Congress Is Broken, and HSR Pays the Price
Once again Amtrak California is setting record ridership numbers, showing that Californians absolutely will ride passenger trains between metro areas.
You’d think that with clear evidence of demand for passenger trains, getting HSR built in California would be a slam dunk. And it would be…except that the unsettled picture regarding federal funding is giving everyone pause. We explored this on the blog yesterday with regard to private funding. Today Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic weighs in on the same issue, concluding that With Little Hope for Near-Term Federal Support, California High-Speed Rail Struggles:
The problem is that California has been shunted into an impossible position: forced to make due with very limited federal funds despite a large commitment from state voters, the authority cannot attract private dollars. This is not, I would argue strongly, the fault of the authority or the Department of Transportation, which has funded it so far; blame rests entirely on a Congress that has been incapable of having a serious discussion (and making a final decision) about the merits of major investments in the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Instead, it continues to hand out small amounts, enough to keep projects like California’s alive but not enough to actually implement them.
The usual suspects – HSR opponents and NIMBYs – are celebrating the struggles for HSR funding in Congress, hoping that House Republicans will succeed in their efforts to kill the project. And they point to the problems with federal funding as a supposed sign of the project’s weaknesses.
Except the problem is actually with Congress, and it runs far, far deeper than high speed rail.
Congress is broken. Republican politicians in the House have blocked all efforts at economic recovery. They’ve stopped Obama’s jobs plan and have demanded recklessly large spending cuts that most economic observers agree will push the economy into recession. They have even demanded that disaster relief funds be paid for by cuts elsewhere or else the government won’t be able to help communities recover. The post office, the FAA, and even the federal government itself have faced shutdown thanks to their extremism.
Over in the Senate the picture isn’t any better. Republicans have turned the filibuster, once a rarely-used nuclear option, into a regular part of procedure. 60 votes are now required to get anything done in the Senate and since Democrats don’t have that many, Republicans can and have brought proceedings to a halt unless their demands are met.
The machinery of government simply doesn’t work any more. Many bridges have been rated as structurally deficient yet Congress is not bothering to act to fix them. Unemployment remains at record highs with no jobs relief on the horizon. Student loan debt is now over $1 trillion and is causing not only a drag on the economy but is sending a generation into the streets in protest.
I could go on and on with examples of serious problems facing this country that Congress is doing nothing to solve. It is a broken institution. And high speed rail funding is just one of many victims of that failure. Those who gloat at the problems facing HSR funding may not find it so funny when they are next to suffer the consequences of governmental inaction.
This situation cannot and will not last. Eventually our political system will be changed, hopefully for the better. The Occupy movements that have swept the country in recent weeks may be the leading edge of that effort, although they won’t produce change on their own. But it is clear that high speed rail, like anything else that would make a better future, is going to require more than good technical plans and more than widespread public support if it’s going to happen. It will require nothing short of a fix to our broken system of government.
Congress is not broken; there is simply tremendous controversy about how to proceed. Greece is making everyone aware of the consequences of reckless spending and brain-dead accounting.
Kinda think the next step of any consequence for Greece will be to exit the euro for the drachma. Meantime they’ll stay in the EC. The EC can only go far with the “tranches”. It will be traumatic for the Greeks and the GOP will be saying I told you so.
What is really broken is the worthless California State Legislature. Just cranks endless ninny-nanny laws. Go part-time, unicameral, just trim it way back.
Tony d. Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
No, Congress is the broken you moron! These GOP pigs and Teahadists are trying to destroy the country to apparently save it. Hearing them today continuing to criticise Obama on Libya is just shameless. Can’t wait till November of 2012! In terms of HSR, all will be well post 2012. In the near term, work with what we got and get the line built from SJ-sylmar.
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 8:43 am
Agreed Congress is a House Divided and dysfunctional now, hopefully in Nov 2012 a Democratic Majority will arise and vote most of the Party of Drs. NO into extinction…
But that’s not all that I’d like to see change, I’d like to see some changes in the FBR(Federal Benefit Rate) too as $674 a month is no longer adequate anymore and a $25 a month Cola for 2012 is not good enough, As I’m excluded from renting just over 99% of the rentals I could rent in California or in any other state in the USA(housing choice vouchers that are capped and are effectively closed and are a bad joke as there are no waiting lists) and I’m forced to choose between eating well enough(I don’t get food stamps and so food costs Me nearly $130-200 a month) and doing other things like saving money for whatever necessary reason or repairing My cars A/C, buying new clothes instead of wearing and repairing 5 year old clothes, etc, etc… Buying a burial plot for $2900(cheapest I could find once, where I could at long last bury Mom’s ashes and later Myself), is impossible as I can’t save up enough and the SSA considers one worth more than $1500 to be a sellable resource(crazy logic there), It would be nice If I were allowed to save up to $10,000 as the limit on savings has been at $2,000 since 1989 and the dollar just doesn’t buy what It used to anymore), I get SSI(Supplemental Security Income), I’m disabled and unable to work(the spirit is partly willing, the body is not at all due to being damaged from a near fatal accident), so It’s like I’m told, here have a little bit and no more, If it’s not adequate who cares, We’d(Repugs) rather cut Your throat and cast You aside instead, parasite… They may not call Me that to My face or over the phone, but that’s the impression I get from Repugs in Congress, uncaring thugs, I say a pox on them all.
Occupy Washington DC, Until Election Day on Nov 12th 2012!!! Don’t impede traffic or disobey laws, But make yer presence known, put the fear into the rotten Repugs, notice how they started to change their tune a bit after OWS got started and started to gain momentum…
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Syn, wake up. Of course Congress is broken. Seriously, the antidemocratic 60-vote bullshit in the Senate alone should be enough to convince you of that!
wu ming Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 pm
the sad thing is, the senate is still less dysfunctional than california’s double-2/3 threshold.
Hurray
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/democratic-rep-dennis-cardoza-becomes-latest-blue-dog-to-retire/2011/10/20/gIQAFu7c0L_blog.html
See ya.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Glad to get rid of right-wing Democrats. We have too many of them and it makes it hard for low-information voters to tell who’s on what side. They are NOT moderate, however, no matter what the Washington Post thinks.
Likewise, I’m glad every time a sane Republican quits that party.
We need a party shift and we need it fast.
wu ming Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:51 pm
i am so looking forward to the central valley’s transition from right wing republicans and conservative valleycrats to socially moderate, economically liberal latino democrats.
Congress’s current disposition will make the new business plan a tough sell, as it is all about Federal $$.
We’ve posted the memos the High Speed Rail Authority submitted to the legislature last week on our site that discuss the framework of the biz plan: http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/2011-business-plan-preview-and-other-documents/
Also, we now have the August progress reports from the Authority: http://www.calhsr.com/resources/progress-reports/
Spokker Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Time to put the money to better use. Congress isn’t going to budge.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_19084171
joe Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Use it or lose it. Clueless newspaper editorials can’t stop the billions from being pulled back after the 2012 deadline and the DOT isn’t interested in moving the money nor the Gov.
What we being now isn’t going away – the CV work is standalone utility by ARRA mandate. The world does not end in 2012. HSR will be built outward from the CV. Time is money.
Jobs Jobs Jobs. While PAMPA isn’t seeing 20% unemployment, other parts of Cali are and this project will put people to work.
Austerity and Blue dogs down. The anti-rail and anti-spending Dems are falling like flies. 50% of the 2008 class failed in in 2010 and more are quitting in 2012.
morris brown Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:38 am
@joe:
Hardly a clueless editorial. Just remember, that the CV project as proposed may meet the DOT requirements, but it certainly doesn’t meet Prop 1A requirements (doesn’t even have electrical power).
Without Prop 1A matching to the ARRA funding, the Feds will pull back the grant.
Why does the Authority keep putting out cost estimates that are not in YOE (year of expenditure) numbers? Prop 1A says costs are to be in YOE. The Feds say YOE numbers are required. But every time we see new data, it is expressed in 2008 dollars or now 2010 dollars.
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 11:21 am
There is no choice. Use the funding as proposed or lose it.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:40 pm
It meets the prop 1A requirements, which are much more byzantine than you keep claiming they are.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Oh, also? The authority puts out estimates in constant dollars because YOE dollars are STUPID AND MEANINGLESS. I have no idea what stupid people asked for YOE dollars at either the federal or state levels; I am sure that the Authority is providing those useless numbers to the agencies which legally require them, but for all practical purposes, you want to use constant dollars.
Not that it matters much during a disinflationary period like we’re in now, where there’s little difference between 2008 and 2010 dollars.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Appropriations bills are always in YOE dollars. If the dollar loses half its value tomorrow, CAHSR won’t get twice the nominal amount of money.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Agreed. If the Authority hadn’t insisted on its crap dogleg routing and gold plating, enough money could have been found to build the entire LA-SD segment at 125mph and provide a proven system with the greatest potential for automobile diversion from which the later extensions could be built, as natural and organic extensions, through the CV and up to Sacramento and San Francisco.
Instead, we’re going to have the irony that CAHSRA is going to spend an awful lot of PR and money on LA-SF (with all the Bay Area NIMBY whiners that implies) while SCRRA and NCTD go ahead and upgrade their trackage such that they provide a faster trip simultaneously serving more people than CASHRA’s Phase II.
Mike Brennan Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:34 am
Well said. LA->SD would have been a safer option as well as enormously popular for phase I. The recent Amtrak ridership numbers are a great indication of that.
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 4:05 pm
That useful segment isn’t high speed and the voters approved a system, not a pool of rail project money.
I think calling for an organic extension from LA-SD to the CV and SF requires a powerful imagination and would not be taken seriously statewide.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Fun fact #1: It already operates at high speed by American law. Fun fact #2: At 125mph, an upgraded LOSSAN would be faster than the 220mph Inland Empire dogleg. The goal is travel time, not simply speed.
I’ll admit that my language is somewhat peppered by my traditionalist stance on Catholic liturgy and the language used in that context, but still, I wouldn’t have thought that it could be that badly misinterpreted. Los Angeles to Bakersfield is certainly a natural and organic growth of the passenger rail system. With that, you have rail service automatically to Oakland and Sacramento which can be fairly easily upgraded along their own natural routings and such to higher speeds.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
The inland route LA-San Diego is driven by three causes:
(1) Capacity. Fully double tracking the coastal route is a nightmare.
(2) Grade separation. Grade separating the coastal route is a nightmare.
(3) Stability. Some of the key sections are on bluffs which are ready to fall into the sea, and really need to be relocated entirely.
There may BE no LOSSAN in 20 years thanks to #3, and we’ll need that inland route.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:27 pm
All of the sections that would be difficult under (1) and (3), that is, primarily San Clemente and Del Mar, would have to be tunneled to upgrade anyway (well, the San Clemente section would be partially tunneled along I-5). You’d still probably end up spending less money than the other route.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:21 am
The tunnels themselves have to go further inland in order to avoid the crumbling bluffs (think about it).
At this point, you’re building an entirely new ROW, you’re making very long tunnels, and you’re doing it entirely under high-value property. It’s *not* going to be cheaper.
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 am
I know the tunnels would have to be further inland. The San Clemente section would require 3-4.5 miles of tunnel (depending on the number of property takes you’re willing to make) and would more or less follow I-5. Note that some section would be at-grade. The Del Mar tunnel would be 2 miles long and almost completely under County Hwy S21. Burrowing under UTC adds maybe another 2.3 miles of tunnel. By contrast, the program alignment for the inland route calls for nearly 11 miles of tunnel near Rainbow, CA, one segment of which would be 8 miles long.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I believe (3) is being addressed by bypassing the bluffs in order to achieve (1) and (2).
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:22 am
That would do the trick, but currently it is not really planned. The shifts inland are hard. They’re trying to do Del Mar (and failing) but they’ve barely thought about anywhere else.
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:24 am
Oh, I thought they were planning more right now.
Joey Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
What can be done to existing lines is quite limited as long as FRA regulations don’t change.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Business as usual suits la number of people just fine.
A $90 million grade separation for CHSRA or a $90 milliion grade separation for OCTA? Who cares?
A no-competition home-grown furlong-based PTC system for CHSRA or no-competition home-grown PTC system for Caltrain? Who can tell the difference? Just back up the dump trucks to haul away the cash!
Design and specification of Unique Local Conditions inches-and-pounds rolling stock for CHSRA or Unique Local Conditions inches-and-pounds battle tanks for Metorlink? Sure, whatever.
Generation of timetables and service plans by throwing dice for CHSRA or for SDMTS? Who cares as long as competent, non American firms aren’t allowed to bid.
Fare gates and security theater for CHSRA or for LAMTA? Just write the blank check to defense contractor Cubic either way, makes no difference.
Public outreach for CHSRA or public outreach for OCTA? Bill $1500/hour regardless.
150mph or 50mph? Doesn’t matter. Same people, same trade restraint, same not invented here, same vendor capture and rent seeking, same lack of cost control, same total lack of public interest, same shit outcome.
‘This is modern America and we’re going to keep it that way.”
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:32 am
Quoting Rip Torn from a movie that starred David Bowie? Richard, you may just make me subscribe to the comments feed instead of simply dropping by every few weeks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 1:23 am
I think Mr Magellan has had enough.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 6:14 pm
‘This is modern America and we’re going to keep it that way.”
Funny, that sounds to me like the people who want to keep trains in the past, and keep us in cars forever.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 20th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Congress isn’t going to budge *right now.*
What happens in 2013, however?
We live in a time of rapid political change. Assuming that what is happening now will be the way Congress always behaves is not a smart assumption to make.
Spokker Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:03 am
“What happens in 2013, however?”
9-9-9!
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:22 am
A tax hike? Right, that’s totally going to sway the GOP base.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 6:51 pm
It’s a tax hike on poor people, it’ll totally pass.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
It’s a tax hike on the middle class and parts of the upper middle class. When Obama tried to propose eliminating the payroll tax cap ($100,000 a year, a little less than the breakeven point of 9-9-9 vs. current tax policy), Hillary Clinton blasted him for wanting to tax firefighters, cops, and teachers.
Spokker Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:20 am
Cain is top dog right now. He hasn’t seen the drop that Perry did when he opened his mouth. People love what Cain has to say, whether or not it is in their best interest.
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:16 am
I wouldn’t necessarily count on 2013—although Congress’s approval rating’s low, so is the president’s, and vote-splitting’s less common now that the parties (okay, one of the parties) have sorted themselves out ideologically (for instance, my grandparents never voted for a Republican president but often voted for Republican congressmen because they were more reliably liberal than the ones spit out by Illinois’s Democratic machine). Assuming a Republican win, I’d expect congressional Republicans to underperform in the house but not to lose their majority (2014 and 16 and beyond’s totally up for grabs); regardless of where the electorate swings, they still have an excellent chance of taking the senate just based on the rotation of states.
That said, it’s hard to ignore federal politics when your whole project’s based on the assumption of getting federal money. If CAHSR needs the money now, what Congress is currently up to is kind of a big deal unless you want the project to slip indefinitely (reexamining Tejon might actually help here—it pushes back the timeline and could help keep the project active during delays).
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Repugs have worn out their welcome for the most part and the so called Tea Party sham/shills for Koch Industries should be kicked out, enmass and then investigated by the FBI for criminal conspiracy to defraud the public and to undermine the USA for political gain, instead of doing their job for the whole of the USA instead of just a few racists and bigots.
wu ming Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:53 pm
congress is way more unpopular than obama.
jim Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 4:33 am
$5.3B??!!??!!
Elizabeth Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:28 am
Jim,
I believe you are referring to the estimated cost of the blended system without Transbay Terminal, which is estimated at $2.6 – $3 billion. (from http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Response-to-ESG-statement-RvA-FINAL-OCR.pdf)
Yes, that caught our eye. The $5.3 billion (2010 dollar) is slight more expensive than the entire full blown line was supposed to cost. If we add in transbay terminal, it is far more expensive.
Jon Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Note this casual assumption in the Simulation Methodology section of the Caltrain presentation attached to the above document:
“Assumes CaHSR is fully interoperable with CBOSS”
I’m sure Clem’s gonna love that…
jim Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:46 am
Having calmed down, some:
First, I have to thank Elizabeth. Whatever any of us might think of her attitude towards CHSRA, CARRD performs a major public service obtaining these documents and making them available.
There are three important things here.
1. The letter to the legislature ostensibly about revenue guarantees makes official the subphases of Phase 1: (a) the ICS, currently funded, (b) an IOS, the ICS extended either north or south, electrified and signaled with HSTs actually running on it, (c) Bay to Basin, an extension of the IOS (what we used to refer to as SJ-Sylmar) and (d) Phase 1. The letter says that we can’t expect private money prior to the IOS.
2. The response to the ESG statement. This is an answer to Simitian/Eshoo/Gregory. It says that a blended system with Caltrain to allow six Caltrain tph and four HSR tph, electrified from Tamien to 4th and King and with a midline overtake and an overtake around Milbrae, would require $5.3B capital expenditures. At first I thought someone had misplaced a decimal point. I can’t make up my mind whether this is just a giant “fuck-you” to Simitian (the document emphasises that this terminates at 4th and King, not TBT and that it’s too slow to achieve 2:38 and did I mention five and a half billion dollars), whether it’s part of a paper trail to either push the IOS to extend to the south or prepare for an Altamont relook (or both), or whether it’s a serious proposal. Clem or Richard, what’s your take?
3. The August PMT progress report. Two things of interest: Palmdale-Sylmar has serious problems with power supply, there may need to be, in addition to the rail corridor, a power corridor constructed; although SCRRA owns the Antelope Valley right of way south of Santa Clarita, UP operates it. UP owns the Antelope Valley RoW north of Santa Clarita.
I had said in an earlier thread that Sylmar-SJ essentially meant LA-SF. I withdraw that. Run through Sylmar to LAUS is politically very complicated and run through SJ to SF is very expensive. Bay to Basin means Bay to Basin, no more.
Eric M Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:54 am
Add this interesting tidbit about Union Pacific Railroad found in one of the progress reports:
Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield: Conclusion of agreement with UPPR for
construction from San Joaquin River southward through Fresno is needed to facilitate the start of
early construction. UPRR has proposed that the Design and Construction agreement used between
the UPRR and the State of Illinois be used as a template for the agreement. However, the UPRR
has indicated that it prefers to finalize the reimbursement agreement before drafting of the Design
and Construction agreement commences.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Sylmar to LAUS, while politically complicated, appears to have the necessary political backing behind it and is in an advanced stage of design.
Good to see the clarification in #1 — so this means that electrification and signalling of Bakersfield-Fresno, plus the purchase of trains, would be sufficient to make an IOS. You write “extended either north or south”, but could you clarify on how far north or south they felt it needed to go in order to attract private funding?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Most likely, an ICS goes to either the Bay Area (defined as San Jose or Livermore, but not Gilroy) or the Greater LA area (Sylmar or Santa Clarita, maybe even Palmdale).
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Of course, I meant IOS, not ICS.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 8:42 am
$8 billion for San Jose-San Fran alone, without dedicated tracks?! Hell, let’s just build straight up, LA-SAC and LA-SD coastal until they either get costs in the Bay Area under control or find a heck of a lot more money.
I know where we can find an additional $400M – lets claw back the money earmarked for the Transbay Terminal box.
swing hanger Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:50 am
Yes, and shrink Diridon Intergalactic to at least half its planned size.
What Robert fails to realize, or at least won’t admit to knowing, is that HSR not only doesn’t have support at the federal level with Republicans, but HSR has lost support with the Demos also.
Thus there is virtually no support for HSR at the Federal level. Even if Robert’s fantasy, that somehow the Nov 2012 election will return Obama to the White House, and give back majority control to the Demos in both the House and Senate, there won’t be HSR funding. Obama and Biden are completely without support even with their own part on this issue.
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:40 am
Lying isn’t nice.
The president, senate majority leader and house minority leader all support HSR. The DOT supports CAs project.
So when you say there is virtually no support at the fedderal level for HSR, you are lying.
morris brown Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:08 am
@joe:
Hardly lying. Just stating what the facts show. Why did the Demo controlled sub-committee vote no funds for HSR recently and than have only $100 million added as a gift toe Durbin of Ill. No Demo support. They didn’t even try to restore the billions. No, sorry, Demo support for HSR has gone away, its time to face the facts.
Tony d. Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:57 am
No, you are lying! Your opinion doesn’t count as “facts”! Those hellbent on destroying our country will meet their fate come November 2012. Cain, Romney or Perry over Obama? Really?!
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Yeah I agree I don’t see any of the 7 Dwarfs getting elected, He’s not the greatest I agree, their worse and so I’d rather not switch horses in mid stream at the Presidential level, He’s at least pliable and a known quantity. As to Demos refusing money, theirs a reason and the devils in the details as usual, that or the Blue Dogs/Dinos were at work, No one wants something bad passed just to get HSR type money. Cain is not likely to be nominated by a party that historically doesn’t like a Black Man in the White House, sure He’ll win a primary or two like Florida, Gaffs or not Bachmann will be more appealing to some in more conservative states, I don’t know who will get nominated really as It’s too early, but one thing is clear, Repugs are still courting Tea Party types and they still most likely like the one who is the most radical and the farthest to the right, in other words a real hard liner.
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Oh and that’s Cain most likely winning the Repugnican Florida Primary, just in case I wasn’t clear, I agree Romney is a threat, but the White House should let the Repugs fight It out, It’s their Barn, don’t interfere let It burn down around them…
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 11:24 am
Lying as in you ran away from the fact that a majority of leadership in DC does support HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Yes, lying, Morris. I really would like it if you would stop lying.
Barring that, Robert could ban you from commenting. That would be good. Unlike Elizabeth, Nadia, and Richard M, you are a repeated and deliberate liar.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
He provides a lot of useful information, links to articles, etc. Yeah, he quotes Cox and O’Toole approvingly. Whatever. I know non-liars who do.
Of course Cox and O’Toole provide very little useful information. If they or their acolytes comment here, it’s another matter.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 am
I have never seen him provide useful information, except in the sense of providing “oppo research”. Perhaps you can find an exception — or perhaps he’s just gotten worse over time, since I’ve only been paying attention to what he’s provided *recently*, relatively speaking.
He does provide links to articles. He has a strong preference for dishonest articles, and seems to avoid honest ones.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
He has been getting worse. In 2009 and early 2010, when there was less opposition, he linked to articles about the EIR and outreach process on the Peninsula, which were pretty interesting. For a while you could even forget he was against HSR. Even now he sometimes does that – just much less, since the focus has moved from the Peninsula to the Central Valley.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Which is lack of support? The Repugnant Ones are trying to kill this and any other project, apparently to appease their paymasters. The Disgustocrats support rail, but are either inept or cowardly.
How do we get proper fighters–and leaders–out of the Disgustocrats? They seem too fearful to put out their own ideas; they have been mostly adopting lighter versions of what the Republicans offer, apparently afraid that the voters really want, say, cars instead of trains. (In truth, we need both–each one is the right tool for the job, depending on the job.)
And how do we get honesty and logic back into the Republican body? Can we get logic and honesty back into the Republican body?
Some choices. . .
Ok it is rather clear to me, that the HSR as we envision it, will not get built. Let’s go to plan B. Figure out how to cut the Travel time between SF and LA from 11 Hours to 8 or 7 hours. Next lets built a fast connection to meet up with the Desert Express to Las Vegas. These and other improvments would further increase the ridership numbers and further fuel the public’s desire for trains. Lets keep taking baby steps and start moving in the right direction.
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:43 am
Plan A has billions of federal dollars. It also has Prop1A funding.
Plan B gives that federal money back.
20% unemployment in the CV and 10-12 statewide.
Interest rates are approaching zero and there is little private investment.
Going forward with HSR is an IQ test.
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I vote for A and against B.
Derek Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:48 am
The “independent utility” requirement means Plan A and Plan B are both progressing simultaneously. It doesn’t have to be one or the other at this point.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Let me just coat my glasses with foaming spittle so I can appreciate the value of this proposition.
OK. Done.
So, where do I sign up? I can’t wait!
Joey Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Figure out how to cut the Travel time between SF and LA from 11 Hours to 8 or 7 hours
Take the San Joaquín and transfer to a bus at Bakersfield. That works today.
Derek Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:43 pm
The San Joaquin doesn’t go to 4th and King. But you have a good point. A GotoBus makes the trip in about 8 hours.
datacruncher Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:21 pm
There is currently Amtrak Thruway bus connections for the San Joaquins between 4th/King and Emeryville.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
It does add like 45 minutes of journey time though.
Federal Repubs want Obama to fail but I wonder what happens if he’s re-elected and can’t be voted out. Probably the same as now but at least they could be held a little more accountable. The SJ-SF Caltrain corridor is currently occupied by loud diesel locomotives that take all of 10 seconds to pass any one spot. HSR on the same corridor would be that much quieter and faster. “Oh the horror, the horror”
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 5:53 pm
If Obama isn’t elected, Romney will be, and if you look at his Massachusetts record, the man is identical to Obama on most policies. Though Romney is a very consistent liar who says whatever he thinks people want to hear, he’s not an anti-infrastructure nutcase like most of the Republicans, and will probably go for big passenger rail funding (mostly likely funded by borrowing, since he IS a Republican and they love to borrow, and his MA record reflects that).
The real question at the federal level is whether the Senate will turn into a functional legislative body; which it currently is not. This will only happen if someone abolishes the filibuster. The Republicans will happily do so, but they won’t *bother* to unless Senate Democats get enough of a spine to start filibustering the Republicans, which hasn’t happened since the 1980s.
Gaaaaaahhhhh….
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Romney doesn’t really care about HSR, though. If Obama hadn’t pushed for it in 2009, then maybe Romney would’ve thrown a little funding. But now that it’s a partisan issue, forget about it – it would piss off large parts of the GOP base and still not mollify Democrats.
I don’t even see Romney decide to take on the FRA. He might favor Mica-style NEC privatization, but that is of little use without a) dealing with the FRA, and b) figuring out a way to avoid pissing matches with the MBTA and Metro-North over shared track.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:29 am
I’m not sure Romney really cares about *anything* except getting elected. But he has quite the talent for jumping in front of a parade, so I wouldn’t dare to guess how he’ll behave.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
If he wins, he’ll probably care a lot about getting reelected, too. So the question is whether it’s a vote winner or a vote loser.
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:23 pm
The the behavior of the recent crop of Republicans is any indication, he’ll probably be more concerned with being re-nominated than anything else.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 pm
if he doesn’t get Scozzafava’ed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dede_Scozzafava
Could Bako to LA via Tejon qualify for Stracnet or are the design clearances too tight?
Maybe they should do the tunnels big enough for double stack.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 11:58 am
No, the military isn’t overly concerned with moving freight at 90 MPH. Nor do they need double stacks.
Derek Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:29 pm
90 mph is better than 0 mph when the alternative routes are torn up due to enemy bombing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
The enemy will have to deal with trying to eke out a living on the glassy radioactive wasteland that used to be their country. That makes it somewhat more difficult to send out a second wave of conventional bombers.
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:03 pm
C-130s and C5 Galaxy aircraft make the military reason for Freeways/Interstates a bit less necessary, freight rail though is still vital as just like any freight train, It can haul a lot to the front, but only if the rails are not cut.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:17 pm
C-130s and C-5s are irrelevant actually. The notional military use of the interstates was for road convoys of troops and equipment to East Coast ports for reinvading Europe (planning at the time being “Russians take over Europe, we nuke the hell out of them and do D-Day again”). There was also some utility in design for resupplying SAM sites and the like if I remember right.
Peter Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Also, the grades on a Tejon alignment will likely be WAYY too steep for All American Heavy Freight. And they can already run freight trains over the Tehachapi Loop and along the coast.
Given all the trouble that the CHSRA has been having, I suggest considering what would be a reasonable minimum system.
I propose San Jose – Los Angeles, leaving out the Peninsula and Orange County parts. These could be built later if the CHSRA gets the money for building them. If that’s still too difficult, I propose Gilroy – Sylmar, since the SJ – Gilroy and LA – Sylmar routes are relatively straight and flat. With this approach, it will be necessary to transfer to and from more conventional trains at each end: Caltrain and Metrolink. However, they could have express services that meet the CHSRA trains.
Joey Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
There’s nothing to connect to at Gilroy. CalTrain runs 3 round trips per day over UP’s single track, and there’s no way you’re getting more than that.
And honestly, I’d worry about getting to LAUS before even worrying about approaching San José (comparing ridership should show you why). LA-Fresno would probably make a reasonably strong IOS (it would be even better to start with LA-Bakersfield but that can’t work now).
Andrew Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Why can’t that work now? Just curious.
Joey Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:05 pm
We’re too close to the deadlines and the LA-Bakersfield EIR isn’t far enough along. It would have been ideal to start with, but at this point we’re going to have to compromise a bit.
Joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Joey, they used to run more trains out of Gilroy than the current six, three up and three down so they can run more service along the existing line.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:03 am
How many more? And how competitive could it really be? Even assuming that ending at Gilroy could work (and I’m skeptical), it seems much more likely that people would just drive all the way to Gilroy rather than put another transfer in their trip.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:22 am
And taking the shuttle bus to the parking lot 6 blocks from the station isn’t a transfer?
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:40 am
There’s too much empty space in Gilroy for that to even be an issue. Even if it were, are people more likely to take a shuttle running every 10 minutes or a train running every 2 hours?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:27 am
If the train is running every two hours that implies …. the train it connects to is running every two hours. Why would the shuttle be running every ten minutes?
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Because parking shuttles are much cheaper to run than FRA-compliant trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Empty shuttles are very very expensive to run.
VBobier Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Your proposal is already DOA, Prop 1a mandates SF(Trans Bay Terminal) to LA(Union Station), So short of making a new Prop 1a and putting It up on the ballot and getting the millions of dollars needed to gather all the sigs needed, that isn’t going to happen. Next.
Clem Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
If that’s still too difficult, I propose Gilroy – Sylmar
That’s a big loser compared to Livermore – Sylmar, for simple reasons of travel time to major population centers such as Oakland and San Francisco. Perhaps that’s why the latest PMT status report (for August 2011, see ‘Key Developments’ on page 28) states that they recently initiated a study for a joint BART – HSR station in Livermore somewhere along Greenville Road, presumably just north of the lab.
Run a little spur off the SETEC alignment through Altamont, and you’ve got yourself a very nice ‘Phase Zero’ connection to Oakland and San Francisco, and possibly SJ if the BART subway is ever built.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Isn’t BART to SJ a done deal?
(On the other hand, I thought the same of BART to Livermore until recently.)
joe Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:51 pm
The BART extension to San Jose starts in 2012 and runs to 2018.
http://www.vta.org/bart/documents/other/bart_fact.pdf
Phase 1 is 2012-2018 and goes to San Jose but not to the Caltrain station. http://g.co/maps/p4h82
Phase 2 turns to Santa Clara and has no timeline – I suspect this phase will be reconsidered in light of HSR. Santa Clara has to HSR stop.
I don’t see any consistency with 1) stopping HSR track construction at Gilroy only to complain train service from Gilroy is limited by single track out of Gilroy. Extend the track to San Jose or just act on the Caltrain electrification Phase II all the way to South County Gilroy. There’s not much in the way. http://g.co/maps/snujp
Improvements to the existing Caltrain/UP track include adding more track for passing were proposed without consideration of HSR improving connections.
http://www.vta.org/projects/southcounty_caltrain/66_southcounty_caltrain.html
Alon Levy Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The sets of people who propose a Phase 0 to Gilroy and of people who complain that SJ-Gilroy is single-track have empty intersection.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:05 am
Extending CalTrain electrification to Gilroy would require building a completely new line anyway (on a completely new ROW) as UP will never allow the new lightweight EMUs anywhere near their property.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:25 am
There are FRA compliant EMUs. Available from more than one vendor. At competitive prices. Well maybe not competitive but cheaper than BART cars. Easily leased from current owners or sold to them when the line is complete. …. Not that electrifying the line and then ripping out 5 years later makes much sense.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 am
There are FRA compliant EMUs.
Which, under any semi-reasonable circumstance, CalTrain will NOT be using.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:07 am
I believe all the environmental work is done. Phase 1 to Berryessa is funded IIRC though only early preparatory construction has started.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 7:12 am
BART to Livermore has only completed a Program Level EIR. They have yet to even start on a Project Level EIR. Now that the Livermore City Council has come out against the Program Level Preferred alignment, who knows when/if they’re going to continue work on it.
No matter what Clem or Richard may claim, BART to Livermore is now on the BACK backburner. In other words, it will not be ready for Altamont HSR ending in Livermore.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:16 am
Back burner? BART-Livermore will almost certainly be on the transportation sales tax measure going to Alameda County voters in 2012.
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:45 am
I agree, no law prevents two projects from going on at once – CA is a multi-threaded, multi-core State.
Sadly, Livermore City council now demands BART move the station out of downtown and to HW580. Why would they welcome being the HSR terminus? Or hasn’t Clem told them yet? Clem!!!
Really, if Tri-Valley understands that HSR wants to come to town and build the BART station where they damn well please – happy days. Another town opposing HSR.
Gilroy is lobbying HSR to come downtown ASAP and run the track along HW 101, bypassing the UP ROW and downtown Morgan Hill. It’s a flat run to San Jose with most of the way undeveloped. Say HSR disagrees and puts the station in the pepper field N of town…Gilroy city council still supports HSR.
For Oakland and East Bay, BART can change Silicon Valley Phase II to extend down to San Jose’s Train terminal. We know there’s room in San Jose since it’s frequently mocked for being such a open space flea market.
The rub is how much service can run out of Gilroy, improve UP ROW or build a usable track segment to San Jose or some hybrid to get to the double track UP in South San Jose.
Peter Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
And if Livermore’s station is built on 580, how the HELL is HSR supposed to transfer in Livermore?
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 am
http://keepbarton580.org/images/PDF/btl_alignment_alternatives.pdf
They’ll transfer outside of Livermore at the Greenville East. Alternative 1 in the map above.
If they avoid Livermore, a parking lot BART station outside of town could accommodate a HSR station, assuming the movement to keep BART out of Livermore would favor a HSR Phase N terminus.
Winston Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 9:49 pm
IF you’re building a phase 0 HSR line, going to Livermore makes a lot more sense than Gilroy. The construction costs are lower and you get to connect to a lovely electric train that serves San Francisco every 15 minutes. Hell, once BART to San Jose is built, it wouldn’t require all that much trackwork to also serve San Jose every 15 mins (yes, I know BART to San Jose’s terminal station sucks, but it’s no worse than Diridon for a train that connects to HSR. It seems like you could get the trip from Livermore to Bakersfield to take 2:20 or so with semi high speed equipment (150 MPH top speed with a 90 mph top speed north of Fresno and 60 MPH between Vasco and Livermore).
This would mean a SF-LA time of like 5:30-6:00 with BART on the sf side and a bus taking you to L.A. That’s an hour faster than driving, which seems like a pretty useful interim service. Of course it’s only really useful once you upgrade to true HSR with an L.A. connection, which would give you Livermore-L.A. in about 2:30 for a total trip time of like 3:45. Only then should you spend the $10b or so to build the HSR line through Gilroy to SF which would only save like another 30 mins.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:10 pm
LA – Livermore HSR 2:06
Transfer in Livermore 0:10
Livermore – SF Embarcadero BART 0:57
TOTAL SF-LA via Altamont/Livermore BART 3:13
LA – Gilroy HSR 1:57
Transfer in Gilroy 0:10
Gilroy – SF 4th & King by Caltrain 2:00
TOTAL SF-LA via Pacheco/Gilroy Caltrain 4:07
Add another 0:15 to get to the financial district… So Altamont to Livermore BART is essentially 1 hour quicker than Pacheco via Gilroy Caltrain.
Oh, and did I mention that Altamont to Livermore requires only about half the tunnel length as Pacheco to Gilroy?
If you’re trying to do Bay-to-Basin cheap and fast, it’s just no contest!!
synonymouse Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 10:46 pm
This is a very interesting document. Clearly the next stage for Tejon is the full engineering study on a par with that done for Tehachapi. It would appear concerns about Tehachapi are genuine and not just some strategy to “goose” LA into action, whatever that might be. And outreach to the Tejon Ranch says to me this is developing into a real contest for the best route.
Is the Livermore Station concept part of the “corridor” scheme or are we talking hsr on Altamont instead of Pacheco?
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:38 am
LOL! Anything to protect his precious little PAMPA. No, Livermore is part of the ACE HSR overlay proposal, not some pie in the sky, fantasy phase 1. Its still Pacheco, and based on current studies (see SJ-Mer), that’s not changing..
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:43 am
It’s not changing, that’s right. Until it changes.
You remind me of the people who swore up and down that Tejon would never work. And that alternative, eliminated years ago from any further consideration, is now coming back on the front burner because the people planning this system realize it has undeniable advantages, no matter what political machinations led to the initial route selection.
It’s only a matter of time before someone realizes that while Altamont and Pacheco are basically a wash if all you’re ever going to build is Phase I (whether by cost, distance, tunnel length, etc.), there are BILLIONS of dollars to be saved in building Phase II to Sacramento starting in Tracy rather than Merced. Not to mention a slick Phase Zero configuration with very competitive trip times from Bay to Basin.
This initial Livermore study is only the first step… this is no longer just an idea being kicked around in blog comments.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 am
I would be incredibly surprised if there wasn’t a switch to Altamont with the latest news. Less time spent on Caltrain ROW, so quite a good deal of money saved there, and the Caltrain ROW is apparently incompatible with Prop 1A time requirements if blended. If the Grapevine, which requires a legal change, is now a viable option, Altamont should be a slam dunk. As an added incentive, any extensive delays can be effectively ignored by continuing north to Sacramento.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:18 am
You would be surprised, but the political and monetary powers that are San Jose and Silicon Valley wouldn’t be. Sorry reality sucks for you so much there Pauly boy.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:02 am
The “political and monetary powers that are San Jose and Silicon Valley” have private aircraft.
Altamont can be made to serve them more than adequately. Meantime the Peninsula can fight out the BART vs. Caltrain wars. Unfortunately I think Ring the Bay has already won. Same, but blame MTC primarily.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
Should read “sad”, not same.
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
1. Prop 1A time requirements will be met with the Pacheco alignment.
2. Altamont is always a slam dunk – even when it’s not. Just change the question until it becomes the right answer.
3. We can build a very inexpensive HSR system that doesn’t service San Jose or the Peninsula (majority want HSR) or San Francisco. Billions saved. Now let’s vote to approve such a system.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
1. Go read the blended plan memo again, it won’t be met if they are going up from San Jose on Caltrain ROW.
2. Cheaper, faster, serves more people, what’s not to love about Altamont?
3. Relevance?
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:13 am
Earth to Clem,
Tejon still serves LA directly, Altamont would completely bypass $J and $ilicon Valley. And excuse me for being blunt, but who gives a @#$%& about phase 2 to Cowtown! Connecting San Jose and Silicon Valley from the get go way more important, hence the reality of Pacheco. But go ahead and believe what you want, its your world.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 am
Your classy putdown of “Cowtown” will no doubt be welcomed by the three million people who live in that area. We all live in our own worlds, and yours seems to be one where $J and $ilicon Valley far outweigh $an Franci$co. We $hall $ee.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Then SF mayor Gavin Newsom on the CHSRA choice of Pacheco Pass over Altamont, “the proverbial no-brainer.”
San Francisco Clem? They’re practically in bed with $J/$V on this thing. And don’t give me this crap about Cowtowns 3 million. Their metro area extends east all the way to the damn Nevada border. Why don’t you extend Sacs metro north to Oregon to bolster your population argument Clemmy boy (LOL).
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
Sacramento county has 1.4 million people to Santa Clara county’s 1.7 million–nothing to sneeze at, and the population density of Sacramento county is higher than Santa Clara’s. And we’ll see what SF has to say (let alone a private operator) if the CHSRA ever proposes a crappy connection in Gilroy as their Bay-to-Basin breakthrough.
Just let it play out.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Anybody have the inside on the precise route alignments at Tejon that PB deemed feasible?
I wonder if there is any way to get the ruling gradients down into the “2′s”?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Synon: my guess is that they won’t even try to keep ruling grade down. There’s an inverse relationship between ruling grade and tunneling requirements, and not much of a point in bringing the ruling grade much below 3.5%.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:20 am
That’s my question: is there an alignment that does both, an acceptable amount of tunneling and gradients in the range of the 2.2% of the Tehachapi Loop. We know Tejon was given short shrift in past studies – I am indulging myself in a bit of pollyanna optimism that this thing is much more positive than advertised.
The engineering departments at the class ones have to have more than a passing interest in the Tejon scheme. For one it gets the CHSRA out of their hair at Tehachapi and two it fulfills the century old Santa Fe plan which involved freight with steam. What’s not to like in a brand new, all-weather direct entree into LA.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
The question is why even try for 2.2%. Freight isn’t going to like it no matter what; it likes 1% grades. Worse, in a tunnel, any nontrivial grade is going to be a safety hazard for occupants of diesel trains. There are employee lawsuits against BNSF for the Cascade Tunnel, which has to close and open doors and wait some time to ventilate every time an uphill train passes through. The best practice for non-electrified trains is to have all tunnels level or nearly so and instead have steeper grades in open air, which would add yet another constraint to Tejon.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
Yes,I am suggesting the outrageous, the unthinkable: Tejon as not just a supplement to Tehacahpi, but a partial replacement.
Electrification would solve the fume problem and lessen the 2+% issue.
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Not only is freight going to have problems running on the steep gradients, but unless they bore these tunnels for at least three tracks, you’re going to have major capacity problems, too. If you’re running HSR trains through at high speeds (obviously not at 220 mph, but still…) while freight trains are going through the tunnels at LOW speeds (I’m not sure how fast freight trains climb or descend 2+% grades, but it can’t be fast), the freight trains will constantly be interfering with HSR trains.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Sheer fun Sunday speculation but yes I am proposing dual purpose, perhaps for the entire hsr. Get the class ones in on it. Maybe even as operators. A major civil works undertaking of great value, akin to the Swiss base tunnels. LA in particular would benefit. Compare the cost of three Tejon tunnels to the cost of a real and major upgrade either at Tehachapi on on the coastal route. I am far removed in Norcal but it seems to me that Santa Barbara nimbys would be every bit as militant as the toughest on the Peninsula.
“It’s for the future, Mr. Geddes.”
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Two problems:
1. Making Tejon usable by freight means reducing the grade even further. The Gotthard Line has a ruling grade of 2.5%, vs. 1.25% for the new line using the base tunnel. This means even more tunneling, in a more difficult (seismic) geology than in Switzerland.
2. The freight railroads don’t really have an interest in electrifying and running faster. They’re optimized for low-cost, low-speed freight. And at least according to BNSF, electrifying would only be justifiable if done to the entire mainline system at once rather than to individual lines. There’s almost certainly enough traffic over Cajon to justify electrifying it even at present fuel prices, but the shunting moves if the rest of the system were not electrified would cost too much.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:10 pm
That about sums it up.
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
1. SF and SJ and SV seem to be working together. None apparently want Livermore to be the gateway to the Bay Area.
2. SV? If I wanted a Dumbarton Bridge really bad I would push Altamont/Livermore and force the issue by cutting the SV/Peninsula business off from HSR rail and put the economic well being at risk. East Bay is losing jobs, SV gaining jobs so obviously HSR in the East Bay will not help SV’s economy.
3. Blessed Sacramento – has rail service to the Bay Area. It works well. The service gap is Sac to LA.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Joe, just responding to point 3: it matters what the quality of service is. Over here, Providence does have rail service to Boston. It averages 60 km/h on dead straight track with relatively few stops, and comes every two hours off-peak. And it gets what by American standards is nontrivial ridership.
So if the standard is “rail service exists,” there’s no point in improving, ever – which is what the MBTA seems to think, too. Thus nobody takes the train off-peak except for people who don’t own cars, and the MBTA can point to that and say there’s no need for off-peak service because nobody would use it…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:29 pm
THat’s correct.
The deal, as set up by inexplicably as-yet-unindicted MTC head Steve “FIVE BILLION DOLLAR BAY BRODGE COST OVERRRUN” Heminger is that PBQD gets a $2 billion subway to nowhere in San Francisco, while PBQD gets a $10 billion subway to nowhere in San Jose.
That way everybody wins. Everybody on the take from PB, that is.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:43 am
Altamont creates a dead-end spur line that enters the Bay from the side, making it impossible to connect the major nodes of the Bay Area to each other in any efficient way, and permanently locks the North Bay (via Vallejo and Fairfield) and Monterey Bay (via Gilroy) out of the system. By contrast, a route that enters thru Pacheco, goes up the Peninsula, across to Oak and out thru I-80 corridor, with a few auxiliary lines including ACE, connects all 9 bay counties plus S Cruz and Monterey counties, and allows for virtually any kind of intra-regional trip, PLUS quick service to Sacramento and LA from anywehre. Altamont, although it incidentally enables some nice mid valley to bay area trips, fundamentally sacrifices connectedness (quantity of places connected to hsr and quantity/variety of trips that will be able to take advantage of hsr) in favor of a simple route built for long-distance trips connecting to a couple of major Bay Area nodes. Great for the nodes that get included, but permanently kills the possibility of solving Northern California’s biggest transportation challenges (fast North-South transit, I-80 corridor, reaching North Bay and Monterey Bay, fast San Jose-CV/SoCal link).
Altamont route creates two (SF and Sac) dead ends, or perhaps even three (w/SJ spur). Dead ends are inefficient, and create issues of terminal capacity and empty seats at the extremities. The pacheco + I-80 corridor route eliminates 2 (or 3) dead ends from the system (SF and Sac) and eliminates the terminal capacity problem at SF. Trains would enter Sacto. from both directions, allowing onward trips and reducing empty seats in and out of that station. In effect, Norcal HSR would become a loop line: LA-Sac trains would continue counterclockwise thru entire Bay Area and back out Pacheco toward LA; LA-SF trains would continue clockwise up I-80 corridor to Sac and back down to SoCal, so there’s no terminal anywhere in NorCal. Trains jump in and out of the NorCal “loop” via an over/under at Chowchilla. Because of upgraded ACE w/Modesto spur, no trains are needed for an exclusive loop route; i.e., all trains exit the loop at Chowchilla and continue onward to SoCal.
As mentioned, loop allows onward trips thru Sacto from both directions, eliminating inefficiency of entering/exiting that station with half-empty trains. Eg, North Bay residents (total population 1.5-2m; estimate 2m or so by the time of opening) would have much-improved access to Cent/So Cal via Sacramento on HSR; going the other way, one could also get from Stockton to Oak/SF via Sacramento much faster than ACE + BART, and comparable to ACE+Altamont HSR. Stockton-Modesto region to South Bay would be taken care of by upgraded ACE w/Modesto spur, so no need to build HSR thru Altamont just for that region.
North Bay and Monterey Bay populations too small? Bear in mind that local population is only half of the ridership equation; the other part is the number of people who go these regions from elsewhere. Monterey gets millions of visitors every year. Napa and Sonoma are also a draw, but are hard to reach today from places like the South Bay or the Central Valley. There’s also massive latent demand for living in Monterey Bay or North Bay and commuting by rail to the big job centers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:50 am
Except that the design of the terminal in San Francisco precludes the possibility of turning it into a station . Sigh.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:59 am
The route proposed goes thru 4th and King, not TBT, if that’s what you are referring to
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:22 am
Through service doesn’t outweigh the reasons to have a downtown SF station. Even if there were through tracks at Mission Bay, high-speed trains would probably never use them.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:37 am
Through service is far from the only reason not to build the short yet hugely expensive extension to TBT.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
The DTX is most certainly expensive and complicated. Unfortunately, the benefits of Erving the SF financial district outweigh these costs.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Is there any benefit to serving the SF financial district as early as possible, say in the very first phase that provides Bay-to-Basin HSR connectivity? Or should we introduce more intermediate phases such as Gilroy, San Jose and Mission Bay?
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Honestly I’d worry about getting all the way to LAUS before trying to push forward in the Bay Area. Assuming that you have done that, San José or Mission Bay might make sense as a temporary endpoint. Gilroy would not.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
So, a second spur to Transbay, or just cutting it out entirely?
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Good question. I keep hearing that the transbay terminal is too expensive, and I’m inclined to hink long term about downtown San Francisco shifting its center of gravity further south rather than trying to jury-rig an HSR system we’re building for 2025-2100 to an urban plan inherited from the 19th century. Mission Bay provides the ideal transbay tube alignment and we need a bart relief line anyway, so why not make lemonade out of lemons? Even today the transport to Mission Bay isn’t that bad, and several ways of improving it present themselves.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
(continuing) Building at 4th and King that huge development now planned for the transbay terminal, complete with a bart relief line connecting to all east bay bart lines, would get that southward shift started in a big way. Even today, Mission Bay is more easily reached than tbt from many places in the city. All the more so with bart passing thru there.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
That ignores the fact that no matter how much development happens at Mission Bay, it will still be an order of magnitude less important than the Financial District.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Getting to 4th and King from the financial district doesn’t take that much longer than getting to tbt, and more can be done with the Embarcadero in that regard. Besides, the bullet train from tbt would have to make its way to 4th and King (or thereabouts) at trolley-like speeds in any case! (Alon, I’m exaggerating)
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@Joey, you mean the same Financial District that can be reached directly via Livermore?
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Andrew: a transfer will take a dent out of ridership, regardless. Also the speed at which you travel from 4th and King to Transbay doesn’t matter so much (and you’re right – it won’t be very fast either way), but the time taken to transfer (at least 10 minutes in each direction) will.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:54 am
Quick, somebody tell the French, Japanese and Spaniards that “dead ends” and “spurs” are totally the wrong way to go about building HSR!
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:07 am
In comparable locations such as Osaka, Kobe, Shikoku, Yokohama, Chiba, etc., the Japanese did not build bullet train spurs. Their system gets as many major nodes as possible on one curving trunk line and uses auxiliary lines to reach the rest.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Thank you Andrew for laying the smack down on Clem. It was long overdue.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
There was never any reason to build a lot of terminal spurs in Japan. Still, you didn’t see them building from Niigata to Sendai just to keep everything in one line.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:31 am
It’s not really two dead-ends and spurs. Under Altamont, there’s a single major trunk line running up the Central Valley to the LA Basin, splitting into two both in the north and in the south. The same is true under Pacheco, except that the trunk line is shorter and the branches are longer.
Don’t try to compare your proposal to Japanese practice. In Japan they don’t try to have this zero-terminal layout, and they definitely don’t build multiple routes for the same city pairs. The Shinkansen doesn’t have a spur that serves Chiba and then loops back to reach Sendai. The closest thing to what you’re proposing is the Hokuriku Shinkansen, and that line is a) decades behind the rest, and b) about connecting places to both Tokyo and Osaka, rather than about providing Shinkansen service to every region of a metro area.
And you’re still punting on the facts that the second tube is the most expensive piece of Altamont/Transbay and that the only way to build a through-station at Transbay is to knock down skyscrapers. If you’re spending money on Altamont/Transbay, you might as well not build Pacheco Pass.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
branch, spur – what’s the difference? The fact is we’re comparing 2 or 3 branch terminals to zero. I’m not sure I or anyone else reading this knows what you are talking about.
And cool your “Someone mentioned Japan! Now I have to show I know the shinkansen better than anybody else” heels. Did anyone ever mention the shinkansen on this blog without your jumping in, to “correct” them, usually with spurious or irrelevant examples? If you will read the above exchange again, paying attention this time, you will see that I was not trying to compare my proposal to Japanese practice; I was merely calling into question Clem’s claim that spurs are the right way to build HSR by mentioning a few examples of potential spur lines that the Japanese could have built but did not. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.
I am not punting on transbay terminal; the route I linked to does not go thru it. I am not punting on the cost of the transbay tube; a day or two ago I posted a number of suggestions for how to generate/save enough money for 10 transbay tubes (if people only had their priorities straight). I am not punting on a transbay tube actually making altamont better than pacheco; I am saying that pacheco + I-80 corridor (via transbay tube) would be far better in the long run than Altamont (however it gets to SF), for numerous reasons given in my earlier comment.
I’ve tried before to bring to your attention these patterns of selective attention, hair-trigger commenting, misleading examples, and conveying a false impression of objectivity or authoritative knowledge, but it appears you have not developed a sufficient capacity for self-reflection to be able to take these patterns into conscious awareness.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Your configuration still has two branches: trains split in Chowchilla between direct trains to Sacramento, and trains that detour through San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland. It doesn’t really matter how you’re trying to do the operating pattern: yes, in principle if trains run round-robin then there’s no split, but LA-Sac-SF trains take far too long to get to SF, and LA-SF-Sac trains take far too long to get to Sac. So from passengers’ point of view, you haven’t improved anything, unless they happen to be going to the North Bay.
The only way to do everything on one branch (zero means the system doesn’t exist…) is to have something like LA-SJ-SF-Oakland-Sacramento. It achieves the feat of putting everything on one line; it’s also horrendously roundabout. As soon as you have the direct LA-Sac line, it’s already not just one line anymore.
How, pray tell, could you actually build 10 tubes? And if you could, why would you even want to? One is enough; spend the rest of the money on other routes. Maybe even things like a Geary subway and other SF-area regional lines that a standard-gauge second tube could connect to…
There are plenty of times people mention the Shinkansen and I don’t respond. For example, look for comments by Swing Hanger, Quashlo, and Miles Bader. The difference is, they actually know what they’re talking about.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Obviously, no one would ride LA-Sac-SF or LA-SF-Sac. Odd criticism. The cutoff for going clockwise to Sac would be in the south bay somewhere, exactly where depending on ACE frequency and speeds. The cutoff for going counter-clockwise to SF would be Stockton, maybe Modesto if ACE and BART didn’t get their act together.
Zero branches means the system doesn’t exist? No; it means it has only a trunk, not branches. I’m not sure why this is not getting through.
The LA-Sac line makes it two lines? No; the trains continue thru Sac in a loop, as we’ve both been discussing…What’s going on man?
How and where would I build 10 tubes? I never said build 10 tubes, I said *enough money* to build 10 tubes. I think this exchange has given us all a revealing glimpse into a kind of irrational reality, a strange combination of massive two-dimensional information collecting with a breathtaking inability to understand abstract reasoning, or what other people are saying and why. Contributing to this discussion becomes impossible when it entails having to defend one’s comments from this kind of concrete-operational stage criticism.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
You’re comparing 2 branches to 0 branches. This isn’t the case. Decide on a count and stick with it: either the main line counts, in which case all alternatives under discussion have 1 branch and a no-branching option (e.g. Shinkansen, Taiwan) has 0, or it doesn’t, in which case it’s 2 vs. 1.
The LA-Sac line is one of two lines from passengers’ perspective, i.e. frequency. Think of it this way: half the trains go LA-SF-Sac, the other half go LA-Sac-SF. Thus at equal revenue-hours, you get approximately the same frequency on useful trains as under just LA-SF and LA-Sac. There are good reasons to build 9-shaped lines sometimes, but pretending there’s no branching involved is not one of them.
If you want a more obviously farcical arrangement, try to imagine an urban subway system in which there’s only one line, looping upon itself. Does it really provide one-seat rides to everything?
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Wow
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Andrew: there is branching insofar as the passengers wanting to go from LA to SF will board an LA-SF-Sac train and the passengers wanting to go to Sac will board an LA-Sac-SF train. All you have done is connect the two ends.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 am
You’re forgetting that Altamont would save upwards of $10 billion in the long run compared to Pacheco. That money could be repurposed to build transit to the areas you claim are “unserved” under Altamont. And that’s ignoring the fact that the initial price of Pacheco doesn’t even include the I-80 corridor you propose (definitely another $10b at least with the new tube).
Other notes:
-I’m pretty sure the Lower East Bay has far more population than the North Bay. And that’s ignoring the fact that most of them live quite far away from your proposed route.
-Pacheco doesn’t even really serve the Monterey Peninsula. It comes closer, but it’s still quite a trek from Gilroy.
-You couldn’t “upgrade” ACE to be useful without rebuilding it entirely, with heavy tunneling between Fremont and Pleasanton.
-There is no terminal capacity constraint in Sacramento or San José. Terminal stations are slightly less desirable than through stations, but not so much that it outweighs other considerations, IMO. Contrary to what you say, these additional terminals might create fewer empty seats than the through system you propose, as frequencies can be scaled by ridership, rather than being fixed to the needs of one part of the system (for instance, running the same number of trains to Sacramento as to San Francisco is bound to lead to empty seats)
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Proof, facts of this phantom $10 billion savings? Heck, lets just make it $100 billion since we’re just throwing numbers around regarding populations, savings, etc.
synonymouse Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Without a comparative study we do not know what the savings would run. That’s one of the reasons I believe PB will revisit the Altamont and I-5 options. They promise a lotta bang for the buck for a starter.
A starter needs to knock your socks off. The I-5 racetrack accomplishes that. And the Tejon crossing will be an exciting engineering and construction undertaking. And a tremendous PR opportunity for PB-CHSRA. The whole country will take an interest as this will be the biggest rr project in years and practically right in LA.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
studies were completed and guess what Sherlock? Pacheco was chosen! More bang for the buck?
Sure is starting to smell like methane around here.
datacruncher Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Kings County says it doesn’t want HSR touching their soil which I-5 would do.
I guess it needs to be the 99 racetrack thru Tulare County!!
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
That $10b is completely reasonable, between the additional track that must be built from Chowchilla to Manteca in phase 2, the Altamont Overlay (or ACE upgrades, whatever you want to call it, either way it’s not going to be cheap), Capitol Corridor upgrades, and BART to SJ (which is still mostly avertable at this point). In fact, $10b might be a bit of an underestimate but I don’t wan to argue that particular point.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Eh… ten billion here, ten billion there, nobody’s looking at details like that in this day and age. Just keep writing blank those blank checks. ;-)
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@Clem – There are many many tens of billions for all of this, if we have our priorities straight – see my comment on the last post (search “public-sector unions”)
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Right, who’s counting. Money’s cheap nowadays, with the economy roaring like it is.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Actually, hsr IS cheap nowadays. Good point.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Not in America it’s not. And billions of dollars is nothing to scoff at either way.
synonymouse Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
AFAIK there have been no complaints in Kings County about using I-5. It would be the majoy of Fresno who have her underwear all bunched up.
datacruncher Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 pm
They are against any HSR in Kings County now. I-5 will be opposed too.
“Board members said no high-speed rail route through Kings County would be acceptable while denouncing the Authority and its Fresno-to-Bakersfield environmental impact report.
“I think we should come out and oppose high-speed rail in Kings County, no matter what alignment they have,” said Supervisor Tony Barba during a discussion of the county’s official response to the EIR, which is due Thursday. He was applauded by a large crowd that nearly filled the Board of Supervisors’ chambers at the Kings County Government Center.
The county’s new direction marks a departure from its previous stance, which emphasized that local officials wanted the Authority to follow existing transportation corridors such as Interstate 5 and Highway 99.”
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/article_53f338e2-f4f8-11e0-9727-001cc4c002e0.html
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“AFAIK there have been no complaints in Kings County about using I-5.”
That’s a dumb argument. No one in Kings County is opposing HSR along I-5 because there is no serious proposal for an I-5 alignment.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
You’re right about the cost of the I-80 corridor. In fact, it would cost MORe than $10b. The tube itself would cost that and maybe more. However, it will also allow a bart relief line, for which a tube will eventually have to be built anyway. Regarding your other notes:
- Lower East Bay would be very well served by the route proposed (see the link in the original comment): with upgraded ACE, this region would have good connections to HSR in three different directions, not to mention very good commuting routes (without the bullet train price).
- The route proposed suggests rail connections to Monterey Bay. Click on the lines or eyedrop markers for explanaations.
- I’m not knowledgeable about what an ACE upgrade would require. I’ve read people talking about that being electrified without making it HSR – to me that seems like the right way to go.
- I also am not knowledgeable about terminal capacity issues, but Richard claimed numerous times that they were a critical problem for SF. You’re right that empty seats can be filled by running trains infrequently, but that’s not really a solution; it’s another kind of problem.
- You have a valid criticism regarding the idea of running the same number of trains to Sac as to SF. Remember though that those trains to Sac are still *coming from* SF (and many other parts of the Bay Area) to Sac, which should fill seats. One could argue that once the SJ-SF-North Bay passengers get off, you’re left with a half-empty train for the last leg up to Sac, but I’m contending that these seats will get taken by North Bay folks going to CV and SoCal *via Sacramento*. There will also be many people just going North Bay-Sac.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The previous comment was in response to Joey
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
There isn’t going to be another SF-Oakland tube. The possibility was <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=301+mission+street+san+francisco+california"killed for good over a decade algo.
Stop making things (ie geography) up.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm
BART announced (long-term) plans for a second transbay tube in 2007:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/22/MNGJQQJVSD1.DTL
which means that it’s you who are making things up.
Even under the possible scenario that the tube plan was subsequently scrapped, to personally make the claim that a bart relief tube will eventually have to be built is not to make things up. By contrast, to state “There isn’t going to be another SF-Oakland tube” *is* making things up, in the sense of conveying a false impression of authoritativeness. The possibility of another transbay tube is open to discussion and, I’m sorry, you can’t stomp your feet and put an end to it.
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Stop F’en with Richard’s reality! He’s the only dude allowed to pine for zombie projects.
And don’t worry about costs.
See? They promise.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/MNGJQQJVSD1.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1bY2PCHw4
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Andrew, I hereby promise you a personal jetpack, a BART line to your front door, a family hovercraft, and a yearly vacation to the moon flying Pan Am.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Richard, once I pass a fuel, highway and parking space surcharges and get rid of public-sector unions and minimum sentencing laws, I’ll pay you back for the goodies with interest!
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Andrew, you’re a true cavalier and crusader for social justice.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
A tube ending in Mission Bay (not incredibly useful) or a tube going from Mission to 7th (regional trains only) might still be possible. Alternately, if you wanted a large terminal rather than through routing, you could end it at Main Street with a station between Beale and Main.
Jon Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Given that until recently the Transbay Terminal plans had tail tracks extending south under Main St to between Folsom and Harrison, is there any reason why you couldn’t build that then head east under Howard or Folsom or Harrison to a new Transbay tube?
I would love to see that combined with a standard gauge subway line. Folsom to Third to Geary would be awesome.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
75% of the information you need you can get from Google Earth. From there, you can tell that the route is curvy through Niles Canyon, with plenty of r<200m curves. The Altamont portion is not much better, though the more gentle terrain would allow more fills and cuts rather than tunneling. Other than that, nearly the entire route is single track and owned by UP (hence, limited frequencies and no non-compliant trains. The mostly abandoned SP alignment which follows more or less the same route could be resurrected, but it still wouldn't allow any reasonable speeds and most of it is unsuitable for more than a single track as well. And it would probably require some work in a lot of areas to bring the abandoned ROW back up to railroad standards.
Bottom line: you're not going to get anything reasonably competitive along the ACE route without a very large investment.
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Sorry for the double post.
Your map shows the existing UP route, which, other than the self-evident UP and single-track problems, will, as Alon Levy notes never be competitive. To get any real rail service to the Monterey area you’d need to build a new route from Gilroy to Castroville.
SF is the one area where it might be an issue. Still though, it should have no trouble handling 6TPH HSR under reasonable operating practices, which would be sufficient for 4 to LA and 2 to Sacramento (there’s evidence all over the world to suggest that frequencies are not going to exceed that).
If there is only demand for 2 trains per hour, then only run 2 trains per hour. How is that a problem? As far as intercity transit goes, that’s plenty such that you’re not taking away from ridership with inconvenience.
I’m not even talking about the SF-Sacramento leg. What I’m saying is that if you’re running the same number of trains LA-SF-Sac and LA-Sac-SF (which you have to under your plan), then the LA-Sac-SF trains will be significantly more empty for most of their journey through the Central Valley.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
As for the Monterey line not being competitive, the comments to the post you linked to laid that concern to rest in my view.
“If there is only demand for 2 trains per hour, then only run 2 trains per hour. How is that a problem?” You were saying decrease frequency so as to fill the train *at the terminal*. That means a lot less frequency than you could have if many seats are already filled with carry over from previous stations, which you would always have in a loop arrangement. Lower frequency is a bad thing — wastes people’s time, and makes HSR less convenient, affecting ridership. Starting from zero at a branch terminal inescapably means fewer trains or more empty seats – either way it’s bad.
“What I’m saying is that if you’re running the same number of trains LA-SF-Sac and LA-Sac-SF (which you have to under your plan), then the LA-Sac-SF trains will be significantly more empty for most of their journey through the Central Valley.”
Good point; that would be an issue. What you would have to do is add a certain daily number of SF-LA and LA-SF trains to the baseline number of Sacto trains; these trains would not make the full loop. Eg, in order not to use terminal capacity in SF, have a few extra trains come out of East Bay/North Bay stations/yards each day, maybe from a yard in Solano doubling as commuter trains or something. Same in some SoCal commuter burbs on the other end. Ie, take advantage of the burb-to-city commuter rush to fill bullet trains from zero, then take advantage of the loop configuration to keep trains running close to capacity throughout the day. I think there would be variety of ways of reaching that balance you’re looking for.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
There’s something that I hadn’t considered when writing the post: passengers are more willing to transfer at their origin than at their destination. For example, commuter rail riders will happily drive or take a bus from their homes to the local suburban station, but they’ll balk at transferring to a bus at the downtown end. This is also true for HSR, replacing downtown with major city and suburb with minor city. For references, see results quoted in Reinhard Clever’s CAHSR papers:
http://thinkmetric.com/pubs/lastmile.pdf
http://thinkmetric.com/diss/ClevDiss.pdf (see section 2.4)
The upshot is that a transfer from HSR to regional rail at Gilroy is going to be unsatisfying to vacationers traveling to Monterey. It’s not as problematic for travelers from Salinas, but Salinas-Gilroy is precisely the city pair on which rail would be the most circuitous and least time-competitive with driving. (And for the record, when I posited Salinas-Gilroy as the primary link, I wasn’t thinking of the transfer penalty literature; I was thinking of city populations.)
The other option is to electrify and have direct trains from LA, SF, and Sac serving Monterey, but is the travel market large enough to justify the loss of frequency?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
They balk at transferring to something low frequency at the downtown end. Or unreliable or both.
Transferring at the downtown end is less of a problem in places where the downtown end has frequent reliable service. Manhattan for instance. It helps if driving to the CBD is a PITA. Manhattan for instance…
Joey Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Andrew: so you are building the DTX then?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Adirondacker: it’s not just a frequency thing; as the first paper notes, commuters in suburban Toronto balk at transferring to the subway at Union Station. Of course, some people do transfer, and this is especially the case when there are no other options, as in Manhattan. But that transfer penalty does exist, and it’s going to bite the ass of anyone who hopes for Monterey-bound vacationers to transfer in droves instead of just driving as they do today.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:34 pm
It’s not the transfer itself. Two and three seat rides are not uncommon in metro New York. Riders tolerate it because the transfers are reliable and short. The short reliable transfers make it faster than driving. There’s never going to hordes of anyone to or from Monterrey until traffic gets so bad that the train is faster or lots of money gets spent so the train is faster than driving. Even then it’s iffy because I’m sure every motel in Monterrey offers free parking. Bad traffic has to get really bad to compete with train and courtesy shuttle bus from and to the station. And the courtesy shuttle bus from the parking lot at the origin station.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:37 am
Toronto’s not a good example. Union Station subway station is crush-loaded routinely (they’re adding a platform to ameloriate the problem), which makes it an unusually unattractive place to transfer.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:49 am
It could be. For the record, New York’s MTA’s ridership models use much lower transfer penalties than those appearing in the literature I cited: the MTA has zero transfer penalty beyond extra waiting and walking from platform to platform, and weights waiting and walking time as 1.75 times travel time. In other words, the MTA believes in the existence of zero-penalty transfers (and practices them at Jamaica), whereas the literature does not.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
..well the MTA is a special place. I know that the subway has schedules. Easily available on the website. I never look at them. There is the “should I stay on the local or hop off here and catch the express conundrum. .. it’s a special place. …. And it’s filled with Unreal Americans. The Real Americans drive into Manhattan and will insist that it’s faster and more convenient.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:01 pm
I doubt anybody ever looks up the schedules on the Yonge-University-Spadina Line, either.
And Real Americans don’t even go to Manhattan.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Real Americans go to Manhattan. …. When Sarah Palin needs to shop she doesn’t head to Walmart or even Target. She heads to Fifth Avenue… Some of them even live there, The Donald for instance.
morris brown Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:44 am
Pacheco was purely a submission to San Jose interests and forced by Diridon and Co. It is only one of the reasons, why this California project is the worst designed HSR project proposed.
Altamont is superior in every regard, except making San Jose happy.
But billions more you be saved by going I-5 and doing direct LA to San Diego rather than the ridiculous routing through the inland empire.
Ever wonder why both the Florida and California projects had primary routings at Disney properties?
Florida was smart enough to abandon their debt creating monstor. California is just beginning to awaken.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Speaking from your rear again, eh Morris?
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:44 pm
@ Morris – Whatever Pacheco was originally, it does make sense long-term when you combine it with I-80 corridor. I’m glad for what San Jose’s inferiority complex is getting us!
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Let’s see what rail in CA currently lacks:
1. time-competitive service between the Bay Area and Sacramento
2. time-competitive service between the CV and the rest of the state
3. time-competitive service between Antelope Valley and LA, and actual service to the rest of the state
4. actual service between Socal and Norcal
5. time-competitive service between SD and LA
6. enough commuter rail service to convince enough people to take the train (and not be over half an hour late if they miss their usual train)
Obviously, it’s impossible to satisfy all of these, but Altamont-99 takes care of 1, 2, 4 (I-5′s flaw is that 2 becomes impossible, and Pacheco’s flaw is that 1 is not possible), along with that second bay rail crossing that is desperately needed. Tejon’s still a wild card regarding costs, so I can’t make a conclusion on that vs. Palmdale. For #5, the best way in my opinion is LOSSAN, but I admit to not knowing enough of the technical specs, so I can’t rule out the Inland Empire corridor just yet (which should be extended to Phoenix anyway in the future).
And just to stay on-topic, you really don’t need the I-80 corridor. Congestion is not that bad there compares to I-580, where good rail service can have a greater impact.
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:47 pm
P.S. and the less you spend to achieve 1-5, the more of #6 you’ll get.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Pacheco does not make Bay Area-Sac impossible; on the contrary, it makes it all the more profitable, by way of an I-80 HSR corridor. And congestion on that corridor IS that bad, and getting worse all the time. Folks going through Altamont can be well served by a decent-speed ACE with a spur serving Modesto.
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I was just considering Pacheco by itself (SF-Sac is about 2 hours, which sucks), but you raise a valid point. I argue, however, that I-80 has a low priority compared to a lot of things on my checklist (namely, #6: with all the HSR discussion going on, let’s not forget the huge ridership gains/potential market available for local riders).
In other words, we both agree that Altamont will be built, Pacheco or not. We disagree on whether I-80 needs to be upgraded.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I concur with your #6, it’s just that I think a good intercity trunk line is they key to reorienting transit development around rail. My contention is that Altamont is ultimately a far less efficient trunk line than Pacheco+transbay tube+I-80 corridor. I’d be be all for it as a later-stage addition, as long as the North Bay-Monterey Bay (i.e., Gilroy) axis were already in place.
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
That’s interesting. I actually think improving commuter service along I-80 to Sacramento is a priority (decent ridership base, it also gives access to the HSR station for people needing Socal). It’s just that to get to SF, you have two bay crossings and a winding right-of-way south of Martinez, which is just too annoying to handle at present, considering all the debates regarding transportation and infrastructure lately.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Lack of nutrition, housing and education does not make children unhappier. On the contrary, it makes them more motivated.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:02 pm
What the hell is up with this fixation to connect the Bay to Cowtown while sacrificing service to NorCals largest city and economic engine? Thankfully this idea only exists in the damp dreams of some here.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
There’s service to the economic engine. Not always to the largest city, alas. This is a smaller problem than it seems:
- The largest city in the Philippines is Quezon City, a suburb that’s grown bigger than Manila proper.
- The largest city in Israel is by far Jerusalem; it sounds right since it’s the capital, but Tel Aviv has three times the metro area population and is by far more culturally dominant.
- The largest cities on the US East Coast are New York and Philadelphia, but the third is Jacksonville, which through annexing suburbs has more people than Boston, Washington, and others.
- If New York’s boroughs were separate cities, Brooklyn would be the largest, followed by Queens; Manhattan would be third.
- The second largest city in California is San Diego.
- The second largest city in the Midwest is Indianapolis and the third largest is Columbus.
In all cases, the issue is how tightly the municipal boundaries are drawn. If the boundaries were frozen very early in the city’s development, as in the cases of Tel Aviv and Boston, then the city proper will be small compared to its metro area. And in a few cases, including the Bay Area and Manila, and even New York if we look at the boroughs separately, a suburb could have higher population than the central city.
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Dude, I’m from Norcal’s largest city, and I’m not sacrificing service to my hometown. I argue that Altamont opens up all of the northern CV, including Sacramento (it’s an interesting place, don’t hate on it), at only the cost of 10 minutes down to Socal. The converse penalty if we go is far greater (I’m guessing 30 minutes?). And service is def. not reduced: Altamont gives SJ and SF each 2 tph to Sacramento and 2 tph to LA. Pretty good service?
Also, people need to stop fawning on SJ. It’s a pretty boring place compared to the real city life of SF or even Berkeley.
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
*if we go via Pacheco.
*Pretty good service, right?
added some words I left out.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
- The largest city in the Philippines is Quezon City, a suburb that’s grown bigger than Manila proper.
Biggest municipality in the greater Glens Falls area is Queensbury. Probably the employment center and the retail center too. It’s never going to be Glens Falls though, they’d have to build a sewer system for one thing…
If New York’s boroughs were separate cities, Brooklyn would be the largest, followed by Queens; Manhattan would be third.
If we are gonna unconsolidate New York can we meld the itty bitty municipalities in New Jersey?
Hudson-Bergen-Passaic would be roughly 2 million people. Doesn’t have an Amtrak stop or an airport with commercial service. Essex-Union-Morris is 1.8 million. Middesex-Monmouth-Somerset is 1.7 million. All of them would be bigger than Philadelphia. …there’s a thought. With judicious splitting and merging the Metro New York area could have the ten biggest cities in the Northeast…
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
The sacrifice is in your head. SJ would still get served via Fremont, with only ten more minutes to LA (zero more minutes, if the Tejon shortcut is selected). And service to Sacramento would blow the doors right off any automobile trip, which would not quite work so well using a 220 mph wrong-way detour to Chowchilla.
The people in Sacramento probably want fast service to SF and SJ as well. Why deny them that, or why propose billions of additional “overlay” infrastructure that could just be part of the main line over Altamont?
There’s really no reason to get so worked up over this. Just let it play out. San Jose will be well-served in all possible scenarios.
Tony d. Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Ok all, but whatever. You debating Pacheco vs Altamont is sooo Spring of 2008. I’m more for dealing with the reality at hand vs unicorns and the greatness of Altamont. Enough from me on this; good day.
jim Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
No, Clem. The sacrifice is real. If service to SF goes via Altamont, there will be real green eyeshade scrutinization of the SJ spur (because by that time, we’ll be talking private money) and it won’t pass the money test: it won’t generate enough ridership/revenue to pay for operating it and depreciating the equipment and amortizing the construction.
The SJ boosters know this, which is why they’ve been so fervent in support of Pacheco.
This is not a win-win proposition.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Get it straight, Pacheco boosters. Is San Jose the economic engine of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, or is it a second-rate destination that will not generate sufficient ridership or revenue? You can’t have it both ways.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Any green eyeshade examination starts with seat utilization. Pachecho is definitely not favorable to San Jose, esp. compared to an Altamont “spur”.
Those San Jose seats have to come from somewhere, and running a lot of empty seats up and down the Peninsula is unbelievably idiotic. And that’s before we even get into a “green eyeshade” calculation of the operating cost of terminating all trains in SF.
jim Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
That’s not the question. The question is where is the ridership for an SJ spur going to come from? It isn’t going to come from SJ-SF. There’ll still be a one seat ride via Caltrain for that. No-one’s proposing an SJ-SF train on the Altamont mainline-SJ spur setup. Similarly it isn’t going to come from SJ-Sac. That’s a two seat ride in any case. It isn’t clear that there’s any ridership gain from a short hop HSR-HSR over Caltrain-HSR. So the only source of sufficient ridership is SJ-LA. But SJ-LA travelers absent the spur will have the option of a Caltrain-HSR two seat ride from Diridon or, for that matter, driving to the connection point (Fremont?) instead of Diridon. How many more riders does a single seat ride from Diridon to LA attract?
SJ and Silicon Valley can still be the economic engine of Northern California and people be nearly as happy to drive to Fremont to catch a train to LA as drive to Diridon. And those few people who can walk to Diridon be nearly as happy to ride Caltrain to the HSR connection.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
So then everybody’s happy? Or is the point to force otherwise happy people to use HSR at Diridon station, quick, quick, before anybody with a green eyeshade shows up?
joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:34 pm
“Florida was smart enough to abandon their debt creating monstor. California is just beginning to awaken.”
Oh Man. Get a dog. Go for a walk.
Florida’s HSR system was mostly a gift of Federal Funds. The horribly unpopular Scott killed the Free-Train project over objections from the Dems and GOP in the legislature.
And Disney? The guy in cryogenic frozen state who runs the Star Council? He’s too busy designing the new Facebook HQ in Menlo Park.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Florida abandoned a project that was 90% funded by the feds and that had private consortia willing to take responsibility for cost overruns. What Scott did was very responsible, toward the Koch Brothers’ bottom line.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:32 am
Just watch. Detailed Tejon analysis is quite likely to turn out to not be cheaper. :-P
Hell, maybe they’ll reconsider the Cajon Pass approach and entering LA from the east. It might actually have the fewest NIMBYs.
Jon Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Perhaps that’s why the latest PMT status report (for August 2011, see ‘Key Developments’ on page 28) states that they recently initiated a study for a joint BART – HSR station in Livermore somewhere along Greenville Road, presumably just north of the lab.
A far more likely explanation is that BART is heeding Livermore’s opposition to a downtown BART station and planning to build the extension along I-580 instead, with a station at Greenfield Rd. CAHSR is probably just responding to BART and investigating the possibility of having the BART/Upgraded ACE transfer point there instead of downtown.
In “People Ride Trains” news, we have strong initial ridership in the Old Dominion on a new light rail line:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_nfk_2011-09a.htm
From the same site, a story about how some people really, really hate rail service:
7 September 2011
Cincinnati:
They’re at it again! Anti-rail extremists push ANOTHER ballot measure to outlaw rail transit
Cincinnati, Ohio — They lost in 2009, but they’re baaaack!
Led by extreme-right Tea Party and Road Warrior zealots, an otherwise unlikely coalition of Libertarians and anti-labor fanatics, a couple of somewhat marginal labor unions, a police organization, anti-environmentalists, the Southwest Ohio Green Party, other rightwing activists, the Cincinnati NAACP, and a handful of anti-tax and NIMBY groups have all gotten in some kind of bed (or Xtreme Fighting cage) together to pursue another ballot measure to stop rail transit development in Cincinnati.
Most prominent in the anti-rail campaign is a Tea Party-connected group, COAST (Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes), described by one article as “rabidly mass transit”, which has been joined in a very curious and rather contradictory partnership against rail transit with the Cincinnati NAACP (which supposedly represents black Cincinnatians, many of whom are quite dependent on public transport for their basic mobility).
As of mid-August, the rail opponents had collected sufficient signatures (somewhat less than 7,500) on petitions to put a broad and ferociously anti-rail city charter amendment on the Nov. 8th ballot.
Rail supporters (i.e., opponents of the anti-rail measure) are primarily led by a group called Cincinnatians for Progress (CFP), whose main contention is that the proposed charter amendment doesn’t target just streetcars, but, through very broad, misleading wording, it would effectively encompass all types of rail transit and even rail passenger proposals.
>>
A small group of anti-progress activists are trying – again – to stop Cincinnati from developing passenger rail. They want a disastrous city charter amendment that would – again – go far beyond their stated intention.
<>
It would bar anyone – including private parties – from working on any form of rail-based transportation for 10 years. That arbitrary “dead period” would make it illegal for the city to take advantage of new technology and new circumstances, such as the future federal stimulus dollars. Under the language of this proposal, a generation would pass before Cincinnati could hope to see light rail or commuter rail, or even the return of the inclines.
<>
Section 3. For purposes of this Amendment, (i) the term “Streetcar System” means a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails constructed primarily in existing public rights of way….
<<
Since virtually any rail public transport system must operate on publicly owned or acquired "existing public rights of way" – from public streets to abandoned railway rights-of-way acquired by a public entity to elevated or subway alignments in rights-of-way also acquired for public use – the charter amendment would righteously ban 'em all: light rail, streetcars, regional passenger rail, intercity passenger rail, subways, elevated lines … you name it!
Somehow, someway, the COAST coalition seems to have contracted a peculiarly obsessive and intriguing case of ferrophobia. Whatever … maybe they can all deal with it in post-election psychotherapy.
But for Cincinnati voters committed to rational decisionmaking for the city's future, the current path should be as clear as glass: On November 8th, send this proposed crackpot charter amendment to the same place as the first one in 2009 – the trash heap!
Light Rail Now! NewsLog
URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2011q3.htm#CIN_20110907
Updated 2010/09/07
Links:
Allies:
http://cincinnatiansforprogress.com/Amendment.asp
Keeping an eye on the opposition:
http://www.gocoast.org/
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:43 am
Gah. Reminds me again of the regional differences.
On the West Coast, in the Northeast, or in the Mid-Atlantic region, some people unreasoningly attack proposed train service.
But in Ohio, they go a whole ‘nother order of magnitude with their hostility. I guess you’ve probably seen the same in West Virginia.
swing hanger Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 5:35 am
Cincinnati begat Marge Schott. Nuff said.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:58 am
I never saw anything quite that bad, but my proposals didn’t get anywhere near as far as the Ohio rail proposals have. Those actually got to a serious level. Who knows what would have happened here if this had been seriously proposed? Would the opposition have ramped everything up because of the progress being made by a pro-rail crowd?
On the other hand, we do have passenger trains and rail commuter service here; the latter is lacking in Cincinnati, and the one passenger train they do have a tri-weekly Cardinal. Exposure could lessen resistance; there have actually been discussions of extending the Washington Metro to here! Crazy, I know, it would be a 75-mile subway ride, but that’s what people know, so like BART’s proposed extensions. . .
In other news, more news and comments on Amtrak’s increasing ridership, and on a deal in which Amtrak is taking over (lease) a lot of CSX (former NYC trackage in New York State between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady (100 miles):
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_729/
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:00 am
“more news and comments on Amtrak’s increasing ridership”
SNCF built the TGV not because ridership was increasing but because it was dramatically decreasing.
In the same logic, if the American public start appreciating what they are being offered, why spend billions on a new system? Just give them more of the same.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:23 am
JNR built the Shinkansen because ridership was increasing to the point of saturating capacity on the Tokaido Main Line.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Saturation doesn’t seem to be a problem in the US. Amtrak has 1/37 of SNCF’s ridership in a country with 5 times the population of France.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:17 am
But for saturation, you have to compare corridor by corridor.
The “North River Tunnels” are saturated for sure….
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:16 am
I haven’t quite figured out why NYS is so hot on leases rather than ownership. Metro-North leases its entire New York State system.
If this follows NY precedent, it will probably be a 700-year lease or something.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 am
It’s the way railroads work. It would probably take decades to disentangle all of the underlying property agreements…. explain Manitou and why trains stop there….
OT: Spain is bumping up top speed on Madrid-Barcelona to 310 km/h. This is still well below the 350 km/h originally envisaged, but an interesting step nonetheless.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 9:34 am
Using one of the largest installations of ERTMS Level 2 deployed to date.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 am
Speed is expensive, and they have probably calculated that 310 km/h provides the best cost/benefit ratio.
Electricity is expensive is Spain even though windfarms are heavily subsidized.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:13 pm
They may also have been looking at building an easy-to-remember timetable with only round numbers… arrivals and departures on the hour and half hour exclusively.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 12:32 pm
One might say precisely because windfarms are heavily subsidized.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Not really since, so far, the extra cost is paid by the state. This is supposed to be temporary and the consumer will eventually have to pay the real price.
Diana Harkey (assembly person 73rd district) in an article
http://www.pe.com/opinion/local-views-headlines/20111018-california-derail-states-bullet-train-boondoggle.ece
dishes out a lot of reality.
Armed with the promise of $3.5 billion in federal stimulus funds, the Sacramento high-speed spending crew can’t wait to break ground on what could be one of the most ill-advised, underscrutinized, expensive and unnecessary public infrastructure projects in the nation.
The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was required by the Legislature to provide an updated business plan by Oct. 14 to allow time to review before appropriating more funds. Recently, CHSRA admitted that the plan will be delayed, while requesting another $65 million. More alarming is that the governor’s Department of Finance seems prepared to disburse the funds to CHSRA, using last year’s unused appropriation of bond funds, with or without a business plan or legislative approval.
How can this happen? The legality is certainly questionable, as unused appropriations do not roll over from year-to-year to be used in any way one likes. However, the fact is that $11 billion in state bond funds were issued for a variety of projects which remained unused in the 2010-11 year. Hence, we have been paying interest on these unused funds for which CHSRA is one of the beneficiaries.
…
The answer is, like so many quasi-government agencies, the CHSRA was established as a near-autonomous unit, tasked with the mission of building a high speed train network. Until the CHSRA is defunded, it will continue down the track to complete its mission. Recently, CHSRA hired a legislative liaison (or highly paid lobbyist) to convince legislators to continue to fund high speed rail. The authority has also hired high-profile marketing firms and consultants statewide to sell the nightmare to the public and local elected officials.
As long as there is money available to spend the CHSRA will gobble it up. The Legislature can use Article XVI of our state’s constitution to defund the unused portion of the $9 billion voter approved bond. We can and must protect the people of California from ever-increasing long-term debt, operating costs and even higher unemployment. If unchecked, CHSRA will begin ripping through farms and towns, decimating businesses and driving down property tax receipts in an already 20 to 40 percent unemployed Central Valley.
Harkey with her financial background is one of the very few in the legislature to fully understand the consequences of this boondoggle.
She ends with:
With uncertain ridership, unlikely future funding and no solid reporting on costs or any explanation of how CHSRA will live up to its promise to the voters of “no state subsidies,” I call upon the governor to pull the plug on “Arnold’s Train Wreck” to ensure it does not become “Jerry’s Big Dig.”
How very true….
…
Eric M Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Hmmm, let see who has given Diana Harkey money.
CA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM PAC,
VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION PAC,
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
BOEING,
CALIFORNIA MOTOR CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION PAC,
OIL EXECUTIVE/BOB FERGUSON,
THOMAS V. MCKERNAN, JR., CEO/AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Anyone seeing a pattern?
No wonder she opposes and has always opposed this project.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Just follow the money
“. .. what could be one of the most ill-advised, underscrutinized, expensive and unnecessary public infrastructure projects in the nation.”–Diana Harkey
Ill advised? Only from the perspective of the road and oil lobbies.
Expensive? True.
Unnecessary? Depends on your viewpoint, much of which revolves around either oil independence or your desire to retain that dependence.
Underscrutinized? After 15 years of debate and study? After multiple oil shocks over 35 years, after a review of how much new road capacity you will need, which turns out to be much more expensive than this railroad? If after all that, this project is underscrutinized, I have to ask, underscrutinized by whom? A certain assembly person?
Generational note (of course): Harkey was born in 1951, and is 60 years old; she is fairly close to the border of the generational break that has been discussed here at some length. In other words, she could fit the pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Harkey
Spokker Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Quentin Kopp is 150 years old.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:36 pm
And I am enough of a throwback that my wife says I lie about my age. Although I am 56 years old, she says I am really 156 years old. Of course, she is really slightly older than I am, and maybe, like so many females, doesn’t want to admit her age?
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I don’t think age is the explanation. I would rather attribute the refusal of any change to some sort of inherited religious rigidity. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Do you know if the same attitude permeates Christian Democratic parties? (Obviously not an issue in France, but maybe you know about the Netherlands, Germany, etc.)
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 am
It might explain the German CDP obsession with hard money.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:31 am
Religious rigidity is reappearing in Europe. Not in the tradtional Christian Democratic parties but in the increasingly powerful green parties. Some of their leaders behave like Ayatollahs issueing fatwas. And no deviation from their bible is tolerated. Nuclear energy is sinful and research to make it safer is also sinful and must be defunded. Followers who timidly say “yes, but…” are publicly shamed and excluded.
Science as a whole is the original sin. Capital sins also include air conditioning, high-speed rail, vaccination (a conspiracy of evil pharmaceutical firms) and consuming imported food. This new religion is now spreading from northern to southern Europe. Strangely enough, they have the same belief in a conspiracy of scientists as the American climate-change deniers. Not the same scientists, though.
Last year, 50 people died of food poisoning in Germany and France. There was a very aggressive media campaign blaming cucumbers imported from Spain. Then, a laboratory traced the deadly germs to a German bio farm sponsored by the Greens. Media coverage instantly disappeared and no one dared a death count. The Greens: 50, Nuclear energy:0.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:40 am
To quote Chester A. Riley of the old radio show, “The Life of Riley,” “What a revoltin’ development this is!”
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
What I reproach the Greens is that they try to revive irrational mediaeval fears. They want us to feel in constant danger, whatever we do, so we need them to save us. An example, a cover headline in the magazine VSD: “EATING KILLS”.
Inside, an article showing that, whatever we eat, we ingest deadly chemicals slowly killing us. Very slowly, indeed, since our life expectancy has never been higher.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The alternative, not eating, isn’t very good for your life expectancy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
More fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8I7UvvFz0
Of course, there’s a liquid diet alternative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i5k4I1AOEI
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Just for fun:
What some “greens” really eat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLiVeRJTtqo
How to shake up your local “Holy Roller” or fundamentalist Christian church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16fG1sDagU&feature=related
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 am
As noted above, this assemblywoman appears to be bought and paid for by the oil lobby.
Okay, seriously, I enjoy the Altamont vs Pacheco arguments as much as the next person, but at some point the threaded comments just turn into an incomprehensible clusterfuck. It would be really nice to have a forum where we could organize things by topic. I know that Robert doesn’t have the time to manage something like that, but someone here might.
Andrew Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:45 pm
+1
Caelestor Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I agree. We keep rehashing the same points over and over again.
Jack Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Is there any reason why we don’t have a forum, I’d love to set an ignore Morris flag. It would take about five seconds to set up, I’m sure myself and others would be happy to moderate it.
Robert???
swing hanger Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:08 am
Sticky blog post Pacheco vs. Altamont- ding ding!
*Comments containing pet phrases “stilt-a-rail” “I-5 all da way”, and “BART broad gauge/ring the bay” would also be welcome.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 am
I’m setting up a web forum right now, it should be operational by tonight (work and Mass delaying things).
LA Times article: California bullet train: The high price of speed
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-train-20111023,0,2248881.story?
Here is a very powerful article noting the local destruction that goes with this project, at least as it is now planned.
“It is possible to do a high-speed rail project, but you have to be very artful about it, and the authority has been anything but artful,” said state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), chairman of the Senate transportation subcommittee. “The level of trust at the beginning was pretty low, and it has only gotten worse. Big chunks of the state do not believe they are being listened to.”
The obvious reason why they don’t believe they are being listened to is simply they aren’t being listened to. It hasn’t changed since day one. Early on we had Rod Diridon when asked in an interview, what if local communities don’t agree with what is being planned?
His reply
They will be overridden
That along with his “Rotten Apples” description for those who object, pretty much says it all.
Clem Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:22 pm
From the Bakersfield planning director:
“The rail will be too noisy for people to want to live around,” he said. “Now that we know what the impacts are, maybe we should have considered a bypass outside of town.”
I’ve been saying this for years. Glad that cities are now waking up and smelling the coffee. It’s not too late for an eastern bypass of Bakersfield, heading straight down into Tejon.
220 mph trains never have and never will slice through downtown areas.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 22nd, 2011 at 11:45 pm
If the main Bakersfield station was located outside of downtown, would that have a significant effect on ridership from the area? Or would this drive development on a route towards the station? Would it be best to have two tracks that can interface with the current alignment in order to service DT Bakersfield?
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:09 am
If the main Bakersfield station were located outside of downtown, it would help kill downtown Bakersfield stone cold dead.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 am
(because all activity would move towards the station and away from downtown).
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:09 am
So either build in town and run the risk of noise/vibration motivated slow down (Clem’s annoyance) or build mitigation and increase the price/cost. Oh and building outside encourages sprawl.
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:13 am
building outside encourages sprawl.
Only if managed incorrectly. Though I’m admittedly skeptical that we have people smart enough to adopt the appropriate zoning policies.
The other option is to build a station loop. The tracks traveling through town can be built to lower standards than they would if express trains traveled through, so it’s not as expensive as it may seem at first glance, though for Bakersfield in particular, it would require a lot of additional track (Fresno, for instance, would be a lot easier).
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
Does it really encourage sprawl? What’s happened at exurban TGV stations is often the opposite – no extra development, low ridership. (Exception: Aix-en-Provence TGV, useful for people in Marseille’s northern suburbs). The same is true of the few truly exurban Shinkansen stations, as opposed to those that are in the cities they serve but not in the CBD.
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I agree that a greenfield HSR station would not cause more sprawl. It would simply suffer from low ridership. If that’s the case, then why the hell even bother building a Bakersfield station?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Riiight. Have to prevent sprawl, keep development in “Downtown” Bakersfield.
You people really crack me up.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Have you ever visited the US of A by any chance?
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Yes, we’ve seen a massive reversal from the 60-70′s urban flight.
wu ming Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:12 am
and yet somehow, californians manage to live next to airports and highways, and freight lines with tooting horns, vibrations and cars crashing together when trains stop.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Just how fast can you race to the bottom? Spread the love around!
God damned lefitst elites and unions with their NIMBY environmental anti-business obstructionism.
swing hanger Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:00 am
“220 mph trains never have and never will slice through downtown areas.”
Not 220mph, but fast enough. 300kmh (186mph) through Himeji, Sanyo Shinkansen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqduRVrmRk&hd=1
270kmh through Utsunomiya, E5 trainset JR East Tohoku Shinkansen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmadUtcICaU
But if Bako doesn’t want the train, just oblige by bypassing them.
VBobier Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:21 am
Yep, Bypass, that’s good for neighboring areas, If Bako doesn’t like HSR going through their
downtown, then pull the plug and Bypass them and give them the shaft…
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:40 am
Build a bypass with station and co-located room for an industrial park and transit hub or run HSR into downtown to revitalize that city core.
http://www.gilroyhighspeedtrain.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/GilroyHST_ExistingConditions_web_83111.pdf
Putting in a bypass means Bakersfiled should plan for how the area will be developed to service the City.
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I can tell you with a high confidence that the Himeji example is not at a full 300 km/h, regardless of what the creator of the video claims. There’s a curve with 3500 m radius east of the station, which is too tight for 300 km/h. The video looks like about 270 km/h (length of train divided by time) which is consistent with 3500 m radius.
There’s no 300 km/h through any downtown on Earth. How’s that?
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Just out of interest, how fast do the Eurostars go through Ashford?
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 7:01 pm
EDIT: Your rough length/time method says ~250 km/h, but if anyone has something more definitive I would be interested to see it.
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:24 pm
170 mph, as far as I can figure
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The Ashford flyover limit is 270 kmh.
It’s not exactly in the centre of bustling Ashford, one will also note.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
I haven’t done the length-time method, but the N700 can do a cant deficiency of 135 mm at 270 km/h; if it can do the same cant deficiency at 300 km/h then the minimum curve radius for it is 3,300 m.
K.T. Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Clem is right on this one. At Himeji Station, N700 is not 300km/hr.
However, N700 passes through Shin Kurashiki Station very close to 300 km/hr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVcUtFiF2UI
JJJ Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:53 am
Eh, have you ever been to Bakersfield or Fresno? There’s a TON (well, thousands of tons) of trains running through. Something like 200 a day.
Protip: Freight trains are loud. Protip2: Freight trains love to lay on their horns as they cross 10+ grade crossings in downtown alone.
And yet people manage. Indeed, Fresno Community Hospital is literally a stones throw away from the BNSF and Amtrak rail line. Until May 2010, every single train had to lay on their horn. According to hospital staff, all conversations (in person and phone) had to cease for 45 seconds while the train went by.
Every 10 minutes.
At a hospital.
And yet they managed.
Tony d. Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:27 am
Maybe cities will finally “wake up” to freeways, airports and current rail lines (LOL). Excellent Wu Ming! Robert, can we please ban Morris and his ignorance?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:26 pm
You know, it’s been a while since you last made a constructive comment, as opposed to one cheering everyone who criticizes Clem or Morris.
datacruncher Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 am
Originally there was a political debate around Bakersfield: the city wanted the station (and route) in downtown to spur development, Kern County wanted the station north of the city adjacent to the county-owned airport to encourage development in a sparsely built area and encourage more flights as an LAX alternative that Palmdale airport has never become (then tracks looping to the east side of the city for the mountain crossing).
The city eventually won and the county backed a downtown station.
Daniel Krause Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 am
Clem,
Do you believe local HSR trains should at least stop in downtown Bakersfield (running at slower speeds), or are you supporting an HSR station location outside of downtown? Please clarify.
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I think what would make sense is an HSR station on the periphery of Bakersfield, French style. All of the HSR stations in France are on the outskirts of their respective towns, as I’ve often pointed out here, for reasons of noise and blight.
The Italian-style belt and suspenders configuration, with a bypass outside of town and a siding into the town center, would be even better but (a) it’s very expensive and (b) Bakersfield is ill-suited to that if you’re going to shoot south through the grapevine.
HSR won’t create sprawl. Bad zoning creates sprawl.
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Clarification: all stations in France situated on a high-speed line (many downtown stations are served by HSR running at regular speeds on regular tracks)
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“HSR won’t create sprawl. Bad zoning creates sprawl.”
Yes, and if HSR says they run 220 in town then take that claim at face value too.
“The Italian-style belt and suspenders configuration, with a bypass outside of town and a siding into the town center, would be even better but (a) it’s very expensive ”
Let’s pretend HSR is a highway and build bypasses and run local track into towns.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
It does seem like a look at some other alternatives is warranted. The original study (http://www.kerncog.org/docs/hsr/HSR_Terminal_200307.pdf) that decided on a downtown mainline route and station concluded “”Right of way acquisition appears relatively simple and displacement of businesses would be minimal.”
This is clearly not the case in Bakersfield. It is hard to fully quantify the impacts on the east side since it was bizarrely not really studied. I’ve take out some pages from the EIR for the west side.
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/West-Bakersfield-Impact-2.pdf
The train would go through churches (see list) and schools and slice neighborhoods in half with retaining walls and viaducts.
On the last page of the document, you will see it going through what looks like open fields – this is supposed to be http://www.commonsensebakersfield.com/ and then some buildings which are a series of new medical buildings, including a hospice facility.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Explain to us how a neighborhood that is bisected by a railroad gets sliced in half by building more railroad along the railroad ROW?
Clem Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Something about gentle curves, which force excursions from the railroad ROW.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Shaving a few properties off the edges of a neighborhood isn’t slicing it half.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Uh, the part where it leaves the ROW and goes through several neighborhoods?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:00 pm
It doesn’t go through them, it skirts the edges of them.
Nadia Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 pm
See page 230 of the parcel impacts map. You’ll notice the map actually stops but the railroad will continue on two different paths depending on the alignment selected until it gets to Oswell Street.
Nathanael Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:10 am
Oh, I didn’t check before I commented.
Yes, Morris has found the dishonest article full of outright lies. Of COURSE Morris loves this article.
Robert, can you just ban this liar already?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:37 am
Took a look at the comments, and had to laugh at one that said this YouTube clip illustrated Michael Moore riding his Communist train to California:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXKHTTzayU
morris brown Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am
For those that have forgottendidn’t know about Diridon’s “rotten Apples” statement you can read and view:
Diridon’s Rotten Apples comment from the Nov 5th board meeting on YouTurbe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRecXlwFXWA
Not a single other board member of the High Speed Rail Authority, objected to his dictates.
———-
full text:
(Diridon dictating to Ogilvy PR firm (hired for $9 million / $1.5 / year) what he wants done and done now)
Second is, and I’ll use as an example again one area, but I have an idea that its occurring in other areas too, miss-information is causing serious media relations problems in the mid-peninsula – Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto area especially. That miss information coming sometimes from in-advertently our own staff, but then again its being presented by opponents, blatantly providing false information to the media and then having no correction. No information being provided that would counter that miss-information and I think you related to that earlier.
So would you relate to those two examples, not those two specific cases but those examples as kind of in the weeds detail, that you really need to be on immediately, so that it doesn’t , the kind of thing are like a sore that festers, or the rotten apple in the barrel , if you would like to use another example. And you got to get that apple out of the barrel immediately and please figure out a way and let us know at some time in the future and call us individually or give us a report on how you would be creating kind of flying squads of emergency response to nip those problems in the bud. You want to avoid them if you can but if you can’t avoid them you need to have a way of countering them immediately so that , miss-information isn’t allow to float around, its corrected . So please consider that as early tasks.
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:51 am
And?
The Ogilvy PR firm quit before they were to be, reportedly, fired.
What is the purpose of public relations but to counter mis-information?
Is it wrong someone who intentionally spreads mis-information – mis-information – a bad apple?
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
To add to joe’s comment: Not only is Ogilvy goneskies, but DIRIDON IS GONE, too.
Robert, heads up, there’s an LA Times article filled with fearmongering and outright lies.
http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/local/~3/WXRW6hI6Gns/la-me-bullet-train-20111023,0,2248881.story
My favorite lie is the claim that the butchering facility can never close because there will be piles of rotting carcasses. Of course they can close temporarily if they plan the closure in advance — they’re just making BS up.
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:18 am
Epic face palm.
So the trade is a new, modern high speed rail line connecting Bakersfield to LA and SF or keeping hope alive by saving the church building where people go to pray for work.
swing hanger Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 5:45 am
Just have CHSRA (or whatever authority) do what they do in France- offer to buy the affected parcels for 150% of market value. And hey, they can offer to build a new church and throw in a bonus school building for less than the price of a grade separation.
VBobier Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
Offer to accommodate this church, to move & reconstruct facilities if needed, make an ally of this church, not another Nimby, which is precisely what HSR does not need.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
If we can have Security Theater with a No RIde List that prevents religious believers making their way from the Central Valley to SF then I’ll have to reconsider my objections.
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Tebow!
For the political junkies here:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/23/349092/top-ten-occupy-wall-street-cartoons/
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/6258/an-occupy-wall-street-starving-artist-protest-artwork-sale
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
Meanwhile, in Bakersfield the quality of jobs is so low that companies skimp on safety equipment and 16-year-old employees die from cleaning hydrogen sulfide and the county doesn’t enforce safety standards on it.
http://www.change.org/petitions/kern-county-board-of-supervisors-protect-kern-county-residents-shut-down-dangerous-facility
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:08 pm
But LA Times doesn’t give a crap about help the CV. Tribune clownership want HSR rail $$$ reprogrammed for LA.
Barebones atm but lets see about giving it a spin. At least we’ll have somewhere to put Altamont/Pachrco debates:
http://cahsrforum.com/
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Just think, your grandchildren will be able to visit it in 2063 and watch the ongoing lively debate.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Nah, by then railroad.net will have warmed up to HSR and people will hash out the arguments over there. “The FRA was totally right to insist on buff strength up until its bitter end in 2031,” there was a fatal crash on a branch line in 2058 that killed 3 people and that totally proves the FRA was right, etc.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Nah, they’ll still be arguing over whether or not Hurricane Connie or Hurricane Diane did in the DL&W in 1955, what would have happened if the merger with the Erie had gone through then instead of in 1960 and how that could have been a template for Penn Central. The ban on discussing Turboliners will still be in effect because that will still degenerate into flame wars over Supersteel, Joe Bruno, Amtrak and NYSDOT. They will get around that by posting current pictures of them in storage in Bear. If the longevity of Metroliner cars is any indication the fatal crash in 2058 will involve Acela I power cars being used as cabbage cars on the obscure branch line.
Joey Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
You sir, are a hero.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:00 pm
That is not the only one, there is a yuku one too.
http://carail.yuku.com/directory
Jack Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 7:40 am
yeah but this one has a similar name scheme to the blog.
In other news, the French look to be about to bring back what we had in American 100 years ago–freight trolleys:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/10/23/opportunities-abound-for-transporting-goods-by-tram-if-properly-coordinated/
Peter Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Then there’s this beauty from Dresden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
I think this is the piece that is going to be the final nail in the PR coffin.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-train-20111023,0,2248881.story
In the past I would have defended the Authority. I would have called the Central Valley the welfare queens of the state and that they aren’t paying for the goddamn thing anyway and fuck those stupid hicks for obstructing progress. But I just don’t feel like it anymore. The project doesn’t deserve the defense of rail supporters anymore.
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Oh please. The article tells me I need to oppose stop HSR because it is going to disrupt a Church were people go to pray for a job.
Sorry, we can’t build infrastructure, we need to maintain the status quo.
There is a magic alignment that impacts no one but HSR refused to use it. There exists a design that, like the LA football stadium, produces free magic infrastructure that has no impact or cost.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
The high school that’s right next to the freight yard?
Spokker Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, and this is what I would have said in the past. Now I just don’t care.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
If you don’t care why are you commenting?
spokker Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I care about the subject, not the Authority.
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:23 pm
joe, that’s not all it says—the article notes that there are considerable impacts, and that downtown communities haven’t been meaningfully consulted. And that’s simply not a proper way for a major agency to operate, especially when you’re dealing with a technology most Americans are unfamiliar with. Although much of the blame goes to city for buying booster-ish arguments about downtown redevelopment and pushing for an urban alignment (even though they presumably knew there would be high-speed bypass tracks), the Authority should have been more up front about what a downtown high-speed line would mean (and saved itself a headache down the road).
I agree with what Clem said above—Italian solution ideal, but given Bakersfield’s size a beet field station’s fine. Let’s hope they have a less-invasive alternative up their sleeve.
It’s still a shame reading that article considering CHSRA’s restudy of the Grapevine Pass and Livermore, though—I thought the project was starting to shape up rather nicely.
joe Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Hey I want the Italian Solution too. Bypass and statin in town next to electrified Caltrain.
The LA Times story on the Church impact was written as propaganda. The fact HSR brings opportunity and jobs for the affected wasn’t important.
Is HSR the boogie man? Local government in Gilroy has an envisioning project, a newsletter and decent public outreach. They are figuring out impacts and making recommendations working with HSR. Spending Gilroy money to do this planning and outreach.
We really will not know, the envisioning project isn’t much but it’s getting information out, maps and possible use along with actual use maps.
Yes, people will whine about not being told in my town, they’ll expect a golden ticket wrapped around a wonka bar.
Bakersfield has a Government and Public. They are responsible for the City and providing workable solutions to the HSR project.
Nadia Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:55 pm
There are very real issues in Bakersfield. I suggest you watch the Bakersfield City Council meeting where they went through the impacts. Also, see the presentation here: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/high_speed_rail/index.html.
They make it clear they had several meetings with the Authority and made clear what their concerns were – however, when the EIR came out, those concerns were not considered.
The Bakersfield impacts to the East side (where the church is located) are actually VERY significant – even HSRA says so in their EIR:
From EIR –Section 3.12
In the Northeast District, 116 homes and 173 non-residential properties (including a mix of retail and industrial businesses and several churches) would be displaced by the BNSF Alternative. Christ First Ministries would be displaced, and a portion of the parking at Iglesia de Dios would be taken. In addition, the HST alignment would pass very close to the building that houses the Bethany United Methodist Church and Centro Cristiano Agape. The BNSF Alternative would roughly parallel East Truxtun Avenue and would result in the displacement of a swath of older homes and businesses several hundred feet south of this roadway.11 It would bisect the building that houses the Mercado Latino Tianguis (Mercado) at 2105 Edison Highway. Because of its size and location, the Mercado building would most likely be demolished, redesigned, and rebuilt to avoid the support columns. This could mean closing or relocating the building for approximately 1 year, potentially affecting the livelihoods of 118 merchants and temporarily removing a facility of substantial cultural importance for the local and regional Hispanic community. Together, the displacement of the Mercado and the displacement of a substantial number of residences and businesses in the Northeast District of Bakersfield would be a substantial community effect under NEPA and a significant impact under CEQA.
In addition, their Outreach in Spanish has been terrible. Try going on the website and imagining you are a Spanish only speaker – now try finding information. This is true for any segment, by the way.
Howard Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Why not look at a UP alignment alternative through Bakersfield? Shift from the BNSF over to the UP north of Shafter (Shafter bypass), then follow SR-99, then follow Golden State Avenue, have a station at Union Avenue, and then finish by following Summer Street and Edison Highway. CHSRA is looking at a UP alignment through Fresno. It seems to me that with only one gradual curve a Bakersfield UP alignment would have far less impacts.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Kletopcracy? Check. Gerontocracy? Check. Single party system? Check. Economic actors above the rule of the law? Check. Systematic massive scale public works fraud? Check.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 2:03 am
And yet Milan and Naples build urban subways for less money than any other country in Europe except Spain. I’ll happily take that corruption over the corruption of New York and San Francisco.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 5:08 am
“Single party system? Check”
The problem with Italy is that proportional representation never gives a majority to any party. This has led to the development of the Italian art of “combinazione”. If a party has 30% of the votes and wants to govern, it has to win support from members of other parties. It can be done by promises of ministerial posts or outright corruption.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 9:15 am
And yet the rise of Berlusconi coincided with Italy’s getting rid of proportional representation.
The European countries that do have PR include Finland, Sweden, and other famously low-corruption states.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Scandinavian countries are not gifted for corruption. The Italians are the best at it. They even managed to export it to the US.
Berlusconi governs with a coalition but his force is that his media empire covers nearly all television channels and most of the press. He owns far more media in Italy than Rupert Murdoch in the US.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Yes, exactly. I’ve even seen classifications of media freedom that argue Italy does not really have a free press, because of Berlusconi’s domination.
What this reminds me most of is a certain class of Latin American autocrats, such as Fujimori. Fujimori did not directly control the media, but instead bribed the media to produce regime-friendly content, paying very large sums of money to the television channels specifically. Similarly, in the days of the junta, Brazil heavily censored television while letting print media remain free, since most people were illiterate or just didn’t read newspapers.