LA Times Publishes CA4HSR Response to Their Editorial
One reason I gave only a brief response to yesterday’s LA Times editorial attacking the HSR project was that we at Californians For High Speed Rail were preparing an op-ed in response. We submitted it to the Times this morning, and they said they don’t run op-ed responses to their editorials in their print edition. But they do run them on their website, in their “Blowback” section.
So that’s where you can find Ryan Stern’s excellent response, which the LA Times titled Mend, don’t end, California’s bullet-train program. Go take a look. We think it’s a pretty good response.
As you might be able to tell, between this and last week’s op-ed that Daniel Krause published in the Bakersfield Californian, CA4HSR is getting more agressive about using the opinion pages to drive public support for the project, and respond to the flawed criticism that is out there. More will come.
Leave us aloooonneeee.
From the LAT comments:
“Lets just leave the 70 miles caltrain tracks alone and just have the High speed rail end at San Jose instead of bringing them to San Fransisco, another word have the High speed train run from L.A. to San Jose and get people to make connection with Caltrain and See how it goes and Lets Move on, would you people Wake up, Stand up, And Get some Balls!!
Posted by: Richard Peterson | May 17, 2011 at 08:07 PM”
YesonHSR Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
One of the main Nimbys down there as usual crying FUD..
VBobier Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Nimby = Loser at the polls, Nuff said.
thatbruce Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I liked the ‘Mr. Stern wants to keep his job and benefits, period’ . CA4HSR pays benefits? Wow ;)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:02 am
How about this for one of the responses?
Tom,
You’re right! Amtrak and MetroLink don’t make money. But that’s not high speed rail.
Let’s try some video, shall we:
#1) Makes money (the French TGV on a demo run):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqxxTfGCIz0&feature=related
#2) Doesn’t make money (MetroLink/AKA a typical dorky, stone age American train):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94GaA71s_h0&feature=related
#1 competes with airplanes. #2 is a commuter train. The California High Speed rail project is about building #1, not more of #2. Any questions?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
In the other first-world city the size of Greater LA – Osaka – commuter rail does make money.
I love the term “Central Valley boondoggle” Guess what LGV Sud-Est, short of Lyon, way short of Paris. You need to start it in the countryside, and it is the best for testing speed.
Joey Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
To be fair, TGVs could run onto legacy lines with zero compatibility problems. That’s not the case here.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I’m sure there were all sorts of compatibility problems. They solved them.
Joey Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:29 am
They had two key advantages: (1) no FRA and (2) Lines already double-tracked an electrified.
Andy M. Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:38 am
1) The French love burocracy and the country is virtually run by burocrats.
2) True, but for historical reasons the old Paris – Lyon – Med corridor was (and still is) electrified to a different voltage than that selected for the TGV. The TGV sets are thus dual voltage (some are triple or even quadruple voltage to work into neighbouring countries). All this adds to technical complexity and creates dead weight due to additional hardware that needs to be carted around but is only actually used for a small portion of the journey. With respect to that, being able to start with a clean slate as is happening in Claifornia is actually an advantage IMHO.
Joey Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:45 am
1) Does this amount to the compatibility nightmare that the FRA creates?
2) Electrification at a less-than-optimal voltage is a lot better than no electrification at all.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:28 am
1) What do you think?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:36 am
I think the French spent a lot of money on modern signal systems that made it safe to use lightweight trains. something the FRA is expecting to happen any decade.
Joey Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Source? I was under the impression that this problem was uniquely American. Most European trains, even older ones, are a lot lighter than their American counterparts. They also don’t run overloaded freight cars like we do.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
We are moving that way to lighter vehicles in light that heavy trains have not been safe. Metrolink was able to accquire CEM vehicles, although I still believe in “the best accident, is the one that never happens” If we put in the prevention systems, then this should not happen.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:39 am
In Korea, the legacy lines had to be electrified for KTX service. That is not why construction was expensive.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:40 am
…how much do KTX stations cost…..
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:25 am
“I’m sure there were all sorts of compatibility problems”
Yes, there were. The 65 miles south of Paris were the most saturated double track in Europe. It was shared by all sorts of trains, including freight and local DMUs stopping at every station. The signalling system was different and so was voltage (1500 V DC). Adding TGVs, even at moderate speeds, to that existing traffic was no piece of cake.
The difference is that the problems were technical, and, therefore, technically solvable.
When incompatibility is created by conflicting regulations or ill will, no technical solution can exist.
NIMBY Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:44 am
From what has been explained in the past, the Central Valley section does not plan to be electrified until the entire section has been completed. How can you test track without electrification?
A 1/2 page full color ad for HSR ran on the back page of the main section of the Fresno Bee today.
Thoughts?
Jerry Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
How do we see the 1/2 page ad?
datacruncher Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:39 am
Looks like the ad can be seen here:
http://findnsave.fresnobee.com/Local-Ads/a1501005/California-High-Speed-Rail-Authority?adid=11043390
It looks like the ad was paid for by AFL-CIO’s construction trade unions in Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:54 am
Speaking of the Fresno Bee…
Good, objective article on HSR in Fresno.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:38 am
Paid for by whom?
tony d. Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Who cares!
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Looks like by the Authority. However, as tony d. says, who cares! Does the Authority not get an opportunity to put a good light on its project?
Reality Check Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Here are some HSRA-sponsored Fresno Bee ads for upcoming meetings.
Elizabeth Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Those are not ads – those are informational. The other one – ad.
Reality Check Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
While I get your drift, they’re still paid ads. Ads are frequently just informational … like promoting a public hearing or event:
ad·ver·tise·ment /ˈadvərˌtīzmənt/
Noun: A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy
mrcawfee Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
like we are informing you about how cool you will be if you drink Coors light
datacruncher Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
As I posted above, the ad (not the meeting info) was apparently paid for by construction unions. No CAHSRA money was apparently spent.
I take it that CA4HSR supports Palmdale. From Ryan’s article:
Trains should go where the people are. That’s why the choice of a Palmdale route was a sound decision. The Antelope Valley’s population is projected to be about 1 million by 2020, when the trains would begin service. A station at Palmdale also allows for an easy connection to the proposed bullet train to Las Vegas.
Is this your board’s formal position, and do you intend to stick with it if the Authority decides to do the Grapevine?
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Our position is we currently support Palmdale. We do plan to discuss as a board the merits of reconsidering the grapevine shortly.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Remind me again…how many people live in Gilroy?
Jack Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Enough when you factor in direct service to SJ.
Joey Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:31 am
As opposed to direct service to SJ?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
As opposed to a commuter overlay to SJ? Well, yeah, as opposed to that. Direct service SF / SJ / Valley / LA with a commuter overlay to Altamont or SF / Fremont / Valley / LA with a commuter overlay to SJ.
Obviously one’s better for people living along Altamont, the other’s better for people living in Gilroy or the northern end of the Central Coast, given the populations involved, its a +/-5% decision either way.
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Is there some unseen force of physics that repels high-speed trains from using what you call a “commuter overlay” between Fremont and San Jose? There seem to be an awful lot of convoluted arguments for why there can’t possibly be direct service to SJ via Altamont.
joe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The BART force?
William Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Yep. Like I said before, the value of serving San Jose directly with higher frequency depends on where one lives. If one lives in Alameda or Contra Costa counties, of course he or she would find Pacheco mainline less useful. The vise-versa is also true.
Matthew Melzer Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Gilroy has substantial population in its catchment area, with other nearby suburbs plus Monterey, San Benito, and southern Santa Cruz Counties. I sure wish we had HSR when I lived in Monterey, and I know Robert feels the same way.
Caelestor Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Hypothetically, what would happen if trains on the SJ Branch of Altamont continued to Gilroy?
BruceMcF Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
They’d get pulled over by the FRA railway patrol for running on the FRA heavy rail network without a waiver.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
People would drive to Fresno when they wanted to get to LA because that would be faster.
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
The train would take 75 minutes from Gilroy to Fresno via Altamont. Driving would take about 2 hours (60% longer), unless by ‘faster’ you meant an automobile driven at an average speed of 90 mph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
And the 75 minute trip via Altamont would have to have an average speed of 175 give or take. That would make for a very interesting ride through the 60MPH curves in San Jose.
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Are you calling into question the CHSRA’s run time simulations?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
The only ones I know about are the ones that come up when you click on the pretty map on their website. Gilroy to Fresno using that comes out to an average speed of 175 give or take. Thats non stop. We all know the people in Gilroy are just dying to shop at the Livermore Walgreens so the train via Altamont would have to make a stop or two.
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Are you quibbling over a stop or two in order to obfuscate your obvious error in suggesting that driving would be faster?
joe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
HSR to Gilroy via Altamont. We’d have awesome service to Livermore and Sacramento.
That route would cut across San Jose – it would be expensive until reaching the 101 autobon stretch in San Jose – Coyote Valley.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Why is it okay for other people (for example, all East Bay residents) to use feeder transit to get to HSR Stations, but for those in Monterey County, Santa Cruz and Gilroy, they must have access? Are there in place to extend some Capitols trains down to Monterey (genuine question–I don’t know the latest on it)? If it’s sufficient for passengers in Oakland–the largest city in the state NOT planned to be served by HSR–to take connecting transit, why isn’t it sufficient for those in Gilroy? Sure, it’s a shorter trip for those in Oakland, but there are also more people living there.
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
For most Santa Cruz county residents Pacheco vs. Altamont is a wash since it is quicker to drive from Santa Cruz to San Jose via 17 than it is to drive down highway 1 then take the slow and winding 152. Pacheco really is only better for folks south of Aptos.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
True, assuming the Altamont alignment was ever actually connected to San Jose.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Saying the Altamont alignment will never be connected to San Jose is an assumption, same as saying the Pacheco alignment will never be connected to San Francisco.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Isn’t that what I wrote? “assuming” implies an assumption.
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Very nicely put.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Hell, isn’t it an assumption at this point that ANYTHING for HSR will be built at all, even in the CV?
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Yes, of course. The word “assumption” was actually not the point I was trying to make. My point was that, just as some people feel that Altamont will skip out on San Jose service, still others feel (and are actively campaigning!) that Pacheco service will forget San Francisco altogether. Each routing has a threat of incomplete service.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
There is also a big assumption being made with Pacheco: that just because the “mainline” passes through Diridon station implies trains automatically stop there.
The operator is going to want to match stopping pattern to the demand. And even the CHSRA concedes there is little demand for Diridon station — just slightly more than Gilroy, and slightly less than Fresno(!!).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
why should HSR go to San Jose? There will be a perfectly lovely ride on BART to the station in Fremont, same station the people in Oakland will be using.
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
It’s about the same cost to build the Altamont alignment including San Jose as building the Pacheco alignment, so there is no reason why San Jose wouldn’t be served.
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
The East Bay got the shaft when San Jose unilaterally imposed the Pacheco route on the CHSRA. You have to wonder where was Jerry Brown was all this happened.
Altamont is a damn good route. How about the unthinkable of dual-gauging BART? Or some other creative engineering to get hsr to Dumbarton from Livermore?
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Uhhh, Jerry Brown was the Attorney General at the time the Authority chose Pacheco?
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
But Mayor of Oakland when the scheme was gestating.
VBobier Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Actually He was Governor of California back when HSR was first started and that was long before He was ever Mayor.
William Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
No, people in Easy Bay fought “against” the HSR line because they complained most rail lines already went through their backyards. San Jose fought “for” a stop on the mainline.
Besides, Oakland already have convenient way to get to SF HSR station through BART, or drive through San Mateo bridge to SFO HSR station, so why would Jerry Brown complain during his mayor-ship?
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Residents in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties WOULD be taking connecting transit to Gilroy. You stated for yourself why it’s “ok” for others to take connecting transit – it’s a lot further for Santa Cruz and Monterey County residents to have to travel all the way to San Jose under an Altamont alignment than it would be for Oakland residents to SF under any alignment alternative.
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
There is NO transit service between Santa Cruz county and Gilroy because essentially nobody in Santa Cruz county goes there. This will still be the case with HSR (even in the most optimistic HSR ridership scenarios transit ridership will dwarf HSR ridership). Pacheco really only serves Monterrey county better than Altamont and giving up the 2 million or so people who would be served better by Altamont is a big price to pay.
joe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Please, Santa Cruz Co. residents drive to Gilroy often.
For HSR they WILL use the Gilroy station because they head this way when they drive to LA and I bet dollars to donuts the parking will be less expensive and there will be less congestion.
When driving to LA from SC one takes HW 129 which by pases Gilroy proper and heads to 156/152 to 5. Another Sana Cruz Co. route is 129 to HW 101S to 46 to 5.
When HSR is built, the matter of adding a Santa Cruz bus is trivial. Monterey and San Benito counties have run them now.
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Watsonville residents do, but for the other 80% of the county’s population 17 is more convenient. It is doubtful that HSR will attract enough ridership to justify adding bus service between Watsonville and Gilroy, so you really have to piggy-back on the routes that have enough commute traffic to justify their existence – in this case the highway 1 and highway 17 express buses. Also, none of the routes you suggest are as fast for driving to the HSR station as taking 17 to San Jose. This is even true when traffic is congested because the congestion on highway 1 is often worse than that on 17.
The only real benefit of Pacheco is providing better service to folks in Monterrey county and giving more frequent service to San Jose. Altamont provides a usable option for folks along the 680 corridor and is much better for people in the inner east bay. There is really no question which is the better route.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
The shortest travel time on google maps from Santa Cruz to Gilroy is 54 minutes.
The shortest travel time on google maps from Santa Cruz to San Jose is 40 minutes.
The time given by the Authority to get from San Jose to Gilroy is 15 minutes.
The difference is 1 minute. That’s a stoplight. It’s negligible. Not having a Gilroy station does not affect a person in Santa Cruz.
thatbruce Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Last time I did SC to LA, CA-1 to CA-183 to CA-101 at Salinas worked quite well for me. If you’re going to propose extending HSR service via Altamont past San Jose with attendant waivers, you may as well continue it on to Watsonville or even Salinas. In an Altamont world, its just as likely as Gilroy ;)
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Well if we’re gonna talk driving SC-LA then my favorite route was San Juan Rd. to 156 which is slightly faster than 129. However 101 is a nice scenic route to LA and is faster if your goal is Ventura County rather than actual L.A.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
As was mentioned above, it’s actually faster for Santa Cruz residents to get to San Jose (either driving or via transit) than it is for them to get to Gilroy. So a Gilroy Station does nothing for them.
Compare the population of Monterey County + Gilroy vs. the Tri-Valley + Fremont. Each of these represent populations that will benefit from either alignment. At the very most favorable to Pacheco, it breaks even.
I brought Oakland and connecting transit into the conversation because it seems to be okay for the 400,000+ people living in Oakland (not to mention Berkeley, Richmond, Concord, Pleasant Hill, etc.) to take transit to an HSR Station, but not for those living in Gilroy/Monterey County. The difference is different, yes, but there seems to be a weird double standard, that the residents of Gilroy should absolutely never have to take the 68 and Monterey the 55 or 79 to get to HSR, but residents of the East Bay? They can just take BART!
William Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Huh? I don’t get your double standard. Of course Monterey & San Benito counties residents can take transit to a HSR station, if such a line is provided. If the Salinas Caltrain or Capitol Corridor extension is in place by 2020, then people in Monterey & San Benito counties will have transit options to go to a HSR station in Gilroy.
People in Alameta county can take transit to a HSR station because BART already serves it well. They can also drive to the HSR station if they choose to.
Caltrain rethinks relationship with high-speed rail
Agency considers other ways to electrify trains, close structural budget deficit
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Another tacit selling point of the shotgun marriage of Caltrain and the CHSRA was fending off imminent predation by BART. Without the CHSRA BART is sure to make its move but Caltrain will simply have to make its best case and a valid one that its standard gauge ocs technology is overwhelmingly superior to BART’s incredibly ill-conceived, hampering and limiting 3rd rail broad gauge.
Caltrain should also just come on out and mark its territorial claim on Pacheco should the CHSRA bow out and make the smart move back to Altamont. You can rest assured that the BART Empire has lust in its heart for Pacheco as with every other ROW of value in the Bay Area.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
So the HSR station for San Francisco should be in Stockton. The HSR station for San Jose and Oakland too?
Winston Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
With all this farting around on the peninsula, a tiny part of me wonders if its time to reconsider a far northern route via Antioch and under the SF bay. Yes, the bay crossing would be expensive, but it would feature an even shorter SF-Sac time, serve Alameda and Contra Costa counties, which have a bigger population than San Jose and are essentially unserved. It would also avoid any difficult mountain passes and would face much less NIMBY opposition.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Put yer lightsabre away:
CalTrain really really needs HSR not the other way around. BART uses electrical trains already, so if they seize the Peninsula it would give CHSRA an easier path to get electrification. Plus if BART essentially pays some sort of viaduct design too then construction costs could be minimal for HSR. BART would ride above and HSR below with the third rail and catenary having the same power source….
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
1000 vdc vs. 25kv ac
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Wikipedia revealed this nugget:
So wouldn’t this allow the HSR train (with modifications) to switch from AC to DC when using the alignment it putatively would share with a Peninsular BART?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Only if you want HSR to be limited to 70, 80 MPH. Maybe 90. And cart around third rail shoes everywhere. That have to be maintained and replaced.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Funny you should say this. The Authority website pegs the 48 mile trip from San Francisco to San Jose at 30 minutes which comes out to about 95 mph on average…..
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:17 am
In Britain, the London – Bournemouth expresses running on 600V / 750V DC from third rail were already hitting 100mph in the 1970s. The extension to Weymouth was not electrified until much later and the Weymouth trains were diesel hauled on the final leg of their journey. This shows you really can combine or phase anything.
In later years, after the completion of the Channel Tunnel but before the HSR was built to London, Eurostar trains ran on third rail juice through London’s Southern commuter network, also doing 100mph in places.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
All modern trains first convert monophased 25kv to DC and then to variable 3-phase AC which is fed to the motors. Pulse-modulated IGBT is nothing exceptional. The New-York subway has used Alstom IGBT for years. It allows torque to remain constant at any speed.
The problem with low tension, whether AC or DC, is that it means high current and there is a limit to what a pantograph can possibly handle. You can use the full power of a 4800kw motor at 25kv. With 192 amps the pantograph is far from overheating. At 750v the current would be 6400 amps and the pantograph’s contact surface would vaporise.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
So….
BART could equip its track with IGBT for the segment it shares with CHSRA (Milbrae to San Jose) and you could use 25kv to feed both the third rail and HSR…right?
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:18 am
You can’t have 25kv at ground level. Third rail has to be low tension (600 to 750 volts).
Eurostar used British suburban third rail as a temporary solution before HS1 was built.
Bart’s broad gauge is no obstacle, either. In northern Spain French trains share tracks with broad-gauge Spanish trains, thanks to an additional inner rail.
In that case, BART’s third rail would become fourth rail.
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Yes, I was aware of that and wasn’t suggesting 25kV on the third rail.
Mixed gauge track does work but is generally used only as a temporary solution during a changeover period or for short setcions where it is not economically feasibly to separate two routes. Mixed gauge track is costly on maintenance as practically all parts (especially switches, crossings etc) need to be custom made rather than bought off the shelf as they can with standard guage stuff.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I was suggesting that BART essentially build over the CalTrain tracks at elevation, and then have HSR run underneath it. That way you could have the power supply from the BART system also feed (after adjustments) the catenary for HSR.
thatbruce Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Mixed gauge track is costly on maintenance as practically all parts (especially switches, crossings etc) need to be custom made rather than bought off the shelf as they can with standard guage stuff.
One of the problems with BART as it stands today is that very problem.
Mixing DC and AC on the same track, or more importantly, on the same return path has its own set of problems as well, but those are technical in nature, vs political (ie, the concept of BART integrating with anything else).
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:20 am
No, DC electrified railways typically don’t have a single pantograph when the train is heavy but may have several pantographs distributed along the length of the train.
Of course when you’re thinking of really heavy currents, it’s third rail and not OHL you should be looking at.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:50 am
Multiple pantographs are avoided because of the waves they create on the catenary. On long trains two pantos are generally possible, one at the front and one at the back.
On the other hand, there is no limit to multiplying contact shoes on third rail.
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:56 am
These waves only really occur above certain speeds and there is also a question of distance between the pantographs. For example when a pair of ICE3s is coupled in mu, both units draw their own power, and that at any speed.
If waves really do get to be a serious problem, there is always rigid OHL.
tony d. Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Caltrain really, really needs HSR, not the other way around…PURE GOSPEL!
Bleeding red ink and only 40k riders per day…let me count the ways…
GoGregorio Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
You’re right, fuck Caltrain! HSR doesn’t need you!
Now tell me, how, again, is High Speed Rail going to get up the Peninsula? What ROW will be used?
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
700 acres of pristine corridor real estate, 59% grade separated by previous owner, location, location, location!
Adina Levin Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“bleeding red ink”. Caltrain gets 48% of its revenue from riders, which is second to BART in the region and up with New Jersey Transit and LIRR. It has some of the lowest admin costs in the region. The reason Caltrain has financial problems isn’t because it’s metrics are bad, it’s because it’s funding is screwy. Other transit services are paid for by taxes – VTA and SamTrans have a sales tax, BART has sales and property taxes. Caltrain depends on voluntary contributions from 3 transit agencies, and if any one of them has a problem in a given year, they reduce their funding and there’s a scramble to backfill. So it needs stable operating funding.
Peter Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Well, that’s pretty stupid. HSR will still need to get from San Jose to San Francisco, and the only reasonable route is along the Caltrain corridor. Caltrain really needs to continue working with HSR on this, otherwise there will be no chance of actually building a well-designed system.
synonymouse Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Caltrain is more than adequate for the commute SF to SF. HSR connection to Caltrain(or, ugh, BART)at SFO.
thatbruce Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
And CAHSR gets to SFO via… ?
Reality Check Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
… via Redwood Junction near the Hwy 84/Woodside Road overpass in Redwood City!
thatbruce Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Which puts HSR onto the Caltrain corridor between RWC and SFO. If Caltrain and CAHSRA aren’t making nice with each other, this might be difficult.
joe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Caltrain is an essential token service for traffic mitigation. It’s a way to justify Peninsula development. See some current examples in NIMBY cities. I’m not convinced they care about the actual service but want minimal ROW impacts on their cities, and a way to rationalize growth.
Menlo Park’s downtown plan could cause traffic headaches
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17997012?source=rss
Traffic a central concern as Facebook eyes moves to Menlo Park
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18085638
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18047114
The commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the Palo Alto City Council certify the $3.5 billion [Stanford University's hospital expansion] project’s environmental impact report, and adopt a statement saying that the benefits of the project outweigh problems such as traffic and air pollution
Adina Levin Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“I’m not convinced they care about the actual service but want minimal ROW impacts on their cities, and a way to rationalize growth.”
Who’s “they”? When Caltrain considered cutting nearly half its service because of problems with its funding structure this winter, people on the Peninsula were up in arms – thousands of people wrote the Caltrain board and the county boards, hundreds of people showed up to hearings – city council members and employers and downtown businesses all showed up and said why they depend on Caltrain.
tony d. Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
To bad the voter of this state, and vast majority in San Mateo Co., said they wanted
High-Speed Rail from SJ to SF. Caltrain or small Peninsula cities can’t dictate for the
rest of us what will happen on the ROW from SJ to SF. Sorry.
YESonHSR Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
And the City and County of SanFrancsico owns caltrains ROW along with the other 2 counties ..they can stop all there dicatates /plans without SFs ok..and we voted 72@ for HSR to arrive in SanFrancisco..
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Fiscal reality sure can, and will, dictate for the rest of us.
Plugging High-Speed Rail Into Germany’s Power Grid
Using rail lines for the energy grid may help a suddenly nuclear-shy Germany transition to wider use of renewable sources.
Just so you know others are watching (even if their opinions stink):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/californias-high-speed-train-project-is-going-off-the-rails/2011/05/18/AFdaUl6G_story.html
Sometimes, it seems editorial boards and newsrooms live in different worlds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/some-midwest-travel-times-to-drop-with-400m-investment-in-high-speed-passenger-rail-projects/2011/05/09/AF8BoBZG_story.html?tid=obinsite
Commentary on a Washington Metro expansion (hope embedded links work):
Below ground or above?
MAY 9
A possible compromise in the debate over the Dulles Metro station.
Galuszka: The rail-to-Dulles blame game
Editorial: $2.06 million per second
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Bah, didn’t work; here they are directly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-dulles-metro-compromise/2011/04/22/AFihM9GF_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/the-rail-to-dulles-blame-game/2011/03/10/AFk32UiF_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reckless-plan-to-put-a-metro-station-underground-at-dulles/2011/04/20/AF9kPQEE_story.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
And a special for Californians:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welfare-queen-states/2011/05/17/AFzTK45G_story.html
Beta Magellan Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Interesting articles (although that Post editorial seemed pretty bad—though I’m not familiar enough with the Dulles extension to make an informed comment, the editorial has its weaselly passages)—scarcely a day goes by in the Illinois transportation world when someone doesn’t mention our donor-state status.
Very OT, it looks like the 26%-will-inevitably-be-crazy rule still holds—in their admittedly unscientific poll on-site, the 26% of respondents say the possibility of a government default (and the resultant fiscal calamity) if the debt limit isn’t raised is a “hoax.” Sad to say I’m actually surprised it’s that low.
Attended Hanford meeting tonight. Organized anti project petitioners at entrance. Drove along proposed route north of Hanford. Pretty barren. It’s when it curves west to join the old Santa Fe that there is the most diagonal crossing of properties. Spoke to a farmer who owns 3000 acres of almonds that will be crossed. It’s going to be a gorgeous ride!
Clem Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
The visual strobe effect of zooming past regular rows of trees will be lovely.