New York Times’ Flawed HSR Editorial
I wanted to like this editorial in today’s New York Times. It starts off so well:
The agreement between Congress and the White House to virtually eliminate money for high-speed rail is harebrained. France, China, Brazil, even Russia, understand that high-speed rail is central to future development. Not Washington.
It’s a great defense of high speed rail and the lunacy of cutting funding for it in a cowardly act of appeasement that will have damaging long-term consequences. No wonder this editorial has hit my inbox and my Twitter account numerous times in the last 12 hours.
But then the editorial takes a wrong turn. The overall purpose of the editorial is to argue that all remaining HSR funding should go to the Northeast Corridor – and to justify that, they decide to attack the California HSR project:
Two areas stand out on that list: the Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington; and California, which has ambitions to build a high-speed rail system from San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego. California voters have approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project (which has an ultimate price tag of some $45 billion), but the state wants the $2 billion for an extension.
That is a promising project, for later. The overall price is not practical now, and the Northeast already has the fastest train in the country, the Acela, which is running on tracks that do not allow it to reach its full speed.
This is simply wrong. The California HSR project is promising for right now. And in fact, given the long construction time required, trains won’t connect SF to LA until 2020. While I disagree with the NYT’s claim that California HSR isn’t useful now – with high gas prices, it would have huge ridership if it opened tomorrow – even by their own logic of “later” the California HSR project ought to be funded, because it will open “later.” If we delay funding it, then the 2020 date might well be missed. As we can expect gas prices to remain permanently high, we cannot afford that delay.
The overall price is quite practical now. $45 billion in infrastructure spending would be a huge short-term stimulus, and provide important long-term stimulus in the form of faster travel at a stable price that is less than competing forms of travel, particularly airfare.
Finally, the editorial sets up a false choice between different HSR projects. If the goal is to promote the concept of HSR and push back against right-wing attacks and spineless Democratic caves to those attacks, then it does no good to start criticizing other projects. Rail advocates need to stand united behind all HSR projects (and, I would argue, behind other rail projects as well). The game of “my rail project is better than yours” is a losing game for everyone involved. It was tried in the 1990s and 2000s after Congressional Republicans began attacking rail projects after winning the 1994 election, and we’re no better off for it in terms of HSR funding, and probably not much better off in terms of rail funding overall.
Rail advocates need to learn to stand together and grow the base of support for rail funding. That means backing each other’s projects, not turning on them in search of scarce funds. More funding is the only answer.
NY Times wants to be a regional newspaper.
Palo Alto Daily Post today reports (not on-line) on the private meeting between Peninsula cities and Van Ark:
HSR chief OK with new plan.
Says running high-speed trains on Caltrain tracks is a first step.
“In a way what they are talking about is also phased implementation; so there’s no contradiction”
Van Ark said sharing tracks would have to be a first step…top make the time table HSR trains must travel the 50-mile distance between SJ and SF in 30 minutes, he said. The average speed would be 100 mph.
Should be possible under the eshoo-simitian-gordon plan because it calls for eliminating crossings where cars are at track level…
StevieB Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
It is possible to build on the peninsula without aerial structures but the underpasses and over passes needed to eliminate gated crossings would take more land from parcels near the cross streets. Overpasses and underpasses are large structures that would require emminent domain to take land far from the rail line on both sides. Those who will lose property to this plan will probably prefer an aerial structure.
Nathanael Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Apart from the extra expense of submerging the tracks below grade level, the problems with underground creeks mean that undergrounding the route could turn out to be very expensive.
People should get over their fear of aerials and work to design *good* aerials.
The NY Times position is sensible but that doesn’t mean that California cannot have better passenger rail. California having to pay for its own scheme is salutary in the sense it will force the planners back to the drawing board. The TRAC-Tolmach plan is a good start.
In general the CHSRA has favored certain prima donna cities, Sf, SJ, Fresno and LA, has ignored the other big cities, and has downright harassed the suburban and rural areas. SF gets the TBT tunnel, SJ get iconic bridges, LA gets a grotesque detour, Fresno gets maybe a 12 mile wannabe aqueduct. So SF and SJ get the diva treatment and PAMPA gets the berm rush.
You cannot demand the Peninsula to “compromise” unless you insist on the same from Palmdale.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:15 am
It’s eventually going to connect San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego and Anaheim. Along the way it’s going to connect Los Angeles to all four and the cities in between. What did they miss? Eureka? Pismo Beach? Burney?
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Face It Syno, You’re one of the losers on the ballot from 2008 & You want HSR stopped at any cost, You’d need an Army to stop HSR syno & You won’t ever have one, But then You aren’t going to stop HSR without one…
YesonHSR Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:35 pm
And STOP that stupid TRAC-Tolmach crap..thou I think he is him!!
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Huh? I hope Yer referring to the mouse…
YesonHSR Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
yes!!
Alai Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 am
Ok, ok, the peninsula can get an aqueduct too. Happy?
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:36 am
The same “compromise” should be demanded from Palmdale as from PAMPA?
OK, I demand that Palmdale accept all grade separations and all track required by the main CAHSR trunk system, and if they want mitigation above and beyond that justified by the full economic cost of an impact, they should have to pay for it out of their own pockets.
Gosh, that was easy.
synonymouse Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:58 am
How about an aqueduct for SF?
SMART says Santa Rosa is the 6th largest city in CA:
http://rohnertpark.patch.com/articles/rohnert-park-getting-closer-to-moving-smart-station-to-future-downtown
Move over Palmdale, which should be forcefed a “compromise” of kicked off the hsr route and back to Metrolink.
datacruncher Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Looks like SMART needs to talk to the Census Bureau. 6th largest city in the state? Not even close.
California’s largest cities as of April 2010:
1. Los Angeles 3,792,621
2. San Diego 1,307,402
3. San Jose 945,942
4. San Francisco 805,235
5. Fresno 494,665
6. Sacramento 490,488
26. Santa Rosa 167,815
32. Palmdale 152,750
Maybe Metro area? Nope not that either:
California’s largest MSAs as of April 2010:
1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA 12,828,837
2. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA 4,335,391
3. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 4,224,851
4. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA 3,095,313
5. Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA MSA 2,149,127
6. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 1,836,911
7. Fresno, CA MSA 930,450
8. Bakersfield-Delano, CA MSA 839,631
9. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 823,318
10. Modesto, CA MSA 514,453
11. Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA 483,878
This is not surprising as the NYT has run in the past months several articles that were very negative on the FL HSR project. They all made the point that the NE corridor somehow deserves the money….yet FL will have more people than NY state in less than 20 years! Go figure, the NE corridor states and Amtrak made no attempt to secure HSR funding back in 2009. The NYT is definitely out for their own interests. But I agree, that all rail supporters need to speak in unity.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am
There’s 50 million people within 25 miles of the NEC. If Florida gets up to 50 million people I suspect there will be a bit more than 50 million along the NEC.
Alan F Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Amtrak could not submit an application for the $8 billion of stimulus funding for the NEC in 2009. States could, but the FRA mostly passed on the NEC related applications because they wanted a corridor wide EIS and master plan in place in order for the NEC to be eligible for significant HSIPR funding. The NEC Infrastructure Master Plan was released in May, 2010 and the NEC was officially designated as the 11th and final HSR corridor. So the states and Amtrak were able to submit applications for major NEC projects for the Florida HSR funding reallocation.
I find the NYT editorial to be too NYC and east coast centric. I travel on the NEC and would like to see some real money put towards fixing and improving the NEC and the busiest feeder corridors to the NEC. But I think that we should also be funding HSR and improved intercity passenger rail systems in CA & the SW, the mid-West, the Cascades corridor, a Southeast true HSR corridor running from DC to Atlanta, and a Chicago-NYC HSR connection going through Pittsburgh. But that is just my opinion, I’m not in charge.
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Couldn’t agree more Alan F.
From what I heard about the Van Ark meeting he said the following:
We will study aerials anyway because we think we need to legally.
We will study a full 4 track system for the 2035 system because we think we need to legally per the bond.
Phase 1 (electrified Caltrain with 3 tph each way) would not *necessarily* require grade-seps.
Phase 2 would be for 12tph each way.
Both of these statements conflict with the Eshoo-Simitian-Gordon message and the Post article.
A time line of 5-10 years between Phase 1 and Phase II was described by Van Ark.
He also said they will provide a FINAL business plan on Jan 1, 2012 and Jan 1, 2014 per the law (although remember they promised a DRAFT bus plan to the legislators on Oct 14th, 2011).
Apparently, he said they won’t do anything with ridership studies until 2012 as required by law.?? Not sure what he means – anyone know what law describes when ridership studies would be due?
Nadia Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:25 am
oh, and that they’ll study covered trench for downtown cores but only with an 800 foot lid because of Fire Life Safety Issues.
They also showed a picture of how a trench would be staged to ensure Caltrain and Freight could continue to operate during phased construction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:26 am
A trench with a lid is called a tunnel
Nadia Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:29 am
Technically they refer to it as a covered trench vs. a tunnel- which they define as a deep bored tunnel. But for the “average person” – yes a tunnel – that is 800 ft long.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:55 am
It’s doubleplusgood that they do that.
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
And You don’t want to be in a Tunnel(Covered Tunnel) with a Diesel-Electric locomotive, the diesel engine is sucking up all the oxygen and leaving plenty of CO and CO2 fumes.
I wonder does UPRR haul any double-stack container trains up the Caltrain ROW? Just curious on this.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Diesels run in tunnels all the time all over the world. A four track wide tunnel thats only 800 feet long with one diesel in it shouldn’t be a problem.
No they don’t run double stacks on it. It’s an obscure branch line that the railroads have been trying to get rid of since the 50s. They succeeded when they sold it off to the Joint Powers/Caltrain. I suspect that Union Pacific makes a small profit on the freight operations – otherwise they wouldn’t do it – but it’s not an important part of their business.
Clem Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
UPRR loses money on the peninsula operation, and wants out. The problem is STB lawsuits from the customers, which could make abandonment a costlier proposition than just losing on operations alone.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The STB is not your grandfather’s ICC. Railroads have much more latitude in setting rates than they did in the past. They also have lawyers on staff, so the cost of lawsuits isn’t all that much.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
If UP really wants out, they could trade some leeway elsewhere in the state in return for being “forced” out of the Peninsula corridor.
Owen Evans Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:59 pm
But there is NO way that these lawsuits could cost more than the extra expense that freight trains cause through the lower maximum grades.
Find everybody who ever uses freight on the peninsula and give them a few million dollars to drop the issue.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Railroads prefer grades be 1%, and try not to go over 0.8%. There’s lots of places where they are steeper. They could cope with steeper grades on an lightly used branch line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saluda_Grade
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:59 pm
One thing to consider is that if the grade is short, it can be fairly steep; for quite a number of freight trains in situations such as this (i.e., a climb to an overpass, total climb perhaps 20 feet or so), the train will be considerably longer than the grade. Not all of it will be on the grade at once.
In this case, a 20-foot climb at 4% is only 500 feet long (actually a bit more with allowances for the vertical curves at each end). That’s 10 50-foot cars (actually less than that when you are including the space between cars, typically a minimum of 3 feet, perhaps more), or 12 40-footers. A loaded 40-foot hopper car of semi-recent design will weigh perhaps 286,000 lbs. gross; 12 of them on such a grade would weigh 3,432 tons. That’s a fraction of what a long train of 200 such cars would weigh, but that’s all a locomotive would have have to handle on such a grade.
Of course, a series of such ups and downs might not be totally trouble-free, especially if they were in close succession; in that situation, you might have parts of a long train going uphill, parts of it on the level, and parts going downhill, all at the same time, and all of which can make for interesting things going on in terms of slack action between cars. Such a roller-coaster alignment might not be too comfortable for passenger trains at high speeds as well unless considerable attention is paid to vertical curvature and the feet and crests of such grades.
Excessively sharp vertical curvature can also cause problems with couplers between very long cars (such as 89-foot long auto racks); it is possible to have couplers slide apart vertically if the vertical curves are too short.
In some cases, it may also be possible to split the elevation difference between levels, with the railroad elevated and the crossing road depressed, or perhaps the other way around. Depending on the tradeoffs at such a location, you can reduce the total amount of climb for either road or railroad, and in the process either lengthen the grade, shorten it, and in any event reduce the amount of dirt to be moved around–which can also reduce the height, expense, and visual impact of embankments (or “berms” as you Californians tend to call them).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 9:22 pm
If UP loses money on the branch, and if the traffic is still worth keeping in spite of that, then the proposals of CHSRA/Caltrain running a local freight service could make some sense.
Speaking for myself, this could be cool, even without my steam engines. Basically, I’m imagining Caltrain as a terminal road, maintaining its independence but also handling the HSR service, much like the way the Richmond, Fredricksburg & Potomac handled through trains between Richmond. Va. and Washington, D.C.; made some good money that way.
The inspiration for what even I have to admit is a pipe dream is a partial quotation from a letter by
General William Jackson Palmer, a Civil War veteran who would build and run a number of narrow-gauge roads in Colorado, including what would later become the Denver & Rio Grande Western. Two surviving and steam-operated portions run today between Antonito, Co. and Chama, N.M., and between Durango, Co., and Silverton in the same state. This is what the General had to say about what he thought would be an ideal railroad:
“I had a dream last evening while sitting in the gloaming at the car window [en route from Salina]. I thought how fine it would be to have a little railroad a few hundred miles in length, all under one’s own control with one’s friends, to have no jealousies and contests and differing policies, but to be able to carry out unimpeded and harmoniously one’s views in regard to what ought and ought not to be done.
“. . .a host of good fellows from my regiment should occupy the various positions. . .I would have everyone of these, as well as every other employee of the Road, no matter how low his rank, interested in the stock and profits of the line. . .They should feel it was their own Road and not some stranger soulless corporation.”–from a letter by William Jackson Palmer to Queen Mellen (his fiance), in January, 1870.
Jackson would make a start at this, but would ultimately lose control of the road to Jay Gould; sadly, it seems high ideals have a problem competing with capital. They don’t make enough money, or perhaps more accurately they hinder the accumulation of money.
Bah.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 9:30 pm
!!@#$%&*!! Used the wrong name, should have used Palmer!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:53 pm
V. Bobier commented about “die-sels” (for some reason I have never been able to get bold-face fonts to work on pages like this), and in turn reminded me of how we steam fans call them “diseasles,” or in some cases “dismals.”
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:25 pm
You need to brush up on Your HTML then, As It’s not that hard to do:
Note I didn’t put a minus symbol in there, but I see You did, No I’m just pointing this out. Being
that I’m not a steam fan, I didn’t know diesels were referred to as such, I’m a railfan.
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:26 pm
and It’s there, I just goofed, These will work minus the spaces like so: and
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:52 pm
<bold This blog is really good at using html tags, Only bold works here. I used a close tag of course, An open tag is like so I hope, the open tag comes first of course, the Yer text and then the close tag.
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
bold and link tags I should have said, dang…
VBobier Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
HTML Help, Example bold tags are shown there.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Thanks, I’ll have to try this out.
morris brown Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:54 am
Well if the Authority doesn’t come up with a new business plan by Oct. 14th, they are going to lose about 1/2 of their funding, since the budget bill had that string attached. (actually I believe the legislature agreed to just a draft of the plan by Oct 14.
AS far as I am concerned, having our local politicians enter into closed door sessions with the Authority, leads me to not support any of them in the future. What are they trying to hide?
Peter Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Not every staff meeting requires your personal supervision, Morris.
Rick Rong Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Morris,
Who attended the meeting?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:44 am
I’m not sure about that. If the Authority says “we’ll have a final plan in less than three months” do you really believe Jerry Brown will cut off their funding? Or that the Democratic legislature would cross him on that? Of course not.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 am
“AS far as I am concerned, having our local politicians enter into closed door sessions with the Authority, leads me to not support any of them in the future. What are they trying to hide?”
Likely trying hide whichever remarks from any side that could be taken out of context and used with good effect in a dishonest and deceptive way by avowed opponents of the project come hell or high water, so that they can have an actually useful exchange of information without the signal getting lost in the noise of defensive political posturing.
Boo, boo on them, trying to get work done in the face of political gamesmanship and sabotage. What horrible people.
Clem Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 12:46 pm
So basically Van Ark said that the “new” plan corresponds perfectly with Phase 1 of his phased implementation plan. Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon want all further phases killed, and Van Ark is saying that’s not going to happen. I don’t see the slightest bit of compromise here.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Agreed.
morris brown Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I also agree.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:40 pm
We cannot stop planning for the future because a bunch of malcontents don’t want anything ever to change! There is no harm planning ..it gives people an idea what may happen or may not. To lock in the system for the next hundred years because today’s crowd is screaming about something is illogical and ridiculous.. this is more than a compromise on the rail Authority’s part give you people an inch. and you people want a mile.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 7:00 pm
They may want all further phases killed, but their written statement was deliberately vague. Van Ark, sensibly, agreed with the vague statement in general and then in detail agreed with the parts that are feasible.
joe Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon want all further phases killed, and Van Ark is saying that’s not going to happen. ”
I doubt they personally or professionally want to kill further phases. They’re trying to appease conflicting “wants”. This compromise get them through 2012.
Eshoo et al. are politicians who know HSR passed 60-40 in favor with their constituents and they have been lobbied by industry/business (stanford, genetech and etc) about needing infrastructure for continued growth and expansion.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 11:13 pm
It’s not van Ark’s job to compromise. The ballot measure has guidelines, and the system must be able to take a passenger from LA to SF or vice versa in 2 hours 40 minutes. He may want dearly to compromise, but he doesn’t have the legal authority to. And it doesn’t matter: even if he could, the system will be expanded to handle more and bigger trains as demand grows. Quad-tracking, BART ringing the Bay, hot pants coming back into style, it’s a question of when, not if. That’s what frustrating about the NIMBYism.
You can’t turn back time, no matter what Cher says.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:35 am
Cher is saying “IF I could turn back time, IF I could find a way, I’d take back those words that hurt you, And you’d stay.” She’s lamenting that she can’t, not saying that she can.
Perhaps if Van Ark could turn back time, he would have the San Carlos grade separations designed to be directly expanded to take four tracks … but he can’t.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:06 am
Oh, but the Belmont-San Carlos grade separations (and the Jefferson in Redwood City) are designed for four tracks.
You see, I directly asked the Caltrain CEO and the Caltrain Chief Engineer, in the public Board meeting, why that was apparently not the case, and those individuals asserted, openly, in front of their employing board and in the presence of all the agency senior staff and the project engineers, that they were in fact designed for quadruple tracking.
In exactly the same way (because they’re exactly the same class of individual) I’m sure that today’s Caltrain/CSHRA staff/consultants are all completely on the up and up about all of ridership, engineering, phasing, regulation, and costs. We’re talking the World’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals here, right in our own back yards!
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:16 am
I think Van Ark’s plan is realistic and makes psychological sense. Maybe he has in mind how HSR started in France. He assumes that once passengers can experience HSR up to San Jose, they will resent the Peninsula stranglehold as an anomaly. Millions will also realize HSR is not as ugly and noisy as they were told, and support for anti-HSR residents will quickly erode. Their personal opinion will be confonted to real-life experience, and they will lose.
Conditions will then be politically ripe for building the rest of the line.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:19 am
Sorry: dropped the “r” in “confronted”.
Rick Rong Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Nadia, maybe this responds to your question: Streets and Highways Section 2704.08(c)(2)(E) says one of the elements of a funding plan “shall include, identify, or certify” “The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.” That is the funding plan that is supposed to be provided to the peer review group, the director of finance, and policy and fiscal committees 90 days before asking for an initial appropriation. There is also a “projected ridership and operating revenue report” that is supposed to be part of another funding plan that needs to be prepared before money is committed. This is described in 2704.08(d). There is also a reference to “projected ridership and revenue” in (f) that talks about priorities in selecting corridors or usable segments.
Nadia Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 9:40 pm
thanks
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 am
Shorter Van Ark: “We’re going to do what the law tells us.”
If Eshoo-Simitian-Gordon don’t like it, well, they can pursue changing the law…
I’ll have to agree that CA deserves funding, but the editorial didn’t actually attack the California project–I think that would be over-analyzing the piece and jumping to conclusions. The editorial does have a very good point–that the Acela could make immediate upgrades if it receives the money (while California won’t see trains until much later)
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:24 am
I don’t see anywhere that it makes the point that the incremental value of those upgrades are smaller, because they are incremental upgrades to the present Acela service, which already exists. The Northeastern Express HSR system that would would be a categorical upgrade of the same order of magnitude as the California system would take more time to build than the California HSR, since the project is starting from further behind.
Will PTC be enough to get the FRA to allowed shared tracks for CalTrain (heavy) and HSR (light) transets; what about UPRR traffic?
thatbruce Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Temporal separation; nothing else running on the Caltrain branch at the time.
Clem Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Yes, PTC will probably be enough to mix HSR and Caltrain (even diesel Caltrain). European high-speed trains are built to the same crashworthiness standards as the trains that Caltrain wishes to procure. The only question mark is the Japanese and Chinese offerings, which definitely do NOT currently comply with the conditions of Caltrain’s FRA waiver and would not fare as well in a grade crossing collision with a tractor trailer. Would they develop a product that does comply, for such a minor fleet as California’s? I doubt it.
Owen Evans Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:23 pm
JR has said that they can and will comply with the US crashworthiness requirements if they have to, but also that they think the requirements are overboard. Can’t find a link at the moment.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Since it will be the first genuine Express HSR system to break ground in the US, I’d expect the manufacturer would see it as a strategic position.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 21st, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Remember, there are grade crossings on the Mini-Shinkansen.
dave Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:06 am
Bingo, that’s what they actually had in mind for California.
Clem Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:29 am
The 220 mph mini-Shinkansen… Riiiiiight.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:52 am
Maybe if you stopped pretending that the TGV was the only train in the world…
Kawasaki is pushing precisely that: a 350kph UIC compliant export model called the efset which is apparently based on the E6 mini Shinkansen.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
320 km/h on the Shinkansen track, much less (I think 130, but I may be wrong and it could be 160 like some other Limited Express lines) on legacy track.
dave Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Hey, they said it not me! Obviously modifications will be made.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:07 am
The SNCF said it will welcome a bid from the Japanese if they can propose UIC-tested rolling stock but there has been no response, so far.
The Japanese choice of light aluminum honeycomb panels rests on the assumption that their trains will never collide with anything. UIC norms take into account that European high-speed trains often run on non-dedicated tracks with grade crossings.
Changing from aviation-inspired technology to automobile crumple-zone techniques will require big investments that only a sizeable market could justify. Testing may also take years, and rail companies won’t be satisfied with virtual tests. Expensive crash tests will be necessary and, here, Europeans definitely have an edge: they can produce invaluable real-life documents. For instance, the TGV once collided at 100mph with a truck carrying a 100-tonnes electric transformer. The crumple zones were severely crumpled but no passenger was seriously injured.
Clem Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:33 am
It was actually 68 mph, two dead, 60 injured, and half the train set written off. Unless you’re referring to a different TGV grade crossing accident? There have been a bunch over the years.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Sorry, I mixed up two accidents. The one I was thinking of was on the Paris-Geneva on Dec 18 2007 in which the only casualty was the truck driver. The load was rocks from public works, not a transformer.
The collision with the 100-ton transformer happened in the Alps on Sept 28 1988. The train’s speed was 105 km/h. The driver and one passenger died. 25 (not 60) passengers were treated for light injuries and psychological trauma.
Both trucks got stuck in the middle of the crossing on narrow country roads marked “MAX LOAD 12 T” and should never have been there. Their drivers probably thought they had found a convenient shortcut.
UIC rules are certainly an unnecessary cost in countries where drivers are more law-abiding than in France.
Off topic, but man, I am surprised at how many videos there are of people fighting on trains on YouTube. Just search “light rail fight” and be entertained all night.
Trains are much better for fighting than buses. Smoother ride. More space to maneuver. A whole menu of crazy characters to battle with. And in all of these videos it takes forever for any cops to show up, if they show up at all, haha.
The Daily Post today (4-22-2011) reports that vanArk, at the closed door meeting, stated he would need 4 tracks in the long run (5 – 10 years) and that they would continue to study 4 track options. Furthermore, it was reported they are not willing to give up on aerials either.
So the “important announcement” is turning out to be a dud; it isn’t gong to be accepted by the Authority. Hard to imagine cities undergoing grade seps and then 5 – 10 years later re-doing them; perhaps the worst of all worlds.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:28 am
There’d be no need to redo the grade separations that are designed to accept four tracks.
However, no matter what grade separations are chosen, the train spends will run the majority of the length of the Caltrain corridor at grade, and one thing that would be postponed would be the works to widen the ROW where the preliminary system only requires two tracks. Any grade separations not done in the preliminary stage would be done in the final stage.
Road under / rail over can be done in an step process by closing the specific set of roads involved in a specific grade separation, putting in the trestles for two tracks, taking that over for the ongoing operations, putting in the trestles for the remaining two tracks, then putting the traffic on what are the new Caltrain Local tracks and re-opening those roads. Since most grade separations would be for one, two or three roads at a time, there is less traffic chaos if neighboring grade separations are not done at the same time, so that road 2 can take traffic over the crossing while grade separation 1 is in progress, and road 1 can take traffic via the underpass while grade separation 2 is in progress.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:54 am
But Bruce that’s what the “why can’t we just upgrade Caltrain” people want to do. Put in two track grade separations between now and 2020 and then come back in 2025 and put in four track grade separations. Icing on the cake is that they want to put in electrification before they start the grade separations and then rip it all out five years after it’s installed and then rip it all out again five years after it’s been reinstalled. . And do it all with a 75% match from someplace other than California, whether it’s Federal money or some private investor with a few billion to waste or the fairy godmother.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:10 am
Two track grade separations are fine in much of the Peninsula, as long as they are originally designed to be extended to four track grade separations. The problem with San Carlos is not the number of tracks through their existing grade separations, but the fact that they are not designed to be later upgraded to four.
When they ask for what is not fine, or when what they ask for includes both what is fine and what is not fine within its vague boundaries, say they are welcome to do what is a waste of time and money as long as they do it with their money. The direct way to do is to “study” it as an option, attach a price tag, point to the incremental increase in cost, and say, “we are happy to proceed with this if you give us this amount of money by date X.”
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 am
As far as electrification, same thing ~ an incremental approach spends some of the smaller share of electrification project costs twice, but OTOH, money spent 10 years in the future is, at a 3% discount rate, 25% cheaper ~ 38% cheaper at a 5% discount rate.
And of course if the preliminary service starts operations sooner, it earns additional revenue as well as cutting up front cost, so its not clear that having the electrification available for a preliminary service and then having to redo it for the final stage is a net cost, and even if the engineers may whine about having the utility of the system as an ongoing transportation service interfere with the fun of building the system, staging the finished Stage 1 construction to allow ongoing preliminary service is useful from a patronage growth standpoint.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Not putting it in at all is cheaper than using ten years of it’s 100 year life cycle, then tossing it aside.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I’m fairly sure that overhead infrastructure isn’t necessarily designed for a hundred year life cycle, nor would it be so designed if it were intended to be replaced ten years down the line.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Yeah yeah. Tell that to the people along the NEC as they pass by the 100 year old catenary masts as they pass over the 125 year old viaducts.
Not that we build things like this today but…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton_Viaduct
And sometimes the cheap compromise solutions take on a life of their own and last much longer than anyone anticipated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Potomac_Tunnel
John Burrows Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
It probably wasn’t designed to last this long, but the Chicago El (1890′s) seems to be holding up fairly well.
John Burrows Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Maybe something like the El would work going through Palo Alto. That “traditional look”—steel (or maybe they’re iron) girders, lots of rivets—wood planking—and last but not least a soothing clatter every time a train comes through. Architecturally it might fit right in.
Clem Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Life cycle of the materials is a red herring, since nearly everything can be reused. It’s labor cost that might be a concern.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 am
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Paris-Lyon 30 years after opening? Uhhhh….
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Frankfurt-Köln 9 years after opening? Uhhhh….
More than four HS trains per direction per hour London-Lille 15 yeas after opening? Uhh…..
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Seoul-Daejeon 7 years after opening. Yes. But … carrying around half the projected ridership.
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Paris-Brussels 17 years after opening? Uhhhh…..
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Taipei-Taichung 4 years after opening. OK. So clearly San Francisco is going to develop Taipei density and transit use within the next decade.
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The scenario that the World’s Finest Transportation Engineers and Planners, who amazingly just so happen to all work in the US and for CHSRA, know, without a doubt, will evolve within a decade: California is transformed to Taiwanese or South Korean density and development patterns. Pretty much overnight. Starting 50 years ago.
Makes perfect sense.
Thank God we have such disinterested professionals and visionaries with impeccable track records guiding us.
Emma Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:05 am
Your mindset is built around the idea that CAHSR will only offer one kind of service. That is, a train that serves all stations. But what if we plan express routes that skip stations? Those trains will need to pass other commuter and HS trains.
1 track in one direction.
1 track in the other direction.
and 1 track to allow express trains to pass & in case a train blocks the other track (due to accidents)
Also: considering the rising real estate costs, wouldn’t it be better to buy more now so that you pay less in the future? 2 tracks will definitely be a bottleneck in the near future. I don’t know if we can afford 4 tracks, but 3 is a must.
VBobier Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:42 am
Agreed, 3 is a must currently, But for future expansion 4 should be allowed for in the ROW along the entire 50 mile length with proper HSR compatible signalling and all road crossings currently at grade should either go under or over the tracks.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
There isn’t enough of a difference in speeds that high-speed trains should have to pass each other on the peninsula. Anyway, intercity trains passing each other that close to their terminus is pointless schedule-wise.
What is really needed is a comprehensive and reasonable service plan that will tell us where 4 tracks are needed and where they aren’t.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:35 am
I don’t see what would be so extraordinary about two LA Express services, two CV all-stations services and two Sacramento services in the same hour. Perhaps not every hour, but certainly 5pm~7pm. Indeed, for circa 2025, HSR and Caltrain are not the only prospective users of the corridor, and any other regional service would want to run at least Express if not Ltd. Express through the Caltrain corridor.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:42 am
Half of those could originate in San Jose. And if it is only a train or two an hour, the planned dumbarton bridge project would allow some to go via the Altamont overlay.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Half the traffic in the Bay Area is never going to originate in San Jose unless the Super Bowl or World Series being played between LA and SF is in the stadium in San Jose. And then only for one day.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:12 pm
In that case, the passengers boarding at San Jose would be returning travelers, not originating travelers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:40 pm
…well when they return, the return trip orginates in San Jose. Long term any given station has a balance of originating and returning passengers. Normal stations anyway….
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:49 pm
What substantial difference does Dumbarton make with respect to capacity via Caltrain? Getting to Dumbarton still requires traversing SF-TBT / Millbrae and Millbrae to Redwood.
Regarding half the trains starting in San Jose, the San Jose urban area has a population of 1.6m, the San Francisco – Oakland urban area 3.2m, in a CSA of 7.4m., while the CSA on the other side of the line, just the urban area including LA is 11.8m.
So on population share between the Bay conurbation and the LA urban area would be 8% of the total, and if there is any power law distribution effect on destinations, more like 4% of destinations. So say 6% of the total.
Setting aside whether or not it makes sense to kick that 6% of LA/Bay interurban transport to the curb to chase after 2% to 4% of LA/Bay interurban transport plus a lot of short rides by commuters ~ who would, after all, not be all that interested in commuting to San Jose ~ if California puts the franchise out to bid, you are going to substantially crimp the financial yield on the bids if you deliberately bottleneck the trains and insist that half of them stop in San Jose.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 am
I do. Have you visited the state of California, on the Planet Earth?
PS Here’s the new Madrid-Barça timetable. Still seven trains per hour short of what California will “need” five years after opening. Stupid ignorant quasi-Mexicans don’t know what they’re doing, clearly.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I’d love to see what you consider so extraordinary about four trains per hour between SF-LA and an additional two to Sacramento. Unless of course you simply wanted to ignore what he actually said and just go on a rant which seems to be the case.
Incidentally, there are 190 aircraft between LA airports and the Bay Area per day (at least on next Monday, this is one way from LA-SF), with about 23,000 passengers assuming 150 seats per plane and 80% capacity utilization. If we’re aiming at having a market capture equivalent in size to the current air market (70% of air-rail, some auto capture), 62 200m trains (using AGV for comparison) would provide the same capacity, which actually quite nicely ties in to the four trains per hour figure BruceMcF suggested (assuming departures begin at 6am and end at 9pm to allow overnight service shutdown at midnight).
Elizabeth Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
According to the HSRA, there are about 8 million trips a year by plane by people traveling sf/sj/oak- la or vice versa.
You will be unlikely to capture 70%, given the longer trip time and the fact that some of the airports will be more conveniently placed for some people (long beach, oak, lax for the westwide etc). A lot of these trips also are by people who would go from San Jose (1/3 according to CHSRA)
Let’s call it generously 50% = 4 million = 2 million each way = about 8,000 a day (using 250 business days) Then lets put those people on trains that can carry 800 people. That is 10 full train,s, 20 half full ones. Lets assume trains come or go over a 15 hour period. (6am – 9 pm leaving, 9am – 12 pm arriving). Van ark said when you go over 3 trains an hour you are in troubl and need full buildout. That would give you 45 trains.
There should be a serious discussion about whether a “full build out” is really needed.
Scott Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
What about the people who will ditch their cars?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
What about people who don’t go because flying is a PITA and driving isn’t much better? Who, when the train is available, will consider a trip they wouldn’t otherwise?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
What about the people who’ll stop chartering yachts? What about the people who today commute between San Jose and Burbank in front end loaders? And don’t neglect the potentially lucrative unicorn-riding market segment! Not the mention the AT-AT Imperial Walker demographic. And the children who will be able to expand their choice of kindergartens thanks to TOD schools conveniently located next to the 350kmh tracks all the way through the Central Valley.
They’ll all be ours, ours, ours after … Peak Oil!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
In what seems to be a different life I’d go to Washington DC every few months. Door-to-door it was about the same driving or taking the train. Bus and plane took longer. Train was cheaper, even at Northeast Corridor Regional fares. I had to have a very very good reason to drive. On the other hand I almost never went to Montreal. It was just too much of a pain and took too long. Then I moved to the Adirondacks. Driving to DC or taking the train are just about the same amount of time, less than half hour difference even with the shitty service. I can get to Montreal in half the time. I haven’t been to DC in years. I get to Montreal four of five times a year. There’s going to be measurable induced demand when LA-SF is less than three hours. . . and lets face it, getting out of Fresno, even if it’s just for the day, has some charm.
Jon Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:08 pm
I moved to SF from Glasgow Scotland about 18 months ago. When I lived in Glasgow I’d make a weekend trip to London on the West Coast Main Line about once every other month. It’s not HSR, but at a little over 4hrs for a 400 mile ride it’s infinitely preferable to driving or flying into a London airport.
SF to LA is also 400 miles and I’ve not made the journey once since I moved here. I’d like to, but every time I think about it the long drive and the cost and hastle of flying is always enough to put me off.
Yes, there will be induced demand, and not just from us Yurps.
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Yes – we need full build out:
Population Growth
Peak Oil
Air Quality
Traffic Congestion
Air Traffic Congestion
…
Maybe you can write a letter to the Editor at the SF Chronicle and ask SF if they really need full build out.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Putting it that way, it doesn’t sound like there is much demand for a train at all, full build out or not.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Actually, at 2:40 travel time, HSR can expect to maintain a mode share of about 70-80% against air. It depends on things like how convenient the airports are: American airports are hell, and thus Amtrak has about a 65% mode share against air on NY-DC even though it takes 2:50-3:30 and has Megabus and Bolt on its heels. European airports are somewhat better, and Japanese domestic airports even better.
Based only on population size and current air travel, the HSRA’s ridership projections are perfectly valid. The wildcard is the awfulness of the connecting transit…
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Take your figures. 8,000/day mode split from air. If 40% of the mode split comes from air, which would be high, that’s 40,000/day mode split total, 20,000 each way. On trains that hold 800, that’s 25 full trains.
Now, people do not take “average” trips at randomly select times of day, they take their and at the schedule they need or wish to meet. The services may be spread across 16 hours, but there will be demand peaks in each direction. If half the demand is in the four strongest hours, that’s about 12 full trains each each way, or 3 trains per hour. That’s Bay/LA traffic alone, so add another on induced demand in the presently underserved CV ~ 4 trains.
2 tph peak via Altamont is a matter of getting the Altamont link up to 110mph and running on the balance of the section to Sacramento, so there’s six tph peak.
And spreading arrivals in TBT in the 8am to 9am window out is sacrificing potential ridership right there ~ the sweet spot for the LAUS/SF-TBT express to arrive is the SAME TIME as the sweet spot for the CV all-stations to arrive and the SAME TIME as the sweet spot for the Sacramento service to arrive.
You arrive at your ball park estimate by: (1) assuming uniform distribution of travel demand across the service day, (2) assuming that air mode split is the only source of patronage, (3) assuming that there will be no induced demand in the CV as one to two hours trips to the Bay and LA Basin become available and (4) assuming away the intra-NoCal traffic along the lower speed Altamont connector.
Every single one of those assumptions are unjustifiable and every single one of them leads to a lower estimate of capacity requirement than would otherwise be the case.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:39 pm
You haven’t looked at Altamont, have you? A “simple” upgrade to 110 is impossible without an entirely new alignment (and some tunnels even) through both hilly sections.
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
The problem, according to the bill introduced to congress to improve Altamont service, is the lack of a dedicated track running along the current alignment. Why not send a note to the McNerney and correct his misunderstanding?
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Perhaps I should. Building another track more or less along the existing alignment and halving the trip time are mutually exclusive.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Yes, and the cheapest adult ticket on the AVE is €117.60.
jim Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me that it shows 3 tph between Madrid-Barca at peak. Which is what van Ark says he wants to run between LA and SF.
Peak is all one cares about. Off-peak, there’s no conflict with Caltrain anyway.
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Check your sources. I’m hearing they’re planning for 5 minute headways which equals 12 tph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
12 trains per hour in Fresno. Some of them will be going between Sacramento and LA.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
They’re building the system to accomodate minimum 5 minute gaps between trains. Given that the speeds of expresses/locals/whatever is in between varies, and you need at most 5 minutes between trains for one to pass another, this is reasonable.
Now, they are actually planning 9 tph in Phase 1. This on the other hand is not reasonable.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Or it means a peak of 6tph but 4 of them in the same twenty minute period.
It is not yet established ~ and by no means certain to be even among the top three options considered ~ that CAHSR running the trains is the business model, so talking about “how many trains they are planning to run” is grossly premature.
What they are planning is being able to allow three trains pass the same spot in any given a fifteen minute period, if need be.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Its hard to tell whether you are trying to portray a math major who cannot read or an english major who cannot count, though with extremely low signal to sarcasm ratio, you seem intent on portraying a college sophomore of some sort.
The question I asked was what was extraordinary about a peak of 4 trains Bay/LA each way and 2 Bay/Sacramento each way. You present a peak of 3 trains for the equivalent of Bay/LA, omitting the CV induced demand, and the Sacramento demand, which suggests that a peak of 4 trains southbound and 2 trains northbound would not be at all unusual.
As Alon notes, the Sud-Est has a peak of 10, and since Paris is not on the far side of a oceanside Peninsula, the Sud-Est is only of the HSR corridors that terminate in Paris.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
More than four HS trains per direction per hour Paris-Lyon 30 years after opening?
10, counting everything that uses the LGV Sud-Est, including lines line Paris-Marseille, Lille-Lyon, and others that do not stop at both Paris and Lyon.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Thank you for that, Alon, I was sure it was more on Sud-Est than 4tph, but did not know the full tally.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:20 am
Thank Yonah, who corrected me when I first complained about only 4 tph on the at-capacity LGV Sud-Est.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 7:25 am
Sud-Est does serve lots of destinations, and if California had a continent-wide HSR network this 10tph comparison might actually be relevant. In terms of population, though:
Paris==LA
Lyon==SM+SF Counties
Of course, the densities are much different…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Fair enough. If we play with population numbers alone, we have:
Inland Empire = 4*Lille
Santa Clara County > Marseille
Fresno > Nice
Alameda, Marin, and CC Counties are free.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Commercial air service to Santa Rosa comes and goes. It’s usually “went” when I want to get to Los Angeles fast. So there I am in the hotel in Santa Rosa, which I picked because the airport bus stops there, and I have a choice. I can take the airport bus to SFO and take the train to Los Angeles, or I can take the airport bus to SFO and take the plane to LA or I can drive. Hmmmmm. Ya get Napa and Sonoma counties free too. The people who live in Sonoma county can drive or be dropped off at the airport bus too….. and then there’s the option of Golden Gate Transit to Transbay….
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:48 am
Surely I’m not the only one who sees a lot of wiggle room here.
The Authority will study aerials. They don’t have to choose them.
The Authority will study and plan a 4-track corridor. They don’t have to build it immediately.
Eshoo-Simitian-Gordon isn’t a demand. It’s a negotiating position. Kick the can down the road and once NIMBY fever dies down in an age of $5 gas, the Authority can move ahead as planned.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 am
Robert,
Herein lies the issue. If people know that it is only 2 tracks (which means no structures required against backyard fences), there is the beginning of the an interesting discussion.
If there is approval to eventually build 4, there is much less room for negotiation.
I looked up the Paris to Lyon schedule this morning. There are a couple of hours with 2 trains an hour, the rest of the day it is 1 train an hour.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:45 am
If Wikipedia is to be believed metro Lyon is 1.4 million people. Metro Paris is almost 12. So looking at Paris-Lyon is closer to looking at LA-San Jose than it is to looking at LA-SF.
thatbruce Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:48 am
@Elizabeth:
You probably want to read through Clem’s previous research into the width of the Caltrain corridor. It shows two things of relevance; the small set of points where a 4 track raised or lowered section would impact existing property owners (ie, too narrow), and the larger set of points where such wouldn’t be an issue.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Operating width of the ROW isn’t the same as the space needed for construction. Take a look in San Bruno some day … at least those few of you who are closer to California than Google Earth.
And the existing ROW is not adequate for the promised (nudge nudge wink wink) Flight Level Zero Airline operating speeds in a several curve locations beyond that.
thatbruce Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Correct; the current width isn’t the width required for construction, which will be on a property by property basis. But, the larger set of points where the ROW is already sufficiently wide shouldn’t be impacted as much as the narrower points.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:58 am
The point is not about whether Caltrain has the space. The point is that two tracks leave you room to put in small forests, biking paths, things that make structures more palatable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
It may just be that I live inside a forest the size of Vermont but a dozen trees by the side of the tracks is not a forest, it’s landscaping.
thatbruce Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
@Elizabeth: I sincerely hope that your mention of ‘biking paths’ in only in the sense that they cross the ROW, and that you aren’t suggesting that they be parallel to the tracks within the ROW. That would be somewhat bad, safety wise, unless the tracks are underground.
Of course, if you’ve put the tracks underground, the aesthetics of the surface do not significantly change based on 2 or 4 tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Elizabeth, you’re wrong on Paris-Lyon. So was I, when I first looked it up. The TGV’s operating model is to prefer nonstop or almost nonstop service between major cities, skipping cities in between. This means that Paris-Marseille trains do not stop in Lyon, Paris-Nice trains do not stop in Lyon or Marseille, Lille-Lyon trains do not stop in Paris, etc. This is not the same as what is proposed for California, which follows the Japanese model of stopping in every major city on the way.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:17 am
Indeed, the Authority can study aerials and alternatives, front the cost of the best value proposition, and make an open offer to build whichever the local municipality wishes to pay the incremental cost of.
Quad track through San Carlos between a Caltrain Express / HSR Redwood to a new Caltrain Express Hillsdale with the HSR overtake ending after Hillsdale and the Caltrain corridor can take a local chased by an Express chased by an HSR into Redwood, then the Express chased by the HSR on the Express bypass, leading the local into Hillsdale, where the HSR bypasses on non platform lines and ends up in front of both, chasing the next local in front before the Millbrae HSR platform. With a tick tock Caltrain schedule of four locals and two Expresses per hour, that gives at least four HSR services per hour.
When enough grade separations have been prepared so that Redwood / Millbrea can be run on the bypass track, then let the HSR run free from the overtake at Hillsdale through to Millbrea.
If the TBT train station is ready, then finish up the quad tracking Millbrea to SF-TBT.
By this time with four short and two long gate closing per hour at peak in Palo Alto and such, between Redwood and San Jose, they’ll either be on their knees and begging for their grade separations, or else if gas costs too much, on their knees and begging for the extra electric Caltrain services per hour that quad tracking will allow.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:34 am
OK then. Altamont it is.
Four tracks Redwood Junction to San Mateo and Millbrae to Bayshore AND THAT’S IT for the Peninsula. Six track fully functional Transbay Terminal, no second terminal in SF at Fourth&Townsend. Single level Diridon Pangalactic. No freight on the Peninsula. No FRA track sharing San Jose-San Francisco. No FRA track sharing Sylmar-LAUS-Anaheim.
Thanks for suddenly being so very concerned with “best value”. It’s a first, and a pleasant novelty!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
If you are gonna engage in fantasy move Transbay alllllll the way across the street so that someday they can build a tunnel to Oakland and the people ….. north of Fremont…. can use trains too.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
The best option I can see for a new connection between the East Bay and downtown SF (and connecting to the CalTrain line) is tunnels via Mission to 7th street. Of course if you want more than 2 platform tracks you will have to stack, but development has severely limited our options recently.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I doubt he can find San Francisco on a map of the Adirondacks. Don’t waste your breath.
PS There isn’t a “best option”. There’s no “new connection” option and hasn’t been one for six years, thanks to the professionalism and public service of the TJPA and the City and County of San Francisco government. Can’t happen, won’t happen, so let’s make the bridge and buses (oooooh, buses, the horror!) work as well as physically possible.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:06 pm
This is why you are doomed to filling your posts with sarcasm and bile, drowning whatever points you make in a perpetual scream of the emergency of things not going as they would do if you were the dictator of the Bay … its either each and every thing on your wish list, or its all a total failure and catastrophic crisisgam.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 pm
a total failure and catastrophic crisisgam
If you compare what we have/are planning to transportation systems overseas, this starts to not look too far from the truth.
morris brown Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Here is the full text of the Post article (4-22-2011) As you can see from this report, the Authority is hardly going to endorse the “new proposal” What city would undergo construction (2 tracks) only to have to do it again 5 – 10 years later. Also vanArk, akes quite clear they are gonig to abandon the EIR, but will continue to include 4 tracks.
———-
Daily Post 4-22-2011
Disagreement over rail plan
Rail authority still wants four tracks in the long term
BY RYAN THOMAS RIDDLE
Daily Post Staff Writer
A Palo Alto official said yesterday he doesn’t believe California High- Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof Van Ark is fully on board with a proposal to run high-speed rail on improved Caltrain tracks.
Van Ark told the Post that the proposal by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Joe Simitian and Assemblyman Rich Gordon was similar to his plan for the two railroads to initially share tracks, then add more tracks when demand for high-speed rail increases over the years. He called the plan “phased implementation.
” 5-10 years for full buildout
Palo Alto Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie, who attended a closed-door meeting with Van Ark Wednesday, said the HSR chief was using a bit of wordplay.
Emslie said Van Ark told the gathering of officials that phased implementation could take about fi ve to 10 years, and at that time the rail line would have four tracks. He added that Van Ark emphasized that is dependent on ridership
. Van Ark told the Post that the trains could run on two tracks for a period of time, “but not in the long term.”
An ‘entitlement’ for four tracks
He further said the authority had to investigate the four-track system as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Palo Alto offi cials said they fear that will give the rail authority an “entitlement” to build two additional tracks eventually.
Van Ark also said sharing the tracks will have to be a fi rst step because the 2008 ballot measure that authorized the state high-speed rail system requires trains to travel between L.A. and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes.
Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel, who also attended the meeting, said Van Ark’s phased implementation plan was as “clear as mud.” She said the timing of the plan was murky.
There’s also disagreement over the use of aerial structures for the train. The Eshoo-Simitian-Gordon plan rules them out, but Palo Alto council member Pat Burt told the Post that such structures are still being considered by the high speed rail authority.
While most Peninsula voters supported the high-speed rail state proposition in the 2008 election, many residents later said they regretted their vote when they learned the new railroad would mean that homes and businesses near the tracks would be seized by the state. Residents have complained that an elevated railroad would mar views and divide the communities through which the new train would travel. The plan by Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon was an attempt to respond to those complaints.
High-speed rail faces other problems, too, such as how it will raise the $43 billion to build the system at a time when federal funding for such projects is becoming less likely.
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Was El Camino always 6 lanes ?
I just don’t get it…don’t NIMBY’s want to “Win the Future?”
Maybe CA should turn El Camino into a freeway and keep the ROW to 2 tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
No. They don’t care. See also: Prop 13, separate and unequal school districts, Don’t Let the Government Get Its Hands on My Medicare.
The real problem is that people sometimes don’t realize how large our HSR project really is. The proposed 800 mi of track are just as long as current HSR rail tracks in Germany. $50 billion is a good deal, not to mention that 1 mile of HSR tracks is currently less expensive than 1 mile of light rail tracks (I think, that was mentioned at some point here).
If the facts would reach the average citizen….
Elizabeth Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:45 am
The price tag is closer to $65 billion for the 510 miles of phase 1 track, a large portion of which travel through the CV which theoretically should be dirt cheap. No estimates have been released for the current LA – SD project, which is more or less continuous aerial structure. NOT cheap.
Brian Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Really do you have any documentation to prove that? Spreadsheets that show how you added up numbers and assumptions to get to $65 billion? Why don’t you put those on your website?
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Considering bids for actual infrastructure projects in the Bay rea are running 30% less than estimated, why is it Responsible to claim HSR costs are greater *if* you don’t factor the lower actual costs into Phase 1?
John Burrows Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Looking at the CARRD costing estimates (Feb. 9, 2011):
The CaHSRA 2009 business plan shows a total cost for the two segments from Merced to Bakersfield of $8.1 billion.
CARRD’s estimate for the same 2 segments is $15.7 billion—-obviously a huge difference.
Both estimates include overhead, but not trains.
It will be interesting to see how this works out—-Hopefully by October.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 am
I think that mile per mile comparison of light rail to HSR is an apples to oranges comparison ~ the HSR through similar urban terrain will cost more, it just has more miles in the middle of nowhere to offset the costs, while if you are in the middle of nowhere you normally don’t build the light rail in the first place.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
A actual, on the ground IN CALIFORNIA, San Francisco “light” rail along wide existing streets cost over $100 million a mile.
Similar projects in France, Germany, Switzerland (land of famously low costs!), Sweden, Norway (another cheap county!), etc, come in around half that much or less.
And how about that Bay Bridge East Span? 100% specified and “designed” here in God’s Onw US or A by the World’s Finest Transportation Engineers, and only — only! — 500% and Five Billion God Fearing Ammurrrrican Dollars over budget!
What’s so special about the engineering contracting and public works contracting for CHSR that it will deliver any better than any real existing recent historical Californian megaproject? Or public transportation miniproject for that matter? Be specific!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Come now Richard some of that 500% cost blow out comes from Oakland wanting a signature bridge after the cheap option was already designed and some of it comes from starting the project then stopping the project then starting the project and then stopping the project and then starting the project….
I dunno how toll bridges work in California. In the East, bridges pay for themselves and usually toss a nice stream of money at mass transit. When Californians whine about the toll on the Bay Bridge you can point out that they are paying for a signature bridge. One that could have had trains to Sacramento on it but doesn’t.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Yes, and then they budget the Tappan Zee replacement at $16 billion. Maybe they should sic Jay Walder there, too, with his novel ideas of picking good contractors.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
The bridge itself is only 6 billion. the other ten billion is for infrastructure on either side of the bridge.
… which is why they are examining other alternatives.
…the way to get from Suffern to Manhattan is through Secaucus not through White Plains. Once you delete the train from Suffern to Grand Central the rail options look less inviting. Personally, buses with a huge terminal hovering over the Hudson Line station. You can have a decent network of buses over Rockland and a decent network of buses over central Westchester and decent travel times for the commuters.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Look up the cost of the Oresund Bridge-Tunnel, including infrastructure on both sides of the bridge. Or the graft-ridden Messina Bridge proposal, in the home of the original mafia.
And Secaucus would be an excellent transfer, if there were no faregates, if the timetable were as integrated as at Jamaica, and if you could go directly from the Erie platforms to the Penn platforms. Though personally I think it’s still useful to permit rail on the bridge in case they ever want to build a line to White Plains and replace the garages there with TOD.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
No transfer, right through Seacacus, through Penn Station and onto Grand Central.
The line going to Hoboken is perpendicular to the NEC. Escalators are a lot cheaper than broad sweeping railroad viaducts. Probably faster too.
White Plains is about as TOD-y as it’s going to get. Downtown White Plains is much more urban than most places can ever hope to get. Unfortunately the office parks aren’t in downtown White Plains, they are strung out along the Cross Westchester, on wide expanses of lawn and parking lot. Buses from the terminal on one side of the bridge is probably as good as it’s going to get.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Ah, that. Fair enough… but the loop is awkward and Secaucus could be made much nicer if the platforms were redesigned. One escalator ride beats two escalator rides with faregates in between.
White Plains isn’t really TOD-y – the streets are pedestrian-hostile, and the station is surrounded by gobs of parking. The office parks are not a huge problem, since the Cross-Westchester is the natural ROW for an east-west Westchester regional line, away from White Plains itself.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Secaucus’s concourse may make more sense when they get around to building the mall, office towers and condos. They need faregates or they need to make the fare to Hoboken or New York the same as to New York. There’s no way they could lift all the tickets between Seacacus and Penn Station.
No one is going to walk a half mile from the station in the median of the Interstate to their office plopped in the middle of acres of lawn and acres of parking lot. Small buses covering Rockland so that people can get to the bus terminal in Tarrytown where they can use the elevators to get to Metro North or change to a bus to their destination in Westchester. Maplewood jitney but on a bigger scale.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:21 am
I know. Yet another reason to stop with the ticket punching.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
You mean like the “Signature Span” San Jose is getting for the scenic 101/880 overpass instead of running through Gardner, where the railroad would impact historic railroad structures?
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Richard
Are you asking “Why does construction cost more near continent plate fault lines and landfill?”
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Spain manages to build entire high-speed lines (mountain crossings and all) for $25 million per mile. The CAHSR construction costs through open farmland and desert, AT GRADE, are far above that. There’s clearly something wrong.
Also, light rail along streets should also not cost $100 per mile under any circumstances.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Part of the problem in the US is that before they build a steetcar line they dig up the whole street, replace all the utilities that have been neglected since Truman was president and then pave the street with hand tooled Belgian block instead of asphalt…
Spokker Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
They also run into mass graves filled with non-whites sometimes.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Emma, it depends on which light rail line and which HSR line. Kilometer for kilometer, the TGV ($16-24m) is more expensive than light rail in Lyon ($15) and less expensive than light rail in Paris ($35-55) and Nice ($70-80, but one of the lines includes a tunnel).
Off topic, but perhaps of interest to YesOn HSR and Nathaniel, a publicity film from the Milwaukee Road featuring the Olympian (Chicago-Seattle), with electric division footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RevpfzJPqiQ&feature=related
VBobier Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 am
Pulled at first by some Baldwin Sharks(A-B-A), But at 18:22 It’s Bonner Jct and 440 miles of Electrification, Nice find DP.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for the compliments; found more Milwaukee electric footage here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BShIzYEIhE&feature=related