Federal Government and CHSRA Agree on $16 Million for Caltrain PTC
Some on the Peninsula see high speed rail as a threat to Caltrain’s future. But today we saw a reminder of how high speed rail and Caltrain help each other out. The US Department of Transportation and the California High Speed Rail Authority today announced a $16 million grant to build positive train control on the Caltrain corridor. From the CHSRA’s press release:
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has signed a grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration to obligate $16 million to fund the design of signaling technology to optimize safety on the Bay Area segment, benefitting the Caltrain system and improving train control and safety on the corridor during high-speed rail construction. Caltrain is the regional commuter system connecting San Francisco to San Jose – the same 52-mile rail corridor in which the state’s high-speed train will operate….
The technology, Positive Train Control, will increase safety and operations of the passenger train network that currently carries 41,000 people per day. The improved control and management of the network is necessary to upgrade and then maintain service during the future construction of the state’s high-speed rail system….
The agreement funds the design of a Positive Train Control system. Positive Train Control is an advanced technology used primarily for avoiding train-to-train collisions, monitoring train locations, preventing train incursion into track work zones, and preventing speeding and over-speed derailments.
The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (as Caltrain is formally known) is providing the matching funds to the federal award.
Anna Eshoo played a role in getting this funding, as Palo Alto Online explains:
“The $16 million doesn’t cover all the costs, but this is the bridge that will get us to complete the design,” Eshoo told the Weekly. “That’s why it’s so important — it’s an improvement for safety and efficiency.
“It’s a significant step to upgrade Caltrain.”…
Eshoo has been working since spring 2010 to allocate federal stimulus money for Caltrain improvements. In May 2010, she sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, requesting an allocation for positive train control on the Caltrain corridor. LaHood finalized the deal with the California High-Speed Rail Authority this week.
In other words, when all the parties work together for mutual benefit, good things happen. This is why it’s so unfortunate that some folks on the Peninsula want to pit HSR against Caltrain. Ultimately the solution requires more money – more local, more state, and more federal money to bring the kind of passenger rail improvements that the Peninsula wants and needs.
Everyone on the Peninsula needs to unite behind this – go get the money. Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come.
Dumbest. Posting. Ever.
I’m sorry Robert but I have to stronly disagree with this.
As we have stated multiple times, why develop another custom system after custom system after custom system? Anyone who wants to save money would use an off the shelf system. Why spend $300 million on a new signal system versus spending it on something more useful. It makes no sense to R&D your own signal system when there is a good standard out there.
So pretty much they’re throwing $16 Million into the garbage? Great, I could have made better use of that money.
Robert, your posts are becoming a little too, how should I say this. HSR cheerleader(y) if that’s a word. We all know this bad news for HSR on the peninsula.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Um. What dave said. I really hope this is just $16 million to figure out how to apply ERTMS to long American freight trains. (And yes, it might cost that much to do that.) If it’s anything else… that’s sick.
What a waste of money for a failing system. If Caltrain gets $16 million for crap, it’s only fair when San Diego Coaster gets some funding, too. We could use some new cars for sure, maybe even electrification and we don’t struggle financially.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I’d talk to the folks running TransNet and siphon funds from the I-5 expansion into that since NCTD owns the ROW. I-5 doesn’t need more lanes. http://www.movesandiego.org/programs.html This might be a better proposal than the Mid-Coast Trolley which could save some money and allow a true BRT system to take hold and get people on transit in the SD area.
Emma Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Thank you for the info. This sounds a lot more reasonable than the current plan. The line they propose right now seems to be of no use for the overwhelming majority of San Diegans. Instead it caters to tourists.
We need light rail where people live who would actually use it. And I still don’t get why there is no express bus that connects Downtown to Pacific Beach. That should make sense to anyone. Instead, you end up taking the trolley to Old Town. Then a 20 minute bus ride (if you are lucky).
Risenmessiah Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 8:13 am
The Administration isn’t going to help out a Republican in James Bilbray that they want to unseat. That said, the real question I have is what is the plan for the ROW between University City and Downtown San Diego anyway? Can Coaster survive even when HSR is finished, even if the Mid-Coast and other projects are never built?
Derek Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:05 am
The HSR and Coaster serve two entirely different markets and won’t share any stations, so they won’t compete with each other.
Risenmessiah Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
No, I mean the fact that currently Coaster and HSR will use the ROW….
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
The University City – Downtown trackage will either need to be shared (which seems unlikely, as unlike Caltrain they haven’t even applied for a waiver) or quadruplicated, which I believe is the plan. The existing trackage carries not just Coaster and Amtrak but also freight.
Is this $16 million for ERTMS/ETCS, or CBOSS? I think I know the answer, but I figure I should ask.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:53 pm
The only sliver of hope in the press release is the mention from Van Ark that it will allow interoperability between Caltrain and HSR:
Of course that could mean they’re going to put CBOSS onto the HSR trains, but there’s always hope.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Yeah ok nevermind, no hope. F-ing hell that is ridiculous. $251million vs how much for off the shelf ERTMS/ETCS and a spare locomotive to haul both of those freight trains up and down the line?
morris brown Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:55 pm
From CalTrain’s website:
http://www.caltrain.com/about/news/Federal_Grant_Moves_Modernization_of_Caltrain_Corridor_Forward.html
we read:
June 23, 2011
The Federal Railroad Administration has announced the award of a $16 million cooperative agreement to the California High Speed Rail Authority for the design of a new, modernized signaling system on the Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose.
The new system, known as the Communication Based Overlay Signal System, includes safety improvements required by federal law and is the first step in the modernization of the Caltrain corridor, which is being planned to support electrified passenger rail service, including high-speed rail, between San Francisco and San Jose.
This is really an outrage.
I hope Clem will comment.
joe Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
He’s written about CBOSS here.
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/06/staking-out-cboss-territory.html
He writes:
First, hasn’t the collaboration between HSR and Caltrain been effectively crippled by the NIMBYs who both want to stop HSR and defund Caltrain so NIMBYs can stop local development? At least this is a move to help Caltrain.
Mr. Morris doesn’t want the growth associated with local development: Stanford’s Hospital expansion, Menlo Park’s downtown project or Facebook’s expansion. Each of these relies on non-auto transportation; buses and Caltrain to off load auto traffic. Kill rail and you can stop development. Here’s anther outrage against rail.
If this contract included HSR wouldn’t NIMBYs object/sue to stop the waste of adding requirements for a TBD HSR system? There are lawsuits against HSR and his obvious chatter about Altamont alignment negating the SJ-SF route?
This is really an outrage for against whom?
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Whoever decided it should be CBOSS for Caltrain’s signal system.
VBobier Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
There is one other factor in the HSR discussion that Morris and His ilk are possibly afraid of, falling property values as a result of the Central Valley suddenly having quick access to the Peninsula and for a lot less than it is now, I mean aren’t those areas no growth or maybe limited growth and such? The CV has no such current restrictions, With access like HSR, Who needs the Peninsula anymore?
Matthew B. Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 6:13 am
I have to disagree. HSR will still not provide the Central Valley the same degree of access to SF, Silicon Valley, and East Bay job markets as the Peninsula. HSR should only increase Peninsula home values, and I think a slight majority of Peninsula residents know that.
synonymouse Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Aerials decrease property values as they are ugly, noisy, and attract undesirables seeking a place to lurk.
Meantime the farmers are getting kicked around as usual by PB. Can’t figure why the ag interests aren’t pushing I-5. I guess the usual corrupt machine politix – the Farm Bureau is just giving lip service to the complaints of the little guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/25/high-speed-rail-routed-around-environmental-site-affects-new-group-farms/
joe Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Dear Troll: There is no requirement for Aerial structures.
Fox News — thanks for clarifying that this is yet another phony astro-turf protest.
synonymouse Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
On the contrary in the PB zeitgeist aerials are required. They are essential to achieving the corporate trademark brutalist aesthetic. In effect PB equates to BART, its spawn. Noisy, tinny, proprietary, dysfunctional, dull gray mit reinforced concrete everywhere.
The mission of the CHSRA is to waste as much money as possible in the pursuit of the misconceived and the overbuilt. That is the definition of a boondoggle.
joe Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Property Values.
Just be clear about the NIMBY hypocrisy.
Menlo Park is NOT required to consider property value impacts when it develops within the city – their downtown development project which plans on drawing thousands of additional cars into MP core has NO estimate or consideration for this traffic or development impact on residential Property Values.
So it’s silly for CA HSR to have to consider what **he** and other NIMBYs fear might hurt residential property values when his own city gives no consideration when doing an EIR study.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Fast clean quiet electric trains increase property values.
Clem Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
While I am no longer able to react at the speed of the news cycle, my comments on this matter are now posted on my blog.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
OK, Morris, for once I agree: this IS obscene. CBOSS is a waste of money.
This is a horrible mistake.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm
It does bring to mind an interesting question: What is the system that Metrolink is installing for PTC?
randyw Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 pm
they seem to have an other system:
installed by Parsons:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2010/10/L-A-s-Metrolink-moves-forward-with-PTC-installation.aspx
working with Wabtec Railway Electronics on a system called ETMS:
http://www.nerailroadclub.com/pdf/WABCO.pdf
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Hmm. ETMS is the BNSF-chosen variant of the US freight railroads’ supposed PTC system (which they finally agreed to make interoperable).
It appears, though I could be mistaken, that all of the “big four” have at this point agreed to go with Wabtec’s system, so Wabtec has a near-monopoly. I’m not sure what the two Canadian railroads are doing.
I was just googling CBOSS and I came across this funny grant http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=53785 for which only Caltrain apparently was eligible
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
What the $(*& are they thinking? Definitely a pork project right there.
Stupid. We should implement ERTMS/ETCS with minimal or no changes.
Robert, this is a bad post. How is this announcement good for HSR?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 pm
It’s awesome for HSR – CBOSS is only 8% funded. CAHSR in comparison is about 25% funded, counting all Prop 1A money and not just the part matched by federal contributions.
VBobier Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
If $16,000,000.00 is 8% funded, then CBOSS might run $200,000,000.00 or so, not inexpensive, but if successful, it could be used elsewhere.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
$251 million – 8% includes $4 million in local matching funds.
And it’s not going to be successful, or useful elsewhere. At less cost, and far less cost escalation risk, they could ETCSify the line. If/when the Northeast decides to step into the 21st century, it’s not going to even notice what a single regional line in California uses; it’s going to go either with its own one-of-a-kind boondoggle or more optimistically get an existing debugged system.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The Northeast? ACSES is almost certainly good enough for all practical purposes and has the benefit of an installed base. It probably won’t be replaced until the entire NEC signalling system starts falling apart. Yeah, CBOSS is *never* gonna be used anywhere else.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Big IF when there is stuff already out there.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I like your analysis, Alon. :-)
Ok I lhavent been following the ptc stuff at all and in fact am not familiar with the acronyms. Can someone explain what the problem is with this grant? Are you guys saying that the system is not compatible w the cahsr system? Isnt this the same system that is being installed on some of the metrolink routes?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Go to Clem’s blog. Long story short: there’s a global industry standard for PTC, especially for greenfield HSR systems, called ERTMS/ETCS – European Rail Traffic Management System/European Train Control System (more precisely, ERTMS consists of ETCS plus a GSM frequency for communication). In addition, there’s a second off-the-shelf system, called D-ATC (Digital Automatic Train Control), used on Shinkansen lines and their derivatives. CAHSR has made noises about using ETCS; Caltrain is instead developing its own PTC system from scratch, called CBOSS, based more on compatibility with the few freight trains that run on the line than with HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 4:39 am
and there’s a bunch of obsolete systems that would satisfy the definition of PTC. some of them used by freight railroads in the US.
Peter Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 4:56 am
What’s really sad is that the Russians have developed a system that is EXACTLY what freight-PTC is supposed to be. Why couldn’t we just adopt their already-debugged system instead of reinventing the wheel? Oh wait, not invented here, therefore not good for us.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:41 am
People in the first world have an even worse NIH attitude about Russia and China than they do about other first-world regions.
Peter Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Oh, and get this, the Russians are developing a version of their PTC system that is fully compatible with ETCS Level 2. And we’re wasting millions on a system that won’t be used by more than Caltrain (and CAHSR because it’s used by Caltrain)? WTF?
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Including, get this, *two* systems currently used by Amtrak, which freight railroads already interoperate with. (ACSES and ITCS).
The Russian system, ETCS level 2 tested with long freight trains and knuckle couplers… seriously. We don’t need to redesign the wheel AGAIN.
Donk Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Thanks.
VBobier Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 9:39 am
The European signaling for Freight, is it compatible with US Freight signaling? That may be the reason for CBOSS, Just Compatibility, Which European Freight may lack, Now It could at this point be adapted for whatever HSR ends up using.
Peter Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 10:15 am
“The European signaling for Freight, is it compatible with US Freight signaling?”
No, it’s not. There are a number of different legacy systems in Europe. They’re not compatible with one another, and are not compatible with the systems the US freight companies are developing. ERTMS/ETCS, while it has been declared to be the standard, has not yet been implemented on many lines in Europe.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The US freight companies are simply avoiding deploying PTC at all, and will probably be in violation of the law soon (isn’t the deadline 2012?) Most of them seem to think they’ll get the law changed.
They won’t. They’ve misread the political climate.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Ah, I see the final deadline is 2015. We’ll see what they do.
I don’t quite see the point.
A future HSR will basically require a ripping up of the present Caltrain line and rebuillding it from scratch as a combined Caltrain / HSR line. That would mean new tracks, superelevated curves, new vertical alignment, new trains (electric) and of course a new signalling system which would be that of HSR as two different signalling systems on the same line doesn’t make sense.
So in view of that, any investment in the existing infrastructure is likely to be relatively short lived and the money would be better spent if banked and then used on the big project when it comes.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 1:02 am
Just like the San Bruno curve correction.
I support CBOSS. I don’t think all of you understand how important CBOSS and the CMPD program (which I’m helping to develop) are for HSR. We’re seeking funding for the CMPD program and now it’s looks like the authority may authorize funds for our program as well. For those of you who don’t know, CMPDs are critical to a successful rail system. Basically what CMPDs (Circular Momentum Preserving Devices) do, is allow a train set to continue moving along the steel tracks with a minimal loss of momentum by rotating in a circle. While there are other similar products out there, they were not developed with our infrastructure needs in mind. Only the CMPD program will give CAHSR the technology we need to be successful – other similar programs were done in Europe, and while they have refined their products over time, we need a totally new modern approach for our new HSR system.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 8:15 am
There is absolutely no reason for an entirely new and proprietary PTC system, especially when HSR is planning to use that entire route with such an off the shelf system.
Realist Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 9:03 am
But my circular momentum preserving device, sometimes known as a wheel is in critical need of reinvention for the unique gravitational and frictional forces likely to be experienced in California.
Jon Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Paulus, I think you missed the joke here…
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Yup, which is pretty sad given my own tendencies towards sarcasm and deadpan.
VBobier Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Perpetual motion, yeah I got It, people have been trying to develop that off and on for a long time.
Since Robert seems to love going through every critical article posted:
Analysts question cost, ridership for high-speed rail project; hampered by an ‘air of unreality’
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:44 am
The cost (in this article) is old news: They cite the LAO report, the NIMBY Stanford professor whose Antherton backyard picnics will be impacted by HSr construction and the article misrepresents the the obvious Build as you pay model CA intentionally established for HSR. We citizens agreed to begin to build HSR without full funding in place.
Ridership refers to the Berkeley review of the Cambridge Model and methods and CARRD Nimby Elizabeth.
I do agree with Elizabeth here:
We need real numbers so let’s built HSR – the only way to get real numbers. Just parse her nonsensical FUD about forecast modeling. We will not know ridership unless we built it so we shouldn’t build it until we know.
Models are tools.
I am not satisfied with the Cambridge model as the definitive model for HSR ridership and I don’t like their simplifying assumption with automobile access to the rail station. It smacks of BART’s car centric design. They diminishes the importance of station location on the peninsula becuae riders will drive to ride.
That’s 20th century car-centric thinking for HSR. The model should expand on how riders choose to use alternative forms of transportation to access HSR and stations should be located to foster non-car ridership. i.e. in towns and not surrounded by a sea of parking.
Gilroy needs 6,600 parking spots to accommodate the car centric ridership design of the Cambridge model.
J. Wong Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Weren’t the ridership numbers worst (or best) case for the EIR? That is, they intentionally looked at the highest feasible ridership numbers to understand the most environmental impact that could be expected.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Good question. I’d have to refresh my memory on the EIR numbers and what is worse case and projected ridership. Yes, worse case (more riders) is the way to do an EIR.
My point is one simplifying assumption is, HSR riders will use cars to get to the HSR station.
The exact location of the Peninsula station, be it in Redwood City or San Carlos, is irrelevant because the projected ridership along the peninsula can easily drive to either station. My concern is that simplifying assumption can force the HSR station to have extensive parking requirements.
If you reduce on-site parking and you reduce the ridership – in the model. That artifact will force the HSRA to demand large parking structures and I bet will make the stations less walkable and move them out of downtown areas. All because of a simplifying model assumption if it is not recognized as a model artifact.
I would considered a refinement, adding station location in the model (not re-do the alignment) and factor in public transportation/taxi/drop-off/walk alternatives that will bring riders to the station and maintain ridership but not rely on on-site parking.
So Gilroy’s out of town station might be a sea of 6.600 parking spots with a station in the middle and shuttle buses taking riders from their car to the station. Or it could be downtown station with a transit center (Caltrain Station is already the city’s transit center) and an adjacent “Fifth & Mission Parking Garage” structure next door: 8 Floors of Parking, 965,600 Sq. Ft. and 2585 Parking Spaces.
MST buses could bring Montery riders in closer to the train station than a massive parking lot with shuttle bus.
VBobier Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Not a sea, more like a parking structure or two, like the Disneyland Resort down in Anaheim CA has.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Never been there but in FL it’s a sea of parking.
The early design I see for Gilroy with the 6,600 is a parking sea – a large 1-D parking lot and smaller structure.
6,600 parking spaces isn’t cheap if it’s a parking structure like Disney world. I also think it’s an artifact of the model and counterproductive to HSR use if the stations are car-philic and walking-phobic. These should be transit centers as the current Gilroy staton is used as one.
Anyone who might care, Gilroy TARGET Mall Complex off 101 that includes Kohl’s is about 1,100 spots by my estimation.
Derek Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Doesn’t SFPark eliminate the “need” to oversupply parking?
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
No.
My understanding of the Cambridge ridership model (and Berkley criticisms) is the model relies on riders taking cars to the stations which simplifies the selection of station location. cars make the exact location less relevant – in the model irrelevant.
That model design ties riders to cars and hence it links HSR ridership to station parking spots. That linkage has to be understood as a model artifact and I believe a refinement would include more alternative transportation sources for riders.
A second concern is projecting ridership using alternative sources of transportation is new and a change in behavior that Berkeley group would pedantically criticize.
I was NOT swayed by the Berkeley review. Their draft contained grandiose, sensational and unfortunately for them, unsupported criticisms of the Cambridge results. I have done reviews of deeply technical and scientific material and also system level reviews. Their review draft reached too far at times and undermined their credibility.
Derek Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
I guess I don’t understand how that means SFPark doesn’t reduce the amount of parking needed.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Tools like SFPARK do not increase parking capacity.
My guess is if the HSRA tells residents that HSR’s plan is for a large fraction of riders to drive to HSR and park in existing spaces using a sfpark like tool/app and drive up parking demand and rates they’ll create a shit-storm.
HSR will need to emphasize the use of alternative transportation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Meh. These same people manage to get to airports without driving their car there and parking it.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
You mean SFO with the massive new parking structure and long term parking located outside the city?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:25 am
If they put the airport inside the city people would complain about the noise.
joe Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 2:18 am
Yet HSR has massive parking requirements for each station; the ridership model depends on car usage, and they do build airports in cities.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 10:27 am
The ridership model assumes substantial car access because we have a car dominated transport system. Its likely that the actual parking requirements are lower for stations in urban areas with lower car mode share for local transport, and higher in suburban areas with higher car mode share. While the 2035 ridership obviously won’t be relying on gasoline powered cars for the projected number of vehicles, any 2035 mode split between individual vehicles and local common carrier access is highly speculative.
Its unlikely to be more heavily tilted to individual vehicles than at present, given how heavily subsidized they are at present, but a wide range of local mode splits from current levels down to 20%~30% individual vehicles are plausible.
Derek Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 10:00 am
SFPark doesn’t “drive up parking demand.” In fact, it reduces demand, slightly below the level of supply.
egk Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Another incorrect assumption that was made in the model is that CAHSR stations will need about the same ratio of parking to passengers as an airport. This isn’t true anywhere in the world, and for good reason. Actual parking needs correlate not only with passenger volume (and availability of alternatives) but duration of journey -one day, two days, two weeks. Airports serve people taking much longer-duration of journeys than HSR stations do, and thus need much more parking.
Iraq getting HSR? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13909905
Andre Peretti Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
It’s just an MOU, so far. The contract (if signed) will be “design, build and operate”.
The speed will be a modest 155mph. Maybe the cars will have to be very heavy to resist bombs and mines.
Anybody in any way remotely connected to conceiving, designing, funding, lobbying for, advocating, or acquiescing to CBOSS deserves to die in a fire.
It really is that cut and dried.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
There don’t seem to be many that would disagree…
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I think that is overkill. Prison would be much more suitable for them.
Here’s why the UP wants separation:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,59550,59555#msg-59555
100 feet isn’t that great a cordon sanitaire.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Troll makes no sense.
“He said that the semi truck hit the second car AFTER the locomotives had cleared the crossing.”
Miles Bader Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Troll uses very simplistic algorithm.
Peter Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Last I read it was the FOURTH car.
AlanF Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The truck in the accident in NV hit the 4th car in the California Zephyr consist: Two P42 locomotives, the baggage car, the Superliner Trans-dorm, which was followed by 2 coach cars which were followed by 5 more Superliners. The truck ran smack into the side of the Trans-Dorm, at what appears to be a pretty high speed. The gates were down and the flashing lights were on at what was a pretty obvious grade crossing The truck cab was destroyed, all that is recognizable from the photos of the accident scene are the 2 axles of the cab. Two Superliner cars were destroyed, the 3rd looks to have been damaged by smoke and heat from the fire. Pretty bad accident.
This accident is an argument for grade separation on any passenger corridor that has a lot of traffic, whether it is high speed or not. The problem is, of course, is that grade separations can cost money. Even now, the NEC still has grade crossings in eastern CT.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Its also an argument for the cable reinforced crossing gates which can soak up much or all of the momentum of a speeding truck with a dozy or twittering driver.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
It’s also an argument for stricter licensing of drivers. Or perhaps for automatic cutouts in cars and trucks which disable their motors near grade crossings. What sort of a moron plows through a grade crossing? Truck vs. train, *the truck loses*.
Of course the problem of “suicide by train” is a larger one; people deliberating driving their cars into trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
cut off the engine and the power steering and power brakes don’t work any more. so when the Darwin Award competitor plows into the school bus filled with nuns instead of the train it’s the railroad’s fault because he didn’t have any power steering or power brakes.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Not a serious suggestion. Mostly thinking about automated cars.
Alan F Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The problem with the idea of cable reinforced crossing gates is cost, complexity, reliability – the gates have to be opened and closed multiple times a day, durability. How far from the tracks would the cable reinforced gates have to be in order to catch and stop a semi truck moving at 60 mph? How massive would the gate have to be? There are clear limits on what can be done with at a crossing gate intersection.
Peter Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
How about this for a barrier?
BruceMcF Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
I don’t know far for a semi. StopGate claims 4m (13ft 2in in the old money) for a pickup truck going 45mph.
Its not clear why you imagine these gates are harder to open and close than conventional long arm gates or why you imagine that they are particularly heavy ~ there is a fitting on the post on the opposite side that they drop into.
It seems as if you are answering as if it was a speculative off the cuff notion instead of a fairly recently developed technology already being put into use.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 10:36 am
The grade crossings in Connecticut are near stations and or curves, the speed limit for the trains is low. Amtrak may have a few ulterior motives. NIMBYs for one. Since the grade separations would benefit MetroNorth/CDOT more than Amtrak they may be waiting for Connecticut to come up with money. Or they are putting it off until they abandon the Shore Line.
Alan F Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
The grade crossings on the NEC in eastern CT, other than the 3 in New London along the waterfront, are not that close to stations. I think the speeds for some of them are 80 or 90 mph. Not real high speed, but fast enough to do damage if the train hits a truck. The problem with the crossings – 1 west of new London, the rest between New London and west Stonington – is that they are generally either
1) In the middle of a tight residential area with no room to put in an road bridge overpass without taking a lot of houses or
2) the tracks are right on the coast with only a few houses or docks on the south side of the crossing, but with little room for an overpass bridge which would also be very expensive in terms of the number of people who would use it.
I’m sure Amtrak, if they could have their way and had the funding, would prefer to close all of or as many as remotely feasible of the grade crossings other than those in New London (which can’t be fixed without going to elevated tracks or a complete re-route). Not so much for speed, but for safety and not having to deal with another Acela Miner road fatal collision. A better solution might be to use the grade crossings and the long time goal of a 3 hour NYP-BOS trip time as an excuse to seriously re-route the NEC just east of New London to use the I-95 ROW for a few miles and then cut back across to the NEC east of Mystic.
Ted K. Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 7:20 am
The thing that struck me about that crossing in NV was that the road made a straight, full-speed approach to the crossing. Since this crossing has had problems in the past why not reduce the speed limit and make the crossing part of an ‘S’-turn ? Add a couple of crash berms that out-of-control vehicles can safely wipe-out into and the crossing would be made safer for all users.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I fail to see how a truck impacting a train at a grade crossing is relevant to distance between ROW.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
This has absolutely nothing to do with HSR separation and UP track separation. This would be a case for grade separation. The locomotives cleared the crossing, the truck continued to go through.
Actually, this is an argument in favor of UP co-operating with HSR. A 100ft cordon between tracks would have done nothing to prevent this accident, but grade separation would have, and if UP were to play nice with HSR they could get their tracks grade separated as part of HSR construction.
Jon Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Dammit, another reply fail
synonymouse Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
You are not getting it – UP cars on fire next to hsr train and the UP train stayed on the track and still posed a danger to anything near it. See anybody hanging around the burning cars?
Fire and derailment is a real possibility on an busy class one, not to mention toxics. The center of an interstate is much safer.
Experienced railroaders will say a broken and protruding metal strap holding down a load will cut the shit out out of whatever is along the ROW. That is why a bike path next to an rr is stupid.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Dear Troll;
A grade separation prevents the accident that could have easily happened to a UP train. This is a truck causing an accident.
VBobier Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
A freeway center median is no safer as Semi Trucks can leap or go through freeway dividers, saying different says Yer an insane lunatic.
synonymouse Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Half a berm wall should keep out trucks. I mean you are not going to encounter “Gravedigger” trying to climb a 10 ft. wall down I-5. Truth is I don’t know if a derailed and jack-knifed freight train could bust thru a concrete wall. I wonder if they ever tried an experiment like that at Pueblo.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
I imagine it would look something like this.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:29 am
If the center of an Interstate is safer why would they be building ten foot walls?
VBobier Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
To keep the unauthorized Tank Jockey from going down the interstate, I imagine. ;) Yes this has actually happened once before down near San Diego, some jerk stole a 60 Ton tank and went on a joyride in it, He almost climbed over the central divider on a freeway, before getting on the freeway, the guy ran over cars and went through part of a motorhome like a hot knife thru butter, a deputy climbed up on top and shot the guy w/a handgun through an open top hatch killing the guy, As He wouldn’t surrender.
Grade separations won’t prevent a broken rail, an open or bad switch, seized bearings or other causes of derailments. They won’t prevent rail on rail collisions due to signal or human error.
That’s why the UP is saying to the CHSRA stay away. Who wants law suits.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Mr Mouse has this one spot-on.
Occasionally derailing, exploding and colliding head-on for no good reason are part of the accepted cost of doing business for US freight railroads. The cost may be large at times, but they are deemed manageable and acceptable and cheaper than alternatives.
Now consider a public body coming in and offering such a private corporation the “upsides” of removing a couple grade crossings and maybe a few tens of millions of dollars for ROW access against the downside of small but non-zero exposure to a catastrophic financial liability (in the form of 1000 humans decelerating rapidly from 90m/s to 0/ms.)
It’s all pain and no gain for the private corporation. (Grade crossings? We deal with thousands of them every single day. BFD. Your cash? The sort of stuff we lose in the sofa cushions without noticing. BFD.) The upsides are negligible, the downside is potentially enormous. Of course the rational self-interested capitalist answer is “go and pound sand.”
Without a doubt this isn’t the socially optimal outcome, and in a different and better country things would be done differently. But good luck with trying to change the US’s political, regulatory and legal systems to effect that.
joe Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
So what the US did with Civilian air transportation safety since its inception, which has improved exponentially over time, is too hard with rail because we suck. Did I get that right?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
US civil air transportation is predominately passenger; US rail transportation is predominately freight. Nobody would give a damn about airplanes falling out of the sky every now and then if they were only freight, just as nobody gives a damn about the dozens of freight railroad workers who die in various accidents every year.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
It’s not just that; there’s also an issue of how spectacular and how involuntary accidents are perceived to be. Car accidents are voluntary risks (people think they’re good drivers and that accidents won’t happen to them) and not spectacular (only a few people die at a time), so people accept relatively high rates. Plane crashes are the opposite: involuntary (the passenger must trust the engineering and the pilot) and spectacular (hundreds of people die per accident). Passenger train crashes are mostly like plane crashes; fewer people die each time, but many get injured. Freight train crashes are not, because the popular attitude toward grade crossing accidents is the same as that toward car crashes, and usually the accidents aren’t too newsworthy.
joe Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 2:27 am
and we think grade crossing accidents are mini-darwin awards. What’s there to fix?
Yet I think this pessimism that we morons can’t improve rail safety to accommodate increased passenger use is proven wrong by example: airline safety.
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The occasional collision due to poor maintenance should be grounds for the dismantling and bankruptcy of the major criminal US railroads. It is, after all, illegal.
Jon Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Mr Mlynarik is quite correct, but that doesn’t mean Mr Mouse is right to be so sympathetic to UP.
Essentially your position in this depends on whether you care about building HSR in an optimal and cost effective manner or not. UP doesn’t care about that, and there’s no reason why they should, as a private company. Mr Mouse has his own reasons for opposing HSR and so is naturally sympathetic to UP’s side of the argument.
For those of us that do care about building HSR in an optimal and cost effective manner, the only solution is to nationalize this section of the UP line. While the line is owned by a private company they have no motivation to work with CAHSR for the ‘socially optimal’ outcome. It’s never gonna happen, but that’s the solution.
Ridership and HSR: When we build it, they will ride.
Analysis involving Multiple Factors, Lags and Asymmetric Behaviour
For public transportation, adding supply appears to increase demand; i.e. if we build more service, riders will come. Building HSR but deriving ridership with existing transportation demand (extrapolating from airline and cars trips) isn’t consistent with the study findings. Adding supply will increase demand.
Asymmetry exists for fuel prices and ticket prices: ‘fuel price increases drove an increase in transit ridership, but decreasing fuel costs did not draw riders back cars with the same force.’
Same for ticket prices: increasing ticket prices pushed riders back to cars but cutting prices did not drawn them back with equal force.
So this study suggests HSR will create demand beyond what is existing today with air and auto traffic AND HSR will benefit from increasing oil prices (and unstable oil prices that increase seasonally). HSR ticket price increases need to be done cautiously – ticket price cuts to previous levels cannot draw back prior ridership.
Transit fares produced the “strongest impact” on passenger numbers, according to the researchers. For each 1 percent increase in fare, their model predicts a .4 percent decline in ridership in the short-term and a .8 percent drop later on.”
This video link came in a conversation with someone at the Infrastructurist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQMtnPfj98s
I’ll say here what I said at the Infrastructurist: What the devil is the matter with the interviewer from CNBC? He is an ideologue, aggressive, argumentive, and in my opinion, rude. My mother brought me up to act better than that. If I had been in Boardman’s shoes, I would have said to him, “Don’t waste my time or yours; you want answers, I’ll give them to you as best I can, but if you can’t be civilized, I’m not wasting my time, you can have some empty air. I have a railroad to run.”
I’ll also add that Boardman needs to make the case that the principle competition has a cash cost recovery ratio of only 51% compared to the 72% system average for passenger trains. He needed to say that no private company will go into such a rigged game. Unrig the game, let the motorist and the air passenger pay what it really costs to drive or fly, and we’ll talk about private capital.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 12:01 am
It all depends on what you define the competition to be. If we’re talking mode wars, then sure. But if the question is whether to keep Amtrak as it is or let SNCF or JR Central to take over, then the competition is profitable. In some parts of the world, when they talk of “50% operating ratio” what they mean is that operating costs are 50% of revenues, rather than the opposite – and some HSR lines achieve just that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 5:57 am
A 50% operating ratio would be considered excellent in the freight field here, too.
In America, if I’m remembering things right, the operating ratio also includes all the recurring fixed costs for a railroad (i.e., track maintenance). A lot of the “operating profit’ that has been discussed here could be what American practice calls the “transportation ratio,” which is the cost of running the trains themselves. A good transportation ratio in the regulated era was 40%, preferably less.
I’ll admit I haven’t gotten around to Paulus’ links, and I should; I wonder if that distinction is in his information?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Yes, but the distinction is stated in the more modern corporate terms of operating income ex-depreciation, operating income, and net income.
VBobier Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
And that would be all major airports and freeways losing their subsidies. Which if what I’ve read about the tea party types is even half true, I’ve heard they don’t like the amendments to the US Constitution and want to go back to the 1776 Constitution, Women and non-White Men would lose the vote, as would those who don’t own land, treaties made since 1776 would be null and void, so most of the Southwest, Northwest and Southeast would be ceded back to their original countries(Mexico, Russia and Spain), 2/3rds of the USA would be in foreign hands as a result, the USAF would be dissolved and the personnel folded into the US Army or abandoned outright. Oh and lots of people would not only lose their citizenship, Slavery would be legal once more, Justice Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom who’s an Originalist, Our country is being lead by the Kochs to its very destruction that Thomas Jefferson warned about following:
They must be stopped in 2012… United We stand, Divided We fall. This applies very well to all who are not infected Republicans, some Libertarians(?), ignorant Tea Partiers, as well as to those who see the original Constitution w/out the ratified amendments as a bible to be viewed only in an original context and not in a modern day context, plus those who just don’t want to pay taxes or be prosecuted for tax evasion like the Libertarian Lyndon LaRouche was, namely the Koch brothers of Koch Industries infamy and possibly believers in the old American Liberty League that tried to kill FDR’s New Deal. I’ve read that not all Libers are alike, But some definitely don’t like paying taxes for any reason. If that is the America that they want, then I want no part of it. I say no more Democratic sit down strikes from now on, otherwise We are just handing the country and our rights over to a few to be shredded and burned in a bonfire. When good people are idle, Evil thrives.
Derek Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The Thomas Jefferson quote is an interesting one. Which letter to which friend was it?
Peter Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“Letter to Samuel Kercheval”, Monticello, July 12, 1816
Derek Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Thanks! I had trouble googling it, because the passage wasn’t quoted verbatim, even though it was enclosed in double quotes. Here’s the condensed but otherwise verbatim passage:
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.”
Nathanael Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
They don’t know what they want. If they repealed the treaties since 1776, they’d be giving the Native Americans their land back, and of course the racist Tea Partiers would never do THAT.
Thanks for a nice article and another good Jefferson quote. The man was smart.
Does the President read Clem’s blog? This is throwing good Chuck E. Cheese tokens after bad.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Why would the President read Clem’s blog? The question is whether there’s anyone who sees LaHood directly who reads Clem’s blog.