Does the Blended Plan Work?
Over at the Mountain View Patch, Jarrett Mullen writes about the viaduct in the room – and the contradictions at the heart of the “blended” proposal for the Caltrain/HSR rail corridor. Mullen talks about the Prop 1A requirement for connecting SF to LA in 2 hours, 40 minutes, requiring trains to travel at 125mph along the Peninsula. And in that case, if trains run at grade, federal mandates regarding at-grade crossings will turn the rail corridor into a real barrier:
Although the complex barrier solution could be implemented along the Caltrain corridor to avoid the perceived blight of the aerial structure, it would likely cause severe traffic headaches on the major roads that cross the tracks given the nature of the “blended” service proposal.
Under Caltrain’s electrification plan, train frequency would increase to 10 trains per hour in both directions. Coupled with HSR service, crossing barriers would close major peninsula streets every 5 to 6 minutes during rush hour.
Just think about that. Streets closed every 5 to 6 minutes. Imagine trying to get across the tracks during rush hour in Palo Alto, or Menlo Park. The rail corridor would be an actual barrier dividing those communities. It might not look like a “Berlin Wall” – but it would certainly act like one. In contrast, an aerial viaduct would be much more permeable. Cars, bikes, and pedestrians could cross easily and safely below a viaduct. Communities would be even better connected than they are now, as Albany or Rockridge can attest. But under the at-grade operations, as Mullen points out, communities will be severed.
Mullen’s argument is that Anna Eshoo, Joe Simitian, and Rich Gordon realize this, and that’s why they floated a below-grade system:
It appears that Eshoo et al. realized this potential problem with the “blended” approach, since they later express openness to “below grade” options which would eliminate the danger and delay of level crossings. However, below grade solutions like tunnels and trenches conflict with their long winded opening statement about scarce resources and limited funding.
With proposals short on practicality, it’s difficult to understand what kind of design Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon are actually pushing for. Some speculated that they were implicitly working towards terminating HSR service in San Jose which prompted clarification from Eshoo.
With the San Jose rumor out, the only realistic solution is to reintroduce the aerial viaduct option in some places along the corridor. It’s cost-effective, makes Caltain service more reliable, reduces traffic congestion, and silences the dreaded airhorns. While intensely disliked, it’s the only proposal that will actually bring twenty-first century train service to the Peninsula.
Mullen is of course right about all of this. So why did Eshoo, Simitian, and Gordon take the cost-effective, community-uniting aerial option off the table?
Because the NIMBYs demanded it. The NIMBYs do not care – at all – about uniting communities. They do not care about being cost effective. They do not care about traffic jams, loud horns, or the profoundly unsafe nature of at-grade crossings. They do not care about high gas prices, they do not care about climate change, and they do not care about improving passenger rail.
The only thing the NIMBYs care about is protecting their own outdated, failed 20th century values. They have a bizarre concept of aesthetic values, and demand that they be allowed to impose those values on everyone else around them, no matter the cost.
And as Mullen has explained, the cost is quite high. To communities and to pocketbooks.
It’s a real shame Eshoo and Simitian in particular appear to be demanding an elimination of aerial structures as a price of further support for HSR. I’ve never been wedded to aerials; if there are other ways to bring communities together they absolutely should be explored. But that exploration needs to be based on facts and evidence – and not on NIMBY delusions.
It appears that Eshoo et al. realized this potential problem with the “blended” approach, since they later express openness to “below grade” options which would eliminate the danger and delay of level crossings. However, below grade solutions like tunnels and trenches conflict with their long winded opening statement about scarce resources and limited funding.
At grade solutions work if you have underpasses. No barrier to connectivity there. Underpasses are cheaper than elevating the tracks, or having a tunnel.
Sam S. Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Underpasses are not going to be feasible everywhere. Having grade crossings will be the limiting factor in determining the maximum speed by FRA regulations.
The biggest concern should be that the CalTrans corridor will be rebuilt to be electrified and accommodate the addition rail traffic. Then, after the grade crossings are blocked for the majority of the day, Silicon Valley residents will be the ones still buying $10 gasoline and demand that their crossings become grade separated at higher costs than if they were just built upfront.
joe Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Local residents and businesses will welcome the removal of at grade crossings – they are not sympathetic to NIMBYs living next to the tracks.
Palo Alto already uses older, narrow underpasses for their three main crossings.
Mountain View uses newer, larger over passes for San Antonio and Shoreline Ave. and the Stevens creek trail pedestrian bridge.
Along Caltrain runs Central Expressway/Alma St which carries heavy traffic and is also impacted by Caltrain gate crossings. Residents and commuters will welcome the fixes.
We use the Casto/Moffett crossing that gets backed up so badly people (me) cut over to Shoreline. Adding trains would basically shut the street during peak hours.
Residents accept these roadway improvements.
Nearby HW 237 was at grade with lights running – that was changed to an overpass and lights removed (used for off ramps). Homes/apts were added afterwards.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hw+237+and+101&aq=&sll=37.578324,-122.165222&sspn=0.582268,1.229095&ie=UTF8&hq=hw+237+and+101&hnear=&ll=37.394914,-122.045993&spn=0.00456,0.009602&t=h&z=17
Clem Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:26 pm
You’ve got an underpass already planned for Rengstorff.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 1:16 pm
That would be the City of Mountain View. MtV has embraced and built a walkable downtown, rail and bus transit. Also free parking off downtown.
I wish they were in competition for the HSR rail stop.
Joey Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
They were in the competition … still are, officially. But, while not quite as hostile as Palo Alto, their response to the idea of a HSR station hasn’t exactly been overwhelmingly positive. So more and more, it’s looking like it’s going to be Redwood City.
Clem Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Redwood City, the Altamont-ready solution.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Amusing they pick the same platform height etc. any Caltrain station can be an HSR station. Which one it turns out to be is being wildly over emphasized.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Would want to be a four platform station, so any Caltrain Express station.
Poor old Atherton and Menlo Parking Lot would be out of the running in any event.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:46 pm
For infrequent HSR service it can be a “local” station. Just takes a bit of schedule legerdemain.
Since there’s all this talk about crossing the platform from the local to the express and vice versa I assume the express stations will have two islands. All an HSR train has to do to make that station a stop is to stop.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Would you want an HSR to stop at a station that is not a sufficiently important local origin or destination to be used as a Caltrain Express station? If there are switches before an after back onto the express track, that’d work, so its more that its a Caltrain Express station than whether it has two or four platforms (I’d hope with all platforms the same height it’d be two islands with a platform on each side of each island).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Special events. You don’t need switches at the station. Since it’s infrequent that special event train just has to live with moving at the same speed as the local after it switches onto the local tracks. …Dodgers season ticket holders charter a train to go see the World Series in Candlestick Park.
The island platforms at the shared stations can be almost pool table level. Just because the platform on one side is 760 mm above top of rail doesn’t mean the rail on the other side has to be 760 mm. Screws Caltrain passengers for the next century or so but the platform can be level.
Joey Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Underpasses can become quite costly, considering the amount of property impacts and temporary infrastructure you have to build in order to maintain traffic flow during construction. In areas where grade crossings are dense, it usually makes more sense to elevate the tracks.
TomW Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:56 am
Underpasses certainly cost more than grade crossings, but would they cost mroe or less than an aerial structure? Can anyone provide hard figures?
Andy M. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:16 am
In places where infrastructure/property is extremely dense, and by consequence land value is high, a trench and cover solution may actually even be cheaper if you can capitalize on the land on top of the trench.
But apart from that, even in densely developed areas, it is not really a necessity that every back street has its own crossing. It may be more efficient if you can funnel different flows into a smaller number of larger crossings, which will be cheaper to build.
J. Wong Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:48 am
I seem to remember @Clem noting that trenches and tunnels actually take more property than aerials because of the necessary width of the walls to retain the earth on the sides.
The reality is that you can’t have it all. The Peninsula cities are going to have to compromise trading off property takings, traffic impacts, and visual presence. When you realize all the constraints, you’ll see aerials as your best solution with the least impact.
What the NIMBY’s want, of course, is no HSR, but they should recognize the inevitability and act to mitigate now. Besides which, Caltrain itself is grade separating using berms and aerials.
VBobier Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I wonder how many underpasses/overpasses & grade crossings are in the Caltrain Corridor? And wouldn’t It really be more expensive in terms of labor & materials to build a low berm, Rather than to just build more underpasses while just only buying enough parcels to do the job & in some cases buying a parcel that has as a result of a new underpass become landlocked & widening the resultant underpass from 2 lanes(If It were a 2 lane road already) with straight & not angled sides to 4 lanes as has been shown on the blog before. But then I’m just a bit curious about this.
On the reality, Yeah something will have to give, Lawsuits won’t stop HSR, Delay for a bit maybe, But thats all folks.
The Nimbys sound like they are for Limited or Slow or No Growth, In addition to sprawl.
For HSR to go 125mph in the Corridor w/4 tracks or with 2, Either one of two things will need to be done(the following is with Grade Separation in mind):
1. Broaden Curves to accept HSR at 125mph(165mph would be great if possible) or…
2. Bring the Corridor up to Amtrak Acela track standards if needed & buy/run Acela tilt trains that can do the 220mph sections that are outside the Corridor with no problems for over 1 hour of continuous running at a time.
Clem Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Underpass / overpass / grade crossing overview of peninsula corridor
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:47 am
If I remember correctly Clem has calculated that the whole Caltrain ROW is 700 acres. Spend 20 Billion to tunnel the whole ROW how much are you going to get for 700 acres of prime Peninsula real estate? Lets call it 7 billion more than going for a cheap solution. You have to sell the land for 10 million an acre to cover the additional costs. Real estate is pricey on the Peninsula but I doubt you’ll get 10 million an acre for the 100 foot wide land you’ll be able to get out of the ROW.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
The maintenance of traffic is you close one at a time in a given local area, then once the underpass and basic trestle is in place, re-open it and start on the next.
Overpass and underpass are not mutually exclusive ~ where the street connections or creeks do not allow a full underpass, a partial underpass reduces the height required of the rail overpass ~ that is a split grade separation, and its often a lower import solution than either, requiring a shorter road approach and a shorter rail approach.
Jeff Carter Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 4:48 am
Once again, can anyone explain why grade separations can’t be handled in a manor such as this?
The Hillcrest/Hemlock/Aviador grade separation, which is supposed to be wide enough for four tracks, can be seen here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=600+hemlock+Millbrae+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.553578,57.744141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=600+Hemlock+Ave,+Millbrae,+San+Mateo,+California+94030&ll=37.602767,-122.391057&spn=0,0.000881&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.602901,-122.390885&panoid=CNOYwaEU6MjF-daz3IBw_Q&cbp=12,29.56,,0,5
FACT: The grade separation at Hillcrest Blvd. in Millbrae uses less than 200 feet on each side of the track bed. From Hemlock (which runs parallel to the tracks), to the track bed is 187 feet. The track bed itself is 73 feet wide, (good enough for 4 tracks), from the east side of the track bed to Aviador (also parallel to the tracks) is 172 feet. Hillcrest dips below the track bed by 17.5 feet; the track bed itself is 5 feet 4 inches in height, the dip is approx. 23 feet below the top of the rail. No driveways are blocked, no homes are disrupted. The ROW did not have to be raised and this was built without shoofly tracks. Prior to the grade separation this was a at grade pedestrian crossing that also served as an emergency fire lane.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:11 am
Nothing is wrong with that ..all the new grade Seps along Caltrain look nice too
Why is anyone even suggesting at grade crossings? Is this supposed to be a modern 21st century state of the art high speed rail system or just some shitty commuter train?
It would serve the NIMBY’s right to give them at-grade and thereby snarl traffic during commute hours. They’d have cars idling in front of their precious property next to the ROW spewing pollution into the air that they breath.
Trains are never going to run at 200kmh in people’s back yards on the peninsula. Nor should they.
Get a grip on reality, foamer boys. Economic reality. Political reality. Rail operations reality, for that matter.
The costs are many times greater than the benefits. If you want to make the trip to SF 6 minutes faster, go via Altamont. Or put in enough escalators at the fucked-up Transbay Terminal to get to and from the train in time. Pissing off people, making a racket, screwing up ALL other rail service between SF and SJ, service that will be used by three times as many passengers, is not just costly but limitlessly stupid.
You really need something more useful to get a woody about than the thought of 125mph trains blasting their sensously rounded noses into Atherton.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:25 pm
<em,Trains are never going to run at 200kmh in people’s back yards on the peninsula. Nor should they.
This must come as news to people, right here in the good ol’ USA, who have trains running at 220 kmh in their backyards.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 12:35 am
Yes, and then Amtrak thinks it’s at capacity when it’s running 1-2 tph on a 6 tph commuter line.
TomW Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:52 am
[citation needed]
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:04 am
Look at the NEC Master Plan’s section about Providence-Boston.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:06 am
They run 4 at peak. The capacity constraint between New Brunswick and Trenton is under the Hudson River. If that was to magically disappear the capacity constraint is that Amtrak hasn’t bought new cars since the 70s. If they never get more tunnel or more cars, upgrading Trenton-NewBrunswick still buys them a bit more speed and improved reliability. It will be especially evident when it’s 95 degrees out. ( When it’s hot out the untensioned catenary sags enough that the speed limit between NY and DC is reduced to 80 )
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-7Chrx-sX8 Sure sounds far from noisy
YesonHSR Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:21 am
There very lucky that the freight rail all dried up at the port of SF or they would have had 20 or 30 long loud freight trains a day..
TomW Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:54 am
I used to live in a house with 200km/hr (diesel) trains running past my back yard, and a busy two-lane road in front.
The noise (and pollution) from the traffic was far more obnoxious than the trains.
Alex M. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Trains are never going to run at 200kmh in people’s back yards on the peninsula. Nor should they.
Yes they will. It would be effectively illegal for them not to, since it would be extremely difficult to get from SF-LA in under 2:40 going less than 125 on the Peninsula.
Also, the train tracks were there before Atherton was.
For all of 30 seconds. Big deal — the traffic impact is no worse than a that of a traffic signal.
And as we already discussed, the 10tph forecast is nonsense.
Clem Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:24 pm
And lest we forget, there are two directions of traffic. Grade crossings already close ten times an hour today, which nobody seems to mind all that much. With double the corridor traffic it’ll be more like every two to three minutes during rush hour.
Jarrett Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Clem, DE, thanks for the input. I wrote the article that robert linked to and I was making an educated guess on how often the crossing gates would come down. The electrification EIR has a range of potential train frequencies, so I lowballed it. Also, I assumed the crossings would be closed longer than they are today because the FRA crossing website indicated that when train speeds increase, gates should come down earlier and stay down longer for safety reasons, which would likely increase delay.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:10 pm
FHWA recommendation is warning time of no more than 40-50 sec. Any longer and it leads to driver impatience. 20-35sec is typical.
Also, these aren’t long freight trains; a HSR or Caltrain going 90-110mph will not take very long to go through the intersection.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:29 am
about 8 secs I would think
BruceMcF Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 am
If all traffic is going through at about the same peed, the trip can be set for traffic further from the intersection without necessarily increasing the delay. The cable-reinforced gates (which descend into a steel pole at the other side with the end of the steel cable behind the gate locking into place) would seem to be more effective security than a longer gate delay ~ as Drunk Engineer notes, drivers get impatient with long delays and try to sneak through, and drivers badly mis-estimate operating speed of an oncoming train ~ if it is even visible.
And stronger motors to get the gate up quickly when the train is cleared ~ these are PTC lines, the detection of the train clearing the intersection should be quite precise.
The serious problem will be at intersections where the gate must regularly stay down between trains northbound and southbound.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:56 am
Clem;
What about crossings like Churchill, Charleston and Castro? All have 3 way lights and turning arrows. A cycle with a train crossing takes minutes,not seconds.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:35 am
Drunk Engineer;
It’s not a 30 second wait when a road runs parallel to the track. Alma / Central runs parallel to the track so a crossing is a 3 way light with turning lane arrows. A train resets the lights. It can take 4-5 minutes at Castro st. crossing with present service.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:30 am
That is because most signals are still on 1950s-era legacy systems. Trains run on this thing called a “schedule” — a modern traffic control system can use that info combined with track sensors to coordinate timing of traffic signals with the crossing gates.
Also, the main issue for Castro St. is that the gates go down twice when trains visit the station. That is also easy to rectify.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 1:20 pm
The train schedule at that time is reliably unreliable.
“Fix” the signal and you still have congestion. Add more trains and you have more congestion.
Remove at grade and you have a functional intersection.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:23 am
What Drunk Engineer said ~ they have this same problem in Newcastle NSW, with “gate queues” leading to demands to rip out the railway line, when in reality the biggest queue is at a gridlocked pair of intersections which would have the exact same queue with the rail corridor ripped out ~ longer because of the commuters that would now be in cars adding to the length of the queue.
Simple variable cycle traffic signals that can receive gates open, gates closing, gates closed, and gates opening state information from the level crossing can be tuned to eliminate well over half those delays, and a central signal center system can do even better.
Alex M. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 am
So then we’ll have traffic lights and train tracks to deal with. That’s something we should avoid.
The only values that the Nimbys—Peninsula Chapter—are interested in protecting are their property values.
John Murphy Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
What would elimination of train horns do for property values? What would electric trains do?
synonymouse Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Just like every other homeowner in the US. And most people have seen their property values tank, so they are even more concerned than normal about anything that would aggravate the situation.
Ask the three crones and a drone of the patronage machine if they want to see their property values in the toilet.
Emma Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:42 pm
No. Property values have been going down because of the housing bubble. Most single family home are still overpriced. If they like it or not, the prices will continue to fall.
However, HSR will increase the population density in areas that are close to HSR stations for the simple reason that people want to commute by train.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:41 am
” Holding individual county characteristics constant, our most careful estimate indicated that areas adjacent to our treatment [HSR] stations, on average, grew by 2.7 per cent more in terms of GDP than surrounding areas. A similar increase could be found in terms of employment at workplace. Notably, it took a four-year adjustment period before the new equilibrium was reached.”
From: Dr Gabriel M Ahlfeldt (LSE) and Dr Arne Feddersen (University of Southern Denmark) “From Periphery to Core: Economic Adjustments to High Speed Rail”,
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 12:01 am
yes yes yes. fast electric trains are going to transform Palo Alto into the slums of Princeton. Turn Atherton into another Scarsdale. . .
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
We’re more concerned about jobs and sky-high gas prices than we are about NIMBY property values.
Of course, the irony is that grade separation, elimination of train horns and diesel fumes, and improved passenger rail service will be a huge boon to their property values. So we’re actually helping them in spite of themselves.
Maybe I should demand a cut.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:43 am
It’s a pity CHSRA can’t do it the French way. I mean striking confidential deals with the owners.
Overcompensating property generally saves more time than it costs money.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:46 am
No kidding. Give them more than fair compensation and they are less likely to sue. Saves years of litigation.
Ken Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
If they don’t like it, why did they chose to buy a home near the tracks in the first place? These people obviously hate California. What’s stopping these people to move to Arizona?
Problem solved. You hate California, MOVE!
Double the traffic – you people are higher than a fricken kite. Today there is about 1 hour of the day that runs 5 tph. Increase that one hour to six tph – you haven’t doubled it. There’s no f’n way in hell that there will be six train loads of HSR FROM SAN FRANCISCO or even TO SF every hour – the entire rest of the day? Ludicrous. Get a real ridership study done already. Figure out that the ridership FROM SF, will draw from no more than people located IN SF (residents and tourists). Even SFO tourism won’t be served by people driving their way INTO SF to get the train. To think there is that kind of daily demand for long distance travel, homed on a pinpoint on Peninsula – HIGH. There won’t be any draw from anything east of the bay, anything south of SFO will DRIVE to a more southern station (RWC or SJ), no one who doesn’t absolutely have to hassle with SF traffic, won’t. So now what. You have 6 trains per hour trying to leave from a RWC or PA station? – where they don’t have any kind of connecting transit, any kind of rental car facilities, no tourism draw, and the ROW is conveniently located just half hours or more from 101 along lovely residential streets… Its just so absurd. People are just not going to trade in airplane travel at SFO or SJC for high speed rail when the stations will be so immensely stupidly placed as to make them impossible to conveniently reach.
Joey Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:08 pm
CalTrain runs 5tph peak. If we assume 6tph CalTrain (hopefully on Clem’s timetable) and 4tph HSR, you have doubled it. Granted, 4tph HSR probably won’t happen for the first decade of operation, by which time full grade separation would be a good idea anyway.
J. Wong Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:07 am
Actually, if they’re smart, they’ll drive to a Caltrain station and take it to the HSR station. Also, East Bay passengers will take BART to get to the SF terminus. You’re right that most traffic won’t originate in SF, but a considerable number will at SFO. There’s no infrastructure planned to have trains originate at Millbrae so the trains will still start in SF.
There will be no trains originating at RWC (you can forget about a PA station since the city seems completely uninterested). And RWC is close to 101 with plenty of space for parking, if that’s really necessary, as well as plenty of transit connections using either Caltrain or SamTrans.
And yes, people will trade in air travel for HSR since airfares will inexorably be rising with the price of oil, and the airports are no more convenient than the train stations (no matter how you argue it, they’re not).
You really don’t have any vision to see the future. You expect everything to stay just the way it is without change. Lame.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Reaching a HSR station depends on your circumstances and how much you want to pay to park if you drive and park.
The HSR ridership model assumes people will drive to stations wherever located. That’s why HSR require/assume so much parking at each HSR station. 6,000 in Gilroy. :( Caltrain can reduce that parking demand if the SFO/Caltrain connection is fixed.
In CA, air travel will adapt and offer fewer flights within CA HSR areas. Airlines will use valuable gate space for more profitable, longer distance destinations. If they sell out locally and raise the price, they lose riders to HSR.
If the HSR stops at SFO, near SJC at BUR and etc., then they will be able to leverage existing off site car rental and parking services via bus.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:23 pm
And leverage the existing airport shuttle bus operations.
Why can’t we go with the most cost-effective idea and simply ride over the NIMBYs? They are not interested in making HSR succeed. All they want is to derail the project by forcing CAHSR to adopt expensive, irrational measures. The viaduct sounds like the best plan to me.
-125 mph
-passenger has a great view over the bay on the left and the ocean on the right
-pedestrians, cars, buses etc can pass beneath the structure
And regarding real estate values. The presence of HSR would increase these. The argument that the noise would reduce quality of living is pure hypocrisy. The very same people don’t seem to complain about highways running nearby that are not only loud, but also reduce air quality.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:47 am
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25106/
This paper presents evidence that high speed rail systems, by bringing economic agents closer together, sustainably promote economic activity within regions that enjoy an increase in accessibility. Our results on the one hand confirm expectations that have led to huge public investments into high speed rail all over the world. On the other hand, they confirm theoretical predictions arising from a consolidate body of (New) Economic Geography literature taking a positive, man-made and reproducible shock as a case in point. We argue that the economic geography framework can help to derive ex-ante predictions on the economic impact of transport projects. The subject case is the German high speed rail track connecting Cologne and Frankfurt, which, as we argue, provides exogenous variation in access to regions due to the construction of intermediate stations in the towns of Limburg and Montabaur.
egk Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Nice study charting the positive economic effects of short-distance HSR travel (< 70 miles) on a relatively short HSR line.
The line studied (Cologne-Frankfurt: 110 miles) has much in common with the Altamont corridor and the towns studied (Montabaur and Limburg) are about like Livermore and Tracy. So this is really a great argument for building the Altamont Overlay, since the benefits measured are those accruing to the small towns for being connected via HSR to the major centers.
The line, of course, was not built to serve these small towns, but rather to servie the massive amount of traffic from southwest Germany (Frankfurt, Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, etc.) to the Rhein/Ruhr region (Cologne, Dusseldorf, Duisburg, Wuppertal, etc.). Like most German HSR, this line is massively split, with northbound trains originating in THREE cities in the south (Basel, Munich, Frankfurt) serving TWO branches in the Rhein/Ruhr to the north (Duesseldorf/Duisburg.., Wuppertal/Hagen..).
Hourly (and in some cases twice hourly) is provided among all the cities on each of the lines. Lessons could be learned.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:23 pm
It’s an alignment neutral finding – one was can agree offsets NIMBY concerns about property values.
It BTW the GDP boost was effective in persuading a Gilroy council person to support HSR rail.
IMHO, the GDP benefit will be pronounced for the HW99 corridor cities once connected to the coastal economic centers.
egk Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Lighten up dude; just trying to educate here.
The study is about short distance HSR use and shows that THAT is a real economic motor. And, I’m just saying that there are way more short distance HSR trips served by one alignment than by another, that’s all.
But, yeah, Gilroy (pop. 52,027) would definitely benefit in the way described in the study. Pity about Pleasanton (66,828), Livermore (83,800), Tracy (80,300) and Stockton (287,037), though.
(I don’t know how convincing the study is to a NIMBY, after all the HSR line in the study bringing the doesn’t go through people’s back yards, it instead hugs the pre-existing autobahn outside of town.
HSR will be great for they CV, too, but not because of what is in the particular study you city.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I enjoyed making a difference in my town – using the study to turn a council rep from a doubter into a supporter.
I feel sorry for people in the East Bay that wanted to turn HSR into a commuter line. I wish there was some way to satisfy everyone.
If NIMBYs were limited to people actually impacted by noise/property acquisitions, HSR would be a cake walk. As I saw first hand locally, when people understand the broader gain they stop acting like NIMBYs. I expect to see that switch in the Peninsula.
egk Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Of course the economic benefit to Gilroy from HSR service will be entirely due to its use as a commuter line (or, as I like to call it ‘short distance high speed rail service’) – it may not be for the daily commute, but most people’s trips of all kinds are under 100 miles – Gilroy folk will be going to SF and SJ on HSR much much much more than LA, and that will be awesome for them.
In a rational world, however, we would build Altamont (serving vastly more people), and spend some of the the $3-10 billion that is saved (vs. Pacheco) to upgrade Caltrain to 100mph electric service all they way to Gilroy (hell – go all the way to Hollister), thus “satisfying everybody.”
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:28 am
There are really “vastly” more people along the Altamont corridor than in the San Jose Urban Area?
Joey Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:42 am
That’s ignoring the fact that Altamont DOES serve San José.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:23 am
That’s ignoring the very possible scenario, where in the struggle to reach San Francisco the spur to San Jose gets put off until a later phase. BART gets built and just like it’s good enough for Oakland to get access to HSR via BART it’s good enough for San Jose to get access to HSR via BART.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:52 am
If it’s good enough, why is it not good enough? You can’t have it both ways– either it’s good enough and the SJ spur isn’t needed, or it isn’t good enough and the SJ HSR spur will be built.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:01 am
So you’re suggesting that a $10 billion subway to a “city” with near-zero transit ridership isn’t enough?
But add an extra $10 billion to triple-deck a “downtown” station that nearly nobody uses, connecting to a waterfowl refuge in the Central Valley, and things will be more than “good enough”.
BTW have you ever even visited California? You certainly have some bizarre ideas.
Moreover you’re suggesting that the $10 billion BART line, 100% conceived by and designed by and promoted by and palm-greased by PBQD, the same company that greased the palms for Los Banos, is going to be so inadequate and so slow and so inconvenient and so badly connected that it can’t provide connecting service to San José (Capital of Silicon Valley!) even though it would have at most two stops before reaching the city?
Christ! So the logic is … PBQD are so limitlessly incompetent at building a rail line to San José that it won’t be fit for purpose and will be too slow and won’t be used by anybody … therefore PBQD should get to build another rail line (completely with “iconic bridge” and “signature station”) …
Unbelievable.
BTW have you ever even visited Planet Earth? You certainly have some bizarre ideas.
egk Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:55 am
People served by Pacheco, not served by Altamont:
Gilroy/Morgan Hill – ca. 100,000 people
People served by Altamont, not served by Pacheco: Modesto/Stockton/Tracy/Livermore/Pleasanton/Fremont – ca. 1 million people
So, yes: “vastly more” served by Altamont
Served by BOTH Altamont and Pacheco:
San Francisco/Peninsula/San Jose – ca. 3 million people
Not served by either:
East Bay – ca. 2 million (but they get a decent BART connection via Altamont)
Winston Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:12 am
When you look at it in comparison to flying, Altamont really is better. As HSR is currently designed it is much easier to get to Oakland Airport than to any HSR station for just about anyone in the east bay. Worse, since the San Jose HSR station will basically be on top of the airport, it won’t be more convenient for anyone to get to than the airport is today. Contrast that with Altamont where 3/4 of a million people would be significantly closer to an HSR station than an airport, meaning that instead of competing with the 30 mins to get through the airport plus a 1 hour flight and 30 mins on the other end, HSR would be competing with a 20 min drive + 2 hours at the airport – that is, with Altamont, HSR would be as fast as flying for most people while with Pacheco this is only the case for folks in San Francisco, a few places on the peninsula and Gilroy. If you are really considering skipping Palmdale to reduce costs then you should also consider skipping San Jose.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:24 am
@egk:
Including Modesto and Stockton in areas served by Altamont is a false comparison, as those areas are to be served by Phase 2 (CV to Sacramento). They would just get served by CAHSR quicker if Altamont is part of Phase 1.
Of course, you’re also skipping mention of BART serving some of those Altamont-only places in the same timeframe.
I know, split the difference between Altamont and Pacheco and serve Lick/Mt Hamilton. That’ll show everyone.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Winston:
The station in San Jose that the CAHSR trains will stop at, under Altamont or Pacheco, is planned for the same site as the current San Jose Diridon station, surprisingly close to San Jose downtown. You may see mention of the Diridon Pan Galactic, which is a derisive commentary on how expensive the CAHSRA-specific modifications to the existing San Jose Diridon station are likely to be (apart from raised platforms and a better pedestrian area, most of the CAHSRA proposed additions aren’t required, but I digress).
Its not a HSR station at or near the San Jose Airport.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:53 am
So you’re suggesting that a $10 billion subway to a “city” with near-zero transit ridership isn’t enough?
I’m suggesting that to people in Sacramento, San Diego or even people in Victorville it looks damn good. What’s going to come to Fremont first? BART to San Jose or HSR via Altamont?
BART to San Jose is really really stupid. Rational people don’t build subways in suburbs and they don’t build 60 mile long ones on an indirect route. They don’t build 60 mile long ones on direct routes either. But there’s something in Hetch Hetchy water that makes the Bay Area think BART is the solution to all commuting woes. It’s going to get built. People who can’t drive are going to love it. People who can drive will drive. … for 10 billion dollars you could build a four track conventional railroad between Oakland and San Jose.
I’m suggesting that by the time you get a FEIS for Altamont BART to San Jose is up and running. That they then look around and decide since HSR and BART are going to have a lovely common station in Fremont, letting people in San Jose take BART to Fremont is good enough until the struggle to get HSR to San Francisco is complete. When that’s complete the people in Phase 2 look around and decide that BART to San Jose isn’t all that bad and they want HSR before San Jose gets it. Supported vehemently by the NIMBY’s in Santa Clara county, the we-are-broke crowd and the isn’t-Caltrain-good-the-way-it-is-and-anyway-we-have-BART people. That there’s HSR service to Reno before there’s HSR service to San Jose.
BART will be all for it. It will put a few fare paying passengers on the empty trains running running between Fremont and San Jose.
….but then this is the Bay Area and even though the HSR tracks in Fremont go right over the BART tracks in Fremont there won’t be a station where the tracks cross each other…..
Winston Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:55 am
@thatbruce
Diridon station is 3 miles to the airport, so for most people in Santa Clara county it is roughly the same driving distance. You are right that if you live in San Jose’s “downtown” then you are about 10 mins closer to Diridon station, but for anywhere else in the county it’s basically a wash. Compare this to Altamont with stations in Pleasanton and Fremont which are not close to airports.
You may wonder why I’m so focused on driving and not talking about transit a access, well, nobody in San Jose uses transit. In fact, both Pleasanton and Fremont have higher transit use than San Jose, which is another reason why it makes more sense to serve them instead of San Jose.
egk Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
@thatbruce: This little sub-thread is about the economic benefits that HSR brings to smaller cities by pushing them into the orbit of formerly distant major cities. An Altamont alignment pushes Stockton/Modesto (and the tri-valley cities) into the Bay Area orbit, with sub 45 minute commutes; a Pacheco alignment doesn’t, not even by Stage 2.
Reason number 27 that Altamont is a superior alignment: it puts a million more people within comfortable commuting distance of the Bay Area’s major job centers than does Pacheco.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:42 am
The Gilroy overlay. Not a bad idea.
Ken Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I personally welcome the Chinese method in getting things done.
Alex M. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
You won’t be able to see the ocean.
It would appear that a deal has already been cut for a reduced footprint hsr on the Peninsula:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/02/state/n150335D19.DTL
Sounds like the CHSRA has more important fish to fry than engaging in scorched earth conflict with the Peninsula towns. And SF has its own problems, trying to find the funding for its hopelessly dysfunctional Rose Pak Memorial Central Subway.
I dunno if this would have the effect of locking in Pacheco or not.
Arthur Dent Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:33 am
This sounds like nothing more than going ahead with their phased implementation. Check the Board’s packet material.
Tony D. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
Although Pacheco has been locked in for a few years now, this would lock it in even more. None of this news suggests otherwise. California HSR running on “beefed up” Caltrain from SJ to SF by 2020; what does that sound like to you?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 am
A fiction.
Just like “beefed up” Caltrain running by 1995. Or 2000. Or 2004. Or 2010. Or 2016.
High-speed rail could go over Grapevine after all
Fresno Bee
5/3/2011
http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/transportation/9425-high-speed-rail-could-go-over-grapevine-after-all
“The California High Speed Rail Authority will reintroduce a study to route the proposed bullet trains over the Interstate 5-Grapevine corridor from Bakersfield to Sylmar if the board approves the study at its May 5 meeting.”
morris brown Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Now its time to re-study going Altamont and down south along the I-5 corridor which would save many more billions.
All of this is great for PB who rings up more dollars in their pockets.
Tony D. Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
“Now its time to re-study going Altamont..” No it’s not. Again, whether Grapevine or Palmdale, LA is still served directly…think about it.
Winston Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 5:27 am
San Jose is more like Palmdale than L.A.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:11 am
San Jose is more like Palmdale than Burbank? Tah, have to file that tidbit of info away.
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
This article takes a much more positive tack than what we have seen so far. There must have been some discrete investigation undertaken at Tejon – the good news is that there is good news – obviously they liked what they found. Billions saved and minutes shaved – this is indeed a very positive development for the hsr.
Now if they can mostly use State real estate to access Bako maybe they can lay in that wye north of Tejon. “It’s for the future, Mr. Geddes.”
Does that location have a name we can use?
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:25 am
I hope the Grapevine route proves feasible and reasonably priced. I still don’t think it’s likely. They tried hard last time; the reports are dripping with “We really really wanted to go over the Grapevine but it’s just not reasonable”. (I suppose you didn’t read them.)
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Despite syntho-mouse’s obsession with the passes, the problematic part of the Palmdale route in the sequence of reports on the alignment is further south, once over the pass.
If they are narrowing the range of that further by limiting to those that can link up with the Metrolink corridor at the Palmdale TC, they do need to check the extent to which the project cost and risk reduction benefits at the pass itself get eaten up elsewhere in that alignment.
I have posted to YouTube a full audio/video of the presentation of Harkey’s AB-385
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLuW5ZGdME (20 minutes)
This bill would require a investment grade financial analysis of the project, something that obviously the Authority doesn’t want to produce just as they don’t want an honest ridership study either.
As an alert on Thursday, vanArk is due again to appear before Simitian’s committee with a response to the 2 track proposal along the peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Where’s the investment grade analysis of the alternate highways and airports that would have to be built if HSR isn’t built?
Redwood City mayor questions Peninsula HSR, suggests using HSR funds to electrify Caltrain
StevieB Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Mayor Ira would like HSR funds used to benefit Caltrain. He says the arguement that riders would not transfer between Caltrain to HSR in San Jose “is a bunch of baloney”. He does have quite a few books in his office which the cameraman is inclined to film. However he has a narrow view of the world centered around the short term costs and benefits of HSR construction to his city and not the interests of those in San Francisco, the bay area, or the state of California.
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
This is essentially the scheme which was scuttled by BART-Kopp-Willie Brown-MTC in the early nineties. I don’t recall exactly how electrification fit in to that plan but I can’t see how that tunnel could have accommodated diesel very well.
It was and is a pretty good plan. HSR to the TBT is nice but still redundant.
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Does Prop 1A forbid changing to Altamont?
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
It does not forbid it.
Phase I of the train project is the corridor between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim. If the authority finds that there would be no negative impact on the construction of Phase I of the project, bond funds may be used on any of the following corridors:
Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno
San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno
Oakland to San Jose
Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station
Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego
Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine
Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor
It states that you can use Altamont no issue. Just connect LAUS and SFTBT
Clem Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
It does mandate certain trip time constraints, with the San Jose to LA trip time carefully selected to work with Pacheco, but not Altamont (SJ-LA is 10 minutes longer via Altamont.) Then again, if 10 minutes are saved on the Grapevine…
Where’s the law that says highways and airports are required to be funded by private investors and only 1/3 funded by taxpayers?
We have a law that says exactly that for HSR – and that taxpayers will not (by law) be left on the hook for shortfall – capital OR operating. So, if BY LAW, CHSRA is required to guarantee that taxpayers are not going to pick up the shortfall if private investors don’t show up, then damn straight they better show an investment grade financial analysis. Because what will INVESTORS use to invest in CHSR? Not their thumbs, like CHSRA is hoping.
The taxpayers have a right to know that investors will find this investment worthy (ie: acceptable level of risk and return), and that no capital or operating shortfalls will occur. In short, Investment grade analysis. Funny that CHSRA touts thousands showing up to ‘invest’ but can’t provide the basic business case backup for those investors. Someone over there needs to get a clue. This lack of investment grade proof alone ought to be enough (and probably is) for the legislature to put any further CHSRA funding on permanent hold. I doubt harkey’s law is even required – AB3034 is probably enough already to enforce this. Simitian ought to try it. What does he have to lose.
thatbruce Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Surprisingly, I’ve seen many IPOs around where basic information, such as the business plan, was simply not present until the minimum deadline, or was continually being refined based on input from the larger and more seasoned investors behind closed doors. I don’t expect the CAHSRA to have an investment-grade business plan available to the public until they are much closer to signing contracts.
But as a quasi-government entity, the CAHSRA really needs to have their government-grade business plan ready nowish.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 5:27 pm
no capital or operating shortfalls will occur.
People have been trying to figure that out since at the formation of the various John companies. If you have that figured out you really shouldn’t be wasting your time commenting on blogs and should get in touch with people on Wall Street or the City.
The April 2 “Roadshow” column in the SJ Mercury confirms the story in the Daily Post the other day about Caltrain running slow through the site of the recent fatal train vs. car-illegally-stopped-on-the-crossing crash:
For a 148 year old “fixer upper” Caltrain seems to have developed a little “spring in its step”.
The annual February weekday ridership count showed 41,442 daily boardings: The most in Caltrain history, and an increase of 12.7% from a year ago. Interestingly, Caltrain is doing this with 86 trains per day, the same number as in 2005 when ridership was around 28,000.
Weekend ridership is doing even better—Up 21% from a year ago—The Weekend Bullets may explain the difference as they make the train trip competitive with the car trip time wise.
To me these statistics represent two powerful arguments for the fact that in California we do not love our cars—That in fact each of us figure out the best way to get from where we are to where we want to go, and then act accordingly. When gas prices spike, more cars stay parked, and we use more public transit. And when travel times by public transit become competitive, then even more cars stay at home.
We will think the same way with high speed rail—If we determine that the bullet train is the best way to get to where we want to go, we will use it. How many of us will use the train is a big part of the $43 billion question, but the way gas prices are going ridership numbers will be huge if the price of a ticket can be kept as low as possible.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
This is like Amtrak–ridership going up in spite of no new equipment, ancient alignments, and a nudge of course from our friends in the oil biz. As John says, we are not necessarily the car-crazy country we once were, or at least are on the way to becoming sane in this regard.
I have this weird brain; one thing tickles those brain cells, and something else comes up. In this case, we are talking about America’s “car culture,” and also about the comments by some (cough, cough) “conservative” types who think trains will result in American “cultural genocide.” There is a joker (whom I will not name) on the Infrastructurist who apparently really took this to heart lately.
“American culture was built on the car, not the train. It was built on bootstraps, not welfare.
“What you are suggesting by wasting more money developing a duplicate transportation system based on choo choo socialism is that we commit cultural hari kari in the face of multi culturalism and end everything it is to be White in America.
“You people want political correctness, environmental friendliness, you want everybody of every racial and religious group to have a voice at the expense of white people. White people are the ones who invented the car. We live by the car and our lifestyles have been better because of the car.
“Now you want to take cars away from us to appease angry minorities who can’t afford them and don’t understand the benefits of moving up in society away from welfare transportation towards independent automotive transportation?”
I’m not good enough to make this up.
What is so funny is that there is so much railroading in our culture. Standard time and time zones–that’s from the railroads. Structured industrialism that’s clock driven–from railroad timetable operation. Scheduled arrivals of everything from ships to UPS deliveries to the airlines–started on the railroads. Sears and Montgomery Ward and all the other mail-order (and now internet order) businesses? All originally made possible by the railroads. Common sayings–”blowing off steam,” “on the right track,” “going first class”–all obviously of railroad origin. There is a type of travel case called a Pullman. Classic movies with rail settings–Buster Keaton’s “The General,” John Wayne and Irene Dunn in “Without Reservations,” Barbara Stanwyck and Joel McCrey in “Union Pacific” (Cecil B. DeMille, director), and of course, much of Alfred Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest.” And what about all those train songs, ranging from “Casey Jones” and “Wabash Cannonball” to “Chattanooga Choo Choo” to “The Locomotion” to “I Thought About You” to “Big Iron Horses”. . .and there is much, much more. . .
Here’s a thought, a germ of an idea–why not say we are a force for restoring American culture? I’ve recounted before about how a conductor used her authority to put a drunken passenger off a train when he got overly fresh with a girl who was 14, and Jim SF replied about some of the things he heard other conductors and crew members do when confronted with obnoxious passengers. Indeed, the whole rail travel business had, and still has, this air of dignity and civilization about it.
It has been one of my observations that the younger crowd of today knows we have a culture in trouble; at least some seem to be hungry for good examples to follow. And some seem to think current music and other entertainment has hit a dead end. How else do you explain the recent interest in the college crowd in Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5maV2ziZcA
Gotta be something we can use around here. . .might be fun, too!
A more contemporary take on this classic by Jimmy van Heusen and Johnny Mercer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh3F_3oa3ts&NR=1
What could I do without nostalgia and steam and blue grass, as recalled by Norman Blake in “Green Light on the Southern?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rXUMqcwcg&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:05 pm
More culture (music) here:
“Chattanooga Choo Choo,” from the film “Sun Valley Serenade,” and featuring not only Glenn Miller, but Dorothy Dandridge and the Nicholas Brothers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aj0zhXlLA
Blue grass, best music in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fJH9j2XdwQ
Modern country–at least, it’s modern to me. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2uVhNJ_JE
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:33 pm
And a very young Milton Berle
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Indeed. . .
Are you another old movie fan?
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
If you want to get happy can’t beat Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:38 pm
No argument out me. . .
More brain cell tickling going on. . .I remember, when I was much younger in the late 1960s and early 1970s, seeking out old movies on TV. TV stations usually cut off about midnight then, with a film clip of a flag and “Star Spangled Banner.” No video tapes then, much less CD players, so you had to take what you could find when you could find it. I remember old monster movies on an independent station in Pittsburgh on Saturday nights, and watching Astaire and Rogers in “Top Hat” on a public station in the same time period. That last one didn’t come on until midnight, and I had to stay up to 2:00AM to see the whole thing (which was followed by “Star Spangled Banner.”)
I remember thinking that these old flicks were better than about anything then current in theaters or on the tube, and wondered why someone didn’t run this old stuff in prime time. I thought then, and can’t help but think now, that the executives of the time were embarrassed by what they were running, and didn’t want the audience to make a comparison . . .of course, since then, some other executives were not so embarrassed to run old stuff, and we had early American Movie Classics, and the banner has continued under Turner Classic Movies. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
I’ve mentioned how at least some younger people think we have a culture in trouble. Someone else has similar thoughts, as exhibited in these “unspoken” Hip Hop Ten Commandments–believe it or not, this was linked through Railway Preservation News! The point of interest the poster brought up was Commandment VIII, “Thou cannot have a sense of history.”
http://blackland.whgbetc.com/hiphopcommandments.html
BruceMcF Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Bluegrass Train: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwOgDPolEqk
900 Miles (Bethany & Rufus): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuXc-RLtblY
500 Miles (The Hooters): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfK5pxaRoQA
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Hello, Bruce, and here’s a blue grass classic that happens to fit a recent “Sunday Train” post;
enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36HCn4Ivws\
The “song” in steel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8xMA7JjjA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8xMA7JjjA&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Bah, duplicate post, and no edit function!!
Other clips in “steel:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mk-NhjPesc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlGVgWZGsxA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-gJAKMrGow&feature=related
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Just one more, a C&O dual-service engine in winter operations, 1985:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-13ej5T265g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9uOswsUgfU
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
I wonder why it is that they’ve increased. Metrolink, by contrast, is pretty much flat-lined for 2010 vs 2011, only about 1.3% growth. The new express trains for San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines might raise it later this month however.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
How’s employment?
Caltrain services a tech corridor that has been adding jobs.
Spokker Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Metrolink serves a lot of government workers who are headed downtown. The Metropolitan Water District Headquarters is right next to Union Station. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Metrolink’s ridership base works at Metro, haha. Kidding.
Anyway, furloughs and layoffs has likely pushed ridership figures way down. Metrolink doesn’t really have a ridership base that works in the tech industry. Law firms are moving back downtown though, so maybe they’ll take the train.
joe Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Caltrain ridership pulls form this “… the technology-centric region of Silicon Valley and San Jose is experiencing robust growth, according to a report from the University of the Pacific’s Business Forecasting Center.”
Ironically the massive Google campus near MTV Caltrain doesn’t help ridership much – employees ride custom buses with wi-fi (no cell phone use) which take them to from home & work (SF – HalfMoon Bay and etc) – MS uses Caltrain as do other employers but google’s gotten very large. Their employees have access to free on-site services and free, varied, high quality food.
If you want to grab a quick easy bite, head near google’s campus. They stay on campus.
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:28 am
LA region has suffered a really major economic collapse in outlying areas, to the point where *population* is actually dropping. I’d expect increases in ridership on Metro, not on Metrolink, in those circumstances. Caltrain runs through regions which aren’t that badly hit.
Spokker Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Multiple things are going on. Unemployment pushes ridership figures down.
Gas prices push ridership up. It may be that in the Bay Area, the gas price effect is larger than the unemployment effect. Ridership would probably be higher if the economy were better.
Less trains push ridership down, but because they were the least productive trains, the two other effects probably overpower it.
synonymouse Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
The public perception of train travel is improving – you can credit Amtrak for some of that, despite all of its problems. I even think we will see long haul making a comeback, even sleepers. Getting there becomes an important part of the vacation.
Problem is single track is inadequate and all tracks are expensive. I don’t know if the country is ready politically for a nationalized railway or can afford it, so maybe M & A is in order with a couple of coast to coast mega-rr’s competing. It may be the only way to secure enough expansion capital.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:35 pm
I even think we will see long haul making a comeback, even sleepers.
Only if airplanes are banned.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 9:40 pm
It could work in certain markets IF it were true overnight..ie 5pm and later 9am arrival..It takes 20 hours to get from Chi-NYP when until 1967 you could do it in 16hours –5pm-930am..even Amtrak was close in it first years, guess all the extra tracks passenger trains used were removed
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:31 am
I know, unfortunately, the detailed causes of delay on the Chi-NYP route (the one I take most often). The biggest trouble is within urban Chicago, followed closely by interlining with Metro-North, followed by CSX being an ass. Scheduled “catch up” time makes a lot of that worse.
The urban Chicago problems are the only ones which are likely to be seriously addressed in the near or medium term. Luckily they *are* the most important.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:32 am
You railies and your acronyms. Can you call that Chi-NYC? Or Chi-NY-Penn?
Can New York State pursue Rapid Rail to Albany without fixing the Metro-North interlocking?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Metro North is doing something, who knows what, to the signals on the Hudson line. What incentive do they have to maintain the track for speeds above 90?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:20 am
…oh and rumor on the foamer boards is that the second track between Albany and Schenectady will cut a half hour of padding out of the schedules west and north of Albany.
wu ming Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:08 am
$200 a barrel, and airlines will ban themselves.
Gilroy and CAHSRA seem in sync on HSR station location options.
CAHSRA decision due summer of 2012
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/printer/article.asp?c=275326
- City of Gilroy Visioning Project (English and Spanish): 6:30 p.m. Monday, May 9 at the Gilroy Senior Center
As the City of Gilroy kicks off a project to weigh the pros and cons of locations for a high-speed rail station, state rail officials are already making suggestions.
A Downtown Gilroy station should be built at-grade with trenched, partially covered tracks, while an east-of-town station would need to be constructed in an aerial fashion with tracks averaging 35 to 40 feet above the ground, according to a California High-Speed Rail Authority staff recommendation expected to be announced at Thursday’s board of directors meeting in Sacramento.
“It’s consistent with what I expected,” said Gilroy City Councilman Perry Woodward. “It needs to avoid the farmland, it needs to come through downtown, but it needs to come through downtown in a way that preserves our downtown and respects our downtown.”
We-Don’t-Get-No-Respect Department; Gov. Christie of New Jersey cancels ARC tunnel project, boosts capitalism, consumerism by supporting mall:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/05/03/the-morning-dig-the-possible-revival-of-xanadu-in-new-jersey/#comments
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Which was depending on a significant fraction of it’s customers to arrive by train from Manhattan. Which won’t be happening.
For whatever its worth, Dave Pine appears to have won the race for SM County Board of Supervisors.
Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel, a leading HSR critic, came in fourth among the slate of four major (and two minor) candidates. Anti-HSR candidate Michael Stogner came in fifth. It is possible that the results of this (vote by mail) election may have had some bearing on people’s sentiment towards HSR… The leading anti-HSR candidates did not fare too well…
From San Mateo Daily Journal:
Pine, by a sliver: High school trustee wins seat on Board of Supervisors
May 04, 2011, 04:12 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff
Dave Pine, a high school district trustee with Silicon Valley experience who poured more than a half-million dollars of his own money into his campaign, will finish out the term for the District One supervisor seat.
Pine received 27.23 percent — or 21,504 — of the votes to beat out next highest vote-getter Richard Holober, a consumer advocate and president of the San Mateo County Community College District, who brought in 26.04 percent — or 20,565 votes. In third was Gina Papan, Millbrae councilwoman and deputy state attorney general, who Pine once said had “hundreds of thousands of dollars in name recognition” due to her late father, former assemblyman Lou Papan. Papan received 25.76 percent — or 20,356 votes.
Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel came in fourth with 10.1 percent — or 7,979 votes, followed by Michael Stogner with 7.47 percent — or 5,896 votes — and Demetrios Nikas with 3.4 percent — or 2,683 votes.
Pine, 50, a Burlingame resident and married with two elementary school age boys, has sat on the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees since 2007 and formerly served as president. During the campaign, he emphasized business acuity honed at Handspring Inc. and Excite@Home and from navigating the district’s finances. His endorsements included U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, a former San Mateo County supervisor himself.
Pine’s victory came early, with the first results released by the Elections Office based on ballots mailed in and processed prior to the May 3 deadline. At that point, Pine had 27.2 percent of the vote but less than 1,000 separated himself and Holober. At 9 p.m., with the addition of more ballots, Pine’s lead held.
The supervisorial all-mail election was a first for San Mateo County and only allowed after last November’s election in which voters approved the method to fill mid-term vacancies by mail ballot rather than appointment.
Unlike traditional supervisor races, there is no run-off and the winner needed only the most votes. With turnout relatively low — only 81,806 of 341,303 registered voters cast ballots — every vote especially counted in this special election.
The District One seat opened at the beginning of the year following former supervisor Mark Church’s election last June to chief elections officer and assessor-county clerk-recorder.
District One includes western San Mateo, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco east of El Camino Real and the unincorporated areas of Burlingame Hills, Highlands/Baywood Park and San Francisco International Airport.
Although supervisors must reside in the district they represent, they are chosen by voters countywide. The process currently sparked a lawsuit and is opposed by Pine, who says the method is prohibitive to candidates and makes campaigns spendy.
Pine himself appeared to spare little expense to secure his new position. Pine financed three-fourths of his campaign with investments and loans from his own pocket. However, he was not the only one to self-finance. Holober lent himself more than $180,000, Papan loaned herself $25,000 and Nagel cut herself a $75,0000 check.
Nagel said she is happy with her “very high integrity, clean campaign” in which more than 300 volunteers pitched in.
“No apologies here,” she said. “We ran a grassroots campaign and it’s hard to compete financially when you don’t have the same pockets as others.”
Nagel said it is too early to think about running again.
Papan’s campaign manager Alex Tourk also called running against a half-million dollar campaign “an uphill climb” and said the negativity near the end was “unfortunate.”
However, with 1,158 votes separating Pine and Papan, Tourk said the results were too close to call until any final counting necessary Wednesday.
“You gotta hold out hope,” he said.
Holober also called the race between he and Pine “very close” and is waiting until any outstanding ballots delivered on Tuesday — possibly thousands, he believes — are counted today.
“That said, we ran a very strong race,” Holober said.
The election results must be certified by the Elections Office by the end of May, after which the winner will be sworn into office.
Among his first major duties will be the mid-June hearings on the recommended budget — a topic all candidates prioritized during the race. Pine ran on a platform that included cuts before taxes to balance the county’s budget, drawing new economic opportunities to San Mateo County and promoting green technology.
Pine previously ran for state Assembly as has Papan and Holober. Stogner ran unsuccessfully last year for the District Three seat currently held by Don Horsley and moved to a Burlingame hotel to quality for this race.
Despite his second-to-last showing, Stogner said he is “thrilled with the results” and “thrilled the public had the chance to fill the position.”
As a candidate who spent little on campaigning and was not deemed a “legitimate” candidate by many, Stogner said the numbers show otherwise.
“Hey, I’m the new guy on the block and I’m in Nagel territory,” he said.
He also believes “Pine represents a good choice for San Mateo County.”
Nikas and Pine did not return a call for comment.