HSR is Alive and Well
(Note: Made some edits to this post to correct some errors regarding Aaron Renn’s role in HSR discussions and urbanism.)
Aaron Renn claims “High Speed Rail is Dead”. After claiming that the public perceives the stimulus to have been a failure (not sure about that) and pointing out that teabagger governors elected in 2010 turned against HSR (which is no surprise), Aaron Renn believes that HSR is dead because us advocates screwed up:
But beyond those philosophically opposed to HSR, some high speed rail advocates have done themselves no favors either. They’ve resolutely backed pretty much any and every rail project regardless of whether it is potentially useful or an outright boondoggle. They’ve engaged in false advertising by labeling 110 MPH peak speeds as “high speed rail” instead of what it really is:Amtrak on steroids. (One of the more serious HSR advocates is Richard Longworth, who labeled the Midwest 110 MPH rail plan the “Toonerville trolley”). Nevertheless, Illinois is pocketing well over $1 billion of the HSR stimulus funds for this “high speed” system that will offer end to end journey times that are at best only slightly better than what’s already being provided today by Megabus – and that for only a handful of trains a day on a line still subject to freight interference.
My first reaction to this is “so what?” Renn is assuming that we all agree Amtrak sucks, and we very much do NOT agree with that – it has a 71% farebox recovery rate and the Acela is profitable.
But my second reaction is to criticize what I believe is an unfair argument. HSR advocates actually DO want true, 220 mph service in the Midwest. After all, one of the nation’s first HSR advocacy groups, Midwest HSR, takes exactly that approach. They are supportive of the upgrades to 110 mph – which will help improve train travel and attract more riders – but they are by no means satisfied with that, and continue to advocate for a true 220 mph system. So I don’t really know where this particular charge, that advocates are willing to settle for 110 mph, is coming from. That doesn’t seem to be an accurate reflection of where the advocates actually are.
Renn continues:
Advocates have excoriated opponents to high speed rail, but have shown themselves largely utterly unserious about the enterprise as they have put no focus on overcoming major institutional barriers such as the steam road era thinking of the Federal Railroad Administration which is stuck in the 90s – the 1890s – or the mismanagement at Amtrak. Getting to an HSR system that works is going to involve major reform (or replacement) of those agencies since all proven, international HSR systems are illegal in the US under current rules. Witness here also the histrionics about a Republican proposal to privatize the Northeast Corridor rail operations rather than engage with it as a starting point. Even in Europe and Japan, many HSR operations are private, so there’s no reason they can’t be in the US too.
I don’t think this is quite true either. California HSR advocates have long called for the FRA to change its policies. When Caltrain finally got its FRA waiver I wrote the following:
The importance of this waiver cannot be understated. Not only does this enable the Caltrain/HSR project to proceed, but it sets the stage for similar waivers that will be needed if track sharing is to happen on other segments of the route, particularly Los Angeles to Anaheim. The CHSRA will have to seek its own waiver, but the Caltrain waiver is a clear precedent that should help the CHSRA’s waiver succeed.
Hopefully this is the beginning of a long-overdue modernization of the FRA’s antiquated and obsolete rules on passenger trainsets on shared-use rails, rules that have cost rail agencies a lot of money and throttled the growth of ridership across the country.
Perhaps others haven’t been doing as much, but it’s just not true that HSR advocates have been ignoring the problems at the FRA.
As to privatization, Renn again makes an assumption (in this case that privatization is always good), defines it as truth, and then excoriates people for not agreeing with him. That’s a flawed way to discuss an issue. Besides, the record is clear that private operators aren’t necessarily good for HSR or for rail systems more broadly.
This seems to be the heart of Renn’s argument:
It’s time to take a major gut check on high speed rail in America and rethink the direction. Clearly, with the budgetary and political situation, significant future HSR investments are unlikely. Even if some billions materialize, the experience of the stimulus suggests that they will be frittered away as salami slices sent hither and fro.
Of course, most HSR advocates would agree that we never wanted HSR funding to be “frittered away as salami slices” and that the current budgetary and political situations are a serious challenge.
But neither does that mean HSR will die anytime soon. What we are living through is the death throes of the 20th century. A well-funded political movement, that does not know partisan boundaries, has come together since 2008 to stop that the changes that are already underway – changes designed to make this country operate more efficiently and in a way that meets the challenges of the 21st century instead of pretending they don’t exist. That movement prefers to prop up that failed 20th century status quo.
And people like Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, who run the site where Renn posted (although as the comments note, I should not lump Renn in with them, so what follows isn’t about him) are important figures in that movement. They believe that sprawl is just fine, that deficits are bad, that oil dependence is good, that privatization is always good, that everyone will always want to drive everywhere. None of those things are true and there is considerable evidence to disprove each point.
Yet they and people like them don’t care, because theirs is not an evidence-based movement but an ideological movement. They like the 20th century, and in some cases are funded by the people who came out on top during the 20th century, like oil companies, and who do not want to give up their position of power.
HSR is alive not because of us advocates, but because of the inexorable logic of the times in which we live. It is impractical and unaffordable in an age of digital devices, high gas prices, crowded roads and global warming to drive and fly everywhere. People want alternatives. The evidence is clear: vehicle miles traveled are in decline and people around the world are flocking to high speed trains whenever they’re given an option. Even the slower Amtrak California trains are quite popular.
As gas prices continue to rise, as people forsake suburbs and flock to dense urban living, as digital devices continue to contribute to the great shift away from driving and as people realize that reducing carbon emissions to deal with global warming is a high priority, HSR will continue to gain momentum.
The political obstacles will not last forever. Teabaggers will not control Congress for long – polls already show Democrats lead the Congressional polling for 2012 – and a generation that believes cars are awesome and trains are evil will fade. The budgetary challenges are purely political – deficit spending is not only fine but smart, especially in an era of low interest rates, and once the political obstacles fall away, the budgetary obstacles will evaporate.
Alon Levy, in his own deconstruction of Renn’s post, shows just how fluid the political situation actually is:
High-speed rail has challenges, many correctly identified by Aaron. The FRA is an obstacle (though the people most interested in changing it tend to be good transit activists); spreading the money around was a problem. But right-wing populists who can’t govern soon become unpopular, and are thus an ephemeral phenomenon. Rick Scott’s approval rate is 27%, John Kasich‘s is 35%, Scott Walker‘s is 37%. And it’s deeply troubling to go on a website and say that high-speed rail is dead when one of the reasons it’s dead is shoddy or dishonest work done by another contributor to the same website.
Fortunately, in California, the real obstacle is so far not a huge deal (California is planning to run on dedicated tracks, or at least on tracks shared only with commuter trains), and the ephemeral obstacle lost the gubernatorial election. Money is a problem and so is incompetence, but the incompetence seems to be waning, albeit slowly, and the money is likely to materialize. Don’t count HSR out yet.
I think he has it right. HSR faces its challenges, true, but the overall environment remains favorable. Anti-rail advocates are dependent on the current trend of right-wing populism, and when that fades – as it always does – high speed rail will come back strongly.
In short, while Renn does identify some legitimate issues facing HSR, it’s hardly the case that it is dead, and his claims about the role of advocates in creating the crisis miss the mark. I’m sure we advocates haven’t been perfect – I think many of us, even myself included, were slow to react to the anti-HSR deniers when they hung around in 2009, but then the rapid return of right-wing populism after November 2008 was unexpected by most people.
HSR will continue to survive because of the underlying conditions. This blog, the HSR advocacy movement, and HSR plans themselves are products of those conditions. And the evidence suggests those conditions will continue for some time to come. So too will HSR.
I know you do a lot Robert but have you seriously not been reading the Urbanophile? As much as I hate the New Geography regular writers and their dumb opinions, just because Aaron writes a post like this that we don’t agree with doesn’t mean he should get lumped in with Cox and Kotkin automatically. I definitely don’t think he is about the status quo. He just moved to New York City to live the lifestyle we talk about all the time on our blogs.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I stand corrected then.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Robert, I sent you an email on Friday. Any chance you will respond?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
So I rewrote some parts of the post to reflect your points. Thanks for bringing that up – I’m obviously unfamiliar with the Urbanophile.
I did read some of his more recent posts, and I find he does tend to occupy the center-right ground – very pro-privatization, for example, which I don’t think is particularly urban friendly or practical on the merits. And the article he wrote does seem to really miss the mark regarding both the political situation and HSR advocacy itself – it’s just not a good overview of the political situation.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
He’s center more than center-right. He’s a big fan of the Skyway privatization, but has excoriated the parking meter privatization deals in Chicago and Indianapolis, arguing that they hobble the city and are a bad deal for the public.
What Jeff said. Do not lump Aaron with Cox and Kotkin. For reference, here is what he said about HSR as policy, rather than about its political prospects. The Cliff Notes version: it’s great to connect Chicago with the rest of the Midwestern cities, as long as the service levels are comparable to European and Japanese HSR rather than Amtrak plus.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
And from what I understand, the folks at Midwest HSR generally agree with that take. I don’t know many HSR advocates who looked at the 110 mph projects as the holy grail – there was some debate in ’09 about whether they were even worth backing, with some saying they were a good interim step, and others saying that we should give all the money to California.
Renn basically collapsed a very nuanced and detailed discussion into a shorthand that obscured more than it illuminated.
High speed rail is no more “dead” than the highway lobby or BART. The consultant-contractor-labor complex, just like its homie the military-industrial complex, is very much alive and well. Paradise will continue to be paved and BART will gets its new mass quantity of broad-gauge aluminum beer cans on rails. The PB-Bechtels of the world are only too happy blow your money on boondoggles like Stilt-A-Rail to Palmdale, just don’t touch the fortunes of the super-rich to do it. The stimulus lives on.
Wall Street, and the wealthy associated with it, the Buffetts, the Bloombergs, Soros, yada yada are certain all will return to normalcy, as it always has with past recessions. Maybe. The Repubs are apparently losing their attempt at austerity and we will found out soon enough if printing money can topple the dollar. One way or the other, someone will have been right.
So, vote no early and often. And don’t participate in surveys – they are just propaganda.
J. Wong Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Apparently, printing money (not that they actually print money) when you’re up against the zero bound of interest rates, is not inflationary. The inflationistas have been predicting inflation any day now for the past two years. I think the current rate is around 1%.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
The gold bugs have been predicting hyperinflation since we went off the gold standard.
Steve S. Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
A few days late, but Germany’s hyperinflation was a result of its essentially printing money to get out of its post-WWI debt crisis. The problem was that many small, practical decisions compounded on themselves in rather nasty ways. I’m a fan of Charles Marohn and he recently did a review/analysis on it. Marohn’s take, of course, being that we’re broke and its high time we started behaving broke (as in: getting more value out of things).
Link:
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/7/18/when-money-dies.html
Off topic, but of interest, the subject being the line in Ohio:
http://blogs.redeyechicago.com/off-the-markley/2011/07/14/why-ohios-rail-project-mattered/
Alon Levy Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
I stopped reading at “it would be expensive to turn those trains into the 110 mph bullets envisioned by America’s most aggressive rail proponents.” People who think that 110 mph trains are bullets and are the most aggressive form of investment are exactly the advocates who Aaron is criticizing so harshly. And to think that I just erased a comment I was about to publish responding to Robert, explaining to him that there are a bunch of activists who are not on the blogs we read who really think 110 mph is awesome and FRA regulations really do improve safety. (P.S. It’s the same type of boosters who got Pacheco selected; activists on the ground, including Robert, either didn’t care or supported Altamont.)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:49 am
I’m not saying your wrong, but we gotta start somewhere, something to help get our foot in the door. We’ve already seen how 110 mph can generate operating surpluses, and even the relatively pokey 79 mph average for Acela does so as well. Recently there was a post here from someone in Spain who had a ride that had a top speed of 150, but the average worked out to 90, and this was on a dedicated line.
I’ll go along and say we need both–a true high speed line (California at this time), and additional 110s–and we also need to get the difference noted as well. We also need to make sure the highway’s system’s poor financial performance is out for all to see (and by the way, thanks for that “money pit” column you just had).
Otherwise, we will be stuck with cars and the oil biz forever.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Wait, which line in Spain averages 90 mph and tops at 150?
(The Acela averages 79, and those 110 mph Amtrak plus lines would average a bit less. But the Acela connects Boston, New York, and Washington, rather than Cleveland,Columbus, and Cincinnati.)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
It was only a segment of a line, and was mentioned in a post here in the last few weeks by someone who was in Spain recently (in fact, he was posting from there at the time). If I get the chance, I’ll try to go back through these pages to find it, but it’s going to be buried in the comments somewhere.
Oh, it would be nice if the original commentor sees this and confirms his report. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Working from memory still, with brain cells being tickled a bit, I seem to recall that the distance traveled was relatively short, only 45 miles in 30 minutes between two stops.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:21 am
Those activists may well exist – Renn is likely responding to discussions happening in the Midwest. We do have rail activists here in California – someone like Paul Dyson comes to mind – who believe we are better off spending our money on upgrading what we’ve got than on building something new. I get what they’re saying, even though I think we shouldn’t limit ourselves to that.
But Paul Dyson, for example, is not a “high speed rail advocate” – he’s a passenger rail advocate. The former group is a subset of the latter group, but there are plenty of passenger rail advocates who, like Dyson, don’t see bullet trains as the top priority. I get where Dyson and others are coming from. (Not trying to single him out, just citing him as the most familiar example of this thinking in CA.) But the case for true bullet trains remains strong, as part of a bigger and better passenger rail network where the Pacific Surfliner is upgraded to 110 mph, where we add or improve service on other routes like the Coast route from LA to SF, to Tahoe and Reno, and so on.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
It’s a false choice – 110 MPH upgrades vs HSR. Both sides need to support each other to improve rail. The choice is as silly as the Applied vs Basic Research. Engaging in that argument will result in a cut R&D budget.
110 MPH, when sustained, is awesome. Alon’s criticisms of people who think so is misguided. 110 is’t good for connecting LA to SF and that voter approved project need not wait until we do 110 upgrades.
The devil made me do it, the devil made me do it, off topic like crazy, but might give some a smile anyway:
http://blogs.redeyechicago.com/off-the-markley/2011/06/01/the-republican-primary-is-my-new-lost/
“although as the comments note, I should not lump Renn in with them, so what follows isn’t about him”
I disagree. He seems to be more than happy to pretend that advocates are one coherent unified group. Look at his very first sentence. Makes sense to dump him in with “opponents”.
Oh, and using “some” before “advocates” doesn’t make it any better.
‘Renn opposes HSR. Some opponents of HSR have sex with sheep.”
Both may be true. That doesn’t mean it’s fair to write that.
HSR is not an end it itself
Some reactions to Aaron Renn and Paul Dyson. These more conservative viewpoints toward HSR contain some wisdom that we would be well to take in. A good habit is to be cautious of our own enthusiasm for bullet lines, which can lead us to support lines that don’t make sense (at least for now), such as Orlando-Tampa or the Desert Express. Red flags include the wish “to have a real bullet train in the United States,” the idea that “if we just build a really fast line somewhere, people will realize how cool HSR is,” the desire to have trains as fast as any other country’s, and the idée fixe that we must run trains at a certain number of miles per hour, such as 200 or 220. All of these goals in themselves are essentially meaningless. The only thing that matters is to create a new type of economy and human geography that will be more sustainable and more livable than what we have now. Mindlessly jumping at any opportunity to build an HSR line, as Mr Renn rightly suggests, can harm that goal by diminishing trust in our cause.
However, there ARE many places for which only a true high-speed line will provide the necessary platform for the subsidiary changes in urban infrastructure that are in fact more important than the high-speed line itself. In these places only a bullet train will do, because the end goal is not simply to produce reasonably fast travel times, but to catalyze a direly-needed reengineering of the way our urban areas are organized.
We should be conservative in identifying what these locations are. The number of places that really do need an HSR line will grow over time, but at the moment we only need to think about the really obvious places, since at the moment we don’t have any high-speed lines at all. We should remember the experience of Japan, which has the most successful system on earth but eventually built a few too many HSR segments. HSR is not an end it itself.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Fluff.
Try to quantify where “only true high speed rail” is the necessary platform because what you wrote comes across like “what’s the right color to paint a house.”
The choice, as proposed to US rail seems subjective and frankly building a few to many HSR segments is a fool’s concern right now unless you have a quantifiable way to guide a decision.
We’re not going to be perfect, not going to have the aesthetics right, and will not buildin the proper order – it’s too political for that kind of social engineering.
It’s not a matter of having the right mix and proportions of geographic and demographic constituents.
CA will lead because it chooses to. Just as NY build the Erie Canal and transformed the lesser port of NY to the massive business center it is today, so can CA change the dynamics with rail rather than following an urban planner or Train Whisperer to guide us along an optimal path.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
I was hoping to read some helpful replies from some of the many knowledgeable, thoughtful and serious contributors to this forum, but instead I got joe.
This blog needs a children’s section.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Yes, this below apparently requires a serious reply:
We should be conservative – as in not too excited or ambitious. Too much of a good thing and all. HSR isn’t and end to itself.
You are triangulating between two strawmen positions. Unquantified, unspecificed nothing to debate except the use|less of triangulating.
Nathanael Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:14 am
“These more conservative viewpoints toward HSR ”
Those aren’t conservative viewpoints. They’re right-wing viewpoints.
The difference is that conservative viewpoints are cautious, attempt to conserve what we have. NIMBYs are conservative.
Right-wing viewpoints just make shit up to reinforce their predispositions.
Heck, the stimulus money wasn’t salami-sliced, contrary to Renn’s inaccurate piece; most of it went to California. Just for starters. He lies about privatization of public assets (an abject failure worldwide — though not to be confused with contracting or with always-private startup operations, and he does confuse them), he lies about HSR advocates’ behavior, and I suspect he doesn’t even know he’s lying; he writes what he *wants* to believe and ignores all corrections.
You know, if you do a conservative, how-do-we-preserve-California-with-peak-oil analysis, you go “Oh. California needs high-speed rail between SF and LA, through the Central Valley”. Then if you do a conservative how-fast-does-it-need-to-go analysis, you find that it needs to have a top speed of 220 to become the primary passenger mode. You conclude that it ought to be a public asset held by the state government. Et cetera.
But this has nothing to do with right-wingery, which is all about criticizing *well*-thought-out projects because right-wingers don’t *want* them.
thatbruce Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
A good habit is to be cautious of our own enthusiasm for bullet lines, which can lead us to support lines that don’t make sense (at least for now), such as Orlando-Tampa or the Desert Express.
When would it make sense to use high-speed rail to connect together two metro areas with respectable populations and sizable tourism industries? Should a certain threshold in traffic congestion on existing roads along the route be reached? The number of visitors to the area? The number of traffic generators along the route?
By a lot of standards, both of the projects that you cited meet these criteria. Desert Express suffers from the issue of not fully connecting the source metro area (LA) to the Destination (Las Vegas), but Orlando/Tampa certainly did not suffer from this, as it went the step further and connected to a large traffic generator (Orlando International Airport).
Conservatives are now what I call “Banana Republicans”. Every investment by the Government should be of immediate benefit to the rich elite otherwise the money should not be spent but returned to them as tax cuts or credits. Spending Government money on projects for the middle or lower classes is a waste of resources because it devalues the value of wealth. (If everyone has access to it, then why would the elite want it?) As long as they have private jets, private schools, and private access to power then they are happy. They want just enough spent on the rest of the population to avoid a revolution. Obviously HSR is a non-starter. It’s not about economics since they never propose any alternative.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Which is why First Class on Acela runs empty all the time… oh wait, it doesn’t…
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Speaking of Acela and Amtrak, Guess what I found?
Report: Amtrak privatization plan is unconstitutional
Ir seems Micas plans to privatize Amtrak won’t pan out, ever, He’s looking at fools gold as His proposal violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution.
trentbridge Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Yes, and they want it privatized! Remember – “privatize the profits, socialize the losses.” There is no conservative support for social programs that run at a loss. Medicare may be the most efficient healthcare provider but it should be replaced with vouchers and handed over to the health insurance industry.
OMG is there**** ANYwhere else*** to watch this BFD meeting besides the chsra website? all it does is keep buffering.. AAAGGHH!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I don’t have that problem but that’s because the stream in a proprietary format that my computer cannot legally use. Oh well.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
its working now. I like seeing all the support that the palmdale folks are showing.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
why on earth are they studying grapevine now? wtf!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
So that they can say again that it’s too risky, too expensive and doesn’t serve the half million people in greater Palmdale.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
well its a good strategy I guess because palmdale is suing them and Id guess they;ll win plus it has mobilized the palmdale supporters…. I don’t here anyone from the middle of nowhere on the i-5 speaking in favor of running the train through their community(that doesn’t exist).
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
The I-5 In-an-Out in Kettleman City has yet to weigh in.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
lol the other day was their chance. Obviously the people of kettlemen city don’t have the team sprit that the palmdalonians have.
wu ming Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
there are people in kettleman city? i thought it was populated entirely with cows.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
cows and a man. the kettle man. I guess his job is to put the kettle on. Maybe it was suppose to be cattleman city, but the guy couldn’t spell.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
The population was 1,439 at the 2010 census, down from 1,499 at the 2000 census.
wu ming Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:47 am
those poor, poor people. bakersfield is like shangri-la compared to that cluster of feedlots.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 7:18 am
Looks like it has more than cows, but not much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettleman_City,_California
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kettleman+city+ca&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8094b2ba040f1183:0x39584910bbe874e4,Kettleman+City,+CA&gl=us&ei=9ewiTv2lBYLb0QH62YnMAw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ8gEwAQ
Ugh! Less than 8 inches of rainfall in a year, and well water with benzene and natural arsenic in it.
There may be a link (unproven) between a rash of birth defects and a waste facility in the area.
Did a little looking with the street view; the whole town is on the Google street image, and one of them is Standard Oil Avenue. How did they give a street that name?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Hey, it’s served by Amtrak! (Bus service).
Clem Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Because it’s shorter and more direct, 10 minutes quicker, and potentially cheaper. With the Palmdale scenic detour, the San Francisco express actually has to head away from San Francisco for a short while. Going the wrong way, at any speed, is not conducive to good trip times.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
yeh but economically—in the long run– the high desert needs to be integrated and this makes sense. as a san franciscan traveling south i want accss via the mainline to all of socal
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Its not about the ten minutes. no one cares about ten minutes. Its about giving the largest number of californians access to the largest number of other californians in the most convenient way. You don’t just bypass a half million californians… who btw, support the project, in order to save ten minutes. Ten minutes is not a scenic detour. Everything about palmdale including all the planning that that valley has done in anticipation of the project makes sense.
Spokker Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
The Palmdale detour would be fine if the trip times were realistic. But it’s not going to be just ten minutes. It’s likely that the train won’t be able to meet advertised trip times because the design is unrealistic. So Palmdale, which I have no problem with in principle, may be left out in order to keep trip times in check.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
palmdale isn’t going to be cancelled.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
You could probably use the money saved by the Grapevine to give Palmdale and Lancaster 125mph Metrolink service as a compromise.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
How much is Grapevine going to cost?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
And building 125 MPH service is almost as expensive as building 220 MPH service. I’m going to assume you mena 125 MPH service to LA. Which makes getting to Bakersfield, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco a bit outh of the way.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
missing the point. Im not talking about palmdale having commuter service to la. Im talking about the high desert, as one of the states economic regions, being connected to the rest of the state, the way they planned to be before the authority stuck a knife in their backs.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
So if I live in palmdale Im suppose to take metrolink to Burbank to catch hsr to sf or sac or fno?
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
1) Palmdale understands the economic significance of the HSR line and station.
2) It isn’t a compromise when Palmdale gives up a HSR station to No/So Ca for regional Metrolink. It’s called losing.
jim Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I don’t think you pay for Palmdale-LAUS 125 mph if HSR bypasses Palmdale. You do it if HSR IOS runs to Palmdale. If HSR IOS is Palmdale to Merced then there’s a need to make conventional service LA-Palmdale as fast as possible. The curves in the canyons between Santa Clarita and Palmdale are what they are (and, as Alon keeps saying, cant and cant deficiency are your friends here), but south of Santa Clarita there’s a whole bunch of straight segments on which the speed limit could be raised at relatively low cost. Low hundreds of millions to partially double track, resignal and run decent tilting trains (there’s a Talgo factory in Wisconsin needs orders) non-stop or with a single stop in the San Fernando Valley between LAUS and Palmdale; guaranteed across the platform connections at Palmdale to HSR. Caltrans and Amtrak California does it if CHSRA won’t.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
10 minutes is about the same as the difference between 220 mph and 186 mph in the Central Valley. Don’t knock it.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
in the grand scheme of life no one cares about ten minutes of travel time on a two and half hour trip. The success of this system has to do with how many people it reaches and how close it gets to them and how convenient and comfortable it is. speed comes after all of those things on the list.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Palmdale extends the LA economic region and connects it all to the CV and northward.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Yes, convenience and comfort trump speed. For most potential riders in most situations, speed is a subcomponent of convenience — if the ride takes so long that it makes it hard to get in your other activities for the day, then you’ll opt for the airport grind. But in most cases, people will just take the train if it’s close to them and gets them close to where they’re going. So, as jim suggests, hsr lines should generally prioritize taking in a potentially important destination over shaving off 10 minutes.
Clem Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 7:34 am
If nobody cares about 10 minutes, then nobody will care about 220 mph. Just forget the whole “high-speed” thing and expand the San Joaquin trains. Those will connect to all central valley towns and can run through to San Diego for your one-seat ride in a comfortable seat with scenic California unfurling past your window. Saves $35 billion, too!
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:06 am
;YOu knew what I meant. Stop being facetious. !0 minutes and several hours are not the same thing. Ten minutes when your talking about excluding a region of nearly a million people is obvious. Those against palmdale simply suffer from the bay/la self important arrogance that believes people in the other parts of the state don’t count for much.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:16 am
The prime benefit of going through Palmdale is that it can, if competently designed and built, serve double duty as an express line for Antelope Valley commuter service. Intercity travel to/from the Palmdale area seems negligible since they don’t have enough traffic to economically justify commercial service at LA/Palmdale Airport and any such travelers must go to Bob Hope or LAX. If there are sufficiently large savings of time and money, and I am not saying that there necessarily are, then the Grapevine with commuter upgrades to the AV Line is a better use of CAHSR funds.
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:31 am
That is a ridiculous statement. Not having enough traffic at their airport has nothing to do with the ordinary people who live and have friends family and business, between central valley areas and high sesert areas. Again it just shows the lack of understanding of how californians live outside the big city box. The people that the palmdale route would serve are the people that the san jouquins and the 99 currently serve. It would give the ones who curently drive or use amtrak, a much faster option in addition to inducing demand.
Do any of you hoity toity overly educated people have any idea that there are several million unwashed commoners living in california outside your univeristies and below your ivory towers?
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:40 am
As for the commuter service. Even commuters from pmd are likely to be commuting not to la, but even beyond to the oc. AND not to mention the whole damn point is to bring the states regions as close together as possible in order to make the largest number of people as mobile and connected as possible because that is what is going to run the states economic engine. As fresno benefits from being closer to the bay, fresno becomes a bigger job center, so then folks in the high desert can now have the option tapping into that economy as well as la. all the economies and communites become tied together giving the most options and opportunites to the most people. THAT was the whole damn vision/idea to begin with. Its common sense. something they apparently don’t teach to engineers.
I think some of you just have a hard on for the spectacular engineering grapvine would require combined with a mild disdain for scrubby country folk.
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:44 am
and finally, and then Ill go get my coffee…. before you bother saying it.. “that only x number of people travel between pmd and say fno so theres no demand…” or whatever it is you are going to say along those lines, let me remind you that that is akin to the argument that ” I can drive it just as fast and don’t have to rent a car” ( assumes nothing will ever change in the future) or the statement “its only 49 bucks to fly” ( assumes nothing will ever change in the future) or thestatement, ” the state is broke” ( assumes nothing will ever change in the future)
some of you whippernsappers don’t know nuthin about california do you.
Clem Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Socialist.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Clem,
I demand you retract that ad hominem attack. :) It’s only fair.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Some might see it as a compliment. Senator Sanders for instance.
Owen Evans Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Have you ever looked at a map of the most successful high speed rail line in the world, the Tokaido Shinkansen? It goes pretty much every direction EXCEPT straight between Tokyo and Osaka., meandering through all the smaller cities along the shore, then north to Maibara and thence along the shore of Lake Biwa.
People don’t care about 10 minutes as in “This line could have been built 10 minutes faster so I won’t ride it.” People also don’t care about what cardinal direction they’re traveling. Plenty of airplanes take off in the exact opposite direction that they will eventually go, and sometimes take 5 or 10 minutes to even get headed in the right direciton. What people care about is if the end product is the most convenient option (choosing between train, plane, bus, and automobile) for them. The nice thing about very fast trains is that they can detour somewhat from a straight line to serve additional areas or avoid geographic obstacles and still provide a very convenient trip.
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I am a democrat by registration but a socialist at heart.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Owen, the Tokaido Shinkansen roughly parallels the Tokaido Main Line; that’s why it’s indirect. To do anything else would require even more tunneling than it has, as with the Chuo Shinkansen. The California equivalent is not to detour through Palmdale (again, all this assumes the Grapevine costs the same as the Tehachapis – if one is significantly cheaper, it should be chosen), but to go through Altamont (or Pacheco), which is not the most direct route but has much less tunneling than going in a straight line.
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Putting the “California” into HSR.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
actually if you include the greater high desert the pop is pusing a million already and growing. So in the future, which is what we are planning for, the future, its going to be home to hundreds of thousands more californian while approximately 12 people are going to live on the summitof the i five.
Of course the train will go via palmdale.
Caelestor Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Really, it all comes down to Palmdale’s future. I mean if it you think the city will be abandoned over the years, then of course you shouldn’t detour except for a possible LV connection. But if you think it’ll keep growing, then yes you should serve it.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Its LA county, the only part of la that has any room left to grow. There is also industry out there including the military and aerospace, neither if which is going away. Its also right in the path of travel from both north and south to vegas, which, the recession aside, will continue to grow.
joe Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Amen on Aerospace – Edwards/Dryden is where the US flies and test aircraft as part of the industry that produces high paying engineering jobs in the coastal areas of LA.
Nathanael Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:18 am
If it turns out to be much cheaper and just as safe to go via the Grapevine, expect the route to go via the Grapevine. If Palmdale still needs service, expect it to get a connection via one of the other passes.
But it still seems unlikely that it will be safe and cheap to go via the Grapevine, for the reasons in the original Alternatives Analysis. I look forward to seeing how to get across all those faults at grade while retaining manageable grades and curves; looks like elevated track over a lake wouldbe required, and the whole thing seems implausible.
synonymouse Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 11:18 am
And how does “elevated track over a lake” differ from Stilt-A-Rail, say, in greenfield?
It is all politix. PB, Palmdale, the Chandlers, etc. all their individual reasons for wanting to kill the Tejon direct route.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Thinking long term of the likely possibility of an hsr line extending from the inland empire out thru palm springs and indio to phoenix, having the CV line route thru palmdale would allow for a bypass route from inland empire to palmdale, via the cajon pass. Using that, anybody coming from points east of Ontario (including San Diego, Phoenix, Tuscon, and potentially El Paso and beyond) headed to the CV or Bay Area could cut thru the cajon pass and save 20-30 minutes, including several stops. If this 50-mile bypass were eventually built, a grapevine route would actually be SLOWER for anyone going from east of Ontario to central or northern CA. Palmdale also offers the possibility of connecting to the DX.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Let me add that I’m well aware of the drawbacks of an LA bypass, and I wouldn’t necessarily argue for one, even if a phoenix line existed. I’m simply suggesting that for the decision we have to make right now, the palmdale option offers more possibilities long term.
O/T -
Wolfpack Hustle bicyclists raced JetBlue’s silly Burbank-to-LongBeach-marketing-gimmick and arrived after 1h34m, even before the plane got off the ground for its ridiculously short hop. Another group using their legs and LA Metro transit reached the finish line just 10 min later, minus the cyclists’ sweat. A rollerskater came in third, while the flyboys took fully 2h51m for the door-to-door trip. That included check-in (no bags) an hour before take-off, the minimum recommended by the airline. Even if they had reserved just 30 minutes for check-in, security and reaching the gate, they would still have come dead last.
http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/07/16/your-twitter-coverage-of-todays-wolfpack-v-jet-blue-v-metro-race-from-burbank-to-long-beach/
http://carmageddon2011.blogspot.com/
Upshot for HSR: door-to-door, ground transportation to and from the airports plus airline bureaucracy plus TSA rigmarole etc. added well over two hours to the raw flight time. Anyone still claiming that bullet trains aren’t needed for travel between Northern and Southern California because planes are faster anyhow should be reminded of this ad-hoc bike vs. transit vs. rollerskates vs. gimmick flight race.
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Oh the irony is so delicious, But then We told them so and here’s the proof. :)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“Upshot for HSR: door-to-door, ground transportation to and from the airports plus airline bureaucracy plus TSA rigmarole etc. added well over two hours to the raw flight time. Anyone still claiming that bullet trains aren’t needed for travel between Northern and Southern California because planes are faster anyhow should be reminded of this ad-hoc bike vs. transit vs. rollerskates vs. gimmick flight race.”–Rafael
True, true–and this is where those regularly employed PR agents/boosters would be so useful–if we could get someone to pay for them!
Spokker Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Others more knowledgeable say that Burbank does not need a lot of time for security. Plus, grandma isn’t going to beat the plane on her way to Long Beach on a bike. She’ll be found dead somewhere along the LA River bike path. Not sure this is viable at night. You’ll stop when someone throws a brick at you on the LA River bike path and steals your ride. This has happened.
But the plane is not the proper mode of transportation for these distances, and Jet Blue knew that. And you know it as well. The race is bullocks, and the car would have beat all three of them.
Nathanael Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Depends on traffic, eh? A car did beat all three of them, but only because everyone was staying home for “carmageddon”. On an ordinary day, Metro would be the way to go, because it doesn’t have traffic delays.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
If Metro cared about regional connectivity and extended rail transit to Downtown Burbank (e.g. LRTifying the Orange Line and extending it east), it probably would’ve beaten the car most hours of the day.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon and the transit options in her area would’ve been a lot better.
Off topic (preserved steam road)–but it is in California:
http://losaltos.patch.com/articles/riding-the-rails-a-trip-to-jamestown-ca
Robert may think that HSR is alive and well, but this article in the SF Examiner cast some real serious doubts.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/if-high-speed-rail-never-happens-transbay-center-will-be-bus-stop
Kopp said there is a 50-50 chance right now that no high-speed rail trains will ever reach the transit center, leaving the $1.5 billion project without its centerpiece a nightmare scenario for backers of the depot.
This from Kopp.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 7:32 am
Uh, that article is about extending a mile and a half to TBT, not the system in general. And what idiot approved the idea of spending billions for that small of an extension with a hefty underground walk to connecting transit and then managed to get it written into law?
Eric M Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan, executive director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority said, “if high-speed rail isn’t completed by 2019, Caltrain or Amtrak will use the $400 million train station until the state rail project is ready to go”. What a dingbat. How does she propose getting the trains to the station. Magic I suppose. Does she not realize the biggest obstacle is the 1.5 mile extension and that Caltrain nor Amtrak have the money to build the extension.
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:07 am
well I know amtrak will be in there even if there aren’t any trains. Il be working in there. But I have no doubt that the extension will be built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:19 am
of course, why wouldn’t the bus to the train station on the other side of the bay be in the bus station?
Peter Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Don’t worry about it. SF will come up with the money on its own. It’s no biggie.
Nathanael Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 12:20 am
This. SF, being a rich city, has a history of simply coming up with the money for projects which don’t entirely make sense but which SF powerbrokers *want*.
Eh. This is tolerable.
Andy M. Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Isn’t it the ability and will to do things that are not strictly speaking the bare necessity when seen from an economical perspective that sets liveable cities apart from boring ones and that creates culture and atmosphere?
jimsf Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
hello! Thank you very much.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
It depends on what those things are. Culture and aesthetics, sure. Infrastructure boondoggles, not so much. I don’t think anyone’s going to lower Zurich and Geneva’s livability rankings just because their infrastructure planning is wise.
jimsf Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
boondoggle huh.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
People really need to stop treating this word as if it’s magic. It’s a normal word; the original citation is from a 1935 NYT article about how the New Deal was paying the unemployed to make boon doggles (the little arts and crafts). Substitute “white elephant” or “disaster” if you don’t like the word.
jimsf Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Just because you don’t like the design doesn’t make it a boondoggle.
joe Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
And by Alon’s definition, the goldengate bridge is a boondoggle.
jimsf Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Im sure the Tour Eiffel was one too. They called the i-280 one too.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
There are a lot of Parisians who think the Tour Eiffel is just ugly. One was famous for eating at the tower’s restaurant every day, on the grounds that that’s the only place in the city from which one can’t see the tower.
That’s not the same as boondoggle, though. The Bay Bridge is aesthetically fine; the problem with the Eastern Span replacement is that it was meant to cost $780 million and is now estimated at $6.3 billion, and that’s after removing the ability of trains to use the bridge.
As for I-280, surely it was a good thing that they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway…
jimsf Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
The embarcadero freeway was the 180 you may be thinking of the 280x (the extension from 101 to mission bay) Im referring to the the 280 from san jose to daly city, which was proposed and built long before there a was silicon valley, back when san jose was a dusty town with taco surrounded by ag. The idea of a second freeway ( in addition to 101) between sj and the city was ludicrous. It wasnt a freeway to nowhere but it was a freeway in nowhere… an unnecessary boondoggle. There were things that where going to happen 20 years later that no one but science fiction writers could have imagined.
SO just like serving the valley, and just like serving the high desert, with hsr, so too will having the tbt in place with room for trains, be something that will pay off eventually.
Its always fun to grab on to ever present negative press when it suits one personal motives. ” see i knew they shouldn’t have built that thing that I didn’t like”
synonymouse Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Some architect types probably consider the TransAmerica shaft SF’s Eiffel Tower.
SF won’t have any money left for TBT’s after enforcing intactivism, no borders, and guaranteed jobs for dopers and felons.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Yeah, I was thinking of the 280x. 280 is meh – not a destroyer of cities, just a destroyer of Caltrain.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Ayerdi’s unbelievably grotesque incompetence has caused about $4 billion worth of damage to transportation in San Francisco and will take a 20 years or so undo.
On the the hand, Kopp’s systematic and mendacious abetting of fraudulent PBQD/Bechtel-profiting scams (BART to Millbrae, BART to Santa Clara, HSR to Los Banos) and his obstruction of Caltrain downtown extension and ALL Caltrain capital improvements for the last 20 years will have cost the public over $20 billion and will have put back transportation in the entire north of California by many decades.
No contest.
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
while Ive always supported caltrain, i have heard from employees just how poorly mangaged it is. I think that perhaps the best solution for in long run would be to get rid of caltrain, complete bart around the bay, and use the caltrain row for two tracks of hsr. that we we get two complete systems finished, and get rid of one redundant one.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I think that’s right. You could have BART build an elevated track above the CalTrain ROW to run their trains to San Jose. Then HSR could run on the old CalTrain tracks but already have a power supply, and the like available. Still, I think quad-tracking has to happen to allow for express trains…but otherwise it’s what will happen.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Kopp is a notorious BART-MTC shill.
Earth to CHSRA foamies: BART Ring-the-Bay will be the end of hsr on the Peninsula. BART will provide PAMPA with the gentrifying subway the latter craves and good-bye ROW, just as it would have transpired in 1962. The CHSRA will have to transfer to BART at San Jose(Pacheco prevailing) and of course the mealy-mouthed Kopp and Diridon will be quite content with that as it adds to BART’s coffers and renders San Jose as the center of the known transport universe.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
No waaaaay.
Your comment is not based in reality. No freakin-body in San Francisco politics wants HSR to end in San Jose. No one in East Bay politics…nobody is San Jose either! The PAMPA types…sure they don’t want HSR to despoil their precious little kingdoms, but you don’t see them rushing out an establishing a parcel tax to support Cal Train and give it more leverage with other transit entities.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
A 2-track BART subway thru PAMPA sans hsr would generate a major uptick in property values.
Kopp does not want anything that competes with or casts in an even more unfavorable light his Frankenstein, BART to SFO.
There is not love lost between BART management and its unions and the CHSRA. They are in competition in every arena. Disregarding PB, which wins no matter what.
Much of the citizenry, absent the handful of hsr faithful, would consider BART perfectly adequate and hsr thoroughly redundant.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
That’s really crazy. SF needs to be terminus of HSR to be relevant. Pelosi, Burton, Bell biv deVoe…they all know this. HSR is a competitor to be sure, but why then wouldn’t BART want it to end in Livermore so that they and they alone control all HSR feeder traffic in the Bay Area??!?
I mean, understand how important HSR is to San Francisco. Not only does it keep important businesses downtown, but it also generates a boatload of revenue via the airport. While I personally would rather have Oakland be the air hub of the Bay Area purely because it doesn’t have the fog problems that SFO does…you can’t deny that the City has way more to gain by building true HSR on the Peninsula and having everyone this side of Bakersfield use it to fly long haul.
Secondly, there’s not going to be a tunnel for BART on the Peninsula it’s going to be an elevated structure. That’s what everyone there doesn’t want: some big, ugly concrete overpass.
Third…how on earth does BART let CalTrain survive even if it does build over the ROW? The answer, it can’t because CHSRA needs the tracks more…pity…pity.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Opposing BART is like going up against Intel: many have tried and many have died. Caltrain dies and BART thrives. PB’s happy; Amalgamated’s happy and Pelosi & posse are payola’d. End of story.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
And PAMPA is much richer than Berkeley and can afford to underwrite a 2-track BART subway in its purview. Property values along the current ROW will jump up that of the tonier areas a little fart4rh
farther in. The subway will pay for itself in property taxes and business receipts.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
No, no, and no.
San Mateo County isn’t going to levy a property tax on itself for BART. Secondly, Cal Train is much faster than BART as far as it’s Baby Bullet service. So giving someone with a 40 minute commute today and turning it into a 70 minute commute BART won’t do anything for property values. Also, BART is conduit of urban transport and you can well imagine what PAMPA wants is more black people wandering around its leafy enclaves. I hear Morris and CARRD locking their doors as we speak….
HSR is how you make “ring the bay” tenable.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The much higher frequency of BART service will make up for the speed of Caltrain.
You way “misunderestimate” BART political clout. And the savings – remember you dump everything north of SFO.
BART might even sweeten the pot with passing tracks, a really radical move for those stodgy broad-gaugers.
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
BART Trolling.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
BART will raise commercial rents at some locations, especially if they build HSR stations in Redwood City or Palo Alto. But the frequency of BART doesn’t change the fact that a 37 minute ride currently where you can always get a seat will be replaced by a longer one which might be standing room only.
I don’t misunderestimate BART…but it won’t do in CalTrain…it will have CHSRA do so instead.
Jon Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
BART Ring-the-Bay is an attractive idea as it would tie up a lot of loose ends. Why should BART go all the way round the bay on the east side but only a third of the way round the west side? If you do one side then surely it’s logical to do the other… of course many would argue that it’s not logical to go all the way round the east side, but then there are already shovels in the ground for that project.
The attraction of 2 BART plus 2 standard gauge tracks rather than 4 standard gauge tracks is that BART tunnels should, at least in theory, be cheaper than HSR/Caltrain tunnels. To get through the choke points at PAMPA/Burlingame/San Mateo you could have BART tracks in a subway with standard gauge track on top, with either quad gates (limits speed but not by much) or overpasses (easier for two tracks than four).
Connect BART tail tracks at Millbrae to BART tail tracks at Santa Clara. Convert every Caltrain station between Millbrae and Santa Clara to a BART station, minus perhaps Atherton and Hayward Park. Convert the major Caltrain stations (SF Transbay, Millbrae, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Moutain View, Santa Clara (maybe), San Jose) to two-track stations serving both high-platform electrified regional trains and HSR, where appropriate. This means no need for new stations at Millbrae and San Jose, a two-track downtown extension, and plenty of space at Transbay.
But, you also need to preserve service north of San Bruno… so two options:
1) Also include Mission Bay, 22nd St, Bayshore and South San Francisco as regional stops. Downside is more stations on the line means less capacity.
2) Build a wye off the underground BART line here, bring to surface and follow HSR/Regional line into San Francisco. Build BART stations at Downtown South SF (maybe- South SF already has a station), Bayshore, Oakdale, 22nd St, Mission Bay, and somewhere downtown. Then either head to the East Bay in a new Transbay Tube, or head west under Geary. Downside is the huge cost involved.
Just playing devils advocate here… the best thing about this plan is the annoyance it would cause to certain rail fans :)
synonymouse Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
A four track subway would be way too expensive; otherwise the CHSRA would be agreeing to the concept right now.
If it is BART Ring-the-Bay it will be just BART, no Caltrain nor hsr. You might see a Simitian version of hsr mit Caltrain with varying numbers of tracks according to the width of the existing ROW.
The best solution is for Caltrain to divorce the CHSRA on grounds of incompatibility and spousal abuse.
Jon Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Try reading again. A four track HSR/Caltrain subway is too expensive, but a two track BART subway + two track HSR/Regional rail at grade or elevated might work for the pinch points.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 19th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Building a four track elevated is cheaper than building a two track subway with two track elevated over it.
Andy M. Reply:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Amtrak do run buses you know.
Peter Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:42 am
I find it interesting that you find it a great revelation that the TBT is a nightmare waiting to happen…
Of course it’ll just be a bus terminal if HSR is never built. I don’t think anyone needed the world’s greatest newspaper, the “Examiner”, to point that out.
Again, anything seems to be a “win” for you. Even when it has nothing to do with what you claim it does.
jim Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 8:45 am
What Paulus Magnus said. Think about what happens if HSR is completed as far as San Jose and HSTs run through on existing Caltrain tracks, electrified but otherwise unchanged. They terminate at 4th and King, no? As money becomes available for upgrades, the first priority is to build some extra trackage so that more HSTs can cohabit with Caltrain. The next priority is to grade separate the crossings where the additional trains are causing problems. Building the last mile and a half into Transbay is the last thing that gets done on the Peninsula. And it only gets done if there’s then money to start building Phase 2. AB3034 prevents CHSRA from doing that until they’ve completed Phase 1 between Anaheim and TBT.
Clem Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:05 am
I get first dibs on the empty train box to start an industrial scale organic mushroom farm.
morris brown Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Clem — Let me know when you’re ready to take on investors.
The paper edition of Sunday’s Examiner with this story is quite impressive — spread over 3 pages.
The city of San Francisco has really produced a mother lode. The City puts in $100 million and they manage to leverage those funds to a $2 billion project. Hundreds have been feeding at that money trough, and I guess will for the next few years as well.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 11:46 am
and the people of San Francisco pay Federal and State taxes. Lots and lots and lots of taxes. Why shouldn’t they et some of it back?
jimsf Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
The train will go there. rest assured.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Don’t be so sure. Boxer moved to Oakland – there goes the TBT.
Ms. Dugger, erstwhile BART numero uno, got herself busted for DUI. Then it hit me that’s what must be going on down at the PB-CHSRA fuhrerbunker – the whole damn place is DUI. Drunk with that all sheer power to reek havoc with the plebeians and their pennies. What else can explain the twisted engineering behind the Palmdale deviation?
Like a stupefied Moses wandering in the High Desert.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Havoc is odorless
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Jeez – I was wondering about that. What is it then – wreak? Hey, maybe PB’s havoc does reek of cheap liquor.
English spelling is a bitch.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Egads a non-Turing response. I think I’ll go buy lottery tickets.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Better video poker. The lottery is about the world’s worst gamble – but your chances of winning are probably better than those of the current CHSRA ditzy scheme turning a profit.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Medial marijuana would be more lucrative – unionized of course with 25% of dues going straight back to the Machine.
Off topic, special to Bruce McF–this is because I can’t figure out how to comment on the Sunday Train at the Daily Kos site (boy, what a computer flop you must think me to be–and you’re probably right!)
Anyway, this is in reference to the line up to Asheville, N.C., via the Old Fort Loops. This is a famous line for us train nuts, requiring 13 miles of track to go 3 as the crow flies. It’s still a heavily used line, too:
Top 10 list; No. 1 on the list, Saluda grade, is currently inactive:
http://www.tarheelpress.com/Top10.html
Video footage on the Old Fort Loops, featuring an excursion train:
http://wn.com/Norfolk_Southern's_Old_Fort_Loops
Photos:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?city=Old%20Fort&country=North%20Carolina,%20USA
A bit more to come:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Even more spectacular was another route to Asheville, the Saluda grade–600 feet of climb in only 3 miles, and a maximum grade in excess of 5%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saluda_Grade
http://www.polkcounty.org/saludagrade/TheSaludaGrade.html
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Assorted videos along this back breaker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otgDdqsxulg
In 1992, Norfolk Southern had a steam program, and one of the trips that year was one up Saluda with a steam engine. Problems with the sanders cause a stall just before the top:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUPIynJq7tg&feature=related
From the restart, just below the crest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP5_SArsHf8
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
The line up via Old Fort isn’t exactly a cakewalk, either.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=old+fort+grade&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYubcZV0Uc
Have fun.