July CHSRA Board Meeting Open Thread
Sorry it’s a bit late. The board meeting this month is in Bakersfield, and the live stream is here and the agenda and materials are here. The most important agenda items relate to alternatives analysis and EIR work on the Central Valley segment. There will also be updates on Initial Operating Segments and an update on the San Francisco – San Jose segment, where all planning work has been stopped by the Authority as the Simitian “two tracks forever” plan is being examined.
How’s the sound for you folk? It’s barely understandable for me.
Peter Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Fine for me, all the way from the Caribbean… The San Diego commenters are a little staticky.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 11:56 am
About the same for me here in OC.
Wow Robert, that’s a pretty shameless mischaracterization of the Simitian et al. plan. It does not say “two tracks” anywhere in that plan.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Where does it say four tracks?
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
It doesn’t address the number of tracks. The key words are “substantially within” the right of way, which as you know is wider than 80 feet along most of its length, where substantially is a weasel word that allows eminent domain takings where absolutely necessary.
joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Ambiguity could also be used to block the 4 track option.
At this stage ambiguity doesn’t help planning and ambiguity hurts home owners.
‘Real estate purgatory’
For more than 100 years, train tracks have divided the North Central San Mateo neighborhood. Sometimes loud, sometimes considered an eyesore, they have become part of the neighborhood’s landscape.
The ongoing discussion of high-speed rail is creating an uncertainty about the future of the rail line and how it will change the neighborhood, its property values and the ability of many longtime residents to stay in their homes.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=162929&title=%E2%80%98Real%20estate%20purgatory%E2%80%99
Andy Chow Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
It is a fair guiding principle. If you insist on total 4 tracks as a guiding principle, then people are going to guess why CHSRA is wanting it even if the ridership demand and funding limitation may not warrant it, which put more uncertainly among the property owners around the tracks. If you insist on total 2 tracks as a principle, then you may not be able to add tracks when the opportunity is there.
Jon Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Van Ark has stated the following:
Jon Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Arg, blockquote fail. Last sentence was mine, not van Ark’s.
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Conditions that are conducive to lower-impact quadruple tracking are (1) wide right of way (80 feet or more), (2) few grade crossings, and (3) low intensity of vegetation.
The friction spots are all the locations where one or more of these criteria are violated.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Vegetation, smegetation. If the vegetation is railroad’s property they can do anything they want to it. If vegetation is trespassing on the railroad’s property they can remove it. It doesn’t cost much to cut down trees.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
It depends on what the local NIMBYs think about it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
They can think all they want, they won’t be able to do much about it. If it’s the railroad’s tree they can cut it down. IOf it’s trespassing they can remove it.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
They can raise a stink about ROW widening and grade seps, keep finding excuses to sue, and engage in other tricks from the How To Keep US 1 At Four Lanes manual perfected by certain Connecticut towns.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
when the trees start to grow into the existing Boston Post Road no one says diddly about trimming them back Or whtn the trees start to grow into Metro North’s ROW. Or getting rid of dangerous trees along the Ye Olde Historic Merritt Parkwayy. The trees will be gone no matter how much screaming people do. Even chaining themselves to the mighty trunks of the…. invasive weed species… won’t slow them down much .
joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
…such as cutting down El Palo Alto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Palo_Alto
For other vegetation, I suspect the NIMBYs would have to refer to active plans that manage and protect the vegetation and describe it’s historical or ecological significance. There I am doubtful that vegetation growing on a ROW is historically protected or actively managed – aside from pruning to keep it in check.
Clem Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Again the issue is not vegetation on the ROW, but vegetation on private land next to the ROW overhanging the ROW. Most of the affected vegetation falls into the latter category.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
If it hinders the safe operation of the railroad it’s gone. The lovely boughs of the invasive weed species are trespassing . They can whine, moan and file lawsuits, chain themselves to the trees when the people in Kevlar PPE and chainsaws show up… who will then call the people in Kevlar PPE and handcuffs, pepper spray and guns to haul them off.
Clem Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Right…. which reinforces my original point that vegetation density is an excellent predictor of community opposition to quadruple tracking. Seems like you are in violent agreement with me.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
If the trees hinder the safe operation of the railroad the trees will be removed. It’s going to be great theater but it’s theater.
Clem Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
If the railroad is expanded such that safe operation of the railroad will require removal of the trees, then residents will oppose expansion of the railroad in order to save the trees. What’s so hard to comprehend here? I’m saying that vegetation density is an excellent predictor of community opposition to quadruple tracking; are you disagreeing?
jimsf Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
then the environmentalists arrive and point out that the vegetation is non native and should be removed and replaced with native vegetation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:41 am
One of the characteristics of green leafy suburbs is green leaves. Median sales price of housing would also be a excellent indicator of the amount of opposition. Probably median age of cars registered in town too. Rich people expect to get their own way. But who can do what to tree has been in the law since the Romans. Cutting down trees is not going to be a significant impediment.
20 seconds of Googling finds this on the Burlingame website:
Residents may not cut or trim on City trees in the City right-of-way. Work on City trees is handled by City tree crews, City-hired contractors or PG&E. Trees located on El Camino Real, a state Highway, are owned and maintained by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City of Burlingame has no control over State highways and does not maintain the highway nor the trees that line the roadway. Many of the trees along California Drive, adjacent to the railroad tracks, are owned and maintained by the City of San Francisco or CalTrain. Some trees along the tracks are owned and maintained by Burlingame.
They can whine, moan, rend their garments. The safe operation of the railroad is going to trump cutting down trees.
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
You will find that the density of trackside vegetation can be a very good indicator of residential density and property values. Most of the affected trees are on private property, and thus subject to local tree ordinances. It’s where the trunk is that determines things, not the branches. You can read more about this in Caltrain’s tree survey which I helpfully linked in the article above.
I’m just pointing out where quadruple tracking will be difficult to do… the last thing Caltrain needs to do right now is piss off more people in Atherton.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Most of the affected trees are on private property, and thus subject to local tree ordinances.
Not if they are trespassing onto the ROW. The railroad, just like the state, county and federal highways, isn’t subject to local ordinances when it come to safe operation. If the branches are hanging over the ROW they can hack them off. IF that kills the tree, that’s not the railroad’s problem.
Clem Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Bring your chain saw, and we’ll see how many minutes you last around here…
jim Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Amtrak cut down a whole bunch of trees and stuff overhanging the Hell Gate Line in Queens. The neighbours went ballistic, called in their local politicians and Amtrak has replanted new vegetation along the route. In theory, they were in the right. In practice, they had to compensate.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
You mean this?
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249213839252&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-10-113_Woodside_Landscape_Plan_Announcement.pdf
jim Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Yup. That’s it. Nicely spun, though.
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Read the Caltrain 2004 DEIR where substations are put in the right-of-way blocking future tracks. If you don’t see the problems with their plans read our letter:
http://www.ca4hsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/CA4HSR-Letter-to-Caltrain-Request-for-Clarification-Re-Electrification.pdf
After seeing what Caltrain is attempting with CBOSS, why are you such a big fan of their anti-planning, destructive, 2004-era electrification plans?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
[This comment was removed because, as an ad hominem attack, it violated this blog's Comment Policy.]
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Richard we have given you a lot of leeway in the past. Your violation of the rules by ad hominem attacks and the advocacy of the murder of former elected officials will be receiving closer scrutiny from now on.
Spokker Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Haha step up the enforcement when it’s about you. Haha.
Joey Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:20 am
You complain about Richard and yet you let people like YesOnHSR go free?
Clem Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Probably depends what side they’re on.
I find that leaving traces of censorship on a blog usually backfires because it triggers pointless debate about the censorship policy. If you’re going to delete, do so without a trace.
Andy Chow Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
So the choices are either the 2004 plan or CHSRA plan? Give me a break.
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Show me a third EIR we can use to approve a third plan. That is CEQA 101 Andy.
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
EIRs aren’t 100% rock-solid plans of what will get built. Designs get changed all the time after an EIR is approved. I’m not even sure that moving a substation a few dozen feet this way or that would even rise to the level of a supplemental EIR. I think you are being slightly too intransigent.
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Moving a substations a few feet within the ROW so it only blocks 1 of the 2 tracks to be added in the future would not need an EIR.
Upgrading the system to more 4 track sections and doing badly needed grade separations does need a new EIR. Thank goodness someone is doing one!
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_San_Francisco_San_Jose.aspx
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I’m not sure what your point is? Is it that the Caltrain electrification EIR should be put on hold indefinitely?
joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
On hold? Oh no.
How about, Caltrain electrification should not interfere with a 4 track HSR option.
There are two EIRs electrification could follow – one of them would place infrastructure where it would interfere with the 4 track option.
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
There is one EIR on indefinite hold as of today, which you refer to as the “4 track option.” Are you suggesting that Caltrain should delay its electrification plans until that EIR is taken up again, completed, and approved, even if that’s in the 2020 timeframe?
joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Well Clem, I’d put it another way – Caltrain, according to the Gov’s recent veto of Prop 1A funds, has to coordinate with HSR.
You tell me if electrification is coordinated with HSR.
It would be a shameful waste of taxpayer funds to restrict the HSR alignment with this supposedly coordinated electrification project.
I recommend
http://www.amazon.com/Defiant-Ones-Tony-Curtis/dp/B00005PJ6T
“With each man literally stuck with the other, conflicts take a back seat to survival. “
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
You tell me if electrification is coordinated with HSR
You seem to already know. But I’ll toss out an opinion anyway. About 3/4 of the cost of electrification is for stuff that wouldn’t be affected by a wholesale realignment of the tracks. Moving the overhead contact system is not particularly difficult or expensive, compared e.g. to drilling a $2.5 billion tunnel to the Transbay Terminal. This stuff will boil down to a rounding error and is hardly the great show-stopper that Brian Stanke makes it out to be.
It’s really funny to hear HSR-at-any-cost, four-track-all-the-way folks pontificate about “waste of taxpayer funds”!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
The ROI is too low for a few years of operation, Run diesels for those few years.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:35 am
“About 3/4 of the cost of electrification is for stuff that wouldn’t be affected by a wholesale realignment of the tracks. Moving the overhead contact system is not particularly difficult or expensive, compared e.g. to drilling a $2.5 billion tunnel to the Transbay Terminal. ”
Yet that very cost will be part of the justification to foreclose on the 4 track option.
Caltrain and HSR are handcuffed together and Caltrain improvements are expected to be in sync with long term HSR plans.
“It’s really funny to hear HSR-at-any-cost, four-track-all-the-way folks pontificate about “waste of taxpayer funds”!”
Who would that be? Oh, has the Altamont Alignment become a litmus test as to who is wasting and who is frugal with tax payer money?
I think you have a choice. Either accept the Alignment and let HSR go forward along the Peninsula or hold on uncoordinated Caltrain improvements until the issues are resolved.
Mike Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I don’t get your hangup on the EIRs, Brian. Caltrain hasn’t certified theirs, and the Authority hasn’t completed theirs. Either one could be revised to reflect a new concept of the project that accomplishes the goals of either the “phased” or the “blended” plan.
Sure, Caltrain wants to just go ahead and build their 2004 plan, but that’s not the only way to get to a phased or blended system.
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Caltrain plans to certify this fall.
Eric M Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Yes, change orders can add up fast!!
Adina Levin Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Per Mike Scanlon and Marian Lee, Caltrain will the current draft EIR in light of the HSR capacity study and other changes and determine what changes if any are needed. They’re pushing the EIR ahead of the capacity study.
Mike Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Adina, I think you accidentally left out a key word: “Per Mike Scanlon and Marian Lee, Caltrain will [?????] the current draft EIR.” Expedite? Delay? Revise?
Clem Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
For the record, it’s a Final EA/EIR, not draft. Under NEPA, this document has already received a “Finding Of No Significant Impact” from the FTA. State approval of the FEIR under CEQA is what is now being considered.
Adina Levin Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Caltrain will review the EIR and determine what changes are needed if any, based on the results of the capacity study and other events since it was written.
Numerous mentions of opposition to the Grapevine route study and endorsement for Palmdale. Many endorsements by Kern County and wanting the system. Kern County wants a true HSR system.
Wow, the public comment goes on and on….
Over 50 left…
Wow, some of these commenters are WAY out to lunch.
Eric M Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I love the “do it right” comments. Should be “the plan affects me, so change it the way I like it or it’s wrong”. Me me me
VBobier Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Yeah that’s what I read too, crazies…
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Should’ve heard the person who thinks trains should stop at Palmdale and transfer to Metrolink citing it is quicker. Maybe if the tunnel to Sylmar were completed that would be the case but it isn’t. It takes at least 80 minutes given current Metrolink schedules to get from Palmdale-LA Union Station. While connecting Los Angeles would be preffered, more tunneling is required than to San Jose. Bay Area rail ridership as a percentage of trips is higher and San Jose is somewhat of a center of transportation unlike Palmdale. Palmdale is the equivalent of Gilroy, and if the option is to either go to Palmdale or San Jose, I’d rather see San Jose.
Tony D. Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Nice post PI!
Careful now; stating you’d rather see San Jose vs. LA might get you “F Bombed” by some children who frequent this blog.
Could be wrong, but yesterdays news pegged the SJ connection at $7 billion and LA at $5 billion. I believe the $5 billion figure is actually to Palmdale only, as going all the way to Sylmar does in fact involve serious tunneling. HSR to Sylmar/San Fernando could in fact be way north of $7 billion, thus making a line to SJ cheaper.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
It really depends on whether the connection is to Sylmar (no-brainer), Santa Clarita (decent), or Palmdale (sucks unless there’s some heavy FRA reform on the side).
Spokker Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Tony D., YesonHSR is on your side.
tony d. Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 7:56 am
If initial HSR segment goes to Sylmar, then yes, no brainer over SJ.
Especially with DesertXpress possibly coming on line.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Those numbers are the old 2009 numbers. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had updated numbers so we could understand the tradeoffs?
Eric M Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Remember though, the price of labor and materials have come way down in the last couple of years.
Elizabeth Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The reason for changes are not changes in unit prices, but the number of units. The 2009 numbers assumed very little tunneling, the current alignment is mostly tunneling.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Just a reminder that’s it’s not all good news for CARRD. The recession has caused undercut construction projects. they are being bid and coming in under cost. Materials and labor costs are dropping.
I’m sure HSR can save some funding by not trenching needlessly.
Spokker Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
She is talking about what the CHSRA did, not what they could do.
But we are seeing the beginning of changes coming to the project. The running theme is that these changes will be forced by reality.
Needlessly gold-plating the project would have happened during some bubble or boom, but now there’s literally no money for such things, and the project will change accordingly.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
wheee. Trolling … Needless gold plating. Changes coming. Running theme is … Spokker.
When PAMPA NIMBYs whine about high costs for HSR and at some near future date try to demand expensive trenching – well, we shall see. Gold-plating – I like that one.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
But that’s not what CARRD wants either. Because part of the realignment of costs means that diesel is going to become more expensive, and that’s going to push CalTrain into uncharted waters. Of course all the punditry want it electrified…but that’s the other part of reality here… CHSRA now doesn’t have to kowtow to local transportation agencies to make their ideas work. They get to use their $9 billion as they see fit.
CARRD and the Joe Simitians of the world are in deeper crap than they realize because if funding really is tight…CalTrain is history anyway, because CHSRA can’t spare any money to save them. Then we’re going to see SMCTD/Cal Train sell their ROW to BART and rent it back or something like that just to stymie the Authority a little bit longer….
Spokker Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
It doesn’t matter what CARRD wants either.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 10:50 am
@ Spokker
I hope you are right but these changes will have to come from Van Ark & co. I fear if he is too responsible, thoughtful and cost-conscious LA-Palmdale-Fresno will demand his head on a platter.
Spokker Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Difficult times lie ahead, Harry.
To all the NIMBYs who love their cars and don’t want any mass transit built-you willing to pay $13 a gallon for it-
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-07-14-the-true-cost-of-gasoline-13-a-gallon
LOL! “Are they going to pump up a train to 220 miles per hour? How will they ever stop the train at those speeds?”
More HSR snark from Mercury News’ Mike Rosenberg.
As Silicon Valley companies open manufacturing in Oregon, the concept that HSR would allow San Jose based business to expand in California doesn’t register for the lazy local beat reporter.
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_18464622
So HSR is about taking tourists to visit the Gilroy Garlic festival (snark) and not about linking the SanJose business to the Central Valley’s lower cost of living and land.
Mean while Oregon continues to benefit from CA based bsuiness expansion.
Spokker Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
If you can convince tumbleweeds to ride high speed rail, then serving San Jose should be a top priority.
Tony D. Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
When did delinquent children discover this blog?
Spokker Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
When the tech bubble burst. The important of San Jose is greatly exagerated and not even HSR will return it to its glory days. I have more respect for San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento because at least in those places people are attempting to use transit. They have connectivity that would benefit from an HSR station.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:01 am
SF hands down is the number one end point for HSR not LAA land or red county..we just meed to run thru all the fake libs and NIMBYS in ugly track homes in PA and tacky MenloPark
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:37 am
Trolling.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Hey, doesn’t this violate comment policy?
Oh, right….
YesonHSR Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:57 am
[Deleted for violation of Comments policy.]
Spokker Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:25 am
Obama stuck the money right back up his ass when Republicans gave him a dirty look. In any case, bombs away.
Joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Yuck yuck. useless as usual.
Business trips to CV manufacturing and coast HQ / RD facilities via HSR.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I suspect that there are important reasons than simply a lack of HSR/business air access.
joe Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
And I suspect not.
CA has an opportunity to use HSR to build connections between the coast and CV. We can lower the cost of transportation and increase access to the CV where land is less expansive.
According to Krugman’s pesky research, that reduced transportation cost can build economic activity.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
And I am highly doubtful that HSR or airplane access is the major reason rather than supply of appropriately skilled labor, labor costs, electricity costs, freight infrastructure, etc.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:45 am
There you go – apparently HSR is for tourism and CA can’t compete. Thanks for playing.
I’ll continue to argue that economic benefits of lowering transportation costs, lowering barriers to business travel linking the worlds premier concentration of high tech and entertainment skill centers with relatively low cost labor / land and provide examples.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The expense and time it takes for executives to visit factories is, quite frankly, the least important factor when it comes to siting a factory in comparison to the aforementioned factors such as skilled labor pool, freight transportation costs and access, etc.
Joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Executives?
Engineers, managers, researchers…..
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
It’s about $250-300 round trip between San Jose and Portland; I doubt any individual company is sending a bunch of travelers between the two at that level of expense.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I don’t have any doubt the distance is close enough for frequent trips and that they make them often. The proximity by air makes Portland a great location for SV.
Portland compares well to driving to/from the CV, say Fresno.
But I’m sure you’ll disagree and that’s okay.
The Infrastructurist has an article about building a floating airport off the coast of San Diego.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/10/22/crazy-or-brilliant-plan-to-build-a-floating-airport-off-the-california-coast/
Getting there from the mainland would require a 45-minute ferry ride. Evidently, no one has considered that high-speed rail could connect San Diego with San Bernardino International Airport in about 50 minutes and that both Ontario International Airport and March Air-Reserve Base are also possible station locations.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Realistically an airport that far off shore is nuts. Closer in is probably what will happen…since the City and Port can share an offshore facility. March isn’t that big either.
VBobier Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I can just see a 747 trying to land on what amounts to a semi-stationary aircraft carrier, I wonder how many airline pilots are former Navy pilots trained in carrier landings? As carriers tend to go up and down with the waves and from side to side…
Usually carrier based aircraft all have stouter landing gear cause of the deck going up and down, I wonder if a land based plane could handle those stresses for long?
Peter Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 6:44 am
That’s not why carrier based planes have such stout landing gear. They need that gear because of how hard they have to hit the deck when they land. They don’t flare…
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
IE or FF cannot establish a connection, web maintenance?
Dan Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 11:38 am
That’s a few years old. It never went anywhere …. much less expensive to build in the desert, or make incremental improvements to the existing airport.
VBobier Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Speaking of the Desert the HSR thats supposed to go through the area looks like it might go between the freeway and maybe somewhere near the hills, In which case I’ll have a front row seat if it’s next to the 15 freeway(highway to easterners).
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I am not sure how practical it will be for SAN expansion. Even if you got rid of the LAX shuttles and intrastate flights, plus Vegas and Phoenix, would it be enough for SD to serve longer haul markets? While I wish they could relocate to Mirmar and open up the DT, I’m probably wishing for pigs to fly with that.
If this weren’t an open thread, I would be way off topic:
Just noticed that there is a real relationship between Amtrak ridership and the price of crude oil.
Since 1972 Amtrak yearly ridership has increased from roughly 16 million to 30 million, but this increase has been anything but even. Each of our 4 energy crises has been accompanied by a spike in Amtrak ridership. The energy crisis following the Yom Kippur War helped 1974 ridership to increase 1.7 million over 1973. The crisis of 1979 contributed to Amtrak ridership for that year increasing 2.5 million over 1978. The oil price spike of 2008 corresponded to an increase of 1.9 million Amtrak passengers from 2007 to 2008. The current steep rise in oil prices has contributed to an estimated 2.8 million jump in passengers from 2009 to 2011.
Even in years when the oil supply is not in crisis, Amtrak ridership seems to be very sensitive to the price of crude oil. From 1985 to 1998, with a single exception, oil prices and Amtrak ridership remained fairly flat. That exception was in 1990 when a brief doubling of the price of oil (Invasion of Kuwait?) corresponded to a 1.0 million increase in ridership over 1989. From 1998 to 2000 the price of oil more than doubled and ridership jumped by 1.6 million. And finally in 2009 when oil prices dropped by around $100 per barrel, 1.5 million fewer people rode Amtrak.
All these numbers just reinforce what we already know—That we figure out the best way to get to where we want to go, and— as the price of gas goes up—the train becomes a better option. Even without high speed rail it would appear that in future energy crises (there are going to be more) Amtrak will have more ridership spikes and hopefully will have the capacity to meet the need.
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:47 am
“Even in years when the oil supply is not in crisis, Amtrak ridership seems to be very sensitive to the price of crude oil. ”
A study has documented the asymmetrical link between gasoline price increases to positive train ridership. Gasoline price reductions to not cause a symmetrical decrease in train ridership, fewer ridrs leave.
Andy M. Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 6:50 am
If fewer riders leave, that’s because riders may find Amtrak to be more pleasant to use than they imagined. This is why it’s important to maintain that, and ensure first-time riders feel comfortable and safe, that stations and trains have a welcoming ambiance, that facilities are clean and work as they should, that staff are available to help and answer questions etc etc. Amtrak funding cuts could jeapordise that. After all those are aspects that you can’t easily put a value to but that do cost money.
Joe Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Ticket price increases cost ridership. Reducing fares did not restore ridership.
The asymmetry means amtrack should be cautious about fare increases and undoing them will not restore ridership.
Gas price instability will help amtrack.
No disagreement about clean and safe stations.
Would recommend maintaining top notch Internet presence to reduce newbie anxiety.
Has anybody seen the Daily Post article today about yesterday’s HSR board meeting? They reported that the HSRA board decided to implement the sections in the sequence presented yesterday.
Now, I was having sound quality problems and didn’t completely hear what the board resolved. But their budget for the coming year is partly held up for the approval of the business plan to be presented in October. So it’s not clear to me how final any of these decisions are, and what might be changed based on the results of the business plan.
Peter Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
… not quite sure what you’re asking about. What sequence are you referring to? Are you asking about the ICS/IOS discussion?
Adina Levin Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Yes
morris brown Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I have posted on YouTube a number of segments of the meeting.
I think you would want to view: (Initial construction segments) Item # 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxZzWr-ORo
For an update on San Jose – SF view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmUpEDwoKWU
Public comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5hS3xXTYEs
Neville Snark Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I suppose many of the commenters were encouraged by anti-hsr forces, but surely not all. But what I don’t know is (1) their saying cahsr doesn’t contact them and does not respond to their questions; what is going on? and (2) are the plans for recompense sufficient, or they just trying to get more, or are the proposals too crude, not flexible enough, or … ? The complaints were quite vague.
House passes energy bill $6B below Obama’s request (HR-2354)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43773068/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
(From the article)
The bill steered $1 billion away from high-speed rail projects and used the money instead to pay for flood relief along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.
If it becomes law in the present form, it would rescind over $200 million from the CHSRA.
Eric M Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Has to make it past the Senate first. Good luck with that!!
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Democrats will probably vote it down fast like always in a procedural vote. Unless the Midwestern state senators who are Democrats like this proposal.
Eric M Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“However, if USDOT acts fast to release the money, it will no longer be sitting in federal coffers, open to rescission when the House bill takes effect. Immediately after passage of the House bill, New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, asking him to expedite the release of $450 million in funding for Amtrak and NJ Transit improvements”
Hahaha
VBobier Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Good for them! Get the money out of the DOTs hands, then lets see the Repugs rescind that.
Alan F Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
There is some critical and important funding in the remainder of the HSIPR stimulus funding that has not been obligated for Chicago-Detroit, NY state Empire, CT New Haven to Springfield MA, Maine Downeaster, PA Keystone East, Southeast H(r)SR corridors along with the NEC project in NJ.
As I understand this is part of FY12 bill, so nothing is going to happen with it in the next several months. Until then, the FRA has some time to hurry up and get the funds obligated. Hurrying the process up has it’s benefits because it gets the money put to work more quickly and show some real progress in improvements to passenger rail service in the next several years.
Passing a energy bill $6 billion less than requested is not a smart move in the long run, given that the world is quite possibly now 5 years pass peak oil production in 2006. The world’s oil supply could see some very tight periods in the next 2-3 years.
VBobier Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Repugs don’t care, they think that their is an endless supply of oil. But then their trying to get elected from a shrinking base that’s crazy, loony even.
Nathanael Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
The problems with Chicago-Detroit relate to Rick Snyder’s hostile takeover of the state of Michigan. It’s proving impossible to get Michigan to actually sign off on anything.
I can’t imagine what the problems are with the Empire Corridor, but I really hope they get resolved fast, we really could use the money. Likewise for PA and NC I have no idea what the holdups are and hope things get obligated quickly. Connecticut — I think that’s a showdown between the governor and the legislature delaying things?
Maine’s got a demented governor just like MI and WI and FL, that’s probably causing problems there…
Is the bfd meeting on you tube the one on the website won’t play. (my mac died and Im using a worthless pc of crap now)
Off topic, but it looks like part of the “electric connecting service” is going in at San Diego:
http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/3556-car2go-launches-all-electric-car-sharing-program-i?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29
Nathanael Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Nice. The main problem with these car-sharing services is that there’s no rational way for a visitor to use them. San Diego’s a huge tourist town — with insufficient mass transit to reach all the tourist attractions, though it’s getting close — and I’d totally go for a short-range electric car when I visit, but car-sharing is designed for residents.