Did Anna Eshoo Check With Nancy Pelosi?
It’s the bad idea that just won’t die. Some Peninsula NIMBYs have had it in their head for a long time that if they could just terminate the HSR system in San José instead of San Francisco then they might somehow be delivered from the quiet, fast, green trains that supposedly would destroy their neighborhoods (despite having done no such thing in Albany or Rockridge).
The first reason this is a bad idea is that it’s illegal. Proposition 1A, approved by California voters in 2008, mandated that San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal – and NOT San José Diridon Station – be the northern terminus of the project. The California Attorney General ruled in January 2010 that this was the case. The Attorney General who authored that opinion, Jerry Brown, is now the Governor of California. California voters approved the project partly because they understood the value of taking a bullet train right into the heart of San Francisco.
But the primary reason this is a bad idea is that it would gut the ridership of the trains and jeopardize the system’s financing by cutting San Francisco out of the system entirely. Asking people heading to or from San Francisco – a major destination on the route – to change trains to or from Caltrain in San José is not going to fly with most riders. Not only is a transfer inconvenient, it’s not all that workable in practice. Caltrain is a commuter railroad with no on-board services at all. No place to put your baggage, no bathroom, no cafe car. It’s just not the same thing at all. Ridership to and from San Francisco will be reduced, and that means the system’s finances will be thrown into jeopardy – all to appease a small group of NIMBYs in some of California’s wealthiest communities.
It’s one thing for NIMBYs to make this absurd suggestion. It’s quite another for three elected officials – Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Senator Joe Simitian, and Assemblymember Rich Gordon – to make it as well. It’s also hypocritical of them, since the statement they released yesterday cited spurious concerns about ridership as one of their justifications for exploring a forced transfer to Caltrain for San Francisco passengers. They can’t question system ridership numbers and then turn around and suggest something that would guarantee lower ridership.
But that’s exactly what they did. At least, that’s what Anna Eshoo did. While Simitian and Gordon appear to have been deliberately vague on the question of what a “blended system” of Caltrain and HSR would look like, Eshoo had no such hesitations. In her spoken remarks yesterday, she indicated that she absolutely supported a forced transfer at San José:
Instead of spending billions to build a new rail line up the Peninsula, the state ought to improve Caltrain, Eshoo said.
“It is the spine of our transportation system,” she said. “Why not upgrade Caltrain?”
Riders who wanted to take the high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco could just transfer to a Caltrain in San Jose, she said.
Wow.
Not only is Eshoo calling for a violation of the law, and not only is she calling for putting the entire project at serious financial risk just to appease her NIMBY neighbors. She’s also screwing over San Francisco.
One has to wonder if Eshoo even talked to Nancy Pelosi, the once and future Speaker, about this. San Francisco has a lot riding on high speed rail. The multibillion-dollar Transbay Terminal project is a cornerstone of development in that part of the SoMa neighborhood. San Francisco political leaders – including Pelosi and Senator Barbara Boxer – were on hand last August to celebrate the “first high speed rail station” groundbreaking at the Transbay site. And HSR is crucial to San Francisco keeping its position as a global leader in innovation, job creation, and economic activity.
I would find it very difficult to believe Pelosi and other SF officials would be OK with Anna Eshoo stopping HSR 40 miles away in San José just because she has been cowed by a small group of NIMBYs. Eshoo is telling herself that Caltrain is the same thing as HSR – it’s not – so she doesn’t have to show leadership and tell the NIMBYs that they have to work toward a compromise solution that works for everyone. She needs to wake up and realize that her concept of ending HSR in San José is illegal, unworkable, and politically reckless.
2010 census will redistrict the bay area with a projected loss of 1 of the 5 seats.
This is not done with party input.
Is Eshoo trying to gain favors with her anticipated constituents? What about her within party endorsements?
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
She’s probably doing it anticipating that her district is going to get merged with Speier’s or Honda’s. She wants to distinguish herself on this issue early. And no, Robert, she’s not worried about the “once and future Speaker” getting her job back in 2012…..
Ending the line in San Jose is a NON-STARTER. It’s getting too much bandwidth space here. Discussing it here at this length does the project a dis-service. IMO.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
As long as it’s getting serious discussion in the media, it’s worth discussing on the blog.
YESonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I left a mesage with my Rep..Pelosi this AM ..to give her a call about it..if this gets any traction SF will start blasting this lame idea..if thats what Eshoo “really” means instead of bring HSR up an upgraded Caltrain..she needs to be contacted for a clear answer as to what she stand for
joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
How about Newsome and Di-FI? Both former SF Mayors who might enjoy a swat at the pinata.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
do you think maby Californians for high-speed rail can get her to clarify this and make a statement in the news media??
Those of us in the appropriate districts should be writing to Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier, Mike Honda, and Zoe Lofgren that we need HSR and we need it now to grow our economy, provide jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We should tell them that what we really can’t afford is the alternative, which would require us to expand crowded freeways and crowded airports. We should also tell them that building HSR right requires running the HSR line through a 100+ year-old right of way and that Caltrain is not an alternative to HSR but is complementary to HSR by providing a local feeder line. Eshoo shouldn’t be allowed to hijack the issue because of a small group of well-funded and vocal NIMBYs when a supermajority of the Peninsula voted for HSR and wants it. Let them know that these NIMBYs are lying since, if anything, HSR will be an improvement on the existing ROW because it will be electric and the grade separation will eliminate the need to use whistles.
There’s a disconnect here. According to the Mercury News the announcement indicates that the HS trains would go to SF on upgraded Caltrain tracks. This would of course mean lower speeds and fewer trains to SF. Which is correct?
Tony D. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
With HSR using upgraded Caltrain tracks from SJ to SF, does the 2 hour, 40 minute LA-SF run change in any way? Does it become 2:45, 2:50? Just my opinion, but anything under 3 hours for LA-SF would still work (but I guess that would be “breaking the law” per Prop. 1A). Anyone know?
peninsula Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
The law doesn’t say every train has to make that time. Its not ‘breaking the law’ to send one high speed train per day through, non-stop from LA to SF on improved caltrain tracks in the method they are suggesting. It doesn’t break the law to send one per week. It doesn’t break the law to send one per year.
joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The 2:40 requirement serves two purposes; It defines a test that needs to be run to demonstrate they met the stated requirement (the requirement is testable) AND the requirement defines the underlying capability expected for HSR.
A validation that the requirements define the right system and we built it to the intention would be run trains from SF to LA that service a community as expected.
Since we are NOT throwing money at a contractor, we have a very good handle on the system management and design … we can damn sure demand the system not violate the intention – connect SF to LA within a time constraint.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
The system will, in systems-engineering-speak, be delivered with lots of liens and waivers. That, or it won’t be delivered at all. Such is life with limited resources and poor engineering.
YESonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
The timetables that were on the Authority website had only a one or two AM/PM slots with 2hr40-45..most were 2hr55 or 3hr10 ..Trains will be packed even at 3Hs15min..look at Acela
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Regionals take 3:15. Acelas take 2:45 between NY and DC or 3:30 or so between NY and Boston.
We try to not look at Acela. It’s slower than what North Carolina is proposing to do with conventional diesels between Charlotte and Raleigh.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
2hr 55 mins or even 3hrs would still be big in the SF-LA market..the two cities are almost twice as far apart as NYC-DC…this would still be the nations fastest train by far
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Yes, there is indeed a disconnect. The statement said what you describe. Eshoo, however, went much further in her own spoken remarks. So by calling that out here, I’m hoping to expose her as being way out on a limb and hopefully get any discussion of terminating in SJ slapped down fast so she can’t use it as a bargaining position.
joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Agreed.
Maybe the NIMBYs have overplayed their hand by misinforming their representatives and encouraging them to publicly attack a popular project so ineptly.
They have basic facts wrong and are willing to shield the wealthiest few from inconveniences along a 100+ year old rail corridor.
Peter Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
The Murky News article also talked about 150 mph speeds on the Peninsula. They don’t exactly always report accurately.
Let me be blunt: does Eshoo’s opinion really matter in the grand scheme of things? Seriously, while her opinion has ruffled the feathers of many, she won’t be the one making the final decisions on how HSR is built on the Peninsula. Think SF/SJ/SCCo. pols, the Silcon Valley Leadership Group, Bay Area feds, etc. Eshoo is a lightweight compared to the aformentioned. I think all she’s doing is trying to appease her core constituents who are wealthy and donate big time to her coffers. It’s wrong, but it is what it is.
That said, I do favor an integrated system with upgraded Caltrain to electric, grade-separated status with combination dual/quad tracking, all the while allowing HSR to use its tracks from SJ to SF. I think even Simitian and Gordon favor this idea as well. But yes, the Eshoo idea of ending HSR service in San Jose is a complete NON-STARTER!
joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
“Let me be blunt: does Eshoo’s opinion really matter in the grand scheme of things? ”
Yes, she can derail the project and care away federal dollars.
She can also force the issue: Do we really want to screw up a popular rail system for the sake of a few NIMBYs? Why can’t the 2nd wealthiest zip in the USA not afford to issue bonds to tunnel the track?
If it’s a burden, I suggest forgoing latte’s.
Tony D. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
“Yes, she can derail the project and care away federal dollars.” YEAH RIGHT! Good one Joe! I did agree however with the rest of your post (all was not lost).
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
She cant do much..its Simitian thats more dangerous..he is chair of the state Senate commitee that funds HSR..well at least till 2012 when he is gone!
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
And has made a stament that he would withhold funds ..
Andy M. Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 1:19 am
Agree,
and even if the worst comes to the worst and during an initial phase passengers will be chaning trains at SJ, that state will be so obviously temporary and inadequate that I cannot imagine any other solution than mass calls for the lines to be joined up and HSR proceeding to SF, whether that is using a true HSR or an electrification of the present lines on the cheap..
The scheme that HSR customers ‘should transfer’ to Caltrain Baby Bullets can be tested right now using the tried and true air travel market between San Francisco and Southern California.
ALL airline passengers travelling between San Francisco and southern California, (LA, San Diego, Long Beach, Anaheim, etc.) will be required to change planes in San Jose. If the forced San Jose transfer will ‘work’ for HSR then it will certainly work for the heavily used air travel market between San Francisco and Southern California, wont it?
What better way to test their theory?
upgrade caltrain = electrification + grade separation
HSR to SF = electrification + grade separation
therefore: upgrade caltrain = HSR to SF
if you don’t have a problem with one of them then how can you with the other?
Tony D. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Completely agree David. Nice post.
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
First grade math.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
the problem is that upgrade Caltrain=install electrification, wait until traffic levels get high enough to make the grade separations go from obscenely expensive to breathtaking expensive, rip out the electrification that’s been in for a small fraction of it’s expected lifetime and then reinstall it. Reinstalling it won’t be free.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Reinstalling it won’t be free.
Not free, but more or less a drop in the bucket when you consider the sums involved to grade separate the 46 remaining crossings. The order of magnitude that you should be comparing to is five billion dollars.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
And what does the 50 or 100 million buy you over ten years or so? Thats a new fleet of DMUs that can be resold in 2025. Or sent to Metrolink. Or a few to ACE. Or increase frequency on Capitol Corridor.
Derek Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
If Caltrain has to buy new trainsets for the electrification, they should buy HSR trainsets.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
They should no more buy HSR trainsets than you should buy a Ferrari to tow your boat. You see, HSR trainsets are very very expensive and provide certain capabilities (such as, for instance, going faster than 90 mph) that Caltrain simply doesn’t need and won’t ever need. What a silly idea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
NJTransit is going to have a bunch of Comets and ALP44s available cheap. SEPTA is going to have a bunch of Silverliners available cheap. CDOT will have a lot of M1s available cheap too. I’m sure Metra has something or other up it’s sleeve too. Now if you want something that can do 125 maybe Amtrak will let you borrow some AEM7s and Amfleets. You could go 125 in NJTransit Multilevels and and ALP46a’s but NJTransit doesn’t have any extra laying around. And it’s not like Caltrain needs trains that can carry 2,000 passengers.
Andy M. Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Plus there are fundamental differences between commuter trains and HSR trains. Commuter trains have wide doorwaays and lots of them so people can embark and disembark quickly. Commuter trains have wide aisles for the same reason, with the additional advantage that at crush times they can accept high standee loadings. HSR is all the opposite. Seats are more valuable than wide aisles and doorways and so there are more seats and doors and aisles tend to be narrower. An HSR would be a liability on a commuter turn because boarding would be too slow and uncomfortable just as a commuter train would be madness on an inter-city working because of the lower comfort levels
thatbruce Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Caltrain just needs electrified sets which speak the same signaling system as the CAHSR trainsets, not that reach the same maximum speed. ( And preferably the same platform height, couplers and power delivery )
Derek Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 10:41 am
“Commuter trains have wide aisles for the same reason, with the additional advantage that at crush times they can accept high standee loadings.”
The interior is just a customizeable option. Good point about the doors, though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I wanna see some of these wide aisled commuter cars. But then the commuter trains I use tend to be single level with five seats across the car and a narrow aisle.
Derek Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 10:37 am
“You see, HSR trainsets are very very expensive and provide certain capabilities (such as, for instance, going faster than 90 mph) that Caltrain simply doesn’t need and won’t ever need.”
If Caltrain and the CAHSRA can do a group buy to get a volume discount, then it might make financial sense.
Eric M Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
All Caltrain needs are a couple of these train sets. Although, these might even be an overkill, but sure would work great as baby bullets. Then use these train sets as locals (I believe these are the same ones Clem blogged).
Eric M Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Ooops, forgot about trying to have the same platform height for all trains, high speed and not. Well, works good in Germany anyways.
Joey Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Okay, but can we please use EMUs and not push-pull sets?
If you can service the existing stations and have a capability to service 2035′s expected needs for HSR.
Joe Sez one can’t satisfy NIMBYs and meet anticipated needs for capacity and growth of both local and regional systems.
tony d. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Will the current group of NIMBYS even be here in 2035? I myself will be 65 then.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
No probably not, but when you decide to dip into Railroad.net’s forum for Bay Area commuter rail they will still be gnawing on the bone of whether or not Altamont was better than Pacheco. Even though by then Altamont to at least Fremont will have been built and the Capitol Corridor will no longer be running in the streets of Oakland. They will be gnawing on that bone until teletranporters become common.
joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Altamont could (should) get dedicated tracks but probably not HSR and I disagree that the Capitol Corridor will be terminated for a Altamont route. I know nothing of the route’s geology but….
It would seem faster and easier to run some type of HSR along/with some part of the Capitol Corridor at least out of Oakland if not from HSR San Jose rather than tunnel and run over the pass and connect to Stockton.
The Altamont pass is a commuter line into predominately suburban/exa-burb communities.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
From the suburbs. Unless Fremont has reimagined itself and suddenly become a destination.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
The Altamont pass is a commuter line into predominately suburban/exa-burb communities.
Gee, I wonder what does that make the Pacheco pass?
Tony D. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
It makes Pacheco Pass predominately intra-state, intercity (i.e connecting SF, SJ and LA, plus some smaller burbs in between).
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
That’s also a fine description of Altamont…
Joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
No, Altamont would use an exclusive OR to describe the connection.
LA to SF XOR SJ
Pacheco connection is LA to SF or SJ.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I like to think of it as LA and SJ and SF. And Gilroy and Fresno and Bakersfield and….
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
When I travel, I go to SF XOR SJ, so I don’t see the finer point you’re trying to make.
Joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Clem,
The alignment forks trains to SF or SJ. One or the other, but not both.
Joey Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Well fortunately no one needs to be in both SF and SJ at the same time.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I get that, thanks. It just so happens that I’ll be sitting on one or the other train, but not both. So why should I care?
Matthew B. Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 5:13 am
Because you have to wait for the right train. If all trains go to both SF and SJ, you just get on the first one that comes by rather than waiting. It’s not that complex.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Why is Altamont associated with an “OR”?
In phase 1, there is no reason you have to split in Fremont. All trains go to San Jose and then go up electrified corridor. Over time, if demand warrants, you have a crossing of the dumbarton as part of a robust intercity network that can be used to send some trains straight up.
It is worth noting that during the original study in 2007 (before the legislation and its various constraints), the Authority looked at 72 (literally) different alternatives, but overlooked this really obvious one, which has lower construction costs and much higher ridership than pacheco (according to the numbers they produced).
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Not if there is a timed transfer between, say SJ-Sac and SF-LA trains.
Apparently, it is. Make the suggestion that train networks should serve multiple destinations and it’s enough to make peoples’ heads explode.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:48 am
But then could Stage One be finished until the Dumbarton Crossing, if the transit time SF /SJ / Altamont / CV / LA is over 2:40?
And there is still the matter of wresting appropriate corridor up the east Bay from San Jose from someone’s iron grip.
If the Dumbarton Crossing were to be a pretext for NIMBY’s along the Altamont corridor, it would suddenly become one of the most precious wetlands in the entire west coast ~ or perhaps the entire US.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Elizabeth, the dirty not-so-secret is that there is no demand for travel to San José (The Capital of Silicon Valley). Forcing a one hour detour via a place nobody wants to go, and then wasting a large number of train-hours of nose bleed expensive and rapidly depreciating high speed wonder-trains to trundle down to Diridon Intergalactic, reverse, then trundle up to SF and back makes no economic sense from either ridership or revenue or operating cost perspectives.
The way to serve San Francisco in Phase 0a is via BART from Livermore. (The way to serve San Jose at this early point is the HOT lane on 680 that we’re paying a fortune for.)
The way to serve San Francisco on Phase 0b is via BART from Livermore. For purely political reasons, not for economic or environmental or rational reasons, the way to serve San José, the Capital of Silicon Valley, is to extend some HSR trains past Livermore to Diridon Interdimensional.
Then in Phase 1 complete what should have been done earlier, and was near-suicidal from a revenue perspective to have been forced to do, and build out Dumbarton and run trains to where most people really want to go in northern California.
joe Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Bruce: the Bay **is** one of the most precious wetlands on the west coast. There are so few given the Western US hydrology/geology.
Clem: One train runs from SF to SJ and down to LA and SD. One train, not two.
Elizabeth: Seriously, HSR over Altamont to San Jose and then Caltrain to SF – seriously?!!
I’m going to love reading the SF Chronicle take part this nonsense. They’ll not the sympathetic San Mateo County Times.
Richard: sarcastic cynical and always the charmer. 1) SF-SJ isn’t for SF to SJ travel as much as it is two stops to gather ridership to express to LA and of course LA north. 2) As for no interst in travel to San Jose, it’s the 2nd largest city in CA and economically far better off than the east bay, They expanded the airport – SJC.
synonymouse Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 10:12 am
I agree with RM that an hsr connection to BART at Livermore is the way to start out.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Seriously, HSR over Altamont to San Jose and then Caltrain to SF
Why yes, people are so adverse to transferring they would spend more time on the HSR train tahn they would by getting off in Fremont and using BART. I’m assuming that when they do this the station in Fremont will easily connect with BART. . . all the way to San Francisco so they can tranfer to BART….
tony d. Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Despite all the pot smoking, Altamont isn’t happening as the primary Bay Area HSR line,
but interesting conversation nonetheless. Kind of like talking about Big Foot.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 11:44 am
interesting conversation nonetheless.
It’s sorta like threads on the foamer boards that start out with “What would have happened if the hurricanes of 1955 hadn’t flooded most of the Northeast” and end up with “well if the hurricanes hadn’t happened and the DL&W had merged with the Erie and the Lehigh Valley and the NY Central hadn’t upgraded the line and the ICC had let them all rationalize service and the Thruway hadn’t opened and…….then the Penn Central would have made money” which is replied to with “but the hurricanes did happen and ….” which is replied to with “well if the DL&W had merged with the Eire in 1953 and coal hadn’t been replaced with oil as fast…”
Foamer boards in 2247 are going to be filled with “Altamont!” “Pacheco!!” “Altamont!!!” “Pacheco!!!!” with sub threads about how they should have extended BART to Livermore and let everybody transfer there.
Is not one of the reasons why aerials are so prominent in the Peninsula plans because they have to accommodate freight? Electric trains can handle steeper grades than freights. Yet there is such little freight on this corridor that it seems a waste of money to accommodate them.
The Caltrain right of way could be the first true electric non-freight non-light rail commuter corridor in the state.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
first true electric non-freight non-light rail commuter corridor in the state.
At least the second. BART was the first.
Spokker Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I should have specified further. I’m talking about a full service corridor. Locals, limiteds and expresses all coexisting happily. BART is an all-stops service. Feels more like a subway system than a commuter rail corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Just hope that the almighty all seeing BART hasn’t heard your comment, It would hurt it’s feelings. It might make you take Caltrain from Millbrae to San Francisco instead of having the joyous experience of using BART to get to SF. I’m sure you are anxiously awaiting the chance to see all the sights you can see from the train as it passes through Daly City……
Donk Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Yeah if Choo-Choo and Simian want to do something useful, they should try to make a deal to buy out the freight railroad on the Caltrain corridor.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:28 am
That would require the genius staff and consultants of HSR and Caltrain suggesting to anybody that this is even a good idea. Which from their perspective ($250 million of utterly useless squandered failure ahead for CBOSS) it isn’t. Politicians don’t dream up rail regulation cost saving ideas all by their lonesomes: they have to be lobbied, and there have to be willing public servants — public agency employees who serve the public interest — all set to jump right through the technical and bureaucratic hoops.
So yes, that would be about the most useful thing to do. Now how do you propose to make it their top priority?
It is pretty funny that some would rather see the money go to BART than HSR/Caltrain. Expanding BART further is the worst idea right now.
Clem Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
That’s the power of the BART idea–people struggle to wrap their brains around basic transportation planning issues, their eyes glaze over, and they say “but why don’t we just put in BART?” Millions, billions, same thing, whatever. See, the transportation industrial complex doesn’t give a rat’s ass if HSR stops in San Jose. If it does, they get to build BART up the peninsula instead… the grade-separated concrete orgy is 100% assured as far as they are concerned. And concrete-free Caltrain can take a flying leap (except maybe when it blows a big chunk of its capital budget to pour a useless mound of concrete in San Bruno, that is)
StevieB Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
That is exactly what the east bay wants done according to the Contra Costa Times editorial: Spend money on BART, not high-speed rail.
Joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
BART is a commuter system. It is an answer to a question no one asked.
Spokker Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
BART is a subway system trying to do a commuter rail system’s job. Standard gauge at-grade rail with, gasp, railroad crossings, can do the same exact thing for a fraction of the cost.
Jeff Carter Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:27 am
Clem: “(except maybe when it blows a big chunk of its capital budget to pour a useless mound of concrete in San Bruno, that is)”
I don’t see the San Bruno grade separation as a useless mound of concrete or waste of money.
Here is a real world scenario… I ride train #101 every day, several months ago after leaving San Bruno; a big rig was stuck on the crossing at San Bruno Avenue. The gates were operating/lights flashing, the engineer was blowing the horn and the train had slowed to a crawl. The big rig finally cleared the crossing and train #101 was able to continue to SF. The very next day there was very heavy fog, so there was no way the engineer would have seen that big rig until it was too late to prevent a potential catastrophe.
Grade separations do provide a valuable safety barrier which would have precluded the tragic accident in Palo Alto earlier this week.
Grade separations also let Caltrain become a better (quieter) neighbor since they will not have to constantly blow their horns anymore.
Joey Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Required reading. The San Bruno grade separation is being built in a way which is in many ways completely hostile to the future prospect of HSR. They’re keeping a tight curve despite it being relatively easy to cut off (costing a fair amount of time for HSR), they’re locking the platform configuration, and they’re not building it such that two additional tracks could be added easily. There are much more effective ways this money could be spent.
Operate this bad boy on the Peninsula instead. http://img651.imageshack.us/i/trainv.jpg/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Ho, ho, ho, ho!
I also read and post over on a railway preservation site; thought you might like to take a gander at this subject there:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31230&sid=33d31a831a67402d16726260b88d3a00
In particular, take note that the first of the photos sent in by HudsonL is at the same location as your photo, though at a different angle, and may be of a different speed run (more people visible at the end of the parked engineering car in your shot).
Eric M Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
LMAO
Eric M Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Should be nice and quiet too!!! LOL
I’m a huge support of high speed rail, but I seriously feel like some of you folks have gone whack out of the announcement yesterday.
First, Eshoo is a supporter of HSR. Know that, and know it well. Eshoo is a huge reason why California has been such a big winner within the federal government–it’s not just because of 1A support. Just because she is calling for some revisions doesn’t mean all you folks should suddenly turn against her. Like someone pointed out, her comments don’t carry much weight either.
And stop all this nonsense about winning her new constituents. Eshoo has always had a strong supporter base in the Bay Area–she is nowhere near a borderline vote. she knows herself that NOT speaking out would’ve done her better (Obama even pointed out that politicians who do NOTHING have the highest approval numbers).
Alex M. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
She may be a supporter of HSR, but she’s obviously not a supporter of HSR to San Francisco, which is required by Prop 1A. It’s absolutely crazy to even consider not having our HSR go to SF, which is what she’s doing.
VBobier Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Then why is She saying that Caltrain is HSR?? Hmm…
YesonHSR Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Stopping in San Jose is not something little..I hope she was misquote and was talking about the alt plans for Caltrain tracks..she needs to make this clear
Caltrain is a commuter railroad with no on-board services at all. No place to put your baggage, no bathroom, no cafe car.
Not quite, Robert. Luggage racks and bathrooms are provided on every Caltrain.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
NASTY ones!! If California’s high-speed trains are anywhere near as nice as the Acela there’ll be a huge difference between CalTrain and high-speed trains, although Acelas certainly don’t move as fast as world class high-speed rail they are probably one of the nicest looking and most comfortable trains in the world..
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Are there? I must be blind and have never noticed them on the trains I’ve ridden…
YesonHSR Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
only one usually in the front one or two cars..
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
And it is doubtful the HSR trains would have a
parlourcafe car either.Alex M. Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
The TGV and ICE do.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:26 am
The trend is to phase them out (more cost-effective to sell seats).
BruceMcF Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:40 am
The cost effectiveness of a bistro section depends strongly on market conditions and capacity utilization of the rail corridor. Its a straightforward financial cost/benefit win in the period when the service is building patronage, especially services that are going to be getting 20%~30% of their patronage from diverted air travel.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I’m pretty sure the cafe cars were gone from the Shinkansen by the time the Tohoku and Joetsu lines opened. And those are lines that do not have very high seat utilization – nowadays they average around 50% if I’m not mistaken.
Joe Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Nor bathrooms…Hiccup!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
That’s parlor car in the States. In the rest of the world they call parlor car service first class and coach second class. I suppose commuter cars would be third class.
Rumor has it there is still one first class commuter car running on the North Jersey Coast Line. Hundred bucks a month in addition to your railroad issued monthly commuter ticket,
Elizabeth Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 5:57 am
Caltrain, on the baby bullet trains, even have power plugs.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:52 am
There’s a power plug in the middle of the upper level on the old silver cars (forget the manufacturer’s name). Although ever since I got my battery-sipping iPad I’ve not had as much need for it.
Empire strikes back
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/18/BAHI1J32P8.DTL
SF’s newspaper is starting to cover the HSR NIMBY peninsula impact on their HSR service.
VBobier Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
The 3 elected persons ignorance is showing… Caltrain is not HSR, If that’s HSR, Their clearly daft.
Joey Reply:
April 19th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
They made the 150 MPH mistake as well.
Simitian clarified what he meant:
“He wanted to make sure people understood he envisions passengers who ride up north from Los Angeles to San Jose could continue with high-speed rail all the way up the peninsula, he said.
“People who want to get off in San Francisco would keep going on the same train and on to Los Angeles,” he said. No one would have to get off in San Jose, walk across the station, and go onto another train, he said. “Federal authority has been granted that would allow high-speed rail to stay on the same rail as Caltrain uses,” he said.”
Full article here:
http://paloalto.patch.com/articles/simitian-supports-running-high-speed-rail-through-palo-alto?ncid=M255
VBobier Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Plus one idiot who wants Bart, Who wants to have a revote on HSR & to have HSR stop in SJ instead of SF, Who wants Caltrain Service ended(Meg Whitman ought to like that), But then someone would have to come up with the millions for the Statewide Initiative to get on the Ballot, Otherwise It ain’t happening…
Caltrain needs to exist, Bart can’t do It alone, As It is capacity limited I expect, As It and a lot of other places depend on Caltrain, Like Stanford University, Put all of the crossings under Caltrain(Devote some money to do this ASAP) and make the ROW HSR compatible in all respects when the money is available(Before going past Palmdale) So as to start up HSR service asap. Not to mention make Caltrain: More Frequent, More Capacity, Safer, Quieter(No Horns or Diesel Engines) & as Non-Polluting as electric can get(No Diesel Exhaust in Kids lungs!)…
Andy Chow Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:26 am
That idiot who wants BART is using it as a distraction on his campaign against Caltrain and HSR. Seriously, build any BART would require tax increases, and that’s not something that a Meg Whitman supporter would actually go for. He’s trying basically to fool us.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 8:53 am
That’s good news, but Eshoo is clearly saying something very different.
Andy Chow Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Politicians are not exactly rail experts. Give them some slacks. Eshoo isn’t going to disagree with Simitian. While she could accept the scenario of making people transfer, that’s not necessary.
I was actually quite pleased to hear the announcement from them and from Caltrain, but somehow you and some other media decided to interpret their statements differently.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Her office needs to put out a simple statement that her meaning was missed uninterpreted and that she fully supports trains running into the Tranbay terminal and San Francisco.. that will clarify everything
Why can’t we go back to the good ol’ days of hiring the Mafia to shut these NIMBYs up?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 20th, 2011 at 9:51 am
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has done a bang-up job on that front. Where did Los Banos HSR and BART to the San José Capital of Silicon Valley Flea Market come from? The mafioso just love those projects, and guess what: they’re the ones on the table. What makes you think the mafia isn’t going about its business effectively, huh? You some sort of Wise Guy?
Enraged, informed, disinterested NIMBYs in Fremont and Pleasanton spontaneously arise! I Carl Guano, command thee!
Clarification of High-Speed Rail Announcement
Following Monday’s announcement by Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, Senator Joe Simitian and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, there appears to be some misperception about what they have proposed.
Congresswoman Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assemblyman Gordon wish to make clear that they are not calling for high-speed trains to stop in San Jose, forcing riders from the south, for instance, to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco. There would be no transfers. The idea is to upgrade the Caltrain corridor so that high-speed trains can run on the same tracks.
High-speed trains would run northbound and southbound all the way between San Francisco and Los Angeles, as required by Prop 1A. On the Peninsula, they would operate on the same tracks as Caltrain, overtaking slower Caltrain trains at certain passing points, just as Caltrain’s baby bullet trains overtake and pass local trains today.
###