Bay Area Council’s Peninsula HSR Plan Gains Momentum

Jul 27th, 2011 | Posted by

Last week the Bay Area Council came out with a new plan for Peninsula HSR that would electrify Caltrain, bring HSR to the Transbay Terminal, and have the Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversee the process.

This week the plan appears to be gathering momentum:

“That’s part of what prompted us to consider getting involved,” said Adrienne Tissier, a San Mateo County supervisor who serves as chairwoman of the transportation commission and also sits on the Caltrain board.

At today’s meeting, Tissier plans to ask the commission’s planning staff to take on the high-speed rail effort. She expects the commission will have about a year and a half to work with the rail authority before the spring 2013 deadline for a final San Francisco-San Jose plan.

And the Bay Area Council is getting even more serious about the plan, hiring Gavin Newsom’s former campaign manager to lead the effort:

“We see this as the way forward to save this project,” said John Grubb, a senior vice president of the Bay Area Council, a pro-business advocacy group.

The council, working with Metropolitan Transportation Commission officials, is calling for formation of a coalition of Bay Area transportation agencies and cities to work with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to come up with an acceptable plan to run high-speed trains between San Jose and San Francisco, perhaps at less-than-high speeds. The group also plans to hire San Francisco lobbyist Alex Tourk to help build business backing.

Jim Wunderman, president and CEO, of the Bay Area Council, explains the thinking that went into the effort:

“There were some assumptions made that everyone was flat-out excited about high-speed rail,” said Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council. “The concerns of the cities along the line weren’t anticipated by the authority, and by the time they realigned their operations to deal with that, it was too late for a second chance at making a good first impression.”

Clearly, the BAC has decided that it’s too late to push back against the NIMBYism and that instead some sort of deal has to be struck. While I am not sure they’re right, I can understand why they’re taking the approach they are, especially with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo pushing hard for something like this. And as I said when discussing the BAC proposal last week, this could work out OK – but there are some important issues to take care of, including ensuring that whatever hybrid plan is reached can accommodate the passenger rail traffic that it needs to carry.

Others are raising these concerns:

“A scaled-back plan is good,” said Marian Lee, head of the Caltrain Modernization Project, “but can we get enough trains through our corridor – high-speed and Caltrain – to make it work?”

That’s one of the key questions the Bay Area Council plan needs to answer. While the plan might make political sense (and that’s still an open question) it might not make operational sense. In the end, that’s what matters. NIMBYism is a temporary phenomenon, but whatever does get built will have to last us for a while. Let’s make sure that the hybrid solution doesn’t undermine Caltrain or HSR, but that if it does go forward, it provides a strong basis to grow passenger rail ridership on the Peninsula, whether the destination is local, regional, or across the state.

  1. joe
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 20:47
    #1

    Will the project and 150 year old ROW be forever capped at 2011 needs and relatively cheap oil or will the project EIR be scope for a 2035 time horizon?

    synonymouse Reply:

    If it is coming from Wunderman and MTC you know it is a trick. Like BART they will never renounce Brutalism.

    joe Reply:

    Still “Winning”.

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    That’s a key question. We cannot support anything that would lock into place the status quo. We need to build for higher passenger capacity, and that’s true across the state – not just on the Peninsula. Locking in 2011 passenger levels is criminally negligent given our economic, energy, and environmental needs in the coming decades.

    joe Reply:

    Given the faux sincerity that CARRD only wants a responsible rail system, they deny being NIMBYs, the EIR for a 4 track system to 2035 is responsible and doesn’t require fully capacity construction start, only that it could be done at some future date and shouldn’t be excluded.

    It would irresponsible to not plan for contingencies and rebuild infrastructure or forgo the option entirely and deny tomorrow’s “hipsters” a decent rail system.

    FWIW: http://sfist.com/2011/07/21/palo_alto_menlo_park_would_prefer_t.php
    My name is Elizabeth Alexis and you referenced my work in your article that was posted today on sfist.com about high speed rail. You state that I have a “clear agenda of keeping the train out of her backyard.”
    I would state for the record I have no such agenda. It seems difficult for people to believe but we would just like to see a much better policy process, in terms of transparency and the use of facts, in place.

    Alan Reply:

    Elizabeth can state all she wants that she has “no such agenda”, but her words and actions certainly state otherwise.

    trentbridge Reply:

    And yet, Elizabeth, your host website is “dontrailroadus.com”? Isn’t that pejorative language? Isn’t the meaning of being railroaded, one of being forced to do something against your will? Doesn’t sound like you’re neutral, does’ it? If I post a lengthy comment on air travel on “www.nomorerunways.com” then am I just discussing airport expansion options?

    Elizabeth Reply:

    Our host website is not “dontrailroadus.com” where did you get that idea?

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    I don’t know where Trent got that site from, but if you copy and paste it into the address bar this is what comes up:

    http://www.highspeedboondoggle.com/

    I don’t think it’s her site, either. . .

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    On the other hand, her site is a listed link on the Boondoggle’s “More Information” page as a “watchdog” site:

    http://www.highspeedboondoggle.com/moreinfo.php

    This weblog and Clem’s are also listed there as “supporter” sites.

    Also from this site–ho, ho, ho, ho! Big steam train devil wagon coming, going to burn down your farm, your house, kill you and your livestock sure!!

    http://www.highspeedboondoggle.com/pdf/Preserve%20Our%20Heritage.pdf

    Peter Reply:

    That website is owned by Russ Cohen, Burlingame councilmember, according to GoDaddy.com.

    Peter Reply:

    Or wait, he lost the last election, it appears.

    Eric M Reply:

    It is hosted by Elizabeth and her husband at “no diamonds web services”. Here is the link to the information.

    thatbruce Reply:

    That would be calhsr.com, not any of the other sites listed in this subthread.

    Alan Reply:

    I agree completely. Any scaled-down “first stage” needs to be designed in such a way that expansion to the full four-track system is still possible when the need becomes apparent. That means ROW acquisition for the full 4-track system and engineering structures to allow for the third and fourth tracks at reasonable cost. It’s certainly possible.

    I mention ROW acquisition for the full 4-track system, because if the ROW isn’t acquired now, CHSRA will undoubtedly have to deal with the complaints of adjoining property owners that their parcels that are known to be needed for the 4-track system will basically become unsaleable to anyone other than the state–and they’ll likely be right. Might as well deal with it now. Some ROW acquisition will probably be necessary in places even for a 2-track system, to allow for construction easements, shooflys, and permanent passing tracks. If it turns out that the 2-track system works out fine, and the purchased parcels aren’t needed, then CHSRA can work with the cities to find other uses.

    But the absolute worst thing that could be done is to design a 2-track system in such a way that four-tracking couldn’t be accomplished without major demolition of the structures built in the first stage. Better to build station shells, bridges, etc. to allow for the 4 tracks, even if the ROW in between isn’t immediately made ready. There’s certainly precedent–IIRC, the downtown Oakland stations had the provisions for the third track roughed in when the system opened in 1972, but I don’t believe the third track was actually placed in operation until a decade later. If the third and fourth tracks are never needed, then yes, some extra money will have been spent now. But the alternative, spending a fortune to redo work later, is a non-starter.

    Andy M. Reply:

    true, also I think many structures are much cheaper when done in one go than built for two-tracks now and then re-done later, esepcially things like over and underpasses. Also, a later four tracking would be much more costly as it would be parallel to a working electrified (pseudo)-high-speed line and would cause all sorts of limitations during construction which would drive up costs and add to time.

    VBobier Reply:

    It would mean allowing for expansion to 4 tracks from 2, This way of construction/reconstruction allows 2 new tracks to be installed beyond the 1st 2 initial tracks at a reduced cost as then You don’t duplicate costs to build the ROW, “This is HSR done right“. Yet building for only 2 tracks will mean increased costs to build and expand as it’s shortsighted, wasteful and is definitely “Not the right way to build HSR

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Question: In an active rail corridor (which wouldn’t include Redwood City-Livermore-Stokcton or Fremont-San Jose, just by the by) how exactly do you imagine that these “cheaper” structures that fill the entire right of way might be constructed?

    Think about it. You don’t even have to think hard or long. Just a 30 seconds of your time (I have faith in you, at least) should do it.

    (Hint: “Half at a time” is about the best that can be done. In the real world.)

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    expansion to the full four-track system is still possible when the need becomes apparent.

    So where do the trains go WHEN THEY GET TO SAN FRANCISCO at the end of this sparkly four-tracks-everywhere (= 30+ trains per direction per hour capacity) concrete wank-fest 1:1 scale model choo choo layout?

    (For now let’s not even bother with the trivial matter of finding bodies to occupy seats in those trains.)

    Some things are very apparent to somebody who thinks about physical reality for a a minute or two, but the don’t include aren’t a “need” to run so many empty trains in SF that they can only be disposed of by running them off a pier into the bay.

    Four tracks everywhere! Four tracks to Chico! Four tracks to Los Gatos! Four tracks to Los Banos! Four tracks to Boonville! Four tracks to Bridgeport! Peak oil! Need! Need! Want!

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    So where do the trains go WHEN THEY GET TO SAN FRANCISCO

    To the Transbay Terminal.

    Joey Reply:

    Even with a competently designed station throat, six platform tracks can only turn back so many trains.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    yes it’s somewhat less than a gazillion. How many can they turn at Transbay?

    jimsf Reply:

    keep in mind the eastern nieghborhoods plan including the new UC campus and cancer and biotech research area project an additional 10,000 jobs and an additional 20,000 residents in the area served by 4th and king by 2025.

    Joey Reply:

    Mission Bay has the space for midday stabling, but the ridership demand difference between Mission Bay and Transbay is likely to be so large that it doesn’t really make much sense to terminate anything at Mission Bay.

    Joey Reply:

    I know, the Mission Bay area is growing, but it’s never going to be near as significant as Transbay.

    Clem Reply:

    That’s why Mission Bay should be the first Caltrain stop after departure from Transbay. Imagine that!

    jimsf Reply:

    its not just mission bay but the eastern neighborhoods plan which is the primary growth area for the city’s future population ( additional) Im on one of the task forces, and can tell you that the area served by the t line from candlestick to 4th street is going to contain the majority of both job and residential growth as the city grows towards 1 million.

    jimsf Reply:

    Theres nothing wrong with terminating one out of 4 or 5 trains at 4th, be they hsr or caltrain.

    jimsf Reply:

    And currently I can look out my window from the 23 floor at my view of mission bay and watch the high rises popping up. meanwhile there is zero construction downtown and likely to be zero construction north of market street as large projects continue to be defeated by residents. The area from 4th south along third, is the only area in the city that can be developed without projects being stopped in their tracks. Even the transbay redevopement area, where several towers are planned, is going to be reduced in size/height, the current plan will not be allowed. Meanwhile on the street along the the central subway and adjacent to the 4th and townsend station, height and densities are in the process of being increased.

    jimsf Reply:

    soem go to transbay terminal and some go to mission bay.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They all go to Mission Bay. some of them may not stop.

    jimsf Reply:

    some terminate at tbt some term at mission bay. some can even dwell there at non peak times then when needed, be sent to tbt to start their run.

    William Reply:

    Richard, your website was the first place I saw the three-track throat design to Transbay Terminal, when TPJA was only showing two tracks. And I agreed with you then that to avoid capacity constrain the approach to Transbay Terminal needed three-tracks.

    But when TPJA adapted the “Locally Preferred Design” of three-track approach that had almost all of your suggest, you went back to support two-track design, and criticize TPJA for the three-track design. This is when I start to think you’re just a person who likes to complain, and nothing the government agency do is good enough for you.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Richard, your website was the first place I saw the three-track throat design to Transbay Terminal

    That’s an interesting theory you have there, William.

    This is when I start to think you’re just a person who likes to complain

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    William Reply:

    Sadly I didn’t keep a copy of the original proposal, circa 2000, so take my words at 50% credibility at most.

    But I am certain it was either you, Save MUNI, or Peninsula 2000 who proposed a 3 track throat design, while the original TPJA’s design was for two tracks, and at the wrong street, which they later moved in the Locally Preferred Alternative.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    William Reply:

    good day…

    Joey Reply:

    Is there evidence of this somewhere?

    Andy M. Reply:

    Six tracks are tight but doable. What would be needed though is some over or underpass so that arriving trains don’t conflict with departing ones. Flat junctions/crossovers are real capacity killers. I haven’t seen that in any of the plans so far.

    thatbruce Reply:

    The current 6 track terminus with flat junctions in the throat can turn slightly more trains per hour if tail tracks were provided (ie, trains don’t need to crawl as much for the last stretch in case of brake failure), and much more per hour if the tbt was instead a stop on a loop, negating the need for flat junctions.

    Both of these were proposed and rejected, in part due to cost.

    joe Reply:

    An EIR for 4 tracks is an option, not a mandate or engineering requirement. It’s a option for 2035.

    Peter Reply:

    No, they’re going to HAVE to study a 4 track alternative in order to comply with CEQA law. If they don’t, it’s virtually guaran-frackin-teed that the same people who are screaming about 4 tracks will sue because the Authority did not study 4 tracks.

    Their argument would be that 4 tracks are the end goal of the project, and that because the Authority is planning on expanding to 4 tracks at a later date, they are therefore required to study the environmental impact of 4 tracks.

  2. morris brown
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 21:27
    #2

    One article means this plan is “gaining momentum” Really!!!

    joe Reply:

    http://www.asce.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=12884909810

    If investments in surface transportation infrastructure are not made soon, those costs are expected to grow exponentially. Within 10 years, U.S. businesses would pay an added $430 billion in transportation costs, household incomes would fall by more than $7,000, and U.S. exports will fall by $28 billion.

    The ASCE also points to HSR and questions if the USA can be competitive without investing in it as done in other 1st world nations.

  3. morris brown
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 21:31
    #3

    Reports say “visual signaling system” fault caused the Chinese derailment. Great PTC system I would say.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/china-high-speed-rail-crash-that-killed-39-likely-caused-by-signal-fault.html

    China Rail Crash Likely Caused by Signal Flaw

    A warning light failed to turn red from green at Wenzhou South Station after the signaling system was hit by lightning, An said, according to Xinhua.

    Clem Reply:

    That’s not PTC. A modern train control system will stop a train before it enters an occupied section of track, no matter what color the light might be, and does not rely on human action. If they are relying on human operators to properly interpret and react to line side signals, they are just as primitive as our old Caltrain dinosaurs here on the peninsula–with the exception that Caltrain’s signals don’t show the wrong indication. Pathetic, if true.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:

    I think Morris may have been sarcastic

    morris brown Reply:

    Clem and Paulus:

    Yes indeed I was being sarcastic.

    I really wonder if this is not just more of the cover up the Chinese government is pushing on the whole accident.

    VBobier Reply:

    Seems to be their main idea, Loss of face and all, think extreme embarrassment, shame, etc, I think, But yeah cover up, last I looked online the cars were being put on flatbed trucks and hauled off under cover of circus tent sized covers, so something is up. Someone’s head might literally roll.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    19th Century semaphore systems when they failed, indicated stop. Failure of the system, they’ve been doing this for over a century and pretty much have it down, should indicate stop.

    Andy M. Reply:

    20th and 21st Century electronic signalling systems are also fail-safe. There’s not just a single bit being flipped to determine whether a train may proceed or not but a sophsiticated consistency test built into those systems and if any part of that consistency test fails the signal goes to red and stays red. A false negative is always preferrable to a false positive.

    Andre Peretti Reply:

    The TGV uses triple redundancy and I’m sure all other HSRs, Chinese included, have the same level of security. The drawback is multiplying possibilities of false negatives. The train stops, and causes following trains to stop, whenever one signal doesn’t match the other two.
    A redundancy error” in one train delayed several Eurostars last year.
    A fancy scenario in the Chinese accident would be that the driver’s screen displayed “redundancy failure” and he was ordered to override the system to spare his superiors the embarrassment of a train arriving late.

  4. Nadia
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 21:48
    #4

    OT: Per Peninsula’s suggestion in the prior thread, I’m reposting here:

    CARRD sent a letter to the HSRA board highlighting our difficulty in obtaining Public Records – specifically, our difficulty getting the Ridership Peer Review report that was due to the Authority by March 31st..

    The letter and supporting docs, including email exchanges are here:
    http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/

    Peninsula asked if we copied lawmakers and attorneys. Yes, we sent it to some lawmakers who follow this issue. We also sent it to the Authority’s attorney. We will also send it to the A/G.

    We’re hoping we just get the docs. We have no idea if this is connected to Pringle. We’re hoping the Authority chooses to follow the law.

    The board, van Ark and Jeff Barker (who is handling our request) were informed of the issue at the July board meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVbcAjW9C9U

    Here’s the timeline summarizing the email chains:
    March 22 CARRD: Initial request
    March 24 CHSRA (Rachel Wall): Nothing available
    April 6 CARRD: Request again
    April 8: CHSRA (Jeff Barker): Nothing available
    April 8 CARRD: Request for correspondence with Frank Koppelman
    April 21 CARRD: Followup on April 8th request, extending time period to April 21st
    April 21 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): We are moving, will be next week
    April 25 CARRD (in person and email): We would like anything that has been submitted by peer review
    April 25 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): There is nothing
    April 28 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): Move is complete, will give status end of next week
    May 11 CARRD: Where are the documents?
    May 11 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): Request seems easy; end of next week
    June 1 CARRD: Where are the documents?
    June 7 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): Coming at the end of the week
    June 20 CARRD: Where are the documents?
    June 21 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): I am getting some help. Will let you know if more than a couple of days
    June 30 CARRD: Where are the documents? We offered previously to help implement a tracking system. Let’s talk!
    July 14 CARRD (at board meeting): Where are the documents?
    July 14 CHSRA (Jeff Barker): There are no documents; we are busy; any documents are drafts; you just want to make us look bad on your website
    July 26 Nothing received to date

    The last comment by Barker (that any documents are drafts) has been an excuse they’ve used time and again to keep documents hidden.

    Clem will recognize this as the excuse we kept getting for the technical memos we were asking for – but as our letter states – the law only finds that an acceptable excuse for very narrowly defined cases – and this is not one of them.

    Clem Reply:

    Stone Wall!

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    I vote for incompetence on both sides. California has Freedom of Information laws. Took me all of 30 seconds to find the site with advice on how to file one. Emails don’t count. Letters to the board whining that your emails are ineffective don’t count either. Certified, return-receipt-requested letters printed on fine rag paper, requesting specific documents do. When was that sent?

    Rick Rong Reply:

    Who says e-mails don’t count? I found the Public Records Act (California does not have a “Freedom of Information Law”) at the following link:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

    Maybe you can tell us where in the law it says that “e-mails don’t count.”

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Who’s the third party verifying that the communication was received? When does the clock start ticking on the the request if you send an email or make a telephone call. Send a return-receipt-requested letter. Something stick in photocopier and mail off in a second return receipt letter when you don’t get a timely response to the first request. Something you can show the reporter. Something you can submit as evidence in a courtroom.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Who’s unable to stop typing, no matter how ill-informed?

    Arthur Dent Reply:

    For argument’s sake — and to give the HSRA every possible benefit of the doubt — let’s say that the clock starts ticking the moment the agency responds to the email, effectively acknowledging receipt. Um, if you look at CARRD’s timeline they’re still busted. March 24 to July 26 is substantially more than the 10 days allowed by CA law. It’s indefensible. I’d question the motives of anyone who attempts to explain away the HSRA’s 4-month stonewalling. More to the point, what are the HSRA’s motives for refusing to disclose the info?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    What’s CARRD’s motivation for not pointing out to the Authority that they are well past the deadline?

    Arthur Dent Reply:

    Huh? I had to read your question twice. Where do you get that they did NOT point out that the Authority was past the deadline? I’m looking at Nadia’s first link http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/ and the email chain indicates otherwise.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They send an email citing specific law and asking for specific documents and VOILA they get them. Would have been nice if they had done that months ago but then they would have less FUD to sperad.

    Peter Reply:

    Exactly. It’s a public agency, involved in planning a mega-project. They’re busy. You have to prod them hard in order to get anything out of them.

    Arthur Dent Reply:

    Okay, let’s go there and follow the clues. In Nadia’s last paragraph she says that Clem will recognize the excuses from CARRD’s attempts to get the technical memos. A brief search brings up this page. http://www.calhsr.com/resources/technical-docs/ Deja vu.

    Specifically to your point, they DID do that months ago. You’re working overtime with your own FUD.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    If they have them why are they requesting them?
    Alternately they are asking for different or newer documents. After the long and arduous process they used to get the first batch… didn’t learn anything when they got jerked around the first time that they can use when they get jerked around this time.
    Or they like to whine about getting jerked around.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    More to the point, what are the HSRA’s motives for refusing to disclose the info?

    That’s another blindingly obvious one: to deny plaintiffs information that might have been useful before a legal filing deadline that is now long passed.

    We looked so hard for those files, we can’t possibly imagine what went wrong, so sorry they only just turned up now!

    Clem Reply:

    Exactly correct. If this document had been published earlier, it would immediately have been entered as evidence by the plaintiffs in Sacramento Superior Court civil case 34-2010-80000679.

    Who knows, that might still happen.

    joe Reply:

    Clem;

    The review, when put into a context, describes the model as a significant advancement over past ad hoc methods. It needs better documentation / explanation – not that anything is being hidden or incorrect.

    I am surprised that they didn’t run validation tests but validation is often difficult to do for models of new/rare systems and selecting validation examples is often subject to intense criticism.

    Can they run validation experiments? Is the model designed to simulate other systems? That capability, if not in their contract, would be an added expense and possibly outside the scope of the task/contract. i.e. CA wouldn’t pay for adding requirements to build a general model aka a “gold-plated” model.

    Sensitivity analysis: that should be conducted to describe the critical, independent model parameters.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    In California, even oral requests count.

    Spokker Reply:

    Sorry bro. This stonewalling is indefensible.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    The rules for asking for documents from the Federal government are “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The rules for getting documents from any local or state agency in California come under the Public Records Act (PRA).

    Most public agencies in California have very clear guidelines on their website. THey often have a form, which is not required, but helps them make sure they get people the information.

    Here is an example: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/openGovernment/records.asp

    The CHSRA doesn’t do that.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    All requests count. Letters, emails, phone calls, faxes etc.

    Rick Rong Reply:

    Elizabeth is right. However, written requests (letters, emails, faxes) are better than requesting by telephone since there is less uncertainty as to what is being requested.

    Spokker Reply:

    They were in direct contact with the people they were requesting the information from. They keep telling them, next week. They are liars.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    That they don’t do that doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to the regulations whatever they are called.

    Rick Rong Reply:

    Okay, maybe you should find us the “regulations.”

    joe Reply:

    The last comment by Barker (that any documents are drafts) has been an excuse they’ve used time and again to keep documents hidden.

    It might be an excuse that they do not have publi ready documents. The contractor is under heavy pressure to release an error free, heavily scrutinized report. Any mistake will be used by NIMBYs to block the project.

    I think in one case a typographical error in parameter value was used to claim the entire report was suspect.

    The delay will be used by the “neutral” CARRD as evidence the HSR is hiding data, adjusting the values and numbers and evidence the project will run over budget.

    As you say, they are hiding the documents .

    Joey Reply:

    It might be an excuse that they do not have publi ready documents. The contractor is under heavy pressure to release an error free, heavily scrutinized report. Any mistake will be used by NIMBYs to block the project.

    If this is the case, it would be nice if they would say that, rather than claiming they will deliver repeatedly and never doing so.

    VBobier Reply:

    It would be nice if the CHSRA wasn’t understaffed too, but sadly it is a fact and it’s been like this for Years.

    Joey Reply:

    I fail to see what being understaffed and lying have to do with each other. If things weren’t ready yet, they could have said so.

    Peter Reply:

    Or, given the many layers of contractors they have to deal with because they are understaffed, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, and they thought they would have the information ready, but didn’t.

    I’m not sure if you know how much manpower it takes to respond to public records requests. The are VERY onerous.

    Arthur Dent Reply:

    Sometimes that’s true. But in this case we now know that it’s a single, recent report — and one with a high enough profile that it’s not likely to be lost or filed in the basement behind the black leopard.

    This record request could have been fulfilled by simply forwarding the report from the peer review panel. Hey, panelists, I seem to have lost my copy. Could you send another one so I can forward it to members of the public who formally requested it? Done.

    Joey Reply:

    Or, given the many layers of contractors they have to deal with because they are understaffed, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, and they thought they would have the information ready, but didn’t.

    Repeatedly, and with no explanation given?

    joe Reply:

    No excuse for not them estimating TBD correctly.

    I suspect that when they claimed it was “Draft” that was context sensitive – the context being a heavily scrutinized report.

  5. Clem
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 22:04
    #5

    Thanks for your call for balance. On the peninsula we need to balance the often conflicting needs of HSR and local commuter service. That balancing act will be difficult, but it can be made easier by emphasizing compatibility issues, as I have for years now.

    Common platform interface
    Common signal system
    No heavy freight
    Any train, any track, any platform!

    Andy M. Reply:

    “Common platform interface
    Common signal system”

    I would have thought this is the absolute minimum.

    With there being a vision of the different HSR projects in the USA one day extending tentacles and joining into a national system, this should maybe also be coordinated between the different systems.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Sure, but bear in mind, there’s no reasonable future in which the Eastern network (connecting to the Midwest and the South) will connect to the California one (possibly connecting to the Southwest and Northwest). So although there are other reasons to promulgate national standards for platform height (high, goddamn it, we’re trying to avoid low-floor cost and weight penalties), electrification (25 kV, 60 Hz), and signaling (ERTMS, or failing that DS-ATC), it’s likely the networks will never connect.

    Andre Peretti Reply:

    Europe has incompatible signalling systems which are a legacy of the past. Harmonizing them is costing millions. What staggers me is that in the US you are starting from a clean slate, but you risk having an even more incoherent situation deliberately created from scratch.

    William Reply:

    Plans should be made to give HSR its own dedicate platforms, as train frequency grows for both Caltrain and CAHSR, it would become more likely that people would take the wrong train if platforms for shared.

    Joey Reply:

    People all over the world are smart enough to figure out which train they are supposed to take, even when the signs aren’t in a language they speak. The (significant) additional cost and reduced operational flexibility of dedicated HSR platforms is not even close to worth it.

    William Reply:

    This is why I say dedicate platforms should be considered when “frequency is high enough”. For every 10 people who is smart enough to ride the correct train, there would be one person who take the wrong train.

    HSR is not commuter or subway trains, which you board any train can take you to the same place, just need to remember which direction is the correction direction. Taking the wrong train on HSR can be differences of hundreds of miles. This is even more likely to happen if one advocate for “no fare gate” stations, where there is no barrier to force people to check whether they are on the right train or not.

    Japan, Korea, China all have stations with 10+ platforms, some even dedicate one platform for single destinations.

    Jon Reply:

    HSR is not commuter or subway trains, which you board any train can take you to the same place, just need to remember which direction is the correction direction.

    Not the case for BART, where one platform can have trains for up to four different destinations arriving shortly after each other. And yet the system still works.

    There’s nothing wrong with dedicating certain platforms for HSR, providing you don’t set that decision into concrete. It’s fine to say that platforms 1-4 are for HSR and platforms 5-6 for Caltrain, providing that a Caltrain can be routed to a HSR platform in the case of a blockage or disruption at the platform it was supposed to go, and visa versa. It should also be possible to change the platform allocations (e.g. so that platforms 1-3 are for HSR and 4-6 are for Caltrain) with a minimum of difficulty in order to respond to real-world changes in demand.

    In practical terms, this means making sure that Caltrain and HSR use the same platform height, the same distance between the door and the platform, and that the length of all the platforms are sufficient for the longest train that will use it. Also, Caltrain and HSR passengers should not be held separately as they wait to board their trains. It’s okay to have ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ areas (though not really necessary), just make sure that the ticket barriers open for both HSR and Caltrain tickets.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    You’re getting Japan quite wrong. The Shinkansen is separate from the legacy network, and there isn’t much branching, but to the extent that there is, i.e. on the JR East network, they share platforms 20-23. On the legacy network, lines that share tracks also share platforms, and even legacy terminals with many platform tracks, such as Ueno, have shared platforms. Lines get 100% dedicated tracks when they have capacity issues. The reason the Yamanote Line doesn’t share platform tracks isn’t to prevent confusion; it’s to prevent its 115%-over-capacity crowding from being even worse than it already is.

    Joey Reply:

    If it were 10:1 it would be a noteworthy problem already. And I have yet to hear that it happens even moderately frequently anywhere in the world.

    Anyway, jimsf (below) is right – the real idiots would find their way onto the wrong platform anyway.

    jimsf Reply:

    they will find a way to take the wrong train. I promise. But shared platforms would be ok. two tracks, shared center platform. clear destination signs and announcements on platforms and trains. The lost will be lost no matter what you do.

    William Reply:

    Yes, big, high-def, multicolor LED signs that clear says what type, which destination, and when the next 5~10 trains using this platform track is a must for high-traffic operations.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    http://www.panoramio.com/photo/49312894

    The depicted island platform is served by lines S3, S5, S6, S7, S9, S11, S12, S15, S16, with an aggregate 20 trains per hour (either side of the island platform may be used interchangeably) at peak.

    I’m missing the “big, high-def, multicolor LED signs for the next 5-10 trains”. The most prominent signs show (clearly, naturally, these people care about this stuff) the one next train, as will signs on the side of the train itself.

    Yet somehow people manage to find their way home every evening regardless.

    Amazing, but true.

    Joey Reply:

    Classy dropped ceilings, anyone?

    (I’m just teasing – I have no doubt that this particular station is better than Transbay in every other way possible)

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Ho Joey,

    Since you asked, the four platform tracks depicted were shoehorned in underneath the existing large terminal station in Zurich. Daylight, high ceilings, etc, simply couldn’t be part of the scheme, not matter how it was designed. (FYI there’s an additional four-track underground station being built alongside it as we speak! Same deal.) Here’s how this looks from above. (Not just below the terminal station, but below the river as well.) And no, I don’t think it’s a world-besting architectural space. In fact, it’s a bit of a utilitarian hole, ameliorated a bit by good lighting and clear movement paths. Happy?

    In contrast, Transbay is a clean slate on a new site. All existing structures have been scraped off. There is simply no excuse for the dismal design, and the horrific circulation problems that are designed in. Failure is built right in. All for the low, low cost of only $4 billion of your tax dollars.

    If you look at a similar <a href="clean slate site station design elsewhere, you’ll see what can be done. (And no, I don’t think this is a world-besting piece of architecture either. But it is a long long long way from dismal.)

    Here’s a contrast of the commuter rail platforms at La Sagrera
    http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s224/Izeru/Infraestructures%20i%20transports/Sagrera04.jpg
    with the catastrophe of Transbay
    http://wwwpobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/Classy-dropped-ceilings.jpg

    * No full plate, unnecessary mezzanine.
    * Daylight.
    * PAIRED, BI-DIRECTIONAL escalators and stairways.
    * Structural columns designed AROUND platforms and passenger circulation, rather than forming massive obstacles.

    Transbay is worse than you can imagine. For absolutely no reason. They CHOSE to make it horrible and CHOSE to make it unworkable. No guns to anybody’s heads. Inexcusable.

    Joey Reply:

    Yes, yes, I know. I was more commenting on the lowered ceilings over the platforms than anything else (a triviality, really).

    Interesting note, what you show for La Sagrera bears some resemblance to SOM’s entry for the Transbay Terminal “competition” (since we have already been through the fact that it had little to do with architecture).

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste

    And I did that without touching the keyboard. Can’t make typos if you aren’t typing.

    This required typing a period symbol.

    http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/Classy-dropped-ceilings.jpg

    William Reply:

    Aren’t those big, multi-function displays I saw attached to the ceiling of the platforms?

    William Reply:

    And on the roof supports, aren’t those big screens showing next few trains using the platform?

    Paulus Magnus Reply:

    I’m sorry, but making design decisions on the basis of “People are too fucking retarded to look at a sign or notice whether the train says Caltrain or HSR” is quite possibly one of the worst excuses I have ever heard of for spending money.

    Jon Reply:

    Yeah, because people taking BART to Pittsburg/Bay Point end up on trains to Dublin/Pleasanton all the time. It’s just so confusing!

    Seriously, if people riding BART can manage to get on the right train even though they look exactly the same, people will be able to tell the difference between a high speed train and a Caltrain.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-11/local/me-11793_1_auckland

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Sorry, bad link.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-03/local/me-28522_1_europe-vacation

    Jon Reply:

    Ha! To be fair, Air New Zealand seem to have been the biggest idiots in letting a guy without a legible ticket stay onboard without bothering to check their flight plan.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Ah, yeah, that. It’s a failure so colossal it was mentioned in my elementary school English textbook, in a section on misunderstanding.

    thatbruce Reply:

    @William:
    Plans should be made to give HSR its own dedicate platforms, as train frequency grows for both Caltrain and CAHSR, it would become more likely that people would take the wrong train if platforms for shared.

    That is one of the problems with HSR on the Peninsula, in that plans have been made to give the CAHSR trains their own platforms, separate from Caltrain. There seem to be two erronous drivers behind these plans, being:

    (1) A perception that HSR travelers are extra-special people and need a secured area separate from the dirty commuter traffic.
    (2) A (valid) fear that Caltrain equipment will be unable to use the same platforms as CAHSR due to political differences (or height differences if you prefer).

    Together, these two drivers have resulted in CAHSR station designs which are overpriced compared to practices common with HSR operations around the world, and limited the operational possibilities of the Peninsula line.

    Regarding point (1), the only place in the western world that I’m aware of where certain HSR trains use different platforms compared with other trains of the same loading characteristics is the Eurostar, due to the UK’s immigration concerns.

    Regarding point (2), if Caltrain would admit that compared to the eventual span of the CAHSR network, they are a smaller operation, then we can all get on with using off-the-shelf standards for platform height, loading gauge, power supply and signaling, and apply them to both CAHSRA’s pointy-nose trainsets and Caltrain’s proposed new UIC electric trains (any train, any platform).

    In regular operation, there are some instances where separate platforms for CAHSR and Caltrain do make sense, such as Transbay during off-peak hours, but in other locations along the peninsula, its just money being poured down the drain (*cough* Millbrae tunnel) as a result of a game of agency chicken.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    game of agency chicken.

    Isn’t the meme contractor pork?

  6. synonymouse
    Jul 27th, 2011 at 23:33
    #6

    right on, Clem

  7. ericmarseille
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 07:46
    #7

    Totally off-topic :

    SNCF’s 1st semester results, just hot from the oven :

    - turnover : € 16,3 bn (+9.5%)
    - Net Profits : € 558 mln (1st semester 2010 too affected by the crisis still, comparison irrelevant)

  8. Nadia
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 09:44
    #8

    UPDATE: We have received the ridership report. See our website at: http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/

    Haven’t had time to read it yet….

    We are supposed to receive the correspondence between the Authority and the Peer Review Group by the end of the week.

    In addition, the Authority has posted a page on their sites all about Public Records Requests at: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/PRA.aspx

    Jon Reply:

    Just had a read through. CARRD will be disappointed to hear that there is no smoking gun indicating systematic overestimation of ridership figures. However there are a bunch of interested comments and recommendations, particularly relating to levels of service:

    “The Panel found no evidence that alternative representations of level of service variables were investigated, which is important to obtaining a good behavioral representation and sensitivity to changes in service […] It is essential that the model be appropriately sensitive, as one of the chief causes of overoptimistic demand forecasts in other studies has been that financial constraints may lead to less frequent service or lower speeds than planned. At a minimum, this sensitivity analysis should include documenting the effect of varying levels of service on the resulting forecasts.” (Section 4.3)

    “The level of service topic is particularly important to tie to operating and business assumptions made by the Authority, and should be attributed as such. For example, the frequencies in San Francisco (8 million residents) in full build-out of 12 trains per hour are comparable to Tokyo, with 30 million residents). The Panel questioned whether such assumptions are realistic, and what the effect of lower levels of service (decreased frequency) on ridership would be. These issues should be clearly addressed in the documentation.” (Section 3.1)

    This of course has significant implications for slower speed reduced service levels as proposed in the Bay Area Council’s compromise plan. Is 12 tph really necessary? At what point does reduced speed and frequency really start to impact ridership?

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    “Alternative-specific constants”.

    Has a nice ring to it.

    Almost rhymes with “strategic misrepresentation”.

    joe Reply:

    “Just had a read through. CARRD will be disappointed to hear that there is no smoking gun indicating systematic overestimation of ridership figures.”

    Then they will fabricate one.

    Clem Reply:

    Disagree. Section 4.4 backs up exactly what Elizabeth has been saying all along regarding the doctored headway coefficient.

    Peter Reply:

    No it doesn’t. It backs up the argument that this is a disagreement between experts.

    Elizabeth and others (like you, apparently) had argued that the “doctored” headway coefficient was used to favor Pacheco. 4.4 says nothing of the sort.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    The group was specifically told that they were NOT to weigh in on Pacheco vs Altamont (“old controversies”.)

    Jon Reply:

    To be pedantic, the issue raised in section 4.4 does not suggest systematic overestimation of ridership figures, it suggests that the importance of frequent service was overestimated. In other words, ridership may have been underestimated for alternatives with branching (e.g. Altamont via Dumbarton), and 12tph may not be necessary to secure healthy ridership levels. Important points, but they don’t back up the ‘nobody rides trains’ argument so often bandied about with respect to these ridership studies.

    Clem Reply:

    ridership may have been underestimated for alternatives with branching (e.g. Altamont via Dumbarton)

    That has some pretty far-reaching consequences for the Bay Area – Central Valley Revised Final Program EIR. It opens up the possibility that Altamont to SF AND SJ (emphasis on AND for any near-sighted residents of Santa Clara County) might actually generate more ridership than Pacheco, of a sufficient magnitude to tip the balance in the alignment selection.

    The most damning passage is this, I think:

    The initial waiting time has been shown to be the choice of the traveler reflecting their risk preference with respect to access time, time needed at the station or the stop.

    The way the headway coefficient was treated in the HSR model effectively implied that if trains came every N minutes, the traveler would experience an initial waiting time of N/2 that was valued twice as much as in-vehicle time (i.e. it felt like waiting N minutes). This effectively torpedoed the Altamont alternatives because San Francisco and especially San Jose would experience greater values of N due to the branching.

    Jon Reply:

    I don’t disagree.

    There are two issues here- one is the “ridership numbers have been inflated/nobody ever rides trains!” argument, which this document does not back up, and the “ridership numbers were gamed to favor Pacheco!” argument, which this document does give some ammunition to. To be fair to CARRD, I was under the impression that they were primarily proponents of the former argument, where as they appear to be concentrating on the latter. It’s still true to say that there is no smoking gun indicating systematic overestimation of ridership figures.

    Nadia Reply:

    CARRD’s comments on this issue are on our website:

    http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/

    scroll down and click where you see:
    **4/29/2010 CARRD submitted comments as part of the environmental review process. You can read CARRD’s comments for Program Level EIR (PDF) that relate to the ridership forecasts.**

    From our opening paragraph:
    “The focus of the comments is specifically on those aspects of the ridership study which involved the primary policy decision in the study, which route to take.”

    Jon Reply:

    To illustrate Clem’s point (please correct me if I’m mistaken):

    Using CAHSR’s model, 12tph to San Francisco = one train every 5 minutes = ((5/2)*2) = 5 minutes perceived added journey time. This assumes you will turn up for your train 2.5 minutes before it departs and the waiting time would feel like 5 minutes. Now you might do that on a subway system where your ticket is valid for any train, but if I’m booked onto a specific train I turn up about 10 minutes in advance regardless of the frequency.

    If we split that frequency as 8tph to San Francisco and 6 tph to San Jose, we get 7.5 mins perceived added journey time at San Francisco and 10 minutes perceived added journey time at San Jose. The argument is that a) this extra perceived journey time shouldn’t kill ridership and b) people are gonna turn up 10 minutes before their train regardless of the frequency.

    So yes, I do see the point of this angle of criticism.

    Jon Reply:

    Dammit, I meant…

    If we split that frequency as 8tph to San Francisco and 4tph to San Jose, we get 7.5 mins perceived added journey time at San Francisco and 15 minutes perceived added journey time at San Jose.

    Edit. Feature. NOW. (Please.)

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There’s never going to be 12 HSR trains an hour to San Francisco. Some of the trains heading north from Fresno are going to be going to Sacramento.

    Joey Reply:

    There really shouldn’t be 12 tph anyway, though the 5 minute headway rule is justifiable to allow overtakes with minimal delays.

    Jon Reply:

    I took 12tph from the quote in the document, although I think 10tph is actually what’s being planned for SF.

    Tony D. Reply:

    Can someone get a pacifier for the Altamont-only folk? (pss…for those who choose to deal in reality, the Altamont HSR commuter overlay will address the billions of riders who will be bypassed by Pacheco primary route; the proverbial best of both worlds…unless of course you’re a PAMPA _$$ hole!).

    Paulus Magnus Reply:

    So, why not just save the money that would be spent on Pacheco and go with Altamont if you’re going to build it anyhow?

    Tony D. Reply:

    What’s wrong with eventually having both? But if you must ask; Pacheco will be primarily for long-haul intercity between LA and Bay Area. Later, enhanced ACE or true HSR will address the commuter aspect of shuttling folk between Silicon Valley/Bay Area and Tracy/Stockton. Again, the best of both worlds. Besides, this was already decided years ago, so such questions are pretty irrelevant/hypothetical at this point; kind of like debating why the Sun has to rise in the east instead of the west.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:

    Besides, this was already decided years ago, so such questions are pretty irrelevant/hypothetical at this point

    Just like the Grapevine?

    Joey Reply:

    What’s wrong with eventually having both?

    What’s wrong is that money is not an infinite resource.

    Emma Reply:

    That being said, why did CHSRA change the web design in the first place? The “new” site feels completely chaotic, not to mention all the broken links… I value Internet presence. I think it says a lot about how professional a company is.

    But then again, government websites have never been the most beautiful until Team Obama showed up.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    That being said, why did CHSRA change the web design in the first place?

    That’s an easy one. The same reason any web site is “redesigned” and “relaunched”, especially public agencies with no clue and millions of loose dollars ripe for the taking: snake oil sales and rent seeking by consultants.

    Just consider: you’re in Web Site Dude, with an Advanced Degree in Flash Menubars, C# Rollover Technology, and Photoshop Icon Creation. Are you going to work on making it trivial to upload more information to the client’s site, or are you going to advocate a complete makeover to drive sticky eyeballs using RESTrull AJAX client-side HTML5 database and full Facebook integration that really “pops” out amidst the tired looking competing HSR sites?

    Then there’s always enabling client idiocy, often actively encouraged by shysters who are more than happy to bill by the minute. Either way, users of the web site never get a look in, just as users of public transportation are the last thing that the contractors and agency apparatchiks ever care about.

    What’s the “U” in “URL” or “URI” supposed to mean, anyway.

    Pinheads.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    Richard, I took a look at the “client idiocy” link, and for once I have to agree with you.

    This comes back to an opinion I’ve had before about Transbay. Now, I haven’t really followed all of the discussions about routing and such due to time constraints, and I haven’t really commented about them either because of that. But I did take a look at Transbay early on, and I thought the location was awful.

    Besides the destruction of what I would have considered a historic structure (the old Key System terminal), the big problem is quite simply the location. That thing must be at least a mile from 4th and Townsend, and that mile is full of streets and structures, some of them skyscrapers. Avoiding those foundations and attempting to follow streets as much as possible introduces all sorts of complications (such as sharp curvature), not to mention the cost of building a mile of underground railroad to essentially AAR-FRA standards (i.e., clearances).

    The “client idiocy” is what I believe lead to that location. Basically, I understand the station is right in the financial district. The big blowhard moneybag men of the financial district decided they wanted the terminal to be at their doorstep, essentially a rail-born limousine service for them. The gutless, spineless, brainless leaders we call “politicians,” who do not want to offend the blowhard moneybag men, said “Yes, sir!” They didn’t bring up questions about building that mile-long railroad under the streets of San Francisco, essentially thinking and saying, “Let the engineers handle it.” Of course, you have the complication that the engineering firm sees the opportunity for more work and more billable hours.

    It’s not ideal at all, but I am afraid we are stuck with it. I still think the project should go ahead; I think we need the alternative too much. I don’t know what we should do about making sure the lesson is learned, particularly by the politicians. I wish we could somehow shame the politicians into listening to people who know a little bit about technology, but that’s not easy. For the money men, that’s impossible, short of having their firms go belly up in some scandal, and also having the money men go to jail–but that doesn’t seem likely, either.

    Emma Reply:

    Exactly. I don’t want to start with the PR company CHSRA hired. Yes, apparently they hired one and it was expensive. After years of nothing the PR company decided to leave before they got kicked out by the authority. Things like these make me wonder who on earth is in charge of this project.

    Back to the website: It’s not that there was anything wrong with the old site.

  9. Adina Levin
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 11:48
    #9

    Nadia, Elizabeth, thanks for being persistent and getting the info.

    Nadia Reply:

    Thanks Adina

  10. Emma
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 12:19
    #10

    It has been “gaining momentum” since 2009. Call me when they finally hit ground.

  11. Lionel
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 14:03
    #11

    There is really no way to avoid four tracks, with complete grade separation, and with electrification, for the HSR between SF and San Jose. This modified plan is a non-starter. It’s all or nothing, folks.

    synonymouse Reply:

    It is nothing, folks.

    And let’s get back to Altamont and leave BART and Caltrain to their death match.

    Joey Reply:

    This isn’t an “all or nothing” kind of scenario. Four tracks will of course be necessary in a lot of places, but four tracks everywhere is unlikely to be needed for a very, very long time, if everywhere. The real question is figuring out where additional tracks are needed and where they aren’t.

  12. jimsf
    Jul 28th, 2011 at 16:36
    #12

    Meanwhile take a moment to revisit the dream

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    Thanks, some of us needed something like that.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    Hard to believe, but some of those TGV sets are now over 25 years old. . .which in turn reminds me that there was some critic of Obama who thought the call for HSR was wrong, because it was something that dated back almost 30 years in Europe. . .he didn’t say what we should have for a national project that would eclipse that. . .perhaps someone should have told him that made the US 30 years behind. . .

    I am of the opinion that the first line to get built will be the hardest, as you are seeing in California. But once it is up and running, and if it does for travel what we think it can do, we will see a railroad construction boom that will look like the 19th century again. I do hope we manage to give it an American flavor while we are at it; after all, for all their glamour, the Orient Express and the Mistral and other European trains were not the same as, did not have the feel of a 20th Century Limited or a Super Chief.

    Ericmarseille Reply:

    +1

Comments are closed.