Washington Post Repeats Zombie Lies
How many times do we have to tell people that the Central Valley segment of high speed rail is NOT a “train to nowhere”? Even though we keep pointing out that the segment connects Bakersfield to Fresno and points northward, even though we keep pointing out that it’s just the start of the full route from SF to LA, even though we point out that every Interstate freeway began with a small segment somewhere, it’s never enough for critics of HSR. They just keep on lying that it’s “in the middle of nowhere” and that it’s just intended to stand alone forever.
The latest example of this lie comes in this Washington Post editorial, which is pretty much a carbon copy of the LA Times’ editorial. It breaks no new ground. But it repeats the lie that the Central Valley segment connects nothing. The 1.1 million people in the Fresno metro area and the 800,000 people in the Bakersfield metro area – both of which are larger than the District of Columbia (population 600,000) – would be to differ.
It’s frustrating that newspapers feel able to publish this lie time and time again. But what’s worse is that the Legislative Analyst’s Office – which actually represents Californians, including the Central Valley, and is supposed to provide accurate and factual analysis, supported this lie too.
The LAO report included much that damaged their credibility. But their act of lending legitimacy to the “train to nowhere” claim has destroyed their credibility for good.
The Madison to Milwaukee project, the two largest cities in WI, are approximately the same population as Nowhere CA.
But realistically, these CA cities and the Central Valley is invisible to the publishers and Editors of our major newspapers – they could give a squat about unemployment of the economic well-being of average Americans.
This comes back to a comment I had the other day, that we rail supporters–and the rail industry (Alsom, Seimens, GE, etc.)–both need a regular, professional source of boosterism to counter this sort of thing. I don’t picture it as requiring much, maybe as few as two or three people, to essentially use the same techniques we see Cato, Reason, and others use.
The alternative is to rely on volunteers and concerned citizens to write letters to the editor. That has a lot of shortcomings, largely because most of us have regular jobs to go to and other things to do, some of which have a much higher priority than playing a media version of “Whack A Mole.” The result is that Cato, Reason, and Fox do get to stay on top of things, and they get to dominate the debate as much as they do, which is enough to make our cowardly politicians nervous.
Jack Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
I would, but I am a terrible writer.
John Burrows Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:55 am
Compared to others who contribute here my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, but I do visit other sites and sometimes end up playing “whack-a mole”. Would we be more effective if all of us who support high speed rail were to spend more time commenting on other sites?
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:53 am
yes
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:13 am
I was disappointed in the past with my own political misrepresentatives, but maybe writing to them, as suggested by the late Omar Ahmad (sp?) may be even more effective.
At least I would hope so. . .
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Sadly, the likes of Altsom, Siemens etc (at least in the transportation sectors) may be good at producing campaigns and glossy brochures but they’re not really engaged in debating and countering misinformation on a grassroots level. This is very sad.
I actually work for a company that I won’t name but that is a competitor of the above two (but unfortunately not into HSR) and this company actively discourages us from taking part in debates. The official reason is that anything we say may be misconstrued as being a company policy or point of view. But more proabably it’s because they don’t trust us to say the right thing. They say only the official communications department may speak publically, but the comms dept are a bunch of people who may be very god at comms, but don’t really get the technology. The result is that a lot of communication is just not happening. If Alstom and Siemens have a similar policy, no wonder so little is happening. If you keep the people who know most about the topic out of a debate then how can you expect to win it?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I don’t think you want to have boosters around. People who can’t say, “No, this project is crap, restart and do it better” should be as far away from any movement involving public funds as possible.
Modulo that, there’s a fair number of transit bloggers who understand the relevant issues, counterattack anti-transit demagogues, get on television, and are occasionally capable of having opinions independently of agency press releases. The most popular in New York, possibly nationwide, is Ben Kabak of Second Avenue Sagas.
Remember, these folks will stop at nothing to get their “message” across that this is a silly, collectivist. socialistic, (pick one or all 3) project. They’ve been doing this at least since the mid-1960s, and they will not stop until, as Grover Norquist says, there is no more government. THEY WILL NOT STOP.
Hardly “zombie lies” Robert. This article is facts and truth.
Your attack on the LAO is simply ridiculous. Just keep attacking the messenger and not the message, and see your credibility sink even further.
According to you, the LAO is wrong; Senators Lowenthal and Simitian should not even question the project and its risks.
Just look at what vanArk himself writes in his letter of May 2.
————-
From vanARk letter of 5-02-2011
Financial Plan/Gap. As of today, the Authority appears to have slightly over $3.6 billion in Federal funding available ($400 million of which will go to the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco), and may have a good shot at some of the additional federal funding freed up by Florida’s decision to cancel their HSR project. Allowing for $2.8 billion in Prop 1A funds and local match, the Authority now has about $5.5 billion available to begin the project construction and $400 million for environmental/engineering work. As mentioned in our November report, however, this still leaves a considerable gap in a $43 billion project. Moreover, as mentioned in the meeting, private sector funding will be difficult to secure unless the public sector funding is available and reliable. This problem may actually be aggravated by the fact that the section now funded in the Central Valley will have low demand and thus low attraction for a private operating partner. The Authority is well aware of this
issue, but will soon need assurance of more federal funding through some additional mechanism than is now available. Absent such information, it is not clear what the value of “expressions of interest” from the private sector will mean
——————
So even vanArk is saying private equity at the very least will be difficult to secure.
Following this was input from Walter Bell, of the peer review group and the only member to have actual HSR experience.
He says, there won’t be private equity without a some kind of clear commitment of the Feds to fund what is expected from them ($17 – 19 billions). There is certainly none of this coming from the Feds.
Link to view Bell’s input:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXoJ9lrZ4uE
So you can call this article “zombie lies”, the facts are the facts and can’t be dismissed with such words.
snogglethorpe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Morris Brown: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/44917
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
I hate to break it to you, Morris, but necessity is the mother of invention. The Authority isn’t going to go around and get private funding if it can receive direct federal dollars instead. And until we know the outcome of the 2012 election, that’s far from certain. Keep in mind however, that local transit agencies, cities, and counties can use their local sales tax dollars as well, and even leverage them for separate types of federal match. With the “Wye to Wasco” section complete and the ability of BART and Metro to invest in upgrades that could buttress HSR, you only need enough money to connect Bakersfield to Palmdale and San Jose to the Wye. So you hand out a concessionarie agreement that in exchange for completing the system Company X gets exclusive use of the ROW for 15 years or something. And if said company is cash poor, they can just borrow the money with concessionaire agreement in hand….
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:07 am
And the authority is not going to get private funding until it has the test track that can certify trains, because the consortium that California might expect to get 20% of the capital funding from in the bidding to be the franchise operator will include train manufacturers who will want to know if their trains can be used on the corridor.
No 220mph track, no ability to set up a test track, since the FRA is not going to certify for 220mph operation based on tests on glorified commuter rail networks.
Derek Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
The LAO implies that the central valley will have a HSR segment that won’t connect to Los Angeles or San Francisco. VanArk’s letter doesn’t support that statement.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
The LAO doesn’t say that because HSR’s plan is to have a disconnected segment – that would be insane. The LAO report is concerned that the project would run out of money before the central valley segment could be connected to the rest of the route.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:46 am
How can HSR run out of money when it is a pay as you build project? That makes no sense.
We ran out of money building our highway system – or really we built it in segments. HW 85 wasn’t finished when I moved to CA in 91. Did that failure to secure total funding on day-1 mean we should not have built the prior segments of the interstate and CA highway system?
We could state the obvious: If the state decides to not finish HSR then the state will not finish HSR.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:09 am
The LAO report is, however, NOT concerned with the project failing to be built because the funds were raided to support commuter rail projects and without a 220mph section, there’s no ability to attract private funds to finish the job.
After all, being “concerned” about that risk would be a mistake when the whole point of your report is to front an effort to raid the HSR funds in order to build disconnected glorified commuter rail projects.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:28 am
The “raid” allegation doesn’t make any sense. HSRA was proposing to build a first phase on the Caltrain tracks, with upgrades to the corridor. That’s not a raid, that’s a reasonable use of scarce dollars.
Andy M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:10 am
And Caltrain were expecting the HSRA to upgrde their corridor for them. That’s not how it works. I am sure the corridor will be done eventually, but when it’s down there will have to be a matching of funds by all stakeholders. That means the authorities who want and support Caltrain will have to stop sitting on the fence, and even more stop actively obstructing progress, and start trying to work out how to get money to do the work. The HSRA should only have to pay for those elements of the project that are strictly part of their prohject only, and additionally sharing costs of items that are of common value between the two projects.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Do you have evidence that there’s been a dispute about the share of local vs. federal money?
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Yes, see the LAO report as evidence of local vs federal.
The Federal ARRA award to CAHSRA was for a specific project with stand alone utility – they proposed the central valley segment. The Caltrain ROW (Sf to SJ) was NOT part of that proposal.
Any attempt to reallocate ARRA funds – the LAO suggestion – would violate the terms of the award jst as WI and FL tried to re-purpose their HSR funds.
I disagree that the Caltrain is non-cooperative but they can’t buck the local pols which help fund them year to year.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:55 am
additionally sharing costs of items that are of common value between the two projects.
Why? Caltrain works the way it is now. If HSR wants to use the ROW why shouldn’t they pay for all the improvements?
Andy M. Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Because Caltrains feels let down that it’s not getting the improvements wanted. So basically they’re saying they were hoping to get some free upgrades on the back of the HSR project and are now disappointed the Phase 1 money is being taken elsewhere. If they genuinely weren’t planning to gain anything, why should they be disappointed?
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Yes, the Authority is planning for initial upgrade of Caltrain, but with future money, not the existing money that is designatd for true high speed rail in the Central Valley. Also, it should be noted, that Simitian et al are not only trying to shift the money from the Central Valley to Caltrain and Metrolink, they are also demanding that they define how the upgrades to Caltrain would be designed, which is to say they essentially are demanding an upgrade of Caltrain with minimal if any true HSR infrastructure. Given all these factors, it is a very transparent and nauseating attempt to “raid” HSR funds for commuter rail projects.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Daniel, what differences do you see between Simitian etc’s proposal and HSR’s for the first phase in terms of design? The Peninsula proposal isn’t a design afaict – it’s a statement of principle, and afaict it’s doing the same thing the HSRA phase 1 does.
I don’t think anybody has details. Caltrain is currently doing their own analysis about what it would actually take to run HSR on the corridor – how many trains, what level of passing would be needed, how much grade separation would needed really, traffic impact etc. There a lot of open questions. Yes, the Peninsula contingent want local input on design. That’s reasonable.
What they’re fighting about isn’t design specifics, it’s about what/when to do in 20 years, which honestly nobody knows. And they’re really fighting about legislative oversight of the project, which HSRA is resisting.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“Daniel, what differences do you see between Simitian etc’s proposal and HSR’s for the first phase in terms of design?”
Limiting the HSR EIR to exclude 2035 considerations.
“What they’re fighting about isn’t design specifics, it’s about what/when to do in 20 years, which honestly nobody knows ”
Honestly? So we need Dr Who and a Tardis to plan HSR. We know enough that not performing EIR for 2035 is waste of taxpayer money.
“The Peninsula proposal isn’t a design afaict – it’s a statement of principle,”
Yes the principle is simple, NIMBY rule.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Essentially, the Simitian et al proposal is designed to lock in the intial set of improvements forever and ever. It is true twe don’t have the details of the proposal, and in theory could be very similiar to what the Authority is proposing for their initial work. It really comes down to the ridiculous demand that the Authority not be allowed to plan for full build out. That is the essential difference. We could have a real turn around in the funding picture in a few short years, which would enable a full build out quicker. This demand must be defeated.
CA4HSR is still pondering the Authority’s intial construction approach, which is essentially electrification without much other work. At a minimum, we are already demanding that they design the project themselves, in consultation with Caltrain, rather than rely on Caltrain’s 2004 EIR, which has substatations in the ROW of where HSR tracks would go, etc. We are also still skeptical about doing electrification first unless money really does dry up for a long long time, in which case it probably makes sense to run HSR trains along a corridor with grade crossings. Ideally, planning would accomodate for maximum flexiblity. If there is enough money to do a 1/2 of the full build out, then that should be done initially. If they have enough money for 3/4 of full build out do that first. That is why the full build out must be considered now.
Clem Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I think what’s lost on HSR proponents is just how out-of-touch over-engineered the full build-out is, as a result of the out-of-touch service levels envisioned. This gold plating is going to cause so much friction on the peninsula that the project might be jeopardized altogether. There’s a fine balance that must be struck here, and I hope CA4HSR could help find it.
And you know what? In 2040 if the infrastructure is found to be woefully inadequate to support the demonstrated ridership demand, there’s no law that says we can’t go back and expand it some more. It’s better to shoot too low and be wrong than to shoot too high and be wrong.
spokker Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
In before a Metro Blue Line rebuttal.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
As long as it’s not grossly overbuilt it’s cheaper to overbuild than to underbuild and then have to rebuild around a busy railroad. Try to do it in 2035 there will be too many people around with a really bad taste left in their mouth from the construction in 2018.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Clem sez: “I think what’s lost on HSR proponents is just how out-of-touch over-engineered the full build-out is, as a result of the out-of-touch service levels envisioned”
Based on What?
oh wait here’s the answer: do it over later.
“And you know what? In 2040 if the infrastructure is found to be woefully inadequate to support the demonstrated ridership demand, there’s no law that says we can’t go back and expand it some more. It’s better to shoot too low and be wrong than to shoot too high and be wrong.”
Go back 40 years – 1970 and think about some stupid short cut or compromise to core infrastructure because 40 years out is SOooo long.
100 years isn’t that long either.
Are the F’N tracks going to be needed in 100 F’N years Yes, assuming we’re not under water.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
joe: in some places it’s ambiguous, but in others, the Authority’s desire to overbuild is quite obvious. Simulations I’ve seen show that 4 tracks everywhere will not be necessary for a VERY long time. Now, where those 4 track sections have to go is a different matter — I’m not convinced that any other area is more/less deserving of them compared to PAMPA. Plus, building in a way that does not preclude future upgrades requires minimal brain power and is pretty cheap.
If you want some other examples of the Authority overbuilding, consider the following examples: new deep tunnels from Bayshore to Mission Bay, multi-level station in SJ, signature bridge over freeway in SJ, new high areal over existing berm in Bellmont/San Carlos (this might have been reconsidered but I don’t think so), single-track tunnel at Millbrae, etc.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
The scope of the full build out it is a totally different issue than that of whether to allow for phasing and flexibilty of the how to accomplish the full build out. I was not commenting on what the exact scale of the full build out should be. In fact, you work on your blog is helpful in determining the optimum scale of it.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
The policy proposal that the LAO is cloaking in a risk analysis is to abandon the Vallley alignment, and insist to the Federal government that the money be allowed to be spend instead on SJ/SF and LA-US/Anaheim.
The substance of the risk analysis used as cover for the policy proposal was to treat the risk of failing to try to complete the project as negligible, so that the only risk to be considered was the risk of trying to complete the project and failing. The risk posed by oil price shocks to the state economy was treated as being so minor so as to not even deserve a mention.
Jack Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
The LAO is wrong. The LAO is trying to apply “how things were always done” to a project that’s never been done before in the US. The entire reason the CHSRA was established was because back in 1996 they knew that this type or project could not survive the political climate if it were not set up just as it was.
The entire attempt by Simitian, Lowenthal, is a power grab to move the project into thier domain and then kill it because we “can’t afford it.”
Thank god we have some support to counter these morons. All we have to do is survive, they will term out and the problem will go away.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
To be replaced by other politicians out to rile their base with talk of socialist trains and how we can’t afford it.
wu ming Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
not necessarily. simitian and lowenthal aren’t from conservative districts, there’s no reason to assume that their successors would continue their anti-HSR bent.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:48 am
There’s no reason to assume they will not get hammered at the ballot box for opposing a popular project. What’s the next political move for them? Better be the Mayor of Antherton and not a statewide office.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I think it’s more likely that Simitian, Gordon and Eshoo mean what they say. Money is tight, HSR admit’s it can’t build everything at once, so why not use the HSR project to get SF-LA fast service and improve the Peninsula corridor. Maybe if you read the press release backward it has secret messages about satan also, but it seems more likely that it means what it says.
VBobier Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Fast SF-LA service is accomplished by building in the Central Valley first, Without the Central Valley, HSR is just more Light Rail and Smittyan, Lowenbrau and Shrew are through and they have no way to stop the project and Morris Brown and His mere little lawsuit won’t either. As to improving the corridor, It will happen, Just not with current funds marked for the Central Valley and the Central Valley only, No exceptions. the LAO report is mostly smelly rotten Tripe that needs to hauled away as toxic waste.
Peter Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:52 am
Morris’ lawsuit was actually slapped down months ago. Currently the Atherton cases are the only ones active.
VBobier Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Sounds good.
wu ming Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
they would have a stronger case were they actually making that argument.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:49 am
The HSR tried that approach, improve the existing corridor, the the NIMBYs and their cities screamed.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:26 am
The HSR proposed doing a 4-track system with an aerial viaduct from SJ to SF, based on ridership forecasts of 70 million. Cities thought that was overkill. Now the HSRA says it wants to build a first phase on the existing tracks.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:53 am
No, there was not a disagreement about overkill/scope.
NIBMY’s and Critics said “No” period. They sued to stop any HSR. They sued over noise, they sued for alignment. The 4 or 2 track discussion isn’t a solution to their criticism.
HSRA went to the Central Valley.
The current attempt to run near term service on existing ROW came LATER, after the HSRA decided to build the Central Valley and has ARRA funding. The goal is to connect to the coastal population centers but the EIR is still a 4 track plan looking to 2035.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Your “they” is too broad to describe the whole community. You’re using the strongest opponents of HSR to characterize the opinions of the whole region, and that’s not accurate.
wu ming Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:19 am
fair point. the region wants HSR built, and does not care particularly about a few backyards or tunnel v. aerial. the HSR opponents are in the minority when it comes to popular opinion, by a significant margin. they’ve just managed to buffalo some of the politicians, but popular opinion is not with them.
Adina Levin Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:49 am
It’s not just people on the Peninsula who care about how the HSR route would work. Here’s an article from today’s SF Examiner about discussion in SF about the northern section. There are several different potential designs being discussed, and local people are weighing in. It ‘s important to differentiate between opposition to any change and reasonable discussion with local people about how a significant infrastructure project affects the place.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/05/high-speed-rail-route-could-rip-interstate-280
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“It’s not just people on the Peninsula who care about how the HSR route would work.”
Yes, there are NIMBYs everywhere along the line.
We will build HSR for the state’s benefit, not limiting the discussion of HSr design to those living within a 300 meter distance.
VBobier Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Well a 4 Track system and some aerials(only as tall as needed) & some tunnels(Where actually needed only & not to curry favor) isn’t a bad thing. You have to realize, This was said as Sir Smitty wanted answers & being understaffed the CHSRA has been busy with a statewide project with only 19 employees, So of course they just came out with It. Remember between SF and SJ It’s No Growth Central & some like It that way & do not want their Empire disturbed by the Little People from outside the Empire.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:48 am
The HSRA wanted to build a four-track system consisting partly of at-grade tracks, partly of berms, and partly of elevated viaducts.
Elevated viaducts and berms are fine when done right, and are better than FRA horns. Last night I could hear freight train horns from half a mile away, with multiply rows of buildings in between where I was and the tracks. I’d much rather live near a berm than near that.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Why not? Because there is no money to do that: the Federal government was willing to fund the only 220mph Express HSR corridor being proposed anywhere in the nation, but there is no reason to believe that if California withdraws that application, the Federal money will stay in the state, and without the Federal money, there is no ability to issue the state bonds authorized for HSR in Prop1a(2008).
Alex M. Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Of course funding will be difficult to secure without much Fed help. At least, until gas is $8 a gallon. Or democrats control the house. But I hope with all my heart that the project really gets going before that point.
Spokker Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Good to see some actual content from Mr. Morris.
He is absolutely right on this one. Federal funding in the short term is not happening. Federal funding in the medium term probably rests on Obama become a lame duck. In the long term, who knows?
This will not happen without a strong federal commitment. Write off private investment altogether until the federal funding situation is resolved. I would not invest in anything related to transportation. We as a society must decide that we want to spend public money to fund passenger rail transportation improvements.
Spokker Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:16 am
I would consider investing in high speed rail if the gas tax were raised to a proper level.
Spokker Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:19 am
And then I must ask, invest in what exactly?
If I were a businessman, I’d surely buy operate trains between LA and SF even on a less than ideal route. No way in hell am I investing in building the goddamn thing. Capital expenditures will never, ever be paid back in one man’s lifetime. Not that they should, but that’s the reality in California.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:52 am
How do you know the next federal budget will NOT have HSR funding? Or in 2012. None of you clairvoyants foresaw the ARRA funding.
The F’N president of the USA wants to have some signature items and HSR is one of them.
There is one ONE HSR project ready to build – ours.
Peter Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:10 am
Well … yes.
But the President doesn’t control the budget. It IS controlled, however, by the party that is hell-bent on thwarting ANYTHING the President wants.
I’m not saying there’s no chance of more federal funding, just that it is highly unlikely unless the Democrats get it in exchange for something major, like big cuts to Medicare or Social Security. I don’t find that likely…
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:52 am
The president proposes a budget to congress – he puts together a full federal budget. Then they negotiate.
The House Minority leader is Ms. Pelosi, a Sf rep. The Senate is lead by Dems.
A dirty secret is that congress critters of all colors like spending and they know they’ll need the Democratic Senate to pass a budget and probably some Dem votes in the house.
Then there’s 2012.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Which will be with a Presidential year electorate, not a mid-term electorate, and which will have dozens of Freshman Republicans running to defend a vote to kill Medicare.
Assuming perpetual control of the House by this large majority is a silly assumption. They might keep their majority, they might lose it, but they are definitely going to lose seats in 2012, and since the cost of bring out the current oil supply is about $2/gallon, and historically gas prices are $1.25~$1.50 above crude oil prices per gallon, gas aint going below $3.25~$3.50 a gallon. It only takes a little speculation on top of that to bring it to $4.50/gallon.
High gas price elections make support for oil-independent transport an easy promise for a challenger to make.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:57 am
“Assuming perpetual control of the House by this large majority is a silly assumption. ”
It’s irrational to stop a project because you can’t foresee and mitigate every possibility.
It’s dishonest to misrepresent a Build-as-you-pay project as a failure for not having full funding in lpace before it starts.
Do we have full funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft? No.
There is no set a side for the full R&D and procurement for the aircraft. It is, like every budget item, a year-by-year funded project.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:49 am
The Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking the House, but they’re defending 24 seats in the Senate to the Republicans’ 9.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
If you let business people plan it their way you’ll end up with something like the TGV. A profitable airline on rails. The Paris-Lyon “central valley” is treated like fly-over territory. 266 miles non-stop and the line stays miles away from any town in between. Not much wealth has been created there apart from overcompensating landowners.
The SNCF’s aim was minimum cost and maximum profit even though it meant ignoring many people’s needs. The banks liked it and lent at AAA rates.
The Californian project is much more ambitious. It’s meant to be a local development tool with job creation a priority. Its purpose is not to exploit a juicy LA-SF corridor but to “irrigate” a maximum number of population centers and avoid creating backwaters.
Now, if you ask a financier “which do you prefer: a life-changing project which will eventually be profitable when all its components are made to work together, or an airline on wheels which will be quickly built and immediately profitable?” The answer makes no doubt and brings another question: is what is good for Goldman Sachs necessarily good for California?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Andre, it’s not quite that. The TGV’s model is to run trains nonstop on various city pairs, so the major intermediate towns, such as Dijon, are served by trains to Paris and Lyon but not by trains going from Paris to Lyon. California’s model is to run trains making more stops, on the model of Japan and Korea, and put the big intermediate towns on the same line as the major cities.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Isn’t that the same model that Spain uses? As a country with similar population, population density, and population distribution to California, that’s a relevant precedent to take into account.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Not really. Spain’s tends to operate a variety of local, limited, and express services. Most intermediate destinations are through stations though, not terminal branches off the mainline.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Oh, and they’re also making an effort to NOT terminate trains in Madrid by building a new tunnel between Mardrid’s two main rail stations.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:54 am
The Spanish population distribution isn’t really Californian. It’s more French, with one capital surrounded by provincial cities not located along well-defined corridors. The Californian distribution is more Japanese, Taiwanese, or Korean: one trunk line, with two branches at the ends, hits nearly all the population centers.
But for an extra complication, there’s a lot of traffic on the branches, namely LA-SD and SF-Sac, which introduces a German population distribution into the mix.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I know some smaller cities are served, but with insufficient frequency.
Many people in France, right and left, think the SNCF, although it is 100% state-owned, no longer behaves like a public service. A real public service will try to stimulate development in neglected zones. The SNCF, instead, is more intent on increasing its profit on a few juicy corridors. Lyon-Paris, profit margin: 25%! Figure leaked by the unions, denied by SNCF but there must be some truth in it.
Tight-flow management might be OK for airlines but doesn’t work for rail. Last year’s chaos was blamed on “excess” ridership. 10% increase in ridership was enough for punctuality to go down the drain. The SNCF prefers to underestimate ridership, with the risk of sending thousands back to their cars.
Banks love the SNCF’s business model. Citizens don’t.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
To be honest, the only people who “try to stimulate development in neglected zones” with big infrastructure are capital-city imperialists and a few local boosters. Those intercity networks do nothing but cement dependence on the capital.
For example, take the Riviera, which is more or less the only productive economic region in provincial France, except maybe Lyon. It didn’t get to be rich because of the A8 or the piece of crap TGV connection to Paris or even air travel. Those all helped, but its tourist economy goes back to the 19th century, when Monaco decided to legalize casino gambling, and it draws tourists from around the world and not just Paris. At the time, the only thing Paris did to the region was using physical violence against children who spoke Occitan at school.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 6:54 am
Physical violence was not really necessary. Speaking French was the only way up the social ladder. It also happened in Britain after French-speaking Normans conquered it and French became the language of royalty and nobility. This is now happening with English on a global scale. English = money.
Concerning Paris-Nice TGV: Nice wanted a direct TGV link in order to get rid of connecting flights and free up slots for international flights, thus making it less dependent on Paris CDG.
As you know, the project was killed by strange bedfellows: filthy-rich mansion owners, hardcore environmentalists who want a return to the stone age, and Marseille region’s politicians who will do anything to stop Nice becoming the leading French Mediterranean city. Aix’s mayor even promised to file enough lawsuits to keep courts busy for the next 50 years if need be. The SNCF even had problems finding available venues for the mandatory public meetings. In winter, when everything is empty!
Compared to the kind we have in Southern France, your Nimbys really are the “lite” variety! You don’t realize how lucky you are to have opponents as moderate as Mr Morris.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
If it gets to the point where businessmen want to invest in the California high speed rail project, I’d take that as a bad sign.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
That is, I want the project to serve the public good. Maximize ridership, not necessarily profits.
Useless Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
@ Spokker
That’s possible only if CASHR project is 100% public financed and subsidized. Which we know won’t happen and private and foreign sovereign investments are essential in completion of CAHSR system.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Private investment is not going to happen.
Spokker Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
We have to decide whether or not we want tax dollars building this infrastructure, just as tax dollars build airports (as well as tax dollars training for military pilots who later become commercial pilots, air traffic control systems and TSA to keep it all “safe”) and roads. It is not going to be built any other way.
Useless Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
@ Spokker
> Private investment is not going to happen.
Yes it will, because of the stupid penis size contest in Asia. Recall that Arnold toured Asia only and Chicago mayor also went to China and Korea for Chicago Airport rail funding.(He skipped Japan, interestingly) http://alttransport.com/2010/09/chicagos-mayor-daley-panhandles-for-airport-rail-funds-on-asia-trip/
So don’t worry, there are a number of foreign governments assembling tens of billions of dollars in loan package in exchange for having their national bullet trains run on CAHSR system exclusively.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I hope the Chinese decide to fund it. They we can ask the Teabaggers why we aren’t taxing ourselves enough to pay for it ourselves. And ask them why our grandchildren will be paying the Chinese to use it.
Joey Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The unfortunate reality is that we will probably have a good amount of private debt to pay back, never mind funding phase 2.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:36 am
I see you understand my point. A business plan palatable to Wall Street will not be in California’s best interests. Maximizing profit means eliminating any surplus capacity, as airlines do. The SNCF calculates staff and rolling stock to exactly match expected ridership numbers. When in doubt, it deliberately underestimates ridership to make sure all trains will be full.
What happens to those who can’t get a seat? Well, those people have cars, don’t they?
morris brown Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:12 am
Here is a transcript of what Walter Bell said — I should have included it in my previous post:
From Walter Bell of the Peer Review group (he may well be the only member that has actual experience in HSR) he says:
bell 40:03 (video of Lowenthal meeting of 5-11-2011)
Link to Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXoJ9lrZ4uE
What were trying to indicate, perhaps we didn’t do it clearly, is that to attract money, in a private / public partnership arena/ and we do a lot of that, there has to be assurity on the public side obviously; they are putting up equity money, they want returns, they want assurances, they always look to see if the public side has stepped up and is definitely going ahead with it.
Now I’ll be very frank, a number of projects in the US to the detriment of private investment have gotten 1/2 way down the road , invested money, and the thing was cancelled. What we are getting here is typically in a lot of Federal projects, usually there is authorization legislation, that doesn’t say you’ve got the money, but it authorizes it and with that in place, this provides assurity the Federal Government is for the project, and will back it — maybe they will take 20 years to do it , but at least there is that chit on the table. And usually private investors will look for something like that, that’s what we are getting at , in other words is the funding assured?
Peter Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:10 am
At this point, as far as I can tell, the funding already in place is assured. The bonds will be GO bonds, which California HAS to repay, cannot default on. The federal funding is also assured, assuming shovels start turning by September, 2012 (I think that’s the date).
The obvious question, and the one there is no good answer to, is where the remaining money is going to come from. There is a chance, not a good one, but still a chance, that before the next election Congress will come to some sort of compromise on a Surface Transportation Bill that finances HSR, or creates an infrastructure bank that finances HSR. After the 2012 election, we’ll have to see what Congress looks like in order to figure out how to pay for the remainder.
In the meantime, none of the above obstacles are good reasons to stop the project dead in its tracks, as the LAO called for and the fishwrappers have been parroting. PLANNING can and should continue, because there is a fair chance that full funding WILL materialize, and planning itself, while it may seem to be expensive, is nothing compared to the cost of construction of the project, and DEFINITELY nothing compared to the cost of doing nothing, which would be having to construct more freeways and airports.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:56 am
Yes, build it now.
HSR is a build as you pay project – that’s how CA designed the project. It works – we got ARRA funding and we’ll see additional support. It’s a signature project for the Gov and President.
Hand wringing over the way we set up the build-as-you-pay project is one thing – silly as it is.
Trying to misrepresent the project by insisting it’s failed for not having full funding is dishonest.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Yes. In order for a service to go out for that kind of bid, there has to be funding for one more segment in addition to this one, given that this one can serve as a 220mph test track.
If California invests instead in the end segments, it remains two funded segments, including one 220mph segment, away from being able to put a franchise out to bid.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Waste of taxpayer dollars? The pot is calling the kettle black. Interstates were not built full fledged, they were extended overtime.
It seems that now that Wisconsing and Florida have given up, they have intensify the HEAT on CAHSR. They have zeroed in on California’s proyect and to think we have over a year for the start of construction.
snogglethorpe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The anti-rail lobby are getting pretty desperate to stop this; they know well that an example of a successful HSR system in the U.S. will make their lobbying more difficult in the future.
The real guilty parties in my mind, though, are the newspapers — they seem to be simply reprinting position papers supplied to them by lobbying organizations. I know that outfits like the Reason Foundation go to great efforts to give themselves a facade of respectability, but a major newspaper should not be so gullible as to fall for it. If they lack the expertise to judge the issue adequately themselves, they shouldn’t be printing editorials on the subject at all.
VBobier Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
And the Big Newspapers won’t put out anything counter to that filth, except maybe online.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:11 am
Newspapers kowtow to the wealthy. Publishers do not care about the common good or the welfare of a majority of Americans.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
I concur. A big problem with the news media is that they know how to write, but they often do not know their subject matter.
I recall, in the late 1960s or very early 1970s, when there was a freight derailment in the city I was living in then, and the pictures of the wreck were on the front page, with a story about the horrible traffic jams that would occur over the next several days while the mess was cleaned up (the accident blocking at least one major street where it crossed the railroad at grade). This was in an era when the rail freight industry was in deep trouble, with a number of stories appearing about wrecks that also involved tank cars loaded with hazardous materials.
One of the wreck photos and a part of the story related to this, noting that there was a “tank car” involved in the derailment, but “fortunately” the car was empty.
The problem was, the tank car was not a tank car. It was a covered hopper car, meant for carrying grain or plastic pellets. True, it had rounded sides as some of those cars had and still have, but the news people should still have known a little better–the !!@#$%&!! hopper outlets on the bottom were facing right at the camera as the car was laying on its side!
http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=30740
Something at least as ridiculous was in the local paper where I live now a few years ago. The local shortline railroad had a derailment due to a broken rail, and the “little girl” (which is about how I would characterize the reporter’s writing style) told the story about the derailment of a “cargo express train,” and the good fortune that the “engine cars” did not derail. This was on a railroad that is freight-only, with a speed limit of 25 mph.
I can be critical of this stuff because I happen to know a little bit about it. What else is the news industry getting wrong that I don’t know enough about to spot the errors? What about members of the regular public who don’t know what we do, and can’t imagine anybody wanting to take a train all the way from Seattle to Chicago–and being so ignorant as to not know that you don’t have to ride a train all the way between Seattle and Chicago to be able to make good use of it?
About the only news department that seems to require a knowledge of its subject matter in its reporters is perhaps the least useful unit in news–the sports department.
We need those media men–Alstom, Seimens, we need you to step up for this, you need it to keep your money from being cut off. . .
VBobier Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Yeah most people wouldn’t know a Covered Hopper car from a Tank car, Of course I do, I built HO Scale model railroad cars, So I know, Tank cars have either 1 or 3 entrances on top, Although 1 is the rule today I think.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Newspapers are running on declining market share and revenues and aiming to fill up space without spending a lot of money on sourcing the content.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Wait – the iPad will save them – we’ll all pay $20 a month to read their newspaper on our iPads.
Another indication of the “civil war” arising in the Central Valley over this project.
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_cbf055d4-819c-11e0-a250-001cc4c03286.html
Commentary: Kings County’s case against high-speed rail
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Pssh. If this guy is well connected in the Ag community he has to know why the 99 route ain’t happening. Union Pacific doesn’t want anyone near its right of way so it can help this guy and others ship their exotic agricultural products to Asia for beau coup bucks.
VBobier Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
It doesn’t mean You’ll win, Loser.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Well I don’t have a BMW like you do a Morris??? But still a bunch of NIMBYs that moved next door railroad selection on movie gathering cry on your big Skavelat fish
YesonHSR Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Wow… a love talk really fast in Dragon software ..it comes up with really wild shit!!
Alex M. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Wait… you’ve been using speech to text software this whole time?
YESonHSR Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
No just bought it…my Ulnar never is bugging me ..thought it could save me from typing..thou dragon is not very good
Peter Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Dragon sucks balls for about six months. That’s about how long it takes for it to really learn what you’re saying. Just keep plugging away at it and train it, and it will work great.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:24 am
Civil War… My god. We live in a democracy. Chicken Little writes a column in the local newspaper. It’s fantastically exaggerated.
“This path will tear up permanent crops of walnuts, cherries and almonds. It will tear up other crops like cotton, corn, wheat and hay. Farm management will be more difficult because water delivery systems from wells and canals will be severed by the track.”
“Before they tear up Kings County, they should properly study the impact on Kings County and compare the study to properly completed studies of Highway 99 and I-5.”
Yes – building a rail line tears up the Kings County. Water delivery will be severed. .. until Farmers are told water delivery will not be severed. That HSR will remove cars from the roads and reduce impacts to their local environment.
BTW, How’s the “civil war” at the home front?
Stanford Hospital & Facebook massive expansions and Menlo Park’s Park downtown rehabilitation. These projects will add tens of thousands of new cars trips per day.
These are non-trivial impacts that will need mitigation.
wu ming Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:22 am
like these guys get upset about tearing out fields and orchards for stucco box housing subdivisions.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
They’re, farmers, not upset – it’s a chicken little column trying to exaggerate the HSR impact to make them upset.
The fact HSR reduces auto pollution will allow the farmers more latitude to run equipment without EPA restrictions. When they figure that out, along with reduced traffic and car dependence, the farmers will stop to wave at the trains.
political_incorrectness Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
If you want it on Highway 99, talk to Union Pacific, they will gladly shut the door on that one.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I-5 resolves these complaints.
The comparison of the hsr project to freeways is a dead end. Public support for highways has been extremely high for the last century and shows no sign of changing. The only time you find substantial opposition is when some egregious environmental or urban desecration is being foisted.
The dicontent with the hsr scheme is deep and growing and cannot be attributed solely or primarily to oil lobby machinations. The CHSRA plan is simply a piece of PB scab-together, which it would appear that Van Ark is attempting to clean up. About time.
Naturally cash-hungry urban transit systems are eager to feed on the bones of the hsr funding. BART will be taking the first bite. Propose dual gauging BART trackage, for instance, in Dublin and see how fast BART attacks the CHSRA as an interloper.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
At the expense of having no independent utility and therefore being ineligible for the federal funding that the present alignment has already won.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
My take is that the CHSRA wants and needs flexible funding and that this will be made so. That’s what politicians are there for.
i keep waiting for some democrat to pick up on the incredible opportunity that all these right wing papers present for tapping into the central valley’s fear that everyone looks down on them by taking their side and championing HSR because central valley californians are important too.
this “HSR to nowhere” is a direct attack on a part of the state that has long voted for republicans and conservatives. all it would take is a politician saying “they think you’re nobodies, we’ll build the damn train,” and they’d get noticed.
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Nah, it’s more entertaining to watch Ashley Swearengin, future GOP darling, shill for the project like she’s Nancy Pelosi. That’s going to be a great photo op when the trains start running.
JJJ Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:55 am
Heres the thing with mayors. On the local level, they dont have to follow anything the party says. She may be a republican on the ticket, but nobody gives a damn what her opinion is on national stuff the party focuses on.
But say 4 years from now, she’s moved on up to state rep or something. Well now, she has to follow the GOP rulebook. And the GOP rule book says trains=bad. So she’ll have a lot of hoops to jump through as she backtracks her way into “HSR will destroy Fresno, even though as Mayor I did everything I could to support it”.
So for her sake, I hope she goes independent or stays local (even though I dislike her mayorship).
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:26 am
GOP already was a pro-rail party until they did a 180 to oppose rail. Consistency is no longer an issue.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Pro-rail until Obama made it a center piece of his agenda. It’s okay the Dem’s did this to Bush as well. The key to winning elections is to unilaterally oppose what the other party wants. An we voters keep reinforcing this behavior.
Nothing major will ever be accomplished in the current political climate. We’ll kick the can down the road for eternity…
Swearengin does her best but you have to understand that she is fighting against and established political belief that the CV is second class. We have no power in the state government. Were migrants and farmers and waitress, we have nothing to contribute to the state. It’s sad really since the CV will have the largest population growth of any other area in Cali.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:07 am
“The key to winning elections is to unilaterally oppose what the other party wants. ”
Nope. not even close.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Do you deny that’s what the political philosophy is right now. Repubs are the part of no, 4 years ago Dems were the party of No.
JJJ Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Dems were the party of no? Did the dems force every issue to a 60 majority like the republicans have done?
You know why the repeal of the oil tax breaks didnt pass? Because the republicans have made everything require 60 votes.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I say Bizzaro superman politics fails. Doing the opposite and arguing about counter factuals (what would have happened if) is a minority party position. The GOP isn’t in the minority, their Tough Daddy Governors are tanking. The House is panicked and they can’t field a Pres Candidate without forcing them to assume every lunatic anti-Obama position.
wu ming Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:24 am
dems opposed bush’s rail programs? gonna have to see a link on that.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Come on wu, you know what I was getting at…
Alon Levy Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
The key to winning elections is to not be in power when unemployment is going up. Being intransigent and juvenile does not raise approval rate nearly as much.
The answer to your question how many times? Too damn many
There is some serious money coming against this project.. if the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have editorial like this and I mean real editorials not some dumb egg heads blog then we have real problems and this proves the oil money is going really deep and very scary …The Republican Party and the oil industry would love to have something like China’s dictatorship only under their terms and this may soon come to pass
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:29 am
Post and LA Times echo the meme that government can’t help people – any way or any how. There is not a project or expense they’ll support if it helps the common good.
So let’s fight them on this common sense project and stop putting quarters into their newspaper machines. I wouldn’t buy the MercNews if it were a penny.
VBobier Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Some would put a Quarter in and then take a few…
Risenmessiah Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:47 am
People forget that HSR has one big ally in its corner: Joe Biden. People are discounting the strength of his influence and power…. they once made a Joe Biden toilet paper, but it wouldn’t take shit from anyone….
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:53 am
The vice presidency is about as useful as a male tit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 10:49 am
He gets to break ties in the Senate now and then.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
And he can titty twist the GOP Leadership (all men) when they dump on HSR projects.
Jack Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:46 am
I honestly don’t think there is concentrated money against us. That’s too much tin-foil hat for me. It’s much more plausible that HSR is an easy and much more important “free” target to make political hay over.
The unseen conspiracy gives too much credit political machine, which is made up of people, who like water will always follow the path of least resistance to accomplish their goals.
wu ming Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:25 am
how is it tin foil hat to point out that big money oil interests fund right wing think tanks and influence politicians and corporate media?
O/T: Last mile of I-280 in San Francisco might be demolished for High Speed Rail
Now would be a great time to reconfigure 4th & King as a four-track two-platform underground station, redesign Transbay with a run-through loop to improve capacity, and use the surface ROW of the current rail lines to build this new boulevard, plus other uses for the land.
Oh, and while we’re at it, demolish the Central Freeway and turn that into a boulevard, with a light rail line down the median connecting to 4th & King. This light rail extension would currently be impossible due to I-280 and the Caltrain tracks being in the way.
Joseph E Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
That’s a great idea! That section of I-280 doesn’t connect with anything, and San Francisco has benefited from removing the Central Freeway and the Embarcadero Freeway, so there would be local support for removing the stub of I-280 east of 110/80. Tear down that last 1 or 2 miles of the freeway and make it an at-grade boulevard, and there you go, no problems with columns, no need for unnecessary train tunnels.
Joseph E Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Oh, I see they are still proposing trenching the trains. But you could also elevate the train instead of the freeway and get the same effect for lower cost. Either way would be cheaper and better than burying only 2 out of 4 tracks under the current freeway and streets.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
You could do, but you have to drop into a tunnel before you get to 4th St anyway, so there’s not much tunneling saved.
Knock down the freeway, dig a trench, put the tracks in it, cover the trench and build the boulevard on top. Job’s a good ‘un.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
btw, it’s worth re-visiting the ‘Firebird’ idea in the light of this.
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/caltrain-firebird/
I’m not in favor of all elements of this plan but the approach to San Francisco makes a lot of sense.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Firebird is stupid. It completely sacrifices local service that a lot of people rely on.
tony d. Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
A lot of people? 40k riders per day? You must use a station that serves about 20 riders and would close
under the Firebird concept…Got Bus? (don’t let perfect be the enemy of good).
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
I actually don’t use it at all anymore, but my wife used Menlo Park for years, and that would be one of the not-so-small local service stations closed under Firebird.
Menlo Park is the 9th busiest station on the corridor, and it should be closed? Like I said, it’s stupid.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
You’re confusing Firebird with the better proposal for station closures. Under Firebird, very low-ridership stations get closed, but so do potentially useful inner-suburban stations like San Bruno and South SF. Rafael’s excuse for closing them is that they’re already served by BART; the reality is that BART is slow and runs on a circuitous alignment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
In a sane rational world you only need two tracks north of the Bayshore Station.
Clem Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Exactly! All this fuss about where to put four tracks assumes that four tracks are needed to begin with. This assumption has not been properly vetted.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Very good. I doubt it’s needed for high-speed rail, but it’s going to do a lot of good to the locals’ lungs.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
It’s completely obvious how to do this and has been for more than a decade.
http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/TTT-2008/DTX-200805-7th.pdf
Existing tunnels into SF. Two tracks into SF. Four tracks through Mission Bay. One shallowed trenched station in Mission Bay (4 platform tracks, 4 through tracks, one terminal track.) Two tracks trenched below I-280. 16th, Common, 3rd and and 4th Street remain at grade with train below; likewise Mission Creek sewer outfall over tracks.
Construction phasing is straightforward (small temporary easement required east of 280 for temporary surface tracks to interim surface terminal at 4th&Townsend.)
Sadly, we only have America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals involved in this catastrophe of incompetence. Inconceivable levels of ineptitude at every step of “planning” and “requirements specification” and “design”.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Should have read “Common, 4th and and 5th Street remain at grade …”
The point being that 5th, presently cut off by the surface train parking lot, can be bridged over a shallow trenched station, providing excellent pedestrian and transit access right to the station platforms and connecting to King. (3rd of course also stays at grade, with a two (all that is operationally necessary) track subway passing beneath it on its way to Transbay.) Really really nice.
5th is to the left: http://www.ponbox.com/users/mly/TTT-2008/TTT-200805-snap2.jpg
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
God damned fat fingers and no preview/edit for comments:
http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/TTT-2008/TTT-200805-snap2.jpg
J. Wong Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
What do you mean “[two] tracks trenched below I-280″? I’m guessing you’re proposing that Caltrain and HSR share the current tracks and ROW from Bayshore as far as the Mariposa portal?
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Yes, which is reasonable assuming realistic service levels and moderately efficient operations.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Good riddance, but Richard’s right that it’s unnecessary.
“I-280 “would be removed and reconstructed as a parkway from 18th Street north.”
HW 280 is a double decked road as it crosses 101 – awesome HW architecture as was demonstrated on 880 – pancaking and crushing cars.
A good example of this option is SF’s San Jose Ave as it peals off 280 N and heads as a parkway into The Mission/Noe Valley It morphs into Guerrero with a left turn for Dolores St..
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=sf+ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Francisco,+California&gl=us&ll=37.73675,-122.424688&spn=0.016766,0.0418&z=15
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:38 am
I’m not sure I agree with you. San Jose Ave is a pedestrian unfriendly traffic sewer. Ridership on the J-Church line, which runs down the median, falls off sharply after the line enters San Jose due to the poor walking environment around the stops. (And, to be fair, the close proximity of BART stations.) Octavia Boulevard is a much better model for replacing freeways.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
When M.M. O’Shaughnessy placed a bond issue on the ballot in 1917 to extend the J line thru the Bernal Cut the freeway obviously wasn’t there. The latter changed the neighborhood ambiance for good.
It didn’t pass, obviously. The United Railroads opposed, perhaps thinking it would draw patronage away from its key Mission Street lines.
It was many decades before the extension finally became a reality.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
You make a good point abut San Jose Ave being an ugly, unfriendly design for pedestrians & Bikes. I ever navigated that area well.
J is a weird line. BART out of Glenn park beats the slow J-Church St surface corridor. I lived exactly where the J reverses back at 30th St. and Church. Even that run from 30th was very slow into the city. Scenic but slow.
Eliminating the dangerous 280 pancake, combined with some multi-purpose replacement and rail would be helpful to the eastern section of The City. BMw owners will whine but the City doesn’t need more cars anyway.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Yup. In a sane world, the J would terminate at 30th & Mission BART station.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Also, in a sane world the M would terminate at Daly City BART station. Past SFSU it really serves as a local shuttle rather than rapid transit, which could be better provided by buses.
The J doesn’t even manage to be a local shuttle past 30th St, due to the poor street design.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
The extension planners in the 80′s attempted to use Dolores Street to connect to the San Jose cut but there was opposition due to the palms in the median. So they were stuck with the sharp curve.
Enormous changes over the years. San Jose Ave. was traditionally served by the 9 line, if I remember correctly, via Chenery and Valencia. The Valencia Street section was very busy. Now I think even the 26 replacement bus is altogether gone.
But the Mission Street lines were the biggest loss ca. 1949. Goodbye to the really cool 11 line which wended its way off of Mission thru the hills above Dolores Park and the 40 interurban to San Mateo.
Charlie Smallwood told me there was an attempt to save the 40 by laying track to connect to the M line. Daly City adamantly refused. And you think the Reason Foundation is bad.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Yes, extending the M to Daly City BART is dependent on Daly City’s co-operation. They wouldn’t even allow new overhead wires to be strung up to extend to 14 bus out there.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
The old 26 bus route just died this year.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
There is no 30th and Mission BART.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
There should be. In fact, BART did a study for an infill station there. I guess nothing ever came of it though. BART is much more worried about expanding the edges of its system rather than improving the core.
Jon Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
There are a few places in the urban core where infill stations would be useful, preferably with passing tracks to keep journey times from the outer suburbs at reasonable speeds. As well as 30th St & Mission in San Francisco, 14th Ave in Oakland and Solano Ave in Albany are prime candidates.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
BART trains have an irresistible attraction to platforms and all train must stop are every platform they encounter.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Slowing down trains for two stops is not going to make the suburban BART ridership any more anemic than it already is. It might provide some use for urbanites, finally, though the ridership estimates are still very low for the cost of the stations.
J. Wong Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I think the primary motivation for the extension of the J beyond 30th was access to the car barn at Balboa Park. As it is, the J, N, and F lines all use the extension and the J line through Noe Valley to get to Market Street.
joe Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Yep. Every day 5AM the trolleys made the slow sharp turn onto Church for that day’s service.
The original point, the San Jose Ave. corridor, while good for cars into and out of the core of SF, is horrible for walking. Chenery is the pedestrian walkway to Glenn Park.
Mods to the 280 HW pancake into SF should be made walking and biking friendly and not copy the San Jose Ave. design.
J. Wong Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Yeah, well since they’ve re-engineered the 280 double-decker after the 1989 Loma Prieta, I doubt they’ll tear it down.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I always suggested they consider reopening Potrero Carhouse, very close to Market via 11 St. Of course now they have a new barn off 3rd St. but a midtown connection would be useful.
Joey Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
The Potrero Carhouse is now used to store buses.
synonymouse Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Since 1949, same for Presidio, but which still housed stretcars on the Geary St. side until the end of 1956. Ca. 1973, when they chose to lay track on 17th Street re-opening Potrero for streetcars was one of the more ambitious options. I went to the raucous meetings when Muni proposed relaying 20th Ave. Presidio is the one that really cries out for expansion and reconstruction, but Potrero as well.
It might be politically unpopular (but you never know), but why can’t the state consider a 10 year, $100 per household parcel tax (or whatever it is called) to finance the bulk of the system? The 2010 census (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table) reports that there are 12,577,498 households in California. Such a tax/fee would raise over $1,200,000,000 per year. Does California really need the Feds?
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 8:55 am
New taxes? In California? Good luck.
Yeah, and the 14 extension is one of those projects that is just in your face.