Bay Area Council Calls on MTC to Lead Merged Caltrain/HSR Plan
In what is a significant development in the debate over how to build high speed rail on the Peninsula, the Bay Area Council has written to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission calling on the MTC to take the lead in developing a “hybrid” plan to both electrify Caltrain and bring high speed rail to the Transbay Terminal. From the BAC letter:
There is much common ground among the framework put forward by Senator Simitian, Assembly Member Gordon, and Congresswoman Eshoo; the Caltrain concept; ideas from San Francisco and San Jose; and even the “phased” approach that the Authority has aired.
The Bay Area Council has had discussion with these leaders, and I see substantial areas of agreement among them and with the Bay Area Council. I believe that there can be broad support for a project that:
• Brings both high speed rail and Caltrain electrification to the Peninsula as soon as possible, by utilizing a simple design that can be funded and built quickly.
• Provides sufficient speed, capacity, and flexibility to support an attractive high speed rail service, while also providing adequate capacity for robust Caltrain service.
• Minimizes community impacts by forgoing construction elements that are not needed in the near/mid‐term.
• Connects to the Transbay Terminal.
• Meets legal requirements necessary to access Proposition 1A high speed rail bond funds.
• Is designed such that future upgrades, should they be necessary and desired at a future date, would not require unnecessary disruption or wasteful reconstruction.
Some will have concerns additional to those above, and some might quibble with the precise wording— there certainly will need to be a degree of compromise on all sides in order to reach agreement. But agreement, I am confident, is within our reach.
What the BAC lists here is, broadly speaking, a workable starting point. A good design that meets both Caltrain and HSR’s needs, connecting to the Transbay Terminal and designed in a way for future upgrades – which ARE quite necessary – is something I think a lot of people can get behind.
I worry about what “minimizing community impacts by forgoing construction elements that are not needed in the near/mid-term” means. I wish the BAC had not accepted the NIMBYs’ framing that things like aerial structures are “not needed” and have impacts that need to be “minimized” – what about the community impacts of at-grade crossings that cause significant traffic jams, that split communities, and that are very unsafe. Jim Wunderman might say I’m “quibbling with the precise wording” but I think this matters.
But this seems worth exploring. HSR was always going to be built in phases, and if the initial SF-SJ phase is some kind of hybrid that carries bullet trains to and from Transbay Terminal along a route that includes the Central Valley and terminates in downtown LA, a phase that can and will be expanded when the other segments are fully built out and when NIMBYism has faded, then it could work.
The politics here matter. The Bay Area Council have been strong backers of the HSR project, and have long been concerned at the NIMBYism cropping up on the Peninsula. While I’d always hoped the BAC would play a stronger role in helping push back against that NIMBYism by helping mobilize the Peninsula’s large, silent, pro-HSR and anti-NIMBY majority, they appear to be instead trying to broker a deal that enough people can live with. By providing backing for a hybrid plan they’re making that plan much more likely. And since the local electeds, including Anna Eshoo and Joe Simitian, have been converging on this plan along with the California High Speed Rail Authority (who has increasingly been open to this), the hybrid plan may be the new consensus path forward.
Perhaps another elected official who is converging toward this plan is Governor Jerry Brown. Remember that at the beginning of the month, he line-item vetoed $145 million in Prop 1A funding on the basis that it didn’t help build a comprehensive statewide rail plan:
The High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local jurisdictions should work together to develop a comprehensive statewide rail plan. The projects identified by Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission appear unrelated to the high-speed rail project or an integrated rail plan. As plans for the high speed route are further developed, the Authority should work with local agencies to build mutually beneficial projects.
That reads pretty closely to what the BAC letter proposed. Now it could be that the BAC simply read Brown’s veto closely and is appealing to his way of thinking – or both Brown and BAC are trying to produce this kind of coordinated, integrated solution.
In any case, it’s good that BAC is trying to keep HSR not only alive but well on the Peninsula. HSR advocates will closely evaluate both the concept that BAC has proposed as well as the details that emerge – and those advocates will fully expect to be a part of the process. After all, we represent the majority of Californians and the majority of Peninsula residents, both of whom continue to strongly support this project.
MTC is not equipped to lead an effort like this. It should be left to the operators, or technocrats. Pliticsshould be left out of this. First and foremost, they system should be designed for safety and operational efficiency.
I dare say, mostly podunks are the ones posting their opinion online.
“Pliticsshould” should have been “Politics should”
Ah yet. MTC. The transportation “planning” and “coordination” agency for the nine county Bay Area.
Remind me how much MTC executive director Steve “inexplicably unindicted” Heminger’s Bay Bridge went over budget? Oh, that’s right 5 billion of your US dollars. And counting.
Remind me by what percentage MTC deputy director and governmental liaison Steve Heminger’s BART extension to MIllbrae went under “predicted” ridership and over budget? Oh that’s right, 1/4 of “predicted” riders, nearly double the “budget” used to eliminate non-BART alternatives.
Remind me again how much transit in the Bay Area has increased under the “planning” and “investments” of MTC executive director Steve “Quentin’s Boy” Heminger’s tenure despite billions of pork thrown around? That would be a large and negative number, increasing every day of Heminger’s tenure
Remind me again how many transit riders have been gained by the nearly $400 million that MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger has directed directly into the pockets of MTC’s very very very VERY special friends at defense contractor Cubic, Inc for “smart” cards? MTC can’t demonstrate and has never offered any number other than zero.
Remind me again what Steve Heminger’s top two transit capital projects for the next 30 years are? Those would be PBQD’s Central Subway in San Francisco and PBQD’s BART line via the SJ Flea Market to Santa Clara, the two very worst price-performance rail projects in the US, which means the worst in the entire world.
Put that cast of proven criminals in charge and the past will be a perfect guide to the future!
Richard is correct.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:22 am
Except, it is overboard to label MTC staff as “criminal”.
Remember, MTC staff does the bidding for their board and other elected officials. Sure, they provide the staff recommendations, but, the really important staff decisions are constructed after having numerous one-on-ones with elected’s.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:34 am
Usually in questions of Evil vs. Stupid, it is the former.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:45 am
If you’re a conspiracy theorist, yes, that is what you would think.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:46 am
Absolutely absurd. It’s practically always “stupid”, right up to and including the people who started World War One.
Not that the two are *exclusive* mind you, G W Bush was an example of both evil and stupid.
Beta Magellan Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Not Evil vs. Stupid, but Stupid with a Helping of Unenlightened Self-Interest vs. Stupid.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:52 am
I see that you are a recent arrival to our planetary system. Allow me to explain how things are done in this Galactic Quadrant.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I came here to be your new ruler. King and Protector. I am not from San Diego.
I also agree that Boards and elected officials sometimes make stupid decisions. Sometimes it is the fault of staff. But only sometimes.
Yet still, MTC staff is not equipped for this. They manage studies. They do jot have the in-house technical expertise to handle this. Yeah, they can hire a contractor to oversee a technical study, but still, that is not enough.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
If the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has ever once — ONCE — failed to rubber stamp staff recommendations on any issue of any substance at any time since the agency (with a grand total of two ED’s Larry “my work here is done” Dahms and Steve “Mini Me” Heminger, thanks to to world-wide searches for the finest talent available) then I am unaware of it.
Our local CMAs and TAs simply approve staff plans/scams. The board members are there biding their time and using regional agency board membership as CV padding for pursuit of higher office or as one-upmanship over some other penny ante local council member. I’ve only ever met a total of six of them (over five agencies I’ve followed and nearly twenty years) who were in any way informed and engaged, and they were uniformly outvoted and marginalised by space-filling ciphers who do exactly staff tells them without exception.
It would be lovely to fantasize that things are in any way different all the way down there in San Diego.
Of course Richard is correct
I’ve always wondered how a board with 19 members (I think) can have any function at all, except to rubber stamp all staff reports and actions.
It is indeed a very small circle of “inbred insiders” that rule the Bay area on transportation issues.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:49 am
Oversized boards are a standard method of maintaining CEO control in corporations.
I agree with your second sentence and disagree with your third, because they’re *contradictory*. Clearly you’d get better results with a tiny board of 3 or 5 people, but that would *really* be a very small circle.
Instead you have masses of layers of committees, with the result that the bias is towards (a) the status quo and (b) sausage-slicing half-measures-for-everyone.
The MTC, supproter of the status quo. I think they need something called a total makeover or just gotten rid of. Rubberstamping of BART will not assist the Bay Area in fulfilling transportation needs, there needs to be better options that are pie in the sky but might have some utility.
1) Try to reduce the amount of systems in the area to 3 or 4 agencies instead of 24-27 to promote the easability of transit. It is probably my favorite item in Vancouver’s transit system, I can use the buses, rail, seabus, all on one fare for 90 minutes throughout the system.
2) Expand rail responsibly such as urban BART lines and not Livermore or San Jose. Caltrain Metro East, Dumbarton rehabilitation, etc. Build rail projects that make sense. Dollars are limited, the investments need to be stretched.
3) Stop it with the freeway expansion! That will not meet the needs of people and there is no room in some cases. At some point transit is the only feasable way to accomadate people. Seattle is starting to see this issue with multiple events creating auto network jams.
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I would support a Quasi-State owned “California Railway Company” to take over Caltrain, CAHSR, and Amtrak California services.
What about a first phase hybrid plan for Los Angeles to Anaheim or the “Y” to Merced?
Los Baños dairy farmers: High-speed rail poses significant threat to agriculture
Miles Bader Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:50 am
Los Baños dairy farmers: Aliens stole our chickens! The moon! The moon!
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:07 pm
LOL
Burlingame Residents Speak Out on HSR
Following the Burlingame City Council’s release of a set of principles on high speed rail, residents (including CC-HSR co-founder Russ Cohen) turned up at Monday’s meeting to fight back.
morris brown Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:20 am
Burlingame Residents Speak Out on HSR
link: http://www.modbee.com/2011/07/20/1783241/high-speed-rail-poses-significant.html
The most interesting part of this article is the final paragraph.
Dennis and Kirsten Areias are dairy farmers in the Los Banos area. The proposed route for the Merced-San Jose high-speed rail segment would cut their home dairy off from where the feed is grown and ruin an additional rental dairy and feeding facility.
Those who have been around this project will quickly relate this to this section of Prop 1A.
2704.09
24. There shall be no station between the Gilroy station and the Merced
station.
Goggle Villages of Laguna San Luis (Los Banos) for more info.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:28 am
a) Someone’s already posted a link to that article.
b) I didn’t know Los Banos was Burlingame.
c) Am I the only one who appears to have missed a planned station between Gilroy and Merced?
You’re weird.
joe Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Isn’t HSR just we citizens of CA asking for a little bit back given how much we inter-depend on each other?
The Los Banos dairy farm is assured a minimum price by the US taxpayers. Good. We need to help each other out so let’s not cry a river when the taxpayer funded rail needs a 100ft ROW.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:50 am
Addled nonsense and scaremongering. They can get an underpass.
thatbruce Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 12:07 pm
And perform some basic mathematics on how any figure for ROW use would be arrived at.
Suppose MTC does draft a plan. Who will pay any attention to it? There are three decision-making entities here: USDOT/FRA, CHSRA, Caltrain. USDOT/FRA is subject to pressure from Federal officials: Boxer, Pelosi etc. CHSRA is subject to pressure by State officials, basically the Governor. Caltrain is subject to pressure from local officials, particularly those that affect their funding How does a piece of paper generated by MTC affect these?
The HS authority is funded (sort of). Caltrain hasn’t a clue whether it will still be operating at this time next year, let alone investing in electrification and working with HSR. Asking the two to work together is like asking your local school drama group to form a joint venture with Universal Studios.
So either the improvements to Caltrain will have to come out of the HSR pot, adding to the price and doing stuff that isn’t part of their actual mandate, or Caltrain is going to have to find big funds of its own if they want to work together as equal partners.
morris brown Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:29 am
Andm M. writes:
Caltrain hasn’t a clue whether it will still be operating at this time next year
Nonsense. How many times is CalTrain going to cry “wolf” before everybody realizes their cry is nothing but an attempt to promote a naive group like “Friends of CalTrain” to try and pass a tax measure.
This whole movement is being driven by the political forces in Palo Alto. It won’t work. As long as CalTrain continues to support the High Speed Rail Authority, the taxpayers are going to say no to any sort of subsidies for this train.
Nathanael Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:51 am
Backwards, morris, as usual; the taxpayers voted FOR the High Speed Rail Authority, which you conveniently forget over and over again. Have they ever voted for Caltrain?….
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 10:29 am
“As long as CalTrain continues to support the High Speed Rail Authority, the taxpayers are going to say no to any sort of subsidies for this train.”
So, you’ve actually deluded yourself into thinking that the people on the Peninsula don’t recognize Caltrain’s importance, and that they are willing to quite literally blow up transportation on the Peninsula, because you and quite few others see HSR as a threat?
In case you haven’t noticed, most people don’t give a rat’s ass about whether HSR tracks are built above-ground or below-ground, or built at all, as long as they themselves can go about their business in the matter they’re accustomed to. That would only be possible if Caltrain continues to operate. If it doesn’t: traffic nightmare.
Hence: People are going to vote in their self-interest, which, in this case, means that they will vote to fund Caltrain.
synonymouse Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:04 am
The Bay Area Councils’s idea is terrible. MTC is BART. For the CHSRA to cede jurisdiction, ergo funding, to MTC guarantees Ring the Bay. Exit hsr.
PB foamies, wake up. Opposing the Simitian initiative only emboldens BART. Simitian favors hsr, MTC-BART is the enemy of hsr, your continued obsession with aerials, ie. an Embarcadero Freeway on rails for the Peninsula is only aiding and abetting BART’s strategy.
Still the best approach is Altamont-Dumbarton to SFO for hsr, but the Simitian plan will have to do if Pacheco dumbly prevails.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:31 am
Do you just pick a thread to respond to at random? Do you even read what the discussion is about?
wu ming Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:44 am
it’s a turing test.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The automatons that respond to every Synonymouse post by saying it’s a Turing test are clearly not the humans in this conversation…
synonymouse Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 12:58 pm
My point, which doubtless becomes tedious at some point, is that BART, tho seemingly sitting quietly on the sidelines, remains the 800 lb. gorilla in the Bay Area room. Its treachery of some 20 years ago against the Caltrain TBT tunnel, which was very much underway, underscores what an implacable enemy of Caltrain and by extension of hsr it remains. The PB faithful seem to be oblivious to the BART strategy. There is no question in my mind but what Wunderman is a BART operative for all practical purposes.
On another point, that of the State co-opting BART, it only operates in a few counties and does not therefore qualify for state-level intervention. But there have been numerous remarks on the blog that the CHSRA should simply annex and absorb Caltrain, and that only implicates 3 counties.
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:36 pm
It’s really, really simple.
HSR > BART > Caltrain
BART Ring-the-Bay without HSR will never happen. There are too many people with interests in HSR reaching SF Transbay that no solution which prevents that from happening will ever be countenanced.
If BART can come up with a plan that allows them to ring the bay and still allows HSR to reach Transbay, that might happen, but I can’t see how that would fly with Simitian and the peninsula NIMBYs. Unlike Caltrain, BART and HSR cannot share a two track system, so that means four grade-separated tracks everywhere from day 1.
Most likely there will be a compromise reached between CAHSR’s overbuilt four-track plan and Simitian’s inadequate plan that allows Caltrain and HSR to operate on the peninsula. BART will get a short extension from Santa Clara to Great America (new 49ers stadium!) as a consolation prize.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
It was tedious last year.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I wouldn’t say your point is tedious, it’s that I don’t really get how it is possible.
BART, which you have accused of the being the Kopp-Pelosi-Burton machine, naturally wants the Cal Train right of way to Ring the Bay. But let’s face it, the voters in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties rejected that funding mechanism.
CHSRA, which you have also accused of being part of the Kopp-Pelosi-Burton machine naturally wants the Cal Train right of Way to serve San Francisco and San Jose. Voters in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties voted for Prop 1A….
Ergo, your arguments come off well… schizophrenic. Is Kopp-Pelosi-Burton worried really about BART or HSR? Why would PB sign a contract with a state for a project if they know its never going to get built?
I think the following is far more believable:
BART wants Cal Train to fail so that it can snatch up its ROW but also add houses in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to its property assessment. Local politicians know Cal Train’s funding model is leaky, and that if a local funding measure is put on the ballot, that’s BART’s opening. So instead of attack Cal Train head on, BART has nibbled away at the edges, getting VTA to dump money into extending BART into San Jose and encouraging MTC to fund things like the Oakland Airport Connector which starve San Mateo Transit District and its payments to Cal Train.
So in reality, BART should basically tell CHSRA if you help us get the Cal Train ROW, we will make it compatible with your service so that we can share it. (BART trains above, and CHSRA below). However, once Nancy Pelosi lost the Speakership, the Governors (Jerry and Arnold), the President, PB and others realized building the SF to SJ portion first would be foolish. Hence no ability for BART to use Prop 1A money to conquer the Peninsula.
The Simitian-Eshoo crap is just to inoculate themselves from the primary tussles with pro-San Jose people like Mike Honda. And you know that….
Unless a meteor lands on San Francisco, Pelosi will be back and so will BART. There will be a treaty and BART and CHSRA will figure out how to handle the Peninsula….
synonymouse Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I suspect that BART is waiting for the CHSRA to collapse under the weight of its own incompetence, a quality BART knows something about.
Hsr and BART together? Extremely unlikely as the shared track feature is obviated. And it would kill PAMPA’s prized subway.
The situation is schizophrenic and that is precisely why it is taking so long to gel. For one thing the hsr was an unanticipated fly in the long-range ointment. Once BART construction starts to approach the environs of San Jose I believe that is when you will see BART launching the blitzkrieg. BART has many friends in high and low places who will help with the creative financing, as always
With hsr and Caltrain out of the way the Peninsula should prove a lucrative market for BART. And of course, a number of new dues-paying members for Amalgamated. A dedicated portion of those dues will be going back to the fabled and aforementioned “Kopp-Pelosi-Burton
machine”.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I think you are missing the point here.
BART’s tactics trying to “kill” Cal Train won’t assure it gets the Peninsula ROW. HSR is now a signature project of the Democrats…Pelosi and them can’t kill it off if they try.
Instead, BART has to look at CHRSA as a partner. The latter can build the electrification systems and use the existing Cal Train Row. Then, BART can pay for the concrete overpasses and use the space above for its service and maybe, dare I say it, get to use the ROW for express service….
Now keep in mind, I recognize that this schizophrenia occurs in part because of all the competing local transportation needs. But look who is in power now and after ’12… Pelosi and Brown. Now’s the time for local agencies to bury hatchets and get ready for the future.
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Risenmessiah has it pretty much down, except I can’t see PAMPA/Burlingame/San Mateo agreeing to concrete viaducts for BART any more than concrete viaducts for Caltrain/HSR. Also, if you leave the HSR tracks at grade level you still have to separate them from the road crossings.
I still think there will be a compromise where HSR and commuter trains trains share tracks. Caltrain might get taken over by BART and re-branded, but either way standard gauge commuter trains will share tracks with high speed trains. Having two incompatible systems means four tracks everywhere and would not be acceptable to PAMPA/Burlingame/San Mateo; dropping HSR on the peninsula would not be acceptable for SF or the state government; and dropping local service from the peninsula would be acceptable for anyone.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:21 pm
If you get your jollies by seeing a BART logo on the side of the train go for it. The most sensible plan would e tio buy off the rack commuter cars that are compatible with HSR and use them on the Caltrain ROW..,, with BART logos on the side.
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:23 pm
e bart from millbrae to santa clara. I don’t see how caltrain is going to survive without funding.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I’m not sure if there really is a rift between BART and CHSRA. If you follow the money, the interest on either side is really the same: to pour lots of concrete. That basic goal seems secure at this point, whichever way the cookie crumbles. The engineering/construction firms behind both projects are the same usual suspects and I doubt they care what kind of vehicles ride on top of their product, which is concrete civil infrastructure.
@jimsf: wonderful example of a BART non-sequitur. Caltrain needs millions to survive, so let’s spend billions on BART. A+ in mathematics.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
If I had to guess:
Fresno is going to use its money to keep the train at grade but separate it using underpasses. I’m not an expert on the Peninsula’s water table, but I think that’s a real possibility is that HSR stays at grade with roads and utilities restructured to go underneath. Then BART would build a tasteful, elevated track over the ROW OR simply quad track and leave HSR on the inside….OR…….mix and match between elevated and at grade depending on ROW width.
The main reason to put HSR underneath and BART above is that even though the power supplies are different, it would allow you to put the hazardous catenary and third rail relatively close to each other and minimize passenger contact with it.
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
It wouldn’t be billions if they use ebart standard gauge. basically dissolve the broke agency and let the agency with money and political clout run the trains.
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:40 pm
these trains can serve all the caltrain stops. caltrain was gonna buy a new fleet anyway right.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I don’t know where you get the notion that Desiro DMUs would change the operational cost structure of the peninsula commute service in any favorable way.
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
@Risenmessiah: the difference between Fresno and the peninsula is that property is much closer to the ROW on the peninsula, and so underpasses would remove access to a bunch of properties on either side of the tracks. If underpasses were an option everywhere there would be no need for elevated structures. Your plan is possible but not any easier than the CAHSR four tracks everywhere plan.
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@Clem: it wouldn’t, but simple fact is that BART has deeper pockets than Caltrain. An integrated fare structure would be a nice benefit as well.
Anyway, surely any sensible Peninsula BART (‘p-BART’) plan would use EMUs and stretch from San Jose Diridon to SF Transbay? No point abandoning the Bayshore cut-off and forcing people to transfer at Millbrae.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Oh whatever, Clem.
I don’t know where you get the notion that forcing HSR passengers to ride Cal Train or be otherwise subservient to a commuter rail service for 3,000 people would change the operational cost structure of the Peninsula commuter service in any favorable way either….
I’m so certain that if HSR runs via Altamont and stops in sunny San Jose that there would be this incredible zeitgeist to ride Cal Train for commutes and shun both BART and automobiles….
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:08 pm
and e bart on the peninsula could be standard gauge electric just like caltrain had planned and using high platforms for easy transfers between both regular bart and hsr.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Oh, if you mean this one I understand. I don’t care what logo’s painted on the side, it would still cost the same to operate. BART’s money doesn’t grow on trees.
@Risen: where did I ever suggest HSR shouldn’t go to Transbay?
Jon Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Quite- I don’t care what logo is on the side either. If it stops BART from sabotaging Caltrain then I’m all for BART taking over Caltrain operations.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Clem,
I was merely saying that even if you made it impossible to take HSR north of San Jose…there would be no guarantees that a captive audience of riders that big would be enough to fix Cal Train wobbly finances.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:29 pm
I agree. Artificial transfers are no way to patch up a budget, but you’re also making a common mistake in considering Caltrain’s finances “wobbly”. Caltrain recovers 47 cents on every operating dollar, which is 2x better than MUNI, 3x better than SamTrans and 4x better than VTA– and second only to BART, Bay Area-wide.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Pssh.
Last I checked, (feel free to tell me if I am wrong) Caltrain has no dedicated funding source and it is not the primary funding focus of any transit agency. That’s why its finances are shaky. Sure it’s farebox recovery is healthy, but no public institution can operate without having a dedicated funding source to insulate it from market forces.
I mean, if you step back and think about it…what other type of government agency could say…we will only charge user fees and nothing else…how long would they last?
The BAC letter mentions “minimize community impacts”— I am campaigning to minimize the impact that the Diridon HSR Station will have, not upon the community but upon me personally. It is in my best interest that Diridon not end up being a 90 foot high iconic masterpiece that would shade our unit from the sun for half the winter, and it is also in my best interest that the West end of the proposed pedestrian overpass not be opposite my front door. So this makes me a NIMBY at least in part.
If Diridon ends up lower and not so grand, and if the overpass ends up not in front of my door or a neighbors door, then I will feel like I may have made a difference, not just for me but for the roughly 100 families who will be in its shadow.
CAHSR is a huge project and I am one of many thousands who will be in its path or shadow. For some of us there will be no choice—we will have to get out of the way. But for most of us there is a chance that we can make changes to the project that will make HSR easier to live with—Call it constructive nimbyism.
randyw Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I’m curious what drawings do you have of the station? It sounds like you know more detail than most on the station design. All I have seen are eye candy renderings which don’t show any detail.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 2:43 pm
IIRC, the City of San Jose has some major studies underway for the Diridon station area, including a number of design options.
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 2:52 pm
At this point there are no actual drawings for the station—only visual guidelines. If you go to Google—”Diridon Station Visual Guidelines”, its the second item (Welcome-California High Speed Rail Authority)
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:14 pm
http://www.sjredevelopment.org/ballpark.htm
These are not plans for the station itself, but how the area around the station is to be developed.
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
as for the station, in san jose it should be a low rise, and expand on the brick, and tile roof with plaza and palms, and retail space connecting the west side of the station to the arena and bart on the east side
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Are these drawing ones you are referring to?
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/256/266/5f93f761-dac0-4ea9-b125-1fcac5e0cc25.pdf
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
on the viaduct options I prefer the curved girder. lots of 280 and highway 1 are like this. looks nice
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:06 pm
in fact structure like this through the farmland wouldn’t impede the farmers at all.
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Yeah– Those are the ones.
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 5:09 pm
If you look at the sketch on page 16, you will see where the pedestrian overpass comes down on the west side of the VTA tracks at the point with the number 7.—Directly opposite my front door and also why I am now attending meetings of the guidelines working group.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Hey John, not living in San Jose anymore, I can’t check this out for myself, but can you tell what the current status is of the construction going on at Diridon right now?
John Burrows Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Concrete in for 2 new platforms—rails and ties down for track number 6—maybe that’s the noise we’ve been hearing the last 2 nights—some gravel down for tracks 7 and 8—looks like access road where track 9 would be—canopies framed but not complete. Plan about October for the grand opening. Then all we need is more trains. I wonder how many passengers an 8-track station could be expected to handle in a day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:42 pm
225,000 but most people don’t get on or off the train in Jamaica. ( Total LIRR ridership minus Port Washington branc ) in very very round numbers )
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Yeah, if the pedestrian overpass has no function other than than to cross the tracks, I would suggest move it further south on Laurel Grove Ln to where it makes the turn away from the light rail tracks.
But, if the overpass provides access to the HSR station directly, I think the location suggested by the drawing might be acceptable.
Clem Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 6:32 pm
You realize the whole two-level monstrosity is because HSR and Caltrain can’t agree on a common platform height and common train control system? If anybody were actually interested in compatibility, you could build this station on one level.
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:01 pm
While a single level station would save money structural wise, it would introduce complex weave on north and south approaches to San Jose, unless you are suggesting the HSR station to be sandwiched between the light rail and Caltrain platforms, while the tracks remain separated until north of Santa Clara junction.
From HSR point of view, moving the merge point to Caltrain line north of Santa Clara beyond CP Coast simplify operation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Put the “merge” in Gilroy.
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:19 pm
North of Santa Clara, it is complete Caltrain owned tracks, between San Jose and Gilroy, it is UP owned with Caltrain rights.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Not quite. it switches from Caltrain ownership to UP ownership right about where the tracks merge with Monterey Highway, at “Lick”.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“HSR station”? Category error alert!
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:09 pm
richard just give up. the us and americans are not japan or europe and never will be. americans will never understand those concepts because they don’t care about those details. hsr stations is what they think. not train stations that are serve by hst. it will never change so just accept how things are done here. we aren’t japanese. america will never change. just get over it.
Joey Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:28 am
Same platform height. FSSF. No superfluous security procedures. 6 platform tracks can be shared by CalTrain and HSR with no flyovers whatsoever required. Maybe you can even have cross-platform transfers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Railroads all over the world put platforms between trains that have different heights and control systems etc.
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Yeah, but railroads all over the world don’t have the requirements of the ADA to comply with.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:54 pm
There are railroad stations in the US that have different platform hieghts, loading gauges and signal systems that share platforms and are ADA compliant. Very few of them but there aren’t a whole lot of railroad stations in the US with level boarding,
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 am
“there aren’t a whole lot of railroad stations in the US with level boarding”
Yes, because there has been very little major new construction that would trigger the ADA’s requirements. With Caltrain and HSR, though, they’re not going to be able to avoid the ADA rules. The railroads and stations you’re referring to are grandfathered in.
Why is it that seemingly everyone on this blog thinks that rules and regulations either shouldn’t apply, even when they clearly do, or think that planners are stupid for making those rules and regulations part of their plans?
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:37 am
How is choosing the same platform interface for Caltrain and HSR a stupid plan?
thatbruce Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
The height of the rails on each side of the platform don’t have to be the same height.
adirondacker12800 is referring to situations where the two opposite edges of the same platform have different heights above the rail but a level surface on the platform itself, allowing trains with say a ~3′ (900mm range) floor height to be on one side of the platform, trains with a 8″ (200mm range) floor height to be on the other side of the platform, both trains to have level boarding, and passengers have no vertical transitions to crossing from one train to another.
It would be extremely nice and sensible to be able to use the same platform edge for all services, meaning that all services share the same floor height, but if Caltrain and the CAHSRA can’t agree on what that height should be, then tweaking the height of the rails to enable cross-platform transfers would be the next best thing. There is probably some guideline against this remarkably simple innovation however.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Yes, because there has been very little major new construction that would trigger the ADA’s requirements.
PRR platforms at the major stations were and are accessible. You had to ride on a service elevator… That’s how the got the baggage and the express packages to and from the baggage cars. I’m going to assume there were elevators or ramps that baggage and express carts could navigate at major station of other railroads.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Why is it a “monstrosity”? There’s nothing wrong with multi-level stations, and they make good sense in many cases.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Multilevel stations make sense in Tokyo. Grand Central made sense in 1913, probably not today.
In nice round numbers 200,000 LIRR riders go through Jamaica every day. Many get on or off there. Many more change trains there. They do it on one level and eight platforms.
BMW DesignWorks Styling Next Generation BART Subway Trains
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I still don’t get why new BART trains is 33% more expensive than Washington Metro and NY Subway units…
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
everything costs more here. why does sf pay the highest gas prices in the nation when the region is full of refineries?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Rent seeking
Restraint of trade
Control the specs and the bidding and acceptance processes and you control the outcome.
There are lots of fingers in the pie and they’re all mutually guaranteed very nice juicy pieces indeed.
Public works in the US is run as a pure welfare operation; BART is the condition to which all of them (meaning primarily their contractors and secondarily their operating unions) aspire. Don’t worry, the others will attain our local level of excellence as soon as arrangements can be made.
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:52 pm
So, why Washington Metro and NY Subway got better deals….
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
does nyc use off the shelf standard types of rolling stock? does dc use wide gauge like bart or standard? I know their trains look like bart trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 am
New York’s rolling stock orders are huge (leading to intense competition among the manufacturers), and conservative in design. They’re not literally off-the-shelf in the sense that a modular design from Alstom or Bombardier is, but they’re easy to make, so their costs are favorable.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Because the system isn’t working quite as well there as it is here, obviously.
Rubio urges high-speed rail follow 99
Peter Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 4:46 pm
The time to do that was a year ago. Not three weeks prior to the release of the Draft EIRs for Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield.
Reality Check Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Sure, but it’s still a great way for Rubio to score big, easy points with people upset with the currently-favored route.
Oh, and I somehow managed to screw up the link to the story. So here’s the correct one:
Rubio urges high-speed rail follow 99
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 9:36 pm
How many times I’ve said, talk to UP.
meanwhile, since I can’t wait 20 more years to finally experience a high speed train, I have started planning my long awaited ( 40 years) trip to France next year one of the high points if which will be the SNCF / TGV woo hoo! Now I just have to work 5000 dollars worth of ot to pay for it. finally will see how the best railroad in the world works!
William Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Japanese and Taiwanese might be more American friendly than French…
jimsf Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
The french are very friendly to me. They are constantly giving me their email address and inviting me and offering travel advice. Im not worried about it. While we are still fussing over this simple train line in cali, they are getting ready to open yet another brand new high speed line that will create an east west and north south connection and run through to germany and switzerland. and provide direct service from lyon to strasbourg. Now I can do a triangle and use the both the oldest line from paris to lyon and the newest lyon to strasbourg. good for me.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:23 am
The anti-french feeling you have in the US hasn’t created an anti-american feeling in France. Maybe because the French don’t realize how much the Americans hate or despise them. We have no American-bashing media comparable to the frog-bashing Rupert Murdoch empire which reigns supreme in all anlo-saxon countries.
Jim, when in France don’t just say you’re American. Say you’re from San Francisco, California. It will certainly be a plus. Two hits from the seventies are still popular in France. Here are youtube links:
La Californie, by Julien Clerc
San Francisco, by Maxime Le Forestier
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
YEs I know they love it here. I’m not even worried about parisian attitude. Ive been dealing with attitude from my own people right here in sf for decades and its a lot worse.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
I don’t think the Americans hate or despise the french at all…
A few of the very noisy foaming-at-the-mouth types maybe, but then it’s best to avoid those types anyway!
VBobier Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Andre I certainly don’t hate France or the French people, but then I’m of French descent as are quite a few Americans. Here on this blog there are some who just don’t like HSR and a lot more who do like HSR, I like the TGV Myself, hopefully one day I’ll be able to ride on something like that here in California as I’ll never get to France to ride one there.
Justin H Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:47 am
What does this have to do with CSHR?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Nothing–some people just have conversations here now and then. Keeps the place friendly.
It’s not likely, but I wonder if JimSF and Andre might decide to meet each other, and get a look at each other’s mugs?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:07 am
Where are you going to take the TGV to/from? I’m asking because the trains are much better on LGVs than on legacy lines. When I went from Nice to Paris and back, the train stood on canted track both times, just like Amtrak does on the NEC.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:41 am
Although I’m a TGV fan I must admit taking the train from Nice to Paris makes no sense. Flights are frequent and cheap with several several airlines competing with each other. And the airport is just 8 miles from the city center.
The Marseille-Nice rail line is saturated, shared by freight, local and intercity trains. Four-tracking it would cost a fortune. Land prices on the coast are sky-high and some of the NIMBYs are rich enough to pay teams of lawyers who can block any project for ever.
VBobier Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
That rich area on the coast sounds like the Peninsula here in California, We have Eminent Domain and Compensation at fair market rates, some don’t like their views disturbed and railroads they assume are all noisy and they think faster is noisier still, Nimbys seem to be universal, but then some will never be happy.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:44 pm
My plan is to go from paris to lyon, then lyon to strasbourg, then strasbourg back to paris. total cost for three trips in first class. $313 dollars. however I do get a discount as Amtrak has reciprocal railroad employee privileges with sncf and several other national railways. Its usually 75 percent of the full Y fare.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
what does “stood on canted tracks” mean? ( I guess Id know if I were an engineer)
What I see in france is that they are the size of texas, or california, but the shape of texes. They have paris as the center with a hub a spoke system, now being completed with a ring/periphery as well. connecting the entire country with itself. very nice. Cali has the advantage of being long and narrow, with cities laid out in convenient corridors. Connecting all of cali should be much easier than what france had to do. Yet we cant seem to get it done. Very lame.
VBobier Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Superelevation or Canted Tracks is explained here.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
that explained it perfectly thanks. but what did the comment about standing on canted tracks mean. Im reading cant as a good thing right?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Cant means that if the train takes the curve at speed, passengers feel less centrifugal force: gravity (pointing toward the inner rail) partly counteracts the centrifugal force pointing toward the outer rail. If the train is standing still on canted track, it just means that the passengers feel gravity: the train is standing but is not straight, and this is uncomfortable.
The term in general for when the train is too slow (or still) for its cant is cant excess. This produces an upper limit to the cant on tracks shared with slower trains, because if the cant is too high their passengers (or, worse, freight) would be thrown toward the inner rail.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:21 am
oh om… standing….as I. standing stilll on tracks that are too sideways
Justin H Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 2:25 am
Best railway system in the world: Japan.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
this much of france is connected by rail, nearly 100 percent of it.
swing hanger Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:40 am
Coming from the U.S., any other G7 nation’s railway system would seem like “best in the world”.