/files/110128-High%20Speed%20Train%20Alternatives_reduced.pdf
    most of the east side alternative development plans seem to allow for more office sq footage closer to the station than the west side station. (of course subject ultimately to the market and city decisions)

    But then I started thinking about the old Queen Anne-inspired SP station and Pullman shed. I see some great development potential with those if they remain in/near their current site.

    Thinking aloud, the old SP buildings could see great reuse as most non-Fresno area passengers would likely depart from an east side entrance. It might trade off other things but I think those buildings would help provide a sense of place for travellers when leaving a Fresno HSR station, something missing many times in both air and rail travel today.

    I can see the old Pullman shed being restored and converted into a year-round farmers & craft market. Fresno area visitors could pick up local products to take home like fruit, honey, wines, etc.

    The old SP station might make a great visitors center for tourists to Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon. Info booths, tours, museum type exhibits/displays, etc would go well there. Shuttle and tour bus companies could be located there and do pickup and dropoffs to HSR.

    A quick search tells me the charter school that just moved into the old station apparently signed a 10 year lease on the old station but maybe they would be open to financial help to relocate in 3 to 5 years, paving the way for a visitors center in the old SP building.

    An east side station would likely require relocation of those buildings, but moving them closer to H St. would reduce development density immediately adjacent to a station entrance on the east. Moving them away from that area would reduce some of the reuse value I see. A west side station makes it possible for them to be retained on the current site.

    So my current thoughts are I prefer the idea of a station site that keeps the old SP station and pullman sheds in/near their current location. That means either B2 with an east station with the old buildings relocated onto the current Greyhound building site near Chukchansi stadium OR a west side station using the B13 Crossover alignment to protect Roeding Park.

    bleh Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 4:43 am

    Why don’t they put the parking garages below the aerials to the North and South of the station? There’s a lot of space wasted below those.

    Paul H. Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 6:09 am

    That’s a good possibility. I do like the bus and taxi pick-up/drop-off under the station itself.

    Tony D. Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Diridon did mention that Phase 1 to San Jose could be the next segment to be built after the initial Central Valley segment. So I’m guessing Bakersfield to SJ.

    Donk Reply:
    February 3rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    Shocker! Rod Diridon wants the next segment to go to Diridon Station?

    brandon from San Diego Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:26 am

    North and south segments should be advanced in pairs, imo. Or, alternate.

    Al Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Don’t bored tunnels take a long time? Seems like they should start on LA-Palmdale sooner rather than later.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    They should; for some reason the EISes have been running slow on all of the mountain-crossing segments. I’d really like to see Bakersfield-Palmdale “shovel-ready” ASAP (apparently there are more NIMBY arguments about Palmdale-San Fernando Valley, sigh), but it’s not ready yet.

    Travis D Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 1:32 am

    This makes the most sense since it would make a route that would possibly generate a good amount of trips on it’s own without the extensive construction difficulties that will arise on the SF-SJ or Bakersfield-LA segments.

  4. Nadia
    Feb 3rd, 2011 at 21:41
    #4

    CARRD has obtained some Technical Memos from the Authority (we’ve been battling for over 6 months and we still don’t have them all). We’ve posted what we got.

    http://www.calhsr.com/resources/technical-docs/

    I’m very interested to hear from the engineers out there. The plan to meet “independent utility” is to possibly run Amtrak trains on the Borden to Corcoran piece.

    Question for engineers: Based on the technical details – is it possible to run Amtrak trains on the currently designed HSR tracks or would the aerial structures need to be reinforced to deal with the weight of the trains? And if so, what additional cost might be involved?

    thatbruce Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:47 am

    @Nadia:
    A comment on your website layout; one of the uses of that table on your website would be to show the delay between when a document was intended to be completed, completed (as per the Approved by/Released by field within each document) and when it was made available to groups such as CARRD, CA4HSR etc. I would suggest revising the columns to read:

    Doc Title, Target Completion (Date), Completion (Date), Released to CARRD (Date).
    Station Flower Arrangements, 01-Apr-2008, 01-Apr-2009, 01-Apr-2010

    and keep the green/red background colors as appropriate.

    Nadia Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    @thatbruce – Thanks for the feedback. I would add that it might interest folks when CARRD requested things and how long it takes to even get a response back! I’ll pass on the ideas (I don’t know WordPress well enough to do tables!)

    Winston Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I gave a quick look at the TM 2.3.2 and it requires that structures be able to support very heavy maintenance trains. Without doing any calculations, it looks like a structure so specified should support Amtrak trains without any changes. Specifically, the F59phis that Amtrak uses weigh less than the 5000 lb/linear foot that a train trailing the heavy part of the maintenance trains that are described in the specification. In fact, as long as they don’t do something silly like pull their trains with pairs of SD70s they should be fine.

    Winston Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Update,

    I looked up how U.S. railway bridges are specified (and it’s quite strange, I assure you) and you might have to make the bridges 4.8% stronger to support the locomotives that Amtrak California uses. This is what I get for commenting on something out of my field.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Out of curiosity, is your reference to bridge specification the Cooper rating? It’s admittedly a rather old way of bridge rating, but has the advantage of being standardized for the last 100 years or so.

    Winston Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 8:31 am

    It is the Cooper rating, which is both strange and the U.S. standard for railway bridges. The spec calls out the bridge to be E-50. As I understand Cooper ratings, to support a f-59phi you would need an E-53 rated bridge, however I’m not a civil engineer and certainly not a railroad bridge designer. It is very strange to design your bridge for a pair of ca 1920 steam locomotives when the loadings from a diesel locomotive is very different.

    thatbruce Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Reading through TM-2.3.2-Structure-Design-Loads-R1, 3.5.1 refers to Live Loads; ie, transient loads due to trains etc. Any infrastructure intended to carry both HSR and FRA equipment would be using the known live load values for FRA equipment, likely using such from infrastructure carrying the Acela along the NEC.

    Continuing onto TM-2.3.3-HST-Aerial-Structure-R0, firstly they’ve got some examples of existing aerials carrying HSR trains around the world. Secondly, there is reference to using existing construction techniques as favored by Caltrans (ie, no extra expense due to using a brand new technique never-before-tried in the US). But, there’s no expected construction cost amounts in the bare handful of documents that I’ve skimmed.

    In summary, it is likely that the aerial structures constructed to meet the ‘independent utility’ requirements will be done to heavier FRA standards, at a similar cost to say the aerials constructed for Metrolink a decade or so ago. How much cheaper (or more) the HSR-only aerials will be seems to be unknown at this point in time (or in a doc that I haven’t read ;) ).

  5. Andy M.
    Feb 4th, 2011 at 06:14
    #5

    In case anybody has missed it, RENFE has published its annual results and has made a profit for the first time. This is thanks, they say, to the high speed lines.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Is there a link handy by chance?

    Andy M. Reply:
    February 7th, 2011 at 1:50 am

    yes, go onto the renfe website, http://www.renfe.es, click on epresa and then on gabinete de prensa.

  6. Jon
    Feb 4th, 2011 at 10:50
    #6

    People may be interested in the refined route alternatives for upgraded ACE:

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9632

    Check page 50 for a quick overview. Hopefully they’ll go for downtown stations in Pleasanton, Livermore and Tracy. There’s a great opportunity to extend eBART to downtown Tracy and build an intermodal with ACE.

    Donk Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:45 am

    I have a questions for you NorCal people. I understand that ACE is primarily for commutes from SJ to the CV and that it is really slow and circuitous right now, hence the interest in incorporating it into the HSR system.

    But what about access from Oakland/SF? If/when BART makes it to downtown Livermore, and there is a connection there with ACE (non HSR) – would this be a practical route to get to SAC? ie how long would it take to go from Oakland-Sacramento via BART to Livermore and ACE from Livermore to SAC (if ACE was expanded to go to SAC). How would this compare to the Capitol Corridor from OAK-SAC?

    Drunk Engineer Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Altamont overlay EIR. There is still an active lawsuit going on over Altamont vs. Pacheco alignments. Altamont is clearly the superior alternative, and the CHSRA would like a “study” to paint it in the worst possible light (so as to make Pacheco appear not so horrible). And there is also the fact that Altamont HSR competes with BART.

    As ‘Donk’ notes, the study parameters are ridiculous. Most travelers are going to want direct service into SF, but CHSRA will only “study” a Diridon terminus. And the most obvious, least epxensive route (I580 median) was removed from consideration. The result is least useful and most expensive service possible. We can look forward to a study which shows dismal cost-effectiveness (i.e. reason to kill the project).

    Peter Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    You mean the Altamont overlay EIR that is to be defunded in Brown’s 2011-2012 budget proposal?.

    dfb Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 1:16 am

    The Budget is at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/2000/2665/department.html See page 4 of the ‘Entire High-Speed Rail Authority Budget.’

    tony d. Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:57 am

    I thought “drunk” was merely part of your blog I’d. Can you explain this non-existent lawsuit re Pacheco and Altamont?

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Oh, good grief. More people claiming that the Altamont route is superior? It’s not. I’ve read all the studies. It’s a vastly superior *commuter* route, it’s a substantially worse, and more expensive, *long-distance* route. (Arguably the best long-distance route is straight up the Central valley, along the rivers/inlet to Oakland, and through a Second Transbay Tube — it can be made startlingly fast — but it was rejected due to the humungous expense of the tube.)

  7. Jon
    Feb 4th, 2011 at 12:57
    #7

    Good question. An intermodal station is planned at Union City BART, so even if the BART extension to Livermore doesn’t happen this should still be possible.

    Right now to go from SF Powell Street to Sacramento, it takes about 2:30 or 2:40 depending on the connection. That’s BART to Richmond then Capital Corridor to Sacramento. (Yes, you can take the Amtrak shuttle bus, but that doesn’t save any time and means an extra transfer for most people.)

    For simplicity let’s assume a transfer at Vasco Road station in Livermore and again at Stockton. SF Powell to Dublin/Pleasanton is currently 47 mins by BART, add 11 mins for the extension to Vasco Road. Vasco Road to Stockton currently takes 1:05 on ACE, the upgrade will roughly half running times, so let’s say 35 mins. Stockton to Sacramento will be 20 minutes by HSR. Throw in two transfers at 10 mins each and you have 2:13. So a small improvement from SF, probably no improvement from Oakland.

    San Francisco to Sacramento should not require a three train ride. We should have an upgraded Capital Corridor running through a new standard gauge transbay tube to downtown SF. The new tube could also be used for ACE trains from Stockon, and new commuter rail lines in the East Bay.

    Jon Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    That was meant to be a reply, sorry…

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    We should have an upgraded Capital Corridor running through a new standard gauge transbay tube to downtown SF.

    Sounds good to me. Sounds good to a lot of people who pointed this out back in the 90s. Apparently San Francisco’s answer, more than once. was “Let ‘em take the bus”

    Even if there was the money and the will to build a new Transbay Tube, where are you going to put the trains once they cross the Bay?

    Alon Levy Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    In a 175′ cavern under Transbay Terminal, perhaps? ;)

    Joey Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    There’s no effective way to access the TBT trainbox from the east. Too many buildings.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Go deep enough underground and it should be fine. It’d only cost $8 billion or so – not a big deal.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:00 am

    I hope we’re not thinking California Car clearance in the tube or in the tunnels. I’d ditch the California Cars if we ever reached that point. Go with single-story electric commuters.

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    underneath Mission, with an underground terminal.

    switch California Cars for EMUs.

    Donk Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Ok, but you would think that once BART makes it to Livermore, that there would be demand for a conventional rail route that runs from Livermore to Sacramento. So if they could just do this, you would cut out one of the transfers.

  8. Jon
    Feb 4th, 2011 at 16:34
    #8

    Apparently San Francisco’s answer, more than once. was “Let ‘em take the bus”

    Don’t blame me, I didn’t live here then.

    There are plenty of ways to improve Capital Corridor without building a new transbay tube. Build dedicated passenger rail track and straighten out some of the curves. Grade separate and electrify. Use EMUs and increase frequency. Build an intermodal station with BART in Oakland (maybe tunnel under Broadway to 12 St?) so that the hop across the bay is as short as it needs to be.

    Jon Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    One day I will learn to use the reply button…

    James Fujita Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    I’d be all in favor of electrifying as much of California’s rail network as we can afford.

    It’s the missing link in our high speed rail plans, for all of those journeys which don’t start at a HSR station.

    I’d start with CalTrain and Metrolink, but Intercity trains need a boost as well.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    It has been clear for a long time that a second pair of Transbay Tubes for intercity and commuter trains, or intercity train service on the Bay Bridge, would be massively valuable. It might even have avoided some of the more insane suburban BART extensions. But somehow it just never gets funded.

    The problem as I see it is is that it is of too little benefit individually to HSR, to commuter rail, to BART, etc. It is only clearly worth it when you add together all the benefits. The balkanization of transportation planning, therefore, kills it.

    The tunnels under the Hudson River from New Jersey to Penn Station only happened once the Pennsylvania Railroad controlled the LIRR, and desired to interchange with the New Haven, and therefore concluded that it could collect all the benefits from the massive project: commuter and intercity from both directions. I sort of doubt it would ever have happened had the benefits all been going to different companies.

  9. MGimbel
    Feb 4th, 2011 at 22:47
    #9

    Oh look, Elizabeth’s on Youtube talking about cost escalations, everybody freak out!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9sNDGdp5o

    Peter Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Gee, I guess we should just build the $100 billion freeway widening and airport expansion projects instead.

    MGimbel Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    And if you were to account for cost escalations within these projects, it’d probably be more like $150 billion+. I’m sure Elizabeth would agree with this assumption.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    ….Highway and airport projects never go over budget…..

    Spokker Reply:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    $70 billion is a bargain.

    YesonHSR Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:27 am

    I have about had it with CARD..enough games from NIMBYS

    YesonHSR Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:33 am

    [Edited by Robert - keep it clean and above the belt, people.]

    Eric M Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 10:31 am

    I like how she comes here and asks for engineering advice regarding the central valley structures so that she can use it against the project.

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I think you are missing the point of the testimony.

    1) The Authority has done a similar calculation.
    2) It does not think getting that amount of money over the next chunk of time is reasonable to assume.
    3) It is making plans accordingly – skipping express tracks in Fresno, putting Merced on the backburner, delaying the Peninsula EIR, defunding planning for Phase 2 (Sacramento, San Diego and Altamont) etc etc.
    4) We think the public and policymakers should be let in on the “joke” so that they can be part of the conversation about what should be the response, instead of being in reactive and confused mode.
    5) The Authority was supposed to provide a new capital cost estimate as part of their Feb 1 , 2011 Biz plan update. They have delayed release of this until Oct 1, 2011.

    We did these estimates several months ago, which have been very useful to us in understanding everything that has happened over the last couple of months (from the preference fro Fresno – BK over Merced) to phase 2 being defunded to the EIR. We assumed the Authority would give an update, especially after the Fresno cost numbers showed a massive escalation from the Dec 2009 numbers. They have not done this so we are releasing our analysis.

    Daniel Krause Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    I think it is a bit reductionistic to assume Fresno-Bakersfield was chosen due to cost increases. There are many other rational reasons this segment was chosen. Same goes for delaying phase 2 work. Given the likely slow down in Federal funding, it makes sense to slow down phase 2 at this point (irrespective of project costs).

    Where they are doing value engineering due to cost increases, I’ll say this. Projects get reworked at the design level all the time. Yes some costs go up due to unexpected environmental conditions, and in response, other parts of the project get valued engineered. This process will continue throughout the project. There is nothing to be alarmed about. It is the nature of building complex infrastructure. That said, I am not making a judgement yet on the cost estimates as I need much more time to examine and get input from others.

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:33 am

    We are happy to see value engineering. We are not happy to see it done without a frank and honest conversation about how the project sold to voters is not affordable and that it is changing, in some substantial ways.

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am

    We should not have to be reading footnotes to pick up on these things, which is how they are coming to light.

    Peter Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    “and that it is changing, in some substantial ways.”

    Only real change I can see is the budget for the project increasing. Voters weren’t “sold” on things like “express tracks in Fresno and Bakersfield”, they were sold on a train that would travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station, with no specific timetable or construction sequence being given (other than the first priority SF-LA section), with extensions to San Diego and Sacramento following as funding comes up.

    Things change, and not everything has to or should go back to the voters for their approval. The proper mechanism for that is the environmental process, which is working quite effectively.

    Drunk Engineer Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Only real change I can see is the budget for the project increasing. Voters weren’t “sold” on things like “express tracks in Fresno and Bakersfield”

    Oh, I think most voters care whether the project becomes a financial drain. If the costs go up 100%, meaning trains only go as far as Bakersfield, that also becomes a credibility issue.

    synonymouse Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Value engineering would be to start over with the Tolmach plan.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    That would be more like the “pour as much money as possible down the rathole of making designs for outrageous unbuildable heavy-concrete engineering” plan.

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Agreed that cost was not only reason for Fresno to Bakersfield, but cost is a reason that Merced had zero chance.

    jim Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 10:25 am

    It’s not clear that Merced is on the back burner. I seem to remember that after the big blowup which followed the announcement of the first section tom be constructed, someone on the Authority said that building north to Merced would be the next priority. And certainly the statement that the first operable segment will be 150-200 miles long seems to point to Bakersfield-Merced (168 miles on the current San Joaquin route). Bakersfield-San Jose and Fresno-Palmdale are both considerably over 200 miles.

    That said, it does seem clear that the Authority is concentrating on Sylmar-San Jose and finding funding for that piece. Its cost is likely to be higher than originally planned and actions are being taken to react to that. And the Authority is trying very hard not to do anything which would jeopardize the Federal funding.

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:31 am

    What you remember is Rod Diridon making a motion about Merced being next priority, which did not receive support. Merced is eligible for a token amount of matching dollars for planning, but that is it.

    We are supportive of prioritizing segments but our concerns are that the process is both overly linear and not sufficiently transparent.

    tony d. Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am

    I’m sorry, but when did Merced’s population surpass 1 million and it became the economic powerhouse of NorCal?

    Elizabeth Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    what?

    jim Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    I knew I remembered something that amounted to making soothing noises at Merced.

    I guess I’m trying to put myself into Van Ark’s shoes. It’s clear that the most benefit would come from the next segment being Corcoran to San Jose. But that’s going to be very expensive: it’s long and crosses mountains. Federal funding over the next two or three years is not going to be terribly generous and he undoubtedly wants to match at 20% rather than 50% to keep the bond money from running out. Building north to Merced is much cheaper: it’s shorter and flat. And Bakersfield-Merced is a conceivable first operating segment. It’s not as good as Bakersfield to San Jose, but it is workable. Amtrak, with the equipment that they’re using today on the San Joaquins, could run shortened San Joaquins between Merced-Oakland and Merced-Sacramento on a much more frequent schedule than today (whether there’s the host railroad capacity to support that is another question). So there’s the possibility of connections at Merced. Again, not as good as Caltrain connections at San Jose, but possible. So, if I were in Van Ark’s position, I’d be planning to build to San Jose, but I’d have a plan B to build to Merced in my back pocket in case the funds for San Jose simply weren’t there.

    I don’t think that Van Ark is obliged to provide a public accounting of this sort of contingency planning (if indeed he’s engaged in it). Transparency is all very well, but it doesn’t extend to revealing everything that’s up one’s sleeve.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    For the next segment, I would guess that the most benefit would actually come from Palmdale to Bakersfield, not Corcoran to San Jose, but the same analysis applies; you need enough money to finish one of those segments and electrify it (and buy a little rolling stock), and if you can’t get that money, Merced makes a more sensible interim extension.

  10. James Fujita
    Feb 5th, 2011 at 14:06
    #10

    Sometimes TRAC really drives me nuts. Consider the January issue of California Rail Nooz, where our good friend Richard “Sympathy for the Altamont Devil” Tolmach adds 1 1/2 hours onto the Bakersfield-to-Los Angeles Amtrak bus connection:

    “At present, it takes an average of 3-1/2 hours from arrival at Los Angeles Union Station on a Pacific Surfliner to departure from Bakersfield. A direct train could reduce that to a 1 hour trip, saving 2-1/2
    hours each direction.
    A direct train would also save rail passengers the current long Union Station walk to an uncomfortable bus connection…..”

    Parse that section closely. Suffer the poor Amtrak riders, trapped on a bus for three-and-a-half…. oh wait. He includes the dwell time at Los Angeles Union Station in his calculations.

    I’ve taken the San Joaquin plenty of times, so I know from personal experience that the bus typically takes about TWO hours, give or take a few minutes for traffic congestion. It’s not the perfect experience, but anybody with a book, a magazine or tired enough to take a nap can handle it.

    Why include the all so “uncomfortable” time it takes to get from a Pacific Surfliner over to Union Station’s bus bays, not to mention the layover? (Famima!! makes the wait much, much easier, BTW) .

    Because it makes Cal HSR sound like jerks for not picking the Tejon route. Because he can. Because without that 3 1/2 hours, his argument against both Palmdale and picking the flat, relatively-easy stretch between Fresno and Bakersfield loses its punch.

    synonymouse Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    PB are jerks for closing out Tejon. But this is the same god-like mindset that gave us BART broad gauge. Some things never change, at least not for the better.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Tolmach’s just as nutty as you and just as obsessed with the non-constructable Tejon route. He’s relying on the fact that there was one theoretically buildable route, assuming everything goes right, and claiming that that makes the Tejon route viable. Very dishonest article.

    Dan S. Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    BART broad-gauge is an unfortunate legacy, but, correct me if I’m wrong, it was chosen to be a more stable platform with which to cross the bay over the Golden Gate. This was the going plan before the voters of Marin decided to walk away from the project. I’m not sure a God-complex really burdened us with BART’s wide-stance (apologies to Larry Craig), more of a groundswell of voter opinion against transit at the time. Which to me is the more damaging legacy anyway.

    Joey Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    It was chosen because it was thought to have better general stability. Not that standard-gauge trains have any stability problems, even at speeds several times BART’s.

    Joey Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    At least that’s the official explanation. Though in truth BART’s proprietary-ness goes far beyond the track gauge. Everything from power supply voltage to loading gauge to platform height to signaling is proprietary, and the reasons for that are most certainly not technical.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I’ve never been able to find an authoritative source explaining why it’s broad gauge.

    synonymouse Reply:
    February 8th, 2011 at 1:17 am

    You won’t because it is a Bechtel scandal. Two Bechtels sat on the SP Board of Directors – an incredible conflict of interest. The SP wanted to ensure that not even a thought would be entertained of operating BART trains on their tracks. They wanted to get out of the passenger business, period. There are some railroad historians who claim passenger service was in actjualilty a losing proposition as early as the 20′s but the accounting methods of the period were inadequate to show it. Passenger rail remains a money loser – it takes competitiveness with airlines to make even breaking even a possibility. That certainly is hopeless with the CHSRA retrograde Loopy detour.

    YesonHSR Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Im sick of them also..pure BS just because its not going to “Their” plan so screw everyone else and the future and stop the project

    YesonHSR Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    IE TRAC!!!

    Roger Christensen Reply:
    February 5th, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    There are lies, damn lies, and Tolmach.

    synonymouse Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Far from it. Here’s a good reason why the UP doesn’t want hsr anywhere close to its property:

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/state&id=7942044

    It would be interesting to speculate what would happen to PB’s uber-BART aerials on top of an incident like this.

    I-5 is by far a safer alignment for the CHSRA than alongside rail corridors. Railroads carry vaster more toxics and flammables then trucks.

    And as to kvetching about I-5 widening, forget about it. The same political coalition-machine that supports hsr is behind the highway projects, in particular contractors and unions. There is nothing about either megaproject that is environmental – strictly for developmental and population growth objectives.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    UP should stop maintaining its tracks so poorly that it has routine derailments. Even though derailments cannot be completely prevented, competent, responsible train operators practically never have derailments in which cargo spills.

    Some of the US’s Class Is are trying to blame everyone else around them for their shoddy maintenance practices and underinvestment in track. That sort of excuse is not going to hold up forever. If they can’t afford to maintain the tracks properly, they should cede them to the government and have the government maintain them.

    In any case, “We, UP, are a bunch of incompetents who routinely crash our trains and dump toxic cargo on nearby houses” is not an argument to keep HSR away from the corridor, it’s an argument to forcibly remove UP from the corridor.

    Dan S. Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    This is the grand bargain that US freight rail has hitched onto, though, and it results in their having the world’s best cost-to-distance ratio (made-up term.) I’m all for holding them to a higher standard in order to make their ROW more amenable to passenger rail, but it would upset their current business plan, which relies on just-in-time maintenance (another made-up term.) So slap the freights with new regs, but tax gas or the highways or the truckers so that everything doesn’t just immediately shift to the roads.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 8th, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Good maintenance didn’t hurt Conrail.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    TRAC is an intolerable group at this point; the main problem is that they haven’t kicked out Richard Tolmach, who has gone completely obsessive and insane in trying to revive bad alignments. Pretty much as bad as Syn.

    YesonHSR Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    A major Asshole and demagog at this point

    thatbruce Reply:
    February 7th, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Richard Tolmach and synonymouse are interchangable for most things.

    synonymouse Reply:
    February 8th, 2011 at 1:04 am

    I am truly flattered. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Tolmach.

    After reading the rants herein against the TRAC January issue I read it and found myself in total accord. They mention a 2002 Quantm Engineering study of a Tejon alignment that appears quite promising. Anybody know anything about it? Of course I am sure that the friends of Palmdale real estate developers at PB would like to suppress anything contrary to or critical of their scheme.

    The Tejon alignment is superior in so many obvious ways – but the upside is that is still available for maglev, as the CHSRA is too stupid and/or corrupt to opt for this optimal routing. The maglev concept is technically sound and there is every likelihood that it will be made ready for prime time as it offers superior performance with lighter equipment and infrastructure. There will be a sudden and profound loss of interest in conventional passenger rail and PB’s errors at the CHSRA will be derided the same way we dump on their botch job at BART.

    Nathanael Reply:
    February 8th, 2011 at 6:34 am

    If I remember correctly, that’s the study which said there was only one possible Tejon alignment and it looked very dangerous.

    Or it might have been the study which admitted that it had done no geotechnical research at all, whatsover.

  11. D. P. Lubic
    Feb 5th, 2011 at 14:46
    #11

    Off topic, but a bit of history unfolding near Monterey:

    http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_17268658?nclick_check=1

  12. Peter
    Feb 6th, 2011 at 00:58
    #12

    Interesting discussion on “socialist” financing of transportation, Caltrain in particular, by taxes on Gary Richards’ Mr. Roadshow column.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    February 6th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Hooray!! Judging from his responses, it looks like people are reading about the shortfall of gas taxes, apparently from different sources. The word is getting out, and we are getting an electorate that’s just a little better educated.

Comments are closed.