John Mica Abandons NEC Privatization Plans
Florida Republican John Mica, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, has spent most of 2011 pushing a plan to privatize the Northeast Corridor, home to the profitable Amtrak Acela. Yesterday he made a surprising flip-flop and now is willing to let Amtrak keep the NEC:
But the big news was the change in Mica’s attitude towards Amtrak — and his reversal of his earlier position on privatizing the Northeast Corridor. “I’m willing to have Amtrak be a full participant in this process,” he said Tuesday. “If there wasn’t an Amtrak…we’d create an Amtrak.” Later in his talk he reiterated: “we can continue again having Amtrak be a partner in this, no one wants to push them overboard.”
That’s what Mica wanted to do several months ago, when he introduced legislation that aimed to take the Northeast Corridor away from Amtrak, deed it to the U.S. Department of Transportation, and privatize the development of high-speed rail. He said Tuesday he knew that proposal had been “controversial.”
In a press conference afterward, he was asked why he had a change of heart. “We did put a proposal out there that we knew would be tough for them to accept,” he said, referring his June legislation, “but that’s what you do sometimes in the legislative process to get them to the point where they’re willing to work with you to make something happen.”
The key shift is that Amtrak is more willing to accept private funding, although the conditions are still unclear. It seems that Mica wants to invest in the NEC but wants that investment – and perhaps the benefits – to go to the private sector. Amtrak would manage the process and presumably own the tracks, but Mica is still trying to find some way to extract private profit out of a public service.
Still, it’s likely good news for the NEC. And Mica wants upgrades to happen more quickly there. Problem is, he opposes spending any federal money on any other HSR project outside the NEC:
“Any further money for high-speed rail needs to solely come to the Northeast Corridor,” said Congressman John Mica (R-FL), who promised to direct any rejected high-speed rail money to it….
“While I want to give California every chance and opportunity to be successful,” said Mica, “I think we have to redirect our efforts to having at least one success in high-speed rail in the nation. And that high-speed rail success needs to be here in the Northeast Corridor.”
So Mica doesn’t like our high speed rail project in California. That would be a problem if Mica were going to chair the House Transportation Committee for many years to come.
But he may find his tenure is brief. Republicans are not in good shape to hang on to the House in the 2012 elections. Democrats have a growing lead in polling for House elections. And yesterday’s elections across the country showed that the public is angry at the GOP for being so extremist. Several prominent Republicans were recalled, including Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of the state’s notorious anti-immigrant law SB 1070. In Ohio, Mississippi, and Maine voters rejected right-wing policies at the ballot box.
Democrats can retake the House and potentially hold on to the Senate and the White House by casting themselves as a reasonable opposition to a Republican Party dominated by unpopular extremists.
I know some readers don’t like it when this blog gets political, but the fact of the matter is that further federal funding for California HSR is highly unlikely as long as Republicans hold the House. By contrast, House Democrats were strongly supportive of federal funding for all HSR projects, calling for $50 billion for HSR funded by a dedicated revenue source back in 2010. Senate Democrats were less willing to move, but with many moderate Democrats now out of the Senate, such proposals have a better chance of passage in 2013.
That means it is premature to cast California HSR funding plans as unrealistic for relying on federal contributions. The federal situation is in flux, and that’s true not only of HSR but also for everything else the federal government funds (including freeways and airports, I should add).
There’s no reason to abandon the project now. And judging by recent newspaper editorials and statements from other project backers, HSR supporters are still on board. That’s a good sign and suggests that once sanity is restored to Congress, there will still be a California HSR project for Democrats to fund.
Representative John Mica (R – FL) wants to send money and privative part of to NE rail – obviously because he is motivated by lobbyist seeking to spin off profit.
He’s based in FL so the political capital he gains by helping the NE is pretty low.
The argument is apparently that Federal Gov’t allocates money into envelopes and when they need money, like for rail, the Feds have to go to the rail envelop and spend that money wisely.
It would explain why CA has to give up funding rather than say, the US stop lighting piles of money on fire paying contractors in Iraq.
Stephen Smith Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
He’s based in FL so the political capital he gains by helping the NE is pretty low.
Florida is a colony of New Jersey. New Jersey is on the Northeast Corridor. Ergo, Mica likes the Northeast Corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
He can get to New York faster for those all important fund raisers on Wall Street.
I’m having a hard time thinking of a single realistic private operator of the NEC who would’ve done worse than Amtrak.
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:18 am
And I have a hard time thinking of why Captains of industry need to takeover a when its profitable by Amtrack instead of, you know, being actual captains of innovation by taking over money losing lines and using their powers of for profit, customer service oriented experience to turn them around and make profit.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Because you’d need specific enabling legislation for those lines as well for the most part. Furthermore, Amtrak’s NEC is *not* profitable, they do not account for depreciation, which all other high speed rail lines do as a bare minimum for reporting as profitable.
And seriously, do you honestly think Amtrak does a better job on the NEC and brings more to the table than SNCF or DB Bahn or one of the JRs could?
Jonathan Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Only a total ignoramus would cite either DB and SNCF as examples of a “realistic private operator”.
The JRs, maybe; I honestly don’t know how their corporate culture changed after breakup and divestiture.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:35 am
And DB or SNCF are horribly unrealistic because…?
Jonathan Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Realiztic operator isn’t the point. DB and SNCF are both state-owned.
SNCF is state-owned. There are privatitzation plans for DB, but those suffered greatly after the severe service outages last winter, in which bad weather was exacerbated by deferred manitenane. Public perception is that maintenace was deferred deliberately to improve DB’s operating margins and thus yield a higher share price.
Perhaps by “Private” you really meant: “government-owned, but not US government-owned”?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Outside their home territories, DB and SNCF act exactly like private operators such as the JRs and Veolia.
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:21 am
99 years of Veolia, maybe? (And even that’s just a maybe.)
In any event, even if the bill went forward I’d doubt DB or one of the JRs would get the contract—I’d guess it would probably go to a consortium of players experienced in North American rail transport, so we’d end up with more of the same, albeit slightly better around the margins.
No. This development is good news for future private profiteers and for Amtrak using the NEC as a prestige project. It’s bad for people who use the NEC. You know, schlubs who end up missing trains because, although they come to the station just before departure, they need to print tickets at a Quik-Trak machine since Amtrak won’t let them print them at home. Schlubs who then take the train the next day but it arrives half an hour late. Schlubs who have more use for HSR to Providence than to Woonsocket.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Except for all reserved trains you can buy a ticket on board. If those 30 seconds are so important to you I’m sure the convenience fee charged for buying a ticket on board is more than worth it.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:19 am
It’s a hassle, sometimes a bottleneck, and occasionally a major point of failure (in which case chaos ensues). There’s no reason why Amtrak shouldn’t allow you to print an actual ticket online and have it checked on the train, like every rail operator that considers itself even remotely modern. Some don’t even require you to print it out – you just have to show the conductor on an electronic device.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:23 am
E-ticketing is being rolled out next year supposedly.
Alan F Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
E-ticketing is available on the Downeaster service which is serving as the first test phase of a wider deployment. eTicketing (to used Amtrak’s nomenclature) has been available on the AutoTrain for months, but the AutoTrain only has 2 stations, so it was a simpler roll-out.
According to the November issue of the Amtrak Ink employee magazine, the next services expected to utilize eTicketing are the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains in early 2012. The November Amtrak Ink has an overview of Amtrak’s communications and IT modernization efforts – real-time train monitoring, iPhone app, Arrow reservation system update, etc – for those who might be interested. The Ink issues can be found on Amtrak’s website at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241267284550
Simon Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Print-at-home tickets work fine for completely inflexible tickets which cannot be changed once the train starts its journey (in which case all the conductor needs is a list of who has paid). If you give the conductor an online “list”, rather than a printed one, the cut-off becomes when the train leaves the station from which it’s booked. In both of these cases it doesn’t matter if multiple copies are printed, since there is a specific train on which all copies are to be used and any attempt by multiple passengers to use the same ticket can be detected.
The problem is dealing with open tickets (or with missed connections, where passengers are allowed on a different train to the one booked). Such tickets will not be on the conductor’s list. Even if you give conductors access to the “master list” of all tickets sold by Amtrak that are still valid, you have the problem of determining when a second scan of a ticket is legitimate and when it is not. This will in some cases allow tickets to be misused (e.g. if a passenger with an A to F ticket is scanned before B, for all the system knows the passenger got off at B, and the ticket might still be valid as a B to F ticket and might be illegally resold as such).
It might be contended that it is possible to somehow lock a ticket to a *specific* electronic device (or some other artefact, e.g. credit card number; this is how traditional smartcards, and indeed traditional paper tickets, are supposed to work). But this doesn’t help, since IMEI numbers and credit cards are too easily cloned, and (unlike with paper tickets and smartcards) the security features are not within Amtrak’s control. Worse, it poses problems for genuine customers whose phones break down or whose credit cards are lost, stolen or stop working, and being sympathetic opens the door to widespread ticket misuse.
For *airlines* this is not an issue as most flights are point-to-point and most ticket checking is done before departure. Trains don’t have that luxury, so e-ticketing seems unworkable except for point-to-point tickets with no connections and no flexibility if a train is missed.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:53 am
I was offered to buy on board, for the price of a new ticket plus 9 dollars. And this was on a train I’d already bought a ticket for.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:07 am
That’s what happens when you show up at the station late.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Dear customers,
Fuck you.
Yours truly,
The Amtrak monopoly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
So everybody can show up at the station 20 seconds before departure, sounds like a plan to me.
and btw Amtrak, except for God forsaken places on the Great Plains, doesn’t have a monopoly. You are free to print your ticket at home and then stand on a street corner waiting for a bus that may or may not come where you may or may not get a seat. Or spend an hour getting to the airport with your printed at home boarding pass in your sweaty little hand… where you are at risk for body cavity searches. Or drive, be sure to sign up for EZPass first because waiting to pay the tolls with cash is can take a long time.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Sure. That’s what accessible stations, convenient ticketing, barrier free routes, good platform circulation, adequately wide and numerous platform access points, excellent passenger information, reliably timely service and GIVING A DAMN ABOUT YOUR CUSTOMER’S VALUABLE TIME are all about.
It’s not as if it this isn’t done hundreds of thousands of times a day.
US public transportation, where the slogan is “Pay up, suck it down, jump through these hoops, and then suck a bucket full of cocks … because we’re never going to allow you anything better. Losers.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
GIVING A DAMN ABOUT YOUR CUSTOMER’S VALUABLE TIME
People who don’t want to spend 15 seconds at the TVM are more than welcome to purchase tickets on board. There’s a slight fee for that. At bigger stations you can avoid both by going to the ticket agents.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
It wasn’t 15 seconds. It required locating the nearest Quik-Trak machine (sorry, I don’t have the locations of all machines at Penn Station memorized). And in that specific case, I ran to the gate agent and asked if I had time to get a ticket; he said he couldn’t hold the train and told me to go down, whereby a conductor told me what my options were. If I’d just printed the ticket I might have made it.
As I said, I don’t really have to travel to New York anyway.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
For someone who knows where the machines are, has used them before, assuming there is no line for the machine, and assuming that the machine is actually working, it will take 15 seconds.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
So in addition to getting to the station late you didn’t bother to check on line or call Amtrak to find out where the TVMs were in Penn Station. Why would they hold the train? What makes your time more important than the 400, 500 people who managed to show up on time?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I’m not saying they should’ve held the train. That would be idiotic. I’m saying they should let people print tickets at home, and given that they don’t, the gate agent should’ve known to say “They’re leaving in a minute, the TVM is over there, go.” I actually spotted the TVM, but didn’t know whether I had time to print the ticket there (I did, judging by how long I talked to the conductor on the track level).
It boils down to whether you want the train system to work for normal passengers or just for the kind of people who know every nook and cranny of the bureaucracy.
Also, I sincerely doubt there were 400 people on that train, but that’s a different issue.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
The gate agent and the conductor have no way to evaluate how spry you are and your skills with a TVM. If they had suggested using the TVM and you missed your train your complaint would then be that the gate agent or the conductor told you to use the TVM. If holding the train is idiotic you could deduce frokm “he said he couldn’t hold the train and told me to go down” that his evaluation was that you didn’t have enough time to use the TVM.
You chose to get to the station late. You asked the advice of Amtrak employees. The advice Amtrak employees gave you would have gotten you on the train. You chose not to take it. My heart bleeds.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
The advice would’ve shortchanged me $68 when a different advice could’ve gotten me on the train for no extra charge. (He had no way to judge how spry I am? How about “Train’s leaving in 60 seconds, go now”? Or is 60 seconds too precise for Amtrak’s scheduling?)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
If it had taken 61 seconds it would have been his fault that you missed the train. Whatever it was that kept you from arriving at the station in a timely fashion apparently wasn’t worth 68 bucks. My heart bleeds.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Seriously, would it be such a terrible thing if Amtrak accepted tickets printed online?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Seriously, would it be such a terrible thing if Amtrak accepted tickets printed online?
No but they don’t. Until they do, responsible adults get to the station with enough time to use the TVM or take the risk of paying the onboard penalties.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:33 am
Meh. It’s just like how some airlines severely pad the time they tell you to arrive at the airport. The Israeli ones are the worst; they tell you to show up 2-4 hours before departure. (You can show up an hour before and usually be let on.)
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Nothing that can’t be fixed by just not visiting New York as often. I don’t really need to go there.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:24 am
That’s the sad thing. The purpose of transit isn’t just to provide a service, it should be to facilitate connectivity. If you want to go to NYC, you should be able to do so in reasonable time and at reasonable cost. Personally, I wish that I could make a day trip to Boston to see my friends (i.e. be able to take a 2-hour train ride there in the morning and back at night), which will only be a dream for at least 20 years unless a game-changer happens to this country.
Amtrak’s high fares, low punctuality, and ludicrous practices aren’t exactly helping out. It baffles me why the swarm of passengers at Penn Station must wait in the concourse, probably because platforms seem to be arbitrarily assigned 10 minutes before departure. Either way, such a practice is guaranteed to make the trains late.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Have you ever been in Penn Station?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Passengers must wait and scramble because Amtrak requires passengers to go down to the platform via just one access point. Although there are two access points per platform from the main Amtrak concourse, Amtrak only keeps one open, for an extra ticket check.
Pro-tip: if you want to be the first one on the train, watch the arrival screen, and as soon as the track is posted run to the NJT concourse (or the LIRR concourse if you have to) and go down from there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
That and the Trenton local ( or NJCL or M&E or whatever ) departing the track a few minutes before the announcement. Having people loiter on the platform wouldn’t work out too well with the through trina either.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
But why wait so long after the train arrives at the platform? If they do this faster, they can dwell at Penn for 3 minutes instead of 15. There, I just saved everyone traveling through New York 12 minutes without spending a penny on concrete or electronics.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Swapping out the passengers destined for New York with the passengers originating in New York in three minutes would take a lot of spending on a lot of concrete to reconfigure the platforms.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
It really wouldn’t. Passengers clear in about 2 minutes; I’ve timed it. (They clear LIRR trains at rush hour in about 1:30, but the LIRR has better door placement.) Boarding can take the same amount of time if people use all available staircases.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
How many hundreds of people, with their luggage, were on the platform while the commuters wrestled their luggage off the train onto the platform?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Not that many. But yes, they could do it while people were also loading at the same time. Boarding passengers are remarkably good about yielding to alighting passengers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
They are remarkably good at it when they have space to yield. Tearing out obsolete freight elevators and rearranging the stairs etc. so they can do that won’t be easy and will involve some concrete.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
They really aren’t. They make people queue single-file at Boston South, where they have all the space in the world.
Perhaps I’m a “technical” … but when I look at the numbers, I don’t see the Democrats having any chance of regaining the house in the next election cycle. If anything, based on the number of Rep’s vs Dem’s seeking re-election, the Democrats may loose a few seats to a general anti-incumbent sentiment.
BTW: your link on the Dem’s “growing lead” actually shows them painfully behind for the past year with a one-week blip that puts them in the green. look at the source data (bottom of page) vs the pretty-plot.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Are you confusing the House with the Senate? In the Senate there are way more Dems up for reelection than Repubs, but in the House, everyone’s up for reelection.
DanM Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
you are, of course, correct.
StevieB Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting 25 House Republican incumbents with radio ads as part of the “Drive for 25” program, the number of seats they would need to retake the House. The “Drive to 25″ campaign will also include phone banks, web advertising, and live and automated calls. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif. are the California Republicans targeted on the hit list.
StevieB Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Somehow I left off Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif. from the list.
Liam Jameson Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Several blue states are loosing House representation due to recent census mandated redistricting, and these lost seats are going mostly to red states. The states gaining House representation – Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington, as a whole, tend to elect Republicans. The states losing House reps, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio tend to elect Democrats.
The Republicans also took control of the state legislatures of several formerly blue states, and have taken advantage of this to engage in gerrrymandering federal representative districts to give them the biggest demographic advantage possible. Republicans control redistricting in 15 states, including contested seats in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Republicans control the mapmaking for 193 House districts, compared to 44 for the Democrats. These are very significant advantages. I would not expect anywhere near a big enough swing to allow Democrats to take back the House.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I agree. The Republicans will hold a slim Majority for the next decade, but they will inevitably lean on Democratic votes because of the uncompromising nature of Tea Party. Effectively the Boehner types will play kingmaker and pit the two more ideological bases against each other to pass things.
Obama meanwhile, has lots of swing states that has a Senate incumbent running for election too. Expect those places to get more attention and resources than Houses races in states where the President has no chance….
wu ming Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:19 am
texas’ gerrymandered map was just thrown out by the courts, so the 2012 map will be drawn by judges. the texas GOP should not count on picking up seats this time around.
Good luck with getting sanity restored to Congress, even if Democrats take back the house. I think this country is due for major political reforms altogether, not just putting the other party back in power every 2 years. That system doesn’t work. Hopefully the Occupy movement will have some effect on political reforms in this country, they are desperately needed right now.
StevieB Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:07 am
The Occupy movement does not have a single legislative proposal the majority can agree on. The prospect of the movement coalescing into a action for an Article V Convention is inconceivable. What might come of the movement is a backlash against those politicians who are seen as toadies of Wall Street.
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:23 am
Media studies show how the OWS movement has changed the debate and news coverage. By counting nouns, they measure how the media has switched from “The Deficit Will Kill You” to Jobs, Income Inequity and, uh, what has the third thing ?, Oh yea the EPA.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Can you point me to these studies? Because the OWS organizers I know not only do not talk about jobs, but also say that they’re trying to change the system, call “jobs, health care, and transportation” parochial concerns, and ally themselves with Ron Paul supporters.
California needs to start construction before Mica can propose legislation to rescind the money. “I’ll give California a fighting chance, but it doesn’t look too good for the future,” Mica said. “If that money is going to lie dormant or just be spent, be tinkled away on a bunch of studies and not produce, I want that money here in the Northeast Corridor.”
Mica urged the crowd at the conference held by the US High Speed Rail Association to lobby Congress.
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:28 am
Mica would propose legislation yesterday if Nancy Pelosi wasn’t there to swat at him and send him back home with another legislative transportation failure.
North East Dems lined up to agree the NE needs money for more and better rail service. They should be there. His personal comments about taking money from the Dems party leaders district and state, not so popular.
Oh, and this empty threat does remind Pols of the importance of starting HSR rather then sending the billions back.
jim Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 4:35 am
California Republicans, on the other hand, …
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:03 am
…are all Koch out.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the NEC would be the quickest and cheapest HSR project in the country which would be in turn the quickest way to demonstrate the effectiveness of HSR. I don’t see how construction can start in a year when our government and the public are still bickering over funding and routes. Also people on the Peninsula are high in thinking HSR is going to be some kind of disruption to their way of life; they already live next to a loud diesel commuter CalTrain which takes a whopping 10 seconds to pass their house, assuming they’re home during the day. HSR wouldn’t be tooting their horns at crossings either which makes it that much less disruptive. Seems like a fairly simple argument.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:20 am
The NEC runs through 400 miles of suburb. Not cheap, fast or easy to build through.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Fortunately, about two thirds of the line is already built to HSR standards, more or less.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
It’s all the parts that aren’t up to HSR standards that will be a problem, most will be expensive to fix.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
So start with the easy parts (of which there are a fair number). Unlike California, the NEC can be upgraded incrementally.
J. Wong Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Where could they test the equipment? Maybe they need the ICS to test for the NEC too.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
They have an test segment for the NEC, it’s between New Brunswick and Trenton. Though all the agencies that use the NEC usually begin testing on one of the branches and once all of the problems are identified and resolved they start using the NEC.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Between Readville and Attleboro the tracks are built to full HSR standards, modulo some very moderate curves (radius 2.5 km, I think). Between the Metuchen S-curve and Morrisville they’re also HSR modulo the catenary.
ComradeFrana Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:39 am
Just a question: What about the track separation? For example at least the Readville-Attleboro section has
only approx. 3.8m separation, while design standards I am aware of mandate 4.5 to 5m separation for
186-220 mph speeds. According to my limited understanding this is so that passing trains do not cause
disturbance by displaced air at high speeds. Wouldn’t this then mean that trains would have to pass each other
at lower relative speeds?
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
It’s fine for ~150ish. And I don’t think you’re likely to see any higher than that, mainly because trains with high tilt (6-8°) currently have a top speed around there. I can’t confirm this for sure, but it seems reasonable to assume that that tilt will save more time than increasing top speed, given how many very curvy sections of the NEC there are.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Is it 3.8 really? When I measured on Google Earth, it was 4. I always thought it was 4 in Rhode Island and Massachusetts and south of New York and 3.7 in Connecticut.
The normal European standards say 4.5, but Japan has 4.3 on the newer Shinkansen lines and 4.24 on Tokaido, both with wider loading gauges than the US standards, by about 15 cm. And the Acelas pass at 240 km/h with this track separating with 4 degrees of tilt, whereas the trainsets the NEC should be designed around have about 2 degrees (E5 and N700; the Talgo 350 can do the same cant deficiency as the E5, but it might tilt more, though it’s easier for it since the cars are shorter). On the other hand, the superelevation is lower than optimal.
StevieB Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
There is no quick way to build new HSR through Philadelphia and across the Hudson. Construction on the Peninsula has been held off for 15 years. If Initial Operating Service on California HSR at that time proves popular then the politics will change entirely.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Who needs to build new HSR through Philadelphia, anyway? Just run trains at 200 km/h east of Frankford Junction and at lower speed through the junction and to 30th Street. Not every single kilometer of track needs to be built to HSR geometry standards; it’s okay to make compromises right next to stations where all trains are going to stop anyway.
Brian Stanke Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
No the Northeast Corridor would not be “be the quickest and cheapest HSR project in the country” because Amtrak HSR planning is about 10 years behinds California’s. The CA HSR Authority has been planning and getting environmental clearances for the state’s HSR system for over ten years now. They are ready to sign design-build contracts and start buying right-of-way next year. The only possible hold up is if the legislature does not approve the funding to move ahead (looking less likely now post-Business Plan) or if the opponents slow it down in court with injunctions.
In contrast the HSR planning be Amtrak for the Northeast Corridor only really started in ernest in 2009. In October 2010 Amtrak released a concept document/vision plan. It has multiple years to go to get a NEPA document done and done actual 15% design engineering documents. So Amtrak is many multiple years behind for building real HSR infrastructure. Now it’s “master plan” for repairing the NEC may be ready start construction, but that is not high-speed rail.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
The NEC could be upgraded quite quickly and relatively cheaply if you’re doing incremental upgrades/cutoffs rather than Amtrak’s ridiculous full-HSR plan.
jim Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
You have to distinguish between the south end of the NEC and the north end. The existing right of way of the south end — New York to Washington — can support 300 km/h for much of its length. The track, the catenary and signaling would all have to be upgraded. That’s what’s being done between New Brunswick and Trenton for the $450M in HSIPR funds. Existing bridges would have to be supplemented or replaced. Wilmington would have to be bypassed (using the Shellpot Branch Right of way). The NEPA process for these would not take the length of time that California HSR needed. And some of it has already started. HSR on the south end of the NEC (and 300 km/h is HSR) would in fact be relatively quick and cheap.
The north end, though, between New York and Boston, will require major HSR planning. The existing right of way will not support HSR. As was needed for California, a multiple year planning effort would be needed. The Vision laid out the range of possible alignments that would have to be studied, just for a Program EIR: Hudson Valley, then east; variations of the Inland Route; variations on the Shoreline Route; through Long Island. Once a basic alignment was chosen, there would need to be detailed studies. One can well imagine 15 years of environmental/engineering work before construction could start. And that construction wouldn’t be cheap.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Shhh, we almost snuck in 5 minutes but then they went and canceled the project. They are still doing part of it which should wring out a minute or two and increase reliability. A little bit here a little bit there and they should be able to manage 100MPH average speed, which is quite respectable.
Jonathan Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
100mph average sped is “respectable?” When did European top speeds hit 200 km/hr?
What did Le Capitole average 45 years ago?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:29 am
Almost certainly less. In 1981, the first TGV service from Paris to Lyon – 2/3 LGV, 1/3 legacy line – averaged a little more than 100 km/h. Even today, 160 km/h is unheard of on legacy lines, except for heavily upgraded ones like Berlin-Hamburg. (No, London-York doesn’t make the cut; London-Doncaster does, but if we include minor cities then New London-Providence averages about 160 km/h. Fair’s fair.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Philadelphia-Baltimore…. 58 minutes on Acela. 98MPH if did the arithmetic right. long stretches that would be good for more than 135 if it was upgraded.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Le Capitole linked Paris (Austerlitz station) to Toulouse, 715km with 4 stops on the way, in 5h56. That’s 125kmh average speed, not 200kmh. It did run at 200kmh on half of the line’s length and the average speed would have been closer to 200kmh without the long stops at intermediate stations. Local chambers of commerces lobbied to have stops long enough to allow passengers to shop at station stores and taste local foods and wines. That’s totally unthinkable nowadays.
Max Wyss Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Hmmm… didn’t the Capitole link Paris Austerlitz with Bordeaux; a long time ago, I took the Etendard to Toulouse.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:04 am
A train named “Capitole” couldn’t have any other destination than Toulouse. The Capitole palace is the city’s most famous historic monument.
Centuries before Toulouse became home to Airbus, the Toulousains tended to consider the Capitole as the center of the civilised world. At the time Paris was still a group of primitive villages on the banks of the Seine, Toulouse was a sophisticated city with a university, theaters and concert halls.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Could the Capitole have served Toulouse via Bordeaux?
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“Could the Capitole have served Toulouse via Bordeaux?”
Yes, but Massif Central cities like Limoges, Brives and Cahors would have been left out.
Currently, the normal Paris-Toulouse route avoids the Massif Central and goes through Bordeaux. It’s longer in distance but shorter in time (about 5 hours). There is no LGV beyond Tours, so Paris-Toulouse TGV is just a faster Acela. At the risk of shocking railfans I’d say the fastest and cheapest Paris-Toulouse is by EasyJet, at least until the LGV is built.
Jonathan Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
so with contemporary stops instead of the “shopping breaks”, average speed would have been over 160km/hr, or 100 mph?
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Probably not, because the line crosses the Massif Central, the mountain which separates northern from southern France. Plans to straighten the route by adding viaducts and tunnels were abandoned when SNCF became TGV-obsessed.
Max Wyss Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:22 am
That’s maximum speeds; I think the first commercial running at 200 km/h was München – Augsburg in Germany, in the late 60s/early 70s (BR 103 engine plus a few first class coaches, as part of the new IC trains from München to Stuttgart and beyond). France followed suit with Le Capitole and L’Etendard (CC6500 plus a bunch of Voitures Grand Comfort (whose running comfort was outstanding)). And then, the next was British Rail with the HST sets on the West Coast main line and the Great Western line)
Jonathan Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Well, if it’s late 60s, that has to be the E 03 prototypes, not the production BR 103 :)
THe 103.1s were deivereed between 1970 and ’74.
The two purpose-built Le Capitole BB 9200s were rated for 250 km/hr; the other Le Capitoles converted from series-production locos were rated for 200 km/hr. But that was 1967 to 1970.
So is it fair to say, first, that average speeds of 160 km/hr was achievable in revenue service over 40 years ago; and second, that therefore average speeds of 100 mi/hr hardly qualify as “high-speed rail” in the present day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
In contrast the HSR planning be Amtrak for the Northeast Corridor only really started in ernest in 2009.
It started in earnest in 1963 or so but every time someone comes up with a plan the funding never comes or if it comes it never gets funded for the full program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroliner_(Amtrak)
It’s worth noting that the next Dem in line on the transportation committee, Nick Rahall, is quite conservative. A Democratic house might be better for transportation, there’s also a very good chance it will just be more of the same (especially if the Democrats continue to lean pro-austerity on discretionary spending and try not to raise revenues for fear of rocking the point).
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Boat, not point. Don’t know where that came from.
VBobier Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I’ve had that happen to Me, so that’s understandable, You’re forgiven.
Alan F Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Congressman Rahall is a supporter of Amtrak although I don’t how deep or far his support goes for HSR or higher speed rail. He has, multiple times, stated he wants daily Cardinal service because it goes through his district and daily service would provide useful service to Virginia and the mid-West for communities that have limited transportation options. WV is not a prime candidate for anything more then improved 79 mph passenger service.
A Democratic controlled House, at this point given how the stances of the 2 parties have changed, would be better for transit and passenger rail funding. I would expect highway and road funding to still be favored; just more of a balance.
VBobier Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
It would be better for more than just transit and HSR.
On a completely different topic, it is not good to see a left leaning writer post this article in the very left leaning Huffington Post…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-harris/california-high-speed-rail_b_1082496.html
synonymouse Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:51 am
And this writer is only referring to the broad, loosely defined picture of the CHSRA’s problematic scheme. It is only going to get uglier if he were to delve deeper into Stilt-A-World.
The CHSRA consistently selected the weakest and most expensive links to form their plan. They still refuse to fairly consider alternatives.
If there is a theme to this huffington post article it is that monies are limited and priorities must be imposed. An uknown concept at PB-CHSRA. Othewise the Bako-LA via Tejon undertaking would be first and foremost.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
And it’s notable that the people who commented on the story mostly said we should go ahead anyway, the cost to build will get more expensive, and the cost of the status quo will also get more expensive.
I think this is like the situation for SNCF, which according to Andre Peretti, had to choose HSR or die. I think we face the same problem, but it’s not just Amtrak, it’s the country itself.
We have to get off that oil diet, or we–our nation–will slowly die, strangled by oil prices and oil companies. HSR is not a total solution (we need local and commuter service, too), but it is part of it.
Good for the NEC!
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/11/02/n_amtrak_117_billion_train.cnnmoney/
But that’s much more than the California system is projected to cost, for about the same route miles. California’s economy is nearly as big as the economy of the NEC region. I don’t think California should surrender anything to the NEC. The US was spending $Billions on the NEC when $Billions were real money. Sure, they have riders, but that’s because of all the money that’s been spent on the NEC over the years.
Sending all the money to the East Coast makes for horrible politics. When people think of New York and Washington, they think of Wall Street and Congress! The US is already badly split along regional lines. HSR has become one more “wedge issue”, like abortion, “Obamacare”, and climate change. It would be good for the country to commit to several projects – a few true HSR, and more of the Amtrak+ variety.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The only people Amtrak+ would be good for are Amtrak employees and construction contractors.
jim Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I don’t know. The Indiana ARRA proposal for Chicago-Cleveland wasn’t bad. It would have run 8 tpd between Chicago and Cleveland in 4:22. There’s no daylight service there today and the two long distance trains take seven and a half to eight hours. And North Carolina’s Charlotte-Richmond had virtues, too.
But, yes, a lot of the Amtrak+ proposals are less than compelling.
VBobier Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Agreed, CA should get a fair share, If the NEC gets $117 Bn or so, CA should get something to help the CAHSR get into LA and over the Mountains, But only for practical construction and for the most benefit as well.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
There is no reason to spend more than $50 billion for that length of track anywhere in the country. And even that is pushing it a little.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
A little? Anyone proposing more than about $20-25 billion for that is picking our pockets. It can be done in $10.
For 720 km of line, the only reason to ever spend $50 billion anywhere is if there are very complex mountain crossings all over. California’s original $33 billion was a little on the high side and that’s with the Tejon/Tehachapi difficulties.
Peter Baldo Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
We spent $1.1 Billion just replacing rail and ties on 183 mi of single-track on the line to St. Louis. That’s for 5 trains a day, each way. By that standard, the $65 Billion current dollar estimate is a bargain.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
They are doing more than just laying new track. Grade crossing improvements, PTC…
Alan F Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
The $1.1 billion is also going to buy 30 bi-level coach cars, 12 locomotives, station upgrades, some has gone to upgrade the UP tracks from St. Louis to Alton IL. The corridor has also gotten another $186 million to upgrade the Dwight to Joliet segment with some double tracking and to also upgrade another 33 grade crossings. One item that escalates the costs for the corridor is improving the many grade crossings for 110 mph operation with quad gates and securing the private crossings with locked gates.
The funding is for the first phase of the upgrade project. The end goal is 10 to 12 round trip trains a day, but that will require double tracking for all or much of the route which will cost another billion or more. So for $2 – $2.5 billion or so, is 12 daily trains with a ~ 4 hour trip time a better deal? (Well, IF the additional funding can be found in the next several years).
VBobier Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
And California being on the ring of fire is crisscrossed with active fault lines, so It’s not all that cheap to do, but cause of the distance, It’s well worth It to offer a simpler alternative, which will also attract tourists who bring money, car rental firms could start branches near HSR that are close to notable tourist attractions, Like Yosemite or some other place like that, while airlines going north and south don’t attract tourists to most of the state, besides at about 30,000′ in altitude the ground isn’t always visible cause of clouds or all that interesting.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Our costs are WAY above what even the Japanese pay. There’s simply no justification for such high numbers.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
No, $33 is fine for the length of Phase 1. It’s a little on the high side, but it’s still cheaper than what the Germans pay. It’s $65 that’s indefensible.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Yes, $33b is fine. But the number isn’t $33b anymore.
In the Atherton / Mnelo Park lawsuit, Judge Kenny has ruled that the EIR must be de-certified (this the second time), and recirculated.
The ruling has yet to appear on the website, but should be there shortly. The major finding against the Authority was the traffic impacts along the Monterey Highway, had not been adequately addressed.
Since the proposed funding plan included as one of two options extending the ICS north, they now won’t have a certified EIR for that extension; Prop 1A clearly says CEQA clearances must be in place before funding.
Of, course they don’t have a certified EIR for the extension south either.
Peter Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Actually, they don’t have certified Project EIRs to start construction in the CV, either.
Joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Interestingly San Jose’s long term viison and plans for Coyote Valley, a long strip running along Monterey Highway and 101 were just released. The City did a 180 and now wants to develop infill and keep the area along Monterey HW (once destined for development approxiately the size of redwood City) an undevleoped green space.
As for PAMPA, one wonders how this lawsuit aginst HSR’s EIR will play out with Caltrain depending on HSR to modernize and reduce the operating costs.
There’s an approved 5 Billion expansion at Stanford, the Facebook campus move and expansion to Menlo Park/101 and Google’s ambitious expansion at their Mountain View Campus off 101. Caltrain is key to reducing car trips / traffic. Caltrain desperately needs an influx of cash to run and electirfy. I have no idea where or how this is going to happen.
I’ll ask my City’s Caltrain/VTA Rep, but I assume a consequence of suing over the HSR EIR for South Santa Clara Country is undermine any concensus for fixing their soon-to-be dire traffic congestion problems.
Morris, if you can’t stop Facebook’s expansion, you are literally screwed.
Reality Check Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Menlo Park City Council last week selected their preferred site for a Dumbarton Rail station site … it could hardly be closer to Facebook, at the intersection of the tracks and Willow Road:
Council selects Dumbarton Transit Station site
The city’s staff report on the station site is here.
swing hanger Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Six trains inbound, and return in the evening. Sounds like Altamont Express or SunRail. I can see it- F40′s and some secondhand Bombardier bilevels. Underperforming. 21st century American rail at its finest. Ugh.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Tens of hundreds of passengers a day all for cost of a new billion dollar bridge and few hundred million dollar stations.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
$1 billion? The last I heard was that rehabilitating the old bridge would cost a few hundred million.
Clem Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Not even that. The refurbished bridges (through the priceless and hallowed no-HSR-allowed-ever Don Edwards National Wildlife Ornithological Endangered and Protected Species Nesting In Super Sensitive Wetlands Refuge) and a few grade separations account for less than a fifth of the project budget, putting the cost of the Dumbarton rail crossing at less than $100 million.
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/legislation/RM2_Description_July04.pdf
Clem Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I draw an important distinction between the bridges themselves and the total program cost of $600+ million.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
38 million to put a sidewalk on it and it was structurally sound. somewhat shorter too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poughkeepsie_Bridge
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
PAMPA sues to delay HSR – tries to kill the project or at best is untroubled about the possible oss in billions of dollars as a side effect of stopping the construction.
Simultaneously, CA will produce 100M+ and 5M annually to run a rail service at a subsidy so PAMPA can control traffic congestion.
Peter Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
They actually have a certified Programmatic EIR for Bakersfield to Los Angeles, which is more than they have for SF-Merced.
That being said, given the timeframes we’re now looking at for extending the IOS, there’s no problem with decertifying the SF-Merced Program EIR a few more times before construction begins.
Tony d. Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Agreed. This all amounts to nothing; Monterey Hwy in SSJ is lightly travelled anyway, so this should be addressed no problem. By the way, what does Monterey Hwy in SSJ have to do with Menlo Atherton anyhow?
Peter Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
The issue is that they didn’t study the traffic impacts to Monterey sufficiently.
And Atherton is interested in delaying the EIR in the hopes that the project will be killed or rerouted over Altamont (and not go through PAMPA). This Program EIR is PAMPA’s best chance to achieving its goal of rerouting. It’s irrelevant that the traffic impacts on Monterey don’t affect PAMPA, as it doesn’t affect their standing to challenge the EIR in court.
Tony d. Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Is Atherton that stupid?! The worse that could happen is that the EIR gets recertified and HSR ends in San Jose.
Their BS isn’t going to force HSR through Altamont and over a billion dollar Dumbarton Bridge (no, its not just about rehabbing a rusty wooden bridge).
Peter Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“The major finding against the Authority was the traffic impacts along the Monterey Highway, had not been adequately addressed.”
So, what happened with the ridership issue and the issue claiming the Authority didn’t consider the SETEC alignment (or any other alternative alignment)?
Is it yet another phyrric victory for Atherton?
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
You asked about ridership – CAHSRA won.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Nice. That’s what I hoped for. So now they can just quickly decertify the EIR, recirculate it with a lengthy discussion of the traffic impacts, go through a 45 day comment period, and recertify it.
StevieB Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Stuart Flashman, the attorney for the cities, a group of Peninsula residents and two anti-bullet train groups should be very pleased as he rakes in the money. Flashman vows to continue the litany of lawsuits. “That may be the take-home message here, that the authority will have to keep doing this until they get it right,” Flashman said. “I don’t know how many times” we’ll sue. The outcome may be that the EIR from Bakersfield to Palmdale is completed before Merced to San Jose.
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Or, much better, Bakersfield to Santa Clarita.
Clem Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
The CHSRA has already anticipated this issue. The SJ-Merced section has since 2009 sprouted another 21 to 25 miles of viaduct (in addition to what viaduct was already planned) including between SJ and Gilroy where “constraint points” are too high and too close together to allow the tracks to return to ground level. So says the 2012 business plan supporting documentation, and specifically the memo on cost increases.
Traffic on Monterey highway will bask in the shadow of Stilt-a-Rail.
This change by Mica is no accident.
If you notice in the picture, he is seen with only Democrats from New York City, not other Republicans. This is part of a bigger calculated strategy to start picking off Democrat votes in the House to get things passed. John Boehner and Mica realize that even if they maintain the Majority, the nature of the Tea Partiers means they will need Democratic votes to move things forward.
Specifically, this statement by Mica is designed to put pressure on Chuck Schumer because of his rivalry with Harry Reid who obviously wants HSR funding to stay put so some of it can go to Desert Xpress. The Chairman has set a March deadline for a transportation reauthorization bill, and Mica is trying to build enough support for his version. Similarly, if Schumer can wring a few votes in the Senate, it will pass the filibuster.
Peter Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
DesertXpress is only going to need Congressional funds if its RRIF loan falls through (which wouldn’t be surprising given the shitty ridership study).
This news flash just in from David Schonbrunn at TRANSDEF:
California High-Speed Rail Authority Loses Court Challenge
For Immediate Release
November 10, 2011
Contact:
Stuart Flashman, Esq. (510) 652-5373
David Schonbrunn (415) 370-7250
Richard Tolmach (916) 388-4658
Court Again Rejects High-Speed Rail Environmental Document
On Thursday, November 10, Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court released a pair of decisions 38 and 40 pages long, invalidating the Environmental Impact Report for the Central Valley to Bay Area section of the California High-Speed Rail project — for the second time. The Judge found that the California High-Speed Rail Authority had failed to adequately address a series of challenges raised by the Petitioners, comprised of the Town of Atherton, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Palo Alto, the California Rail Foundation, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, the Planning and Conservation League, Patricia Giorni and the Mid-Peninsula Residents for Civic Sanity.
The court found that the project’s Revised Environmental Impact Report had failed to discuss significant impacts, failed to consider information from the Authority’s parallel project-level studies, and failed to recirculate the document for public comments.
For the second time, the Court ordered the Authority to rescind its approvals selecting the Pacheco Pass alignment and its certification of the associated Revised Final Environmental Impact Report.
Gary Patton, co-counsel, stated that “The court’s decision tells the California High Speed Rail Authority that it can’t keep ignoring the public’s right to participate. The court’s decision in the Atherton II case says that the Authority failed in its duty to recirculate the CEQA document to get public comments, and this was a violation of the law.”
Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation, declared that “Twice in a row, the Authority ignored the requirements of environmental law. The Judge found they still have not done a proper study.”
Stuart Flashman, lead counsel, stated that “In rejecting the EIR, the Court has upheld the principle that significant project impacts cannot be swept under the rug for later consideration, after the key decisions have already been made.”
The Court’s decision is posted online at: http://transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot.html
Tony d. Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
As mentioned earlier, a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. We’ll have a certified Merced-SJ EIR when construction is ready to begin (if the project survives financially).
peninsula Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
That’s cute.
A few questions about the ‘certified Merced-SJ EIR’.
How many times so far has it been through court?
About how many times do you think it will be through court?
How long will each one of those rounds take? (when will the court challenges be exhausted – just a rough guess – what year do you think that will be?
And about how much time do you think is left before Mica gets the ARRA funds redirected to the northeast?
Tony d. Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
What part of “if the project survives financially” didn’t you get?! Again, if we hit the funding lotto, the SJ-Merc section will have EIR certified, be frivolous lawsuit proof, and ready for construction: IT WILL HAPPEN! If HSR dies on a vine (last week’s discussion), then talking SJ-Merc is a moot point.
By the way, HSR or no HSR, Caltrain would still need to be modernized from SF-SJ. How does @#$%& PAMPA intend to stop that?!
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Mr T;
Despite the need, Caltrain will NOT be modernized, the system will continue to struggle for subsidies and maintenance funding. Electrification is not going to happen without HSR.
Caltrain is going to have to make service cuts to survive. I vote for Menlo Park and Atherton station service curtailed to save funding. More commuter cars, more infill and cars.
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Look at ridership. Menlo Park has too much to justify simply eliminating. Almost 2/3 of it is *to* Menlo Park as well – i.e. it’s not just a bedroom community. In terms of overall ridership, it ranks just behind Sunnyvale and ahead of San Mateo – 9th in the system.
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:53 am
Honestly, Caltrain’s past proposal to close stations in san mateo co when san mateo co was coming up short with their commitment to operate Caltrain wasn’t about the ridership at each station.
“Sorry about those HSR lawsuits, now let’s talk about responsible rail guys. We need money to improve service – when can you get that check to us?”
“Oh and thank god we’re too important to cut. Think about all the menlo park residents pissed off if it were — they might even blame us for those lawsuits. The ones where the EIR was delayed because of traffic in South San Jose.”
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
My point is that it’s largely not about residents. More people commute *to* Menlo Park than commute from Menlo Park.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Atherton has already been effectively closed (why Caltrain stops there on weekends is beyond me).
Judging by its substantial ridership in light of its proximity to Palo Alto, a major BB station, Menlo Park is extremely important. I’d permanently close Hayward Park and Broadway, two stations whose ridership will never justify its existences, and all stops south of Tamien before making such an irrational decision.
joe Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Peninsula, I don’t have answers to your questions. I do know that the three Cities continue to endear themselves to the rest of the State. I’m sure when this terrible project ends, CA will promptly invest in fixing Caltrain, building the Dumbarton rail and will be very very worried about backups on the side streets on PAMPA when metering lights slow if traffic congestion worsens.
StevieB Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
It will be several years before construction proceeds toward San Jose. The San Jose to Merced EIR will be corrected by the CA HSR agency and recertified. Governor Brown today announced he will ask the Legislature dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year on the section from Merced to Bakersfield.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:13 am
Peninsula,
To answer your questions, it is quite irrelevant how many times the EIR is decertified. Once decertified, they can recertify an amended EIR. That’s how the process works. You don’t get to declare victory because an EIR is decertified. There is no legal limit as to how many times this can be repeated. The end goal is an EIR in full compliance with CEQA.
Note that the plaintiffs lost on the main issues of alignment and ridership, and “won” on a relatively minor issue. Again.
Passing this off as a victory for the plaintiffs is pretty short-sighted.
J. Wong Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@peninsula along with Morris Brown is hoping that without a certified SF – Merced EIR they’ll be able to argue in court that per their interpretation of Prop 1A no funds can be disbursed because neither full funding for _all_ segments nor EIR’s for all segments will be available when the ICS needs to be funded to start.
Jerry Brown used to be the Attorney General, but he doesn’t seem to have any problem with thinking that the Legislature can disburse funds for the ICS without having funding or EIR’s for all segments.
We’ll see.
J. Wong Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
They know that once construction on the ICS starts, then momentum will build when Californians realize how close we’ll be to actually having HSR between the south and the north.
Dumbarton rail plan revived; environmental study launched
Tonight: Dumbarton Rail meeting in Menlo Park
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for BART to steal it’s funding again…
Tony d. Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
We could use that funding to get BART all the way to San Jose, Santa Clara ;)
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Don’t remind me…
StevieB Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
The Dumbarton bridge would only cost $800 million. That is if constructed today. It is anyone’s guess what it would cost after it goes through years of planning and environmental studies. In the end the county will make the right decision.
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Is $800m the cost of the bridge or the cost of the entire project?
Tony d. Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:34 am
Whats $800 million in 2033 dollars?
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:26 am
About $1.5 billion, using the same 3% annual inflation rate as the Authority used, unless my computation is off.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:58 am
The consultant at last night’s meeting in Menlo Park said the bridge was $300m of the $800m.
A new and interesting alternative they’ve introduced since the time the project was put on ice is “shuttle service”. There is now a shuttle-only alternative which has bi-directional rail shuttle service between Redwood City’s Caltrain station and Union City BART station every 15-minutes. In addition, there is a hybrid shuttle alternative which combines an every-30-minutes bi-directional rail shuttle along with the 6 a.m. peak-period, peak-direction-only trains linking Union City BART (3 to SJ, 3 to SF) via Redwood Junction.
The hybrid shuttle alternative includes a new station track alongside the east side of the existing northbound platform in Redwood City (taking out the sidewalk and part of Winslow Street). The pure shuttle alternative includes the above new station track and an additional platform and station track to the east of that (taking even more of Winslow Street and the back of the businesses on the triangular block between Winslow and Broadway and the existing NB Caltrain platform.
The meeting attendance and questions were dominated by obvious NIMBYs who ranged from hostile to the whole idea to hinting around about lawsuits over diesel exhaust and requests that the whole thing be electrified and other unspecified mitigations.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:52 am
With the Dumbarton Bridge, 4 tracks through RWC, and electrification, you can get this nice schedule . <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/Caltrain-Timetabling/201105-takt/takt.php?width=750&height=750&period=60&start=7&direction=&title=Peninsula+Rail+2030&t1t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t1h=30&t1s=0&t1n=5&t1c=FF0000&t1p=7&t1d=&t1l=Fremont+Local&t1=20.20.20..20.20.20.20..20.20..20.20.20.60…………&t2t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t2h=30&t2s=27&t2n=20&t2c=0000FF&t2p=7&t2d=&t2l=SJ+Express&t2=20.20.20…..20……..60..20.20…20.20..20..20.&t3t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t3h=30&t3s=10.5&t3n=26&t3c=0000FF&t3p=7&t3d=&t3l=Tamien+Express&t3=20.20.20…..20…..20…60..20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20..20.20&t4t=KISS-79MPH-4MW&t4h=30&t4s=20&t4n=20&t4c=FF0000&t4p=7&t4d=&t4l=Fremont+Limited&t4=20.20.20…..20..20.20..20..20.90…………&t5t=AGV-100MPH&t5h=30&t5s=18&t5n=-1.5&t5c=00FF00&t5p=7&t5d=&t5l=Altamont+HSR&t5=111…….120……..60.1………..&t6t=AGV-100MPH&t6h=30&t6s=7&t6n=13&t6c=00FF00&t6p=7&t6d=&t6l=Altamont+HSR+Ltd&t6=111……………90.1………..&t7t=NONE&t7h=30&t7s=5&t7n=10&t7c=000000&t7p=10&t7d=&t7l=&t7=&t8t=NONE&t8h=30&t8s=5&t8n=10&t8c=000000&t8p=10&t8d=&t8l=&t8="Expanding to 4 HSR tph isn’t too hard either.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Sorry, let me try this again. With the Dumbarton Bridge, 4 tracks through RWC, the DTX tunnel, and electrification, you can get this nifty schedule. Adding in 2 HSR 10 years later wouldn’t be too difficult either.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:57 am
2020 Schedule
2030 Schedule
Off topic, but something to consider:
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-consequences-of-energy-depletion.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:57 am
And something more:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/streetcar-named-desire/380/
http://www.architectmagazine.com/planning/a-desire-named-streetcar.aspx
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-doesnt-buy-much-transit-infrastructure-anymore/456/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:02 am
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/how-cincinnati-defeated-streetcar-haters-again/468/
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2011/11/1930s-film-building-san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge/433/
“I want to see the first segment completed in short order,” Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday about California High Speed rail. He will formally request that the Legislature approve dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year. Governor Brown made more positive statements about the project than he has since his election.
Brown is showing great enthusiasm for this project and it appears likely the state legislature will approve initial funding.