The Dynamic of “Technical” Advocates Opposing Rail
I have been advocating large rail projects for years and have always been perplexed by how “technicals”, the term recently ascribed to transit advocates that focus on the details of engineering and cost, often oppose rail projects (especially in the Bay Area). With many technically-leaning rail advocates already not supporting the high-speed rail project (i.e. TRAC and now RailPAC), and now with several technical advocates in the blogosphere questioning their support, or already opposing it, I felt it was a good time to share some impressions. I am sure not everyone will agree with my impressions, so I look forward to a good discussion. Anyway, below are some observations and commentary I would like to add to the recent conversation begun by Alon Levy, Stephen Smith at Forbes, and Robert:
-Technicals tend to start out supporting large rail projects in concept, but end up not supporting any of them after alternatives are chosen and the details start emerging. Granted the devil is in the details, but the frequency of opposition to rail projects is noteworthy.
-It seems they have a difficulty in accepting design compromises. The Transbay Terminal situation is a good example. Even though the turning radius has been significantly widened, it is still tighter than they like, so the drumbeat continues about how bad and non-function the Transbay Terminal will be, even though (in my opinion) a reasonable level of service will now be accommodated within the terminal for both Caltrain and HSR. Or RailPAC now defecting from the HSR project because they don’t agree with the phasing of the project, preferring to close the gap first rather than do the Central Valley first (even if the ROW is rapidly disappearing due to sprawl and the federal government has commanded all existing HSR grant money be used in the Central Valley).
-Things they find as deal-breakers in terms of design, are not deal-breakers to the general public. The public just wants a comfortable and reasonably fast way to get around. For example, they will not be bothered if trains go a little slower into the Transbay terminal because the turning radius is not ideal. They will still be perfectly happy to arrive into the heart of downtown SF despite the ongoing debate in the blogosphere. The Central Subway is another good example. The public will be grateful for an underground connection between the Market Street subway and the new subway line (rather than the current miserable experience of connecting to the 30/45 bus lines and riding these horribly overcrowded, slow buses, but generally, the technicals (at least in SF) now hate the Central Subway. In other words, they seem to lean toward making the perfect the enemy of the good.
-A predisposition on critiquing the cost of rail projects without giving much attention to the massive costs of other fossil-fuel based infrastructure. I agree with the “technicals” that we spend too much on rail projects. But we spend too much on ALL infrastructure projects in America. It is a society-wide problem that results from a variety of reasons – bias against expanding government employees in favor of using contractors, general corruption, union rules, etc. Let’s face it, things are more expensive because special interests dominate our society. It is where we are at in our evolution and is why we are in decline as a world power.
-A willingness to loudly oppose rail projects but a strange silence on other large non-rail projects (even if they oppose highway expansions generally). An example of this silence is in relation to Doyle Drive in San Francisco, which is being rebuilt for over a billion dollars without new transit lanes (a huge mistake in my opinion). Another example is the impeding massive expansion of I-5 in northern San Diego County, which has received scant attention, even though the cost is $5 billion (at least) and is going to enable the next wave of massive sprawl, spoil the coastline, and increase driving massively. In fairness to the technicals, they likely prefer to focus on rail projects because that is what they are interested in. Alon Levy made this point today in a comment, and I am not saying there is no critique of highway projects from the technicals. (And yes Transdef does some good work on highways, though they have been vociferously anti-HSR and anti-rail generally in the Bay Area for years now, except for their support of SMART rail).
-Technicals tend to hold the same values of creating a sustainable society as many non-technical rail advocates do. Actually, many I have talked to are quite idealistic in nature and I really appreciate that about them. It is good to have some people that hold up the ideal at times (in this case in a design/cost sense). Unfortunately, their focus on critiquing rail projects and penchant for ideal designs is actually at cross purposes with rapidly moving forward with the business of restructuring our physical environment. Of course design is important, but in the interests of sustainability, we need to move forward quickly, even if projects are designed with some flaws.
-Technicals demonization of PB/all large contractors often preclude them from talking directly with the engineers actually working on the project. In other words, it seems to me they are often being armchair quarterbacks and possibly not fully understanding all the real-world constraints before making their judgments. (I could be wrong about their level of interaction with the engineers working on the projects they are critiquing. Please correct me if I am). I believe the arguments of technicals would be much stronger if they could demonstrate that they have done a thorough investigation of real world constraints by at least checking in with the project engineers to understand their thinking behind their design decisions and discussing it.
In some cases, this lack of communication with project engineers may be the result of having attempted to talk with various engineers in the past, only to get their good ideas brushed aside one too many times. I have had this happen to me numerous times as well with projects I have been advocating for. It is really frustrating. Having known Richard Mylnarik for years, I know he worked very hard to provide engineering ideas for the Transbay Terminal and he was not happy with the direction the Transbay Joint Powers Authority took. Now he opposes the Terminal’s design vociferously.
Conclusion:
Technicals provide a useful critical eye on project design, cost, etc. of rail projects. However, the idealistic nature of many of them, in my opinion, are leading them to take positions against many large rail projects by making the perfect the enemy of the good, which is at cross purposes with moving us toward a more sustainable society. I think it would be more productive to create an organization (or expand the scope of existing ones) that focuses on reforming how ALL infrastructure projects get built across the country with the goal of reducing costs and corruption, as well as advocating for more efficient designs, rather than picking on a subset of projects (i.e. rail) that will actually move us toward sustainability, even if such projects are imperfect.
Well, that just about wraps it up then. Brilliant synthesis, from the best and brightest.
You are wrong dear Daniel. As ever.
William Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
As usual, anyone who speaks against Richard is “wrong” (sarcastically) … Sigh…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Krause’s statement/implication/aspersion/insult/delusion is factually wrong — as one expects from the source — in addition to being remarkably presumptuous.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:54 am
http://www.hackerne.ws/item?id=2741726
Stephen Smith Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Care to share? My recollection of your advocacy is that you’ve given a lot of technical comments on Bay Area rail projects but have never actually gotten an engineer or anyone not political to engage you. Is that correct?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:19 am
No.
swing hanger Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:20 am
According to Richard, “competent” and “Bay Area project engineers” are mutually exclusive terms.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:45 am
As I recall, Richard has mentioned talking to and presenting to Caltrain staff before.
Caelestor Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Yeah, and a few years of having no one listening to him has pretty much driven him to despair. He actually had slightly positive things to say about Caltrain back in 2004 after Baby Bullet service began.
thatbruce Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Being proven sadly right will have that effect on people.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:27 am
The best engineers are ones that also know how to persuade others.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:16 am
I’d make a distinction between best and most effective.
William Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:23 am
The difference between “Most Effective” and “Best” Engineers is that “Most Effective” Engineers get people to listen to them and get things built as close to their designs as possible. Richard may be “Best”, but far from “Most Effective”.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Well yes, though I would caution you against saying that those actually on the payroll are good or effective. In a lot of cases they may simply be deferring to the will of their politically-minded superiors.
Brian Stanke Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Which is why the only effective method of advocacy is to:
1. Talk to the engineers to see where they are (constraints design objectives, etc.), then;
2. Formulate and execute a strategy for persuade the “politically-minded bosses” or politicians modify the marching orders they are giving to the engineers.
There is a reason that politicians call the shots. We like in a democratic, federal, republic. If you want a different system where Robert Moses-like technocrats impose on everyone their particular vision of “technically correct” then move somewhere else.
Here in CA we need to deal with a mess of politicians from the local through Federal level and all their appointees and and dozens of agencies (and there turf-battles). Screaming that their are too many politicians and multiple local agencies sticking themselves in the process isn’t going to change the number of cities, boards, and agencies. Calling all of them incompetent and corrupt won’t help either.
“Politicals” are the realists in that we deal with the actual decision-making system we have and try to get the best out of it, rather that complaining that it is not as perfect as one imagines another country to be.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Brian, you really need to read my blog more. Everything I say is against giving power to Robert Moses-like authority figures. The politically-minded bosses aren’t some representatives of the people; they’re wannabe autocrats, building monuments named after themselves. The lobbyists are not wannabe autocrats, but either are part of the group of contractors who profit from excessively costly projects, or are paid by those contractors. The agency managers who would rather tack on billion-dollar viaducts and tunnels than give up redundant tracks at their stations don’t have any fantasies, but are just too wedded to the current way of doing things.
Realism means understanding that those people are a bigger obstacle to rail progress than the House GOP. Was Thomas MacDonald being unrealistic when as Iowa’s roads commissioner he demanded that contractors compete rather than collude? (P.S. He won, and his success in building roads on a budget propelled him to be the national road czar, making him one of the major players in the destruction of the cities.) Were the Progressives unrealistic when they broke Tammany Hall and the other urban machines?
even though (in my opinion) a reasonable level of service will now be accommodated within the terminal for both Caltrain and HSR
It’s gonna be fabulous for getting from Bayshore to Transbay. It’s gonna really suck at getting from Transbay to Oakland. Or Palo Alto to Berkeley. Forever.
Although I’ll admit to being an armchair quarterback with respect to California (and HSR), the main reason I use a pseudonym was because I actually worked for a group in Chicago involved in (mostly urban) transportation advocacy—although I wasn’t a very important part of the organization and my opinions mostly squared with theirs, I didn’t want to take the risk of embarrassing the people I worked for. And while there I got my fill of stupid projects (mostly related to Metra)—stuff like Taj Mahal stations, poor management of ROW, relocating neighborhood-oriented stations to sites better oriented for park-and-rides/redevelopment scams, focusing too hard on outlying service areas, circumferential inter-exurban rail—and my group voiced its concerns. That’s what good advocates do—they push to make things better. They don’t serve as yes-men to those in power and pretend they’re always good and wise with the best interests of the people at heart, because that’s seldom true.
And if you want to try to make American transportation planning and spending better, it helps to start somewhere. Just because you’re fond of CAHSR doesn’t mean you have to pretend everything’s okay. It isn’t, and by not providing any pushback you’re making things worse.
swing hanger Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
It’s been mentioned before, but many “technicals” are not opposed to HSR and rail projects as a concept, and in fact they are generally more pro-rail than the general public, but they share a mistrust of the public agencies that plan and run these projects, and the general incompetence/backwardness of N.A. passenger railway operators. In my case, I have a point of comparison as I live in a foreign country, one that is widely considered to have the the best or one of the best passenger railway systems in the world. Every time I am home for the holidays, and step on Caltrain or Amtrak, I am reminded of how quaint and inconvenient the service is, and to an extent that it seems I have stepped back in time to 1957- the contrast is so great, like switching from a Prius to a Model T. To experience this, continually all my life, has convinced me that institutions are perpetuating a culture of mediocrity- a “not invented here” syndrome, and an ingrained parochialism, that stifles anything towards making a rail system one “everyone can be proud of”. Unless people examine the institutions, I am afraid the cycle that has continued for decades (I remember getting excited about the original LA-SD “bullet train” back in the early eighties, sigh…) will just continue.
We wish we had more time to work on critiquing the details of the project. Unfortunately, the loud opposition is what we have had to focus much of our efforts on. That said, we have been engaged in giving constructive criticism to the Authority over the last several years. In fact, we are in the process of giving input on the business plan right now, as we have serious concerns about some of assumptions. We also pushed hard for TOD planning as well as ensuring that Amtrak had a good connection to HSR in Merced, which is now happening. We have never pretended everything is okay.
joe Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
One concern I have is the parking requirement.
The current ridership model simplified station location impacts in ridership by assuming a rider would drive to a station.
This assumption ties ridership to on-site parking. It’s why Palo Alto is supposed to have 6K spaces and Gilroy 6,600.
I’d like to see alternative formulations that use public transit, taxi, shuttle and drop/off pick/up and we don’t turn HSR stations into massive parking lots.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Totally agree. In fact, we feel that parking requirements has been very bad for the project because it has been freaking out the cities. We have been doing our best to encourage that this being loosened up to gain more support from cities. This is a problem with all transit projects in the U.S. The lack of proper connecting transit systems in most cities is what drives the parking numbers. Agencies building transit want more of a sure thing to get folks to stations than pathetic public transportation systems. Until these systems are installed more thoroughly, it is difficult from agency’s point of view to take the risk. Seattle’s LRT system is struggling for riders because they decided provide little or no marking at many stations. I am still glad they did that because it gives more impetus to improve connecting transit.
swing hanger Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Build parking where the space and development patterns warrant it- i.e. outer suburbs (where public tranport is non-existent) and greenfield stations. A place like Palo Alto, which does have a traditional city center and more transport options, needs less station parking- if you need to get to/from the station by private automobile, bum a ride.
joe Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Parking requirement should freak out cities.
Since cars are tied to ridership (simplifying model artifact) and this is a full fare recovery system, there is enormous pressure to build massive amounts of shit in cities. parking = riders.
Expand the model to incorporate station location and transit connections.
How much is 6,600 parking spaces?
I printed out a Google Earth map and started counting parking spaces in the new mall area east of Gilroy. Target’s parking lot down to Khol’s is ~1,100 spaces.
http://g.co/maps/7njty
So six times that area.
These parking requirements are at odds with pedestrian / walkable lifestyle.
Consider that income inequity between the older and young adults is so high, and that car ownership is less desirable – an expense. Even autoblog.com acknowledges our youth are less interested in cars.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/01/is-americas-automotive-love-affair-over-w-poll/
So yes, let’s put ample parking around HSR stations – like a moat.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:00 am
6600 parking spaces is more than twice the empty parking lot at Millbrae, at 2900 spaces.
In all fairness, I’ve been noticing that the Authority has been suggesting building parking in stages as ridership increases.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:01 am
Here’s another small structure.
http://www.fifthandmission.com/about.htm
Authority’s initial parking plans were very poorly received in Palo Alto and Gilroy. This is an example of pushback. But there isn’t any change – they are just waiting us out.
The ridership model and station designs need to accommodate alternative transportation expected when oil hits 150-200 per barrel.
Sort of like how Palo Alto can require Stanford U to design new campus/hospital construction to accomidate alternative transportation. They can’t pop up parking on campus for all their buildings.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Does anyone know what the actual usage is for the parking garage at Millbrae? As in, actual numbers?
VBobier Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
On parking for HSR, I’d have the cities start at 1000 instead of the 6000-6600 number, But make room available to expand parking beyond the 1000 number if needed.
Howard Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
The parking is needed not at HSR stations but at local transit stations. With the vast majority of the population living in single family houses that cannot be efficiently served by transit (bus) most riders will use their cars for the start (and return end) of there trip, especially with baggage. The CHSR project should be trying to boost ridership of local transit by encouraging people to park there car at the nearest local transit station and then ride transit to the HSR station where they can make an easy transfer (cross platform for Caltrain). With this plan the CHSR stations only need to add parking for the local area, and each local transit station will only need to add parking for their local area(Caltrain, BART, CC, ACE, VTA, ect.). If some local transit stations have no room for more parking then add more spaces to a nearby station that does. This plan minimizes vehicle miles traveled and boosts local transit ridership. CHSR want to make sure that “their” new parking spaces are only used by CHSR riders then have these new spots reserved by CHSR customers when they buy their tickets on line.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Really? I think what you describe is rapidly changing as people pay higher rent and in-fill increases along well serviced transportation routes. At the other end of the trip, would not riders prefer to cab or bus/local rail – right?
Are buses impratical getting to/from HSR? Gilroy uses Caltrain as a bus terminal. Both VTA local and express, Greyhound, Monterey Transit and shuttles to from San Benito county. There’s taxi too. It’s Pretty easy in town or even Morgan Hill if you get dropped off at the Morgan Hill Caltrain and bus/rail to Gilroy. Monterey transit center to Gilroy HSR.
Sure. Keep cars away from the station.
But HSR should not run with full cost recovery with fares and subsidize parking. 24hr+ parking might not be compatible with this local transit parking model.
Getting dropped off at the HSR station, local or express transit stop would also be effective.
egk Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:39 am
And just to remind those of you interested in parking: the CAHSR estimate for parking needs is based on AIRPORT-based data. And this, of course, is inappropriate. Parking requirements depend on peak ridership and average trip duration. People leave their cars at airports for more days then they do at HSR stations (average trip duration is directly correlated with trip distance, of course – you don’t usually fly to Japan for a day).
For example the greenfield HSR station Limburg on the Cologne-Frankfurt ICE line has 900 parking places for ridership of 2500 a day.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:25 am
It based on legacy systems.
The model is also using automobiles to reduce the sensitivity of station location. Built it here or there – riders will drive to wherever the massive parking lot is put.
Access for riders taking bus/train/walking. Not so easy to model, not as insensitive to station location. IMHO, put on in Palo Alto and offer 1000 spots spread over town. Charge full cost recovery for parking.
I think it’s stupid and will decrease ridership to look backwards and design a system that favors car ownership and driving on both ends.
What 1910′s infrastructure had a sea of hitching posts for horses?
Howard Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
People in houses will ride buses (BRT) to HSR stations if parking is provided at bus stations. When I said that CHSR should provide park & ride spaces distributed at most local transit stations (stops) instead of concentrated at only HSR stations I did not mean to exclude bus stations, but I do think high speed rail riders are more likely to transfer from rail transit than bus transit (especially due to the trip distances). Bus Rapid Transit systems with park & ride spaces could be a great feeder system for CHSR. People who already ride busses will of course ride busses to HSR stations.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am
On the contrary. Park-and-ride transit stations are useful if and only if you design transit as a way to extend car capacity into downtown. This includes various commuter rail systems that get nearly all of their ridership from peak-hour CBD-bound commuting, which has the highest marginal cost of any trip since it’s peak demand that determines capacity. In contrast, if you want to extend the transit-friendly city out into the suburbs, you will build limited parking, develop residential and especially office space near train stations, and make the transit system friendly to pedestrians and local transit users first.
For a concrete comparison, read the various blog posts comparing BART, a fully parking-oriented transit system, with the Washington Metro, a partly parking-oriented system. (Metro gets twice BART’s ridership, and its strongest segments are those that are not car-oriented, especially in Arlington.)
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Are you kidding? If people can’t find a place to park, then taking the train becomes as much a hassle as the airport, the only thing is the airport will have parking. This whole lame brain idea that a lack of parking will cause less people to drive and thereby reduces roadway congestion and increases mass transit ridership is the kind of backward thinking that gets public agencies in trouble.
Lack of parking causes two things: Reduced ridership and traffic jams from people driving in circles looking for parking. That is all. Nothing more and nothing less. You anti-parking, city dwelling morons need to get your heads out of the sand. There aren’t enough of you to ride this damned thing without us evil car owning suburb dwellers so you better have some damn parking and a lot of it.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I believe the parking requirements have to do with CEQA and impacts. Parking is something that the Authority has control over. Building mass transit systems to connect to the stations is something they do not.
I could be wrong, but something to consider.
Caelestor Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Well, it looks there’ll be a civil war between politicals and technicals over the next few days. Fascinating. Since I don’t have the ability to write detailed responses in a short amount of time, I’ll just leave a few (relatively) badly worded comments. Someone help me out here.
From what I can tell, the differences between political and technical activists lie in priorities and methods. I feel as if politicals use top-down methods to attempt to impose projects (and considering America’s attitudes regarding China, not exactly the best idea). I totally sympathize with this mentality that we got to build it now or face terrible consequences in the future, but let’s not be hasty. Bad things happen when the public feels locked out, betrayed by something that supported and that got hijacked. On the other hand, technicals attempt to oppose this scenario, relying on bottom-up methods such as positive feedback: do it right the first time, and then you get another opportunity to do it right, and so on, while everything eventually snowballs and the public ultimately is swayed. (See Alon’s post on trust for more info.)
I feel bad for political activists, considering they are trying to do something and getting so much flak from a lot of people in the process. But trust me, the technicals aren’t fighting you guys. They’re trying to help you out, even if some of them express their thoughts in a really twisted manner. CAHSR presents an opportunity to do something major that can change a whole debate, but everyone here knows that you can’t just half-heartedly go at it. That is, failure cannot be an option. The thing is, everyone: politicals, technicals, the general public, has different standards on what’s good enough, and it’s very difficult to quantify such abstract measures.
Here’s what I propose: it’d be interesting to see the opinions of everyone here on the efficacy and competence of the government, which seem to be a good benchmark for determining support for the project. What do you think? Please don’t flame each other, I’m really interested in various lines of thinking from different camps.
joe Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
I think that discussion is a large step backwards.
Given you identified priorities and methods I ‘d propose authoritarian vs libertarian. Private vs public. On the extreme’s Public authoritarian is Gov lead by the party chairman. Libertarian and private is deregulate and see if a HSR system materializes.
Also I’d separate people based on their desire to see a fully committed system vs build as you pay.
When do you stop the project and what do you want to see fix before proceeding?
Do we first have to fix the political process, the gov/contractor relationship or can we focus on the success metrics, individual segments and design of this project?
My view: The QWERTY keyboard is intentionally inefficient. Better options exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard
Political wins.
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
I’ll bite, mainly because I love talking about myself:
1. I’m no follower of Hayek, so I’ll reject your authoritarian vs. libertarian scale. My priorities are best described as social democratic, although I’m a bit flexible on the means to make them happen. In terms of HSR (which isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things), I think there either needs to be an desire from the society for it to happen (i. e. what happened in California), and though it’d be nice if JR-Central were able to assemble a system entirely with private funding in Texas, I don’t think it would happen and would be skeptical of its chances of success. In terms of construction and operation, I don’t think there’s much choice given our level of expertise—it would need to be a concession to a private designer-builder-operator, although one that should be watched and forced to be kept open about its finances, designs and externalities.
2. A phased project is the only way to go—one has to be tactical about funding opportunities. I’d have started with LA-Tejon-Bakersfield or LA-San Diego via upgraded, FRA-waived LOSSAN.
3a. I’d stop my ideal project when it seems like it’s impossible for the original vision to be fulfilled (something phasing helps guard against by having clearly-defined, smaller steps that can allow for small parts of the project to be useful while the rest is unbuilt). In real life, that means something like the 10+ year construction timeline for LA-SF—depreciation’s going to take a toll on the project’s finances, and the long time frame—Californians will only be getting the first phase of the project more than twenty years after the first phase was completed—is tantamount to a betrayal of the public’s trust, IMO—that much of the cost overrun comes from unnecessary stuff is icing on the cake.
3b. I’d like to see the cost overruns fixed. In LA, that probably means switching to Tejon. In SF that would preferably mean switching to Altamont—which has the political advantage of including a fast Merced-SF connection in the first phase and the technical advantage of allowing higher speeds since more time’s spent in the valley (and it’s possible to do Altamont very fast too, via SETEC). If they stick with Pacheco that’s not quite fine, but it’s not a deal breaker for me either—just get costs down. Hopefully lowered costs could speed up the schedule.
4. In terms of political process, I think it’s probably a little too late for that with CAHSR—supportive critics tend to have little clout, and the response to the business plan has so positive that it seems unlikely that any criticism will come from the legislature. In my opinion, the only thing that will seriously bring down costs is the threat of cancellation—although that carries the risk of actual cancellation, lobbying for aggressive demand-management is preferable to spending money on a depreciating unfinished rail line for the next decade and a half. Ultimately, though, it would be great for there to be more legislative pushback, more pushback when the contractors don’t put forward a satisfactory product (e. g. the “blended” proposal they just put out), and more accountability from the public. But the only way that’s going to happen is if CHSRA and the state legislature manage to rein in their contractors.
5. You should have checked the sources on that wikipedia—the evidence for Dvorak superiority really isn’t very strong. Needs more study.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:42 am
Cancelation or rerouting the alignment. Allow bidders to propose designs that would save costs and favor those bidders who demonstrate cost savings. This is big project with a foothold into the US market. The incentive is there – oh and hire skill in Caltrans. This is along term need and the insight over sight is needed.
VBobier Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Cancellation or rerouting the alignment. That’s so not going to happen, Most of Caltrans doesn’t know the 1st thing about laying track, Others outside Caltrans would know more for sure, but then active model railroaders who have laid track, aren’t armchair types, for scale sized & weighted model railroad rolling stock to roll down track without derailing, the track must be in gauge, being neither too wide flange to flange or too narrow and the curvature must not be too narrow & must fit the intended purpose, for switching you want low speeds of about 15mph, for crossovers whatever speed is desirable and/or safe to do in the area in question. If You want experts to lay track and build the ROW(roadbed and subroadbed), 1st hire BNSF/UP Personnel, laid off ones in fact, train others who have adaptable skills, if there aren’t enough to do the job. Hire people to design the alignment based on previous HSR experience, Like Amtrak personnel, especially those who’ve been involved with catenary on the Acela.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
There are “Technicals” and “Politicals”….and then there are “idiots.”
James in PA Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
This is typical of the heavy-handed approach intolerant of anything short of mastery of rail technology.
“We also exist to provide public oversight for the project, to ensure it is built the right way. We believe in constructive criticism, not destructive fear-mongering.”
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
What DE is getting at is that a connection in Merced would be minimally used even if trains were timed (which they wouldn’t be).
James in PA Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Thanks Joey. Timed transfer efficiency splicing together two partial routes. Of course.
egk Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Why do you think that? If it were the way to get from either Oakland or Sacramento to LA in under 5 hours for about what it would cost to drive, it could get a market share of 3-6% (cf. NE corridor ridership) in other words millions of riders. And no having to change trains is really only disincentive if it is slow and onerous. Nobody will not take the train because of a cross-platform transfer (unless it is unreliable). Go ask the Germans.
And if you have millions of riders wanting to buy tickets, you damn well should make sure the transfers are timed.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Mostly a result of rather pathetic service levels on the San JoaquĂns, with no hope of raising them significantly thanks to UP track ownership.
StevieB Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 2:08 am
Sacramento is arguing about where to locate just such a station for a line to Merced.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:14 am
I am aware that it’s being studied. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be successful.
StevieB Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
There is no agreement that any transportation system is going to be successful before it is built. Once a system is built it takes several years to build ridership until a majority of opinion views it as a success. That does not mean transportation systems should not be built as the need for more transportation is not going to get less, barring a worldwide depression, if we wait.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
If we are reasonably confident that a transit project will not be successful, then it should not be built and the money should be spent elsewhere.
Ok, On Wyes, Wyes are used for turning, this is done at fairly slow speed, so being a super broad radius is not needed, just what will do the job & no more than that, some might disagree, but this is basic physics, one doesn’t do 50mph through a Wye to turn a train, as the faster one goes, the longer It takes to stop a train & reverse direction.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:05 am
A wye can also function as an intersection for different high speed lines. It’s not necessarily for turning trains around.
VBobier Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Wyes aren’t used on Mainline trackage, their for low speed operations like in Yards where switching of rolling stock(cars) happens, or did Ya not read the wiki link I posted?
VBobier Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Another reason a Wye won’t work on a mainline, both are curved tracks & to get the desired divergence angle on a gradual curvature, the Wye would have to be really long at the diverging point to do this(is known as a FROG angle) & then the angle of track divergence would be very small, It’s better to have a turnout that has a section of straight track with a curved diverging track instead, with the straight section being the high speed route and the curved route going to a secondary destination that doesn’t require high speed. But then turning Wye tracks don’t need to be super broad to do their job, just good enough to turn a train around at 15mph, the Wye track uses 1-3 Wye turnouts or switch tracks, to save space two legs of a Wye Track can be other than a Wye turnout. Hopefully I haven’t confuse You…
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:58 am
What are you talking about? “A wye or triangular junction, in rail terminology, is a triangular shaped arrangement of rail tracks with a switch or set of points at each corner. In mainline railroads, this can be used at a rail junction, where three rail lines join, in order to allow trains to pass from any line to any other line.”
Why do you think they’re talking about a 220 mph wye near Madera?
I think you’re getting this confused with a type of switch.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Only 220 from SF to LA. Current switches are limited to 150 in the diverging direction. Not a huge deal though, briefly slowing down will likely cost less than a minute of travel time (according to rough calculations).
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:30 am
My point was that a wye isn’t limited to 15 mph or to simply turning trains around.
Joey Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Well yes. And modern railroads rarely even need that type of wye anyway.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:29 am
What???? See Peter’s comment.
We’re in trouble when advocates start turning on each other. Opponents must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Are we really turning on each other? It honestly does not feel like it to me. There are different views on the project but I don’t sense any major split.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Clem’s getting ahead of himself. What this “debate” had done is provided you and Daniel with a path to make the project and advocacy even stronger, if you choose it.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
This post is essentially exploring why some have already turned against HSR (other rail projects) and is not focused on those that still support the project. So I don’t see us advocates (who are supporters) turning on each other. Folks who are now opponents disagree with me and other project supporters about the merits of the project at this point so in a sense we are already in different camps, at least regarding the HSR project. Granted, many HSR opponents can still be rail advocates. However, my observations, epecially in the Bay Area, is that many HSR opponents are also opponents to many other rail projects. On the other hand, I would not deny that RailPAC for example, are still strong advocates for conventional rail improvements. And I still find common cause with them on this point.
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Nationally, the Bay Area doesn’t have a very good reputation when it comes to urban transportation projects—San Francisco’s overall walkability is quite well known, but otherwise the region’s most infamous for agency turf-wars; BART’s reputation as a system that hasn’t fulfilled its ridership potential and the general expense of Bay Area projects tied for second.
Tony D. Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:08 am
BART hasn’t fulfilled its ridership potential with 340K daily riders?
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:19 am
If would have higher ridership if it wasn’t focused on suburban extensions that don’t raise ridership by very much (Pleasanton, anyone?).
Peter Baldo Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
In defense of BART, it is supposed to serve all of Alameda and Contra Costa County. Even Pleasanton and Livermore (if they’ll have it). Unlike many East Coast and Midwestern cities, the Bay Area had a fairly primitive pre-BART rail network. All those valleys around Walnut Creek, which are now full of sprawl, had no commuter railways that connected directly to Oakland and SF. So there weren’t going to be regular commuter trains for the exurbs, like Chicago has. BART had to do it all, which makes for a unique blend of urban transit and suburban commuter rail.
Whenever I ride BART, there are trains every few minutes, and I have a hard time finding a seat. To me, that’s a sign of success.
BART does OK, when compared to other systems. For example, Chicago Metra serves 300 K daily riders on roughly 500 route miles; Chicago CTA Rail serves 650 K on around 110 route miles. BART is somewhere in the middle, as you’d expect, with 350 K daily riders on a little over 100 route miles. Admittedly, it’s not New York.
I like BART, and wish it went around the bay, and over to Marin County.
Peter Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I’m pretty sure they could have extended the BART system much more cheaply to Pleasanton by NOT using BART technology.
flowmotion Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:37 am
If anything, the HSR project has proven that the cost issues aren’t due to “BART technology”.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Not specifically, but some of the same fundamental issues are there, namely coming up with your own standards for things like catenary pole spacing rather than using international standards.
flowmotion Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 1:36 am
Myopia is useful when you’re building an accurate HO-scale model in your mom’s basement. Otherwise, things like track gauge and catenary pole spacing are not in the same cost ballpark as ten mile long viaducts and sleepy suburban subways.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
So the CTA carries roughly twice as many people as BART on the roughly the same amount of route miles. ( Chicago does have the advantage of this thing called express trains ) and the suburban trains carry as many passengers as BART. The Metro in Washington carries twice as many passengers on roughly the same amount of route miles. Chicago, DC and Baltimore have suburban trains…. Where’s DP when we need him. Ask him if wants to take Metro to Martinsburg.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:14 am
The important difference is that in Chicago, the “L” is confined almost exclusively to Chicago city limits, which is part of Cook County. BART has no such luxury and has to deal with the fact that all manner of cities and counties get a crack at making policy.
BART’s “problem” isn’t that it built parking lots or viaducts. It’s that there are so many different factions with urban planning power to appease that you could never have a glorious vision. Look at the stink that Livermore is raising over having a BART station downtown…it’s so shortsighted its funny…..
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Yes everyone in Chicagoland marches like dopplegangers to the beat of the RTA. The cities and towns served by the CTA just roll over and do whatever Chicago wants whenever it wants to. No one ever gives METRA a hard time. Or demands service improvements. They are all just happy as clams lightly flitting from the suburban trains to PACE or CTA buses without any complaints. Everyone thinks the El just peachy keen the way it is. The State legislature never interferes and no one every hears from Cook County legislators. Works the same way in New York and Philadelphia too. Everyone thinks everything is just fine the way it is.
Nothing no where can be compared to BART anytime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Depends on how you define “express”—if you mean the Purple Line from Evanston, then you’re only talking about around 10,500 riders. If you’re counting the Red Line (which runs local north of Belmont but skips a nuber of stops on the Belmont-Addison stretch), then you’re talking over a hundred thousand. If you consider lines close to one another with different stop spacings expresses—the Green Line vs. the Red Line on the South Side or Blue on the West—then you’re also saying a big number.
Chicago’s successful lines are successful either because they were developed before the advent of the automobile, or in the case of the Dan Ryan line excellent connecting bus service (by American standards, at least). There’s a lot of slack capacity in Chicago, mainly because the system was designed and built in a city that no longer exists: pre-white flight [and now black flight] with a lot of downtown-centric employment. The Blue and Green Lines basically compete with one another on the West Side and the Green Line’s lost its competition with the Red on the South, mainly because there aren’t enough people left to support that much transit. There’s a lot of density on the Pink Line, but it’s mostly people who don’t work downtown, so the â€L’ isn’t as useful to them.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
“Where’s DP when we need him?”
At work when I saw that; had to wait to get home to respond, as the supervisors look dimly at people using computers to post things or buy things on company time.
“Ask him if wants to take Metro to Martinsburg.”
I’m not sure I would choose the Metro, or at least its equipment, to come out to Martinsburg. The distance is something like 75 miles, and a regular all-stops local commuter train takes two hours to cover that. Amtrak’s Capitol Limited does this same trip in about an hour and a half, largely because it doesn’t make all those stops. I’m assuming the Metro train would take somewhat longer to come out this far because of still more stops, and I don’t know if the equipment would be comfortable enough on a trip that long. I would also think you may want restrooms on the train and possibly food service on such a lengthy ride, and of course today, you would want some sort of communications service, too.
On the other hand, you would be in a lot of open country on a line that would become much like an interurban, so maybe the speed could stay up longer on such a trip.
It’s interesting to note that some people have suggested extending the Metro out at least to Frederick, Md., and yes, to Martinsburg, too. I personally think the cost would be way too high (we’re talking about a standard-gauge version of BART in a lot of ways), but like Northern Californians riding BART, many people here have used this system, and are pleasantly impressed with its speed, comfortable ride, and general modern look. It helps that the cars have mostly transverse seating, much like a regular train, rather than the longitudinal seating more typical of, say, New York City.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
The equipment would be fine. Subway equipment runs 100+ kilometers on suburban lines in Tokyo, and Seoul with appropriately wider average stop spacing. The average speed kind of sucks, but that’s because those lines are intended primarily for inner-suburban commuting.
But there’s no reason to do it in Washington. Tokyo is somewhat of a special case: it’s big, and its subway system was designed around compatibility with the mainline networks from the third line onward. I don’t think any city outside Japan and Korea is like that. Tokyo also had an enormous commuter rail system terminating just outside Central Tokyo in the 1950s. It’s fine to do what the Germans and French do and just run fast regional trains from Martinsburg to Union Station making several stops in urban Washington with good connections to Metro.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
The equipment would be fine.
The seating would suck. If I remember correctly PATCO cars begat BMT/IND cars both of which are close relatives of M1s. The Port Authority decides to blow a few billion on new cars they order up some IRT cars with blue fiberglass cowls and grab irons. Metro needs cars they order up some BMT/IND cars with nicer seats. It’s slight changes in the gearing and the number of doors that distinguish “subway” cars from “commuter” cars…. I do hope the New Haven line is able to continue bar cars. Bar cars are a wonderful amenity on a trip out to the ‘burbs. So are the restrooms.
It’s fine to do what the Germans and French do and just run fast regional trains from Martinsburg to Union Station making several stops in urban Washington with good connections to Metro.
You mean like MARC does now?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
“It’s fine to do what the Germans and French do and just run fast regional trains from Martinsburg to Union Station making several stops in urban Washington with good connections to Metro.”–Alon Levy
“You mean like MARC does now?”–Adirondacker
Both statements may be true, but actual (or expanded) implementation may have some problems. The MARC line to Martinsburg, and one of the lines to Baltimore, along with the VRE (Virginia Railway Express) lines to Fredericksburg and Manassas share track with CSX and Norfolk Southern trains. The CSX line to Martinsburg has a freight traffic density much higher than, say, the Caltrain line, with very long trains in general, and quite a few coal trains, too. Naturally that means everything is FRA compliant (an anachronism for some here), and of course there is still no PTC on this line, although the signal system has gotten some upgrading. PTC is on the line to Fredericksburg and on part of the line to Manassas (one is entirely and the other partly on the former RF&P, which had Pennsy-style cab signals and, to my knowledge, still does).
Of course, the third MARC line is a second route to Baltimore, the former Pennsy line that is now the NEC, and of course it is cab-signal equipped, and is also the home to MARC’s electric operations, using AEM-7 and HH-8 locomotives.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
See – Ring the Bay has already won.
As for me I don’t have the words to express the degree of my contempt for BART.
But the picture in my mind’s eye is from the original Godzilla of the big fella crunching gray beercan cars in his teeth all the while knocking down aerials with the tail.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Syn – if you think the ring is inevitable, what’s your take on the bizarre planned track configuration in Santa Clara, which would make extension northward quite hard?
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:02 am
I don’t think you will ever see a BART train that circumnavigates the Bay. I think the goal is to have Santa Clara be the end for trains traveling down the Peninsula and the East Bay. BART is San Francisco’s way to make sure it stays the economic and political center of the region.
Tony d. Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
SF the economic center of the region!? LOL! that was a good one! Political? Maybe, but they need $ilicon Valley money to survive.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Exactly, Tony.
All roads lead to Rome.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
You are assuming that San Francisco or San Franciscans care. If they cared they would be up in arms over extending the trains to San Jose.
Tony d. Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
All roads lead to Rome? Oh boy! Let me put it this way; Dianne Feinstein tried to use her “power” to prevent the 49ers from relocating south to Santa Clara. The minute SC and SV interests tore her down for her stance, she backed sown. Lesson for the day: money is power. That is all.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Yes, the Amalgamated City of Nassau-Suffolk is totally the center of New York State, much more so than the City of Manhattan or the City of Brooklyn.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Wait, you mean people travel from all over the world and miss the attractions in Ronkonkoma? and instead go to that out of the way place, Manhattan? What’s holding it back is that the E train doesn’t go there, that’s it… ( Ronkonkoma is roughly as far from Manhattan as San Jose is from San Francisco )
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:50 am
The thing about BART is that it really should be a rapid transit system designed to move lots of people between the denser parts of the East Bay and all of San Francisco. Unfortunately, it’s trying to act like a commuter rail system as well. Considering the few number of stops and the lack of demand for 5-minute headways, BART taking on the role of a commuter subway isn’t exactly appropriate.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Avoiding picking another fight with UPRR. They’re expending tons of cash and energy getting to the SJ Flea Market already. And it doesn’t matter either way. It’s a tiny amount of track. And it’s hardly bizarre — unless you (correctly, technically) think of “tail tracks” altogether as a way to drive up construction costs and rolling stock fleet size and operating cost. But in that case it’s you that has the bizarre thought processes: remember, in the immortal words of the C4HSR political-and-technical brains trust, “I also don’t see why inefficiency and waste is necessarily a bad thing.”
Not in the slightest. Reconfiguring to head northwards along the Caltrain ROW to bridge the “small” and “obvious” and “no brainer” (a fave “political” term!) gap and meet the tail tracks in Burlingame is a pretty easy matter. A grand total of about 50m of a single track heading in a slightly off-axis direction is neither here nor there.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
What seems odd is that the line would have to be reconfigured to go over or under UP’s Alviso line. Maybe they just figure they can make more money that way.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
BART can dive pretty quickly and the vehicle envelope and hence top of rail to top of enclosing structure is pretty short. Plus consider that the longer they head straight north parallel to Caltrain from the end of the planned Santa Clara platforms the greater the run out distance until the curving Alviso line is encountered. Nothing to do. “No brainer”.
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Not relative to initial projections—it also doesn’t compare very well with its peers. The Washington Metro gets over 590,000 riders on roughly the same amount of track, and MARTA gets roughly three-quarters the ridership of BART on less than half the track. So BART’s while a stunning success compared to Miami, it falters in comparison with other post-war regional metro systems.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Not quite.
DC Metro has the advantage of the federal government keeping all its offices downtown and close to its stations…not to mention that federal workers get their passes subsidized (and they offer a monthly pass which BART does not).
MARTA, on the other hand has free parking at all its stations and charges a whopping $2.50 to take it to the airport.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
On the other hand Washington DC didn’t put all of it’s office buildings, shopping, entertainment etc on one street. The Pentagon isn’t downtown and it’s not even in Washington DC. The Rosslyn-Ballston corridor isn’t either – downtown or in DC.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
and they have places like Friendship Village in the suburbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_Village,_Maryland#Village_of_Friendship_Heights
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Right, but DC itself has height restrictions. Part of the reason for travel into Virginia is purely based on the price of commercial rents.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
And commercial rents along Market Street are so low that no one ever thinks of building office parks out in the apricot groves of Santa Clara county…..
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
That was my original point, actually.
The federal government never had an incentive to relocate its existing offices outside of the “ring” of downtown Metro stations. But also, because it’s not a long transfer to Pentagon, Navy Yard, the Convention Center, National Airport, there’s a lot of short haul traffic too from students and others living in the center of the District.
Although this also holds true for Balboa Park in San Francisco and some parts of Oakland in principle, you have to remember that UNLIKE Ballston, Adams Morgan, Bethesda, Eastern Market…. there is no nightlife in Balboa Park and adjacent to any BART station in Oakland.
What you are really getting at is that it’s a hell of a lot easier to pull off what Metro did in DC because they only had to answer to the District, Congress, and Arlington, Fairfax, and Montgomery Counties.
On the other hand, BART has to answer to not only three counties but a bunch of cities as well. It’s always easier to coordinate between fewer parties, not more….
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
What you’re missing is that Arlington today is not Arlington of 1960. Metro helped extend the transit city out to Arlington and Alexandria, so that today they’re nationally famous for their TOD. BART did the opposite: it helped extend the auto-oriented East Bay sprawl into San Francisco and Oakland.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Last time I checked there are individual municipalities outside of Washington DC just like there are individual municipalities outside of San Francisco. The Pentagon was finished 30 years before Metro arrived. There was no nightlife in Ballston when Metro arrived, it was a fading suburb. Adams-Morgan was busy turning into a slum. From Wikipedia: Rosslyn remained primarily known for its pawnshops and used car dealerships for many years. The people in Maryland and the District have little say over zoning in Farifax county, for that matter people in other parts of Virginia have little say. Whether or not it’s possibel to build a 30 story office building over the subway station has little to do with who runs the subway. No one is considering running Metro to White Marsh MD. Or even Baltimore. Metro DC is getting it right, the Bay Area isn’t.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
The Pentagon itself is surrounded by a moat of parking; the TOD is elsewhere in Arlington and Alexandria. Of course part of it is farsighted decisions by city leaders, but it was also that in those cities Metro did not run in freeway medians.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
The proposition is that the Federal government keeps all of it’s buildings in the District. It doesn’t. The Pentagon wasn’t the first and it wasn’t the last. It has a moat of parking, it also has a Metro stop and a bus station.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Metro stations and lines vary. Some are BART parking commuter stops for funneling riders into DC, Others like the orange line emerge in walk-able neighborhoods. They both feed riders into the district and are destinations themselves. BART doesn’t do much of that.
As you know, Pentagon is metro stop. It lacks public space but takes riders to from the building. parking at surface doesn’t affect the walkability. I don’t get the reference. Contrast pentagon with Santa Clara VTA has a stop at NASA outside the base gate and near nothing – a ghost stop and WTF?.
IMHO what made Arlington VA is the very increasing federal government/contractor which added workers to the area. Also 1, it’s a decent way to get into the district by car. .
Donk Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Some people are pissed because HSR is going down the 99. Others are pissed because it is going through Pacheco instead of Altamont. Others are pissed because San Diego is going to be the last leg. Others are pissed because of the San Bruno curve or because of the dead-end into the TBT. Others are pissed because it will run through a shithole park near the Metrolink tracks north of LAUS. Others are pissed because there are too many viaducts. Others are pissed because there are too few viaducts. Others are pissed because there is not enough minority hiring or union workers with peg-legs. Others are pissed because the accounting system was off by a factor of 3.1415926. Others are pissed because they want Japanese or German or Spanish choo-choos or bento boxes on the trains. There is no way to please everyone. This will just not get built right, no matter who you are, if you posting comments from LA, Fresno, Monterrey, Palo Alto, or France. But of course everyone has to have it their way. Everyone here, me included, are a bunch of fucking babies.
What is the point here? I thought it was to build HSR between LA and SF. I don’t give a crap how they build it, just fucking build it. I would be really happy if they wacked all the viaducts, welded rails over Elizabeth and Morris’ front yards, and cut $40B off of the cost of the project in the process. But at the end of the day, all I want is a fucking easier way to get from LA to the Bay Area. You guys all have good ideas, and it would be great if many of them could be implemented, but at the end of the day, don’t bitch when you don’t get your way as long as they get the fucker built.
Caelestor Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
This is arguably not an ends-justify-the-means project. Also, you sound like the top-down guy I was talking about earlier.
Right now, this entire debate over the merits of CAHSR is a calculated back-and-forth exchange of ideas, and the first person who snaps loses.
swing hanger Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
He/She’s channeling some of YesOnHSR there, a bit more eloquently though. By the way, talking about technicals, whatever happened to Rafael? I always enjoyed his takes.
Caelestor Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Where has YesOnHsr and Rafael gone, anyway?
YesonHSR Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Im here…250 dollars later …right Robert??
Clem Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Profanity makes for the best fucking advocacy.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Civility is the last resort of a scoundrel.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
speaking like one
The ultimate fiasco is not a big cost overrun. In a few years, a cost overrun will be forgiven. Look at the English Channel tunnel. The ultimate fiasco is a half-empty train passing over a central valley aerial viaduct every hour or two. That will be one of the most visible and expensive disasters in California history.
Lots of people who are neither technical experts, nor politicians, have an interest in the high speed rail project. They know what it will take for them, their families, and their friends to ride the train. They should be listened to, though their ignorance on technical and political matters may be an annoyance to self-proclaimed experts.
Most people have cars. They live near freeways. For the price of a few gallons of gasoline, they can drive to anyplace along the proposed HSR system in a few hours, and have their cars with them when they arrive. It is these people who will determine success or failure of the California high speed rail project. Making high speed rail attractive to them will be a big challenge.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
It’s not that challenging. The CHSRA just seems to lack an overabundance of common sense.
Caelestor Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Common sense is surprisingly not as ubiquitous as its name applies.
Donk Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Nobody, including CHSRA, thinks the ICS will be profitable. But people who are argue against starting in the CV are pessimists – they don’t think the next leg will ever get built. The ones who support starting off in the CV are optimists (or maybe we fools, I don’t know) – they see this as the beginning of a larger project.
You can argue that CHSRA has no common sense because they are starting off in the CV, which will have limited ridership. But if your goal is for them to actually finish the route from bay-basin, then what’s the difference?
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:30 am
There is a fine line between pessimism and realism. Borden to Corcoran(you may plug in any destinations in the vicinity you prefer)is a gift to the opposition. Incredibly stupid pr move. Very decent chance there will be only funding for that orphan trackage. The class ones won’t even bid on it.
And as to the remark in the root posting that critics are harsher on rail schemes than on highway expansion,. gimme a blinking break. If you want to oppose a freeway project you might as well jump out into the middle of I-5 right in front of a semi. You’ll get zero help from any politician that wants to remain on the dole. Even your precious Barbara Boxer, Pelosi machine stalwart, regularly diverts federal money to her Marin bailiwick to continue to add freeway lanes ad infinitum.
Alex M. Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:31 am
…which is why HSR hinges on the fact that gas prices are going to go up, a lot.
[blockquote]I believe the arguments of technicals would be much stronger if they could demonstrate that they have done a thorough investigation of real world constraints by at least checking in with the project engineers to understand their thinking behind their design decisions and discussing it.[/blockquote]
There is currently no avenue for this sort of dialogue to take place. The official reasons given for engineering decisions are often vague if present at all. CAARD has had limited success obtaining actual engineering documents, but it’s still very limited. If you want to start advocating for a way for this type of dialogue to happen, I’m all for it.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Ack. Mixing up my tags.
There’s a public hearing/discussion on HSR in Palo Alto next Tuesday afternoon in case any Bay Area folks are interested:
“California’s controversial and increasingly expensive high-speed-rail system will be the subject of a public hearing hosted by Assemblyman Rich Gordon in Palo Alto next Tuesday (Nov. 15).”
…
“Jim Hartnett, a member of the rail authority’s board of directors, is scheduled to join Gordon at the meeting, which will take place between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 15 at City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave.).”
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23155
swing hanger Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Those times! Just right for D.P. Lubic’s “sixty to nineties” cohort to fill in their schedule before the early bird special…
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:32 am
One solution: Occupy Denny’s!!!!
swing hanger Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Ahem, this is the Peninsula, we don’t deign to patronize such low-end eateries. Rather, we’ll settle for the “sunset dinner” at Sundance The Steakhouse…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
So all the people eating in the Palo Alto Denny’s are driving in from the East Bay?
swing hanger Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Actually, I think the Denny’s on El Camino is defunct, or at least it was the last time I was back. Underperforming chain restaurants can’t survive the high rents of the area. You gotta go south starting from Mtn. View or north to Deadwood City to see good strip mall restaurant action.
James Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Denny’s on El Camino is now Su Hong’s. Mtn View’s Castro St. is lined with good restaurants. University Ave is seeing some restaurant turn-over; usually an up-grade. Redwood is atttempting to establish a high-end environment. Anyway for what its worth RC now has a Spagetti Factory.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 3:58 am
“Anyway for what its worth RC now has a Spagetti Factory.”
Oh, so they now have a high-end Denny’s?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:53 am
The people who drive in from the East Bay and are disappointed that they can no longer enjoy the ambiance at Denny’s can go to Jack in the Box.
What’s struck me about this debate is that most of the ‘technical’ objections translate directly into issues which increase ‘political’ opposition on the local level. Massive aerials are bad politically, huge parking garages in urban areas are bad politically, mangling CalTrain is bad politically, building expensive tunnels under parking garages while telling everyone else it’s unaffordable is bad politically, etc.
While the author is referring to ‘political’ in the big picture sense, all of those politicians represent a district somewhere. “All politics is local”, and opposition to specific details will weaken the broader public policy support for high speed rail as a whole. (I’m sure there’s a few folks around PAMPA with enormous pull in Democratic Party circles, for example.)
If you look back at the freeway revolts in the 60s/70s, the issue wasn’t cars or highways or the future of transportation. People were fighting arrogant agencies and their destructive plans. And the most effective way to fight was to stall the project until its political supporters either relented or retired. Most of those projects never officially died, they just faded away.
I complained it seems like a couple year ago about the lack of a light rail ROW as part of the Doyle Drive project only to be put to the flames.
The opposition to the Central Subway stems from the incredible, obvious stupidity of the plan that Rose Pak concocted. It was always intended for 3rd & Kearney. That Muni is no longer capable of steering its future is clear. They are incapable of even the easiest undertakings, like deploying trolley coaches on Geary absent rail in our lifetime. They passed on the #71 electrification.
The local Machine are a bunch of dolts on the take – sneakier Blagos.
synonymouse Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Should read Kearny
flowmotion Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
It’s a lonely road as a ‘technical’ critic of highway projects. Your natural audience/allies tends to have the mentality of “lets kill all cars instead”. Or they were bought off by the massive pork which is now mandatory with such projects.
Central Subway I blame less on Chinatown and more on the Chamber of Commerce wanting a nice line connecting the attractions on a tourist map.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Tourists don’t much ride Muni Metro.
The reality is that they did not much think about it at all – they just let the project go off the rails.
Next year is the centennial of Muni. Ninny Gavin had enough time to launch something appropriate – at the very least trolley buses on Geary, which was the first line in 1912. And an expansion of Geary Carhouse-Presidio bus yard.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
So, ‘mouse, are you discounting reports that Sunset District NIMBYs killed the project to electrify Line 71?
[Content deleted as Spam]
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Spam?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Are you sure it isn’t the usual cheerleading?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Fairly sure (but I made that mistake on the Urbanophile, so caveat emptor). Even YesOnHSR and NoNIMBYs would say things that actually mentioned the content of what they were responding to.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
What a joke you are Levy
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
You’re right – Alon gave you too much credit – most of your posts are just personal attacks.
An observation, at least on this blog, it seems that “Technicals” are more incline to call people names, put label on other people, than “Politicals”.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 11:49 am
The “politicals” are more likely to spout BS, or to outright lie.
Brian Stanke Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Neither Robert, Daniel, nor I have ever lied or B.S.ed anyone on this blog. If you are going to make ad hominem accusations you need to back them up.
Calling us idiots and wrong, or liars, just because we disagree with you, without any back up is inappropiate. From the comment policy:
“2. Ad hominem attacks. This has been a standard rule at the California High Speed Rail Blog dating back to 2008. Personal attacks are out-of-line here. Feel free to disagree with people based on their ideas – vehemently if warranted. But keep it civil. If Robert can disagree civilly with Morris Brown at a Peninsula HSR meeting, you can easily disagree civilly with someone on this blog. This includes attacks based on race, age, sex, orientation, etc.”
“5. Scurrilous or extraordinary claims that lack evidence. The best example of this are the frequent charges that the CHSRA is “corrupt.” If you have hard evidence of such a charge and can provide a link to it, you’re welcome to post it. But if you can’t substantiate such a claim, it will be deleted.”
Try to respect the rules of civilized discussion if you want to stay on this blog.
Pamela Simon Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Well others on this site have attacked Morris Brown on a personal basis and those comments stay on the blog. That shouldn’t be allowed. Each side should be able to express their opinions without personal attack and the people watching the traffic should delete those comments and ban those people doing that after they have been warned.
Regarding another subject- optimism bias, in other words emphasing the good while minimizing or ignoring the bad. Others have started opening their eyes due to the costs and the way this peoject has been managed. At what point, would even the biggest supporters of the project say, the line has now been crossed?
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I disagree with Morris and I agree with you that he’s been attacked personally when he’s posted anti-HSR links.
Deleting text and banning are serious, I would error on the side of caution.
Clem Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Deleting text and banning would only be serious if there were any expectation of free speech rights on a private blog. There isn’t. I routinely delete offensive or irrelevant comments from my blog. (I never edit comments… either keep ‘em or can ‘em) If you don’t like that, you can sue me.
Keeping blog comments in line takes work and consistent enforcement. The comments around here that have for example vilified Morris were left standing, while Richard is read the riot act. Such a double standard is reprehensible. I think Spokker summed up the whole situation rather nicely.
spokker Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Thank you for recognizing my important satirical post. The double standard is funny.
William Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Well, personal and generalization attacks from Richard certainly has higher frequency. Moreover, people cannot counter Richard or Synonymouse’s posts because he called people liar and corrupt without pointing out where and how, while for the most part people counter Morris’s posts with “been there, done that” response, as many of his earlier posts are countered with examples.
joe Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I understand the constitution and still think banning and deleting are “serious” actions. I wouldn’t sue, I would leave the blog that cherry picks the comments and commentors. I respect your decisions to run your blog as you wish.
I don’t agree with those flaming Morris when he cherry picks data or posts here.
If the point is Richard’s treated unfairly, I would say not. The totality of who we are and what we do transcends this blog.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
When LA, Fresno, or San Jose use every political means at their disposal, including moles on the inside, to further their parochial ends to the detriment of the state as a whole, they consider it taking care of business. All others view it as corruption.
Brian Stanke Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Proof? Otherwise you are violating #5.
Spokker Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Suck a [removed by moderator], Brian Stanke and [removed by moderator] your rules.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
The trademark of a successful covert op is to leave no trail. Thus no proof to be had or found.
Military, political and commercial interests pull off extralegal and unethical schemes and only rarely does a Watergate or a Blago blow up in public. Just keep your head down and go along with the program. Even exposing lightweight improprieties can get whistleblowers in a heap of trouble.
So while I guess reckless, libelous remarks could be a cause for concern, to be relevant one should not appear credulous, naive or downright “sheltered”. A trite observation maybe, but generally the older you get the more jaundiced the worldview. You have just seen too much.
Perhaps to counteract the youthful tendency toward being overly trusting of authority I suggest studying the life and works of, say, Willie Brown or Jesse Unruh. The single issue lobbyists recognize full well that in order to receive an audience with, just the minimal consideration from any pol, particularly of the urban machine variety, you have to pay up. And support on an issue will require major payola. The medical marijuana crowd are finding that out now. While other single issuers are enjoying having their particular vice legal, the stoners will have to come up with some serious scratch, just like the tobacco and alcohol blocs, if they wish to get their way over the nannies.
Political contributions are legal bribes. So much for corruption.
Spokker Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Interesting thing about synonmouse. His ramblings over switching to the Grapevine over the Palmdale detour ended up being closer to the mark than people gave him credit for. I think he might be vindicated after all because people are wising up to the Palmdale detour. If that new study finds a good route, then I’m with him all the way.
I was always an HSR supporter with conditions. The Central Valley was a good place to start if federal funding looked hopeful. Palmdale was okay if the Grapevine wasn’t feasible. But it may be feasible after all.
Who knew synonymouse could see the future.
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Boy I wish. Just as I wish I had a smattering of the technical knowledge of the smarter
people on the blog.
But one thing I feel sure of is the impact of a new generation of computers so powerful that can look thru every option if necessary simply by the brute force method. Analyze mob psychology in real time.
Donk Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
So then does that mean that CHSRA is also going to bypass Fresno and Bakersfield with the I-5 route?
synonymouse Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I-5 deserves at least cursory examination on the part of PB to determine whether it has genuine bargain potential or not. There may be some engineering tricks that could make it quite cheap.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:41 am
No…because that doesn’t serve MTC or Metro’s ends. A broken clock is right twice a day, and synonymous correctly figured out that PB would suggest viaducts that increased costs. Note, however, that once van Ark took over he basically told them where they could stick that idea and he’s got them pretty well in check I think.
In response, PB has pushed back the goal posts trying to undermine the Authority and I don’t think it’s working. The Board voted on the new business plan and accepted it, calling the contractors bluff. Now all the leverage PB had is gone.
synonymouse Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 10:44 am
I empathize with RisenMessiah’s optimism vis-a-vis PB but don’t share it. All I perceive is a lack of urgency and general apathy and a loose consensus on the part of the CHSRA board to go down in flames rather than touch the fix engineered by the “founders”.
PB is organically committed to building a system with civil engineering suitable for an exotic tech. My age is showing when I suggest PB suffers from a corporate cultural bias against traditional railroading. PB still has not shaken highway lobby brainwashing that railroad tech is inherently obsolete. The Jetsons fixation is an overcompensation. If you insist on keeping PB why not let them have their exotic system. Otherwise you are just fighting their instincts.
The Geriatric Brown is no help whatsover. There is no hands-on on here; otherwise he would be calling for an utter rethink. He is merely re-voicing what his handlers tell him.
You are underestimating BART, which could care less about how many construction muck-ups it makes. “Power, power, who’s got the power?” I’ll tell you – it’s BART; that’s who. Re Milbrae – BART does not give – it only gets. There will be a price to pay for any “cooperation” from the BART Empire.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I would say I am optimistic, as the bigger problem is that the culture in Washington towards large scale contractors is inevitably changing.
Your perception about the Board is correct, but mainly because it does not have the heavyweights it used to. The “incompatible offices” ruling is a big problem because it takes away the most knowledgeable and savvy candidates from serving. Dan Richard is a step in the “right” direction. But also there’s others like Steve Soboroff… Bob Hertzberg…and dare I say it…Bob Filner….
As for comment about the BART Empire, well I’m looking into that for a future post….
synonymouse Reply:
November 10th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Kopp and Diridon are heavyweights? Remember who wasted the Caltrain TBT tunnel.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
1. Cost of the project
2. Ticket prices
3. Number of cities served (Sacramento, San Diego, Oakland — gone).
4. BART aerials were popular and just dandy for Oakland
5. Unemployment rate in Spain
Other examples can be supplied if you wish.
What is so annoying isn’t just the cheerleading, but the counterfactual claims that go along with it.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
What did they ever say about Spanish unemployment?
(If you mean that they ignore it while cheerleading the growth of the AVE network, then it’s not any different from how we cheer Spain’s construction costs.)
Brian Stanke Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 1:38 am
1. We have always relied on public information about the cost. Now disbelieving Elizabeth’s guess (Authority # * ~1.7 = Right $) is considered lying?
2. Ticket prices are not yet determined. It looks like they will probably be around 80% of airline prices, but that is the State government’s call to make several years from now. Robert has been clear that cheaper (~50% airfares) is better as far as public benefit for the state’s economy and environment.
3. Well no, Sacramento and San Diego are still in phase 2. CA4HSR advocated that Oakland be kept in the Altamont overlay scope, but East Bay governments and agencies decided otherwise. I even posted the CA4HSR letter asking for help on the issue. How is that B.S.ing?
4. I live in Oakland and yes the BART aerials are not a big problem. Having the city cut in multiple pieces by 880, 580, 980, 80, and 24, and all the surface rail ripped out, has hurt Oakland. Not the BART aerials.
5. See Alon. The main point was Spanish cities have prospered because of HSR, not that HSR cured all problems forever regardless of the world and nation economies.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Some of you people need to stop using ad hominem attacks.
Interesting question: Does Apple have great products because Steve Jobs was a great engineer? Or, did Steve Jobs get out of the way and let the great engineers at Apple work unfettered in producing great products?
The answer of course is “neither”. Steve Jobs was not a great engineer and he browbeat the great engineers working for him at Apple to design the products he wanted over their possible technical objections.
The “technicals” would like to believe that the answer if not yes to the first question is at least yes to the second question.
Unfortunately, CAHSR doesn’t have a Steve Jobs running it. It has bureaucrats whose reward mechanisms minimally are that they get the job done, not that they get it done so that it is “insanely great”. You can complain all you want about that, but it’s never going to change.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Transit does not need a Steve Jobs.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
US transit actively rejects (a deep-seated profound antibody reaction) from influence any person who might care about The User Experience.
It’s supposed to feel bad. The driver and his union are supposed to despise you. It’s supposed to be slow. You’re supposed to shake your head and ask “I paid how much for that?” and “It took how many years to make things this much worse?”
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
What kind of cheese do you want with that whine, Mlynarik?
I’ve ridden transit all over Europe and Japan, and all over this country, starting from long before you were born. Transit in the U.S. ain’t perfect, but it’s useable – and in many places quite good. It has also gotten better since, say, the early ’70s.
Try “dropping in” to a place like, say, Chattanooga, TN, where the Greyhound station is far, far from downtown. People at Greyhound, and at adjacent airport, will tell you to take a cab – but walk 10 minutes or so and you’re “at” the bus line. Service is reasonable, as is the fare. Yeah, I know it’s not in “Yoorup,” but you can’t have everything.
Donk Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Another parallel between Apple and HSR are the foamers. Apple probably has more foamers than any other entity in the history of the world. No matter what they do, even if they actually copied someone else’s work and just did a better marketing job, is celebrated by the foamers. Maybe we just need to get more foamers on board the HSR project. What if CHSRA proposes to use electric HSR sets, but with fake steam coming out of the lead cars?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Fake steam is expensive, real steam on the other hand is just boiler water. Give ‘em real steam.
Technicals are likely to have taken an interest in many large engineering projects over the years and so they (we) have a better sense whether a project is on track for success or failure.
Grandiose, ‘transformational’, ‘leap-frog’ projects have a tendency to never get completed or to be hideously expensive while still failing to meet many of their goals. CAHSR is an especially bad example of this kind of project.
‘Descoped’ or ‘interim’ or gap-filler’ projects tend to get built at reasonable cost and to work well when they are completed. They are willing to abandon fancy features in order to keep costs in check.
I think political advocates are better described as dreamers or visionaries. They think that their vision is worth building no matter what the cost. They think that they will never run out of other people’s money to spend. Technicals tend to be much more focused on costs, and more realistic about projects having to pay their way. Technicals understand that sometimes they can’t afford everything they want.
Technicals are also much more likely to be aware of what high speed rail cost in other countries, and struggle to understand why CAHSR is costing so much more than projects in other countries. I suspect that a big part of the problem is because of features that the visionaries are insisting on, especially the desire to serve urban cores with high speed trains. I know there is a whole new urbanist vision/dogma out there, but one reason people moved to the suburbs is to escape the high costs of getting anything done/built in central cities.
Technicals may well underestimate the political power of the Boxer/Feinstein/Pelosi/Getty machine in San Francisco, and their ability to kill any HSR project that doesn’t serve them directly. Technicals may also not understand the political clout of the transit agencies and their unions, or the need to keep every interest group happy.
Can I say “technicals” are pessimists while “politicals” are optimists? While many technicals want to give up on CAHSR and trying to convince other people to do the same because of the $98 Billion cost and 2033 finish date for CAHSR phase 1, I certainly took it as that there is still a lot of work to be cut cost to make CAHSR more constructable, but by no means giving up on the project.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
No, you can’t say that.
The “technicals”, uniformly, wish to see a better world. It’s not even a different world: it’s the world that anybody with a passport (or a web connection, for that matter, or a public library card) can witness for himself or herself.
The “politicals” on the other hand, positively relish wallowing in third-rate filth procured for ten times the cost that actively rubs the public’s noses in a cess of contempt. The world they seek to inhabit is the one labelled “more of the same”: public transportation as an inefficient, costly, rider-hostile, and immensely, immensely contractor-profiting welfare operation. “But war is bad and costly, so it’s OK for transit to be bad and costly!” is the Number One argument.
William Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
My view: one gonna work with the current situation to improve it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 8th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
My view: you’ve got to even be aware that something better exists in order to achieve it.
Amtrak 4 eva!
Michael Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Maybe it’s too much Facebook, but I find myself missing the simple “like” or thumbs up to express agreement with someone’s statement. “Like”
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Hey, Mlynarik!
Imagine A U.S. bus system that runs with near 100-percent schedule adherence!
(Um . . . you do know that “schedule adherence” is what U.S. transit consumers demand most emphatically . . . don’t you???)
Well, there are such things, and I rode several this past summer. The “best” schedule adherence was provided by SCAT, Sarasota [FL] County Area Transit – in perhaps the “least likely” of settings.
When you’ve got such high reliability of service, who the hell cares about “inefficient, costly, rider-hostile, and immensely, immensely contractor-profiting welfare operation” ?
Or the fact that it isn’t in “Yoorup”?
Representative John Mica, chairman of the House transportation committee, would be happy to take the money from California and spend it on the NEC.
StevieB Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 1:54 am
The Wall Street Journal reports Mica has <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/11/08/a-push-to-bring-federal-rail-funds-to-northeast-corridor/targeted California HSR money.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 3:56 am
So much for people thinking Congress would let California reallocate its ARRA funding to local or even regional projects…
joe Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Mica is one dude, this isn’t Congress.
Peter Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 7:19 am
Yes, he’s just one dude. But he’s the chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He has more pull than most.
Tony d. Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Its (gulp) over! Time to consider hitting ctl alt delete on this thing.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:35 am
But the real question is why he is suggesting this, given that he knows full well the Senate Transportation Bill is being sponsored by Boxer?
Joe Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
So who had more clout ? Mica or Pelosi and Obama?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Honestly, if I were the Obama administration, I’d offer to reallocate the money back to Florida if it makes a few changes at the top, such as quickly passing a recall provision and booting the 25%-approval-rate Governor. For all of my criticism of FLHSR, the money would do more good there than in Amtrak’s hands in the Northeast.
Joe Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
You alienate the minority whip and put CA into play in 2012 for the advantage of recalling a dead duck.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
If CA is in play, Obama’s already lost. The point is that if CA groans about the high cost, the money should go to FL, not be wasted on Amtrak.
It’s too bad, too. $3.1 billion spent wisely in the Northeast Corridor would probably make the Acela so attractive it would not just pay for itself but also cover Amtrak’s off-NEC operating losses. (For one, it’s enough or almost enough to build full-fat HSR from New York to Washington.)
joe Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
If Obama moves ARRA funding out of state, CA does go into play. He would be in trouble.
Yes, the goal is to optimise the Acela line by moving HSR funding form CA – the operating assumption is the federal budget is run by putting money into envelopes with tags like “rail” and if one wants to achieve some massive goodness in the East, the money must be taken from the “rail” envelop.
Cut the F-35 and fix Acela. Air conditioning alone costs 20 Billion annually in Iraq/Afganistan. So why is 3.1 of CA rail funding spent wisely in Acela and endless war is “free”, off topic, not money the “rail envelop”
StevieB Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Obama continues strong support of high speed rail. The thing stopping construction is congress. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood who represents the president said in a speach to the USHSR Association yesterday President Obama and Vice President Biden are America’s 21st century rail men.
The president has included rail in his outline of the transportation bill and rail supporters approve.
Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, has blocked rail funding.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
If California cancels the project, then the money will be moved out of state. If not, it won’t.
My goal is to optimize the Acela by explaining to Mica and Biden that for an order of magnitude less money than what Amtrak thinks it needs, they build a very good HSR line and fix Amtrak forever.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
I take it this requires a significant amount of FRA reform?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
It requires cobbling together regulations from different countries based on optimal practices. So it needs Japan’s lower buff strength regs and higher permissible cant, and Germany and Switzerland’s tolerance for mixing full-speed trains on tracks used by slower trains when capacity permits it. Not only is it impossible under FRA rules, but also it’s more difficult than it should be under pure Japanese or pure UIC rules.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 3:56 am
I’d like to know what the complainers about the “machine” (Boxer, Pelosi, etc.) think of Mica.
I think he acknowledges rail works in the Northeast, but can not–very possibly, will not–see beyond that. How upset has he remained about the Florida project? Hasn’t made much noise about it since the cancellation by a fellow Republican.
In short, he is a Mr. Status Quo, and would be perplexed to understand the oil problems we face, along with highway financing, an aging population, and a younger population that isn’t into cars as much as they used to be. In fact, he would probably deny all these things, and accuse me or anyone else trying to tell him about these that we are making this stuff up.
http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-11-02-imbalance-american-party-politics
http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-11-03-gop-brain-explained-cliff-stearns-wants-to-subsidize-companies
So much for a desire to throw out incumbents in great numbers…
Kasich got his ass-whooping, too. Good for Ohio.
Tony d. Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I think throwing out incumbents has more to do with congress and not governors.
This is an entirely fatuous debate. ‘Technicals’ and ‘politicals’ have different mindsets, skillsets, and use different approaches to dealing with the poor state of public transit in the US. Both are essentially correct- the poor state of public transit in the US is due to both a chronic lack of funding and insufficient public and political support, and anachronistic regulations, poor inter-agency co-operation and contractor profiteering.
Focusing on either one of these issues without regard to the other is ineffective. Cheerleading a poorly designed project will destroy your credibility and lose your political and public support. Ranting about the incompetence of the existing transit agencies and their engineers will give you zero chance of influencing the engineering decisions made by those agencies. Mixing technical criticism with political support (generally known as constructive criticism) will give both camps the best chance of seeing a successful project which they are reasonably happy with.
One positive thing CA4HSR could do right now is to submit a letter to the authority/press release expressing support for the business plans but also concerns over the cost over-runs on the sections currently still in planning, with technically details cribbed from Clem’s blog to back up your argument. I fail to see how anyone can justify the $1.9 billion Millbrae tunnel; highlighting issues such as these whilst still expressing support for the project as a whole is in my opinion the best way to help achieve a successful project.
Donk Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Exactly.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:20 am
I agree with many of your thoughts. As I previously mentioned, we are drafting a letter regarding the business plan assumptions. Additionally, we have been telling the Authority to work with BART to figure out a design that would allow HSR to utilize the unused portion of Taj Majal BART station at Millbrae for one of their tracks to avoid the need for a tunnel. This suggestion will be used as an example in the letter of value engineering to bring costs down.
Donk Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:29 am
I think most people on this blog are really somewhere in the middle of the technical vs political spectrum, and really are not that far apart. The difference is that some see the priorities more on one side than the other. What makes supporters upset is when technicals throw in the towel and renounce their support for the project, or when politicals blindly cheerlead the project regardless of cost or function.
However, most of the technicals who have renounced the project are still posting on this blog, so clearly they still care about the project, and the politicals here, for the most part, are still strongly in favor of cost controls.
Joe Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
WTF about using that aweful BART station as a case study in failure?
How did they blow it do badly and what is to stop a repeat.
And if that station is an isolated parking lot, how does reusing it help ridership?
Save costs by throwing good money after bad could produce mor bad.
RisenMessiah Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:33 am
It’s even easier than that: Robert just needs to clean up the blog roll and identify the technicals and politicals that are actively commenting on the blog and also discussing the project. This place is really a hub of debate, and CA4HSR should see the utility in that.
Plus, it doesn’t help to keep other links stagnant given the changes in HSR politics since Prop 1A passed…..
It is spam -> check the email address. Robert – you need to delete this or your site gets dinged by google.
Two more points, aimed at ‘politicals.’
About 70% of the cost of an engineering project is determined by the initial, high level specification.
When the politicals write a law that says:
“Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that shall not
exceed the following:
(1) San Francisco-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.”
Right there you build an enormous amount of cost into the system, and there is nothing much that the engineers can do to take it out. The right way to do this is to say: “Build a fast train from the Bay Area to LA for under $40 billion.” That gives your engineers much more flexibility, while imposing a realistic cost constraint.
The second point is that the costs of high speed rail are not where you would expect them to be. It is natural to assume that the track is where the money is. Not true! The cost of the system is in the tunnels, the bridges and the grade separations. It is entirely possible for a 500 mile high speed line across flat empty desert to be cheaper to build than a 50 mile line through an urban area.
A great deal of the problems that CAHSR faces comes from wanting to run high speed tracks through urban areas, in a misguided attempt to serve downtown stations. If you must go downtown, slow the trains right down and live within the limits of existing infrastructure. You will have to electrify the existing tracks, but that is usually affordable. The best solution for most Californian cities is large stations on the edge of the city next to a freeway.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Existing tracks don’t work in most cases, as they’re freight-owned. If you’re going through Fresno or Bakersfield, you’re building new track one way or another.
schrodinger Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
It seems to me that in many cases the transit agencies in LA and SF has been able to do deals with the freight railroads for their track.
I also wonder if they have considered the possibility of building new freight lines around Fresno and Bakerfield, and then trading those for the existing freight right of way in the urban area.
The time constraint was part of the Proposition. It gave voters a hard service requirement and expectation this money would NOT be used for incremental rail improvements. So a expensive requirement is exactly what peopled voted to build.
Running HSR in towns is “misguided” if the guide was to run them outside of towns. The term misguided implies an mistake. It’s not a mistake if the intention or desire is to have HSR in city centers and not on the fringe of town next to highway.
The goal isn’t build a low cost HSR system. Put it where costs are the least outide town next to a highway. I bet that design would fail to win support.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Joe, there’s a world of difference between mandating LA-SF in 3 hours and mandating LA-SF in 2:40.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
He says stations should be outside of towns, you say they should be in downtowns, I say no general rules. Determining the optimal location for a station should be done on a case-by-case basis, evaluating actual criteria. For instance,
-How will station placement affect ridership? (and just to be clear, I’m not asking for an answer to this, it would probably require an in-depth study to really quantify).
-Is current or planned public transit infrastructure sufficient to get the people who will use the station there without a car? (for most California cities, particularly those where you’re serving more of a regional market, the answer is no, but again it must be evaluated case-by-case).
-Are current of planned zoning policies sufficient to discourage sprawl? (this may even be a problems for some downtown stations if there’s a lot of undeveloped land not too far from the downtown)
-Is the city in question willing to commit to major TOD which is designed for walkability?
-How disruptive would express trains be, traveling through downtown at 200 mph?
-How expensive is mitigation for such effects? (i.e. soundwalls, covered trenches/tunnels, full bypasses/station loops)
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Just remember that in N. America, there’s a perception that trains are really noisy and lower the standard of living nearby. Lots of people would love to have rail access, but not live right next to the tracks. Personal example: my parents voted no BART to SJ not b/c it’s a mediocre use of public funds (though my talking to them has started to change their opinions apparently), but b/c we live right next to the tracks. Not saying the perception is true, but it’s pretty ingrained. Bottom line: If people don’t want the trains nearby, then the CHSRA should use compensation OR find a route with less impact, depending on the situation.
Also, you say “The goal isn’t build a low cost HSR system.” ITA on not cutting corners, but I think it’s just as important to not build a high cost system when it can and should be built for less.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Sorry, this should be a reply to joe.
schrodinger Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
People voted for a $40 billion system not a $100 billion one.
High speed rail will only get built if the cost is sensible and edge of city stations is one way to keep the cost sensible.
Btw it is not necessarily either-or. Where there is an opportunity to build a downtown station at sensible cost without delaying trains then that should be considered. However, the initial conceptual design should have assumed edge of city stations.
Missed this when first posted. RailPAC supports High Speed Rail in California. I joined the group in 1980. In 81 or 82 we held a meeting in Fresno where I presented a map of proposed HSR lines between London, Paris and the south of France. Overlaying this was a map showing the major cities of California and the similarity of distances. We have supported the concept ever since. However, we will not be dumb cheerleaders and will not support the stupidity of the CHSRA. To squander the scarce funds we have now on this unproductive valley segment will set back HSR everywhere for years to come. We have to build smartly and incrementally on what we have, starting with the second biggest city in the country and bridging the gap from there to the central part of the state, with LAUS to Palmdale as the first section.
PD
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:25 am
Richard didn’t get his preferred Transbay design even though it is still functional – so he wants to kill the project.
Tolmach didn’t get his Altamont and the people-free I-5 alignment – so he wants to kill the project.
Alon Levy is upset about the cost, even though it is still cheaper than building sprawl-inducing highways – so he wants to kill the project.
And Paul, you didn’t get your gap closure FIRST, so the phasing is not to your liking – so you now want to kill the project. Oh well, who cares if over 100 miles of HSR track will be laid which can be utilzed to speed up Amtrak service for the 7 million and soon-to-be 12 million Central Valley residents and be the trunkline for future HSR service. Your assumption that we will never get any more federal money is off-the-charts pessimism.
I am getting pissed off.
peninsula Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:01 am
ooh Daniel is sooo angwy – but its too bad then that you were such a perky and blank headed, critical thinking-free cheerleader for prop 1A which says that 100 miles of amtrak in central valley is not a qualified use of Prop 1A bond funds. “speeding up Amtrak service” “independent utility” “test track”, “some day when monkey’s fly out of our butts” all not part of Prop 1A.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Go ahead keep the character assassinations and name calling coming. It just discredits you as does your ongoing legal arguments.
Caelestor Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:26 am
I think you’re too complacent with the project. Almost everybody here wants to see HSR be built, but not at the slow pace and high cost currently projected for it.
CAHSR is still better than the alternatives, but we really should pester CHRSA and strive to make it as good as it can be, since if HSR is actually is built, it’ll serve as the de facto model for HSR all over the country — and you don’t want to mess that up.
Daniel Krause Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I agree with you. Constructive criticism in the spirit of moving the project forward is a positive thing.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Rah rah rah! PB PB they’re the one! If they don’t profit, I can’t come!
paul dyson Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Dan: We don’t want to kill the project, CHSRA will kill the project, aided and abetted by the DoT with their ridiculous priorities. Remember that the DoT can change their policy quite quickly. It’s all a sham to make it look as if something is happening before the election. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how this 100 miles of track is going to demonstrate to the public at large that HSR is something in which they should invest another $90 billion based on the productivity of the first investment. Given the short term nature of people’s thinking and the desire for some tangible benefit at an early stage, we have to insist that something is built that meets a real need and can show some kind of return. The LAUS improvements and a couple of miles of run through track is a building block for HSR AND immediately improves the efficiency, reliability and punctuality of 200 trains per day, as well as reducing journey times for tens of thousands of passengers. Grade separations and realignments between there and Palmdale will make the AV line more attractive and pull traffic from I-5 and 14. I would match the benefits of that against a dozen speeded up San Joaquin trains any day of the week. What the San Joaquins need and can be delivered much more quickly is rolling stock to run longer trains. Build 1,000 railcars, build them in California, deploy them on the corridors and the l/d trains, create skilled jobs, at the same time as incrementally extending the HS line north. Bythe time you are ready to order HS rolling stock we could have an industry here ready to build them. Build, not assemble!
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
This conventional alternative has been possible for decades yet has not appealed to the public nor has the awesome private sector cared to build it. Incremental work is incremental and in this case of connecting LA to SF, ass-backwards for convincing CA citizens to invest in the state’s future.
Yet the challenge to convince CA to invest even millions in your incremental alternative as failed.
Running a demonstration train at true HSR speeds would exactly convince people to extend and build the system to LA and SF. It would validate the system and it makes perfect sense to have the spine of the system in place.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Daniel, I do not want to kill the project. (Seriously, did you read my post beyond the “At present costs I can’t support the project” line?) I want them to build the ICS and then do the IOS in a sane manner.
And as for the cost of the alternative, it’s just too convenient that they found the cost ran over just as they found out the cost of rail had run over. It would be justifiable if the rail cost overrun was for legitimate reasons, e.g. an expected economic boom leading to higher construction costs across the board, but instead the vast majority of the real cost increase is due to scope creep. In other words, in order to make HSR look good, they gratuitously scope-crept the highways.
And suppose that the cost of building highways is indeed $170 billion. So what? Who says California has to build highways – some construction industry flaks? Screw them. Let them publish their pseudo-scientific studies that come up with outrageously high estimates for the pollution costs of traffic congestion and then recommend building more highways to reduce pollution. (A study like this made USA Today six months ago, though fortunately without the policy recommendations.) If I can make a conscious decision to reduce my travel to New York on the grounds that Amtrak is for masochists, California can make a collective decision to reduce its auto travel on the grounds that public health is more important than motorist convenience.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
FungWa is for masochists. Amtrak is for people into dominance and submission.
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Wow.
Your analysis lacks rigor.
CA citizens driving less because we wish to collectively reduce air pollution is an economic fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
The individual, without alternatives, will want more roads to reduce their driving time and costs. The collective effect is to build more roads, draw more drivers and create more congestion.
Life does not work the way you want it to work.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
The individual, with proper incentives (i.e. gas whose costs account for the cost of air pollution), will drive less and inflict less damage on the rest of society. That’s why it’s a collective decision and not an individual one.
Alternatives can come later, if the people who are priced out of giving others lung cancer still want to get places. It’s excellent if they’re bundled together with the pricing, but by themselves they’re not going to do much. High-income Asian cities did not get to have low car ownership just by building subways; they got that way by taxing driving and avoiding subsidizing parking, so that later, when they became rich enough to afford building subways, there was a mass of people who’d actually use them. This way there are entire swaths of the urban world where transit never really declined.
Okay, I’m going to throw it out there. With all the issues of routing and a system that now has costs way above expectations, should we not at least take a look at Maglev again?
Just tossing it out there because the biggest concern with Maglev was cost. Now the biggest concern with HSR is well… Cost.
Sorry, just being a technical…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:01 am
The trackbed and associated civil works are going to cost about the same. Maglev track ain’t cheap. Maglev trains can’t use standard gauge track for the last few miles into the station. It gets very very expensive, even compared to expensive HSR, very very fast. The trains themselves aren’t going to be cheap either.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
What the hell are you talking about? Maglev uses a fixed pre-cast guideway that can be built in a controlled environment then take to the site and errected. Standard gauge track? WTF?
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Standard gauge track? WTF?
I think he’s talking about track sharing with CalTrain/maybe Metrolink.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Maglev is on an at grade or elevated fixed concrete guideway. It’s not on rail. It can also run above existing rail corridors or highway corridors.
Thats why I said.. WTF?
Whats more is we (Being the US) actually own the better technolgy (more energy efficient Halbach Array technology) for it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
building miles of elevated maglev tracks over existing tracks cost a lot more than running the trains on the existing track.
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Not according to the latest cost estimates…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
They estimated how much maglev tracks would cost?
Joey Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
The ChĹ«ĹŤ Maglev is expected to cost about the same as CAHSR, and that’s with 60% of the route tunneled, including 100km of tunnels deep under urban areas.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
It’s twice as expensive per km: a little less than $200 million per km, vs. 100 for CAHSR. It’s expensive to build tunnels straight through seismic mountains and under urban areas. And although the Shin-Aomori extension was pretty cheap for the amount of tunneling, urban tunneling in Japan is ungodly expensive by non-Anglophone standards.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
The tested production technology is German (Transrapid) or Japanese (JR-Maglev); the two technologies are incompatible, ensuring vendor lock. It would be great for Siemens and JR Central if they had anyone willing to buy their technology.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Quick: name one significant field in which CHSRA’s lead consultant, based in particular upon the extensive historical record of the corporation and of its project senior staffers, is unlikely to engineer vendor lock-in, steel wheels on steel rails be damned.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
The Germans sold their’s to one vict… customer. Any decade now they should be able to find another.
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Of course PB does want to build modernist; it wants to go beyond re-inventing the wheel, wherein for instance Bechtel bastardized BART by proprietarizing ca. 1900 NYC subway tech, and dispense with the wheels altogether.
Unfortunately moving on up to exotic, logical given PB’s unwavering commitment to massively over-built civil works, would require a political deus ex machina. Something on the order of Moonboom having a maglev revelation akin to Constantine seeing the cross in the sky.
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:09 am
sorry, I meant Moonbeam.
Clem Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Oh, BART has wheels? (Notice they go to very great lengths to hide the wheels… same goes for airport people movers, that hide their vulgar truck tires for the same “futuristic” aesthetic.)
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
ćśĺąŚĺś°ä¸‹é‰„ă®äą—客ăŚĺś°ä¸‹é‰„ă®é›»č»ŠăŻă‚´ă タイă¤ă§ăŻăŞăŹé‡‘属ă®č»ŠčĽŞă‚’ćŚăŁă¦ă„ă‚‹ă“ă¨ă€ă‚Źă‹ă‚‰ăŞă„ă€ă¨ć°—ă«ă—ăŞă„。
Sapporo chikatetsu no jĹŤkyaku ga chikatetsu no densha wa gomu taiyade wanaku kinzoku no sharin o motte iru koto, wakaranai, to kinishinai.
“Subway passengers in Sapporo do not know, and do not care, that subway trains have rubber tires rather than steel wheels.”
schrodinger Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
How does maglev solve the problems that currently plague CAHSR? It forces you to build viaduct, which people don’t like to look at. It will be noisier because it is faster. I don’t see how you implement sound walls or tunnel. It ain’t cheap.
To be honest, neither Parsons nor CAHSR is competent enough to tackle the challenge of building the world’s first high capacity long haul maglev system.
The only real advantage I see is that the coolness factor might help to overcome some NIMBY opposition. The additional speed doesn’t solve any major problems.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I don’t want to defend maglev here, but maglev is quieter than conventional rail at equal speeds, because there’s no overhead pantograph. (On the Shinkansen, the pantograph generates one third of the noise.) There’s also no friction, which means the trains are also much quieter than normal trains at low speeds.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
No, Levy, the pantograph itself does not generate significant noise. It’s the arcing (sparks) that creates the noise.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Maybe at low speeds, but at high speeds, the pantograph is the non-aerodynamic part that sticks up from the streamlined body. There are diagrams in various places (like JRTR) showing in color where the noise comes from, and the place where the pantograph is is colored bright red. It’s not just the arcing.