Will $5 Gas End the Anti-Rail Bubble?
Today we’re gonna party like it’s 2008 – at least if you need to fill up on gas. In California, the average price for a gallon of 87 octane is now $3.85, with many locations reporting they’re at or above $4 – a mark not reached since the fateful summer of 2008, when prices topped out around $4.50. I say “fateful” because that gas price spike, climaxing several years of rising prices, led California voters to embrace passenger rail as part of their future, including the passage of $10 billion for high speed rail via Prop 1A that November.
Longtime readers of this blog will not be surprised by rising gas prices. While the day-to-day vagaries of the price can be spiky, the long-term trendline upward has been obvious for nearly a decade:
And as Deutsche Bank predicted in 2009, the long-term increases will continue, reaching prices of $175/bbl by 2016:
Late last year a former Shell executive predicted $5/gal gas by 2012. According to some analysts, that could happen as soon as this summer – and while the national average may not hit $5, California is usually about $0.50 to $0.75 ahead of the average, so California could very easily see $5 gas by June.
The effect would be catastrophic for the state’s already weakened economy. The effect of peak oil – the declining rate of new oil discovery combined with ever-increasing global demand – will push prices upward until there is significant demand destruction. There are two ways demand destruction can happen – either we build alternatives to driving and enable people to use mass transit to continue getting around, or people just stop driving with no alternative in place, and economic activity falls dramatically as a result.
This process worsens with economic recovery. During the worst recession in 60 years, gas prices never fell below $3/gal in California for any significant period of time. As the economy recovers and gas demand rises, so too will the price. So whether it’s civil war in Libya or American economic recovery, $5 gas is something we WILL see within the first half of this decade.
The solution is obvious: we have to build alternatives to driving. Californians understand this very well, which is why they not only approved $10 billion in high speed rail funding, but also why 2/3 of voters in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Sonoma and Marin counties voted to tax themselves to expand their passenger rail systems.
But as gas prices retreated from their 2008 peaks, a new bubble emerged. This was the anti-rail bubble. NIMBYism on the Peninsula, right-wing ideological attacks on rail, and Alan Lowenthal’s concern trolling on the project are tolerated instead of laughed out of the room only because gas prices had retreated to $3 (which is higher than they had been at any time prior to 2006).
When oil prices retreated from their 2008 peak, many older Californians assumed it was the return of normalcy. Having lived their lives with low oil prices, with the 1970s seemingly acting as an anomaly, they came to expect that low oil prices had returned for good, and that there was no need for what they viewed as the “inconvenience” of building things like fast, electric, grade-separated high speed trains. At the same time, state legislators made a series of crippling cuts to public transit agencies even though they had seen dramatic ridership increases in 2008, which were generally sustained through 2009 and had even begun increasing again in 2010.
Enabled by a temporary lull in the upward trend of oil prices, the anti-HSR “bubble” can only be sustained as long as those prices do not rise further. Now that the prices are indeed rising again, and Californians are reminded of their desire for a sensible alternative to driving and paying unaffordable prices, the anti-HSR bubble will burst as rapidly and as completely as the real estate bubble burst starting four years ago.
The British government sees the crisis and is prepared to act – even though they are led by a right-wing coalition. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans demand defunding of passenger rail and insane cuts to mass transit service.
The question before us is simple: should Californians keep paying high gas prices indefinitely to appease right-wing ideologues and their oil company paymasters? Should Californians suffer long-term economic damage because a Palo Alto NIMBY can’t wrap their minds around the numerous benefits of above-grade rail, or because a Central Valley farmer won’t accept that he can still farm his land even with a train running through it?
Low gas prices enabled these people to prioritize other, lesser, individual concerns over the need for our society and our economy to start working immediately on building the alternatives to high gas prices that Californians voted for in 2008 – including passenger rail.
In short, every person who opposes high speed rail, says its unaffordable or unnecessary or will hurt their precious aesthetic values, is a person who looks forward to you paying $5 – or more – in gas prices this decade. Their bubble is about to burst. Californians aren’t going to tolerate their obstructionism any longer.
I think what is killing us right now is the lack of efficient local transit. In San Diego, it’s impossible to get anywhere efficiently unless you are in the downtown area. The trolley system is frustrating, since it does not go towards the beaches, north of I-8 (though they are going to near UCSD now) Balboa Park/Zoo, or even the airport. I am not sure how California should go about fixing mass transit, but it seems local opposition to HSR in San Diego at least has a lot to do with the inefficiency of local transit in San Diego.
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
The Trolley doesn’t go to those locations, but MTS buses do. Balboa Park and the Airport in particular have high-frequency service. MTS has met you halfway. Might as well patronize the buses and help bring down the cost of providing those services.
Ken Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Problem with buses is that they face the same congestions as cars do so they really don’t add much benefit to driving. People will say “if it takes more time, I’d rather just drive myself there.” Buses don’t offer the same appeal as rail.
Rail doesn’t get stuck in traffic; it offers a true alternative to get from point A to point B without dealing with the stress of traffic jams.
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Rail, at the heart of it, also needs heavy ridership. You can’t just build trains because people will not ride buses.
San Diego has done a great job on the Trolley front. Two of its three lines are successful. (The laggard is the Orange Line through southeast San Diego). San Diego has done a spectacular job on transit-oriented development.
The problem has always been its bus network. I thought it was a big deal — one of the most important things San Diego has done in transit besides Trolley expansion — when MTS implemented “15 on 15.” On weekdays, San Diego offered 15-minute service on 15 regionally significant bus lines. Before then, San Diego had only a half-dozen high-frequency services. The norm had always been 30- or 60-minute services.
By the way, San Diego Trolley does get stuck in traffic. Try going across downtown along C Street. The Trolleys have their own street, but have to wait for cross traffic. On very short blocks. So they stop a lot. Also, look at all the time the Blue Line wastes between Santa Fe Depot and America Plaza to make two stops that are literally across the street from each other.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Buses go *strictly* slower than traffic when they don’t have bus lanes. This is hard to sell. The Trolley can keep up with traffic, on average.
There should be a trolley route to Balboa Park, but bus lanes would be a good interim measure (at the cost of paint).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Nathaneal’s comments reminded me of a trip on the trolley system in Pittsburgh about 30 years ago. I took my future wife on a little shopping trip to Pittsburgh, and we used the trolley system to go to some department stores downtown and avoid traffic and parking problems.
For those who are not familiar with it, the Pittsburgh system is in a rather mountainous city, and combines cross-country right of way, private trackage in suburbs that has a right of way that looks like an alley with tracks, parts of the line on high bridges, a tunnel, and today, a section of subway.
At the time of this trip, the line had not yet been modernized, and was still operating with 1947 PCC cars, running on light rail and on flimsy bridges, some of which had been built for cars that weren’t as wide as a PCC and required that opposing PCCs cross one at a time.
The fun was on the return trip. We had a motorman who would have been great in an old Harold Lloyd movie called “Speedy.” This fellow stood on the brake making stops, and used full power getting away. He didn’t slow down for anything; if there was a pedestrian on the track, she got “Ding, ding, ding, ding” on the bell. A car on the street trackage in Dormont also got “Ding, ding, ding, ding!” At one point, there was a dog on the track; he got the special treatment of a honk on the horn.
This fellow drag-raced the auto traffic on the Dormont street running stretch–and won.
One of the things that was funny was that he was the most bored looking individual I’ve ever seen, or else very laid back.
Some time later, I told this story to one of the clerks in a hobby shop along this route. When I described the motorman, he exclaimed, “I know who you’re talking about. He comes in here. He models the Pittsburgh Railways in HO scale!”
This trip was a revelation to me. Those who know me from this place know I’m a big steam train fan, and I didn’t think I could be impressed with these little trolley cars. This trip taught me a
lesson, particularly that speedy return run as we dragged the auto traffic in Dormont!
Gary Dervetski Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:45 am
The promise of HSR lies in several key points:
1) Employment stimulus that is vertically consolidated from unskilled labor to the most highly educated technician.
2) Significant reduction of commuter travel time
3) Immediate profit potential inherent to new system development including passenger fees, passenger concessions, private sector investment in terminus infrastructure and accompanying neighborhood consumer convenience development, as well as, considerable freight fee revenue.
The arguments against HSR based upon current systems are short sighted and an easy way to dismiss the considerable efforts underway.
Like JFK said, ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
I dislike enticement by negativity and while peak oil is possibly one of the best motivations for decreasing our dependence on oil by creating a high speed rail system, I prefer to remind readers of the freedom of the extra six hours you could save on a commute from SD to SF…now that’s what we can do for the freedom of man!
Are we men or mice? The technology exists, the funds are there! Let’s do this!!!
Judging by the situation in Europe, I don’t think gasoline price is a deterrent. Look at the price in France (Euro/US gallon):
s95: €6
s98: €6.98
Diesel: €5.37
e85: €3.14 (I’ve never seen anybody filling up at that pump).
People save on clothing, furniture, quality of food, but not on gasoline.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:12 am
but that’s the point. frane, like most european countries, has far more transit/rail options for transportation than america, and higher fuel efficiency vehicles, precisely because of those higher prices. it also tends to have development patterns relatively more in synch with that transit, so that they are not as relatively lashed to the anchor of the personal automobile for everything.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Parts of France have better transit/rail options. If you’re in Ile-de-France, or the nicer parts of Rhone-Alpes and PACA, you’re in luck. Otherwise, you’re stuck paying for gas. The main response in provincial France is to drive less (about 2/3 as much as in the US) and buy more fuel-efficient cars (about 50% more than in the US based on emissions, but about twice if you count the lower costs of diesel), but not to ride transit.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
over a third of france lives in those three regions. additionally, i find it hard to believe that the rest of france has worse transit/rail options than their provincial counterparts in america, or even california.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Oh, of course the rest of France has better transit than the US. It doesn’t mean it has good transit.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 7:56 am
There you go. It’s all relative; higher gas prices go along with better transit. For “good” transit, you may have to wait for peak oil.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Or peak congestion. Many of the people crowded onto mass transit in the Northeast and Midwest could afford to drive, they don’t. Mass transit is a “better” option.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
It’s all relative, in the same sense LA and Portland have better transit than Atlanta and Atlanta has better transit than Detroit. If that’s the transit share you’re shooting for, you might as well start speculating on land 5 meters above sea level becoming beachfront property.
Emma Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
People are saving on quality of food in FRANCE? Have you ever been to France?
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:12 am
MacDonald’s most important market after the US is France.
There are costs people can do nothing about, like gasoline or housing. The only adjustment variable is food. I don’t mean it tastes bad, but it’s less and less healthy. Obesity, which didn’t exist 10 years ago, is now a problem in low-income families.
When I do my shopping at the supermarket I sometimes look at other people’s carts and I’m horrified.
A family’s car budget is, as we say in France, “incompressible”. So, you have to save on other things.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Yes Cars are needed for some things like getting Food home to ones house or apartment or domicile.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I’m more than Obese, It’s not like I had a choice, I suffer from Anxiety, Concentration & Depression(Some days I feel better than others though) problems, For Physical I had broken My lower left leg and dislocated My right hip at the same time in 2002, I also have Osteoarthritis and joint problems in My legs stemming from the 2002 accident, Of course I had no rehab outside of some flexing motions on My left ankle while in bed to restore as much flexibility to the left ankle after It was opened up to insert 3 Titanium screws there, I also have impaired eyesight, back problems, core temp problems and a bad thyroid, Doing even what one would consider very simple tasks can raise My core temp and make My sweat like crazy and My back to have intense pain, I’m 6’1″ Tall and 50.5yrs old too, Sorry I can’t swim and I have an intense fear of drowning. I guess I’m lucky though, My car only requires maintenance and gasoline, As the car is totally paid off, This year I’ve spent almost $601 in repairs and yes I do need the car, As much as I like HSR and such, I can’t stand for very long, as soon enough I need to sit down and to those that think that My parents were Obese, They weren’t ever Obese, Nor were My older Brother and Sister, Their all gone and only I’m left, Some of My Brothers relatives are or were Obese(A younger Niece is and a Sister in Law was, The older Niece and My Nephew are skinny), I simply do My best to survive.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Oopsie, The Osteoarthritis has been around since before 2002, The Joint problems though started in 2002, Also I’m having painful Knee problems in My right leg and I use a cane to help go up and down steps, Plus to get out of My car.
Dan S. Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Heh, made me laugh! Note to France: Don’t protest too much, it’s a compliment! :-)
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:56 am
@ Andre: The taxes on Gasoline are lower here in the USA than anywhere in Europe or even France, So It’s not a fair comparison.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
What I wanted to show is that high gasoline prices won’t change people’s behavior. When you’ve got to drive, you’ve got to drive.
I see a difference between the US and France: in the US, the burden will be more or less equally shared, whereas in France it weighs on the people living in less wealthy regions. If you live near Paris, you can ignore gasoline price since transit practically takes you to your doorstep. If you live in a region like Lozère, or Corsica, then you really feel the pinch, and there is nothing you can do about it. No car, no job.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
When You say this that way, Then You’re right. Here if the price rises like the price has been lately going up, If one needs gasoline for the car, Then one buys the gas, As there is either no mass transit or limited mass transit or a good amount of mass transit depending on where one lives, Here where I live We have limited mass transit(some bus service & no trains), Between Barstow and Victorville one drives a car or maybe goes by Bus via Amtrak California(If Amtrak does have Bus service out here, some areas do), To walk about 45 to 60 miles across the high desert is not a good idea at any time of the year.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Yes, if you have to drive, you will drive, but if you don’t, you won’t. Your mistake is assuming that _all_ driving is necessary, or that you can not drive smarter. Neither is true, so it will change people’s driving habits. They won’t make unnecessary trips, or they will plan better and make one trip instead of multiple trips.
Dan S. Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
I disagree. Gas prices have an impact on behavior, but it’s true that some people’s lifestyles are more “modifiable” than others. Here in the states, gas has been cheap for ages, and roads have been built by the government. Further, businesses have been forced to provide giant parking lots everywhere. Certainly one result of this has been a massive suburban build-up and an American lifestyle built around the car. Look at how popular the SUV has been here. Before 2009 it was the mainstay and sole savior of the US auto industry.
Over a decade or so, gas prices will impact people’s choice of a location to live. Over a few years, gas prices will impact the choice of automobile to buy. Over a year or so, gas prices will impact commute decisions. Over a month or so, gas prices will impact vacation decisions. Over a day or so, gas prices will impact when and where we go to fill up.
What America *should* do is send a clear signal that gas prices will remain high and never return to a level below $3 a gallon. What America *should* do is institute a gradual increase in the gas tax that will slowly grow to at least an additional $1 per gallon. The proceeds could go to transportation or they could just go to pay off the debt. Some have even suggested that they could be given back to all consumers as rebates. But the effect of the higher price would definitely change people’s choices, and allow us all to allocate our financial resources to support a lifestyle in a way that more correctly accounts for all the costs of those lifestyle choices.
I have no interest in telling someone where they can live or what kind of car they must drive. But I do want them to pay for cost of their choices insomuch as they affect me and the world we inhabit. Currently we just give gas away, and we all bear the burden of this incorrect pricing.
DRILL BABY DRILL!!!
Victor Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Even if that’s done, It won’t result in cheap gasoline.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“Even if that’s done, It won’t result in cheap gasoline.”–Victor
That’s true, recall my recent comments about oil markets from just the other day.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
DRILL Palins hole..nothing there
Gas prices were not the only reason voters supported HSR in 2008. Several factors played a role… and are still playing a role today.
Advocates should not hang their hat on any one factor!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I agree, but I think they were the decisive factor.
joe Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
We need to be careful. HSR opponents frame HSR as a ski-high project taking money from local transit.
At Gilroy’s HSR meeting 2+ weeks ago, riders were facing a total loss of service. Riders wanted to know why HSR money could NOT be used to back-fill SamTran’s shortfall and keep service alive.
The Caltrain rep was awful and didn’t clearly explain why, the few times she tried and she didn’t mention how Caltrain and HSR **could** work together to improve crossing and ROW upgrades.
So I expect attacks against HSR as a pet-rock service that is taking money from local transit service – all ata time when gas is expensive and riders need local commuter service.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Don’t they intend on using the operational profit post-buildout to help fund other rail services in the state (ideally, it’d be for infrastructure rather than operations)?
Joe Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
I do not know, but this shortfall in Caltrain is immediate. Their rep could have done a better job explaining the difference between HSR/Infrastructure vs operational funding for local transit.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
No, they intend to use the operational profit to build Phase 2.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Right, after Phase 2 is what I meant.
Joey Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
If that ever happens. Even before Phase 2, there’s likely to be a lot of private debt to pay off.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
At Gilroy’s HSR meeting 2+ weeks ago, riders were facing a total loss of service.
Both of them showed up?
Joe Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
The Mayor, three council members, including the VTA rep for Gilroy and the staffers for two other council members. Council member from Morgan Hill.
Riders from Monterey, San Bonito Co.s attended. Local residents and riders including people unable to drive who rely on caltrain for commuting.
Astonishingly, the meeting was at 6pm, before two of the three commuter trains arrive.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 4:43 am
“HSR opponents frame HSR as a ski-high project taking money from local transit.”
This should not logically happen since CHSRA is independent from other agencies, unlike SNCF which operates all kinds of transit.
The SNCF’s “Tout-TGV” (All-HSR) policy is currently under attack. The company is accused of investing all its resources on HSR at the expense of commuter lines, with the result that many people, especially women, now prefer to drive and avoid promiscuous overcrowded trains.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Robert,
My concern is that a single message is vulnerable. Like last time, 2 years ago, gas prices went down. When they did, so did an argument for HSR. Switching to another argument looks like flip-flopping. In my opinion, gas prices can be highlighted, but all other arguments should be cited too; at least as snippets or sound bites.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
two years ago, many of us were saying that the prices would be back in a couple years. now it is.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:20 am
Yes, fantastic point. And in that interim period, the high gas price argument was weak.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Weak only to people who can’t think — who can’t see more than one month in the past or future.
Which I guess is the problem. The US is full of people who can’t think more than a month ahead, or look more than a month into the past. Short-termism is rampant. I don’t know what to do about it.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:53 am
That’s cause some are Delusional…
I can think of at least one here who fits that description and We all know Who that is too.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
By definition, I think you adequately described the typical naysayer. You see, hanging your hat on a single argument is easy fodder for oponents.
Dan S. Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Gas prices are indeed an argument for HSR — if the price of gas is unpredictable and heading higher, then it makes sense to invest in transportation systems that use other energy sources. But, Americans are really bad at making sacrifices for the future. I.e., everyone can see that future gas prices are going up and the price is extremely volatile, but no one in America wants to increase the gas tax, even though it isn’t even matched to inflation.
I think Robert’s point is that Americans start paying attention to *all* the arguments for HSR more closely as soon as their lives are impacted by rising gas prices. So it’s not that he’s hanging his hat on the “gas argument,” he’s just saying that as long as gas remains cheap, Americans and Californians tend to not support HSR and transit. But if gas prices rise, then suddenly they do! Prop 1A and BART to SJ passed during the last gas price peak. The reasons for those projects didn’t change overnight, but support for them did, and I really think gas prices made the biggest difference.
While gas prices matter, the most important aspect of hsr is the effect on the state’s future economy. There has to be a fast, efficient way to connect all the largest and highest growth areas of the state together with one system in order to foster economic growth so the state can operate as a single united, powerful economic unit. No other from of transportation can directly link this large a portion of the states population with each other as quickly and completely as hsr. And hsr is fully expandable to all corners of the state in the future.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:14 am
gas and the economy are inextricable right now. the trick is to get the economic infrastructure off of gas, so that its fluctuations don’t kill the economy. without the electric HSR trunk line, the higher gas gets, the more pressure there will be for the state to regionalize, localize, break into smaller units, economically or whatever. HSR is a way to make sure CA remains one economic unit.
In 2075, a fully statewide system like this would put about 99 percent of the state’s 50-60 million people within 30 minute reach of the nearest hsr station and within 4 hours of every single other person in california.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:06 am
How long does it take to get from Concord to San Francisco, for someone from Santa Rosa or Sacramento lets say, via San Jose?
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
via hsr?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Yes on HSR. Because they won’t be able to transfer to BART, not at rush hour anyway because BART is at capacity. And getting on a bus and getting stuck in traffic on the Bay Bridge will be so attractive they will all hop off in Emeryville and get on a bus.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Id guess santa rosa to sf would be half an hour?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
without looking at Google maps and finagling a trip it’s about 150 miles via San Jose. Where you gonna get 300 MPH trains? and where you gonna run them through Marin?
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
im really not sure whatyou are talking about?
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
i wouldn’t think people would use hsr for src-sfc trips anymore than theyd use it for sfc-hayward trips. but it would connect for insance, medo/sonoma/marin to directly to the other ste regions which I think is the whole point of hsr to begin with. santa rosa -la would be about 3 hours direct for instance. as would say, redding-san jose, redding la would be 3.5 etc. you get the idea.
Jon Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Yes on HSR. Because they won’t be able to transfer to BART, not at rush hour anyway because BART is at capacity.
I would be amazed if by 2075 a second transbay crossing had not been constructed, either BART or standard gauge. Both of those are in the MTC’s 2050 plan.
Jon Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Here’s the version with HSR- again two new crossings.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Jim’s map doesn’t have anything crossing the Bay. Which is why I wanted to know how long it takes to get from Santa Rosa to San Francisco via San Jose. Or for that matter from Oakland to San Francisco because on his map the trains would have to go to San Jose to do that.
Jon Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
I know. My point is that your assumption that BART will be at capacity in 2075 is not a logical one. BART will probably expand its track capacity to cope with increasing numbers of passengers, and indeed is already planning to do so.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
If growth holds steady at about 1% per year, we’d have about 83 million people actually. Hopefully by that time there would be plenty of interurbans and such taking up the commuter problems.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Hopefully by that time somebody will have invented “birth control.”
PeakVT Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
An HSR line to Eureka? Come on, the existing rail line isn’t even in service. It will be decades before the city gets any kind of passenger rail service, because it is so isolated and the geography is so difficult. And while it may make sense for places like Redding or El Centro to be served by HSR trainsets operating for a portion of a route on upgraded existing lines, building entirely new lines to those places is unlikely to happen.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
in 2075 with 83 million people. not now.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
actually the geography up 101 to eureka isnt difficult at all.
Joe Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I’ve lived in ID and MT and there is a reason folks move to these regions. It’s not a slam dunk that the North Coast would want HSR.
I agree that building northward is desirable and worthwhile but I am wondering how popular the service would be if it is seen as a way to develop along 101 and change the “way of life”.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
with gas at $6-7 a gallon, i think they might change their mind.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 8:00 am
MT wants more passenger rail already… I expect the North Coast would too. Most of these rural communities were built around railroads.
PeakVT Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
It is difficult. Both 101 and the existing line are jammed into one narrow canyon from Willits to Fortuna for a good reason. Look at the terrain in GMaps and see for yourself.
James Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Jim,
Parts of the 101 are flat/straight, and parts go through canyons with the worst of unstable types of soil. In some areas the mountains and canyons are made of ocean mud and rock that was lifted and pulverized. Some hillsides, miles across, melt like butter in the rainy season. The north coast of California has a long and tortured history of costing railroads a lot of money and then dumping them in the river anyway. Southern Pacific tried to keep the Eel River line open. But after WWII it seems SP tended to cut cost on maintenance and take profit while the equipment and infrastructure went to hell. It will take another few thousand years before the pacific coast is as settled geologically as the east coast. Eureka just wasn’t meant to have a railroad.
When the railroads were first built in the Pacific mountains they cut the grades and made the fills and everything was ok for a few decades. Later, as the unstable soil moved conditions degraded. You would have to rebuild the thing every 20 years in some parts. The SMART light rail ends in Cloverdale, just south of the first of the terrible canyons. It would be nice if the operations could make it to Ukiah and Willits to reconnect with the Skunk line. Ukiah is north of the canyon and Willits is over a mountian pass. North of Willits things get much worse.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
ukiah would axtually far enough north.
synonymouse Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Some are predicting oil prices to decline sharply. With the Saudis pumping a lot extra and after Khadafy tumbles those impoverished and unstable arab nations compelled to pump like crazy to quickly come up with funds to subsidize their angry and hungry masses. A glut scenario.
But back to the home front as portrayed in today’s SF Chron:
Willie Brown predicts the June tax increase will lose and the only chance for victory would be for Jerry Brown to cut a sweetheart deal with the big unions to motivate them into an all-out propaganda blitzkrieg. Politically dangerous as it portrays him as being in the unions’ pocket, something Mega-Meg railed upon in the November election. I predict the tax will pass but with a bitter legacy of rancor and division
Meantime Jerry is trying to cut an arrangement with 5 Repubs to support placing the tax increase on the June ballot. Remains to be seen if Jerry’s givebacks would involve hsr.
Chron editorial staff bitching mightily and finally about the State’s bonded indebtedness. Basically they are calling for no more bond issues and not selling any more existing bonds.
Finally a solitary forty-something waiting at a Peninsula Caltrain station was stomped yesterday by a gang of 15 thugs and is hospitalized in bad shape. Let’s get those PB aerials deployed to afford some really good cover for those wretched sleazebags to hang out, hide out and camp out in. But I guess the gravity of blight is lost upon PB’s stilt-happy engineers and planners.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Finally a solitary forty-something waiting at a Peninsula Caltrain station was stomped yesterday by a gang of 15 thugs and is hospitalized in bad shape.
Yes if it wasn’t for that nasty Caltrain station they all would have been down at choir practice…. not out somewhere committing a carjacking.
synonymouse Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
My point is that elevateds attract lowlifes. It affords them a place to lurk.
Peter Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
I wasn’t aware that Redwood City Caltrain was an elevated. You have no point, just an unsubstantiated claim.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
and two stains in his Depends.
synonymouse Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Point is PB has “tunnelvision”, inversely, when it comes to stilts. They have no appreciation for the blight problem all municipalities have to cope with daily. It is a drain.
Stilts should be kept to an absolute minimum, not celebrated. See today’s Chron article today on good riddance 20 years ago to the Embarcadero Freeway. PAMPA doesn’t need a redux.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
PB may have “inverse tunnel vision,” and is perhaps the overpriced business you say it is, but a rule of thumb I recall seeing recently is that elevated tracks typically cost about double what it does at grade level, and a tunnel doubles the cost again.
There is a reason large bridges are generally to be avoided if possible, and tunnels are considered a last resort in construction like this.
StevieB Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
CEO Van Ark and Vice Chairman Umberg just this week described engineering work going on to limit elevated track in the central valley.
Time for synonymouse to change the subject again.
Spokker Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
It would be funny if they eliminate elevated track and the whole project ends up costing more somehow.
synonymouse Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
There are numerous “reasonable ways to reduce project costs.”
But the best way is to build the TRAC Tejon proposal, extend Amtrak diesel operations and forgert flush the rest of Prop 1A. Meantime approach the freight rr’s about incentives to electrify their main routes in California and beyond.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:46 am
You wouldn’t know Tunnelvision If You tripped over It Syno.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:54 am
@ StevieB: Yeah Syno is good for a laugh, If nothing else, Now the CHSRA is undercutting Him, But then I doubt It’s cause they read His or any post in here, It’s probably just to stretch out the money their getting, To extend the trackage a ways farther as It were.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 11:34 am
As much contempt as I have for BART I am beginning to think it is time for PAMPA to accede to the inexorability of the MTC longtime scheme for Ring-the-Bay. Caltrain was doomed when Kopp, BART and Willie Brown managed to divert the money for the Caltrain TBT tunnel to BART to SFO. PAMPA and the Peninsula are very unlikely to get an acceptable deal from PB-CHSRA. PAMPA is rich and can afford to tax itself to pay for whatever 2 track subways it desires. It would be desirable in the long term as the blight question would be resolved and the ROW and adjacent areas property value would be considerably increased. PAMPA should advise PB to route the hsr where the sun doesn’t shine.
@ Ken – The politics of transport in California have an aura of the byzantine and inscrutable. Notice how when obvious alternatives such as routing trains on freeway alignments or tunneling thru Tejon are suggested mighty objections are immediately brought up about issues or seismic uncertainties, all of which can be mitigated or otherwise managed. What is truly interesting is that the shortcomings of the selected or “correct” options are not just pooh-poohed but essentially ignored entirely. And isn’t it curious that a relative handful of special interests, such as the Palmdale real estate developers, can manage a major route deviation with barely a flick of the political wand?
Perhaps the most boffo aspect of the CHSRA shtick is the notion that this is a youth or for the future thing. Please, the movers and shakers behind it are all dinosaurs. Kopp, Diridon, the three crones and a geezer who run the patronage machine are all older than me and I am 66. Could be all the above, yours truly included, will be gone before this project ever turns a wheel.
The official poster boy for the CHSRA should be John Huston as Noah Cross in “Chinatown”:
“You think you know what you are dealing with here, Mr. Geddes, but you don’t.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
And isn’t it curious that a relative handful of special interests, such as the Palmdale real estate developers, can manage a major route deviation with barely a flick of the political wand?
For about the gazillionth time: it’s a passenger railroad, it makes sense to route it where the passengers are, Palmdale for instance.
PeakVT Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Look at this graph, and this graph, and perhaps you will learn something.
wu ming Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
1. noone but you are predicting oil prices to fall sharply.
2. if oil producing countries subsidize their populations/share the wealth domestically, it will mean less oil available for export because higher income = more oil consumed in a modern industrial economy.
3. if none of the oil producers was able to increase production levels when oil was at $145 a barrel, that’s a signal that they don’t have the ability to expand production infinitely. we’ve been at a global plateau since 2005, and a lot of the big fields are either flat or in a state of rapid decline.
4. noone buys your shtick anymore. shouldn’t you go find a new board to troll, who aren’t on to the BS of your talking points?
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I think a fully built out statewide system could include the 220 mainlines planned and be supplemented with 125+ in other areas. The idea being to connect everyone with everyone similar to france with full gride of service, and gradual continual upgrades.
PeakVT Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Yes, that makes sense and that’s essentially what I’ve proposed. You’ll notice three different colors for the ROWs, which represent entirely new 220mph lines, 110 new or upgraded lines, and 79mph upgraded lines.
Alan F Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Yes, an HSR line to Eureka is a bit much. Besides, in the post Oil world many isolated towns and cities are likely to see significant depopulation.
As for the rest of your map, an electrified line should run along the coast between Salinas and Santa Barbara. Not 220 mph speeds, but 90-125 mph speeds shared conventional rail. The line to Yuma (??), should be a HSR line to Phoenix. In the north, why 2 parallel HSR lines between Oakland area and Sacramento & the valley? Should be 1 line from San Jose-Oakland to Sacramento and running all the way to Reno. By 2075, HSR to Redding will continue up the coast to the Cascades route. Still, not a bad cut at a 2075 HSR map.
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
i cant see reno happening though. And the north coast is going to grow not shrink. No part of cali’s pop. is going to shrink. It will all grow. you are going to add 50 million people and cram them into sf and la. no one would put up with it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Reno makes sense as part of an SF-SAC-Tahoe-Reno line.
They’ll be fine as long as the Tyrell Corporation doesn’t get out of hand.
jay taylor Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
plus if you draw in the Tahoe ski market it would create a lot of demand.
Ever see I-80 on a Friday after a big storm?
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
San Francisco to Sacramento? Another pipe in the bay, exclusively for HSR, won’t be faster than a BART train between Embarcadero and West Oakland and will carry far fewer passengers.
And if replacing the Bay Bridge is above the pay grade of the region, an above-water passage won’t be much better.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Wouldn’t think of doing another pipe, simply start from Emeryville after BART connection or use the connection CAHSR will build and extend from SAC.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Then everybody can sit in traffic on the Bay Bridge.
AlanF Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Projecting the California population 64 years from now is iffy at best. We are as far from 1947 as 2075 will be from 2011. The overall world population growth rate is slowing down. California is likely to be even more crowded, but not 50 million more.
As for Reno, the current population of the Reno-Sparks area is listed as around 440 thousand. Pretty good size and, like Vegas, has a lot of people traveling from CA. The casinos and ski resorts would be interested in a rail line, but the route to get to Lake Tahoe and where it would go would probably run into all sort of national forest, protected wilderness, and major NIMBY problems.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
You can follow the Zephyr and then curve down after Reno following the highway into South Lake Tahoe. That should prevent most issues.
thatbruce Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
The return for having overcome the rather impressive geography in that area would be low. Personally, I’d concentrate on having excellent rail service to Truckee and Reno (as part of a longer line between the Bay area and Salt Lake City), and integrated operations with the existing resort buses which serve those airports.
If you like, you could extend the old Virginia & Truckee from Carson City up to Stateline/South Lake Tahoe, but that would be rather slow ;)
jimsf Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
hsr will allow the population/business and the economy to be more evenly dispersed and will help eliminate the current economic divisions between poor and wealthy counties.
and if you ran hsr beyond the redwood curtain it would no longer have to be a nether region as it would only now be 90 minute commute distance to the bay area.
The second graph in the article suggests the price of oil will remain constant at about $100/barrel through 2029, with one short exception. From that graph it’s a misleading argument to say oil will be $175/barrel without qualifying that the $175 is a short-term spike. Without that qualification, the implication is that $175/barrel will be a continuous price, and that is a misleading argument.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The point in the second graph is that long-term demand destruction will set in and that as consumption of gasoline collapses, the price will ease somewhat, but it will always remain just high enough to deter people from ever returning to mass usage of it as was done in the 20th century.
MarkB Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Would you point me to the source of that argument?
MarkB Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Never mind… the link was right there.
I think it’s a dangerous assumption to rely on the unpopularity of oil companies and high gas prices as the fulcrum to gain support for HSR. Honestly, it’s a much better strategy to embrace it as “the future” around a younger demographic that embraces the “future”.
Gas prices are more a product of the shadow inflation that occurs in the economy as opposed to some real potential for shortage.
Drive-by of the almost completed Expo Line in Los Angeles for anyone that’s interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luu44aDL-rc
It looks like the train will be waiting at a lot of red lights. This was billed by its strongest supporters as being speedy on existing right of row, but it looks like more slow light rail.
bixnix Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
If they work out the signal priorities like they have on the Pasadena line, I think we’ll be alright. That line crosses a lot of lights, but usually the only waiting is for the Marmion Way synchronization, and that’s pretty short. I’m impressed with the progress they’ve made on light synchronization since the line was first run.
Spokker Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
They always say signal priorities but it’s not always guaranteed. Long Beach won’t do it on the Blue Line. It’s not happening on the Gold Line in East LA because it would inconvenience drivers too much.
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
If it did happen on the Eastside Gold Line, chances are you wouldn’t even notice the improvement. You might only shave 3-5 minutes off a relatively short runtime anyway.
You can do something else to get dramatic speed improvements on the Blue Line, but the solution is very expensive. Fully grade-separate the right of way portion, take over the freight tracks and run both local and express service.
The Blue Line Express would make the local stops between 7MC and Washington, one stop at Rosa Parks, as well as local between Wardlow and the Loop. It could also get less frequent service — 15 minutes weekdays, 20 minutes weekends to pulse with Long Beach Transit buses at the Transit Mall. The trains might do a trip in 40-45 minutes.
The local would run between 7MC and Willow, making all stops. It would get existing services or better (for instance, 8 minutes weekdays and 10 minutes weekends to mesh with the express).
Ken Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
This is why it makes sense to just build rail on existing infrastructure like the Interstate. Why waste money in building things from scratch when it’s much more easier to knock off a lane on each side and lay a track through it?
No one’s going to be driving on our freeways once it starts hitting $5/gal or more, all we’re going to see are empty freeways that takes billions every year to maintain. Wouldn’t it be obvious to lay a track through it? Freeways already have overpasses and underpasses; it already bisects neighborhoods and they already hit most of the major areas in the city like Downtown LA, the airports, and major tourist attractions.
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Ken, one good reason why we don’t build rail lines on interstates is because the velocity needs of trains is much different than for rubber-tired vehicles.
You’ll notice there are very few stretches of arrow-straight interstates, in both curves and elevation. If you want a fast train, you want as straight and flat a path as possible.
Also in California, it’s illegal to knock off a highway lane. If a highway lane is taken for anything, another must be built in its place. With all the HOV lanes Southern California has added, a 4-lane highway doesn’t go to 3 mixed flow lanes with 1 HOV lane; the HOV lane is taken from the fast lane and a new mixed flow lane is built on the shoulder.
PeakVT Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
It’s actually a law that lanes have to be replaced 1 for 1?
Wad Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
I can’t say for sure. There might be a statute, there might not. The practice in Los Angeles and Orange counties, where HOV lanes were added to many freeways, has been to add a mixed flow lane when an HOV lane was created. But yes, the freeways grow along with the carpool lanes.
Ken Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 3:42 am
If there really is a law that inhibits the laying of rail tracks on the freeways like that then needs to be repealed ASAP; it’s clearly another stupid law that was enacted by the automobile enthusiasts to kill off any rail progress. Time to repeal that law then because whomever thought of that law is clearly not in line with the needs of today. As gas nears $5/gal, all we’re going to be doing is spending billions in maintaining a freeway system that less and less people are going to use. We don’t need 6 lane highways in each direction anymore, we can do just as well with three lanes in each direction and 2 rail lines in each.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Oh good luck with that, We have a minority that likes to say NO, In fact I think It’s about all their elected liters can say anymore, If they want to get reelected that is.
Ken Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:19 am
I’d say otherwise. Repealing a stupid law at a time when gas prices are reaching $5/gal is common sense.
Sure there’s a minority that may say NO, but in this case I’m sure lots of CAnians would vote YES on repealing a law that people will say “when the heck did we pass this stupid law?” Heck lots of people like me are probably wondering why we can’t just run rail through the freeway (not just HSR, but even commuter rail). If there’s a stupid law that impedes this, I say it’s time to repeal it.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Sometimes running HSR/commuter rail(as You put It) in the middle of a Freeway or a Highway is not practical due to the grade that already exists there, Freeways tend to up a steeper slope than Trains can, Trains go slower as the grades slope increases, While on a level grade(or nearly level for a train) they go faster than they would if they were going up a grade(a Hill or a Mountain Pass). LOL, Repealing the Law of Gravity is not something within this civilizations abilities currently, Let US know when You’ve solved this and shared this with the Scientific Community at large around the USA, I’m sure they’d love to know this too. Of course this is Why DesertXpress has said they’d start in Victorville CA instead of Ontario CA, As the Cajon Pass has no room for them and the Freeway is way too steep for anything other than Maglev. Plus the cost of tunneling through that pass and under two active fault lines would not be cheap. Could Tunneling be done? Sure, But I wouldn’t ride on It, I have an intense allergy to falling rock(s).
Ken Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
The Japanese seem to have no problem drilling tunnels through mountainous terrain and they are just as as earthquake prone as California. If they can do it without any severe earthquake damages, I’m sure we can.
Even if it may not work for high speed rail, at least it could solve a bunch of NIMBY related issues in running some commuter rail through the freeway system in the Los Angeles Basin. It makes perfect sense to start running at least some form of commuter rail through the busiest and most congested freeways of LA.
Linking Santa Monica to Downtown LA could probably be achieved much faster by running commuter rail through the I-10 instead of spending years in figuring out how to run a subway to it from scratch and trying to deal with the Beverly HillNIMBYs. It could be just as easy to create a true link to LAX to the rest of LA by running commuter rail thru the four-or-five mph freeway.
I don’t know about you, but looking at the most congested freeways that are most prone to SigAlerts should be a good indicator of how people commute on a daily basis; that should be a good indicator on where a commuter rail line should be built.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:53 am
@ Ken: Commuter rail down in LA does go in Freeway Medians where possible, Other areas have a subway and so far I’ve not heard of one single Nimby protest about the new transit rail lines down there, Just about where a metro stop will be located at and I’ve looked.
thatbruce Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@Wad: I can’t say for sure. There might be a statute, there might not. The practice in Los Angeles and Orange counties, where HOV lanes were added to many freeways, has been to add a mixed flow lane when an HOV lane was created. But yes, the freeways grow along with the carpool lanes.
Caltrans has a policy of creating new HOV lanes out of new construction, after the public backlash incurred when they tried to put HOV lanes on the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10 between LA and Santa Monica) by repainting existing lanes. But there’s no legal reason why a lane couldn’t be taken away and repurposed, assuming that the responsible entity wishes to commit political suicide.
Joseph E Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
It’s a shame that Caltrans gave in. Carpool lanes on the 10 between LA and SM would be amazingly useful. The BBB 10 would be much faster and more reliable, and it would be reasonable to consider that commute for a carpool.
Johnathan Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Metro will have the Wilshire BRT ready in 2012 for the low cost of $31.5 million. Time savings expected to be 12-17 minutes average during peak hours.
This is the pilot project funded mainly by the FTA. If it works well, more BRT routes would parallel Wilshire, along with off-vehicle fare vending and conversion to 24-hour bus lanes.
It would be much more effective than carpool lanes and highway buses.
Spokker Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Wanna ride that bus.
Wad Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Wilshire “BRT” will have bus only lanes for five hours a day, and no further east of Westlake or west of San Vicente. Ticket machines on the street are off the table; they’re too expensive.
Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and unincorporated East L.A. will never allow bus lanes.
What’s next? Now that the white people between Beverly Hills and Santa Monica got Wilshire Boulevard exempted from bus lanes, Windsor Village and Miracle Mile want the same exemptions the Westside honky population got.
Then the Wilshire Center business owners will say taking away lanes for buses will cause their office rental rates to plummet.
Metro will then run a demonstration bus lane between Western Avenue and Wilton Place to hang on to the FTA money.
dfb Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
That’s true only if a small minority in Westwood get their way. The Metro Board sent staff back to look at creating a gap in the Wilshire BRT plan. Or something along those lines.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Thanks, dfb. I’m more optimistic now. Public projects have never been stopped because of a small NIMBY minority.
thatbruce Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 9:28 am
@Wad:
Ticket machines on the street are off the table; they’re too expensive.
Are there any existing bus ticket machines on the LA streets?
Johnathan Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Nimbys are an integral part of every LA transportation project, but it does not mean they are dead on arrival.
If the Red Line stopped at Wilshire/Western and did not branch north to North Hollywood, subways would be deemed a failure in LA.
We would never consider the Purple Line extension today.
If the Green Line did not stop short of LAX, there would be no FlyAway bus to prove the taxi lobby wrong and Measure R funding for a Green Line extension into LAX.
Daily ridership along Wilshire Blvd. is approximately 100,000 when all bus operators are included, such as Santa Monica BBB.
Even after opening of Expo and Purple, Wilshire BRT would still be in heavy demand.
I have faith that the gaps would be filled in the future, when Wilshire BRT becomes a success.
@thatbruce:
Are there any existing bus ticket machines on the LA streets?
Orange Line is currently the only one with bus ticket machines.
Ken Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Can someone direct me to the specific law that states this nonsense? If there really is such a dumb law like this that impedes running rail as an upgrade to our existing freeways, I’m going to write my state representatives and Gov. Jerry Brown with this matter and I’d like to use this as a reference.
It’s time we reverse past judgments by the power of the people. It just doesn’t make sense why we have to submit to the poor judgments of the past when we can overturn it.
Victor Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Depending on the Terrain or where the target population is, I think I already did, Jerry Brown can’t help You much here, Good Luck.
dfb Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
I doubt there is such a law. You can look it up yourself. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Even if it is not stated in law, removing freeway lanes is not politically practical (not today at least).
I spoke to a Caltrans right of way rep a few months ago. He told me that Caltrans will not relinquish freeway lanes to CHSRA without legislative direction to that effect. But he did tell me that if the local county transit agency (Metro, OCTA, etc) directed Caltrans to utilize freeway lanes for rail transit, Caltrans would take it under consideration. He noted that he doubted such a request would amount to much.
It would be better investment to grade separate and double track existing commuter lines than to pick a fight over putting trains down the freeways. Of course, you’re picking a fight whether you take freeway lanes or improve exisitng rail lines but I think the fight for freeways will be greater. people are expecting to use hybrids and electric cars to get around in the future. Plus, existing rail lines generally seem to go straighter than the freeways.
thatbruce Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Let’s take a very real and relevant example; possible duplication of the existing rail line which runs down the median of the I-10 for a few miles, which has been put forward as a possible CAHSR route between LAUS and Ontario.
Up to 2009, the HOV lanes were separated from the general traffic lanes by slightly over a lane’s width of unused pavement; ie, there was space to duplicate that section of track without removing any actual lanes or widening the freeway (ie, just move the HOV lanes over).
Since 2010, that empty space has been repaved and striped to add an extra lane for this HOV/Toll lane experiment. Once the 1-year experiment is over, who wants to bet that the previous status-quo will be restored and that there will be non-lane space in the I-10 median usable for the widening of the existing track?
dfb Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
The HOT lane experiment will not be converted back to unused median. Caltrans will either continue its congestion pricing model or convert it to a HOV lane. That’s at least what Metro and Caltrans have said. BTW: The El Monte busway (HOV lanes) replaced rail road tracks that had originally run in that space. Those lanes are owned by Caltrans. The 20 foot strip in which Metrolink tracks are run is owned by Metro.
Caltrans does have a history of permitting joint use of certain freeway rights of way. Examples include Metro’s Goldline in the center of the 210 and goldline in the center of the 105 in L.A. County. CHSRA is already looking at accomplishing something similar along part of the SR-60 freeway between LAUS and El Monte. According to the Caltrans rep I spoke with, Caltrans has certain criteria for agreeing to a joint use.
thatbruce Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
@dfb:
Caltrans will either continue its congestion pricing model or convert it to a HOV lane.
Exactly.
The El Monte busway (HOV lanes) replaced rail road tracks that had originally run in that space.
You probably meant ‘was built alongside’ instead of ‘replaced’. The rail tracks are still there after-all ;)
(Minor history note: The rail tracks were laid as part of the Pacific Electric line out to San Bernardino around the turn of the last century, with I-10 being built later along the same path).
Caltrans does have a history of permitting joint use of certain freeway rights of way.
I would phrase that as ‘Caltrans does have a history of accommodating existing uses of the (future) freeway ROW’.
Metro’s Goldline in the center of the 210
Formerly an AT&SF line which I-210 was built around, and;
goldline in the center of the 105
the Green line, which was put into the enabling legislation for I-105 in order to appease the residents along the way (as a public transit reservation, rail was not specified).