Altamont’s Not Any Easier
Since at least 2008, Peninsula NIMBYs have seen their salvation in the Altamont Pass alignment. The logic here is that by crossing the bay at Dumbarton, and somehow getting out toward the Tri-Valley area and crossing into the Central Valley at Altamont instead of at Pacheco Pass, there won’t be any high speed trains at all going through Atherton, Palo Alto, or central Menlo Park (other neighborhoods in Menlo Park would be affected, but since they’re poorer and less white, they don’t really count to the NIMBYs).
One of the many flaws to this logic is the fact that the Altamont route wouldn’t be any less contentious – there are NIMBYs there too, and they probably do not want to be the Peninsula’s dumping ground. As if there was any doubt about that, the Pleasanton City Council threw a NIMBY temper tantrum this past week over the proposed Altamont Rail Corridor Project, which would improve the tracks from Stockton to San Jose to enable higher speeds:
Possibilities include having the rail line go through downtown Pleasanton through tunnels or on elevated tracks.
Councilman Jerry Thorne said he strongly opposed the idea.
“It’s basically over my dead body,” Thorne said….
“I can’t be more strong in my objection to having it go through downtown Pleasanton,” Vice-Mayor Cheryl Cook-Kallio said. “It seems that there’s a misunderstanding of what’s there.”
Councilman Matt Sullivan wanted to know who would have the authority to approve a plan to have a railway go through Pleasanton without the city’s approval.
City attorney Jonathan Lowell responded that the city would contest such an action and would go to court to stop it.
“I can’t fathom under any circumstances putting this alignment through downtown Pleasanton,” Cook-Kallio said. “I just, in the strongest terms, want to indicate to you all that universally, we will be extremely difficult and lengthy in terms of dealing with us, and would use every option at our disposal to ensure that it goes somewhere else.”
Let’s be clear: these claims are absurd; these councilmembers are ridiculous. Pleasanton is a city that has bet heavily on automobile-dependent sprawl, and it’s a bet they’re about to lose. With gas prices parked above $4 per gallon for the foreseeable future, cities like Pleasanton need passenger rail if they’re going to thrive. Pleasanton doesn’t have much going for it – it’s too far from population and job centers and the cost of traveling to and from Pleasanton is going to keep rising. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is on the edge of town in the middle of a freeway – if the Livermore BART extension gets built to downtown Livermore as is planned, Pleasanton will lose land value, jobs, and tax income to their neighbor to the east.
The Altamont corridor project won’t destroy Pleasanton. Instead it will be a key piece of 21st century prosperity for Pleasanton, ensuring its residents and businesses have an advantage over others in the region by having a fast connection to the rest of the Bay Area and Northern California. Pleasanton has had a rail corridor for nearly 150 years; much of the city grew up around the train station.
Unfortunately, Pleasanton’s current leaders appear to be suffering from the same delusion as electeds on the Peninsula – believing that the late 20th century model of automobile dependence is the Greatest Thing Ever for a community; that any deviance from that is Certain Doom; that no town can be a pleasant place to live if there’s a fast, reliable train serving it. This is total nonsense, as residents and electeds from who lived in Pleasanton before World War II would surely explain. They seem to have had a quite enjoyable life before sprawl, when the train was their primary connection to the rest of the region.
So in an era of high gas prices, where a train station and a fast connection to job centers is one of the most important things for a city to prosper, the Pleasanton City Council’s NIMBY attitude is indefensible. As with all NIMBYism, it is an elitist attitude that embraces wealth and privilege and denies it to anyone else who doesn’t have it.
It’s also a sign that an Altamont alignment for the SF-LA high speed rail trip won’t be any easier than Pacheco. Sadly, there are vocal NIMBYs across California, people who refuse to accept that the 20th century is over, who refuse to let anyone else have a chance at prosperity. They are vastly outnumbered, thankfully, and they won’t be able to stop high speed rail. Whether the NIMBYs are on councils in Pleasanton or Palo Alto, they need to be pushed aside so we can move ahead building for the future. It’s not any easier on the Altamont alignment. We might as well proceed on the Peninsula – and in the Tri-Valley – for the sake of the 37 million Californians whose prosperity depends on us getting this right.
As far as I know, Altamont for the SF-LA HSR route is not happening. It’s a non-issue. I believe this was decided a while ago. Why would anyone even consider it? It’s totally out of the way. I’m all for improving the Altamont corridor, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to use it for HSR between SF and LA.
As for the people who run the city of Pleasanton, they need to get their heads out of the sand. There are already train tracks running through downtown, and I can’t fathom why someone would rather have slow diesel trains rather than fast quiet electric ones.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 pm
*sigh* Here we go again. Even CHSRA concedes Altamont is a shorter, faster route than Pacheco for SF-LA trips.
Alex M. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Really? I stand corrected then. But how would it be faster?
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Altamont has always had the upper hand when it comes to Pacheco Pass route, it’s the San Jose area that has thrown a wrench in the process. As I can remember from 2008, Altamont pass had faster times and slightly lower construction costs than Pacheco, the only problem was the Bay crossing over the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. A concern that did not have merit since Dumbarton Rail will eventually be built anyway, only after the damage (Pacheco Pass) was done (built). Altamont Pass Route would also eliminate the need for Bart to San Jose wich someone wanted to build at any cost. All projects at higher price tags because either we’ve got self interests at the controls of these decisions or we have old guys wanting to build their jumbo train layout with taxpayer money, or both. That’s the only explanation I can come up with.
morris brown Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Right on:
The only reason Pacheco came into the picture was the power brokers in San Jose threatened to withdraw support for HSR if the line didn’t go through Pacheco and thus plant a station in their downtown.
Longer readers of the blog will remember Rafael, who also proclaimed Altamont was the by superior route. Kopp and Diridon were dictating policy then and made the compact to go Pacheco.
I agree with Robert, that going Altamont will not be easier from the aspect of satisfying local objections. That’s is hardly to the point. What is on point is that Altamont is by far
superior, and almost everyone except those power brokers in San Jose and (of course), those living in Monterey would agree. (Oh yes, Caltrain wants its whole corridor upgraded.)
Is this past history? The Authority would have you believe that. But there is an active lawsuit There is still the “stonewalling” of the Authority in not delivering a usable business plan or new ridership estimates.
Control of the routing has been turned over to the FRA, who says do it our way, or you won’t get our funds.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“What is on point is that Altamont is by far superior, and almost everyone except those power brokers in San Jose and (of course), those living in Monterey would agree. (Oh yes, Caltrain wants its whole corridor upgraded.)”
The point is the Altamont alignment stops HSR from running near your home.
But you do bring up something ironic, the NIMBYs got their representative’s attention. Those Representatives decided running HSR across Pacheco and up the Peninsula WOULD help Caltrain and they want HSR implemented now – limited – but they want it. A useable HSR segment for Caltrain now.
The full build-out is a long ways off. 2012 is the event horizon for the representatives. The next election s 2020 isn’t Eshoo’s problem.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Believe me, HSR does nothing but gum up Caltrain operations… The implied notion that somehow, if HSR left the corridor in Redwood City, then Caltrain wouldn’t be improved south of there, with passengers having to switch from an electric train to a slow diesel train, is pure horse manure.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
“The implied notion that” it’s an explicit comment because it was explicitly said by the reps.
Like it or not, Caltrain, from SF to SJ, was explicitly tied to HSR’s alignment and funding by the three PA-MP-A Reps.
They just nailed HSR to the Caltrain ROW. When it comes time to expand the ROW, none of them will be in office.
VBobier Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:23 pm
As I said elsewhere & It bears repeating here, There’s the Coastal Commission, I’ve not seen a lot constructed through a Marsh, By Comparison Pacheco is easier than Altamont in this regard, As the Coastal Commission makes Altamont futile and a waste of time and money. So Altamont is as dead as It gets.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Nonsense. Caltrans has gotten regulatory approval for numerous toll bridge projects in the past 10 years. By comparison, a rail crossing would be far less invasive.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am
San Jose alone has one million people living in it. The train should go where the people are. While there have always been good arguments for either alignment, keep in mind that neither one is a bad choice. Especially if the goal is riders. Which it ought to be.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“Altamont Pass Route would also eliminate the need for Bart to San Jose wich someone wanted to build at any cost.”
But, but, but ACE runs along that alignment so why build BART when there’s local ACE service? Why isn’t that line being built up?
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:20 pm
ACE doesn’t count as local service. It’s three trips to SJ in the morning and three to Stockton in the evening. The route it uses (also shared by Amtrak and owned by UP) avoids populated areas south of Fremont and travels through areas which are probably as ecologically sensitive as the Dumbarton crossing. The only reason it exists today is that it was built long before environmental protection laws existed.
That being said, running local service at least partially along one of the existing railroad routes might make sense (albeit on separate tracks). See this for one of the best proposals. On the other hand, if you’re already running HSR from Fremont to SJ, it’s an almost trivial matter to throw a few local trains in between the HSTs (considering likely service frequencies, the strain on capacity would either be zero or minimal).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Dumbarton Rail will eventually be built anyway
Only when cars are banned. Or San Jose looks like Chicago. Maybe both.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Or maybe when the MTC stops defunding it. Repeatedly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Billion dollar bridge to carry 12 trains a day, 6 in each direction….un huh sure.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
All of the cost estimates I heard were significantly below $1 billion. Source?
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I heard just above half a billion, no source tho’.
William Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
The project report at 2006 priced the minimal rail alternative at ~$300Million in 2006 dollars (http://www.smcta.com/dumbarton_rail/documentation/Dumbarton_Rail_Corridor_Report_030306_FINAL_WEB.pdf)
But I did see news said Dumbarton rail cost were at $600Million in 2010 dollars, need to find the news on this to confirm though.
In any case, the bridge Dumbarton Rail was planning would be a single track bridge structure. So I presume a bridge that can support 100mph+ would need the EIR be redone.
Evan Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Well…and the strange layout that would create. Instead of being able to run all HSR trains on a single line that hits the two biggest cities in the Peninsula (not to mention the southern end of the Peninsula, which is well-suited for HSR ridership), you’d have to create a Y and branch the trains off, a huge fault with the system.
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Not really a huge fault, their is actually more flexibility for your options depending on where you need to go. Bart today has transfer stations for different train destinations. The only difference is this system has bypasses for Express at stations and Bart doesn’t. Trains will either begin or end in both San Fran and San Jose, need to go in between? Transfer at Redwood City and ride local Electified Caltrain to your destination. Your not going to need to go to both San Fran and San Jose at the same time on the same train. No Caltrain, then yes a straight line as is proposed would be the only option. But Caltrain fills in the gap, ACE train gets the upgrade and serves stations (Regional) HSR will not. Two birds one stone.
Pacheco Pass only gold plates San Jose’s Diridon Station because my god we wouldnt’ want all those prospective riders from the Central Valley and Southern California bypassing “world class” Diridon Station on a route further north when they’re going to San Francisco.
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Sorry, started to sound like Richard M. their. The guys a kook sometimes but he does make valid points.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 pm
The way it’s looking, there will be no HSR stations between Redwood City and San José anyway.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Its not whether the Dumbarton Crossing argument has that kind of merit, its whether the NIMBY’s could use it to good effect to throw up roadblocks. For the Altamont Overlay is that Altamont can be improved incrementally to good benefit for existing services in any event, and once the Express HSR is running, lots of NIMBY opposition will get flipped into YIMBY support.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
For the last time there’s very little that could be done for Altamont incrementally. Adding a new track would allow more trains, but they would still be FRA slow trains, and people would still drive. In order to get any decent speed, you have to build a completely new corridor anyway.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The last time you claimed that, it turned out to be based on the curves along the alignment, ignoring the established technology of tilt-trains and the new cant deficiency regulations due out September this year. Or, IOW, a false claim.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
There’s lots of curves near the Bay. Where they wouldn’t be going very fast because of the closely spaced stops. The point of the exercise is to get to Sacramento which is in the middle of a fairly flat floodplain.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Stop spacing isn’t that narrow. Maybe it matters if you’re considering the acceleration of locmotive-driven FRA dinosaurs…
Winston Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
It currently takes 1:50 to go from Sacramento to Jack London Square, where driving it takes 1:30 without traffic. It isn’t obvious how you can really speed up the capitols. The new cant deficiency regulations will save 6-10 minutes (mostly between Richmond and Martinez) with current equipment, improved boarding (say raising platforms to 17″ or so) could save about 3 mins. You would get similar savings from automatic train stop, however that still doesn’t get you faster than a car. Upgrading the Capitols to be 30 minutes faster than driving would be pretty tricky and that’s really what you need to make them worth the effort for someone to take the train instead of driving.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
I didn’t say there could be no improvement, just that there wouldn’t be huge improvement, given the realities that the route will still have to face. I believe that the FRA still only allows 7 inches of cant deficiency, WITH tilting.
Oh, and tilting trains aren’t exactly cheap (though cheaper than the alternatives, other than just building over Altamont), especially if you want the FRA-compliant variety (which obviously you don’t, but it’s either that or build all new track from Fremont to SJ as well).
Either way it’s not a cheap proposition, and the additional speed you can get is limited.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Would you please read the Bay Area – Central Valley Program EIR, in particular Volume 1 Chapter 7, which shows that SF-LA is indeed faster via Altamont.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Note, Pacheco is a whole forty-one minutes slower from SF to Sacramento (62% longer trip time than Altamont). Given that SF-LA is a wash (actually 2 minutes faster via Altamont), what on earth were they smoking when they picked Pacheco? Was San Jose really that important that it was absolutely necessary to save TEN stinkin’ minutes on the trip to LA via Pacheco?
Alex M. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
San Jose, being the largest city in the Bay Area, is pretty important, I think.
Also, SF to Sac is not a primary use of our HSR system, for obvious reasons. Even with Altamont, I think people would be very hesitant to use HSR to go from Sac to SF, because it looks waaay to circuitous on a map. SF to Sac will hopefully be served (someday) by a new corridor that tunnels under the Berkeley hills and uses a brand new transbay tube that connects to the northern end of the SF Transbay Transit Center.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
What are you smoking?
Alex M. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Nothing. I said “hopefully.”
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
That alignment WAS the best one in the original studies for ridership. It was rejected on “sticker shock” grounds. Which I tend to think was probably a mistake because everyone seems to react the same way even for a much cheaper alignment….
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:02 pm
There is no one in Downtown San Jose on a non-holiday weekday during rush hour. I walked through Downtown San Jose at 5PM and rode the light rail from 5PM to 7PM and back. On the outbound trip, there were only a few people on the train. On the inbound trip, I was the ONLY GODDAMN PERSON on that train for half the journey. This is fine at maybe midnight when the train is headed back to the depot, but rush hour?
San Jose may have been hot shit at one time or another, but I had that whole city to myself. I could have shit on the sidewalk and nobody would have noticed. LA is more happening than San Jose. I don’t know where all the people in San Jose are, but they aren’t downtown and they aren’t riding the awful transit system and fuck San Jose as far as HSR goes. Don’t even stop there. No one would care.
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Right on, Spokker.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
when mouse starts giving you props, you know you’re putting out bull $hit.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Tony D – a broken clock is right twice a day. Spokker has very valid points about the general character of San José. It’s a city, but not a huge destination.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 pm
You mean to tell me when HSR is up in running in 2020, much of the South Bay/Silicon Valley population (including southern Alameda County) WON’T use Diridon Station? This won’t be just about getting people to Fisherman’s Wharf and Disneyland (i.e. destinations), it’ll be about actually moving/connecting people across the state. And again, downtown San Jose won’t be as it is now in 2020; the future my friends, not the present (I’m done for tonight all).
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
No, they will, but people will be traveling primarily from San José to other destinations, rather than a large mix of origin/destination trips at a station like San Francisco. I disagree that San José shouldn’t be served (it should!), but lower frequencies etc are not a big problem for it.
Spokker Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:09 am
San Jose had its 15 minutes. Now it’s just another suburban wasteland that wants to pretend to be a progressive, walkable and urban paradise. They haven’t done the work to call themselves that.
I personally didn’t really care about the Altamont vs. Pacheco debate all that much. I was willing to say that the decision was made and that we should move on. But now you’re practically taunting Clem for advocating a better solution “that won’t ever happen neener neener.”
Your own arrogance will be your undoing. This project is, one in which I’ve dreamed about ever since my autism kicked into full gear and I discovered trains, not a done deal. There are major forces at work who want nothing more than to kill it dead. Some feel they are genuinely doing the right thing by opposing any high speed rail. Others flat out lie and mislead, and such a strategy often works.
There are a lot of things right with this project but there are a lot of things wrong with it. Supporting the bad things won’t get it done any faster.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:35 am
, downtown San Jose won’t be as it is now in 2020
Yes New Carrollton, Metropark and Route 128 caused a flowering of dense walkable development…..
Alex M. Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
@spokker
“San Jose had its 15 minutes. Now it’s just another suburban wasteland that wants to pretend to be a progressive, walkable and urban paradise. They haven’t done the work to call themselves that.”
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t get an HSR station.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Right on, Spokker.
joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:53 pm
What are you guys thinking?
San Jose has a F’N airport with over 100 flights a day.
“SJC is situated as a “downtown airport”. Its relatively convenient location for residents and visitors near downtown San Jose has also led to some drawbacks. It became surrounded by the city and had little room for expansion. The proximity to downtown has also led to restrictions on heights of buildings in downtown San Jose by safety margins set in FAA regulations.”
So we have a major city with a Downtown airport that is limited in how it can expand.
“For the 12-month period ending December 31, 2006, the airport had 213,107 aircraft operations, an average of 583 per day: 59% scheduled commercial, 14% air taxi, 27% general aviation and <1% military. At that time there were 176 aircraft based at this airport: 50% single-engine, 6% multi-engine, 38% jet, and 6% helicopter.[2]"
Alex M. Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
@joe
Exactly. In the same way that people come from all over the South Bay to get to San Jose International, San Jose’s HSR station will bring people from all over too.
wu ming Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 pm
because 2010 is exactly like what san jose will be like in a decade, or for that matter, for the next century.
infrastructure planning is as much about shaping the patterns of the future as responding to the immediate needs of the present. gas isn’t going to get cheaper with time, and eventually we’ll have to deal with outright shortages. having HSR go through the downtown helps center future urbanization and densification where it belongs, in existing city centers where infrastructure is already partially in place.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:02 am
You need to come back down to planet Earth. San Jose City Council has decided that there will be no changes whatsoever to the zoning around Diridon Station.
None.
The only thing planned for Diridon station area is some office parks, and 20,000 new parking spaces. And if a stadium is built, expect even more parking.
Spokker Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:11 am
There will be growth, but the CHSRA’s extravagant plans for San Jose makes them look as if they believe the dot-com bubble burst never happened. Those days are never coming back.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Well, you have to consider that San Jose has consistently seen jobs migrate out to the suburbs to be replaced by nothing at all. And that’s with building a huge light rail network. Obviously, Diridon wanted to keep San Jose on the map by having a station downtown. But the key thing to understand is that the major employers in Santa Clara county don’t want to be downtown. They need big sprawling campuses to operate. (Much like the studios in LA County). But if density continues to be at a premium then Diridon Intergalatic will help San Jose metamorphize into something different.
This is much like the choices that Los Angeles has had to make over the last few years.
Meanwhile, it will be very injurious to California as a whole if there is no station in Palo Alto. You rob banks because that is where the money is, and you put stations where the action is. Business travelers from this country and others are going to want to land on a plane and get to see the venture capitalists, and get home. Some rinky-dinky alternative makes no sense.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:39 am
They need big sprawling campuses to operate.
No they don’t.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/uslocations/new-york/
Cube farms are somewhat different than sound stages. You can’t take a million square feet of sound stage and put it into a skyscraper.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:59 am
If anything, startups are moving back to downtowns, since they’re mostly hipsters and an office park in Mountain View is not cool.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Well that’s just it….Google ain’t a start-up. And that is making my point. Eventually, these HSR stations are going to be hubs for lots of transient industries. But your example for Google doesn’t quite help your, case that location is a very large building for New York City, and it reinforces the barrier that technology companies want from looky-loos.
Apple isn’t leaving Cupertino, Google isn’t leaving Mountain View, and Facebook is only leaving Palo Alto for Redmond.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I don’t visit the area around 14th and 8th very often, but when I do, it doesn’t look any different from any other intersection in that part of Manhattan. The building may be owned by just one company, but it’s fully integrated into the urban fabric. There’s no comparison to World Trade Center, the Columbia campus, or other urban renewal-style projects set apart from the rest of the city.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
There is nothing inherent in suburban office parks that companies need. Suburban office parks an artifact of maximum building heights and minimum parking requirements.
Alex M. Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
That’s really interesting. I had no idea that downtown San Jose was that quiet, but it kind of makes sense now since it’s just not really known for that, and it’s no San Francisco. Maybe the HSR station should be somewhere else in San Jose?
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Diridon station is probably the best location. It is pretty accessible, has at least a decent number of transit connections, and it’s relatively easy to build a right-of-way going there regardless of which direction you’re coming from. It’s not really downtown anyway. The thing to take away is that it’s not the end of the world if SJ has lower service frequencies or slightly longer trip times.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I think a 1:06 trip time will pretty decisively trump what “looks” circuitous on a map.
Also look at SJ’s CalTrain ridership and then reassess its importance.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:18 am
“Also look at SJ’s CalTrain ridership and then reassess its importance.”
Because SJ’s ridership on a slow commuter train to San Francisco on a line with 8~10
stations between SJ and the next intercity station on the corridor is a predictor of its intercity ridership?
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
It’s not perfect, but you can get ballpark estimates of how much the station will be used relative to other stations. Note that SJ’s ridership is surpassed by both Palo Alto and Mountain View, and eclipsed by San Francisco (which, btw, doesn’t even have a downtown station). Based on this alone, it’s pretty clear that SF will generate MUCH more ridership than SJ, regardless of service frequencies, but there are plenty of other reasons for that as well.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Will those riders at Palo Alto and Mountain View catch the Caltrain up to the TBT or down to San Jose to catch the through express to LA?
Alex M. Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
It could, but don’t underestimate people’s instincts.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Yes because once the money starts running out service to San Jose gets put off for Phase II. Then everybody looks around and decides that Caltrain or BART is good enough for a few years while they build to San Diego. … San Jose gets HSR in 2075.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Money hasn’t run out. VTA has $3 billion available right now for a Fremont-SJ line. VTA could have chosen 21st-century HSR technology for the project; instead, VTA brainiacs selected 1960′s-era BART technology.
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 pm
BART tech is indeed crackpot but it owns MTC, which really pulls VTA’s strings because it controls all the purse strings.
joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:55 pm
And they selected trains with Wheels, that’s stone age technology.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Steel wheels on steel rails. So steel age technology ~ say, circa 200BC for northern China.
synonymouse Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:19 am
BART eccentritech:
Indian broad gauge
proprietary aluminum-steel-screw-on with adhesive wheel with flat tire profile.
unique 1000 vdc operating current
A-B car design
Aesthetically BART’s brutalism is iconic, with the Rohr cyclops car one of the ugliest ever conceived imho. BART cars’ appearance could be immensely improved by overall shrinkwrap advertising. A full train advert for Trojans would be appropriate considering what BART mismanagement does to the Bay Area every day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Metro Washington uses 1960s technology too. No one in metro Washington is seriously advocating to extend Metro to Baltimore. No one in Chicago is suggesting extending the L to Milwaukee. No one in New York is suggesting extending the subway to Stamford. Not that San Jose will ever bey Baltimore, Milwaukee or even Stamford.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Remember that, unlike DE, I do consider frequency to be an issue. As far as I’m concerned, Altamont without service to SJ is if anything better than Altamont with a split, or at worst nearly as good.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:20 am
Its not that money runs out ~ I know its hard for people used to thinking of subsidized local and regional common carrier transport, but once it starts operating, the CAHSR will start generating its own money ~ its that San Diego and Sacramento start fighting over who gets funded next, and the compromise is they both get funded next, with San Jose sucking hind tit.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Far more then ten minutes effective difference, if frequency of service and lack of a direct Express to LA is taken into account. If San Jose was more important, they wouldn’t have had to fight so hard for Pacheco.
All water under the bridge at this point, of course. Reversing at this point would damage the chances of finishing the project, which is not worth whatever marginal difference there are one way or the other between the two.
egk Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:45 pm
That is an amazing document. What kind of “frequency” fetishists wrote that. HSR with service to all three Bay Area terminals directly is predicted to have 8% less ridership than service to all three. How can they possibly have thought that frequency of direct service is more important than service at all?
Clem Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Now you understand one of the issues that have been uncovered regarding the ridership model… as you’ve noticed, some of the overall results simply don’t pass the smell test. The reason is the gross distortions introduced by hand-tuning the frequency parameter, which by itself is sufficient to determine the outcome of all the Pacheco vs. Altamont ridership predictions.
For example, adding an SJ-Oakland branch to the baseline Pacheco route results in an 8% DECREASE in system ridership, due to the effect of reduced frequency on the SJ-SF branch. Cut off that Oakland branch, and you’ll get an additional 7 million customers a year! What we have here is frickin’ rocket science, folks.
Clem Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
On the other hand, if you were to tack on an SF-Oakland branch to the end of the baseline Pacheco route, you would get a 2% increase in system ridership, despite the fact that trip time would be a whole 13 minutes longer from Oakland to LA than if you went directly down the East Bay, along the alignment that results in the 8% decrease in system ridership.
And they continue affirming that this is cutting edge stuff.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Can we just agree that the difference between Pacheco and Altamont ridership under any of the parameters chosen is much less than the uncertainty in the model?
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
No.
The uncertainty applies in similar ways and similar directions to both Pacheco and Altamont. From a ridership perspective, any version of Altamont that serves the east bay destroys Pacheco.
Altamont delivers you a very compelling SF / SJC to Sacramento market that is essentially nonexistent with Pacheco.
Altamont delivers you the east bay, many of whom would be able to get to warm springs or Livermore via BART.
From a ridership perspective, after having spent literally 100s of hours on this, it is no contest.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Altamont delivers you a very compelling SF / SJC to Sacramento market
That assumes that nothing will ever be upgraded ever again. It also assumes that the spur to San Jose gets built.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Build a bridge crossing the bay – a trivial task since wetlands are a dime a dozen along the western US coast. Not.
Alex M. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Exactly. Altamont would be very difficult to implement.
VBobier Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Why? Cause some forget about the Coastal Commission has the ultimate Veto power on stuff built in their area, Bridges over marshes especially.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Yes, now just name other comparable wetlands on the western coast.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Uh, the Grasslands Ecological Area? You know, the one bisected by Pacheco.
http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=DF137251-1143-3066-40D014B645400E2F
http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=173&navSite=state (priority: GLOBAL)
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Hi;
The Bay is unique and it is very rare to find large wetlands along the western US making it far more valuable and at risk than say a wetland on the Eastern or Gulf coast.
But hey, I game for a debate -
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Here is the FWS list of Wetlands of Global Importance in the US.
http://www.fws.gov/international/DIC/pdf/wetlandsbrochure2010.pdf
I will admit that prior to this project, I had no idea that the Grasslands EA existed. Pictures do not do justice to it. Something like 1/3 of the Pacific flyway birds winter there. Ducks unlimited had it has its #2 most important site in North America (I think #1 was somewhere in Canada).
I will also note that it is less than obvious a new bridge would need to be built, particularly if some trains to SF went via SJ and some went over the bridge.
A lot of people have commented that Pacheco plus Altamont are the best of all worlds. The issue is that you end up doing twice the environmental damage. If the dictates of regional rail mean that you will upgrade rail service over the Altamont Pass (the 580) and rehabilitate the Dumbarton (a theoretically funded project), why go through the Grasslands and Pacheco pass which are very sensitive areas?
The EPA made a strong comment to this effect and said they would not support a project with both passes in it (which had been MTC’s idea). It is a little hard to understand why changing the terminology regarding Altamont (“overlay”) makes the two pass solution okay.
On another note, it is not obvious an Altamont routing would go through Pleasanton. The Transdef proposal as well as one of the latest Altamont corridor alignments stay well clear of the city. see page 30 http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/bead5f47-c686-4f7c-8e71-294ee6284842.pdf
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Elizabeth;
“why go through the Grasslands and Pacheco pass which are very sensitive areas?”
You can see how rare wetlands are in the west but the Bay is unique – it’s a one of kind and far more sensitive to disturbance.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
The environmentalists preferred Altamont to Pacheco, and were willing to compromise in exchange for a clause banning a station in Los Banos.
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Alon, most environmental groups prefered Altamont to Pacheco, because a new Dumbarton Bridge….was pretty much an environmental impossibility, because not only is the south end of the bay another environmentally sensitive area, but building a new set of footings in it is MASSIVELY disruptive in a way in which ground-level construction isn’t.
There was actually a tremendous amount of study to see if a new Dumbarton Bridge could be built on the old footings. The answer: yes, but not a high-speed bridge. That really was the defining reason why Pacheco ended up being less environmentally sensitive than Altamont + Dumbarton.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 pm
If all else fails, tunneling under Dumbarton would be easier and cheaper than tunneling almost anywhere else.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:32 pm
And yet the Sierra Club kept supporting Altamont and considered Pacheco a deal-breaker until the Los Banos station ban.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Yes the ducks unlimited group..they want more of them so they can Shoot them!! nothing worth stopping Pacheo for
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:22 am
@Elizabeth, two 220mph 5 minute headway Altamont and Pacheco corridors would be twice the impact. The simple answer to that is, “don’t do that”. Then its no longer twice the impact.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
That is exactly the point.
Altamont is a planned upgrade to the regional transportation network that simply for the improved service to Sacramento will eventually be built. There is no such need via Pacheco.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@Elizabeth ~ in what way does “simply for the improved service to Sacremento” imply that it would be built in the same way required of an HSR trunk corridor between SF and LA? You have to make your argument on that point explicit, because prima facia it sounds like you are saying that we will face double the impact if Altamont as a commuter overlay is built in a way that there is absolutely no reason at all to believe it will be built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
How likely is it to stir up toxic waste out there? That will contaminate the whole area?
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:54 pm
No toxic waste at the bottom of the Grasslands EA, lots of toxic waste to be stirred up at the bottom of the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. There’s a reason so much time was spent trying to figure out if a new Dumbarton Bridge could be built WITHOUT dropping new footings and disturbing the toxis waste. Answer, not a high speed bridge.
I really wish more people had been paying attention during the early environmental analyses. They’re still available to read, you know. Altamont-via-Dumbarton was killed by this problem. Altamont-via-San Jose is too slow. If y’all calling for Altamont had made a big push for Altamont-via-second-Transbay-Tube, you might just have managed to convince people that the high price was worth it for the high benefits. Instead, you waited until later and then acted like NIMBYs or BANANAs.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I’m still for Altamont via a second Transbay tube ~ Sacramento / Oakland / San Francisco / San Jose / LA / San Diego. Beaut.
But don’t lose sight of building the actual Stage 1 in a fog of might have beens.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Ugh. Altamont via a second Tube makes Pacheco completely redundant. It’s realistically about 7 minutes faster from LA to SF. It leaves out the Peninsula, but that’s fine given Caltrain upgrades, which are much cheaper than tunneling under Pacheco, and is the best choice for serving the East Bay.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Altamont-via-Dumbarton was killed by this problem
Funny, they never stated this as a major reason for choosing Pacheco in the EIR.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Tunnel, not bridge. Like the water tunnel being built right now through these exceedingly sensitive, priceless wetlands (seriously, have you ever been there?)… The TBM arrives in May, I’m told.
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:02 pm
They priced the tunnel, IIRC. More expensive than the Second Transbay Tube, more construction risk, and requires more land in PAMPA to surface. Still sound like a sane idea? You might as well advocate a Second Transbay Tube, it’s cheaper and more effective.
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
And yes, the water tunnel couldn’t be replaced with a Second Transbay Tube. A Dumbarton Tunnel, however, would be more effectively replaced with one, therefore a Dumbarton Tunnel is silly.
Do any of you people understand Alternatives Analyses? I would think YOU would, Clem.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:27 pm
The initial cost estimates did not take into account that the geology under Dumbarton would be WELL KNOWN after boring the water tunnel. This diminishes the risk (and cost) significantly.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:32 pm
They priced a tunnel? Where? (a serious and non-rhetorical question)
MGimbel Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:40 pm
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/a826d897-283d-4454-b227-f229b4f721c6.pdf
However, it appears that a second transbay tube is far more expensive than a Dumbarton tunnel.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Naturally. The SF-Oakland crossing is far wider and much deeper than Dumbarton.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Interestingly, they priced the tunnel at only $400 million more than the high bridge (base case).
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
They priced a 19-mile segment from Redwood City to Niles Junction, and the cost of the 5-mile tunnel isn’t broken out from that total. What we do know is that the first tunnel ever to be bored under San Francisco Bay is budgeted at about $300 million, for a single 15-foot bore. I don’t know how cost scales with bore diameter, but for trains you’d need two 30-footers… If you use a very conservative (probably way too conservative) assumption that tunnel costs scale with cross sectional area, you end up with a $2.4 billion tunnel. I wonder how that compares to a four-track PAMPA trench?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Water tunnels don’t have escape routes, fire suppression systems, track, signals, ventilation….
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Clem’s estimate is actually on-par with the Authority’s own estimate of the cost of a tunnel.
mike Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:14 am
But where do you go after you reach Newark?
The only corridor through Fremont I see is the UP/ACE corridor. Even if UP allows you to build there, you have to transition from tunnel to aerial to tunnel within the confines of the corridor itself. That’s feasible at the western end (near Sycamore St) where it’s 120′ wide, but virtually impossible at the eastern end (near Fremont Blvd) where it’s 60′ wide. From Fremont Blvd, it’s another 7 mile tunnel to Sunol.
At a minimum you have a 6 mile tunnel from East PA to Newark and a 7 mile tunnel from Fremont Blvd to Sunol, plus whatever it takes you to get over Altamont itself.
In comparison, Quantm identified a “tunnel minimizing” Pacheco route with less than 6 miles of total tunneling, and the current AA only proposes ~8 miles of tunneling over Pacheco, with a longest tunnel of ~4 miles.
I agree Altamont is superior to Pacheco for several other reasons, but it is not tunnel minimizing, and thus very unlikely to be cost minimizing.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
There are three routes you can take through Fremont. The first, as you mentioned, is the UP Centreville line, which is the most obvious, but it has sharpish curves (or at least one), and of course it’s owned by UP. The second is a power line right-of-way which runs east-west at the bottom of Central Park. You have to detour a bit to get there, but it’s decent otherwise. The third is running along SR-84 and its extension right-of-way. Decent curves, but you do have to tunnel under some houses after you cross the BART line.
mike Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I saw the power line ROW, and it initially looked attractive. But realistically, you’d have to be below grade the entire way if you use the power line ROW. It simply bisects too many things…including an elementary school. There’s no way you’d be able to go elevated on that ROW.
I suspect the SR-84 median is probably your best bet, if Caltrans lets you. But you’re still talking about 5 miles of tunneling under the Bay/slough and 6-7 miles of tunneling from Fremont to Sunol.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Altamont is marginally faster (and wouldn’t be any faster if UP kept playing hardball), and longer.
To everyone else: the lower trip time comes from spending more time at high speed in the Central Valley and less at medium speed in the Bay Area.
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
No, Altamont would not be a shorter, faster route from SF to LA, if you have to go from Altamont to San Jose to San Francisco. If you have to go over the Dumbarton Bridge, it’s marginally faster (maybe), it is longer, and more importantly it’s environmentally a huge, huge problem. If you go through a second Transbay Tube it’s much faster but that was ruled out early due to price.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
If you go through a second Transbay Tube it’s much faster but that was ruled out early due to price.
That and it wouldn’t have served the thundering herds of people who are dissatisfied with the Walgreen’s in Livermore and want to use the train so they can get to the Rite Aid in San Jose.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
As opposed to the CVS in Gilroy?
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:15 pm
A Dumbarton tunnel is a geotechnical slam-dunk with near zero environmental impact. I didn’t say it would be cheap, but regionally useful infrastructure (for both HSR and regional rail) is worth the expense.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I believe this was decided a while ago.
It was, and then it wasn’t. The decision is still being litigated, and likely will be for many months if not years. The two court cases to follow are:
Sacramento Superior Court
Case 34-2008-80000022 (filed after the program EIR was certified in 2008)
Case 34-2010-80000679 (filed after the program EIR was re-certified in 2010)
Despite the strenuous affirmations of Pacheco supporters that the decision is already cast in stone, these two cases will have to run their course first.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:53 pm
It is cast in stone Clem! How many times does it have to be stated that some judge in Sac doesn’t have the authority or power to force the CHSRA to change it’s routing!? (I know, I know, “Go tell the judge bla bla bla…”) And Alon Levy is right; a hypothetical Altamont route is “marginally faster” than Pacheco, but wouldn’t serve directly the largest city in Northern California nor Silicon Valley. Alas, Altamont will get its HSR commuter overlay, but of course that isn’t good enough for some PAMPA NIMBY’S like yourself…oh well.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The “largest city” in Northern California has more employed residents than jobs. The job centers of that region are Palo Alto, Mountain View, and the other SV sprawlburbs; those have 2-3 times as many jobs as employed residents.
The appropriate way to think of San Jose is the following: imagine that each borough of New York were a separate city, and that instead the counties of northeastern New Jersey consolidated to form a municipality of 4 million people. Greater Jersey City would then be the largest city in the US, and would even have its own independent job centers, such as Newark and Edison. In this setting, Manhattan would be like San Francisco, Greater Jersey City would be like San Jose, and Brooklyn and Queens would be like enlarged versions of Oakland.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Alon,
Interesting. On the other hand, why does it matter that SJ has “more employed residents than jobs”? Whether you have a million people living in your city or a million people that work in your city, they still have to get around, right? Besides, this HSR project (Pacheco and Altamont) is all about the future, and in terms of jobs, the future is bright for downtown San Jose, the N. First Street Corridor, and Edenvale. You should see the traffic on 101 coming up from Gilroy to San Jose in the morning!
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
It matters, because it means SJ is a giant suburb. This giant suburb also has jobs, it’s true; this makes it at best the Jersey City or Brooklyn of NorCal. The biggest difference is that Jersey City and Brooklyn are walkable and transit-friendly and SJ is parking lot hell.
In terms of commuter flows, the growing market is from the upper Central Valley to Silicon Valley and the East Bay. If American metro areas were defined the same way in Japan, Stockton and Modesto would be considered part of Greater SF-SJ.
I have no idea who the future is brighter for. But I would guess it’s SF rather than SJ, since SF is already outgrowing the rest of the Bay Area. The trend toward walkable downtowns is going to be absolutely brutal to SJ. The big tech companies are all headquartered north of SJ and are not showing any signs of moving south; the economic engine that attracted them was Stanford, as a result of which the economic center of Silicon Valley stretches roughly from Mountain View to Redwood City.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Altamont is operationally ineffecient and more costly to run.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Folks are ignorant to think this does not play a MAJOR role in the decision to select Pacheco and not Altamont.
Clem Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
This flaw only becomes apparent when trying to provide 5-minute service headways. If 5-minute service headways are a sine qua non type of thing, then I gracefully concede that Pacheco is the only solution. There’s only one little niggle, though, which is the global lack of precedent for such an operating scheme… at more realistic levels of service, even 2035 or 2050 realistic levels of service, this supposed operational inefficiency simply does not arise.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Where exactly do the 12 trains per hour (off peak!) go once they get to San Francisco? Run them off the end of a pier and into the Bay or something? Because there’s certainly nowhere available to slow down, cross over to the correct approach track, stop, unload, reload, reverse, accelerate, cross over to the departure track, and depart within San Francisco.
And even before you get to that, where exactly in the world do they operate 12 high speed trains per hour per direction per track into a conurbation?
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
That is why you need a second station at 4th and King.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
If you do Pacheco and want frequent trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Where exactly…
I’ll be sarcastic back and say “Out the tunnel they came in on?” Well the outbound side of the two track tunnel they came in on….
…12 trains…
Tokyo, but San Francisco or Los Angeles will never be Tokyo and the rest of California will never be the Tokaido. Just this week you exclaimed “Only two an hour between Paris and Lyon” Someone went and dug out the service pattern for Lyon, and Lyon, tiny little Lyon, has ten. Not all of them to Paris, but it has ten.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
They are not going to Lyon, they are using the Lyon tracks. THis is not a discussion about the number of trains on the mainline service through the CV.
Richard’s point is valid – which is exactly why they decided to add 4th and King,
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
4th/King was added because Caltrain will have only limited access to the TBT. Quite amazing really…billions in infrastructure spending without any real improvement for Caltrain customers.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Remember that the southern end of Stage 1 has more people, so all other things equal, destinations in the Bay have more clout than origins. And that San Jose might be 6% of the origins of the combined Bay and LA. Maybe more, given the quicker trip.
Kicking 6% of your origins to the curb for the hypothetical benefits that Altamont might offer if it were possible to ride roughshod over the NIMBY’s along that corridor ~ that’s a very marginal win at best, quite possibly a marginal loss. And if given that there’s a bigger obstruction card for NIMBY’s to try to play along that corridor, it could go sour and be a big net loss ~ SF / SJ / Altamont would be a stinker of a route.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
In phase 1, Altamont cuts frequency to San Jose, and Pacheco doesn’t serve Modesto and Stockton. It’s about even on population. Since San Jose is not really a destination – try San Francisco, or (if the HSRA proposed a more humanistic station) Palo Alto – neither is really more important.
And on another note, SoCal dominates both the origins and the destinations, so it’s not really true that destinations are more important than origins in the north. Each of the 7 million residents of the Bay Area has more reason to take HSR than each of the 18 million residents of Greater LA, since there are many more HSR-reachable destination. Therefore, under a first-order approximation like a gravity model, there should be equal numbers of south-to-north and north-to-south travelers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Phase I doesn’t serve Stockton. Stockton doesn’t get service until the line goes to Sacramento.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Phase I of Altamont doesn’t serve Stockton any more than Phase 1 of Pacheco serves Merced. What specifically that means is up to interpretation.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Some here would claim that a Gilroy HSR stations serves Monterey. If such a large station radius is the metric, then Altamont phase 1 most certainly serves Stockton.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:46 am
Under the national timetable, Phase 1 has originating services in Merced ~ its feeds locals into the system both ways when curfew lifts which turn to become full runs, and receives locals out of the system at hte end of the day that can’t reach the other side before curfew.
Yes, Stockton in Altamont would be served in Phase 1 by the hypothetical Altamont main trunk line in much the same way that Gilroy Station will in fact provides the closest opportunity to Salinas and Monterey. Service is not a light switch, all on or all off ~ its rather a matter of degree, diminishing as you run from the immediate environs of the station to the outer edge of its catchment.
Stockton doesn’t get direct service until Phase 2 in either alignment, and its frequency to LA is driven by Sacramento/LA frequency in either alignment. As long as a 125mph regional HSR connecter is built in Altamont, it gets similar service to SF in terms of transit time and frequency as it would get under either alignment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Woodbridge-Edison would be San Jose with New Brunswick being Palo Alto ( after all Rutgers is a colonial college ) and Rahway being Mountain View. ( Merck or Novartis or whatever it has comogulated itself into ) ….. and Silicon Valley isn’t the be all end all. After all Greater Woodbridge survived losing the important research facility it once had in Menlo Park and the death of Bell Labs, RCA etc.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Altamont route is “marginally faster” than Pacheco, but wouldn’t serve directly the largest city in Northern California nor Silicon Valley.
What a stinking mound of BS. Will you read the EIR already? The baseline Altamont case that all the Pacheco malcontents are advocating does serve San Jose Diridon station. It most definitely does not cut out the mighty city of San Jose… Unless you consider one train every 20 minutes rather than every 10 minutes as being cut out.
tony d. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Calm down Clem and take a few deep breaths. No need to read the
EIR for Altamont BECAUSE IT AINT HAPPENING! Why do you insist on torturing yourself?
Oh well, its your world (and blood pressure).
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:37 pm
It’s also our tax money.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:48 pm
uhh…OK, and the taxpayers of California said YES to Prop. 1A knowing full well the HSR route for the Central Valley/Bay Area. Come again Joey?
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
*shrug* I feel that my money would be spent much more efficiently with Altamont. Plus a lot less of it spent down the road to make up for the gaps that Pacheco leaves compared to Altamont.
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 pm
true that!
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:52 am
That’s cost is just a framing ~ there is no single corridor out of a greater metro area shaped like the Bay that does not leave a gap that will require filling in an age of $5~$10/gallon gasoline.
And the hypothetical cost several years back are just that ~ the actual cost at this point in time includes the costs of scrapping what has been done and starting all over, which may well include delays in getting that work started. Since the bond funding is nominal funding, the costs of delays can easily swamp the difference in cost between Altamont via a Dumbarton tunnel and Pacheco.
The reason Clem focuses on the lawsuits is that they are the only things that can render those delay costs moot.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:07 pm
I doubt 1% of the voters would’ve changed their minds if it were Altamont and not Pacheco. (For one, a large majority of the state’s voters are not in the Bay Area and most likely don’t give a crap.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Assuming they find the money to go to San Jose. The voters of New York City passed a bond measure to fund the Second Avenue Subway…. in 1950. And again in 1957. And again in 1973. a Few stations should open in 2016 though the FTA says 2017 is optimistic. Yep no way no how they can go to San Francisco without going to San Jose.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 6:58 am
Yes, and closer to the Bay, there seem to be improvements in the Bay that are funded and then redirected to BART. delaying the original improvement.
Once Stage 1 is built, San Diego, Sacramento and the parts of greater LA not directly served in Stage 1 will be clamoring for getting their section built next.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Appreciate your web page at all, but, as I cited above….
The Altamont alignment requires a different operating pattern. It requires more trains to run. It is more costly.
It is inefficient by a large margin when compared to Pacheco.
Spokker Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
If the goal of HSR is to make money and get paid, you’d want to build Altamont and capture that Bay Area-Sacramento traffic as soon as possible. And you wouldn’t have to build Pacheco AND an overlay. Those ballin’ commuters between the Bay Area and SAC are itching to get their butts on a high speed train.
Don’t overestimate traffic to San Jose. Don’t over estimate the important of frequency. Frequency is way more important the subway, but not *that* important for intercity service. Send a train to San Jose every 30 minutes and people will be more than happy.
William Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Using the current Capitol Corridor ticket price as a guide, in order for SF/SJ-SAC to be profitable through the hypothetical Altamont HSR line, it needs to be:
1) be able to charge “double” the ticket price of Capitol Corridor, OR
2) have “twice” the ridership of Capitol Corridor, OR
3) “half” as costly to run as the current Capitol Corridor
It might be overly simplifying the cost equation, but consider the current Capitol Corridor’s fare recovery ratio is 50%, these shouldn’t be too far off the result. It is “not” likely SF/SJ-SAC will be a big money maker for CAHSR.
Joey Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:36 am
The finer points of fare recovery are quite a bit more complicated than that, and comparing infrequent FRA slow services to fast, modern HSR is not really valid. But it seems likely that Bay Area-Sacramento services would at the very least break even because fast, frequent intercity trains on corridors with high demand tend to do so.
Oh, and I would expect these services to dwarf CC ridership, never mind doubling it.
Spokker Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:44 am
If CAHSR can’t achieve double the ridership of the Capital Corridor FRA-regulated piece of crap route, then I don’t know what the hell we are building high speed rail for anyway.
Even if Bay Area to Sacramento is not profitable, why would you build Pacheco and then build an Altamont overlay? Altamont would accomplish in providing unprofitable but socially beneficial Bay Area-SAC service and also provide the same or better LA-SF service. San Jose is just not that important to have more than one platform for high speed rail and more than a couple trains per hour.
joe Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:45 am
“If CAHSR can’t achieve double the ridership of the Capital Corridor FRA-regulated piece of crap route, then I don’t know what the hell we are building high speed rail for anyway.”
Will HSR cost the same? HSR does NOT in Europe. You pay a premium.
Single ticket is $25 round trip from Jack London to Sac.
Spokker Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 4:13 am
Yes, we all know how efficiently Amtrak staff its trains, turns them around and maximizes revenue. Over the years I’ve come to realize that Amtrak’s primary purpose outside of the Northeast Corridor is to burn off diesel fuel.
Funny how Metrolink in Southern California had the bright idea to TURN OFF THE GODDAMN ENGINE when they decide to sit at a terminus for an hour while the train crew picks their assholes all the while getting paid to do nothing. They saved millions because of an idea that took almost two decades to be thought of. Love those FRA-regulated and approved trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:21 am
Starting a locomotive isn’t like starting your Yugo. Sometimes it makes sense to let the engine idle. And sometimes it’s nice to have HEP too.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Wrong. As always.
The reason that Macho Amtrak “Engineer” Dudes leave engines idling RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM all day is the same reason that the same class of American male leaves diesel trucks idling RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM for hours in parking lots or leaves SUVs idling RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM while they run errands or remove mufflers from their RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM Harleys: it’s because (a) they’re macho dicks; (b) they’re stupid; (c) fossil fuels are effectively still too cheap to meter; and (d) their management are complete basket case losers.
You’ll notice outside your own home UPS and Fedex delivery truck drivers are instructed, by management which isn’t a basket case, to switch off engines as soon as they halt their vehicle, while your neighbour with the SUV will leave it idlie for 15 minutes while he “runs” inside, or the furniture delivery truck dude will leave his truck RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUM-RUUMing on the street for 45 minutes, etc. The UPS drivers have absolutely no problem restarting their vehicle’s engines after making a three minute delivery. Likewise, French car drivers have no problem turning off their engines while waiting a couple minutes at a level crossing for a train to clear, while 0% of Americans will do so — and that’s not because US cars are any harder to start than those in Yurp.
Away from extremely frigid weather (temperatures that coagulate engine lubricants, temperatures which are never ever the case in coastal California, and only a very small fraction of the year for the mighty railroads of the Adirondacks), there is no reason whatsoever to leave a diesel locomotive idling for more than 15 minutes. None, other than machismo, laziness, and the following of a macho cultural code based in myth and lore, not on engineering (or economic) reality.
adirondacker12800′s statements are a pretty reliable guide to some contra-universe.
Train drivers (sorry, “engineers”) leave big diesels idling because they can get away with doing so.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Yes, it’s always a thrill to have to do brake tests because the train is ten minutes ahead of scheudle and needs to remain at the station. Or just let the cleaners work in the dark. The hand cranked vacuum cleaners shouldn’t slow them down at all. I suppose they could just poke a hole in teh waste tanks and let them empty onto the tracks…..
thatbruce Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@adirondacker12800: There’s certainly a case for the older the engine and attached equipment, the longer it takes to bring the engine and train up to full operation (brake pressure for one as you point out). But for newer engines and equipment, that argument tends to be less of a reason to let the engine idle for extended periods. Things such as onboard power for the cleaners can be fixed by getting power from the platform (ie, power lead to the lead carriage).
In the end though, its the operational management which can mandate such simple or obvious solutions, not the engineer.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:55 am
It won’t go to Sacramento in Stage One in any event, it will go to LA. Getting revenue to build up the system based on trips which won’t be available until the system is finished has a bit of a time-paradox problem about it.
Joey Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
by a large margin
Source? Care to quantify this?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:35 am
The judge’s ruling Atherton v. CHSRA case was very clear that the choice of Pacheco Pass was just fine. The problems came between San Jose and Gilroy, which have been addressed – and those problems, related to noise and to Union Pacific, would have existed along the Altamont alignment too.
I am stunned just how many people are dismissing San Jose and environs like it’s some kind of out-of-the-way cowtown that has no business being on the HSR mainline. A major jobs and population center surely only got a station on the mainline because of political pull. Of course.
It’s very difficult to take criticisms of Pacheco seriously when they are made with such absurd dismissal of the importance of San Jose to the ridership and to the state as a whole.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Robert, it really does not matter how many people a municipality has. All it tells you is how loosely the municipal borders are drawn. Jacksonville has more people than Boston, San Antonio more than Dallas, and Phoenix more than San Francisco. San Diego is the second largest city in California, but LA-SF is still the primary HSR market. The second largest city in New England is Worcester, but even Amtrak isn’t so stupid as to propose the NEC serve Worcester rather than Hartford or New Haven or Providence.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
…well there used to be “Inland Route” trains between New York and Boston that served Hartford Springfield and Worcester but the track deteriorated in Western Mass……
BruceMcF Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Urban area is a census definition that does not respect municipal borders.
At 1.5m, San Jose is the 24th most populous urban area in the US, fourth most populous urban area after LA, SF and SD, though closely followed by Riverside and Sacramento, and of course second most populous urban area in the Bay area after SF/Oakland at 3.2m (12th).
Indeed, the above is a complete list of urban areas greater than 600,000, all of them greater than 1.2m: Los Angeles – Long Beach – Santa Ana, San Francisco – Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, Riverside – San Bernadino, and Sacramento.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Sure. But the economic center of the San Jose urban area is not San Jose. The census bureau names urban and metro areas after the largest city (exception: Washington-Baltimore), not after the most important one. The Bay Area’s official name is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area; this does not make San Jose more important than San Francisco.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
However, the fact remains that San Jose is the fourth largest urban area in the state, out of six 1m+ urban areas, and second largest urban area in the Bay.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Pacheco was selected for a host of reasons. I don’t think the staff report/recommendation prioritized any of them; however, ongoing operational costs and the comparative inefficiency of the Altamont alignment was definately not over-looked or minimized.
Capital cost and travel time get enough coverage attention on this matter, but too much when compared with the operability of the systems.
egk Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“comparative inefficiency of the Altamont alignment” ?? Is that a statement made wrt just the LA-Bay Area service, or with respect to serving transportation in the entire state? Altamont serves Bay Area-Sacramento travel (the second largest travel market in the state – behind LA-SD) with 50% the train-miles (i.e. for a 50% operating cost savings) and 40% faster (so up to 40% capital [trainset] cost savings). It also makes use of very expensive, very high capacity infrastructure to serve two markets, (rather than one market that, while large, still only requires about 1/6th of a HSR line’s capacity to serve)
The only people who seem to prefer Pacheco (including those who made the selection) display a distinct lack of understand for how rail travel markets work in a multi-polar place (like California). Or those who simply don’t believe that serving the Sacramento-Bay Area market is important.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Altamont serves Bay Area-Sacramento travel (the second largest travel market in the state – behind LA-SD) with 50% the train-miles
And going through Oakland saves more. And it serves Oakland. Altamont makes sense if you assume that nothing will ever be done again. Once you through in all the other things that will be done you end up with Altamont making it easier to get from Livermore to Fremont.
joe Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Yeah, unlike you, I’m not a rail expert. I prefer Pacheco.
I can however read prop 1A and apparently voters did NOT approve a system to link SF to Sac. It’s about linking SF to LA. So those who want to use that opportunity to add requirements and design a Sac to FF route failed.
And what’s the cost of a HSR ride to SAC from SF? I mean it’s obviously sooo important to get to/from Sac and SF and apparently people are dying to pay a premium to ride HSR to get to Sac.
Are commuters who live in high cost SF going to commute to a state day job in Sac?
Spokker Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 4:07 am
“I can however read prop 1A and apparently voters did NOT approve a system to link SF to Sac. It’s about linking SF to LA.”
No they didn’t you chucklefuck. They voted to link San Francisco and Anaheim. San Diego and LA. San Diego and Sacramento. Fresno and Merced. And so on.
It’s a project that consists of two phases. It’s an 800 mile system that is being proposed.
“I mean it’s obviously sooo important to get to/from Sac and SF and apparently people are dying to pay a premium to ride HSR to get to Sac.”
If they don’t want to pay a premium to ride from Sacramento and the Bay Area, why would they pay a premium to ride from Burbank to San Jose, or Riverside and San Francisco, or San Diego and Los Angeles, or Bakersfield and Fresno?
“And what’s the cost of a HSR ride to SAC from SF?”
Who the hell knows, but I wonder how much money will be saved by not staffing the train with three conductors to put a useless hole in your ticket and a cafe car attendant to sell you overpriced crap from the school cafeteria. Amtrak’s cafe car manager or whatever he’s called raided my school cafeteria and said, “We got us a captive audience! Mark them bitches up!”
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
So according to joe, if the law does not explicitly allow something, then it should not be permitted, even if it’s a good idea.
egk Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
What stuns me more is that SJ (my childhood home) has collective power-brokers so insecure that they think that SJ won’t draw its own service unless the HSR operator is essentially forced (via a Pacheco alignment) to run trains there. Any rational HSR operator, looking at the population of SC valley (nearing 2 million), the businesses located there (giant GDP) and the sheer amount of travel to originating in and around SJ, would be running plenty of service (direct and otherwise) to SJ.
Caelestor Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
You’d think SJ would rather have a terminal than be an intermediate stop.
joe Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:55 am
He’s not sure – Apparently SJ is so important a destination, HSR should dismiss-out-of-hand the Pacheco alignment.
William Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Yes, San Jose has the political pull for the Pacheco alignment preciously because it has more people, more jobs, more money than cities on the Altamont route. Also, San Jose “wants” a HSR station, while cities on the Altamont route either push HSR station to be at edge of cities, or flat-out against having the HSR through their city-limits.
Joey Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:29 am
San José doesn’t really have that many jobs. A decent number, but compared to many other Bay Area cities, its jobs/residents ratio is low.
joe Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:57 am
Unlike Sacramento and the Easy Bay – jobs Havens. – San Jose is meh.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:17 am
When you have a lot of residents, even when the job ratio is low, you have a lot of jobs.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:42 am
There you go, switching from ratios to total numbers, when obviously what matters for transport markets is ratios, not total numbers.
The total numbers ~ urban areas, not cities, nor SMA’s, but contiguous census block groups with population densities of 1,000/mi^2, and adjoining census block groups with a density of at least 500/mi^2. US Rank in parentheses, all California urban areas in the top 100 US urban areas:
11.8m Los Angeles – Long Beach – Santa Ana (2nd)
3.2m San Francisco – Oakland (12th)
2.7m San Diego (15th)
1.5m San Jose (24th)
1.5m Riverside – San Bernadino (25th)
1.4m Sacramento (28th)
0.6m Fresno (64th)
0.6m Concord (65th)
0.5m Mission Viejo (68th)
0.4m Bakersfield (82nd)
0.3m Oxnard (91st)
0.3m Stockton (99th)
0.3m Modesto (100th)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 9:26 am
I wasn’t switching anything. They like to point out that Silicon Valley has more jobs than San Francisco. Well Silicon Valley has more people than San Francisco. There’s going to be more cashiers and waiters and garbage collectors and…… And the cashier at the San Jose 7-11 probably isn’t commuting from Richmond.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Yes, you were indeed switching, from a less useful way of looking at jobs vis-a-vis transport to a more useful way.
tony d. Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Robert,
People dismiss San Jose and Silicon Valley because they have an agenda.
Its really that simple. Just let them be with their whiny bull shit.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
I don’t think anyone here is advocating that HSR not go to SJ at all (except maybe Spokker). 1.5 million residents are nothing to scoff at, even if it’s not a major destination, but a lot of us feel that the significance of SJ is overstated.
Pleasanton is a city of smug A holes and especially their leaders. It’s currently has multiple mini-freeways on it’s major streets and even through downtown. They are total car dependent, sprawlville U.S.A. At least Livermore supports a discussion of High Speed Rail through downtown even though Nimby’s are at it with Bart coming downtown:
http://livermore.patch.com/articles/downtown-bart-opponents-say-they-have-their-signatures
Notice the the advocates to the article above are property owners near the proposed downtown Bart line. Nimby’s who don’t even ride BART.
http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_aaab2634-6d73-11e0-a9b6-001cc4c03286.html
Ultimately Pleasantons attitude of “we are perfect as is” is going to crumble over time when they realize that we are no longer in the 80′s or 90′s and that something dies the moment it stops growing, changing or adapting to the times. Massive traffic is what Pleasanton has, since they are perpendicular to two freeways 580 and 680 so they survive off of auto transportation. They recently bought the abandoned SP rail line ROW (runs in the heart of downtown) from the county and turned it into downtown parking instead of preserving it for future use.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Compare and contrast:
People who moved to Pleasanton did so knowing it was developed as a car-based city and lifestyle. .
The Peninsula has a long history of train transportation – those cities grew along the rail line.
I’m skeptical Pleasanton will say as-is when gasoline hits 6 per gallon or we have a shortage like I recall in 1973. Cars lined up to buy rationed amounts of gas. The suburbs are a by-product of cheap oil.
Evan Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Joe, there won’t be a shortage. It’ll just be really expensive. We learned that lesson already.
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I think otherwise – prices will go up but we had loooong lines in 1973 and in 1979. We’ll see them again if we’re not sufficiently robust with transportation alternatives.
We’ll get little warning – the US auto industry was at it’s peak employment just before the 2nd oil crisis in 1979.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:53 pm
No, there were supply cutbacks in 1973 and 1979 ~ the current wave of oil price shocks are rather stagnant supplies faced with rising demand.
The prices will go as high as they need to go to allocate demand among all comers. As we have designed our economy, we get to be on the leading edge of going into recession so that the middle class of China and India can drive.
joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Uhh how do you know we’re not going to see another sudden shock to our oil supply?
73 – Embargo
78 – Iran revolution
xx – ??????
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:01 am
The lines were due to price controls. If we tried to respond to another shock with price controlls, there’ll be lines again.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:37 am
How would this play out politically today?
I still am a supporter of our current president; despite the disappointments and some disagreements I must have with him (i.e., the abortion/right to life issue; he’s what we have, and I still think he was the better choice of what we had to pick from, and by a considerable margin.
I just hope he (and the country) didn’t really win a booby prize in that election.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Price controls can only be effective on domestically produced crude oil. Given that we import about 2/3 of our crude oil and about 1/2 of our liquid fuel, it would be the impact of losing half of our liquid fuel supply.
Plus in the Age of Citizen’s United, domestic oil producers would have an incentive to put $10b’s into unelecting any politician who supported serious oil price controls.
In the 1970′s, we were still getting used to the fact that the pricing power of the Texas oil field quotas (exercised by the Texas Railway Commission) had passed overseas.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:22 am
Most experts have calculated there are enough oil reserves for at least the next 100 years. The only problem is extraction costs due to geology and pollution risks. Operations like deep-ocean drilling or oblique drilling under mountains will be economically feasible at $200 a barrel, and companies have already applied for exploration permits. That implies they know the end of cheap oil is near although they keep denying it because it would encourage the development of other energy sources.
A retired executive from Total (a French oil company), who can now speak freely, predicts the barrel will reach around $200 in the near future and will then stabilize at that level if no major conflict occurs.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:30 am
“Reserves to last for” is always misleading, because a peak of annual production of a resource like oil happens at about halfway through the total available supply. So “reserves for at least 100 years” is perfectly compatible with “we are presently getting as much oil per year as we are ever going to, and the annual global supply will continue begin declining over the decade ahead, and then the decline will accelerate.”
And of course, as the price of oil goes up, incomes rise in oil exporting countries, which results in more oil consumed in those countries and less available for export.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I think you misunderstood. What Andre is saying is that although we’re seeing conventional oil production peak, there’s plenty more unconventional oil, such as in tar sands, oil shale, extra-heavy oil, and so on. But these are both much more expensive to produce than Saudi crude and much more environmentally damaging.
Oil producing countries are a tiny portion of the globe, and the largest, Nigeria, isn’t even benefiting from its own resource riches. The economic growth that’s more relevant in terms of oil demand is in China and India.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Including those only shifts the production peak from 2006 or 2007 to 2010, and only moderates the decline in production over the decade ahead, postponing it until the following decade.
As far as flippantly tossing aside the Oil Land model, the dismissal can be given as much weight as the effort put into the critique deserves, and be casually dismissed in turn.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Dude, the tar sands and the extra heavy oil in Orinoco have more oil than the world proven reserves of conventional crude, each. The total amount of oil shale is a little bit less than that. There’s more than enough there to flood a couple of third-world cities; while the Koch Brothers are trying to get the US to keep giving them no-bid contracts on power plants and consume more of their products, Suncor is getting Stephen Harper to open up vast amounts of oil to mining.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
You don’t fuel cars with reserves, you fuel them with annual production. Productive capacity to exploit a large fraction of it in a single year is not going to pay off its capital cost, especially when the User Cost of selling it at lower prices now versus higher prices in the future is taken into account.
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Correction, Peninsula has *Passenger Rail Service*, Pleasanton has Always had Freight Rail passing through, not even serving the area anymore. ACE train didn’t come until 14-15 years ago. But Pleasanton Has Diesel trains with their horns audible from the far hills. They, like every other Western City was built along the train tracks, so what’s the big deal with upgrading history?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Wow. People opposing BART to downtown Livermore are lunatics. Livermore will boom – particularly downtown property owners.
NIMBYism is walking hand-in-hand with oil companies to destroy the environment and to deny people reasonable alternatives to sky-high gas prices. In a few years people will look back on this eruption of NIMBYism as a bizarre moment in American history, and hopefully they won’t have done too much damage in the process.
CEQA needs to be changed, as do land use laws, to deny NIMBYs power to block projects that reduce carbon footprints and reduce oil consumption.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Any extension of BART further out into the suburbs is a waste. Its problem stems from its getting the ridership of decent commuter rail but costing as much as a subway.
If they want to build a line under Geary, a second Transbay Tube, and/or a subway line in Oakland that’s useful for intra-urban travel, they’re welcome to.
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I am going to disagree. BART’s cost per mile versus high-speed rail is much higher. With high-speed infrastructure coming in the future, it would be much more beneficial to spend the BART extension dollars on a quad track from San Jose-Oakland and a Super ACE. Can do the same 15-20 minute frequency as BART and the infrastrucutre for Altamont will be there.
What about
http://mcnerney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=539:mcnerney-introduces-bill-to-create-new-rail-project-for-altamont-corridor&catid=8:latest-news
Congressman Jerry McNerney (CA-11) today introduced legislation to help fund the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, which will expand rail services between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. H.R. 1504, the Altamont Corridor Rail Improvement Act, invests in a project that will serve thousands of people, create jobs, and reduce traffic along some of the region’s most heavily traveled highways.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1504:
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Altamont Rail Corridor serves a Northern California mega region with a projected population of 18,000,000 by 2025.
(2) The Altamont Rail Corridor is the primary gateway between the Central Valley of California and the San Francisco Bay Area and parallels two of the most congested highway corridors in the region.
(3) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission completed a final report of the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan in 2007 that called for a dedicated regional rail line that would provide both intercity and commuter passenger rail service to improve connectivity and accessibility between the Northern San Joaquin Valley population centers and the Bay Area.
(4) The California High Speed Rail Authority has identified the Altamont Rail Corridor as a critical element to regional transportation needs and entered into partnership with the major governing and operating entities in the corridor to improve the regional ACE service in the near term and develop capability for joint use to accommodate intercity and commuter service as well as interface with the high-speed rail system in the future.
(5) The Bay Area Regional Rail Plan projects that the ACE train that currently provides passenger rail service in the Altamont Rail Corridor will average 49,000 daily boardings by 2050.
(6) The current situation of sharing Altamont Rail Corridor passenger service with the growing freight operations in the existing alignment will severely limit opportunity for service improvement or expansion as critically needed.
(7) The expansion and improvement of passenger rail service in the Altamont Rail Corridor will have significant environmental and economic development benefits for the region.
Nathanael Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 pm
No surprise. There was never any particular problem with Altamont as a standalone route to San Jose or Oakland (though it has the same NIMBY and UP problems as Pacheco) — the problem for an *HSR* route was that Altamont simply doesn’t get you to San Francisco, because there are *HUGE* problems with Dumbarton.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:37 pm
So *HUGE* that a new tunnel is about to be bored along the exact same alignment as needed for HSR! What an inconvenient truth…
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Are you really comparing a water tunnel to a full service rail tunnel?
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
You’re missing the point. Much of the cost of bored tunnels is a result of geological uncertainty. With a tunnel having been bored along the same alignment, you eliminate most of that uncertainty.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Well then, I’m convinced! I’ll sleep better tonight knowing a rail tunnel will be bored under the Dumbarton sometime after 2030. Until then…
mike Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:20 am
This claim gets thrown around often, but I’d like to see some evidence of it. Furthermore, drilling the “test tunnel” (in this case, the water tunnel) only makes a corridor more attractive if it turns out to be a low-cost geological area. Do we know this to be a fact (i.e., have they finished drilling the water tunnel and found that it came in at or below expected costs)?
Elizabeth Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:45 am
They are in the middle of two tunnels actually that should provide some interesting data.
1) New Irvington (which is between fremont and the 680) http://sfwater.org/Project.cfm/MC_ID/35/MSC_ID/393/MTO_ID/649/PRJ_ID/138
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_17795493
2) The tunnel under the Bay is underway. They have done the portal for the tunnel boring machine and they are about to start boring. Apparently all the fill will be used for salt pond restoration.
http://tunneltalk.com/Bay-Tunnel-Sep10-Hitachi-TBM.php
http://sfwater.org/Project.cfm/MC_ID/35/MSC_ID/393/MTO_ID/649/PRJ_ID/259
Another astute OP-ED published in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24white.html
StevieB Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The claim that high speed rail cannot be profitable is addressed by CNN in U.S. high-speed rail ‘myths’ debunked An American example:
Republican Congressmen:
Examples oversees:
Yet again and again detractors say that high speed rail cannot turn a profit.
Steve Harrod in the CNN article Riled about rail: Why all the anger over high speed trains? says, “Many critics of passenger rail emotionally identify it as an enabler of cultural values they fear. Passenger rail is symbolic of many changes in our lives.” He gives the example of how rail contradicts a vision of America, held by many, as a small town society centered on the automobile. He points out that this is a false reality with America growing more uban every day. Twenty first century reality is the continued decline of the automobile culture with increased need for alternate modes of transportation. Rail is the 21st century.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:40 am
It is profoundly depressing to see Richard White, who I deeply respect as a historian, to lend his good name to NIMBY bullshit.
His op-ed makes a deeply flawed comparison between HSR and transcontinental railroads. I’ll deal with this in a post later today.
If NIMBYs are such a problem, you have to admit that it’s dumb for the CHSRA to piss off both Altamont and Pacheco communities… you’d think it would be a choice of Palo Alto or Pleasanton, but no, they’re going for both.
Why piss off the 2nd richest ZIP code in America? Why?
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“Why piss off the 2nd richest ZIP code in America? Why?”
Indeed – shut down Caltrain immediately – 94027 is pissed. And stop driving on El Camino too.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Good one Joe! For the record, the entire “94027″ isn’t pissed, just a small number of whiny, rich a$$holes. By the way, A few people being pissed in a community Clem doesn’t equate TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
VBobier Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Probably led by Meg…
Reality Check Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 2:56 am
Meg lives far enough from the Caltrain line not to give a NIMBY shit. Her pad is about equi-distant from the Dumbarton line/Hwy 101.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:47 pm
This isn’t a plutocracy. You don’t get more votes for being wealthy.
Moreover, I think that plenty of Silicon Valley types like Ellison, Jobs, Brin, Page, Zuckerberg…I bet they all think the train is a great idea. Why?
Because lots of people come to Palo Alto to get venture capital. And wealthy techno-czars are often the ones that lend it to them. HSR keeps Palo Alto on the map and ensures that in the future its role doesn’t migrate elsewhere. It’s that simple.
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:15 pm
You don’t get more votes for being wealthy, but you can hire more lawyers.
If Pacheco was the best alignment, then I’d say stick it to Peninsula NIMBYs fast and hard. But Altamont is the better alignment.
That they have less money to fight the train is but a fringe benefit.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:12 am
The difference either way ~ the benefits of Pacheco having a more appealing route to offer to potential franchise bidder, the appeal to engineering aesthetics of Altamont ~ is smaller than either side makes it out to be. If the route decision has been Altamont, then it got pushed into a Dumbarton tunnel by whatever authority could do that with respect to Dumbarton, by this time there would be SJ YIMBY’s harping on the hypothetical Pacheco alignment and in all likelihood the fairly marginal benefits they would be describing would not be worth the loss of momentum in making a switch.
Its a big intercity rail project. Several years ago, a municipality won an alignment fight. The Internet Machine obsesses about it because rehashing opinions formed during the alignment fight is easier than hashing out a view on the actually live fights over the upcoming decisions to be made.
egk Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:21 am
But what would those YIMBYs be saying: That they never travel to Sacramento, so why provide that extra service? That 10 minutes in travel time saved is worth the billions in extra cost (at full build
out) of Pacheco? I just don’t see any compelling arguments.
The central Altamont argument is that 19% of all California intercity travel is Bay Area-Sacramento, and that that driving times are such (over 2 hours) that HSR would be competitive over Altamont (45min-1hr train trip) but not over Pacheco (1:45-2hr). [Bay Area-LA travel (14% of CA intercity travel) is served identically by the two alignments] That is not “engineering aesthetics”. And it is not small.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:32 am
that HSR would be competitive over Altamont (45min-1hr train trip)
It’s 140 miles via Altamont. 45 minute travel time is an average speed of? An hour is an average speed of 140. How fast does that train have to go, assuming it makes a stop or two between Sacramento and San Francisco. Sacramento to Oakland via the Capitol Corridor route is 90 miles
An hour long trip would have an average speed of 90. 45 minutes is an average speed of 120.
Altamont makes sense for Sacramento-San Francisco travel assuming that no upgrades are ever done anywhere ever again.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
90 mph average is possible but rare on upgraded legacy line. It requires tilting trains if there are any curves, high cant, high-quality track, absolute passenger train priority, and a regulatory agency with more than one brain between twenty people. The levels of investment required are such that countries usually engage in such upgrades as an alternative to HSR, and are much higher than those planned for any legacy line in the US.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
so these same people are going to pull off an average speed of 140?
Joey Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Over Altamont, you’re running on a completely new express HSR line THAT YOU ARE BUILDING ANYWAY, so yes, 140 is perfectly reasonable.
Joey Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
The CC has a current average speed of 55mph. Good luck getting anywhere near 90.
egk Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
You do all realize that upgrading to 90mph AVERAGE SPEED is essentially building HSR, don’t you?
(ICE Frankfurt/Cologne direct link, 110 miles, scheduled express line time: 1:23 – that is an average of about 80 mph)
Oh, and SJ to Sacramento over Altamont is about 120 miles, meaning 45 minutes is about 160 mph average. Over a line whose design speed is supposed to be 220 mph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
The design speed in the Central Valley is 220. I suspect it would be somewhat less through Fremont or suburban Sacramento. Average speed between Sacramento and Stockton, according to the California High Speed rail site is 133. Sacramento to Modesto is 139. I also suspect it will be somewhat less than 220 through Fremont. It definitely will be less through San Mateo county. And really slow in San Francisco county.
I came up with 140 by looking at old railroad timetables. Sacramento to Tracy to San Francisco according to Google Maps is 137. The train won’t be following the same route, so in nice round numbers – 140.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
But they would equally also be competitive with driving at Rapid Rail upgrades to the Capital Corridor or Altamont at 1:15 to 1:30. Driving time, after all, is over two hours.
How hard is it to find out about tilt trains and how they work? They are no more rocket science than Express HSR is.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
You’ve still got a couple of major problems: Union Pacific and the FRA. Union Pacific, besides probably not wanting higher speeds on its tracks, is generally hostile to adding more passenger trains as well. Trains which are only reasonably competitive time-wise can capture a decent amount of the market (though the faster the better, obviously), but it requires MUCH higher frequencies than the CC has. Secondly, you have the FRA. Crash standards are a problem to begin with (limiting acceleration etc), and on UP’s tracks aren’t going anywhere, but when you involve tilting trains, you also have the problem of their cost going through the roof, as there are currently no FRA-compliant tilting trainsets on the market. These types of trains would be costly both to buy and to maintain. Plus, even with tilting, the FRA limits cant deficiency to 7 inches.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Palo Alto would’ve been a great station location, but the city rejected the station option, and the HSRA has pretty much decided on going with Redwood City.
Tech tycoons don’t call the shots on these community issues, any more than finance tycoons call all the shots in New York. There’s always a well-oiled group of NIMBYs who rely on tax money generated by the tycoons while at the same time viewing themselves as more authentic and the tycoons as foreign transplants or occupiers. Usually the compromise is that all economic development questions are decided by tycoons and all urban design questions are decided by the NIMBYs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:45 pm
any more than finance tycoons call all the shots in New York.
When the finance tycoons decide to buy an election they go out and do it. When the Silicon Valley types try it Jerry Brown gets elected.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Let me know when Jerry Brown raises income taxes to avoid budget cuts and to pay for a universal statewide health care program and for public education.
Clem Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
RWC is an equally great station location, even better in some respects like freeway access.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
That’s a very good analysis. And it’s why urban design and development process have to change. Neither tycoons nor NIMBYs should be making these decisions.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Regardless of wealth, you’re still going through two cities instead of one.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Because we need this thing to be built, and because majorities in Palo Alto (at least) want it built.
NIMBYs aren’t a political problem. They’re a legal problem. Change land use laws and CEQA to take away their power and we’ll be just fine.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
we tried that back in the 50s and 60s. You get to build things fast but there are other consequences that are unpleasant.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The consequences of the present situation – soaring gas prices, climate change, pollution, poverty – are also unpleasant. The problem in the ’50s and ’60s wasn’t how we built freeways, but that we built them at all.
If we listen to the NIMBYs – who are acting of a desire to protect their wealth and privilege – then we are consigning ourselves to environmental and economic ruin.
I remember having a conversation with someone at one of the Palo Alto high-speed rail discussions. They were fervently trying to convince me that they supported the idea of high-speed rail, but that it would not make sense through the Peninsula because it would be near homes and business. Instead, it should go through Altamount Pass. When I responded, “OK, but what about the people in the East Bay who live or work near those tracks?”
Silence.
Tony D. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Thank you Evan! Again, it’s all about keeping high-speed rail out of PAMPA…THAT’S IT! Not about supposed “faster travel times” or anything of the sort. You’d think the proposed Altamont HSR commuter overlay, which I support wholeheartedly, would have shut up people like Clem with their “Altamont-only” foaming; it hasn’t! Why? Because the overlay will not supplant the main Pacheco Pass route into the Bay Area; it merely complements it. Thus with an overlay, HSR/enhanced Caltrain will still serve SF-SJ through their backyards, and they don’t like it one bit (truth hurts eh Clem).
Again, for the true supporters of high-speed rail; the proverbial best of both worlds! A Pacheco Pass main line DIRECTLY serving the largest city in Northern California, Silicon Valley and SF AND an Altamont HSR commuter overlay to serve commuters from the Central Valley into the Bay Area. Talk about a win, win!
Joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Were CARRD / PAMPA NIMBY’s too clever for their own good? Their representativeslistened and endorsed the Caltrain ROW and Pacheco alignment as a means to blend the systems and fix/save Caltrain.
Three more nails in the Altamont coffin.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:56 pm
They may have stuck with a strategy that would have worked better with Knopp and Diridon running things than with Van Ark running things.
dave Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
(Runs to get a hammer)
tony d. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Amen to that!
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Let me just say as an Altamont supporter that I have little sympathy for NIMBYs with this attitude.
egk Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:17 pm
There are a number simple to understand reasons for routing service through Altamont: slightly faster service for the east bay, fewer caltrain impacts, and, most of all, much much better Sacramento service (faster, shorter distance and cheaper to run). Many on this blog seem to support Pacheco, but other than vague ideas about how serving San Jose and SF with the same line is “better,” that “SJ service might never be built” I’ve yet to see anything that makes any sense. There is no capacity issue, there is no frequency issue for either city (there will be at least 3 connections an hour from both SF and SJ via Altamont to LA and nearly as many to Sacramento).
What, pray tell, is any good about Pacheco (other than that it service Monterrey)?
joe Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Come on. Trolling about the Monterey service?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Palo Alto/Stanford.
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Which may not happen anyway…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 2:05 am
Exactly. As far as I can tell, the redeeming features of Pacheco are,
1. Higher frequency, especially important if the plan is to run lots of different service types. 20 minutes versus 10 is not a big deal, but 60 minutes for a super-express vs. 30 (or an express to Fresno, etc.) matters somewhat.
2. It’s better for LA-SJ.
3. A station at PA, near Stanford.
4. Somewhat less dependence on UP in Phase 1.
And now they’re squandering #3…
(For the record, no, these four reasons are all fairly minor and do not outweigh the advantages of using just one corridor for LA-SF and SF-Sac and serving the East Bay.)
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:57 am
They were only planning on operation 3 super-express trains during commute hours only according to the initial timetable but who knows in the next 9 years or so if that will change. Pacheco to me has a much better logistical layout for going to Los Angeles if an Oakland connection can ever be established. Sacramento makes more sense with Altamont though. I was looking through the 2008 EIS and found that they somehow come up with going around the Bay and heading to Altamont for SF-LA at 3:10, SJ-LA at 2:20. If Altamont can be sped through the Tri-Valley instead of limited to 125 mph, that time could be reduced further. There would be a few benefits for Altamont
1) Tri-Valley areas served in Phase I
2) Merced and Modest would get regular service and not just SF-Merced, etc.
3) Easier and faster connection to Sacramento
4) May allow addition of Caltrain Metro East to Oakland, much cheaper and more beneficial than BART
However there are the drawbacks
1) Does not serve the Monterrey region
2) Requires more trainsets if a Bay crossing is built and trains split to go to San Jose and San Francisco
3) Add Oakland (who knows if that will ever happen) and things become a mess with trainsets
4) Without Bay Crossing, takes longer to go from SF-LA (although most recent paper on Altamont suggests 170 mph speeds as soon as the tunnel and onward through the Tri-Valley, definitely need to see a run of their model).
The only issue at the end of the day if the travel times are solved would be the Monterrey issue but that is about it. I am not sure how much demand and benefit there would be to having Merced and Modesto on the direct line to San Francisco versus Sacramento. It might be better serviced by Super ACE. It would definitely be worth a look at the proposal that setec ferroviaire came out with http://www.transdef.org/HSR/Altamont.html Located within Exhibit C. I think it is worth looking at.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
The SF-LA time for that scenario is padded due to stupid turn times at San Jose. Cut turn times to what’s normal at stub-end ICE stations and we’re talking SF-LA in 2:55.
But whatever – the optimal Altamont is through a second Transbay Tube, and the second best is through Dumbarton. It requires the same number of trainsets, since the ridership is about the same and is high enough that service will be matched to demand rather than to a minimum frequency or a takt.
You’re right about Monterey – that’s another Pacheco benefit. On the other hand, with apologies to Robert, Monterey is much smaller than the Upper Central Valley and the East Bay, and would get meh service even under Pacheco.
I would propose to forget about Oakland. The primary purpose of HSR is to reach SF. If the route were a second tube then a station in Oakland would be a nice addition, but Oakland already has a great connection to SF through BART, so it’s not as big a deal.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Oakland would have a better connection to HS via BART at Livermore than in SF. (Bus from SF would beat connecting to BART in SF for that matter.)
Maybe a couple extra minutes travel time from Livermore compared to going all the way under the Bay and up the Peninsula to Montgomery Street, but the BART trains from Livermore would be uncrowded (read: “they run nearly completely empty nearly the entire day today”), the transfer could be made matter of a few steps or at worst a hundred steps, and there’s even far-off potential scope (ie BART system timetable slots) to operate HSR-dedicated BART trains from Livermore BART/HSR to Oakland and other East Bay destinations.
So yes, forget about Oakland as a direct HS line. That’s impossible to imagine any time in the next 50 years. But don’t forget about Oakland (and western Alameda County and eastern Alameda County) as major traffic sources, and as ones very readily and in fact extraordinarily well served by maximizing the use of existing transportation links (most particularly BART and Interstate 680.)
The Los Banos scam in contrast completely screws the entire East Bay.
Winston Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 9:28 am
If you’re going to switch to an Altamont alignment, the question in my mind is whether to serve San Jose at all. As it stands Alameda and Contra Costa counties are essentially unserved by HSR while Santa Clara is served very well. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as Oakland Airport, for example handles a good deal more traffic than does San Jose airport. Having a station in (or even better in Pleasanton) would be a shorter drive for the 600,000 or so folks who live along the 680 corridor than OAK and would also be much more convenient for people in Fremont, Hayward, Union City and Milpitas than either OAK or San Jose’s airport.
Contrast this with the Pacheco alignment which would use Dridon Station, which is more conveniently located than San Jose’s airport for only a handful of residents. Of course you do pick up some traffic from Santa Cruz and Monterrey county by having the Gilroy station, but is this really any better than the traffic you pick up from East Contra Costa residents?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Winston,
Indeed Hwy 680 is the secret weapon.
But it doesn’t matter: San José, Capital of Silicon Valley (even if it’s a ghost town), has to be served for political reasons.
And frankly building a perhaps-questionable HS line between Fremont and San José, City of Tumbleweeds, is a vastly better idea than the there-is-no-alternative of building a vendor-captured, completely proprietary, technically inappropriate, third-rail wide-gauge BART extension in the corridor.
So there are bad reasons to do it, but they’re overwhelmingly bad so to speak, so it has to be done soonest, even if that’s decades before some sort of very very long-term more intense development might justify it on any rational grounds.
If San José Titans of Capitalism had had their act together then SJ-Fremont-Livermore(-Tracy?) would have been the perfect initial construction segment for CHSR. Marginally useful, politically invaluable, and it would have saved the taxpayers $10 billion or so (by replacing the BART scam, doing so of course is contrary to CHSRA lead consultant and “alternatives” “analyst” PBQD’s highest pork-swilling priority.)
Winston Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I think that San Jose’s irrational desire for BART has little to do with graft and everything to do with wanting to be a real city but having no knowledge of how a real city works. Downtown San Jose is not a very urbane place. Not only does it not hold a candle to San Francisco, it compares poorly with far smaller downtowns such as Walnut Creek or Palo Alto (heck, even downtown Concord is more of a place than downtown San Jose). To try to fix their craptacular downtown, San Jose has tried a variety of remedies “Real cities have rail transit. We’re a real city so we need light rail.” “Real cities have towers, we need some towers.” None of these remedies has really worked, so instead of figuring out what downtown San Jose is good at and focusing on that, San Jose’s elected officials keep believing that maybe if they just add one more project (a Museum, an Arena, a Baseball stadium, another Light Rail line, BART) that it will act as the catalyst to make Downtown San Jose the equal of San Francisco.
Back to transportation, the project you describe, especially if it reached Tracy would have been a very good place to start were San Jose run by rational folks, but it wouldn’t have made San Jose into a Real City, which San Jose’s luminaries believe having a BART station under the Bank of America building downtown will do.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Dear Winston,
Of course I agree about the irrationality of it.
But in the real world, things aren’t rational.
Here’s something to think about under those circumstances: that subway tunnel running from the San José Flea Market (no, this is not hyperbole, this is literally what they want), under Santa Clara Street (which VTA found had too little transit demand to even warrant a single-car streetcar shuttle line!!), to the empty parking lots around San José‘s Brasilia-like City Hall white elephant, under the tumbleweed-strewn platforms of Diridon Intergalactic, curving underground at immense expense to the abandoned rail yard and armored vehicle manufacturing plant in Santa Clara, could be made bigger (more $$$$$$!!!!) and instead accommodate larger and perhaps even longer trains, ones that might continue past the Flea Market to not just the abandoned auto factory at Warm Springs, but to places like Livermore and Stockton and Sacramento.
Bigger is better, right? Larger holes are more expensive, right? High speed trains running underground on the super important street right next to San José City Hall would utterly spank San Francisco (and everywhere else!), right?
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:44 am
They both have a station near Stanford, at Redwood City. On a local service, that is a 10 minute ride, so #3 is:
#3: easier to arrange preliminary service through to SF/TBT.
The only way there are three services to LA out of San Jose is if the business model is to have a public authority operate the service. If they franchise it out, one SJ / Fresno / Bakersfield / Beautiful Downtown Burbank / LAUS per hour seems more likely that two, three HST/hr out of San Jose does not seem likely.
Indeed, with the PAMPA stretch off the main Stage 1 corridor and the leverage it gives, the obvious compromise is to electrify the Caltrain SJ/Redwood and share the existing corridor, which would yield at most 4tph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:33 am
If they pick the same platform height etc. there will be 20 or so HSR stations between San Jose and San Francisco. Just like if Amtrak chose to, they could have Acela stop in Princeton…. well Princeton Junction.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Yes, if. Don’t know what the prospects with for the real world alignment, but the chance, whatever it is, goes down for the Sunday afternoon imaginary Altamont alignment ~ when the SF/Redwood section is done, Caltrain is faced with the legacy platforms to SJ, which increases the past-binding of the legacy platform height.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
There is no legacy platform height. They’ve upgraded the gravel by the side of the tracks to patches of asphalt by the side of the tracks and in some places nice concrete pads by the side of the tracks.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
That’s the legacy height, like its some bloody ultra low floor tram.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
The only station north Redwood City that will survive HSR coming through almost the same as it is today is Bayshore and maybe 22nd St. It would be really really really stupid to pick a platform height different than HSR’s. … though they thought the wye outside of SFO was a good idea so who knows what they will come up with. … and tunnels through cemeteries so as to not disturb the dead with train noise.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I was not referring to whether it was sensible, but whether it was likely. Its obviously more sensible to upgrade the platform heights of the whole Caltrain corridor at the same time, even if some of those platforms are going to be rebuilt in five to ten years time. But it seems quite possible that it is a fight that must be won against the original plan, and the fewer silly objections that can be raised against it, the better.
Clem Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
The legacy platform height is uniformly 8 inches ATOR. There are very very few asphalt patches left– Atherton and College Park are the only ones that come to mind. Regardless of this legacy, Caltrain will be required by the ADA to provide level boarding. That cannot be done with 8 inches ATOR (at least not while complying with FRA crash standards, or even the “waived” Euro crash standards).
Regardless of what happens with HSR, Caltrain’s platforms will someday *have* to be raised. The only remaining question is to what height, and Caltrain’s answer so far has consistently been 2 feet 1 inch ATOR or exactly the floor height of a Bombardier bilevel. When the issue of level boarding is hinted at, which occurs exceedingly rarely–despite the huge operational benefits.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The cost of new platforms is quite small in the context of, say, a project like HSR. It wouldn’t be difficult to do, even if the funding had to come from elsewhere.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
It’s much much cheaper to not build them. Skip right from what they have now to what they will have in 2030. And 2140. And 2275.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
It’s MUCH cheaper not to have to build the Altamont overlay.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Except for that pesky problem of bringing the trains to San Francisco. Even if it was built the pesky problem of trains running in the streets of Oakland isn’t going to be ignored forever. Once you stop ignore all the problems what’s left is “220 MPH service between Fremont and Livermore!” though it’s much more likely to be 150 or 125 MPH service, unless you want to tunnel from Stockton to San Jose.
Joey Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I think that may have been factored into the orignal speed simulations, but I’m not 100% sure, since those documents are either buried or not available anymore. I seem to remember someone having a copy though. Clem maybe?
Then again, it must have been though, since the program alignment (which was used) had curves which would have limited speeds to below 150 in some places.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
d(Stanford, PA) < d(Stanford, RWC)
Last thought: the subject of this thread was Pleasanton NIMBY-ism towards the proposed Altamont HSR commuter overlay, which I support 100%…nothing else.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:42 am
The point of the post was, ideally, to show people that NIMBYism is something that must be vehemently opposed no matter which alignment you support.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Very true about NIMBY-ism.. search Google News today the New York Times maybe just the California on line addition as an opinion piece from one of the NIMBYs in Atherton..its that Prof. at Stanford going on about how the pain of the budget cuts were bad except for the high-speed cuts… and then goes on to explain all the negative fear mongering opinions about high-speed rail and why we don’t need it…. why are they doing this because it’s going to run near their house!!!
Something to keep in mind about the Altamont overlay “study” is that it is obviously being sandbagged to make Altamont look as bad as possible.
For example, CHSRA will only consider a route to SJ, even though SF is where most traffic wants to go. For justification, the report suggests a Bay crossing is “impossible” (never mind that Caltrain, a full CHSRA partner is doing such a project). The report further suggests that anyone wanting to go to SF could just transfer to BART — an all-stops local train which kills travel time.
So with regard to a PTown routing, the most obvious route was along I580/I680 freeways. It has no nimby impacts whatsoever, and it hits the main employment locations — and provides intermodal transfer at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. But the EIR has taken that option off the table — because BART wants the I580 median for a Livermore extension.
So there you have it: 1960′s BART takes precedence over 21st century HSR. Blaming nimbys is what this blog does, but sometimes the nimbys are right.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Aha, so just require BART to build their alignment with a cap with HSR tracks on top of it, and HSR gets the infrastructure for free, given that BART for some reason automatically qualifies to receive whatever cost padding it requires.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Do that and the cost of BART explodes. BART doesn’t mind high costs, but not if it has to pay for someone else’s infrastructure.
mike Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:31 am
I consider myself pro-Altamont, though I think the probability of it happening at this point is near 0%.
But I would love to hear one of the strong Altamont advocates (Clem, Drunk Engineer, Richard, Joey, whoever) propose an actual alignment from East Palo Alto to Sunol that meets the following three criteria:
1) 100+ mph track speed, with no curve less than 80 mph
2) 10 miles of tunneling or less
3) No large-scale exercise of eminent domain (I’m all for exercising eminent domain with generous compensation, but politically it’s just not going to fly)
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
That question is more properly addressed by an EIR, which taxpayers already paid for. Personally, the location where I would run tracks across Fremont is through an existing utility corridor, either at-grade or covered trench.
Getting there from the west side of I880, there are any number of options. Those properties are all low-value industrial (trucking companies, Fremont transfer station, etc) with huge parking lots.
mike Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Ironically, I think that corridor violates all 3 criteria. I guess it could pass criteria 1 if you went through the Newark Slough above grade, but I had been assuming from the existing discussion that East Palo Alto to Newark would all be below grade.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Mike,
I don’t share Clem’s enthusiasm for new transbay tunnel. If the goal is merely environmental approval, then paying some mitigation funds to the ongoing Cargil salt pond cleanup might be a better approach.
Nathanael Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:03 am
“So there you have it: 1960′s BART takes precedence over 21st century HSR. Blaming nimbys is what this blog does, but sometimes the nimbys are right.”
No. The NIMBYs are still wrong. I don’t think this blog has ever disagreed with Clem that BART wields too much power — a system which is incompatible with everything and massively overpriced should not be the first priority all the time.
There’s a reason the CHSRA is taking a to-hell-with-the-Bay-area approach to some extent; the NIMBYs are part of it, the extremely fragmented governance is part of it, and the “Let’s spend all our money and use all our ROW for impractical BART extensions” is part of it. At this point, I expect Bakersfield-LA to be finished while Bay Area residents are still fighting each other.
Honestly, I don’t think California has the political system to deliver any major engineering projects like HSR China, like the UK and Europe have traditions of strong central Government that can steamroller local authorities. When Pleasanton Council can mouth off about HSR – it shows you, or rather me, that we live in a series of Balkan states in a loose alliance a.k.a. State Government. These are the folks that can’t deliver a state budget! Which reminds me of the Federal Government which didn’t pass a proper budget for 2011 until this month. Sans HSR funding, of course!!
This discussion is as useful as “the number of angels on the heads of pins”
We can’t agree on the level of taxes, we can’t agree on healthcare reform, or, praise the lord, that the world evolved as per Darwin or was created. We have fifty percent of the Republicans who intend to vote who don’t believe in the President’s birthplace!!
Alon Levy Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Germany is extremely fractured and federalist, to the point that it took about twenty years longer than France to build a full-fat HSR line. You’d still rather have the train services of Germany, accidents and all, than those of California.
joe Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
The super majority requirement for funding bills. There are few if any successful governments that require such a vote. Now that we need only a simple majority to pass a budget, we’ll be able to do so easier.
Nathanael Reply:
April 24th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Unfortunately, while the supermajority requirement for a budget is gone, the supermajority requirement for raising any tax (though not for LOWERING any tax — see the problem?) is still present. This means the California state government is still going to be hamstrung.
For fun, here’s a map of where they did outreach prior to the releases of the Draft EIR. Caveat – this excludes pins for meetings held in SJ and SF…
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=107002368932492058600.000468bf0f38fe737f384&t=h&z=9
Fascinating isn’t it? Notice a pattern?
thatbruce Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I’m assuming that you are referring to the EIR for Altamont (the link to the CAHSRA website is broken thanks to their redesign, so I’m not sure which document was originally linked to), in which case, there is a very obvious pattern; they held outreach for Altamont in the cities which the Altamont route would go through. Or were you after a different conclusion?
Clem Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
I believe this is a map of the outreach done for the 2008 Bay Area / Central Valley EIR, the one that decided between Altamont and Pacheco. Nearly all the outreach was held along the Altamont route, with almost none on the Pacheco route. The resulting EIR cites Altamont opposition as often as it can to buttress the selection of Pacheco.
Nadia is entirely justified in pointing out this pattern.
Look, there is no easy Bay Area route due to unique population distribution. Everywhere you plan, you will face NIMBYs, and unless you change their attitude or evict them, you just have to push on. That being said, both routes have their own pros and cons. I won’t reiterate them here, I’m sure someone else here will gladly tell you.
As for me, there are three important criteria in this whole plan:
Getting the system built reasonably quickly,
Preventing Caltrain from being screwed over (there are many solutions for that),
and the most important thing: suppressing cost overruns/bad engineering at places where they shouldn’t be happening (mainly all of the train stations in the Bay Area), which is a very easy engineering challenge compared to political challenges that are popping up on all fronts.
Sometimes I wish we can just implement the Chinese STFU approach than this slow democratic process. It’s much easier to send the opposition to fifteen years of harsh labor for going against and stalling state plans than trying to negotiating with them for years and years as we continue to see gas and materials prices rise by the day.