Saturday Open Thread
Sorry for the delay in posting. Busy couple of days for me. I found the discussion in the last post, on HSR funding, to be really good and creative. That’s the kind of thinking we need. The teabaggers won’t control the House forever, but in the meanwhile, it makes sense for California to understand and explore all its options for funding.
Could be an interesting week ahead. Getting some reports that Anna Eshoo and Joe Simitian are making a “major announcement” regarding high speed rail at the Menlo Park Caltrain station on Monday. Not sure what the announcement is, but we’ll be watching closely to make sure they don’t go against the clear support for HSR shown by large majorities of Peninsula residents and Californians as a whole.
I am a Republican and it just breaks my heart to read that the House Majority of Republicans (some of them) are against the building of the High Speed Rail in California, the first in the nation.
With the funding the Authority already has now, can they go ahead and begin to build the first segment in 2012?
If we could just get the funding to Bakersfield and get over the Tehachapi Mountains to Palmdale, we could eventually open the stations up and get the revenues for it. It is so important to start building this first segment.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
“I am a Republican and it just breaks my heart to read that the House Majority of Republicans (some of them) are against the building of the High Speed Rail in California, the first in the nation.”–James McDonald
You’re not alone, and not on just this subject. I have worked with an accountant in my town on a semi-regular basis for 30 years or so; he is a small businessman, very successful, and very Republican, but he is as disappointed as anyone with the current antics of his party’s leadership, yet he feels that he has no real place to go (either as a Democrat or as an Independent, which happens to be me).
More recently I had an assignment for an audit on a small furniture manufacturer (he has 8 employees, makes some of the most beautiful reproduction furniture you ever saw, including pieces in what is called “Tiger Maple,” the effect as I saw it was striking), and he too is disgusted with his own party, and is in favor of the true national health care plan. Seems he can’t afford health insurance for his employees or himself–and he has heart troubles. . . he hopes his pills will stave off the inevitable, at least long enough. . .
wu ming Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:09 am
it really is insane, given how many inland CA republicans in both the san joaquin and inland empire will personally benefit from this infrastructure project running right through their regions.
VBobier Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Probably cause they want something for nothing…
The Congress Critters may be coordinating with McNerney on a rail expansion.
http://mcnerney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=539:mcnerney-introduces-bill-to-create-new-rail-project-for-altamont-corridor&catid=8:latest-news
Currently, the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) runs weekday trains from the Central Valley to the Bay Area and shares tracks with freight trains and Amtrak. Use of these shared tracks limits travel speed and adds delays to the ACE system. The Altamont Corridor Rail Project establishes a dedicated track for passenger rail services. This 85 mile corridor has the potential to carry 35,000 people each way once completed and could cut commute time between Stockton and San Jose in half.
H.R. 1504, the legislation introduced by Rep. McNerney, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to provide up to $450 million in grants over the next decade for preliminary engineering, final design and construction of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project.
Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Supervisor, and Brent Ives, Mayor of Tracy, both of whom also serve on the San Joaquin County Rail Commission, offered words of support for the project and Rep. McNerney’s legislation.
—-
BTW, It is likely the bay area will lose a congressional seat. NcNerney services the east bay and Caltrain stop Morgan Hill.
wu ming Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:10 am
rather than losing a seat, perhaps it is more accurate to say that the bay area seats will follow the flow of exurban commuters east from the bay. it’s as much an expansion of the bay area across former regional boundaries as a gain by the central valley over the bay.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:07 am
How about “Right sizing”?
A reminder for Eschoo and Simitian.
Prop 1A passed in 2008 by these margins:
~60% yes, 40% No. for Santa clara County
61% yes, 39% No. in San Mateo County.
60 yes 40 No in Santa Cruz County.
Gasoline is nearly 4.25 a gallon.
I’ve been thinking that it would be quite a cool job to drive the California HSR trains when they start running. Is there any way to find out more about this?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:12 am
If you are responsible, go for it. Don’t say it will be cool in the interview.
So I’ve been looking at the maps of where our HSR system will run, and I have a few concerns.
First, the number of stops. SF, SJ, Fresno, Bakersfield and LA are all good stops obviously, but some of the other planned stations are a little surprising. Gilroy? I know there could be a connection to some kind of future passenger rail around the Monterey bay, but Gilroy just seems a little small for a station. Sylmar and Burbank? Really? And the same for the seemingly high number of stops between LA and SD.
I know there will be express trains, but does the 2:38 time from SF to LA refer to express trains or ones that stop at every station?
Also, that curve between Sylmar and Palmdale. It looks pretty slow.
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Hey, we’re [Gilroy] a stop to connect to the central coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png
The time requirement between stations (any pair) can be met with a express train.
MGimbel Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Gilroy serves the Monterey Bay, which contains a substantial population to justify an HSR station. Sylmar and Burbank both serve the San Fernando Valley, home to about 1.76 million people. The curve between Sylmar and Palmdale had been designed to handle trains at speeds of up to 220 mph.
Alex M. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Citation?
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:08 am
http://www.census.gov/
Knock yourself out.
Alex M. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Sorry, I meant about the curve being able to handle trains going 220 mph.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The curves through Glendale allow 150 IIRC. Beyond that, the alignment is almost dead straight all the way to Sylmar. Trains could theoretically run at 220 past Burbank, but realistically I doubt that they will.
As for sources, there were plan and profile drawings published for the SFV section a little while back. I don’t feel like digging them up right now though.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
I can’t find the simulations or the speed profiles anymore, but if I remember correctly, the speed limit is 180 km/h through the tunnels to Palmdale, and 200 or 250 in the LA Basin.
MGimbel Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
When I spoke with one of the engineers at an HSR meeting, he stated that between LA and Sylmar, trains will gradually increase their speed up to 220 mph. By the time they reach Sylmar-Palmdale section, they should be traveling at about 220 mph. This, of course, is because of the need to meet the 2:40 time limit between LA and SF.
Joey Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
2:38 refers to express trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Between Sylmar and Palmdale, speeds will be limited by the grades in the tunnels.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:06 am
Well, you’re not the only one, as there has been a lawsuit over that issue. Gilroy route was picked at the expense of the East Bay. The EB has 2+ million population.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Maybe Prop 1A should have mandated service from LA to Oakland, not SF. :(
Realistically the Altamont route doesn’t service the “east bay”, it services the narrower corridor and would not run up/down the east bay — nice try.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Indeed, a little up above in this thread is a project to use part of that alignment to improve transit speeds for conventional rail. Since the primary arguments for putting HSR through the Altamont Corridor are about needs for transit service rather than needs for intercity rail, that would seem to be one approach to meet those needs.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:35 am
That “narrow” corridor has 1 million population. Remind me again: how many live in Metropolitan Gilroy?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:40 am
The narrow corridor from the tunnel portal to the bridge to the Peninsula. A station in Fremont doesn’t serve someone in Walnut Creek as well as the station in San Francisco. And it doesn’t serve someone in San Jose as well as a station in San Jose would.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Except that there would still be a station in San Francisco. And there’s little reason to believe that the spur to San José wouldn’t be built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
There’s little reason to believe that BART to Fremont ( from San Jose ) wouldn’t be good enough for decades if not indefinitely.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:57 am
I realize you’re an East Coasters with no knowledge of Bay Area geography, but even google maps will tell you Pleasanton is an easy 25 minute drive from Walnut Creek. Much more convenient than schlepping to SF or SJ.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
And of course optimizing HSR for Pleasanton is Job 1. Really. It’s an awesome argument.
The Silicon Valley runs along on the Peninsula south into San Jose and it is serviced by the Pacheco Alignment which connects SF to SJ to LA and SD with *one* train, not two which would be the case for the Altamont alignment splitting SF an SJ.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
And how, exactly, is that a problem?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Under Altamont, Silicon Valley would be served with a station at RWC; from the point of view of everyone in that station basin and north, Altamont and Pacheco are identical, modulo frequency.
Now, Pacheco could do a little better and serve Palo Alto instead of RWC, but all current evidence points to the HSRA choosing RWC as the mid-Peninsula stop, since Palo Alto is suing and RWC is supportive of the project.
So in practice, the only city that gets better service under Pacheco than under Altamont is San Jose, plus its immediate basin. That’s a million people, versus more than a million in the East Bay who’d get better service under Altamont. A million isn’t nothing, but neither is it 1.5-2 million.
egk Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
> So in practice, the only city that gets better service under Pacheco than under Altamont is San Jose, plus its immediate basin
And even that isn’t clear, since Altamont would serve San Jose to Sacramento travel significantly, and this is a travel market much larger than the San Jose to LA market (and which is faster-growing).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Assuming they build Fremont to San Jose.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Actually Alon, Altamont offers better service to San Jose too. An intersting backstory to the Altamont saga is how San Jose found itself lobbying for a route that wasn’t even in its own best interest.
Consider: Altamont alignment was much better positioned to serve the golden triangle area (esp. North San Jose area), and could have provided an HSR station directly inside Mineta Airport, for a perfect train-plane connection. And the bulk of the commute traffic into SV is along 680/880 — all corridors served by Altamont, not Pacheco.
The disadvantage of Altamont was never about train “splitting”, or Bay crossings, but the fact that it did not serve open space areas that Santa Clara developers want to sprawl.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I suspect there’s a few no-car or one car households in Walnut Creek that make driving to Pleaston and parking the car for a few days an unattractive option. Assuming there’s an HSR station.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
All 5 of them can take BART to SF, from which it won’t take any longer compared to Pacheco. And the San Ramon Valley corridor really needs a decent transit option anyway. BART has put it on its long-term plans, though for obvious reasons BART technology isn’t the best idea.
tony d. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Let’s see: 2 million people along the Altamont corridor or the well over 2 million (probably 4 mil) that live in southern
San Mateo Co., Silicon Valley, San Jose, Gilroy and the Central Coast? Gee, that’s a tough one!
DE, your Altamont bull shit is starting to get a little old.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
There are plenty of reasons to support Altamont which don’t have to do with populations served. For instance, choosing Altamont would likely save several billion dollars (conservatively!) in the long term.
VBobier Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Sorry, But Altamont isn’t going to happen, Pacheco is approved, Altamont would mean an expensive tunnel(If the depth isn’t too great and It just might be) or an Expensive Bridge which could be impossible to build due to the depth of the water in the bay, So the least expensive and approved route is not going to be Altamont as It’s a No go, Prop 1a says LA to SF, Not LA to Oakland…
No matter how much You wish It, Altamont is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD…
Clem Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Pacheco means long expensive tunnels too. The Dumbarton crossing is easy… no geotechnical surprises, and a new water tunnel being bored there along the same alignment as we speak. If there was any risk of soil problems for a future rail tunnel, that risk will go to zero as soon as the water tunnel is complete.
Altamont is not dead, however much Pacheco boosters like to dance on its grave. It’s actually really fun to mess with them. All you have to do is say the ‘A’ word and they all crawl out of the woodwork.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Expensive Bridge which could be impossible to build due to the depth of the water in the bay
Right. Which is why there is another bridge with no long spans built right next to it. Or why they built a low rail bridge in 1910.
Seriously. The bay is pretty shallow there.
Clem Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
There’s also the Loch Dumbarton monster to contend with… has been known to suck cars and the occasional big rig right off of the existing bridge, never to be seen again! Who would want to build HSR near that?!?
Tony D. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
John McCain will be a better president than Obama to. I know, Obama has already been elected to the White House, but there’s a lawsuit out there that will make McCain the president in the blink of an eye! Heck, mention the “Mack” word and they all come out of the woodwork. Really fun to mess with those Obama supporters! (just pointing out the absurdity behind the Altamont foamers, that’s all ;)
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I would like to remind you that most of the people on this blog who will argue strongly for Altamont are very much in favor of high-speed-rail generally, but want to see it built in the most cost-effective and useful way possible.
Tony D. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Yeah, yeah, whatever you say Joey. It’s not our problem if the Altamont foamers want to continue living in the Bay Area HSR world pre-2008. It’s their blood pressure, not ours.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The Dumbarton crossing is easy…
It ain’t gonna be cheap.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
The prices of individual elements aren’t by themselves relevant to this discussion. The question is one of the entire cost of Altamont vs the entire cost of Pacheco. And even the Authority pegged them as being similar.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I thought you said the east bay alignment connected 2 Million people, now it’s 1 million?
Walnut Creek pop 65,384
Gilroy pop 52,027
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
The East Bay region as a whole as well over 2 million.
The areas directly served by an Altamont corridor is 1 million.
Yes, the boundaries are arbitrary — but still an order of magnitude more than metro Gilroy.
tony d. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Its not just about Gilroy Mr. Strawman! A drunk one at that!
I do finally agree with Clem in that Altamont isn’t “dead.”. It will one day host a HSR commuter overlay.
Again, Pacheco mainline and Altamont overlay: the best of both worlds.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Best, except if you have to pay for them.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Yes, we would have to pay for the rail lines.
We already paid for 580 and 101 and 280 and 680 and 80 and 880.
Heaven forbid we start building useable rail lines.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
But why build both, and have more track to build in Phase 2, and probably have to pay for a bunch of Capitol Corridor upgrades as well, when we can accomplish all with a single alignment?
If you want to compare to freeways, it would be different if we were spending on rail what we were spending on freeways in the late ’50s and early ’60s. But the reality is that transit funding is limited, so every dollar we spend frivolously is a dollar that doesn’t go into another useful project.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Is the siren call of a “one size fits all project” what lures people to the Altamont corridor?
The flip side of the one size fits all approach is that the Altamont corridor would be finished and in use on the CAHSR schedule, when improvements focused on serving local transport needs rather than intercity transport needs could be in place long before the CAHSR Stage 1 is finished.
If you want to compare to freeways, the cost of incremental upgrade to Rapid Rail is only a fraction the cost of a new freeway.
And demands to building a corridor to Express HSR standards when the real purpose of the corridor is to provide regional rather than inter-regional transport seems to be in expectation that “someone else” will pay for the premium corridor but not for the more capital efficient way of providing regional transport. That is not really about “spending money more efficiently”, its more about the hope to be spending “someone else’s money”.
Joey Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Building one express route is still cheaper than building one express route and one regional route.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Bruce, the entire point of Altamont is that you can do Livermore-Stockton and have an easy regional HSR route (actually regional HSR, not FRA-speak for medium-speed rail) as your Phase 1. And even without the Altamont overlay, there’s more total track length (though not Phase 1 track length) under Pacheco, and at least as complex tunnels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Is the siren call of a “one size fits all project” what lures people to the Altamont corridor?
That and the bright lights of Stockton and Livermore shimmering in the distance
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Pissing on Gilroy is not going change the alignment because it doesn’t fix the problems with the Altamont alignment.
CA HSR decided to not connect SoCal to SF and SJ via Livermore (thank god) and then run separate trains for each city south to LA-SD via Altamont.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
CA HSR decided
Along with all of the other wonderful decisions they have made.
And again, you have failed to say what the problem with running separate trains is.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Yes, why not run two trains instead of one — hmmm Cost? Operating Profit ?
Two > One, twice as many trains for the same ridership as one express train from LA with stops at SJ, Peninsula and SF.
San Francisco and San Jose were second and third of the top 10 California metro regions in the number of jobs added. The East Bay was next to last. San Diego was first.
Via Pacheco HSR can connect SF and SJ to LA and SD with **one** express train. Max of 2 stops (SJ and LA) if for a SF to SD station-station connection.
The economics favor connecting economic regions and doing so with fewer trains.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
You know, you can run two 200m trains instead of one 400m one. Since we are talking about electric multiple units, you are not using much more electricity. The additional operating costs will not be zero, but will be marginal if the schedule is managed properly. And it would take a very long time for that cost to catch up with the long term costs of selecting Pacheco.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:39 am
With Pacheco San Jose is Trenton or Wilmington. With Altamont San Jose becomes Hartford or even worse White Plains. It can’t be Allentown or Scranton because it does have rail service. Metro Allentown is just over 800,000 people. 60 miles from Philadelphia which is much more congested and much harder to park in than San Francisco. Or 90 miles from New York. Which is much more congested than Philadelphia and much harder to park in.
Or they get to Fremont they’ll be low on cash and decide that going to San Jose can be put off until another phase. BART gets built and they then decide that they don’t need to go to San Jose because BART is there to trundle travelers to Fremont. Takes another 50 years to grade separate and electrify Caltrain to San Jose.
Or instead of having four trains an hour through San Jose giving people in San Jose the option of getting on an express or a local and having that option every 15 minutes they get four trains an hour at Fremont, three of them head to San Francisco and one of the them, a local heads to San Jose. Capitol Corridor still runs because people are using it to get from Fremont to Davis or Oakland to Sacramento. Hope for cross platform transfers because until Phase 2 is built the fastest way to get from LA to Sacramento is to go to the Bay Area and transfer to a Capitol Corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 1:25 am
White Plains is doing a lot better than Trenton and Wilmington.
And by the standards of the extra costs of the Altamont Overlay, electrifying RWC-SJ isn’t expensive.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 7:10 am
You have not considered seat utilization. After all those hoards get off at Diridon Central, then what? Run a lot of empty seats up and down the Peninsula? Nor have you considered capital costs. A policy of “all trains terminate in SF” is a lot more expensive to build for.
Um, and where does Gilroy, home of the Garlic Festival rank? Some of the world’s largest corporations are along the Altamont route.
egk Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:30 am
And that short straw probably isn’t very short, since it won’t really involve slower trip or less frequent service, just perhaps the occasional cross-platform transfer.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
It’s not expensive to make all trains terminate in SF, given a decently-designed station throat. The turning capacity of four HSR tracks is about 8-10 tph, higher than a) the upper end of the systemwide ridership projection, and b) the capacity of the trunk line given that some trains would go from LA to Sacramento.
wu ming Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:15 am
if only there was some kind of mass transit system linking the east bay to san francisco and san jose…
synonymouse Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:47 am
good point
Caltrain is a dead man walking – BART Ring the Bay has already won; the masses will be informed accordingly by the machine on a need to know basis.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
…which is laughable to defer to Caltrain because there’s ACE which runs along the Altamont route and connects to Stockton.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
ACE : Altamont HSR :: stagecoaches : railroads. I wasn’t just mocking you in the other thread. The speed and reliability difference really is of that order of magnitude.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
If the argument is SF and SJ are connected via Caltrain so build Altamont and use Caltrian for SF-SJ then the counter point is the Awesome Altamont corridor is already serviced by ACE – use ACE to get to SJ’s station.
Seriously, SF/SJ are business destinations as are the silicon valley cities – trains from SD/LA can connect to both cities and those in-between on one train.
Also, Population is neat metric. Fresno Co has 12% more residents than SF Co.
I think economics matters:
San Francisco and San Jose were second and third of the top 10 California metro regions in the number of jobs added. The East Bay was next to last. San Diego was first.
“This is a recovery led by tech,” Which is why the least tech area, the East Bay, lost jobs.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
You missed Alon Levy’s point entirely. ACE is a 4 round-trip per day, commute-direction only, FRA slow train. It doesn’t count as actual public transit service.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
When HSR is established, ACE could feed into the service. That might increase train service but it will be one way since there’s little to drawn visitors into the area.
4 round-trip per day is a poor reason to use Altamont for an alignment that will increase ridership. The alignment isn’t going to attract riders from LA interested in eating at a Olive garden in Walnut Creek.
ACE, like Caltrain’s south country service, is a commuter service – it demonstrates what the altamont ridership is about – bedroom communities connecting people in the central valley and east bay to jobs in the silicon valley.
Pacheco alignment stops in Gilroy for a transfer point to a tourist destination and population center.
A benefit of Pacheco is it uses one train to bring Central Valley & SoCal to SJ-Peninsula and SF.
SJ has 1 M residents and a economic center, Peninsula is an technology power house and SF is a tourist/convention /finance destination.
One train.
Why should that ridership be split or ask riders to connect via Caltrain.
Joey Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
4 round-trip per day is a poor reason to use Altamont for an alignment that will increase ridership
That wasn’t what I was saying at all. What I meant is that the Altamont corridor cannot currently be considered as actually having service currently.
As for commuter vs intercity service, the commuter potential of the Altamont corridor far outstrips the intercity/tourist potential of the Gilroy/Monterey Bay region. San José would still get service. The lower peninsula might not be getting a stop anyway. There’s no reason to think that intercity and commuter services must necessarily be completely separated, though that seems to be the attitude of many transit planners in this country.
Yes, it is operationally superior to run one train instead of two? But the question is really how operationally superior? You have slightly higher operating costs and slightly lower service frequencies beyond the split point. Is that worth $10 billion? Because that’s at least what the Altamont overlay + additional track (Chowchilla to Manteca) in Phase 2 would cost.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:46 am
As for commuter vs intercity service, the commuter potential of the Altamont corridor far outstrips the intercity/tourist potential of the Gilroy/Monterey Bay region.
The commuter potential of San Jose to Palo Alto far outstrips the commuter potential of Altamont.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 1:10 am
These aren’t the same thing. Caltrain provides quarter-decent service, and could be upgraded to half-decent service at relatively low cost without Pacheco (electrification south of RWC). It will still maintain 0% mode share between San Jose and Palo Alto until the Automobile Ban Act goes into effect, but the service will at least exist and be usable by carless humps like me.
In contrast, ACE provides stagecoach-grade service, and because it uses tracks owned by a rent-seeking freight railroad, is pretty much unupgradable on legacy track.
The one-sentence selling point of Altamont is that it shoehorns LA-SF intercity service, SF-Sac intercity service, and Upper CV-East Bay commuter service into one corridor. Yes, LA-SJ draws the short straw under Altamont. And under Pacheco, the people who have to pay for two separate mountain crossings draw the short straw.
Joe Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:24 am
You think San Jose is 2nd fiddle to servicing altamont. The fact ACE cannot support anything more than commuters means we need to add service to that area at the expense of San Jose and the economic powerhouse of silicon valley.
Nuts!
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Look, the economic powerhouse of Silicon Valley is a string of cities from Mountain View to RWC – and of those, even under Pacheco RWC is going to get the station because Palo Alto doesn’t want one at all and Mountain View rejected PB’s proposed garage mahals around it. San Jose is a gigantic suburb – more people commute out of it than into it. It’s a good place to put a station because there’s a large base of residents who would use it, but it’s not the center of anything and is not more important than the residents of the East Bay.
ACE can’t support anything, period. The problem isn’t the market, which is measured in the tens of thousands per day; it’s that the service is too slow and infrequent to get more than a trivial share of it.
egk Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
@Joe: what you don’t or won’t understand is that San Jose gets BETTER service via Altamont. More San Jose/Silicon Valley people travel to Sacramento than to LA – Altamont provides better Sacramento service. SJ would get plenty of LA service via Altamont because of the ridership (service more frequent than every half hour is on a two hour trip not for convenience but for capacity).
The southern corridor from SJ south Gilroy is better served – by some metrics – by the Altamont crossing – they don’t get a HSR station, but they get HSR service to Sacramento and LA (via a short trip to San Jose on improved Caltrain or by car) and they don’t have 4-6-8-10 trains an hour passing through their communities at 220 mph.
Really the only people who might have better HSR service via Pacheco are those living in Monterrey,
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Better service if the want to go to Sacramento. If they want to go to Oakland not so much. Or the people in Stockton who want to get to Oakland.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
By far the best route option for Stockton-Oakland would be Altamont-through-Transbay. Second best would be Altamont-through-Dumbarton, i.e. the one under discussion, with a BART connection at Livermore.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Oh yes a nice hour long ride on BART to get to Oakland MMMM MMMMM MMMM and that transfer at Bayfair makes it all the more enticing! !
BruceMcF Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
And far cheaper to upgrade the corridor to 110mph operation then to upgrade the corridor to 220mph operation.
Joey Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
To an extent, yes, but the routes through the hills on both sides of the Tri-Valley area are so curvy that you’d be building an entirely new alignment anyway.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
We’re talking about curvy legacy track over a mountain crossing. The only way this is a 110 mph line, as opposed to a 60 mph line with some 110 mph segments, is with tilting trains (expensive, expensive to maintain, and would require CAHSR to use two separate fleets) and dedicated passenger tracks (expensive especially but not only given the owner). And all that for travel time that’s not competitive with driving.
Yes, there’s some advantage to kicking UP dealings to the future, and Altamont’s dependence on UP from Fresno to Manteca is a problem. But UP dealings are still best kept to a minimum, and if there’s going to be greenfield track south of Fresno then they can also use greenfield track north of Fresno and not have to owe UP anything.
James Fujita Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I’m really quite surprised how often people will claim that Cal HSR will be “too slow” because there will be “too many stations.”
it’s like they’ve never heard of passing tracks, or the ability of express trains to overtake slower moving traffic.
To those who are more car-oriented than transit-aware, I always say it’s like passing lanes on the freeway. Or highways with the amazing ability to bypass every local off ramp. With trains it’s even better because you have dispatchers monitoring the system to make sure that everything runs smoothly.
I do wish somebody would eliminate the “too many stops” chestnut.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
They’ve never seen anything but BART. They think that there is some sort of cosmic attraction between trains and platforms and if a train gets near a platform it must must stoppppp.
Peter Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
In Sonoma and Marin the most common argument raised against SMART was that it was “single-tracked”. A lot of people took that to mean that you could only have one train on the entire system at any given time. People are stupid.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:18 am
I doubt that. If they didn’t like the operations of a single track it was likely because they knew it would lack reliability and be fraught with delays.
Peter Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:26 am
IIRC, the opponents of SMART never failed to include the words “single tracked” in their arguments. SMART’s website even addresses this misperception with the following statement “Because many people see just a single set of railroad tracks in most of the SMART corridor, they may mistakenly believe that trains can only run in one direction.”
In terms of railroad operations, people aren’t just stupid, but have no actual knowledge or understanding of how they work.
Alex M. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I know about the express trains, as I said in my comment. The thing is, there will be trains that stop at all stations and having too many stops will slow those trains down.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
So? People who want to get from SF to LA fast will take the express. If you are at one of the intermediate stations the “slow” local will still get you to the terminal station faster than any other alternative and faster than the express makes it between the terminals.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Agreed. Buses use express lines that make infrequent stops.
A Monterey Co. rider that gets on a every stop train out of Gilroy would weight the few extra stops with driving to San Jose and take an express train. It’s an easy 30 minute car ride extra and you get to retract the route at 120+ MPH.
I could see a 4 stop train connecting major metro areas: SF – SJ —- LA – SD.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
In that case, it depends on how far they are going … Gilroy to Union Station would be 6 stations, San Jose on the Ltd Express would be 1 station. If a station adds 5 minutes to the trip, Gilroy to Union Station would cost about an extra 25 minutes for stops, the catching the Ltd. Express would be an extra 30 minutes driving and 15 minutes riding. In that case, you’d take the all-stations and the one seat, quicker trip.
OTOH, if there is a SF – SJ – Fresno – LA – SD, and you are going to San Diego, you’d change at Fresno.
swing hanger Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
As adirondacker says, you have all stops locals running in concert with the limited stop expresses. If, for example, you start in L.A. and are bound for a smaller station in the valley (where only the locals stop), you take the express to Fresno (which I assume will be serviced by both expresses and locals), get off there and make a transfer to a local (either cross platform or at the same platform later) and go on to your final destination. Likewise reverse on the return trip.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Meh, taking the local the whole way means you don’t have to make a transfer. At best transferring saves a few minutes.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Not only that, but also the stop spacing on CAHSR isn’t that narrow. An all-stop train from LA to SF would have an average interstation of 70 km, which is not much less than a Tokaido Shinkansen Nozomi, and much more than a Kodama. There’s a serious argument to be made for including some more local stops – for one, at Hanford – or at least there would be if it weren’t for the 24-station limit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Call the Mid Peninsula stop a Caltrain station. You then have 23 stations. Build Hanford instead. Once all the bonds are spent install some TVMs and hang out a High Speed Rail shingle. You then have a 25th station. Or here’s a scary thought. Have Caltrain sell the HSR tickets from their TVMs. Have them sell them at all their TVMs so that when someone from Atherton wants to go to Fresno they don’t have to allocate extra time at the Mid Peninsula station to get a ticket.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Preach to the heathens, not to the choir.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Heathens… what a polite way to put it….
Not that they want to build to NEC standards but Acela could, if Amtrak was inclined to, go to Broad Street in Newark instead of Penn Station. Or go to Suburban and Market East in Philadelphia. Or stop at Secausus. Or go to Harrisburg. Or South Amboy.. Or…. anyplace there is catenary and high level platforms.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
And they had the Acelas, and they had the service capacity on the CT bridges to run a mix of Ltd, Express, Express and Semi-Express service.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
“You said express twice.”
“I like express.”
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Sure. And the tickets are integrated, because Amtrak is that nice – you can use your Amtrak ticket on any commuter train, and at Penn Station they sell all types of tickets on all machines and all ticket booths.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
They used to but then they went and disbanded the PRR…. Was quite common to buy through tickets at your origin station to anyplace in North America.
Amtrak booking system is down at the moment. You can book tickets to select NJTransit stations on Amtrak.com.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Select is the operative word. If you buy Amtrak tickets from the airport to anywhere, you’re not allowed to take NJT to the nearest station and continue from there. If you miss your train, or if the train that stops at the airport is very late, as happened to me a few years ago, then you’re screwed.
John Burrows Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
From the CaHSRA 2009 business plan, the “Initial Section Schematic Operations Plan”, shows a number of different stop combinations. According to this plan the slowest train from San Francisco to Los Angeles would make the trip in 3hr-14min at an average speed of133 mph. The intermediate stops would be SFO, Mid-peninsula, San Jose, Gilroy, Fresno, and Bakersfield. The train would then skip Palmdale, Sylmar, and Burbank before arriving at Union Station.
133 mph is still a pretty respectable average speed for a “milk run”. According to this operations plan, none of the trains traveling between San Francisco and Union Station make all of the in-between stops.
Lately, I have been looking for website that list GOP districts….. and where to contribute toward recalls or the democratic party.
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
GOP leaning individuals can help by getting involved in their primary (how ever it will work now) to favor HSR leaning candidates.
Dems might start here: https://secure.actblue.com/directory/CA/all/state-house
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_California
From Simitian’s website:
http://www.senatorsimitian.com/
Eshoo, Simitian, Gordon team up for high-speed rail announcement Monday (4/15/11)
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) and Assemblymember Rich Gordon (D-Menlo Park) will join together Monday for a major announcement regarding the state’s High-Speed Rail project.
I also have no idea what the announcement will be or for that matter at what time the announcement is to be made.
Clem Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Somebody got the federal bacon to electrify Caltrain, the first phase of the new “phased implementation?” Allow me to dream for a moment…
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
“When asked whether it’s good news or bad news for the beleaguered rail proposal, a Simitian staffer said it doesn’t necessarily fit either category.”
Clem Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
OK, then it might be a simple announcement that the draft EIR is delayed to December 2012 and that a new process is going to be used until then to increase participation from affected communities.
Or an announcement that quad tracking through PAMPA will not be attempted. Ever. (there are realistic ways to make that work, which depend first and foremost on realistic projections of train traffic–something we don’t have.)
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Its probally the phased implementation plans that you have metioned at your blog and the press release by the Authority..this would calm the “restless natives” and get them off their backs somewhat
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Anything that helps Caltrain works against HSR NIMBY’s.
The ultimate NIMBY objective is to shut down the rail corridor and stop infill growth.
Every EIR for development uses Caltrain to reduce auto traffic estimates. Stanford’s Hospital expansion for example relies on Caltrain. Stanford staff already get a free VTA/Caltrain pass to reduce auto traffic.
Electrification will allow more infill, more homes and works against the objectives of guy’s like Morris brown et al.
A reasonable approach would be using HSR funds to improve the ROW and grade separation in preparation for HSR. Fewer deaths, less traffic congestion at stops and improved property values.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Hilarious! You live in Gilroy, the poster child for sprawling hell, paving over agricultural and park land, recipient of grotesque exurban subsidies for fuel, water and air quality, and you choose to lecture on “NIMBYs” and “infill” and “traffic congestion” and “deaths”.
It’s almost like someone from Monterey holding forth on Oakland’s urban transportation needs … oh … wait …
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
You make no sense.
Gilroy’s invested in the downtown area and encouraged in-fill: building 3 story live work units in downtown, funded infill projects such as Cannery row town homes and actively supported Caltrain. A vry different model than the Peninsula which happens to have ripped out orchards for upper middle class homes.
As a CA resident and Caltrain user, it *is* my business when the few along the 100+ year old rail corridor want to shut it down statewide and regional public transportation.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Maybe our congress critters will add new requirements, restrict design, throw NIMBY’s a few bones.
Prop1A passed 60-40 in the three counties comprising their districts.
Clem Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I’m thinking a few bones will be thrown. These three politicians are all HSR supporters but they’ve all said at one point or another that it needed to be “done right”… along comes a circumstance, i.e. no money and a long delay, that allows them to say they’re going to make sure it’s “done right”. Curious to see what that means.
Jerry Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:40 am
The Gordon, Simitrian, Eshoo announcement will be at 10:30 AM on April 18.
Any realistic possibilities regarding the announcement?
joe Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Both will work to direct funding to the HSR project and/or Caltrain.
We can start that project today, and that’s why we need our fair share of recovery-act funds to go to Caltrain. The Caltrain projects include installing a modernized signal system, the first steps in electrifying the Caltrain corridor, construction of grade separations in San Bruno, and improvements to Caltrain stations in San Francisco and San Jose. These projects are environmentally cleared, and ready to go, and could put thousands of people to work on the Peninsula.
An effort is underway in the Legislature to ensure these funds are available to Caltrain without predetermining the outcome of any alignment or design issues still facing high-speed rail.
From June 2010
http://eshoo.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=872:ensure-high-speed-rail-is-on-the-right-track&catid=5&Itemid=100014&qh=YToyOntpOjA7czo0OiJyYWlsIjtpOjE7czo1OiJyYWlscyI7fQ==
My Bay Area congressional colleagues have joined me in signing a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood asking that he direct the Federal Railroad Administration take into account the ability of the Caltrain projects to put Americans to work and advance the interests of high-speed rail.
One thing is clear: We cannot lose Caltrain. This is a golden opportunity to do something positive for Caltrain and the Peninsula for now and for generations to come.
Clem Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Eshoo got $16 million of ARRA funding for the Caltrain corridor following that exchange with LaHood. Drop in the bucket, and actually counter to the interests of HSR. The money was once supposed to go to CBOSS, the Caltrain Positive Train Control system that will make it more difficult to integrate modern HSR train control systems on the peninsula.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Eshoo has to be careful, as she placates the NIMBY squeaky wheels, she risks hurting the very project that will help her get reelected.
Gasoline is $4.24 for regular.
US *will* redistrict CA and when the musics stops they’ll be one less chair in the bay area.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:21 am
looks like they want some of the FLA money for Caltrain instead of reaching Merced
Alan F Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Unless Caltrans or Caltrain submitted an application for the Florida HSR funds for Caltrain projects, LaHood and the FRA are not going to be able to grant them anything. CHSRA applications are obviously focused on extensions in the Valley. If it is a bid for FTA transit funding, the Republicans in the House also did a lot of damage to available transit funding.
The $2.03 billion left after the rescinded $400 million of FY10 is not going to go very far. A lot more good applications for the funds than there are funds available.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:13 am
They did not..and they wont get anything. Whatever we get will go towards getting to Merced. The SF-SJ segment is to delayed for this funding now
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:21 am
And Peninsula NIMBYs did a lot of damage by suing the HSR project and encouraging HSR to build to in the central valley — value engineering and all.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 16th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Probably an attempt to repeal 1A.
joe Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Yes, repealing the 60-40 vote favoring Prop1A in their districts would help both nail the GOP nomination.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Rich Gordon can read a poll as well as anybody. I would be stunned if he supported any such fool thing.
synonymouse Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:31 am
I doubt an attempt to repeal 1A will come up yet. The tax extension-tax increase wars are the center of attention right now. We should know soon which course Brown will take: either ram thru an extension of the “temporary” taxes and dare voters to overturn or go the initiative route for the fall. It would appear union support for an initiative would mean a tax increase for the rich and corps, unlikely to be supported by the Wunderman business crowd.
A defeat of tax measures would definitely be interpreted by the state political establishment as a no vote on hsr spending. Get used to that. Then you would see Prop 1A being opened up.
The hsr scheme has some serious nagging issues that cannot be dismissed by a foaming flick of the wand:
-extreme likelihood of politicized government management – forget private operation
-ditto for bloated compensaton packages won by connected house unions
-meandering slow route thru low income region and associated pressure for subsidized low fares
-high maintenance costs of steel wheel tech at high speed, deferred maintenance having eventual dire consequences.
tony d. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Was that your attempt at being funny PM? Good one! LOL!
Off topic, but once they cut HSR funding and all the other non-military non-discretionary spending and lower taxes for the rich, I won’t get anymore of these emails?
“Due to the large volume of qualified candidates and limited number of vacancies available, you were not within reach for consideration for this vacancy.”
I can’t wait.
JJJ Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 1:08 am
That depends. Do you plan on being a lower class chinese worker?
Spokker Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:45 am
Dey turk our jerbs.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Oh, yes, they certainly did take our jobs. That is, our companies brought our jobs over there, and when offered the jobs, they took them.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, and when they got paid too little, they went on strike and protested and for the most part got their demands for higher wages and better working conditions. Some plants hiked wages 20-30% in 2010, and one Honda plant nearly doubled wages. And that was without American labor liberals being oh-so-generous and instituting tariffs on them in solidarity.
I’m pissed after seeing this map on gas prices, why the hell does California always get taken advantage of? We’re getting effed in the “A”.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 11:36 am
The map is for retail prices which include state and local taxes. California has very high gas taxes.
JJJ Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
It’s not just that. State taxes matter, but also pipelines, which is why the center of the country gets it so cheap. Also, mandated blends (for air pollution).
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Actually, it’s the other way around.
California used to produce half of the nation’s petroleum, and as such was more preoccupied with shipping the stuff to the East.
As production waned, a system of pipelines was built around supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. Enhancing this were imports from Nigeria and Venezuela. California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and Hawai’i began using Alaskan crude to offset the decline, which has to go by boat…slowly. When those supplies were exhausted, then the only way to get market price oil is to to go all the way to Saudi Arabia and Iraq by boat…which goes even more slowly.
Add in the special grading used, and the fact that it makes it impossible to then ship by truck to the East once its blended and you see what the problem is.
California needs HSR for its own energy independence, irrespective of what the rest of the country does.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Why would anyone ship oil from Saudia Arabia to … anyplace east of the Rockies… via California? There’s life east of the Sierra Nevada complete with ports, pipelines, refineries etc. For that matter why would they ship it from Saudia Arabia when they could ship it from Venezuela or Nigeria?
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
It’s our very special fuel blends thats cause higher production costs.. California is an island when it comes to its gasoline in the United States.. it’s all made in our refineries our brought in already refined is what I’ve been told. I don’t think any pipelines go east from California at least not in Northern California they wanted one a long time ago when the Alaskan Fields first came online but that never happened
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I didn’t say. What I said is that California and the rest of the West Coast is isolated. There is no pipeline that crosses the Colorado River. The Texas pipelines only go as far west as Phoenix. What happens though, is that the refineries in California and the Gulf Coast exhaust domestic supplies before going to international ones. The key different being is that the East Coast can get oil from Venezuela and Nigeria rather quickly. In California’s case if Alaska can’t deliver it’s Saudi Arabia or Iraq to fill in the gap mostly. And that takes a really long time to get to port….
YesonHSR is also correct that because California has an idiosyncratic blend, refiners invariable charge more for it because it’s not as fungible either on the West Coast or shipped by truck to the East. (Which does happen if stockpiles are too high).
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:22 am
Haws, as I f it matters that we are paying 50 cents more per gallon! A fill up will cost 3.50 more on a 12 gallon tank…. Instead of 46 dollars, it is 49.50. That is not worth crying over.
Has anyone seriously considered amending 1A so that HSR doesn’t have to run all the way to SF? It’ll make the project seem cheaper–plus Im sick and tired of hearing about NIMBY lawsuits and obstructionist techniques just because they can’t stand a statewide improvement to transportation.
Or what about making some major Caltrain improvements (like electrification, more overtake tracks, better signaling, etc) with 1A funds, and licensing Caltrain as “part” of the HSR system? That’d make all Caltrain commuters happy, and calm the NIMBYs. Again, the project would be cheaper than building an entirely new line that might end up shutting down portions of Caltrain service (imagine a drive down 101 at that point)
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
So wait – you’re tired of the NIMBYs and your solution is to give them exactly what they want? And gut the project in the process by stopping it short of one of it’s key destinations and sources of riders?
Appeasement and surrender are not good ways to build a train system. Fair compromises that don’t undermine the core purpose or use of the system are one thing. What you propose is to just give in.
tony d. Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Robert,
I think James was basically describing Rafael’s “Firebird” Caltrain concept, which I would even support.
I don’t think its necessarily about pleasing NIMBY’s, but about building something that works for everyone from SF-SJ.
Peter Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:03 am
Firebird is the exact opposite of “something that works for everyone from SF-SJ”. Specifically, it wipes out local service to most stations without providing a replacement. Local service shouldn’t be tossed aside so cavalierly, as real people use it.
tony d. Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 9:15 am
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
Besides, those local stations could be replaced by bus service feeding the primary stations.
Kind of along the lines of “hub and spoke” operations.
Peter Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:06 am
You take away reliable local rail service and replace it with feeder buses, and people won’t take the bus, they’ll just drive.
Joe Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Stoooipd.
HSR to Caltrain/Firebird to a bus. That’s not good, that stoopid. I’d fly or drive rather than take that bad connection.
HSR, we voted for it and an alignment that let’s one train connect the major economic centers is the best way to recover costs.
thatbruce Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Replacing existing rail service with bus service rarely retains ridership.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Rarely? Why, has it ever happened?
Emma Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I’ve been thinking about something similar, too.
After all, 2/3 of the Californian population live in Southern California. Why don’t we build the LA-SD section first? It would take the shortest time to build, while having the highest number of ridership. This section could be opened earlier, providing some revenue for the “SF-LA extension.”
The amount of NIMBYs in society and politics seems to be a lot lower. Even Anaheim in Orange County is extremely supportive. Yet you have those mayors in the “liberal” Bay area that whine every month.
Joe Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:14 am
HSR passed 60-40 in the NIMBY cities up north. It has support and the primary requirement for the system is to connect major economic areas in the N and S via rail.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Those HSR trains have to run up to TransBay terminal or 4th and King…its what 72percent of SF voted yes on Prop1A and it is one of the main end points.. Ive said it before.. stopping the high-speed rail in San Jose forcing passengers to transfer the CalTrain would be like Acela stopping in Baltimore and making people ride MARTA all the way to Washington DC.. it would totally destroy the ridership and revenue. If the high-speed train sets have to run up the current Caltrain infrastructure with electrification the first couple years it’ll just have to be that way until money and time can permit upgrades.
Joe Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:32 am
P. E. L. O. S. I.
Anyone ask her of it’s okay to stop HSR at San Jose?
What about former mayors Gavin Newsome? Dianne Feinstein?
Jack Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:34 am
The didn’t spend billions on the TBT to have trains stop in San Jose.
One of our regular posters is going to be very happy when they hear the announcement!
Jack Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Vague Much?
Jack Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Morris: Destruction of the Project 10B funneled to his backyard gril.
Elizabeth: Project destroyed 10B funded to Caltrain
Syn: Nothing on PAMPA will make him happy
Clem: Restudy of Altamont
Who else??
Arthur Dent Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Me: I get to stand up and take a stretch break.
I think some people here are far too pessimistic about our HSR project. I think some people tend to forget that we have $9.95 billion in start-up funding and that this project was NEVER meant to be dependent of federal funds.
Why does it even matter that the money comes from D.C. and not Deutsche Bahn, SNCF, The Chinese government, Temashek Holdings or the Japanese government? People have to get used to the idea that foreign government will also take some of the profit of this system.
What matters is that it runs through California, at high speed, and at prices that compete with the airline industry. Where the money comes from and where the money goes is not the main point!
Once the project hits ground, private funds will come. All that matters is that we begin construction which will be the foot in the door. From that point and up, people will begin to take us serious and start investing. But as long as everything is just written on paper, we will continue to face ridicule and NIMBYism.
Spokker Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
They’re not going to sell those bonds. They aren’t even selling Prop 1B bonds, putting Expo Line phase 1 into jeopardy of all things, and that project is practically finished.
So, I’m gathering the “big news” is that HSR and Caltrain will be built via phased implementation? So, yes, bad news for people fearing big scary wires above the tracks, the proverbial camel nose under the tent, most likely leading to complete grade separation and quad tracking at some point down the line.
Spokker Reply:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
On the topic of big scary wires, I was once arguing with a guy over the construction of the Pacific Electric Red Cars attraction at California Adventure.
Apparently, this guy thought that by stringing up catenary wire in the Hollywood section of Disney’s California Adventure, Disney was turning the place “ghetto” by stringing up said wires. He said that he lived near light rail in Los Angeles and that it ruined his neighborhood, and will do the same for a theme park, haha.
Wires in the air has become synonymous with low class areas. There is a logic to this. Many cities with money have put their electric poles underground. But I can’t see how catenary wire is “ghetto,” much less catenary wire in a damn theme park that is designed to replicate some era in time.
Jack Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 7:36 am
Why do the wire have to be in the air, if we can put high voltage utility lines underground can’t we power the trains the same way??
VBobier Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Then how does the train get the electrical power? The train needs to have contact with the wire or a 3rd rail to get that electricity, The only other way is wirelessly, But Tesla never got that far and that would require a huge investment just for the R&D on that, Which could turn out to be costly to implement, If It’s even practical for a train that is.
Peter Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Like an embedded third rail? Can’t pump enough power through a third rail to run trains fast enough, from what I gather. Someone had posted a video on here of a trolley on the east coast running on an embedded third rail. It’s technically difficult/impractical to run at speeds higher than 140 km/h on a third rail, from what I gather. Just look at the Javelin and Eurostar.
thatbruce Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 11:14 am
You can pump enough power into the third rail to support higher speeds, but you then have issues with keeping the ‘live’ rail electrically isolated from the surrounding infrastructure and/or casual trespasser. Using overhead has the benefit of added distance providing the electrical isolation.
The Eurostar’s (pre HS1) operation on 3rd rail was fairly lackluster, due to the high power requirements of the 373s compared to the normal 3rd-rail stock that use those lines.
Emma Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I like your sarcasm :-)
Alon Levy Reply:
April 18th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
It it were easy, it would’ve been done already. In Japan, one third of the noise comes from the pantograph; they’d really have liked to put it underground and transmitted power wirelessly. So far the only way to reliably transmit enough power for a high-speed train without a pantograph is maglev…
Anything yet? I am dieing to know!