Congress Fails Again on High Speed Rail
The US House of Representatives held a hearing today, at Jeff Denham’s request, into the California High Speed Rail project. I caught some of the testimony and read some transcripts of the remarks from both witnesses and members of Congress, and I have to agree with the Fresno Bee’s Michael Doyle in his conclusion that there was plenty of posturing at the hearing:
California’s ambitious high-speed rail program reignited high-level skirmishing Thursday that crosses party lines and shows every sign of extending into the foreseeable future.
Taken together, the sometimes combative rhetoric at a House committee hearing seemed to change no minds but did underscore the political barriers complicating California’s high-speed rail program now estimated to cost $98.5 billion over 20 years.
Congressional hearings usually aren’t much more than this anyway. They’re a chance for one side, in this case Republicans, to make their claims, in this case that high speed rail is a bad idea. Their arguments were the familiar and false ones: nobody will ride the trains, private sector won’t invest, the whole thing is a waste. As Doyle reported, it was so familiar that few representatives even sat through the whole thing:
Denham chaired much of the four-hour hearing Thursday, which high-speed rail supporter Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, denounced in advance as a “dog and pony show.” The arguments were frequently fervent, but missed by most of the ostensible audience. For much of the hearing, only three or four representatives from the 59-member committee were in attendance.
Another criticism, voiced by some Democrats as well as Republicans, was with the choice of where to begin construction:
Some of the congressional resistance seen Thursday appears to be partisan, as Republicans find a way to oppose an Obama administration priority. Some skepticism seems more rooted in regional competition for funding, and this is not just from Northeastern lawmakers who want to steer rail funds their way. One Southern California Democrat, Rep. Janet Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs, worried Thursday that high-speed rail could “take away from local projects” that might improve much-needed mass transit in her district.
This is no surprise. The number of people in state and federal politics who are actually deeply invested in connecting SF, the Central Valley and LA by fast rail is not as high as it should be, especially when construction begins in the Valley. It’s a lot easier for parochial members of Congress in the Bay Area and Southern California to argue for spending money in their own backyards, even though the entire point of HSR is to connect those two metro areas. Building in the Valley IS still cheaper than building in the Bay Area and the LA area. By starting in the Valley, where the missing link is located, you can generate the momentum needed to get the rest of the funding you need to get to the coastal metro areas.
And that ultimately is what makes this whole exercise so ridiculous. Congress has all the power to solve these problems by simply providing more money to get the system built more quickly and give the representatives from the coastal metro areas the jobs and spending they want while actually doing the right thing and building the train. They’re like a person standing beside a car in the driveway saying “I can’t get to work!” while holding the keys in their hand.
Republicans are simply looking for excuses to kill a project they don’t like, and hoped a Congressional hearing would help them maintain their drumbeat. This issue won’t be decided in a hearing, however. It will be decided at the ballot box in November 2012. If Democrats retake Congress and hold the White House, then it’s likely that more funding will be approved to help get this done, over time. Crucially, that would include enough funding to get the Initial Operating Segment done. Democrats on the committee were mostly concerned about where the money goes, not about whether HSR is worth funding.
The case for HSR remains solid. People will ride trains, especially since the price of gas keeps rising, and as we face a jobs crisis and a climate crisis, investing in green infrastructure is more essential than ever. Voters understood that in 2008 and as each year passes that case only gets stronger. Right now, in 2011, those HSR deniers, whether they are Congressional Republicans or Peninsula NIMBYs, are riding high because American culture and politics currently prizes defending a failed status quo over changing to a better future. That won’t last forever and neither will the Republican majority in Congress.
I’m sure we’ll see more grandstanding hearings. But the key is for HSR supporters to remain focused on the reasons why HSR is a good idea, not get discouraged, and keep pushing forward. If things like this are going to be possible in America, it will require strong and persistent advocacy. It shouldn’t have to be that way, but those are the times in which we’re fated to live.
It’s all the fault of the authority. How dare they ask for money to be spent IN the country for American taxpayers.
We should have argued that those high speed trains could be used to transport troops and weapons from SD to LA in only 2 hours and 40 minutes. On top of that, we could argue that you could probably mount a missile shield and on top of the trains creating a defense shield against a possible communist invasion by the People’s Republic of China. And I think we can put Iran, and somewhere in between the lines for shock value.
Now, if we did THAT kind of argumentation, we probably would have $30 billion of federal matching funds every year. Don’t say something silly like “it would provide relief to our infrastructure.” That won’t fly in Congress.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:37 am
Emma, that just might really work. . .
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 10:12 am
It helped for the Interstate:
“The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 [...] changed the name to the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and set the Federal Government’s share of project cost at 90 percent.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:20 am
I think the train ride from SD to LA is about 2:40.
VBobier Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
At either 79mph or less.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Didn’t read the original post did you?
HSTSheldon Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
You know very well that Emma meant SF to LA and not SD to LA. VBobier is aware of that and just humoring you.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Seriously, take a pill. Grow a sense of humor.
Emma Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Whoops. Yes. Of course I meant San Francisco – Los Angeles. A lot of typos in that one. It was late. :D
Missiondweller Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Or you could have asked Obama to spend enough of that $787 Billion stimulus to actually get something built, instead of subsidizing state public employees for two years.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Makes to much sense, desides then the Unions get pissed.
Our pal Ralph had another doozie over at the LA Times. As always, he highlighted the negatives instead of the positives. This guy’s gotta go.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-hearing-20111216,0,2765172.story
synonymouse Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:21 am
On the contrary, it is merely a welcome respite from the endless happy-clappy agitprop emanating from the Moonbeam regime.
One poster using the name Florez is claiming that unions connected to Jerry Brown are pushing legislation requiring all contractors to hire not only union members, but California union members. Legal questions aside regarding federal funding, such a measure which undercut any notion of below estimates bids.
It is not reasonable to think unions would be trying this tactic just to blow off because it strengthens the arguments of opponents. They must think it has a real chance of passing the Demo-dominated Legislature. HSR cheerleaders need to take a position on this union issue. This regulation along with any sundry Buy American provisos calls into question the $98bil figure as too low.
Jonathan Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
.. The “Moonbeam regime”?? One has to wonder how synonymouse would describe living under … oh, lets say Pinochet, or the Argentinian junta.
Missiondweller Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Excellent point. The unions should be assured they will have plenty of work, even more if they are cost competitive.
Rep. John Mica (FL) has repeatedly called for all high speed rail funding to be directed to the Northeast Corridor. Interesting facts came out at the hearing about the NEC. The $117 billion to fund the NEC system was estimated in 2010 dollars and would be much higher in year of expenditure dollars as the California system is $65 billion becoming $98 billion in year of expenditure.
The complete NEC build out would require 3 to 4 years for environmental impact statements for D.C. to Boston and up to 8 years for project EIR for each segment. Agreement of the federal government, Amtrak and 8 states would have to be reached to complete the EIR. The NEC is also much more difficult to build as current train operations would need to be kept running during construction.
The Rep. Mica proposal of a public-private partnership able to construct a NEC high speed rail system in 10 to 15 years, half the time of the Amtrak proposal, is a baseless hoax. California remains the last best hope for true high speed rail in the USA.
JJJ Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:35 am
AKA: Support the project that he knows won’t and can’t happen.
Happens with transit all the time.
BRT is proposed. NIMBYs who hate transit pretend they love transit, and argue it should be a (much more expensive) streetcar. BRT is a boondoggle.
Magic happens, and the proposal is now a streetcar. Hold up, the NIMBYs think it must be 100% grade separate light rail and nothing less. A streetcar would be a boondoggle.
The heavens shine upon the project and enough money is found to make it grade separated light rail. But no, the NIMBYs are furious. The views will be ruined, RUINED. Its a terrible idea, if there is to be a transit line it MUST be done “right”. It MUST be a subway. Anything else is a boondoggle.
What do you know, after years of work, it can be a subway. Everyone is happy! No sir, you see the NIMBYs never wanted transit. Now theyre claiming that digging 100 feet under a high school will lead to deaths of children. Make it BRT.
Based on true events.
Donk Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 4:26 am
Based on true events where? Are you suggesting this happened to the Purple Line subway in LA? The only real discussion was between BRT and a subway. They are building both.
JJJ Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Based on true events doesnt mean “these are a list of actual events in the order that they happened”
“Skeptics, such as Elizabeth Alexis of the Palo Alto-based Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, countered with estimates that public subsidies will amount to nearly $100 per passenger for the first 30 years. Construction will require purchase of an estimated 1,100 parcels of land.”
What scary number did she bring out this time? Every dollar going to HSR will be on less dollar keeping criminals in jail? Money taken directly from the lunches of kindergarteners?
Thats the logic she pulled when speaking at Fresno State.
How about this, lets take the $100bn cost, divide it over the project lifetime (150 years) and spread it out over the population of California (over 150 years, thats, what, 100m individuals?)
Suddenly, each taxpayer is subsidizing the project by a very tiny amount indeed.
Donk Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 4:33 am
Yeah, totally ridiculous argument. She is just trying to portray herself as an “expert” in the field so she can position herself to get some of the $98B in her pockets. Not a bad consulting gig to have for the next 20 years.
Build HSR now! Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:30 am
You raise a very good point. Because CARRD is not transparent, we can only speculate about which lobby or interest group is funding them to spread their misinformation. Must be nice to have some wealthy benefactors.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:14 am
This says something pretty depressing about this country when everyone’s assumption is that people like us must have some ulterior motivation – $ or political or whathave you.
I can only speak for myself but I have less than zero desire to be in office or have my day job be working in transportation issues. This whole experience has given me a lot of admiration for those who do these things as the current level of dysfunction in both arenas is staggering.
In California, this project has drawn a lot of people into the political process who may be part of the solution. It would be a good thing for California if some of the many talented people we have met, on both sides of the debate, are inspired to pursue careers developing and implementing 21st century transit solutions.
You are right that the money in this project creates a lot of potential conflicts. This cuts both ways though. The $ is just as likely to lead to an attempt to co-opt critics with a consulting gig as it is to motivate criticism.
The rail authority spent three years searching for our hidden motivations. Their time would have been better spent listening to our suggestions.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:01 am
You do have an ulterior motive. You want the value of your house to stay high. You think that construction will cause the value of your home to decrease if not temporarily. If that’s not true, please say so.
You seem to not understand how human nature works. Everyone wants the greatest gain for the smallest amount of work. Politics is about forging compromises so that both sides get what they want.
That would include, in your case, advocating for a dedicated funding source (like a parcel tax) for Cal Train. Or, as Robert hinted, contributing local tax dollars for a tunnel through sensitive areas. Or you could run a ballot measure to split the tax roll…
You guys are playing a losing man’s game. You can’t win only playing defense.
synonymouse Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:27 am
And Palmdale real estate developers or the Tejon Ranch don’t have an ulterior motive?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
See my comment below to Andre… American politics are all about ulterior motives because of reliance on property rights and the winner-take-all system. Everyone has an ulterior motive.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
And what if someone has “an ulterior motive”? Does that somehow negate the validity of facts unearthed by such a person? Does it undermine the logic of that person’s arguments? Sometimes I think these ad hominem attacks reflect the laziness and, perhaps, desperation of those who launch them.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
It’s not ad hominem. I’m not taking issue with Elizabeth per se, but her rhetorical position. She has vested interests like everyone else, and its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
What’s your vested interest, Tom? I don’t agree with your position, but clearly you think everyone thinks alike — presumably like you.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 5:20 am
Eh, I’m a young guy (when 31 become young?) who has to find a way to make a living for the next 30-40 years. Infrastructure is a much better way to make a living than being a realtor….
joe Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:38 am
I live in Gilroy and am 1 KM from the station so I’m totally biased.
The issues I have with CARRD are now measurable given there is a history. Did we ever get an apology for their mistaken and deeply negative assessment of the ridership model? I’m not saying the model is right, I am saying the specific criticisms were not obvious as claimed nor on deeper study, validated by the peer review.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Joe:
The problem with CARRD is that unless you take a constructive and not an obstructive approach, you won’t get much accomplished in life or in politics. Elizabeth and CARRD is basically obstructionist and proposing alternatives that ignore reality:
Palo Alto is the West Coast’s Wall Street. It’s where you go to get concepts, idea, and the like funded. It’s the technology’s Hollywood. It’s important to both the city and state to make it as available as downtown SF and San Jose. Given BARTs reputation and VTA’s existence I understand the skepticism, but I don’t agree with it.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Jane Jacobs will say the opposite. Proposing anything will make authority smile, tag you a participating citizen, and keep doing what it wants to do. It’s fine to say no.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:52 am
For the record, my vested interest is that I need to shuttle up and down the NEC, and the current speed and frequency are a travesty. My support for CAHSR is partly the likelihood I’ll live in LA or the Bay Area, and partly empathy for people who already live there.
Walter Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Elizabeth, please share with us what you think is going right with this project. Or at least tell us what you think these “21st century transit solutions” are. Would you support a 220 mph train from SF to LA (via the Peninsula) under any circumstances? What conditions do you have?
Even though I think they were terrible presidents, Nixon was ahead of his time on environmental issues, Reagan was good with diplomacy, and W. did a lot to stem the tide of AIDS in Africa.
I’m very much in support of this project, but I admit it has many faults; for instance, SJ is getting wasteful nonsense, and the Authority too often doesn’t communicate plans to its stakeholders until it has to.
CARRD’s shtick is 100% negative and non-constructive. You work very hard and I respect that, but you’re not neutral.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:25 am
We have seen a number of interesting route proposals. Remember though that we are the people who believe that good outcomes come from good decisionmaking that comes from good process.
It is premature to route pick until you fix the process. This means figuring out who the client is, dismantling the 4 layers of consultants currently driving the process, adopting some kind of effective method of working with communities along the route as well as the regional transit agencies (we have proposed CSS, the French have some other similar system).
You also have to really clarify and prioritize what you want to do so you know what success looks like.
This sounds like a lot but you are trying to build the largest infrastructure project in the history of California.
We like tthings like the Swiss proposal to give policymakers a taste of what a more logical process could produce.
You asked us what we think is good. In testimony to the State Senate last week, I spoke a lot about this.
IMHO the best thing this project has done is raise a level of awareness about public transportation. In Palo Alto, the city council for the first time that I can remember really gets why Caltrain is a key part of its economic vitality and livability. This is happening all over the state and it presents a window of opportunity to start demanding better services on the local level.
1)
Eric M Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:34 am
So what did you mean when you said at the hearing about the route being 100 miles too long?
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:00 am
The SF to LA train system is 480 miles of tracks (SF – Anaheim 510). The driving distance is 382 miles. In Europe, one of the features of HSR is that it can often cut mileage from the trip compared to existing roads and / or train.
Madrid to Barcelona driving – 618km Madrid to Barcelona AVE – 621km
Paris to Lyon driving 466 km Paris to Lyon TGV 425 km
If we wan to compare the cost of this project to a similar project in Europe, you have to compare both the cost per mile AND the miles vis a vis driving miles.
I am not saying that any mile above driving distance is waste. I am saying we have made a lot of decisions that really drive up the cost and if you want to get to a system that has a reasonable cost that could start approaching something that makes sense on cost-benefit basis, distance is an obvious place to look.
And now that we have more truthful cost estimates, we need to re-evaluate all these choices with the actual costs.
The extra miles in this case come from several decisions:
1) to include a jaunt up to Merced and the wye with it. It makes no sense to go to Merced in Phase 1, particularly now that they have chosen a station location that is across town from where the Amtrak station is which means you will be using buses for access from points up to Sacramento, not the San Joaquin rail service. 30 miles
2) BNSF alignment vs I-5 (25 miles) UP alignment about 20 miles
3) Grapevine. 25-40 miles depends on how you go through Bakersfield
Please note these numbers don’t add up to 100 – I think some of it is not being able to go across Bay to Oakland, and these are rough approximations and the impact of one depends on other choices.
This doesn’t even count the extra miles in the FULL system because of choice of Pacheco.
Pacheco means that for full system that you have to build twice as many miles on the north south alignment between Manteca and Chowchilla. Some of this shows up in Phase 1 in the jaunt up to Merced.
This map shows the issue http://tinyurl.com/7g9y9r3 For pacheco, south of Redwood City, you are building 53+85 + 80 = 218 miles of track. For Altamont, you are building 65 + 80 + 15 (SJ – Fremont) = 160 miles of track.
The extra miles are really bad for the cost because of both the cost of more miles and the impact on time. The longer the route, the faster you have to go. The inflexibility with speed is responsible for high costs in an unbelievable number of ways in this project.
Eric M Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:32 am
At the hearing, you were talking about the SF-LA segment. So do you believe the routing should follow the UP alignment in the central valley and go the route of the Grapevine?
Eric M Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Please elaborate on the EXACT routing you think the routing should be from SF-LA?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:46 am
the exact route isn’t that important as long as the route isn’t in her backyard.
Eric M Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Well I would like to know from her? Elizabeth, are you going to answer my two questions?
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I don’t know for sure. First, the alternatives have not been really studied to understand impacts and tradeoffs. Second, our main agenda is to get the process fixed to the point at which decisions are actually made based on facts so I don’t think this is where we add value by advocating for a specific change. By this point, I have somewhat well educated opinions on which of these are most compelling. What is your yes, no, maybe list?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Yes, yes, yes, study it to death and then complain that the studies cost too much. And or that they weren’t through enough and more are needed. It’s a tactic NIMBY’s have been using for eons.
Eric M Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Then Elizabeth, how can you say in front of the Transportation committee that you think the SF-LA line is 100 miles too long if you are not sure now or will not share your preference? Your ramblings above make no sense and your math does not add up. You just skirted the question. That was a pretty bold statement to make with not being sure.
If you are going to go in front of a government agency (public) and make a statement like that, I would like to know your EXACT preference for the route? Your opinions at that meeting demand answers so your group CARRD, which you so proudly represented, can be transparent (same thing you are demanding of the authority) with it’s intentions and direction?
joe Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:41 am
You asserted strongly to Congress the system was 100 miles too long. Would you like to send a correction to the congressional record? It’s allowed.
Dan K Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:56 am
I think you’re overplaying how important mileage is, connecting up population centers is much h more crucial.
The examples you state are exceptions, and frankly occur because european roads do the same thing (ie they’re not straight lines the go via the big towns in between)
As a counter example Paris – London takes a big diversion to go via Lille, basically to help regenerate the town. Equally the london section goes via stratford rather than taking a more direct route to aid regeneration of the area.
This is infrastructure that will last well over a centuary. And will drive development wherever it chooses to place a stop….
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I am not saying that some of these diversions are not worth it. I am saying that no analysis has been done to look at the cost of the diversions, especially taking into account that the adding distance given the already naturally long distance between SF and LA means that you have to do expensive things elsewhere to keep under some travel time. The shorter the distances, the more ability you have to add distance without having significant ramifications for other choices about the route.
More or less, this route currently takes every possible detour it can, which drives up cost because there an extra 100 miles AND forces you to do things like design the system to go through Bakersfield at full freight, a speed which forces you to straighten out some curves at a VERY high cost.
If people want HSR in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable price, something is going to have to give.
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Or not-so-expensive but marginally intelligent things, like fixing the San Bruno curve of improving the track layout at Transbay…
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
London-Paris goes through Lille because of intranational Paris-Lille traffic as well as the need for service on the Paris-Brussels-London triangle. It’s much like Altamont: not the best alignment for either LA-Bay Area or Bay Area-Sac in isolation, but the best for connecting all three with minimum infrastructure.
Howard Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Amtrak CA San Joaquin’s trains will pull into (under) the Merced High Speed Train Station for an easy escalator transfer using an industrial crossover track between the BNSF and UP tracks northwest of Merced. The whole point of the Merced station in Phase 1 is to provide a good transfer to the San Joaquin’s to access Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto. The alternative of running the slow San Joaquin’s all the way down to Fresno (parallel to CHST), crossing over to the UP on a crossover track southeast of Fresno, and then pulling into (next to) the Fresno HST station would make the trips to Sacramento take a lot more time, decreasing ridership.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Howard,
This is not currently the plan. The plan is to do bus connections from Sacramento (see back of the 2012 Ridership do for schedule – 3 hrs 20 min!), with stops along the way.
The plan you described sounds interesting though. Has that ever officially been on the table?
Howard Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Elizabeth – There will be trains from the Merced HST station to Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto, according to the Sacrament Bee.
“A group of north Central Valley cities, counties and rail agencies, including Amtrak, are teaming to lay plans for a local, interim rail line, on existing tracks, that would carry passengers between Sacramento and a Merced high-speed rail station. It would likely have stops in Elk Grove, Lodi, Stockton and other cities. High-speed rail officials like the idea and are chipping in to help study it. Ultimately, the line could be electrified for bullet trains.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/07/4035027/back-seat-driver-sacramento-plans.html
Howard Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:23 am
Elizabeth – There could also be trains from the Merced HST station to San Jose and the East Bay using the Altamont route, according to the Merced Sun-Star.
“Merced Mayor Bill Spriggs, who has been involved with planning such an extension for the last three years, said a commuter train from Merced to San Jose may be in the works. “There is possibility that it comes on line before high-speed rail,” said Spriggs. The potential new service could be run by or modeled on the existing commuter rail service based in Stockton called the Altamont Commuter Express.”
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/01/13/1268045/bond-could-speed-expansion-of.html
I wounder if ACE could also run some trains from Merced HST station to Oakland Jack London Square station via the Altamont pass.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Hi Howard,
I saw this article and was interested by the idea so we called up the agencies involved to find out more. At this point, the plan is a twinkle in someone’s eye which hopefully will move forward in some fashion. It is not part of the CHSRA’s plans however and the infrastructure is not being planned to accomodate it. I agree that connecting rail generally is vital to HSR, which is why unless you do something like the ACE concept, Merced makes absolutely zero sense as a stub end station. Given the selection of the hybrid alignment, Madera actually makes more sense. It is south of the wye and the San Joaquin station in Madera will be next to HSR tracks. You would have to use parking policy to mitigate local traffic impacts, but the cost savings are huge and actually would help ridership.
Howard Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Yes Elizabeth – A Madera HST station at the Madera Amtrak station makes a lot more sense for the short term for the reasons you gave. I suggested this idea before on this blog. I stated that if Hanford does not want a HST station a HST station should be built in Madera at the Madera Amtrak station to allow San Joaquin’s transfers to get to/from Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Antioch, Martinez, Richmond or Oakland. How can we get the CHSR Authority to seriously consider a Madera HST/Amtrack station?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:54 am
HSR stations aren’t a patch of asphalt by the side of the tracks with a bus shelter. Got a hundred millkon dollars laying around for station that will be used for 5, 10 years?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 5:29 am
Watch this space, Howard….
HSTSheldon Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The thing looking at the map however is that you end up serving a larger population with those extra miles on the North-South corridor Elizabeth. It becomes a realistic possibility that the Monterey Bay area may have access. You serve Gilroy, you serve San Jose much better than under Altamont. As a disinterested onlooker, long term, Pacheco looks better with the caveat that eventually Transbay tube #2 is built at standard gauge using overhead catenary at the standard 25 KV and the Capitol Corridor is eventually upgraded to higher speed standards. (It is not necessary to have true high speed between SF and Sac as it is only 80 + miles. 90 – 100 mph service is plenty good enough. It was one of the criticisms of the FL project between Tampa and Orlando though smart persons understood that it was only really the first phase.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Oh my, here we go again. You are trading off the population of the East Bay and Sacramento regions for….Gilroy. Which is hardly a “larger” population.
HSTSheldon Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
How are you trading the Sacramento region for Gilroy? Is the plan not to get from Sacramento to LA in phase 2? This is a long term project and it should be done right, even if it means having a little patience. Look at the map. To me, it is clear what the ideal long term alignment should be that eventually serves the largest possible population. Northwest Bay area and the Monterey Bay area can reasonably be expected to have some access under the scenario I outlined. Remember, with a 2nd tube, you also serve Oakland, the mother lode of the East Bay. You may argue about funding availability but you have to admit Altamont is more of a short term compromise.
Even the French are starting to revisit that same Lille compromise issue and are studying a bypass..
political_incorrectness Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Here we go on round I do not know what of Altamont versus Pacheco
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
political_incorrectness: yeah but whatcha gonna do? We tried having a forum to consolidate the arguments but it kinda failed, so we’re left rehashing the arguments here
And HSTSheldon: The bottom line is that you save a lot of money in the long term with Altamont. Yes, you could probably make the CC competitive with Altamont for SF-Sac (for the record, that’s about 1:15 with a couple of intermediate stops, and SJ is mostly hopeless via CC) but how much money are you dishing out to do that? And how much are you dishing out to “upgrade” ACE (any meaningful upgrade would mean replacing most of it with a completely new alignment).
With Altamont you fast service Bay Area-Sacramento and the Altamont corridor at no additional cost once Phase 2 is in place (in fact, you save money, because you save about 75 miles of track between Chowchilla and Manteca, which reasonably is about $2.5b).
And don’t try to bring up the Dumbarton crossing – even with a tunnel, the Authority predicted that it would be only $700m more than Pacheco (and that was before the water tunnels mapped the geology).
And all that is still ignoring BART to SJ…
HSTSheldon Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Look, it really is a matter of how long term your horizon is. If you want immediate results, Altamont is better because it is a compromise, but I generally tend to take a longer term view of things, even if that means waiting around much longer until it all eventually gets done. If you are looking 50 + years on, Pacheco makes more sense. A 2nd Transbay tube (quake redundancy in particular) is a highly desirable outcome. San Jose loses under Pacheco to Sacramento but definitely gains to LA which is in my opinion a bigger gain. San Jose to Sac is a medium distance regional trip that is already non-competitive for air hence it cannot be viewed with the same priority as Bay Area to LA. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:22 am
A second tube makes Altamont even stronger, because it offers the quickest Y-shaped route connecting LA, SF, and Sac.
joe Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:31 am
because it offers the quickest Y-shaped route connecting LA, SF, and Sac.
Yes, it really does help link Sacramento to LA and SF. I can’t imagine why California doesn’t see this as the best route.
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
The entire bay area loses the connection to Sacramento, if HSR goes via Pacheco. San Jose loses what, ten minutes to LA? Big deal.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
BART is going to get from San Jose to Fremont in ten minutes?
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
So true. Altamont is the default route, not the opposite, to be rejected only if a fatal flaw is found, and that is demonstrably not the case.
Same holds for Tejon.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why would you take BART?
Oh, right, you’re trolling again.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Because BART is faster than taking the bus to Fremont?
When they start to run out of money rebuilding the Dumbarton Bridge or digging a tunnel under the Bay someone somewhere says “Hey, we don’t have to build to San Jose, they can just take BART until we get around to building to San Jose” … they never get around to it. Yes Yes yes San Jose is the Navel of the Universe, the capital of Silicon Valley, the third largest city in California…. If Altamont proponents can argue that the Capitol Corridor line will never ever never be upgraded, I can argue that Fremont to San Jose will be considered part of the Capitol Corridor line.
GoGregorio Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Re: the argument that Pacheco favors Monterey and Gilroy. Yes, it does, but the point is the cost. Because if all we’re trying to do is bring more passengers into the fold, why doesn’t Phase 2 go to Chico? Or why stop there? Bring it all the way up to Eureka!
I’m all about improving regional connections, but when you consider paying for the Altamont Overlay in addition to the Pacheco main line, it’s not worth the money to provide this level of service to a few hundred thousand people.
And adirondacker12800, if San Jose clout is great enough to bring HSR through Pacheco even though it isn’t the best route, what makes you think a switch to Altamont would suddenly mean ZERO influence for San Jose, to the point that they couldn’t even get the train here at all? If San Jose can make Pacheco happen beyond all logic, they can certainly make Altamont swing their way. And I say that as a resident of San Jose.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
All the mutual back scratching that went on in the past evaporates once trains start to run to Sand Francisco. All of the people in the East Bay who have to take BART of AC Transit to Transbay or BART to Fremont aren’t going to have much sympathy for people in San Jose who hold their breath, stamp therir feet and pound their fists when it comes to making their trip one seat. The people in San Francisco won’t care at all. It’s even less if they were to build a tunnel from Oakland to San Francisco. Tell the people in most of the Bay Area that they aren’t going to get any improvements on the Capitol Corridor route so that San Jose gets an HSR station. Or the people in San Diego that they are going to have put off having HSR for years because San Jose wants an HSR station. They’ll collectively say “Let ‘em take BART”
Elizabeth Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
This sounds like an argument for San Jose to do e-bart, not straight bart. This way they can make sure they get direct service, altamont or pacheco.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Or the people in San Diego that they are going to have put off having HSR for years because San Jose wants an HSR station.
Pacheco cost overruns have already caused San Diego to be dropped entirely from the plan. Altamont could hardly be any worse for them.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Or the people in San Diego that they are going to have put off having HSR for years because San Jose wants an HSR station.
Pacheco cost overruns have already caused San Diego to be dropped entirely from the plan. Altamont could hardly be any worse for them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
San Diego is between San Francisco and Anaheim – the phase 1 part of the project?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
No, but the business plan all but dropped phase 2.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
San Diego is 80 miles south of Anaheim. FFS, learn some damn geography.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I’m not the one who put San Diego into the Phase 1 part of the project.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
It never was part of Phase 1 to begin with.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It never was part of Phase 1 to begin with.
Which is why I asked who moved it to Phase 1. “San Diego is between San Francisco and Anaheim – the phase 1 part of the project?”
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Phase 2 was essentially abandoned by the business plan.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Which is why I asked who moved it to Phase 1
You did, troll.
Joey Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
HSTSheldon: The need for a second tube is present in either scenario. Even under Altamont, it might make sense in the long term to provide marginally faster service along the I-80 corridor. It still has trouble competing with Altamont for end-to end travel times, particularly for anyone south of Oakland. And you’re still saving several billion dollars (at least) compared to the same scenario for Pacheco.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Sorry, I used a rhetorical device you are unfamiliar with. Pity isn’t it? Well maybe pitiful.
Joey Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Can we please stop the name calling and get back to an actual discussion?
And adirondacker: cost estimates suggest that Altamont wouldn’t delay phase 2 any more than Pacheco, San Jose or no San Jose. Unless it somehow changes the total amount of money that will become available.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Joey, what guarantees funding to build to San Jose once all the money from Prop 1a is spent?
When’s the tunnel between North Station and South Station – in Boston, a mitigation measure the3y had to promise to build to get funding for the Big Dig – going to open? When the LIRR went belly up and the State of New York decided to create the MTA they had all sorts of fabulous plans. Second Ave Subway from Hanover Square to the Bronx, LIRR service to Grand Central and Wall Street. Spent great big wads of money building tunnels under Second Ave. Built a four track tunnel from Manhattan to Queens for a long list of reasons. Subway on the upper level and LIRR on the lower. One of them was that the people in all the apartments they were building on Rossevelt Island would have subway service. Well there are people on Roosevelt Island that waited almost 20 years for that to happen. Long Islanders are still waiting. The High Speed Ground Transportation Ground Act of 1965 promised two hour trip times between Washington DC and New York by the early 80s. We’re stilling waiting.
…if you think every thing politicians promise you will happen, I gotta bridge I’m looking to sell.
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
By the same token you could argue SJ – SF will never get built out once all the money from 1A is spent. Why you suddenly get up on this horse whenever Altamont comes up is beyond me–the argument equally well applies to Pacheco, and does nothing to buttress your pro-Pacheco anti-Altamont stance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
It’s gonna get built to San Francisco sooner or later.
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Then Altamont will get built to San Jose sooner or later. Goose, meet gander.
joe Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Loses? The Bay Area is already connected to Sacramento with Amtrack service. Improve the current system if it’s that critical.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
What’s the compelling destination in San Jose?
synonymouse Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
The “compelling destination in San Jose” is the new innovation nucleus of the Bay Area in the minds of the Silicon Valley illuminati and where hsr will be “compelled” to go first and foremost.
The fruits of victory of the meritocracy.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 4:13 am
Guys, Adirondacker is right about the politics of this. In the real world, we have the following situation:
- San Francisco is a compelling destination, and HSR will serve it no matter what.
- San Jose is a giant suburb and could get removed from the line if there is descoping.
- Under Altamont, San Francisco is on the main line and San Jose is on a branch; that’s how the ridership breaks down, and the EIR confirms this. Even in Silicon Valley, RWC is more important than SJ.
Of course, in San Jose’s mind, it’s as important as San Francisco or even more important. But back in its collective mind it knows that under Altamont, its spur will probably get indefinitely postponed and it won’t be able to fight it without coming up with the money itself (money that exists, but is going to BART). Under Pacheco, there’s no such possibility – it’s on the same mainline as San Francisco.
San Jose has enough clout to argue for Pacheco now, especially when the Altamont towns were being NIMBY early while PAMPA only started whining after 1A passed. It has clout to go with the agency turf battles and demand a train station big enough to host intergalactic cruisers; most people in the Bay Area do not read Caltrain-HSR Compatibility. But it does not have enough clout for is to argue for a spur, which looks like a spur on a map that everyone can read, when there isn’t enough money for it.
egk Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Nope: if HSR is coming via Altamont through Fremont and ACE is still running and upgraded to run through the Niles Canyon tunnels (both the most the most likely Altamont-build scenario) then there will be an upgraded (electrified) Altamont-SJ rail connection. It’s only 17 miles from Fremont to SJ!
This means that any rational HSR operator will run direct SJ-SF trains and SJ-Sacramento trains that
There is NO scenario under which HSR goes via Altamont to SF and there is not a one-seat ride from SJ to LA (and to Sacramento).
And it really doesn’t matter if that ride runs over upgraded 90 mph track (15 minutes on the “spur) or true 220mph maximum speed compatible track (um… 8-9 minutes?).
synonymouse Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 10:32 am
@ Alon
SF is overrated, a scuzzed-out relic of its former glorious self, somewhat more compelling than Iconic-Galactic but less compelling than LalaLand.
Ring the Bay has already triumphed quietly and if you persist with the Pacheco folly hsr will terminate at the venture capital, innovative, Silicon center of the known universe.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 7:38 am
An ACE upgrade involves another agency turf battle with the FRA over waivers and with UP over track access. It’s all very easy to do in Phase 2 once trains start running. Alas, SJ doesn’t want to be in Phase 2.
Donk Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Ok then what is your motive? You say you are for the greater good, but you have not ONCE said anything positive about the CHSR project – this to me implies that you are against it. You suggested that the Swiss HSR plan might possibly make sense, but didn’t follow up. What is your deal?
You have to understand from our perspective that you come off as a shady character with an agenda. We can only assume that this is because you are worried about your property value or that you want money in your pockets.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
It is definitely not money. My house is not particularly near the tracks and the time I have spent on this overwhelms any possible impact my involvement this could have on home values.
It is not very complicated. Like most people, you get involved because it is a local issue. things about it catch your interest. For me personally, the way that private interests have usurped the public good in policy is a particularly compelling aspect of this. I just think we are capable of doing better.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Ooooh your FUD is showing. Having a high speed rail station nearby increases your property values. Having an electric commuter line near your property increases your property values. If you were truly concerned about the project you would know that and would have refuted Donk with that interesting little tidbit instead of getting defensive.
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Are we done with the schoolyard taunts?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
It’s worldwide experience that electric trains increase property values.
A fact, that if she is truly concerned about ferreting out facts, information, getting things done right etc, she would know about. If she knows that fact yet implies that property values will go down, she’s spreading FUD. If she is unaware of that fact, how well qualified is she to evaluate any other piece of information that may float her way?
Dan K Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
To be fair building a new station near your house may increase its value but noone really denies that if the tracks go 100 yards from your back yard and the nearest station is 20 miles away your house is going to be less desirable…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Less desirable than having diesel trains run past your house? They aren’t building this across pristine suburbia. They are building in suburbs that grew up around the railroad that still carries to San Francisco and San Jose. Been doing that for well over a century.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:29 am
The increase in value will largely depend on what type of home it is. If you run a train of any kind 100 yards from the back fence of a half million dollar home, then I guarantee the value of your home is going to tank. However, if your house is a piece of shit it will finally have a selling point.
People make the same argument about airports. Fact is, while homes will hold their value to some extent, and sometimes increase, they never consider how much more value the home would have if the airport wasn’t there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:26 am
The train already runs in their backyard. A loud smelly diesel train that blows it horn.
VBobier Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Well those are 2 things that HSR won’t have, a smelly diesel or a horn.
aw Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I expect an HST will have a horn. It just won’t use it much.
VBobier Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
@ aw: Horns are for Grade Crossings or Reindeer, Which since HSR is supposed to be Grade Separated HSR won’t be equipped with as they are then unneeded, Unless You think someone in another train can hear It?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Trains use their horns for lots of things besides grade crossings. They’ll have horns.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
You people need to get out sometime. That’s not how things work.
Caltrain, as regulated by the FRA and CPUC and run as an Olde Tyme American Commuter Railroad — which is exactly how it will be run in the future as Caltrain and PBQD envisage it — blows the goddamned horns as every train passes every station, whether it is stopping or not.
Note also that Caltrain under a future “blended” plan as envisaged by The World’s Most Skilled and Successful Transportation Planning Professionals — who all just happen to work for Caltrain, PBQD and LTK “SMART FRA DMU” Engineering Services — will not use non-platform bypass express tracks — those being reserved exclusively for Flight Level Zero Airline HSR — and so the horn blasting at every station, stopping or not, will continue for every single Caltrain run. Until morale improves, or the FRA and PBJPB are incinerated.
So good luck with that “everything will be wonderful on the peninsula after grade separation/electrification/FL0-airline HSR/Jeebus appears in the vision.” The future that American’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals have in store is going to be pretty much exactly the same as today, only maybe with pantographs on top and higher(!!!) operating costs. Futuristic!
Buy stock in air horn and ear plug and conductor’s uniform companies now. Modernization of the practices of the line is not in the cards.
joe Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Children die needlessly along the PAMPA ROW. Grade separations will fix the most heinous crossings.
StevieB Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:23 am
I think it is good that Elizabeth has taken the time to become involved in high speed rail and welcome another 30 years or more of input as the system is built out through stage 1 and stage 2.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Every dollar spent on high speed rail is money that can’t be used in Sacramento to offset Proposition 13′s damage to schools, fire, police, etc.
And it’s not like Elizabeth (or the retirement planning industry) has much of a business model left if you eliminate Prop 13. It allows wealthy, white Californians to dump a lot of money into the stock market, bonds, and venture capital that would otherwise be going to…. wait for it… schools, police, and fire.
Oh yeaaah.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
…and corporations never die. So the property never changes hands. The corporation might get bought and sold but the property never changes hands. UP’s assessment in 2247 will be based on their assessment in the 1970s.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Actually the legal framework on that is more complicated. Reassessments are triggered by ownership I think. However thanks to the Gallo family, every land use lawyer in California knows what sort of transaction (*partnerships*cough*) avoids a reassessment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I buy a 4 family apartment building in 1969 and do very well with it so I buy another in 1973 and a third one in 1975. My accountant and lawyer convince me that it’s a good idea to incorporate each of them. It is, I don’t want someone to fall down and sue me at the 1969 building and be able to take the 1973 and 1975 buildings in the settlement. So I incorporate the 1969 Apartments Inc and the 1973 Apartments Inc. and the 1975 Apartments Inc.
Well in 2011 I’m ready to retire. I don’t sell the property, I sell the corporations which happen to assets on their books that generate rent. The assessment doesn’t change because no real property has changed hands. I sell each of them to 30-somethings who do the same thing. In 2051 when they are ready to retire they sell the corporation. Same thing happens when SP decides to sell itself to UP. Buried somewhere in it’s corporate structure is the Southern Pacific Realty company that still exists and owns the land that UP now uses.
It is a bit more complex than that, but corporations never die and therefore never have to sell their real estate.
J. Wong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
And it’s why the personal property share of property taxes is going up and the corporate share is decreasing. It’s a loophole that should be eliminated.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Corporations have deeper pockets for lobbyists than the individual property owner does.
StevieB Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
There have been calls for “split rolls” where non-residential property is reassessed every year since Prop. 13 was passed. Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa made a public call for “split rolls” this year but few other politicians will touch Prop. 13.
VBobier Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Maybe Corporations should die after 20 Years…
JBaloun Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
They used to die at 50 years. The jubilee.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 5:46 am
Because Government is so much better right?
Peter Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 6:44 am
Hmmm, let’s think.
Democratically elected body charged with working for the common good, versus shareholder-elected charged with maximizing shareholder profits to the exclusion of anyone else’s benefit?
Yes, government is better.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:33 am
Look, California wastes money. Prop 13 isn’t the problem, the vast majority of homes impacted have been turned over or will be turned over in the next decade. Remember the Lottery when it started? “The Lottery will help our schools”. The money was supposed to be in addition to the money schools had. Instead, they took the money from the school budget.
California just needs to stop spending money it doesn’t have. If Prop 13 went away tomorrow, the a-holes in Sacramento would spend it on useless crap before we know what hit us.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:19 am
As an outsider I’m often shocked by how anybody criticizing the project is immediately accused of having hidden motivations. You can be pro-HSR and think the project is ill-conceived. Why not envisage this could be the case for Elizabeth Alexis?
French politicians (right and left) are overwhelmingly pro-HSR. Yet, a similar project with the same estimated costs would never make it through parliament.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Keep this in mind:
Unlike every other government in the world, the US Constitution is not about protecting its citizens, but about their “rights”. And all “rights” in Anglo-American law are derived from owning property. British law evolved to make it easier for government to give rights (and property) to ordinary folk. American law evolved to make it harder for government to take your rights and property away.
Also remember that Americans have no forms of proportional representation, anywhere. Even counties are broken up into fiefdoms ( I mean, excuse me, districts). Thus, American politics is nothing but an exercise in confronting two flawed options and then through compromise, convincing yourself that a third, wholly separate one exists.
Explain to most Americans that economics is a zero sum game and they stare darkly at you, not sure what you mean. They either, a) don’t believe that some must sacrifice for wealth to be created or b) have no concept of what suffering and sacrifice happened to make them wealthy.
That’s what this about. The “informed minority” in the US see through the propaganda, the distractions, and the marketing, and simply know how the game is played. Nothing more, nothing less.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
And yet, eminent domain is much easier in the US than in, say, Japan.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I don’t think that’s really true. Although ED in Japan might be really difficult, you have to keep in mind that whole-scale European style rebuilding has never happened in the US since the Second World War.
Thanks to Kelo v. New Haven, there’s a great desire to clamp down on urban renewal via eminent domain. And remember, even if the neighborhood’s poor, the landlords still will take a good deal. Most of the redevelopment in the US since the 70′s has been voluntary.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
In the US, building airports does not involve long slogs of evicting people who refuse to sell.
Kelo’s leading to a lot of new opposition to takings, but in the 1950s, without any Kelo, it was easy for cities to demolish neighborhoods to make room for roads and urban renewal projects. This simply did not happen in Japan – it would’ve been too expensive.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
except when it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport#Local_opposition
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Still not quite the near-rioting that occurred with Narita.
swing hanger Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:12 am
“Near-rioting”? It was a full-on riot with fires, gate crashing, window smashing, and battalions of riot police. You can still see some of the protestor’s towers left in odd places near the runways where the land was never relinquished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=E6VXAb_RS2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDNc6hJhW4&feature=related
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:18 am
There’s infamous examples in the US. Not with eminent domain but private development. There’s a 4 story tenement at the edge of Rockefeller Center, a boarding house surrounded by Atlantic City cassino. I’m sure there are more examples.
Donk Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“You can be pro-HSR and think the project is ill-conceived. Why not envisage this could be the case for Elizabeth Alexis?”
Because she has NEVER ONCE said anything positive about the project.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Why don’t you challenge her on her logic, on the facts she presents, on the arguments she makes, rather than trying to apply some sort of litmus test?
Donk Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
She primarily engages in debate on the minutia. It is great to have people analyze these detailss of the project, and she could add considerable value; however, I would have much more respect for her opinion if she wasn’t so vague on her intentions and if she would occasionally provide constructive suggestions instead of constant criticism.
So far it appears that she has an agenda against the HSR concept, but she won’t come out and say it. I would love it if she would clarify her position and to hear what her solutions are. At least Morris and Peninsula are honest about their positions and solutions. Everyone else here discusses their position and their solutions, why shouldn’t she?
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
I don’t think everyone is obliged to act the same way as others. CARRD has brought some things to light that were worth revealing, regardless of the intentions of its members. Maybe you’re right about her motives or intentions, but I’m going to take her at her word, just as I will assume that your intentions are good. I think it just gets in the way of an open discussion to start making someone’s intentions or motivation the issue, unless they are presenting facts that cannot be corroborated.
joe Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Some people really indent to stop HSR and it’s becuase of their local, narrow self interest. That’s okay to want to stop HSR for personal gain or benefit and it’s okay to call them on it when they’re smart enough to recgonizefew people give shit about the fact HSR might mar the view from their home.
Walter Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
CARRD has no solutions beyond stating that problems need to be “fixed.” I appreciate the hard work that they do, but it’s obvious that they are just fine with no system at all. We would appreciate all their work (even the negative stuff) if it was actually about “doing it right,” which would entail actual support of the project and constructive ideas about how to improve it and get it finished. They have no interest in either. It’s just about delaying and raising FUD.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Walter,
Solutions depend on what problem you are trying to solve. From our perspective, the routing problems are symptoms, not the disease itself.
joe Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Another symptom (or is it disease) is HSR will mar the view from CARRD and Elizabeth’s home.
Views are very important to a home owner and I respect that concern but I do not think it triumphs the benefit HSR offers CA. Sorry.
Oh and HSR will improve the grade separation – too many children have died at the Palo Alto grade crossings and tracks. I wish that benefit would factor into the CARRD discussion. But doing this fix would seize property from homeowners. Sorry kids.
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
No children have died on the tracks accidentally in Palo Alto, whether for lack of grade separation or not.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Recently. I’m sure there were some before they put the fences up. The railroad is nice and quiet excpet when trains are coming through and it’s secluded. Perfect place for horny teenagers. Who then walk on the rail because that’s lots of fun…. It’s the unscheduled ones that usually get them.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I don’t think even the most hardcore railfans would find the tracks a hot place for sex.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Probably not but you can walk down the tracks until you are far enough away from the street that you will be undisturbed. In the shrubbery off to the side of the ballast.
J. Wong Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:29 am
By children he means teenagers and their deaths were suicides by train.
Tony d. Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:37 am
So how many children have been killed by BART trains? Not to many…because the system is @#$% grade-separated! Do the same on the Peninsula!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 11:53 am
They’ll still manage to get killed. We had a couple of drunk teens get killed by Metrolink a few months back in an area that is completely grade separated and mostly fenced off. Decided to go fall asleep on the railroad tracks because apparently some people think that’s a great idea when drunk. Survivor woke up when they got splattered (although oddly not by the first train if I remember right). Stupid people happen, it’s a fact of life.
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Suicides by train are exceedingly easy to carry out from a station platform, as has happened twice in Palo Alto in the last month. The point is, grade separations don’t help, and they ‘re not worth it for that purpose. They cost about five times the worth of a life, each.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
5 times per life. How …. actuarial of you. So the 6th death it would prevent over it’s 100 year life spand would make it worthwhile? How about the one it prevents that has a van load of nuns stuck on the crossing?
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
The actuarial truth is that if you’ve got some money to help suicidal teens, it is very very poorly spent on grade separations!
Peter Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Grade separations won’t prevent or reduce suicides. But they WILL reduce the number of people who get killed in their cars by a train after they get stuck on the wrong side of the gates. That’s happened a few times on the Peninsula, too…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
if you’ve got some money to help suicidal teens, it is very very poorly spent on grade separations!
When did Prop 1A become a health care proposition? The intent of the HSIPR portions of the ARRA is to spend it on rail. You can’t spend grade separation money on suicidal teens. Just like you can’t spend grade separation money any other facet of health care, roads, school buildings, teacher’s salaries, fire fighter’s salaries, national defense…
Clem Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
He zigs! He zags! He cannot be pinned down!
Reality Check Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Yes, they do occur every great once in a while, but I’d guesstimate Caltrain vs. motorist deaths average well under 1 per year. I once saw stats on a per-crossing basis, and what struck me is that there were plenty of Peninsula Caltrain crossings that had not had even a single motorist death in recorded history.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
The pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists etc. killed at the crossings don’t count?
Reality Check Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
@adiron: of course they count — but I was specifically responding to Peter’s comment about people getting killed in their “in their cars”:
joe Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Yes they have died on accident along the ROW and the Calrain ROW suicides by Gunn High School students would have been prevented if there was better separation.
A bright spot for CA HSR at the hearing was Rep. Corrine Brown (D- FL) who asked questions to illustrate the benefits of the project and to follow up on questions asked designed to be unfavorable allowing the panel to clarify key points. Her opening statement was a rebuke of the hearing itself.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:17 am
You mean the same Corrine Brown who routinely cuts deals with the Florida GOP to preserve her “minority-majority” gerrymander? She can pound the table as hard as she wants…until she is willing to run in a competitive district there’s no chance of unseating Mica and/or gaining enough support from their delegation to make national HSR funding viable.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:22 am
The dim bulb momment was Loretta Sanchez. She sounded like a nut bag. She needs to be put in a box.
VBobier Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
How model 1 of Ya, Boxed Ya say? Cavil?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I think the one that was boxed was Three.
VBobier Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I know that, Cavil should have been though.
Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin made a good case for central valley benefits of high speed rail. I provide an excerpt from her entire statement.
Of parallel interest to political junkies here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/american-public-to-congress-get-out-all-of-you/2011/12/14/gIQABY8vvO_blog.html
Here is a pretty good analysis of yesterday’s House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee hearing, courtesy of the California Institute (http://www.calinst.org/index.html).
Transportation: House Committee Holds Hearing on California High Speed Rail
“The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an oversight hearing on December 15, 2011 titled California’s High-Speed Rail Plan: Skyrocketing Costs and Project Concerns. Witnesses were heard on two panels. The first panel heard testimony from California Representatives, including: Rep. Kevin McCarthy (22nd District); Rep. Dennis Cardoza (18th District); Rep. Devin Nunes (21st District); Rep. Jim Costa (20th District); Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (46th District); and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (47th District). Panel two included testimony from: The Honorable Joseph Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration; Mr. Roelof Van Ark, CEO, California High Speed Rail Authority; The Honorable Jerry Amante, Mayor of Tustin, California, and Member, Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors; The Honorable Ashley Swearengin, Mayor of Fresno, California; Mr. Greg Gatzka, Director, Kings County Community Development Agency; Ms. Elizabeth Alexis, Co-founder, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design; and Mr. Kole Upton, Vice President, Preserve Our Heritage.
Reps. Cardoza, Costa, and Sanchez each urged the Committee to support high-speed rail as a necessary answer to increasing transportation problems as California’s population grows to 60 million by 2050. Rep. Cardoza called it the right investment for the future, while Rep. Costa alluded to past leaders who in “tough times” did not succumb to “shortsightedness” but instead supported projects such as the transcontinental railroad, Hoover Dam, and the interstate highway system.
Rep. Sanchez testified on the transportation situation in southern California and argued that the state needs high-speed rail as a viable transportation alternative to travel by car and by air, both of which are especially problematic in the Los Angeles basin. She also noted that initial investment is never easy, but that in this case it would be worthwhile and widely used in Los Angeles.
Reps. Nunes, McCarthy, and Rohrabacher testified that the current high-speed rail project is not viable. Rep. Nunes argued that the project will not provide jobs, and that track route decisions were led by politics. He offered expansion of freight systems, to move trucks off highways and ease congestion, as an alternative.
Rep. McCarthy echoed that sentiment, stating that voters should be able to revote on the funding referendum, since it has changed substantially since its passage in 2009. He urged the panel to support H.R. 3143, which would provide time for more oversight by freezing federal funding for the project until September 2013. Rep. Rohrabacher stated that the state has other projects that are just as important – including water infrastructure – and that the uncertain rising costs of high-speed rail may hinder investment elsewhere.
Mr. Szabo emphasized that without high-speed rail, the state would have to spend $170 billion to achieve equal transportation capabilities using highways, air travel, and other existing transportation. Mr. Van Ark testified that starting construction in Central Valley is a “wise” decision as it is “the backbone” of the system. He also stated that the anticipated participation of private sector is based on sound predictions. Additionally, he outlined the new business plan for the project, calling it realistic and clear and emphasizing that within one year construction could be underway, with the project employing over 100,000 people overall.
Mr. Amante said he supports the latest business plan, calling it a marked improvement over the 2009 plan due to its blended approach. Ms. Swearengin also testified in support of the project, stating that it is cost effective and has a profitable business model, can be operated by the private sector, and does not need public subsidies for ongoing operations.
Mr. Gatzka and Mr. Upton both relayed to the Committee frustrations about how the High Speed Rail Authority has interacted with stakeholders. Mr. Gatzka stated that interactions with the Authority in his county have been through contracted right-of-way agents who “intimidate” citizens whose cattle, dairy, agriculture, or other property may be affected by imminent domain. Mr. Upton stated that the Authority has negated the project’s impact on farmland, proposing routes that “take out entire water systems.” Instead of integrating the project with existing infrastructure, he stated that the Authority has not worked with the community properly.”
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Did Szabo really say this: “Mr. Szabo emphasized that without high-speed rail, the state would have to spend $170 billion to achieve equal transportation capabilities using highways, air travel, and other existing transportation.”
I thought the City of Burlingame pointed out the flaw in the $170 billion figure in its letter to the CHSRA, by noting that the figure assumes that the number of travelers that would have to be accommodated in the absence of high speed rail would equal the maximum throughput on high-speed rail, 12 trains per hour, 19 hours per day, 1,000 seats per train filled to 70% capacity which, according to the letter, far exceeded the CHSRA’s own ridership projections.
Either the City of Burlingame is wrong, or Mr. Szabo is wrong. Can anyone clarify for me who is wrong?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Both are wrong. What Burlingame won’t tell you is that the capacity the HSRA is assuming is peak capacity: that is, 8,400 passengers per direction at the peak hour. There’s no assumption there about achieving this peak capacity 19 hours a day; infrastructure investment is always based on peak demand, not average demand.
But what Szabo won’t tell you is that even the peak capacity is not going to be achieved, though it’s reasonable to expect that it’ll be close. (Besides which, HSR induces demand that wouldn’t be there otherwise.) Highways and airports are low capacity, which means that to get the capacity of just two rail tracks, a lot of expansion is required, and this expansion can be whittled down if only two thirds or half of the HSR capacity is desired. Rail can also save money by making compromises like a blended plan or single-track segments, but much less.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:09 am
So what you are saying is that what matters is the capacity needed to meet peak demand. That helps clarify it for me, at least partially. Thanks.
But it still leaves the question, what is projected to be the peak demand for high speed rail, and what would be the cost to accommodate that amount of demand with additional highways if high speed rail were not to be built. Burlingame’s letter states that PB spelled out its assumptions as being 12 tph, 19 hours/day, 1000 seats filled to 70% capacity (I assume that is an average). Did Burlingame fairly state PB’s assumptions? If so, did PB also set forth peak demand projections? Or did it fail to do so?
Clem Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
No Alon. The HSR capacity estimate is based on 12 trains/hour/direction, 1000 seats/train, 70% load factor, operating 19 hours out of 24 every day of the year. It basically amounts to peak service around the clock, even on weekends.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Clem, Is it reasonable to assume that the 70% load factor is some kind of average? If so, would there not be more travel demand during certain peak periods? And if that is true, would not highway capacity enhancements have to accommodate that peak demand?
But even so, has someone produced a peak demand estimate? And if there so, what would be a reasonable projection of costs to accommodate that demand through highway enhancements?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
The peak is the same peak, no matter what. If actual demand is 12 trains per hour at the peak and 6 off-peak, total infrastructure requirement is the same as if it’s 12 tph all day. I remember you telling Jarrett Walker something like this in the train schedule exercise – the amount of infrastructure depends on the peak, so improving off-peak service is not the main issue for a blended plan.
The same is true of roads and airports. LOS calculations are based on the peak 15 minutes. I’ve never gotten in a traffic jam getting from South Station to Logan, at 8 pm, and yet the road engineers do not think Boston has ample road capacity. And once when arriving at JFK’s Terminal 4, at 6 am, I cleared immigration in 20 minutes; but if you brought that up as a reason to not invest in faster procedures or open more booths to deal with multi-hour waits at the midday peak, I wouldn’t be very happy.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Effective transportation planning manages the peaks. This is the principle behind variable congestion pricing. It’s wasteful to build insanely expensive infrastructure just to cater to short, unmanaged peaks. Even in the most optimistic of demand scenarios, a peak of 12 tph is ridiculous. Even if such demand is present, simply run fewer but longer trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
The roads that would be built in CAHSR’s stead are not being effectively planned. Where’s the congestion pricing on the 405?
Hell, the reason I keep supporting building subways and HSR in the US is that all alternatives are even worse. Expanding car infrastructure is as ungodly expensive.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
And there isn’t any entity pointing out the costs and the better ways to have road capacity increases ‘done right’.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
You can’t coordinate having half the population of the state having Thanksgiving on Thursday and half of the population of the state having Thanksgiving on Friday. Or half of the state calling Christmas Eve the 24th and the other half the 25th.
4 an hour on Thanksgiving weekend, at peak San Francisco-Los Angeles would be a bit low. The NEC with it’s shitty speeds manages that on Thanksgiving weekend. Some of those trains are 10 car NJTransit multilevels. Ten multilevel have roughly 1200 seats. So 5 or 6 is not unimaginable at peak. Then there’s Sacramento-Los Angeles traffic. And the lesser market to San Diego. 2 an hour Sacramento to Los Angeles? 7 without breaking a sweat. There’s going to be some traffic to San Diego because taking the train to the intermediate stop between San Diego and Los Angeles is faster than flying and the hour long drive to the general vicinity of that station. 8? 9? Not a big market but there will be San Francisco-Las Vegas.. train might not fill up until Fresno where the people from Sacramento change trains. 9 would be very easy to get… in 2030.. what’s it look like in 2050?
27 million dollars a lane mile in suburban Salt Lake City according to the Deseret News. It would be a bit pricier in more urban areas. A lane can carry 2000 cars an hour at capacity. Assume an average of two people per car. 4000 an hour. For 8000 an hour you need two lanes. 400 x 25,000,000 is ten billion dollars to add a lane – in one direction – between San Francisco and Los Angeles. One in each direction would probably make the most sense, so 20 billion per lane you have to add. 25,000,000 million a mile through the close in suburbs is very very low. Add a lane between Sacramento and Los Angeles…. poof there goes another 20 billion. But you’d probably be adding a lane on I-5 for the express traffic and a lane on SR-99 for the local traffic. You’re up to 80 billion dollars at 25 million a lane mile. You haven’t built the bypass of LA to the Inland Empire or added a lane to I-15 between the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino. 80 billilon in 2011 dollars is how much in year of expenditure dollars like the 98 billion is YOE dollars?
….10 Multilevels have 1200 seats…. Ain’t it handy that Amtrak can “borrow” some trains on days when NJTransit is running a Saturday schedule….
Elizabeth Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
We cannot size our transportation systems for 1 day a year. This is like having an extra room in your house and a table that fits 16 for one meal a year. I’m personally a fan of the “not so big house” books and the principle in that book should applies to our roads as well.
We are a creative people. If we put our heads together I am sure we can figure this out.
Reality Check Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Yes, just like the Capitol Corridor has run trains using Caltrain cars on busy weekends.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
That’s what they design airports around, peak travel days. They don’t add runways and terminals because there’s stampeding hoards of passengers at 3 AM on February 3rd.
They design roads around rush hour. They didn’t need to widen I-405 for ten miles and billion dollars, all they had to do was convince people to work 6-2 or 7-3 or 10-6 or 11-7….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Elizabeth: yes, I agree. Now go convince all the road planners to stop expanding roads based on the needs of the 15 peak minutes of the day and to stop planning parking minimums based on the needs of the top 4 days of the year. I suspect that an America that doesn’t build road capacity based on peak-of-peak needs is an America that’s rational enough about transportation to build CAHSR for $33 billion and not $65 billion.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:56 am
We just did a project like that locally. It was a road diet project that allowed larger dedicated bike lanes and slowed traffic speeds enough that biking is now safe. It was not easy and it took a lot of convincing. It also involved getting the start time for a high school on the route changed so that it did not coincide with other peak inducing events on the road.
Not easy, but worth it.
joe Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:31 am
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=21796
Now what about better grade separations along the ROW. It will save lives.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Soviet Russia actually tried to coordinate that.
“You can’t coordinate having half the population of the state having Thanksgiving on Thursday and half of the population of the state having Thanksgiving on Friday. Or half of the state calling Christmas Eve the 24th and the other half the 25th.”
It did not, in fact, work. Experiment abandoned.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“This is like having an extra room in your house and a table that fits 16 for one meal a year.”
Many, many, many, many, many people do *exactly this*.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
(…though they usually fill the room with junk or otherwise “adaptively reuse” it for the other 364 days a year)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
From what I’ve been told, the Soviets managed to kill off Christmas altogether. Then there’s that whole Julian versus Gregorian calendar thing going on. YMMV if you ask a different set of formerly Soviet Brooklynites.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 10:53 am
France coordinates a fraction of its population to start summer vacation on each day.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
And on a different note, Thanksgiving was created by the US government – Lincoln proclaimed it as a national day, unifying different dates in the various Northern states. Canada did something similar but settled on a different date from the US. Maybe if governments stop trying to encourage uniformity of beliefs and cultural practices, they won’t have to deal with peak dates so much.
Jonathan Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
@peninsula rail 2010:
Fewer but longer trains? Boggle.
Tou still need the same number of _trainsets_, you just run them in MU.
(Like DB and DS do, with the ICE2s and ICE3s that are ~half the length and capacity of an ICE1).
You still need to run them at the same overall speed.
All you save is… the wages of the drivers of the now-MU’d trainsets.
That’s barely even n the noise, on a scale of 100s of billions of dollars.
Please consider yourself hit around the head with a clue-by-four.
Not to even mention the very very constrained platform-lengths in the TBT ;).
14-car trainsets in the TBT or 4th and King? They don’t fit?
I’m stunned. Stunned, I say.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Fewer trains free up track capacity, reducing the need for expensive new physical infrastructure. The TBT is badly designed with regard to the station throat design, but the platform length isn’t a particular problem. Kopp and and PB want to end the system at 4th and King anyway. Why would you ever run more than one 14-car trainset per hour to serve a stub-end line serving a city of only 800,000 people?? You would never fill up long-distance 14-car HSR trainsets with more than 1 tph. Such a service could easily be integrated within the existing two tracks on the Peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
There’s going to be this great big regional and intercity bus terminal hovering over the tracks. It’s a bllock away from a BART station which might entice a few riders to use BART to get there even though they don’t live in San Francisco.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:50 am
You’re right that fewer trains free up track capacity. But, bear in mind, the official projections for capacity call for 12 long tph. Will they ever get there? No. But they could get close on the shared trunk line. San Francisco proper may have only 800,000 people, but it’s the center of a large metro area; its downtown is sized for a metro area of 4 million, not 800,000. 1 long tph is roughly the current train service level to Washington, which is the same size as San Francisco, but with much lower speed, leading to low mode share versus roads.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:51 am
To clarify, when I say DC gets 1 long tph, what I mean is that it gets similar capacity to 1 long tph. It actually gets 2 short tph, one Acela and one Regional. It’s enough to cover normal peaks (i.e. Friday afternoon), though not peak-of-peaks around major holidays.
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:48 am
All but, I believe, one of the platforms at Transbay are supposed to be long enough to accommodate 400m (16 car) trains. The lack of tail tracks means that shorter trains can enter and exit the station a lot faster though.
thatbruce Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
200m trains will be passing through the TBT throat at the same speed as the 400m trains, since the physics of those 90 degree curves don’t care how long the train is. The lack of tail tracks means that the 400m trains spend the last 30 seconds of their arrival crawling up to the end of the track while their rears occupy the TBT throat. 200m trains don’t occupy the TBT throat for as long, but that extra 200m isn’t much of a tail track.
Both 200m and 400m trains will leave the TBT at the rate determined by that 90 degree curve right outside, but that’s not determined by the presence or absence of tail tracks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Bruce, you’re wrong.
thatbruce Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Which bit?
Reality Check Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
There are two fundamental changes to assumptions that make this a different study than the
one conducted for the 2005 Program EIR/EIS.
The scope of the analysis is the 520-mile Phase 1 system, unlike the original analysis, which looked at the Full 800-mile System, including both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Although the Full System remains the complete plan for the HST program, the updated cost estimates in the Business Plan are for the Phase 1 system. This analysis was designed to provide a more direct comparison with the Phase 1 system and its costs.
The second major change in assumptions was a switch from estimating the needed capacity based on ridership to estimating it based on equivalent “people-carrying” capacity of the HSR system whereas the 2005 analysis was prepared based on a ridership projection. Equivalent sets of assumptions are made for high-speed rail as for the other modes to measure the capacity that each mode adds to the state’s transportation system. Thus to provide an apples-to-apples comparison, this report examines the cost of adding the equivalent amount of people-carrying capacity to California’s transportation system through high-speed rail versus through highways and airports. This does not, however, suggest or imply a change in the previously identified operating conditions.
For this analysis, system capacity was used instead of a ridership forecast to make the comparison between a high-speed rail investment versus an equivalent investment in highways and airports. System capacity was used because:
As with any major transportation infrastructure investment, high-speed rail is an investment with a useful life of 50 to 100+ years. Similarly, freeway and airport projects also represent long-term investments. Thus, they have useful lives that go well beyond any ridership forecast and to appropriate reflect that, total capacity provides a more equivalent comparison. The underlying infrastructure provides a given amount of capacity; the ridership levels can fluctuate, with service adjusted to meet that demand.
Over time, demand for travel will grow with population, economic growth, and other factors. The high-speed rail system will have the capacity to accommodate this growth in demand; similarly additional highway lanes and airport gates and runways would need to be added over time to accommodate the growth (assuming they are being expanded instead of high-speed rail). If the analysis used demand-based factors, it would be comparing a steady-state of two high-speed rail tracks against other modes, which would be fluctuating and growing over time. Capacity provides an equivalent steady-state comparison between the modes because it is tied to the physical infrastructure being provided, not the number of people using it in any given year.
The detailed ridership forecasts that have been prepared for the program are valuable planning tools that reflect estimates of ridership given a set of underlying assumptions. However, over the life of the system, the underlying factors that make up the assumptions (such as fare levels, economic growth, the rate of actual population growth, etc.) can still change. Conversely, the performance of the physical infrastructure (as in the capacity that each one provides) will not change over its lifespan, thus offering a stable and direct comparison.
Ridership forecasts are also tied to a certain year or period of years close to the system’s opening to evaluate the extent of potential demand for the system at that time. This is necessary for making decisions about how the system should be designed and how it should be built. This capacity analysis evaluates the system that is currently planned as a given and uses its throughput to compare it to other modes at any given time. However, it must be acknowledged that if the system design changes, its capacity might change as well.
Peter Baldo Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
That’s 100 million rides per year! Somehow, I was thinking 10 million.
100 million is quite a number. If 20 million are just going from the Bay Area to LA or San Diego, and are being taken 35 miles out of their way each trip, that’s 700 million passenger miles wasted. At 40 cents per passenger mile, that’s $280 Million being wasted every year taking people 35 miles, and 20 minutes, out of their way. So there will be a big incentive to add a central valley bypass along I5, if the main route gets congested.
The same thing will happen on the Bay Area – Sacramento segment. 10 million passengers taken 150 miles out of their way will be a tremendous incentive to develop a better route (it doesn’t need to be 220 mph).
I personally think 10 million yearly riders at the outset is a better estimate, and that won’t justify the additional track. But as ridership builds, new routes will be justified. It’s not too early to plan for them. All numbers above pulled from thin air.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:47 am
You’re missing a lot of things in your calculation, chief of which is that 100 million is not LA-SF, but rather the full number of riders on all markets. On markets other than LA-SF, such as LA-Fresno and SF-Fresno, the I-5 option slows trains down by hours, vs. speeding up LA-SF trains by ~6 minutes.
What would speed things up considerably without much downside is Tejon, which both reduces route length by more and cuts off a lower-speed segment, while leaving out a much less important place than Bakersfield and Fresno. (The downside: no easy connection to Vegas.) It’s unfortunate that Tolmach confuses the 5/99 issue with the Tejon/Tehachapi issue.
Also, 40 cents per passenger-mile is high. It exists, e.g. on the Shinkansen, but many networks charge much less, e.g. the TGV, and the business plans assume a fare of about 24 cents per mile.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Tejon and the I-5 racetrack are indeed two separate issues. And within these issues are more issues that all revolved around money vs. benefit.
At Tejon the issue is how deep and how long you go with the tunnels to achieve a certain ruling gradient. Personally I think the freight utility of a base tunnel is worth it at a certain price as it adds utility and makes the undertaking easier to sell to conservatives and the green visors.
The big question at the racetrack is is whether there is a engineering way to save numerous billions, perhaps in concert with a Caltrans upgrade of the freeway. A great price can make this a better choice for the starter.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:34 am
should read adds versatility.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Wait a minute isn’t everything going to be all peachy keen with the highway the way it is? Rebuilding a few hundred miles of highway isn’t going to be cheap. Or easy.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Upgrade of the freeway? I thought the point was to use a high-ridership HSR system as an alternative to pissing off money on road widening.
Also, conservatives are not going to like the project no matter what. Stop trying to appeal to them, and try instead to appeal to moderates who want infrastructure done at minimum price and don’t give a crap about culture wars.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Don’t agree on these points at all. Freeway lanes wear out and provides an opportunity for rechannelization for a similar price. Beside earthquake proofing issues are going to come up regarding the overpasses and again an opportunity to up the vertical clearances. More room is probably a good idea for the future anyway.
The Swiss are doing dual purpose base tunnels are they are pretty damn conservative with money. Again private financing could be possible.
“It’s for the future, Mr. Geddes.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
When freeway lanes wear out they send out relatively cheap, moderately automated repaving crews and repave. They don’t start moving things around and adding lanes.
synonymouse Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I-5 has been subjected to heavy truck use at high speed.
It would be instructive to hear from Caltrans as to their intentions.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
The Swiss have a different way of running freight rail. Also, they’re building AlpTransit explicitly as a way of removing trucks from the road.
Michael Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Interstate clearances are about 8 feet less than for high speed. Add a sub base for the trains and the over crossings on any freeway are way too low to just drop the train in the median. Sure, not many over crossings on 5, but all probably need to be rebuilt for a median train.
VBobier Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
That or the tracks would almost have to be in a trench, not something I’d want to ride on of course, but It’s an idea.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Here, by the way, is a link to the Burlingame letter:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Burlingame-Comments-on-Draft-2012-Business-Plan-for-HSR.pdf
The statement
.. worry that high-speed rail could “take away from local projects” ..
should be attributed to Grace Napolitano (D-Santa Fe Springs”, not to Janet Napolitano ;)
Elizabeth Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:23 am
Correct. It would be difficult to confuse those two :) :)
Jonathan Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Yet somebody dd. I haven’t checked if it was Robert, or the source he quoted.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:40 am
This raised my eyebrows:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUZXCuqGb_Lw#
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:44 am
From the article:
The Federal Election Commission in 1999 ruled the loan and its 18 percent rate were allowed by U.S. election laws, after a complaint by Napolitano’s 1998 Democratic primary opponent. The commission agreed with Napolitano’s explanation that the interest charges were justified because Napolitano had to pay penalties for taking the money from a retirement account.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:54 am
The campaign continued to pay this interest rate from 1998 to 2006. Parsons (the engineering firm on the project responsible for Merced- san Jose) is one of the donors who has made this possible. I am not sure either why there would be a penalty – she was born in Dec 1936 according to wiki so she would have been 61 at the time, which doesn’t usually mean penalties. you would have to pay normal taxes on withdrawals, but those aren’t penalties.
Look, these stories always have more to them than meets the eye but I am simply saying that it raised my eyebrows.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
It counts at income. Add 150,000 dollars to her income in a year what does that do to her tax bill?
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Elizabeth, on many types of retirement accounts 65 (not 55) is the date after which you can withdraw without penalty. On some you literally cannot withdraw without penalty until you retire.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
In other words, don’t assume that “retirement account” means “IRA”
Elizabeth Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
What kind?
VBobier Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Whats wrong with Parsons? I gather their an engineering firm afterall, If You have a preference for another one, tell US who You’d like to see instead?
Joey Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
The problem is that they have no incentives to keep costs down or design any project efficiently. Even if they do a bad job on one project (or many) , they know that government contracts will keep coming to them.
Ultimately it would be advantageous to do a lot more of the engineering in-house, as is demonstrated to work elsewhere.
Elizabeth Alexis took to the airwaves at KPCC AirTalk to exhort against CA HSR. She warned of high speed trains traveling through the downtown of Fresno, Bakersfield and Merced at 220 mph. I would be most impressed if the trains could keep full speed through downtown train stations.
Elizabeth’s rhetoric includes Bay Area airports have a plan to use what they have without expansion or need for HSR to avoid capacity issues. SFO is expected to be over capacity in 2035 so the plan outlines strategies to redistribute air passenger traffic. This plan titled Regional Airport System Planning Analysis recommends shifting 6% of capacity of SFO to High Speed Rail in the California Corridor. HSR
would need to divert approximately 6.1 million air passengers traveling
between the Bay Area and Central/Southern California markets. In the High Demand Scenario 8 million would be moved by HSR.
Other plans call for redistribution of air passenger demand from SFO to Oakland and San Jose. This would require cooperation of the airlines which because they are deregulated do not have to go along with the plan. Various Demand Management strategies are discussed to restrict flights from SFO in the hope they may contribute to airlines electing to expand service at OAK and SJC. Basically making it too onerous for the airlines to fly from SFO.
The study admits the airlines do not have to go along with the plan. If the major strategies in the recommendation scenario do not come to fruition to the extent planned, then future updates of the RASPA will likely need to assess other approaches, possibly including new runway development.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Your comment, that you “would be most impressed if the trains could keep full speed through downtown train stations,” brings to mind the following part of Proposition 1A:
Sts & Hwy Code sec. 2704.09(e) states: “(e) Trains shall have the capability to transition intermediate stations, or to bypass those stations, at mainline operating speed.”
StevieB Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I look forward to standing just feet away when a high speed express train blasts through the station at full speed. Does anyone have an impressive video link?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
go to YouTube and search for Acela Kingston, there’s dozens
StevieB Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Acela although impressive by US standards is not high speed rail. Can you point to a video of a train going over 200 mph through a station?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:00 am
150 is nothing to be sneezed at. There’s even a few videos with a radar gun in the shot. It may not be Real America ™ but it America and there’s actual Americans standing on the platform as it whisks through. It and other high speed trains don’t blast, it’s much more subtle than that…. whisk…
The UIC definition of HSR is at
http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971
200KPH/125MPH on existing track. Trains have been toddling through Kingston for a long time. The station building itself has been in use since 1875.
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:44 am
I would like to see what it will be like in Fresno in a large roofed station with high speed trains coming through at over 200 mph as predicted. Are there videos from Europe of this type? It must be impressive.
swing hanger Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 5:02 am
Unsure of speeds but here…
Lyon-Satolas Station (starting at 1:30):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEEaJL9AZsQ
300km/h-
Korea, Cheonan-Asan Station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beaiotGcAog
Cheonan-Asan Station (?) again, this time under the roof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqCs3Pp167Q&feature=related
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 6:13 am
Very exciting. Not as much as the Shinkansen which does not have the barriers between the tracks. I hope these same speeds in California’s Initial Operating Segment get more people excited about riding.
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
It sure helps that none of these examples are *in* urban areas. Try again guys.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Lyon-Satolas is the airport’s station, not one of the downtown stations.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“Can you point to a video of a train going over 200 mph through a station?”
LINK
The heading says 350km/hour. It must be a mistake since the maximum authorised speed is 320km/h.
TGVs never run through a station on a platform track.
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
The train runs through roofed stations but not next to the platform. Elizabeth Alexis said trains would run through downtown Fresno at 220 mph and I wanted to see a video of what this would be like.
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
A fine example of a peripheral “gare des betteraves” where it is perfectly appropriate to practice 200 mph. What we need is an urban example!
swing hanger Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Examples abide in Japan where trains pass through mid-size cities (which do not warrant stops by the fastest services). One thing to remember is that the towns/cities typically predate the railway by hundreds if not thousands of years, so the railway station is located on the edge of the cbd, typically at the end of the proverbial “Railroad Avenue” or “ekimae dori”.
Shizuoka Station (I believe this is sufficiently urban):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owQW3IhQ5Kk&hd=1
Hamamatsu Station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_duODr7Qw&hd=1
*the above trains are likely to be running below 300km/h, especially on the curve.
Closer to 300km/h, at Himeji (Sanyo Shinkansen):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEKuXX70Kd8&feature=related
At Nasu Shiobara on the Tohoku Shinkansen. Nasu Shiobara, with a population of 117,000, and located in a rural area with a spread out layout, can be comparable with a mid-size Central Valley city:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiBV-xCe7V0&feature=related
swing hanger Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
…abound, not abide
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Thank you.
The problem with passing through platforms at 200mph is why the CAHSR stations are planned to be four-tracked.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:28 am
“What we need is an urban example!”
I could find no such example in France. Direct trains by-pass cities. When a stop is scheduled, the train is switched to a legacy line which becomes invisible as soon as it reaches the city’s outskirts.
Building HSR the Californian way would be impossible in France, and not only because of the cost. There are very restrictive local regulations banning anything that might alter the character of a city.
For instance the light-rail systems in Bordeaux and Nice had to be wireless (Alstom APS) because the poles and overhead wires would have “disfigured” city centers.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 8:34 am
The plan in Bakersfield is to through the whole town at 220 mph. The current ROW is not straight so HSR will be making a new alignment through the city. Here http://g.co/maps/69s59 is where the train first leaves the ROW. It will CROSS this street (Palm Ave) on a low embankment, deadending it from both directions.
In East Bakersfield, it will pass through on an aerial structure. One of the two potential alignments will go through the Mercado, a festive Latino marketplace that serves as a hub for hundreds of Latino businesses. http://www.mercadolatinobakersfield.com/images/no-flash.jpg It was the busiest place we saw in Bakersfield. After construction, they will rebuild it under the concrete abutments. Seriously.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
The East Bakersfield plans need serious revision, but they’re going to get that work because the entire mountain crossing approach is being reconsidered. Nothing east of downtown is funded, the EISes aren’t even in draft form, and they shouldn’t be considered serious.
The west side plans — the city actually asked for a downtown station and asked for the parallel-to-BNSF approach from the west side. Now they’re complaining about it. To hell with that.
If Bakersfield ends up getting no station at all, it would deserve it, and bypassing that hellhole would be quite easy. I feel licensed to call it a hellhole because my fiancee grew up there.
Eric M Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 10:04 am
http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/25789700#pm_cmp=vid_OEV_P_P
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
At the time those lines were built protests were unknown in Japan. The country was developping fast and the economic war had to be won. The Narita airport riots would have been unthinkable in the sixties.
I’m not sure today’s Japanese would readily accept to have HSR cutting through their neighborhoods.
swing hanger Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Protests against building railway lines perhaps. But actually political protest was much, much more active (and violent) than it is now (after all, it was the sixties). Pres. Eisenhower even had to cancel his planned visit to Japan, in 1960:
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675051169_Dwight-D-Eisenhower_high-speed-water-guns_Carlos-Pol%C3%ADstico-Garc%C3%ADa_riots-in-Japan
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 4:16 am
In the 1970s, there were protests against the Tohoku Shinkansen. As a result, JNR had to build a commuter line along the same alignment for mitigation, which is now the Saikyo Line.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Stations close to the termini will probably have trains passing the platforms at up to 125 mph. Intermediate stations in higher-speed territory will have station sidings.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:42 am
If you look through earlier threads on this blog, involving fights with Clem over whether 300 km/h through stations in urban areas is possible, then you’ll find YouTube links to Shinkansen trains passing at or near full speed.
swing hanger Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 5:11 am
shinkansen excitement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF-aKl7_gHg
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Heh… Near, yes. At, no.
StevieB Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
300 kph is only 186 mph. Elizabeth Alexis assures that CA HSR trains will travel through downtown Fresno at 200 mph which is over 350 kph. The shinkansen in swing hanger’s video goes by in 3 seconds and looks increadible, will CA trains go by even faster?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
350 KPH is 217.5 MPH. Or 98.8636364% of 220.
or 220 MPH is 354 KPH.
200 MPH is 321, 322 KPH depending on how you want to round it.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Look, it is the Authority’s plan, not mine. I too thought this could not possibly be true. I have had direct conversations to the Authority about this to confirm. I think the 220 club at this point is limited to Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield.
Joey Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Gilroy if the station ends up being downtown. Also Modesto and Stockton in Phase 2 (though Merced should really be there too since all trains are going to stop at Merced in Phase 1). And that ignores all of the small-medium sized communities along the route that won’t have a station but will have trains blasting through at full speed.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
What Joey said: this is why stations will be four-tracked. There is absolutely no problem with passing through at 200 mph with a tracks-width distance between the train and the platform.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Wasn’t one of the videos showing 299.3 km/h or something like that? I’d call that at full speed, but maybe I round too much.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
299.337984 KPH if it’s precisely at 186MPH
186.41135767120016 MPH if it’s precisely at 300 KPH….but then the speedometer’s displays aren’t that precise. And the sampling they do to derive that number probably isn’t precise enough.
Clem Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Or maybe you don’t recall ;-)
K.T. Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Alon,
Are you talking about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVcUtFiF2UI
In this video, 290+km/hr was recorded in following stations:
1) Himeji (in 姫路市, pop: 530,000)
2) Aioi (in 相生市, pop: 30,000), and
3) Shin Kurashiki (in 倉敷市, pop: 470,000)
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Yep!
Euroduplex inaugurates Rhine-Rhône LGV high speed rail line
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Welcome improvements, especially for foreign passengers:
- new external displays place near each door making it easier to read the car number, train number and destination.
- on-board screens display in several languages with names of the stations along the route and the final destination, as well as information on the journey (time, geolocation and train speed)
- seats equipped with digital reservation displays indicating the sections of the journey for which they are occupied.
SNCF has a preference fpr duplex trains because they solve two of its problems:
- tolls per train are spread over a larger number of riders, allowing lower fares.
- it’s the only solution to the saturation of trunk lines.
A duplex car is only 68cm (about 26 inches) taller than a single level car because the lower level is lower than the wheels, which obliges passengers to go upstairs to walk to another car. High platforms also pose problems. These may be reasons why few companies are interested in duplex trains.
swing hanger Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
It depends on the operational requirements of the railway, but the single set of doors (vs. a set at both car ends) may be seen as a minus, as it impacts station dwell times.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
You can have as many doors as you like. The NJTransit multilevels have 4.
swing hanger Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Yes. What I’m saying is that the duplex design, which relies on articulated bogies and thus requires electrical equipment to be housed on the lower deck area, prevents the installation of a second set of doors (two doors/set), and also passengers on the lower deck have only one exit, rather than two in the case of a conventional bogie layout.
swing hanger Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
http://www.worldtravel.co.za/Rail/Europe%20Rail/Shared%20Documents/2007/Premier%20Trains%20(Seat%20Map)/WEBSITE%20SEAT%20MAP%20TGV%20DUPLEX.pdf
thatbruce Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
There’s nothing about the MUBs that inhibits the placement of more than one set of doors per carriage per side. Its purely a design choice on the part of SNCF.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 3:46 am
The TGV is not a commuter train where hundreds of people try to get in and out at the same time. Problems on the TGV are mainly due to people getting into the wrong car, blocking other passengers. Some of them, especially foreign tourists, are not familiar with trains. SNCF hopes improved external displays will solve the problem.
There used to be platform attendants but, nowadays, passengers are mostly on their own. SNCF wants to cut its labour costs which are the highest in Europe.
Virulent high speed rail opponent Rep. Jeff Denham took over for Fresno right wing talk radio host Ray Appleton this week and talked about high speed rail. He spoke to Jon Coupal, political insider and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association which is the 8th highest lobbying spender in the US. Coupal posited if after all the political investment made, can the inertia of the project be stopped. He thought so but hedged by saying, “its not going to be easy because a lot of people have a lot at stake”. His hedging does not exude confidence and he seems less confident than when he bet on Meg Whitman.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
No surprise to find him linked with the Howard Jarvis criminals who wrecked California.
StevieB Reply:
December 20th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
The radio station KMJ is home to the shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Inga Barks as well as the show that Rep. Denham hosted while Ray Appleton was on vacation.
How anyone can support the Authority and this project, when you read an article like this, exposing throwing away funds on studies that are least 20 years away from execution. Surely the work of Lynn Schenk, who has focused somehow in getting San Diego moved into Phase 1.
Just plain disgusting…
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/12/13/cost-to-tout-train-that-may-never-be-millions/144319/
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Most studies are done when the projects are 20 years away from execution, just in order to get *anything done at all*. Blame the current messed-up state of CEQA.
Off topic but of interest in the generational discussion–an editorial by John Philips of “Car and Driver” that sees the trouble in the big-driving generation getting not just older, but just plain old:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/john-phillips-i-have-seen-the-quitters-and-they-are-us-column
This is from a driving enthusiasts’ magazine. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Morris, would you care to comment?
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:37 am
We’ll save a fortune as they get killed off.
Nathanael Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
They are probably one of the reasons for the anamolous rise in car crashes in recent statistics (car crashes are up even though VMT is down, which is *weird* historically).
Alon Levy Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 4:14 am
Wait, when did crashes rise? Crashes went down to 2009.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I don’t have a link handy, but I just read somewhere that auto crashes have gone up, but only in certain areas or states. One of the things that turned up was that some of the larger percentage increases came in areas with relatively low population and a normally low number of total accidents, so any increase would register larger than it might elsewhere because of the smaller base number.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Doing a little looking, not all of which will directly address the question:
http://www.alabamacaraccidentlawyerblog.com/2011/12/alabama-car-accident-traffic-deaths-increase-as-nationwide-totals-fall.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918
http://www.stlouispersonalinjuryblog.com/2011/11/quiet-hybrid-car-engines-increase-crash-risk-to-pedestrians.shtml
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Another item that turned up that may be of interest:
https://us.vocuspr.com/Newsroom/ViewAttachment.aspx?SiteName=AAACS&Entity=PRAsset&AttachmentType=F&EntityID=105621&AttachmentID=ebef0286-b0ec-4020-904e-98923e75130d
But blast it, I don’t seem to be able to find the story I was originally looking for. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/11/28/map-of-u-s-traffic-accident-fatalities/