Gilroy Worries Eastern Station Will Destroy Downtown
While some cities spend their time finding excuses to oppose high speed rail, Gilroy has decided to take a different path. Gilroy city officials have had their concerns about the project, but instead of filing lawsuits or attacking the project, they spent money to launch a visioning project that brings the community together to figure out how best to make HSR work for Gilroy.
The California High Speed Rail Authority has two proposals for a Gilroy HSR station: one downtown, roughly where the current Caltrain station is along Monterey Street, and one east of town, behind the outlet mall on what is now agricultural land.
At a City Council meeting in Gilroy on Tuesday night, councilmembers and the public expressed concerns that an east Gilroy station would destroy downtown:
High among their concerns was the possibility that a station in the rural area east of the Gilroy Premium Outlets would divert interest and development away from the city’s historic downtown.
“You can kiss downtown goodbye,” said Councilman Peter Arellano, “This will be the new downtown.”
Councilmember Perry Woodward expressed similar concerns:
Woodward said residents’ vision for a downtown station, which included residential and retail structures, would create a dense economic base.
“The same thing is true, of course, if you put it out east of town,” Woodward said. “It’s going to be an economic center of gravity. We all kind of know intuitively that that’s going to happen.”
A station east of Gilroy, however, which residents think could include a hotel or convention center, could effectively kill off downtown, Woodward said.
“I’m worried about that,” he said. “I’m afraid that putting a station east of town is going to have a long-term negative impact on the community.”
Some residents who oppose high speed rail are critical that the visioning process isn’t including their views, but they lost that battle in 2008 when Californians approved the project. The city is properly moving ahead to better understand their choices, and from what they’re learning, a downtown station might be the better option for the city’s economy.
And that makes sense. A downtown station enables great transit-oriented development, with downtown San José and San Francisco a short train ride away, with downtown LA about two hours away (the same amount of time it can take to drive to SF on a busy day). It builds on the economic base that’s already there, and downtown Gilroy certainly has room to grow upward. It also allows cross-platform transfers to connecting rail service, especially to the Monterey Bay region.
East Gilroy, on the other hand, is the place where just a few years ago a planned Wal-Mart Supercenter was defeated, with the land kept agricultural. An eastern station would not only cost some agricultural land (which is not a problem in and of itself, but all the better if it can be avoided) but would suck economic activity away from downtown. East Gilroy might see some benefit, but small and local businesses downtown would be devastated. It’s hard to see how that’s the best choice for Gilroy.
The two station proposals each have two vertical alignments, which you can view in a PDF file on the Gilroy Patch article. Downtown would have either an at-grade or a trench, and east Gilroy would have either an at-grade or an aerial viaduct.
While there’s still a ways to go in the visioning process, it sure seems as if the Council is moving toward a downtown station.
I prefer downtown. If im taking a train to a place, I dont want to be dropped off in the middle of a field of poppies I want to be dropped off in the middle of the place im going.
Hope they get used to the idea that there will not be a trench downtown. Too expensive.
I wish they would stop using the term “aerial”. Aerial means in the air. As in an aerial battle or aerial acrobatics. Flying through the air or free-floating. They should say “on structure” or “elevated”. A viaduct by definition is elevated. If you’re building a track on-structure, say “elevated track”. Just sayin’…
Wait, Gilroy has a downtown? What?
joe Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
I am amazed at how stupidly persistent and unabashedly proud the locals are about this town.
J. Wong Reply:
July 21st, 2011 at 11:43 pm
I should hope that they are proud of their town.
JJJ Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:19 am
You can tell where downtown is because it has parking lots. Not-downtown has farms.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:07 am
I think East Gilroy has more parking lots, actually. Outlet Malls, anyone?
Garlic Festival here I come! Really, this would allow the festival to get even bigger since more parking would not be required if more visitors take a train to the festival.
Reality Check Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:38 am
There used to be a group that ran 10-car chartered Caltrain trains down to the Garlic Festival. They sold a package deal which included festival admission, shuttle-bus transfers to/from the festival and roving on-train “entertainment” (mock train robbers and band that played a few numbers in each car before moving on to the next car). They even passed out a bit of Garlic Festival swag on the train the time I rode it.
The whole “beat traffic, avoid parking hassles, take the train in style!” thing seemed to be quite popular, so I’m not sure why they stopped doing it. Probably UP/Caltrain hassles … or maybe insurance costs were killing them. Does anyone remember/know?
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
I was told the train was canceled due to Liability / Insurance.
I attended this meeting. The envisioning to date did NOT consider the implications of station location on the alternative i.e. the a downtown station wasn’t evaluated in terms of preserving farm land nor was the east of town station evaluated in terms of what it took from downtown.
This parallel, independent assumption was a big concern for most of the council and some of the attendees hoping to protect downtown’s business and status.
The City council noted that all HSR stations *except* the Hanford and the possible east of Gilroy would NOT use farm land. The city also directed the envisioning study to better coordinate with the city staff to identify where are underdeveloped (use) and newly developed (don’t tear down and envision new stuff there) property for the next round of envisioning.
A top concern expressed in the surveys is HSR noise. IMHO this is a 900 lb Gorilla. To date there hasn’t been a clear indication by analysis or demonstration by analog of noise levels for a downtown alignment. IMHO this public concern needs to be addressed by HSR. Opponents elsewhere have exaggerated and claimed HSR is like a jet engine. In the absence of fact, this is a fear that could be exploited.
At the meeting, HSR opponents incorrectly stated the trains would run 220 MPH in a downtown alignment and that HSR offered Gilroy no economic value.
One idea from the peanut gallery was to run a bypass track and only have local HSR trains run downtown along side an electrified commuter Caltrain. This would reduce the trench from 4 to 2 track and protect downtown from noise.
I was impressed by how well the City understood the value of engaging and recommending to HSR how they wanted the alignment to impact Gilroy. They know this wasn’t going away and they needed to engage the CAHSRA if they wanted to help Gilroy.
Those saying a downtown trench is too expensive don’t understand that HSR has an incentive to reward and help cities that engage HSR early and constructively so I expect if Gilroy doesn’t decide to pout, sue and threaten HSR (Like PAMPA) they might find easier access to funds or loans for trenching. This incentive would teach cities catering to NIMBYs that a hard line against HSR can backfire.
My preference today is to NOT trench and build a slightly elevated HSR/UP alignment downtown that local roads pass underneath. The trench only accommodates HSR. UP is left at grade – still blows the whistle. Of course this is dependent on understanding HSR noise and mitigation options.
BTW Gilroy’s massive new “green” library is on track and under budget – amazing how construction costs are lower in a recession and how a middle class town can find a way to invest in its citizens.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:19 am
220 mph through downtown is correct. Where did you get the idea that the trains would run slower?
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:14 am
Have we figured out yet what speeds are allowed by the planned curves for the downtown alignment? It would be nice if the engineering drawings for SJ-Merced included curve radii, like the Socal ones do.
Justin H Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:33 am
Please document the claim for 220 mph thru downtown Gilroy.
Eric M Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:44 am
I believe Clem is right. I thought I saw a document where it shows the top speed will be achieved outside of San Jose south.
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:10 am
IIRC, it was in the August 2009 board meeting presentation by Tony Daniels. A quick search produces this doc. See slide 13. If you’re not convinced, watch the board meeting for that presentation and the discussion before/after.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:57 am
If you’re having trouble interpreting that slide, it shows speed vs. distance. Gilroy is located at kilometer post 595.16
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:18 am
Ooops. I took you seriously.
Should we disregard this criticism against the Pacheco Route (trains slowing to 150 MPH) or was this an oversight?
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
The criticism still stands. If a downtown alignment through Gilroy is selected, with the mistaken notion that a high-speed alignment belongs through a downtown area at 220 mph or any other speed, then the noise problem will trump trip time considerations, and a speed restriction of ~150 mph will be imposed.
The outlet location is far, far better for everyone, even those who don’t know it yet…
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
The farmland station location is not preferred by Gilroy or the outlying area.
Your past criticism is conflicted. The physics/reality based analysis changes: It always slants against Pacheco. The new blended criticism – HSR downtown is too noisy and too slow would justify an non-vested analysis by the city.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Run that one by me again; how is my criticism conflicted? What I’m saying today, that the CHSRA plans to run trains through downtown Gilroy at ridiculous speeds, was true before and is true today. Some official documents show 220 mph, others imply a bit less, but the point is, they’re doing something globally unprecedented and duping the city into supporting it by selling it as some sort of TOD-o-riffic opportunity!
The farmland station will sooner or later become preferred by Gilroy and the outlying area, once they see the completed noise analysis. Not that Gilroy’s opinion matters much in the final choice.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
1) I dug up your comment that trains wouldn’t run 220 in the city, now you say they will and it’s a sneak attack on Gilroy – FUD FUD!!
2) You don’t know squat about local alignment preferences let alone forecasting local public opinion.
3) Who knows how much Gilroy’s opinion matters – if CAHSRA acts in bad faith here it will undermine the project. So far CAHSRA is offering a downtown alignment.
4) Sure CA can put the station in the east side of town in a flood plain. If they do the City will adapt. We’re not idiots. There will be no movement to push HSR away or let CA change the alignment.
William Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I agree with Clem. Outlet location is better if HSR needs to reach and sustain maximum speed as soon as it leaves San Jose.
All this comes down to “who was here first” question.
Downtown residents will most likely demand HSR to slow down for noise reason due to they “being there first” and not wanting to spend money or time to refit their house and business with more sound-proof windows.
Put the station east of Outlet it is the other way around. HSR station would be there first and all homes and business need to accept the noise and buildings will be designed accordingly.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Thank god you and Clem have it all figured out.
It all comes down to sprawl. The locals want to infill and CAHSRA advised these options are reasonable when Gilroy selected them.
So far downtown “residents”, businesses/property owners is the better term, support HSR and the City will obviously want the design to minimize noise. What they will demand is conjecture.
Gilroy’s preference is just that, a preference. The Mayor and city reiterated that fact when accepting the report. They are cooperating with CAHSRA during planning. CAHSRA is using the City as an example of cooperation and Mike Honda’s a strong supporter of the cooperative stance.
The leverage Gilroy has is 1) acting in good faith with CAHSRA, 2) early engagement with a project that needs successes, and 3) all of what they are considering is within the guidance of the CAHSRA. CAHSRA haven’t ruled out a downtown trench.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:28 pm
They haven’t ruled out a downtown trench, but they sure have ruled out paying for it…
William Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Come to think of it, the downtown trench station option could be a good choice to allow express trains to run through at 220mph while keeping the station at Gilroy Downtown. From CAHSRA’s presentation, trains in trench can lower noise heard by the neighbors by ~5dB.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Yeah but the cost goes up by +12dB
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Cost will be a factor. That is TBD.
The slightly elevated track with underpasses is probably the CAHSRA preference. It’s the less costly for the downtown alignment.
Gilroy will NOT get a trench without co-paying. The co-pay will be determined by the circumstances. IMHO CAHSRA will provide incentives for early cooperation with the project and for improvements near/at stations.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Here are some actual CHSRA trench unit costs from last December (for Fresno – Bakersfield)
10 foot deep trench:
1 track – $30M/mile
2 track – $41M/mile
4 track – $49M/mile
20 foot deep trench:
1 track – $77M/mile
2 track – $101M/mile
4 track – $119M/mile
30 foot deep trench, what you would need for at-grade roads and partial trench covers to make the tracks completely unintrusive:
1 track – $144M/mile
2 track – $180M/mile
4 track – $208M/mile
Of course, a four-track trench won’t get you a downtown station. You will have to add an extra 40-60 ft wide for the platforms. The platforms will be 1400 feet long, and the four-track station length will be about 6000 feet not counting the two-track trenched approaches.
Gilroy’s co-pay on such a trench would bankrupt the city.
Joey Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 4:04 am
I wonder which would be cheaper – a trench through Gilroy or the now-defunct station loop alternative…
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:12 am
On further examination, the most recent map shows a ~4000 m radius curve at downtown Gilroy, which is only good for about 280 km/h (175 mph) assuming 6 inches of superelevation plus 3 inches of deficiency.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Doesn’t the TGV do 300 km/h on 4,000-meter curves? Though it’s with much higher cant (180 mm)…
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The exact answer is in table 3.2.4 of TM-2.1.2. Under exceptional circumstances, CHSRA will allow 180 mm (7 inches) at 300 km/h… my calculation was a bit more conservative.
TomW Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 am
I like the idea of bypass for through trains, downtown for srtopping trains. However, this would be significantly more expensive then a single route, because you have to duplicate a lot of work.
I agree there needs to be some more precise figures on noise from the 220mph train. However, regardless of how noisy it is, a 300m train would take just three seconds to go past. A few figures:
* “The German ICE reported noise levels of 86 dBA at 11.5 ft from the train travelling 124 mph
and 93 dBA at 186 mph” ( http://books.atishji.com/Civil%20Engineering%20Handbook%20-%202nd%20Edition/0958%20ch60.pdf , p14)
* TGV Duplex – 95dBA from a 350km/hr (220mph) train at 25m ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/b337322716q62tt7/ , page 2)
* Wikipedia states “Traffic on a busy roadway at 10 m: 80-90dB”
Really important point: Noise levels should always be reported with a distance, for the simple reason that halving the distance will raise the noise by ~3dB.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 am
Interesting, only 93 dBA at 300 km/h (186 mph) at 11.5 ft? That’s pretty crazy low. And those were numbers from 2003 or earlier? Those numbers will likely be lower for newer trains.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:50 am
Train noise is a deceptively tricky topic, but the FRA has done a nice job of writing a thorough introduction. Their analytic techniques for predicting noise levels are built into the Train Noise Calculator over on my blog, which also features links to the FRA treatise on the subject.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:25 am
I’ve seen the calculator on your blog and would prefer a non-vested consultant apply that algorithm on the proposed alignments and generate a sound impact map for the proposed development.
So if they allow taller buildings next to HSR, how will those tall structures block sound? That should influence the planning.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
There is no such thing as a non-vested consultant. An important part of the EIR is the preparation of a noise and vibration impact analysis, using the FRA methodology. They’ve already completed this task, but you won’t get to see the results until the Draft EIR is circulated to the public.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:58 am
Funny I had always thought the TGV to be less noisy than the TGV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPfnPNpWlVI&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhp03t5nwYE&feature=player_detailpage
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 am
Yes. Probably expensive but what would would be the estimated cost and impact to the station design?
A bypass means trenching 2 tracks in town as opposed to 4 tracks. Maybe a minor cost savings but it might also fit HSR into town along railroad st. Less impact to existing structures.
If trains can run 220 on the bypass and not 150 then that saves time.
..and the local trains could run slower and offset noise mitigation – probably eliminate the need to trench and tracks run slightly elevated at grade. That easier alignment also improves the UP track grade crossings, trenching does not.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:51 am
They’ve already considered a “Gilroy Loop” alternative and rejected it due to increased impacts and the very real possibility that the actual station would be sacrificed to save money and just the bypass itself would be built.
Andre Peretti Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:54 am
I find these figures surprising. My own real-life experience is that the ICE is noisier than the TGV. Maybe the measured noise level is the same but the nature of the noise is different. The TGV produces what sounds like successive gusts of wind, one for each car. You hardly hear any wheel noise. It’s quite the opposite for the ICE3 where mechanical noise dominates.
That’s the reason why people think the ICE is noisy and the TGV is not. Aerodynamic noises are far better accepted by our nervous system than mechanical noises, even if dbA measurements are the same.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:56 am
Unless they used the same methodology for measuring the noise, the numbers would not match up very well.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
A few years ago, I saw a commenter explain that because train noise is less sudden and jerky, for noise pollution calculation comparisons with cars they subtract 5 dB from it. (The context was that maglev noise does not get the 5 dB bonus.)
It’s good to hear that they’re leaning towards downtown; let’s hope they get their way. That said, I do hope they’re prepared to accept major upward growth in the city center. The need for transit-oriented urbanism and sustainable development trumps the need to preserve architectural “heritage” in sites selected for stations. The significant growth hsr will bring to Gilroy should be concentrated as much as possible within walking distance of the station, lest it generate massive new sprawl. Gilroy planning a number of parking facilities around the new station, but I would encourage the community to plan more floor space for people to live, work, and shop within walking distance of the station, and fewer parking lots.
Another factor to consider is that to get future rail passengers from Santa Cruz and Monterey counties to the proposed east-side location — a good mile from the current Caltrain stop — would require extending their line all the way around the east side of town.
The bypass option joe mentioned is interesting. If only local trains go thru town, then Gilroy can do without the trench. Would that cover the costs of a bypass line for the express trains? Perhaps they can do without the trench even if the express trains pass thru town. Bullet trains are really not as disturbing as some people make them out to be. Unless you’re standing right next to the tracks, there’s no sudden loudness, just a gradual crescendo to a really tolerable sound level. Much worse are sudden noises, such as car horns or car alarms. Moreover, the total noise from trains is far lower than the noise from the corresponding number of autos rumbling down the highway.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:02 am
More on this on my blog, later, but a) it’s impossible to connect Monterey and Santa Cruz to Gilroy by a train that’s time-competitive with driving, and b) under the extensive regulatory revisions required to make such a connection even semi-decent, it’s easy to run tram-trains.
Justin H Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 am
If we’re going to plan a more sensible model of transportation and urban development for our state, we have to consider how to overcome the constraints of the status quo. Riding a train from SC/Mont co. population centers to Gilroy station could certainly be more convenient than driving (or taking a bus, for those of us who don’t have cars), provided these places also engage in transit-oriented development. In a more intelligent system, it would hardly ever make sense to drive from one population center to catch a train in another. No doubt parking will be hard to come by in the future Gilroy, as it should be. Why drive from Santa Cruz or Salinas to Gilroy just to have to hunt around for parking, and then foot it to hsr, when you could just catch your local train, read/work while you ride, and walk across the platform to hsr at Gilroy station? These communities would benefit enormously from a rail link to hsr.
About time-competitiveness, bear in mind that for most people in most situations, time is a less important factor than convenience.
Not sure what you mean by b). Could you post a link to your blog?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 am
Justin, Alon has a site as noted below (I think you’ll like it):
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/
You can also connect to it by clicking on his name, which is highlighted above. This is for anybody with a highlighted name; it will lead to a website of some sort, sometimes a commercial site they like, sometimes something like a Facebook page.
I agree with your points about eventually having a real car-free California–and a car-free America–available as a choice in the future. It’s not as scary as some people would believe; it only takes the transportation clock back to say, 1940 or so, with a few improvements, like HSR. Alan Drake (who writes extensively on railroad electrification) once opined that for him, the best outcome for America would be to go back to 1910, but with computers and modern medicine. No doubt much of this outlook comes from living very close to a streetcar line in New Orleans, along with the local groceries and restaurants with New Orleans food. Curiously, he does not support HSR, or at least didn’t when I spoke with him several years ago; he thinks the market for high-speed long-distance travel (i.e., air service) will essentially go away in the post-peak-oil world, or at least shrink to pre-Interstate, pre-jet 1950s levels.
Some other comments on this you may find interesting:
http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/setting-ourselves-up-for-economic-collapse/
http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2011/07/bad-employment-location-decisions.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+overheadwire+%28The+Overhead+Wire%29
Justin H Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:07 am
Thanks, DP.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:44 am
Wow!! Had no idea this web thingy worked like that.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:10 am
Some of us are helpful to others. But I guess an asshole wouldn’t understand that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Drunk Engineer (oh, and why would anyone pick a moniker like that!), I’m far from a computer whiz; it took me time to figure that out. Why let someone else who is new flail around so (and also make more work for Alon?)
Peter–we’ve had a touch of ad hominen lectures lately–stay out of the trap.
Besides, it’s more fun to watch others make fools of themselves falling into a trap!
Ho, ho, ho, ho!!
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Note, I didn’t call him an asshole, just stated that an asshole wouldn’t understand.
Anyway, pointing out when someone is being an asshole isn’t exactly an ad hominem attack, just stating the obvious…
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:48 pm
engineers are know for having bad social skills.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
That’s why they aren’t conductors….
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
ha.
Owen Evans Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:43 am
It might be difficult to connect Monterey to Gilroy time competitively with driving but what about direct trains from Monterey to San Francisco? You could make up lost time compared with driving by going 125mph on the peninsula.
Jon Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
In the near term, CAHSR should run connecting buses for the Monterey Bay region, like Amtrak do. In the medium term, surely it’s possible to straighten curves on the UP line to make the rail journey more time competitive?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Not really… curve straightening would at best make the line marginally competitive. It’s not just the curve; it’s also the general alignment that’s circuitous. At some point it becomes cheaper to build a greenfield line on 101. Or forget about that part of the state and spend scarce capital construction money where it could go farther.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
1) Monterey’s MST currently runs buses to Girloy Caltrain and San Jose. HSR in Gilroy would enhance existing service.
2) SoCal North via Amtrack Caost Starlight: It’s far faster to pickup in Salinas than San Jose because of the “detour” to the coast and back. It’s just under 2 hours Salinas to San Jose by Amtrack Coast Starlight. That track is also old and slow.
3) Alon: That part of the state, Monterey et al is .. well part of the State. It’s well traveled and visited. “It is estimated that 4 million people visit Monterey each year. The city’s population increases to nearly 70,000 during tourist seasons.”
Obviously Castroville/Montery/Carmel/Pebble beach is not as important to rail as, say, service to Livermore.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I like how you compare the entire catchment area of one Pacheco station with the immediate site of one Altamont station.
But I’m not even talking about Pacheco vs. Altamont here. Even under Pacheco, the state should spend its money on regional rail elsewhere, where it could be competitive – for example, in congested urban areas. The most underrated project if you ask me is reviving (and double-tracking, and electrifying) the former Harbor Line from LAUS to LAX, hitting a bunch of South Central/Crenshaw/Inglewood neighborhoods in between and providing east-west rail transit between Wilshire and the Green Line. Or a Geary subway, or extra investment in the Subway to the Sea, or a Vermont subway.
Jon Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I don’t think anyone would argue against those projects, but that doesn’t detract from the necessity of good regional transit connecting smaller cities to HSR stations.
The rail route from Santa Cruz to Gilroy is not that circuitous. A bit of Google Mapping tells me that the driving route that roughly follows the rail line (CA-1 S and CA-129 E) is just 6 miles longer than the more direct route cutting across the mountains (CA-1 S and CA-152 E). Monterey and Salinas don’t look so promising, you’d need a new line from Castroville to Sargent following Hwy 152 to make journeys from those cities time-competitive with driving.
Jon Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Correction, Hwy 156
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
You have to factor traffic into time competitiveness.
Hwy 156 backs up for miles as does HW 101 between 156 to Gilroy. The highway is near capacity at times – weekends for sure. That’s why rail might work. 101/156 will need substancial work and widening.
Hwy 129 is a fast alternative – follows the UP track and pajero river. Flat and fast.
Hwy 152 is scenic and twisty – oak to redwoods. That’s what a motorcycle sport car driver would prefer.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:40 pm
It’s curvy. Go to my blog for the post, though it’s lighter on the technical details than I would’ve liked.
Joe. The open house on May 27, 2011 in the Gilroy area had the following story boards and on pages 20, 21, and 22 of the following you have information given about the sound of your “900 lb Gorilla.”
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/256/266/ead04f6a-3624-4af9-96ac-51f33ced1774.pdf
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 am
Thank you;
IMHO this isn’t enough.
TomW Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 am
Until the authority signs a deal for an exact model of train, any nosie figures will be approximate only.
Clem Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:43 am
Not really. Physics is physics, and all train models must push air out of the way.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
Yes, but if they choose, for example, a Shinkansen model, it would most likely be significantly quieter than a Velaro derivative. Little tweaks to the shape can make a large difference.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Only up to a point. The 700T is not as aerodynamic as domestic Shinkansen: the tunnel diameter is wider because the tracks are built to European specs, so they decided the long Shinkansen noses wouldn’t be worth it.
It boils down to what the authority specifies, really. If it requires Shinkansen-grade noise abatement, then Siemens will find a way to redesign the Velaro nose; it will add cost, but shouldn’t complicate things too much. After all, Rotem managed to get what it claims to be an optimal nose for the HEMU-400X by studying other companies’ designs, and Siemens’ engineers are no less competent than Rotem’s.
You foamers crack me up.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:32 am
Genius linked to Saint Mary’s Church at 1st Street and didn’t even connect it the proposed HSR stop east of the outlet.
The downtown welcome sign is at 4th, where downtown begins. City center would be 6th.
As one councilman said to a out of city speaker complaining about HSR in Gilroy, his job is to represent the city and its residents.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 am
Good thing Gilroy has a welcome sign, because otherwise how are out-of-town visitors to even know they are in a downtown? Instead of moving the station, just move the sign.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:11 am
We’ll continue to favor the downtown alignment.
Barn Voyage.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
elitist snobbery. Small towns have downtowns too.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
It may have a downtown in the Mayberry sense where the courthouse and the jail is. But where is the civic center, financial institutions, office buildings and cultural centers that will actually drive ridership?
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
hsr will be a catalyst for the future growth of downtown. Here we are on this blog where everyone preaches density, when it comes to cramming everone into my back yard, but it goes out the window when convenient when it comes to other downtowns.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
HSR should not be built on the idea that places like Gilroy are going to dense up with TOD coming out their ears. You will lose a lot of ridership catering to potential ridership that may never materialize. That is, you’ll slow trains down to 150 MPH in order to serve phantom riders when there is demand for 220 MPH service through East Gilroy right now. You don’t slow down trains (lose ridership) if you’re not going to gain ridership in some other way (downtown). Slowing down the train for LA or San Francisco is proper, but not Gilroy.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Remember, it has to make a profit. Serving the public good is secondary.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:13 am
you arentt going to lose ridership over that
VBobier Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Yep couldn’t agree more, In Japan on HSR they don’t slow down one bit when the trains enter an area with a station, Downtown or not. And so going to Easy Gilroy is a waste of time and money, the only trains that slow down at stations are those trains that are stopping on a passing siding at a station to pick up or to drop off passengers.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Along that line, consider SR 125 and SR 73. Both were built essentially on speculative demand regarding car trips from new development. SR 73 continually loses money and SR 125 went broke only a few years after opening.
Is there such a thing as latent and induced demand? Certainly. But relying upon it, especially when the operating margins of HSR are an extremely thin thing, is foolish.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:03 pm
San Francisco and Oakland?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
This got me to looking at Gilroy, and it looks a lot like the places I’m familiar with, including the downtown architecture; has an awful lot of parking lots, though, where there should be buildings.
You could have quite a bit of infill that wouldn’t have to be super-high like New York; more like medium sized places, like Hagerstown, Md.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy,_California
Amazing–looking at Drunk’s links and the street view, I find Gilroy has a light rail line! I think that’s great, although the financial recovery has to be terrible (someone said here that the farebox recovery is about a quarter that of Caltrain, which would put it in the 10% range). Hope the 70% of the voters who passed money for it haven’t had too many regrets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Valley_Transportation_Authority_light_rail
It’s also interesting to note that the street views show a trolley line–oops, light rail line, got to get with the current language–that blends in quite well; at least based on the photos at Google, the line looks almost invisible from certain angles, most notably from the air. Overhead wires seem to just about disappear, too. So much for light rail lines being so disruptive in the street environment!
Ooh! Ooh! Look what else they run–classic vintage cars, including California cars (partially open, partially closed). That’s one nice touch more transit systems would do well to emulate!
http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/sanjose.htm
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Ummm, no, Gilroy does not have light rail. The light rail line doesn’t make it south out of San Jose. It does have three daily rush hour round trips via Caltrain, though.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Perhaps I’m misreading the photos; is Gilroy actually a town that neighbors San Jose?
I’ve got to admit I’m not a whiz on California geography.
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
No, there’s one town in-between, Morgan Hill. Well, there are two if you count San Martin. Most people don’t.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Gilroy is the only city in Santa Clara that has no other city touching it’s borders.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Darn, looks like the budget is keeping the old timers in the barn for now:
http://www.heritagetrolley.com/existSanJose.htm
http://community.webshots.com/album/3872361XrRhghmFkR?start=12
Of course, some detractors still make themselves felt, and manage to look stupid doing it, too:
“Ah yes, the VTA light rail system. Hopefully your photos will be all that remain of this disaster in a few years. By then maybe they will have come to their senses and closed this system down. And then they can finally put the money they saved towards extending the B.A.R.T system to the area. A few weeks ago I was driving on North 1st Street in San Jose when there was a tremendous concussion nearby. I nearly lost control of my car I was so startled. It turned out the concussion was from another poor slob/lost motorist getting killed when he accidentally turned his truck in front of a VTA train. I think there have been quite a few of these collisions in the past few years. Perhaps Europe can handle ground level trains and traffic together – but it’s not good in semi third-world city like Santa Clara.”
So, we get rid of trolleys partially because some people can’t drive? Bah!
Peter Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
VTA Light Rail IS a colossal failure.
- Its ridership is WAYYY lower than any other comparable light rail system.
- Its routing is extraordinarily circuitous.
- Its trip times are atrocious.
What they do need to do, and are planning on doing, is tweak the existing system and bring its trip times down. They’ve already taken the first step towards that goal by starting to run some express trains, though they should run more.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
VTA lightrail sucks
- Its routing is extraordinarily circuitous.
- Its trip times are atrocious
Favorite station.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=+vta+station+nasa&hl=en&ll=37.370157,-138.779297&spn=38.098059,106.787109&sll=40.313043,-99.316406&sspn=36.659133,73.300781&z=4&layer=c&cbll=37.404456,-122.049827&panoid=nUoG06I7NPHsn8Zk0JXxiw&cbp=12,30.52,,0,0.12
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:31 pm
And yet a circuitous $40 billion route through “downtown” Gilroy and Pacheco makes sense?
You people crack me up.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Pacheco is not circuitous. The route length is lower than with Altamont – the reason the trip times are approximately equal is that Pacheco has more 200 km/h running on the Peninsula. The problem with Pacheco has nothing to do with how it looks on a map, and everything to do with the fact that it pretends that Modesto, Stockton, and Sacramento don’t exist.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:02 am
What they shold also do is instead of making a BART subway, how about burrying light rail throguh DT, correct some curves, get rid of underperforming stations. That should solve travel times, gets rid of the DT bottleneck, increases ridership with competitive trip times.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 7:38 am
Obviously you have never been to San Jose, so let me explain: everything (including the so-called downtown) is a sea of parking connected by gigantic expressways. No amount of money spent burying track is going to make LRT time-competitive.
wu ming Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:39 pm
small towns don’t necessarily always stay small, either.
Spokker Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Exactly. What downtown are we talking about in Gilroy?
HSR should stop in Downtown SF, Downtown LA or Downtown SD. Downtown Gilroy? Please.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 pm
This one
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
So, none at all?
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
you saw the pics of hip people eating tapas. there you go.
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:20 am
What’s the drawback of having a stop in Gilroy, if there are also express trains that don’t? The Gilroy stop is not just for Gilroy; it’s also the HSR access point for Santa Cruz and Monterey counties.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
There’s no drawback of having a stop in Gilroy if you put it away from where people are going to complain about 220 MPH running and build a big parking lot next to it.
Gilroy certainly has a low-density, historic city center in the 1800′s (and early 1900′s) pattern, with wide streets, wide blocks, and big set-backs of most buildings from the street. There isn’t much density now to support a walkable commercial district.
So the real question is, will Gilroy build a new “downtown” around a new greenfield HSR station, or will it try to redevelop the old city center.
The existing landowners certainly care, but I don’t know if their rights should affect the cost or effectiveness of the train system, meant to connect the whole state.
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
looks very
jimsf Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
ugh. I can’t stand using this pc. … anyway..
looks very walkable to me and quite attractive. you know what used to look like this.. Davis. now Davis has quite a popular downtown. as do many other small california towns. such as hanford. where I am going to tomorrow.
wu ming Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:45 pm
we’ve got a bit of a downtown, but whether davis will significantly build up and put housing back in downtown in the future will be one of the biggest political battles in that city, but i think the density argument will win over time. we’re doing it in fits and starts, right now. you should see the middle-aged liberal yuppies freak out when someone suggests multistory housing in the downtown, people go straight to “OMG there will be gangs and crime and crackhouses like the big city!” in the space of a breath, like the peninsula NIMBYs freaking out over elevated rail (but not elevated highways). luckily, everyone younger doesn’t really buy it, but man it pushes some boomers’ buttons.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Yes, the HSR project is about CA.
FWIW, the city is funding infill and built a local, walkable connection from downtown to the Malls on the east side using 6th street and its 101 overpass.
It’s got the potential of a typical Peninsula city like MtView or even Palo Alto. Those are more desirable locations than a station patterned like a BART Parking lot.
They need to make a new city, then. “East Gilroy” sounds fine to me. And how about the city rents out a couple of buses to bridge between East Gilroy and Downtown Gilroy as a sort og, I dunno, “bus bridge”, free of charge and/or “please tip driver”?
I dunno, the whole crying over Gilroy would make me want to skip it entirely if I were on the HSR board. If you can’t come to a decision, then you get no people coming in and spending money to support your local economy. We just speed past your town and you get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.
joe Reply:
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
I agree. If Gilroy were wavering.
So far residents and council favor downtown. The city is cooperating with HSR – they’re a success story.
Miles Bader Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:17 am
Seriously, it seems the only actual conflict here is Clem and Co. with reality…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:11 am
I concur with Joe. HSR is wanted there. Why tick off supporters, why not help them?
If some other poohbahs in someplace like Palo Alto or wherever want to fuss, let’em. You then let them find out they were wrong the hard way, by watching trains tie the rest of the state together except for San Francisco and the Peninsula, which becomes the bottleneck. Let the envy element go to work, too.
In the meantime, have some fun. Reorganize the Caltrain operation as that shortline to handle the freight operations, and work in a heritage operation with steam, too. Watch everyone come around quick when a steam locomotive gets used on occasion to haul an HSR equipment set to 4th and Townsend. . .
Hey, I was having a good nap, what’d you go and wake me up for. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:04 am
I’m not going to comment on the specifics of Gilroy, but locally-desired-as-long-as-someone-else-pays projects aren’t necessarily good ones. The Foothills Extension is the standard example: it’s moving because the San Gabriel Valley residents want it, not because its ridership is going to be even mildly acceptable.
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:20 am
I’m having a hard time keeping up with the negativity.
Geographically, there’s a reason some towns like Gilroy exist. If rail between LA and SF is going along historical travel corridors then it makes sense to place stations at historical junctions.
In other instances the infrastructure is somewhat random, as a born and bread in IL resident, I understand how arbitrary placing infrastructure can foster development. So do politicians how run highways near their property and towns they represent.
With this horrible economy the construction of infrastructure is not a waste. A waste is 10% unemployment. I’m a Keynesian and so if some project is going forward and locals want it then WTF!
It makes far more sense than 10 years of building a modern secular society in Afghanistan.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
if the town wantsa station downtown the bloggerrs sai it shud be greenfield if the town wants greenfoeld the bloggers say it shud be downtown. u can’t win.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
It most certainly is when you consistently advocate only the very most useless infrastructure.
I bet I’m 1000 times the Keynesian you’ll ever be, but the first thing I try think of is “what is the most beneficial use of a pump-priming deficit expenditure?” not “Woo hoo! Burn cash baby, burn!”
“Investment” ≠ “expenditure”.
Eric M Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am
And it’s that attitude that is keeping this economy and county stagnant.
Eric M Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:11 am
country
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:35 pm
No. Back in early 2009, movement leftists didn’t care much for infrastructure – they saw it as a ploy by construction industry lobbyists. The spending they advocated was aid to states, unemployment benefits, and direct cash aid to the poor, on the grounds that those would help those who need the money the most.
This, incidentally, is the approach the administration took with the portion of the stimulus that was not tax cuts. Infrastructure was a small part of the package; most of the spending was stopgap aid to state and local governments, and unemployment benefits. (And that was not enough, but that’s due to a political decision to keep the stimulus well under a trillion.)
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:37 am
I suck! you’re awesome! Lather rinse and repeat if gets you off the meds.
If you were Keynesian, you’re obviously not, you’d STFU about 90% of the time. Really, we could be digging and filling holes with this horrible economy and do better than we are now.
A Keynesian wouldn’t write this given our persistent unemployment —
This isn’t Keynesian – its Know-it-all-assholian.
Will CalTrain share the ROW with HSR all the way to Gilroy?
Breaking News.
A Chinese CRH bullet train derailed and two rail cars fell off from the viaduct. Unknown fatalities. The model is Kawasaki CRH2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8656759/Chinese-D-train-derails-and-falls-from-bridge.html
Clem Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 am
Whatever the Chinese media may say, photos show at least four cars off the viaduct and a second train involved. This is going to be ugly.
Useless Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:38 am
1. CRH2(Shinkansen E2) derails.
2. CRH2 collide with the CRH3(Simens Velaro) coming from opposite direction.
3. CRH2 gets tossed out of the viaduct. CRH3 stays on the viaduct.
This demonstrates the danger of running Shinkansen trains in a mixed traffic.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:45 am
I know you like to troll against Japan, but you might want to provide some evidence that the Shinkansen did worse than a UIC or FRA train would have in the same situation before you start running your mouth off.
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:49 am
“This demonstrates the danger of running Shinkansen trains in a mixed traffic.”
That conclusion takes a bit of a leap. If the train was already derailed, wouldn’t it be more likely to be thrown sideways than the train still on the tracks in a collision? No matter what type of train it was?
Sounds to me like the problem was more like shoddy design/construction/maintenance, together with problems with the signalling. Proper signalling should have immediately halted the oncoming Velaro when the derailment was detected.
Eric M Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
You know Useless, hates the Chinese trains. Useless will have a coronary if the patents filed by the Chinese train makers in the US get approval!!
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:31 am
So will I. So will anyone with an iota of respect for intellectual property, the international trading system, and the law. If we give the chsr contract to the Chinese train makers, we might as well have state offices start using pirated software. I know we need to save money, but we cannot be an accomplice to crime.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 am
Respect for international trade and the law? By the US? How many trade agreements is it constantly violating (Boeing military contracts, anyone?), or enforcing on poor nations almost at gunpoint, and how many principles of international law does the US constantly flout?
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
I’m arguing in favor of respect for intellectual property, etc. by all of us as conscientious individuals who understand why these principles and systems exist and the public interests they are meant to safeguard. You’re implying that since the US has in certain past actions shown disrespect for these principles and systems, we should simply ignore them and get the cheapest trains we can, regardless of legality. I think you’ve dug yourself into a hole here.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I’m implying two things:
1. Countries that are still developing routinely flout intellectual property, and then become more concerned about intellectual property once they get richer and have domestic productions they want to protect.
2. The US flouts so much international law – landmines, global warming brinksmanship, the rights of the child, foreign aid – that for it to complain that China does the same should invoke a pot-kettle reaction from conscientious individuals.
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Alon, I suggest you stop digging.
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Alon, I apologize, that last comment was not right. Moderator, please delete my 11:14 comment.
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Cry me a river. China has an open market?
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
You’ve missed the point. Read again, from Eric M down.
thatbruce Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
From this link, Useless derived:
1. CRH2(Shinkansen E2) derails.
Quoting from the linked article:
The accident on Saturday night in Shuangyu, close to the city of Wenzhou on China’s east coast, occurred when the first train was apparently hit by lightning, knocking out its power and bringing it to a halt.
The first train lost power, and came to a halt, staying on the track.
2. CRH2 collide with the CRH3(Simens Velaro) coming from opposite direction.
Quoting from the linked article:
The lightning strike also appears to have disabled the line’s safety system, and another bullet train then hit it from behind. The impact derailed six coaches and sent two of them crashing over the side of the elevated track to fall 60ft to the ground below.
The second train, going in the same direction, hit the stalled first train, at which point a number of coaches were derailed and two fell off the elevated track.
3. CRH2 gets tossed out of the viaduct. CRH3 stays on the viaduct.
The article that you linked to does not identify which train is which, or which train’s coaches fell to the ground.
This demonstrates the danger of running Shinkansen trains in a mixed traffic. (environment)
You have an incorrect conclusion. The incident demonstrates a failure of the lineside safety systems, and not any inherent problem with a given train design.
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:19 am
Surely not the fault of the Japanese train technology. Not a single fatality in 47 years of operation (IN JAPAN), unless you count the old man who got knocked over by the automatic door… And the Chinese are claiming they’ve improved on the Japanese trains!
Peter Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:44 am
What is a “D train” supposed to be?
Useless Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:19 am
@ Peter
> What is a “D train” supposed to be?
It’s the bullet train running on regular corridor. Models involved in this accident are CRH2 and CRH3.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 am
The D train is the medium-speed EMU class, the highest short of high-speed rail. They’re much nicer than the older trains, and run pretty quickly. Think the Northeast Regional, only done better. The D train I rode 2 years ago had “200 km/h” painted on its exterior.
Eric M Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:53 am
‘The Chinese D train derailed……”
“The D train represents China’s first-generation bullet trains. Running on regular track, they are capable of travelling at 150kph and are not part of the new high-speed network”
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:25 am
I guess at some point the cars will have to be made heavier if they are to survive coming off stilts.
I hate to think what a BART car would look like that jumped an aerial, especially the Rohr beer cans.
Eric M Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 am
And how many years has it been since BART has been built and how many have jumped “off stilts” like the accident in China? NONE
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:18 am
Or how many Shinkansen? they’ve been running since 1964
synonymouse Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 5:57 pm
The more stilted the operation, the greater the mathematical chance of cars descending to terra firma over time. Which means you need to engineer more structural survivability.
Operating on terra firma is better. Put the autos up in the air. Ditch the cult of stilts as a Brutalist cultural statement – aerials only when absolutely necessary.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
And yet Japan has the lowest number of train passenger fatalities per passenger-km in the developed world.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Wow, China sucks.
speaking of san joaquins. Today I went to hnf and back. I don’t like that the seats don’t recline, and Ill be glad when I can get there in 90 minutes but as always, the folks on the train were were happily going about their business, texting, bloging, playing cards, eating drinking, chatting, sleeping and basically having a good time. I think I was the only one on the whole train who was interested in going any faster. They really don’t seem to care.
I wonder if “Gilroy worries” that a high speed train derailment on a line running through downtown, neighborhoods, backyards, and school yards would ‘ruin’ anything? At least the chinese apparently aren’t stupid enough to put 220 mile per hour train routes through their backyards.
VBobier Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Apparently the Chinese just cut some corners on building their ROW, that the Japanese, French, Germans and Spanish didn’t cut.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
More like a LOT of corners.