California High Speed Rail: 100 Years in the Making
We’ve known that high speed rail in California has been a serious project for 30 years, since Governor Jerry Brown worked to launch a Los Angeles to San Diego Shinkansen in his second term in 1982. But what you may not have known is that the idea of high speed rail connecting California’s major metro areas is much, much older than that.
This week the Smithsonian Magazine blogged about a remarkable find – a plan to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles with high speed rail in under four hours. The kicker: the plan was floated in 1910.
The April 17, 1910 San Francisco Call ran an article titled, ”From Call Building to Oakland City Hall in 5 Minutes.” The Call Building in San Francisco is now known as Central Tower. Felts lived in Los Angeles but had once lived in San Francisco and imagined a system of suspended auto motor railways that would “revolutionize railroading the world over.”…
Felts clearly had a bigger vision for his railway system than just Oakland to San Francisco, explaining that a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco could take just under four hours:
“My suspended auto motor railway, at the rate of 100 miles per hour, would make the same distance of 471 miles in 5 hours, including five stops of five minutes each,” said Felts. “This distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles could be shortened to 400 miles with the suspended auto motor railway, and the speed easily increased to 150 miles per hour, making the time between San Francisco and Los Angeles 3 hours and 39 minutes. The stops would be San Jose, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles.”
Some might dismiss this as mere “gadgetbahn” and perhaps that’s all it ever was. Who knows whether the technology was actually workable. But what we do know is that 100 years ago it was obvious to Bay Area residents that there was not only benefit in crossing the bay with fast rail, but in linking the state with fast rail as well. The question isn’t whether we should build rail connections between cities and between regions, but how we get it done.
Besides, there’s precedent for major infrastructure in California to go from a dream to reality. The Bay Bridge was opened in 1936, but one of its earliest incarnations was in an 1872 order from Emperor Norton I:
More than a century after a quirky San Francisco character who called himself Emperor Norton I ordered a bridge be built spanning the bay, a move is under way to name the later-day Bay Bridge in his honor….
In 1872, Norton ordered “a bridge be built from Oakland Point to Goat (Yerba Buena) Island and thence to Telegraph Hill.”
Emperor Norton wasn’t the only one to call for a bridge – newspaper articles in the early 1870s discussed the subject and a “Bay Bridge Committee” formed in 1872, including businessman James Otis and a former San Francisco mayor, to promote the project. The crash of 1873 and the ensuing Long Depression put an end to those discussions, but it was clear that a Bay Bridge was needed. After a series of proposals in the 1910s (including the idea discussed in the Call article) were considered, the growth of automobile traffic in the 1920s finally solidified public support for a bridge. But even then it took the Great Depression and public support for spending on infrastructure to get the state out of the mire to make the bridge a reality.
Of course, those were the days when California believed in building, believed in trying, believed in infrastructure. There’s a cottage industry in California today devoted to arguing that it is wrong for California to build infrastructure, that to spend money is inherently wrong, that to inconvenience anybody is an act of evil.
But those voices remain in the minority. Californians voted to build high speed rail in 2008 and Governor Jerry Brown still supports it today, having won a 13-point victory in November 2010 over a gubernatorial candidate who opposed high speed rail.
California still believes in innovating its way to a better future. And that is why the high speed rail project hasn’t gone away and why it won’t go away, despite the efforts of its opponents to kill the project.
A funicular in SF would be great for tourism. Maybe from the Prescidio to Saucilito?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanx/541765549/
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 3:22 am
Aren’t they planning one for the Transbay Terminal?
Gondolas are the solution to every transit problem.
Is your Muni metro expansion a boondoggle? Gondola.
BART tunnel at peak capacity? Gondola.
Traffic to Dodger stadium? Gondola.
I could go on.
they should rename the bay bridge the emperor norton I bridge.
I love how all the towers are Eiffel Towers.
Andy M. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 7:45 am
That picture was obviously not drawn by an engineer. There are quite a few details that make no sense. I guess the Eiffel Tower was the most modern tower around at that point so they just took it and used it, regadrless of its suitability for the purpose.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 10:57 am
The history of the Eiffel tower illustrates just how relative the notion of eysore can be.
Afier the 1889 exposition for which the tower had been built, the Paris bourgeois started a petition demanding that it be dismantled immediately. They said it dwarfed all other buildings and totally disfigured the city. Owners feared buildings with a view on that eyesore would lose value.
Fortunately, a counter-petition was started, and that one was worldwide. An American even said the tower was a unique example of pure mathematical beauty springing up from the ground. Destroying it, he said, would be a crime against human knowledge. He (and many others) won.
As for the buildings losing value, just try to rent an apartment with a view on the tower.
The US is a big country and there must be a Gustave Eiffel somewhere, waiting for a worthy project.
Find him, and ask him to design something Palo Alto could be proud of.
ComradeFrana Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Kinda makes me wonder how will the future generations appreciate the new San Jose Diridon station…
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Will the TransAmerica shaft be treasured like the Tour Eiffel one hundred years from now?
Think of it this way: will “Gigli” be considered a great flick in a hundred years?
I rest my case.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“As for the buildings losing value, just try to rent an apartment with a view on the tower.
The US is a big country and there must be a Gustave Eiffel somewhere, waiting for a worthy project.
Find him, and ask him to design something Palo Alto could be proud of.”–Andre Peretti
I won’t say it’s impossible, but would it be possible to find that modern American Gustave Eiffel? And would he be allowed to work on the project? Would his new designs come out as well, or would he be another “artist” with a bigger ego than talent?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
How about people who seem to be cribbing notes from the Delaware Lackawanna and Western?
http://www.menlopark.org/departments/eng/GradeSeparationSupplement.pdf
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
A bit on the small side, but the (normally) steam-powered Strasburg Rail Road recently had to replace its lone bridge–and it looks like they borrowed from the DL&W, too:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/download/file.php?id=3043
http://www.rypn.org/forums/download/file.php?id=3028
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32309
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Concrete doesn’t have to look like it was poured by East Germans for North Koreans….
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Hell, the concrete the East Germans poured for themselves didn’t look all that great, either…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Hard to believe when looking at it today, but there were big landowners who didn’t like the idea of the Settle & Carlisle being built in the 1800s, and part of the reason was that its “aerials” ruined the view.
Best known of these “aerials” is Ribblehead:
http://www.railbrit.co.uk/location.php?loc=Ribblehead%20Viaduct
History of the line, with an emphasis on how it was kept open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle-Carlisle_Line
An excursion train on the line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTcjNIHFtwg
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Series of cab-ride views from either a diesel or a DMU, enough to cover the whole line (hope that lengthy link works):
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Settle+and+Carlisle+Railway+-+complete+non-stop+driver%27s-eye+view+&oq=Settle+and+Carlisle+Railway+-+complete+non-stop+driver%27s-eye+view+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=16251l23034l0l26421l7l4l0l0l0l0l352l837l2-2.1l3l0
Many great projects trace their roots to earlier incarnations.
The earliest proposal for a tunnel between England and France goes back to Napoleon’s day when Napoleon considered building one to invade England. In the 1850s work actually began on a rail tunnel but was abandoned after only a short section had been dug. I don’t know if the tunnel is still there but it was still around in the 1980s, it was owned by British Rail and even inspected regularly because it was thought it might one day be completed.
On a more jovial note, one recurring April’s fool joke going back at least 100 years is a subsea pipeline to transport Guinness from Dublin to England. On one occasion it was announced shares were being sold to make this happen and several hundred people signed up before they checked the date.
TomW Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:13 am
There was a tunnel startedi n the 1970s, which go abandoned after a change of government in the UK. I think that’s the one that was owned by BR and inspected, rather than the 1850 works.
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:51 am
For an extensive discussion of the history of the Channel Tunnel.
Andy M. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 7:41 am
I believe the 1970s works were re-used and extended for the present project. The 1870s works were in a different location and might possibly still be there.
A bit off topic but relevant none the less. From an article by Alec Baldwin “What Occupy Wall Street Has Taught Me” in the Huffington Post. “Another example is that we have no high speed rail in this country. Typically, you fly or you drive. So airlines are free to tack on fees to remain profitable the way that oil companies are free to manipulate oil production, and thus the price of gasoline.” This is an interesting point. Without an alternative to driving or flying the population is held captive to those two oil based industries. It just doesn’t seem wise does it?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:05 am
High speed rail isn’t going going to uncaptivate from oil dependency. Higher urban densities, commuter rail, subways and light rails will. HSR is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to oil use reduction, CAFE is far more important in terms of reducing oil dependency. Oil dependency will, however, remain nonetheless as you won’t be able to get everyone off oil fueled cars (barring a major change in safe and affordable battery energy density and recharge), many of the mass transit systems will be oil fueled, and freight will continue to be shipped by railroads and ships which will predominately use oil (whiny NIMBYs killing any idea of nuclear merchant shipping despite all it’s benefits).
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 10:15 am
It is presumptuous to deny fossil fuel interests will not find work-arounds to “peak-oil”. They are working on it night and day.
Aviation changed the game on fixed guideway ground transport. No way to predict with certainty how far aircraft will evolve, both in terms of fueling and take-off and landing requirements, but for sure the stakes are enormous and plenty of money for research, both from civilian and military sources.
The real raison d’etre for these infrastructure megaprojects is only coincidentally for the commonweal, but primarily to take money from the hoi polloi and give it to the patronage machine to distribute to itself and its friends.
Tom McNamara Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Ah, the synonymouse doctrine… tell me… who gave you the idea that Ayn Rand made more sense after smoking peyote again?
Tom McNamara Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I think you are half right–
Everyone keeps on waiting for some blockbuster technology or innovation to come out not realizing most game-changers arose from an evolutionary process…not a revolutionary one.
joe Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
I am stunned – nuclear merchant shipping. Someone’s reading grandpa’s stash of 1950′s vintage Popular Mechanics.
How about Bloom Energy? Run ships with fuel cells. Charge the cells with solar power driven photolysis. You could drink the ship’s waste product. Water.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
why not just drive the ship’s propellers with the electricity from the photovoltaic cells?
My Dad had mentioned to Me that My Grandpa(His Dad) was advocating for a high speed monorail, My Grandpa was at first a Police Chief of Culver City CA and later on as a prominent City Councilman of Culver City CA(Culver City is next door to Los Angeles), the Family owned a Garage and Auto Dealership at the corner of Washington Blvd and Irving Place(only pics from 1923(Here too) of the building and the dirt street still exist), It was supposedly from Germany of course, I don’t know if these two projects are related, but It says people were thinking ahead for a long time and that HSR is not a recent idea. Sad to say this is all that I know on this.
Max Wyss Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 9:43 am
The Germany relationship may be the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, a suspended monorail mostly above the river in that valley. It still exists, and they just recently ordered the third generation of rolling stock.
So, this idea here could be considered as an extrapolation of the Wuppertal concept.
VBobier Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 10:16 am
So that’s where that came from, Not bad, My Grandpa sounds like He was a bit ahead of His time, But this doesn’t sound like HSR, more like local rail transit.
Wuppertal Schwebebahn(suspension railway/Monorail)
VBobier Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I should have said “where that might have come from”…
Max Wyss Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Yes, the Wuppertal Schwebebahn is an urban transit line. Despite its rather low maximum speed of 50 km/h, it has quite a high average speed (if I remember correctly) of around 28 km/h. Because of the suspension system, and allowing to swing freely, it can take curves at a relatively high speed, and, of course, there is nothing in the way.
So, again, this article shows an extrapolation. On the other hand, high speed was not completely illusion, considering the 203 km/h trials on the Marienfelde – Zossen line near Berlin back in 1903 (or so).
No matter what, but your Grandpa was definitely not backwards-faced in this respect…
It is ironic that these highway lobby projects, ie. both 1930′s bay crossings, had profoundly negative consequences for rail transit. In particular the GG Bridge killed off in short order both the NWP ferries and electric commuter trains. (1200vdc third rail with no cover)
Also 100 years in the making:
rail entree into the LA basin via Tejon as envisioned by the Santa Fe
rail on Geary- centennial next year of the B line, ripped up by Elmer Robinson and Urban Removal in 1956 and restoration shamefully ignored by useless Gavin and motley ward healers.
StevieB Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
The Bay Bridge carried Key System streetcars, Southern Pacific’s Interurban Electric and the Sacramento Northern trains to the Transbay Terminal on the lower deck. The demise of rail transit came when National City Lines (owned by General Motors, Firestone Tire, and Phillips Petroleum) purchased the Key System in 1946 and started conversion to bus lines in 1948.
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
So true; unfortunately the Sacramento Northern did not survive to War years.
Both bridges greatly enabled the expansion of auto traffic. It was allegedly to accommodate more autos that the Key System tracks on the Bay Bridge were lifted. But the diesel bus fad was in full swing – note that the B line on Geary was not replaced by trolley buses, even tho the barn was handily located online, but by diesels. Internal combustion interests wanted 100% market share.
Howard Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Why not use the old San Francisco-Sacramento Railroad right of way to build a true High Speed Rail line between BART in Pittsburg (future Loveridge station) and West Sacramento (future West Capitol Ave. Streetcar) to better connect the SF Bay Area to the Sacramento area? Sure it would require a new bridge across the Sacramento river channel but it would provide a faster and more frequent HSR link than Capitols without all the UP and NIMBY issues that building a Capitols alignment HSR would. After it is successful maybe a way could be found to extend it to downtown Oakland and Sacramento.
Joey Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
The old Sacramento Northern route is nowhere suitable for anything approaching high-speed. Aside from the fact that Moraga-Lafayette would probably be a NIMBY shitstorm, it’s far too curvy and I believe has been built on in a few areas.
I think the most ironic thing about the main photo for this post is that it shows a connection from Oakland to San Francisco as the centerpiece of the proposed railway for California…. and here we 100 years later, talking about a high speed rail system that won’t be completed until more than 120 years after this proposal, and there STILL won’t be a convenient way to ride a passenger train from the East Bay (and relevant points east, like Sacramento, Stockton, etc.) to San Francisco!
More bullshit: SNCF, eyeing CA HSR, could face lawsuits from Holocaust survivors
Andre Perettiagilor Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 5:49 am
France has the largest Jewish community after Israel and the US and most of its organizations have expressed shock at Blumenfeld’s attacks on SNCF. They are all the more surprised as he only targets SNCF and forgets about German firms (like Siemens) closely linked to the 3rd Reich and US banks and firms which actively collaborated with it.
The lawyer who volunteered to defend SNCF is Arno Klarsfeld, the son of a famous Nazi hunter and historian of the Shoah.
Most French people, Jewish or not, think this lawsuit has a very nasty smell.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 19th, 2011 at 6:59 am
France has the largest Jewish community (after Israel and the US) and most of its organizations have expressed shock at Blumenfeld’s singling out SNCF.
The lawyer who volunteered to defend the company is Arno Klarsfeld, whose father is a famous nazi-hunter and historian of the Shoah.
SNCF collaborates closely with Israel Railways and no one in Israel finds anything wrong with it.
The few French people (whether Jewish or not) who know about the lawsuit think it has a very nasty smell.
SJ’s budget-busting tunnel demands, EIR lawsuit, has HSRA quietly eyeing Altamont
Tony d. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Its a scare tactic from the CHSRA to San Jose: keep pushing the absurd tunnel option and we’ll leave you off the route entirely. Brilliant! It will work because the city of SJ isn’t stupid. It will be an aerial for HSR through SJ. End of discussion.
Reality Check Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Aerial is ridiculous. Make SJ pay for it. Otherwise, if it must be Pacheco, there’s a great, and far, far cheaper-to-use existing and mostly-grade-separated at-grade two-track, easily-widened ROW through the Gardner neighborhood. It’s been working great for Caltrain ever since they built the second track along with the Tamien station in the early 90s.
They other day, I noticed for the first time that ACE has built a mini-yard just south of Tamien to park their trains during the day. Which goes to show how wide much of that ROW is down there …
synonymouse Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Altamont is the preferred route no matter what difficulties arise in SJ because it serves the overall Bay Area and overall Norcal better than Pacheco. PB must have quietly been aware of this all along.
Tony d. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
By the way, how is the Altamont idea “gaining steam” when last weeks ruling said nothing, absolutely nothing about routing into Bay Area? Bull shit like that is why I don’t frequent SJInside anymore.
Reality Check Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
So how can you so confidently call “bullshit” just because it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in last week’s ruling?
Tony d. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Did you even ready Robert’s post on the ruling and what it really meant? (Obviously not)
joe Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Physics is against the tunnel. It’s probably not feasible, technically.
Joey Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
[blockquote]San Jose has to decide if they want the Pacheco Alignment they’ll need to accept some elevated structures.[/blockquote]
They shouldn’t need to. But the CHSRA has managed to make every Pacheco option undesirable.
That says nothing about what they might come up with for Altamont though.
joe Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Really? What’s your solution? At grade and bulldoze is the only option left.
I think CAHSRA wasn’t taken seriously. Now some in SJ realize the tunnel option isn’t practical.
Joey Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
The solution is at-grade, yes. HSR and CalTrain should be able to share ≤6 platform tracks, and ACE/Amtrak/UP passthrough 2-3. South of the station you have three tracks (which should require minimal if any property takes), one FRA and two shared by HSR and CalTrain (and yes this provides plenty of capacity). If platform sharing couldn’t be done (which is idiotic, btw), the only way to add more tracks would be to knock down the depot, though that might be preferable to a couple of billion $ worth of concrete in the sky.
Joey Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Honestly the CHSRA could have made Pacheco a much more palatable option if they wanted to put a minimal amount of effort into it.
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
If they do reconsider Altamont, it won’t be because of the lawsuit, but the lawsuit would enable them to reconsider it without losing face.
Nonetheless, San Jose is full of shit with regards to the tunnel.
joe Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
IMHO, CAHSRA isn’t worried about face saving. I do think risk management requires the CAHSRA keep options open – there is a political dimension – not allow San Jose to hold HSR hostage.
I don’t think the current crop of quotes out of San Jose represents a consensus. The media wil always find opponents, concerned businesses and citizens who will not want HSR. In this case the report is new and people are reacting to summary findings.
The geophysical and engineering constraints need to be understood and digested. I expect the City will want to explore the above ground structures, size, location and explore at grade options and make trades with design vs performance.
Tony d. Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
No consensus indeed Joe. Its mostly the downtown business community that’s up in arms against the aerial option. It didn’t help that those dishonest, concrete-behemoth renderings, concept’s were released recently. In short, the aerials don’t have to be designed in such monstrous freeway fashion. As for SJ’s city government, they realize what’s at stake and won’t shoot themselves in the foot; what they want is what matters, not the downtown business community.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
“Dishonest”?
It is the project proponents who put that horror show together! Not “the NIMBYs” or “The Koch Brothers” or “Atherton” or “blue helmeted UIC storm troopers”.
I assure you that the project proponents went a long way out of their way to show you only their very nicest things from the nicest angles.
What you see is what they, America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals, plan to build — it’s all spelled out in the “requirements” documents they wrote themselves! –, and what you see is the best face that America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals are able to put on it.
For my part, think it complements San Jose‘s, Capital of Silicon Valley’s, river-strangling Guadalupe Freeway rather fetchingly. And the whole passenger mezzanine level concept concept really ties the room together.
joe Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The renderings helped if they correctly communicated what was planned. The city should get involved and influence the design. In the future, the CAHSRA might weight aesthetics along with function.
IMHO we are “trained” to associate traffic noise and congestion with on/off ramps, when a freeway inspired structure looms over the landscape. Downtown San Jose already has examples. http://g.co/maps/e7tju
Clem Reply:
November 17th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Visual design guidelines, baby.
Tony d. Reply:
November 18th, 2011 at 2:07 am
In the past we’ve seen examples of aesthetically pleasing aerial structures ala European HSR. It doesn’t have to be (nor should it be) a concrete monolith soaring 60 ft. In the air BABY! (But I think you already knew that)