Merced-Fresno Alignment Choice Saves $500 Million
This week the California High Speed Rail Authority announced it has adopted the hybrid alternative for the Merced to Fresno section of the high speed rail project. The route runs to the east of Madera, and is at least $500 million cheaper than several of the other alternatives on the table. From a CHSRA press release:
The Hybrid Alternative generally parallels the Union Pacific Railroad and State Route 99 between Merced and Fresno. To avoid impacts to downtown Madera, this route travels east to be adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) corridor. The station locations proposed along this route include downtown Merced between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street and downtown Fresno at Mariposa Street.
“Not only does this route have the fewest overall impacts but the hybrid route is financially sensible, saving hundreds of millions compared to the other two routes,” said Leavitt.
It is estimated that the Union Pacific Railroad / State Route 99 would have cost $1 billion more than the Hybrid Alternative and the BNSF route would have cost $500 million more.
And Valley leaders are supportive of the choice:
“We are looking forward to being the birthplace of California’s high-speed train system,” said Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin. “We are ready to put people to work building a system and a station that will connect Fresno to all of the other major cities in California. This project has the potential to transform and improve California’s future.”
“We are thrilled that we’re one step closer to seeing a high-speed train station in downtown Merced,” remarked Dr. Lee Boese, Jr., Co-Chair of the Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee. “This project will enhance the lives of residents in Merced and surrounding areas, as well as provide long-term economic growth for our business community. I agree with the Hybrid route recommendation, it will avoid impacts to the small towns of Planada and Le Grand. While we know that the high-speed train will serve as a powerful economic stimulator for our State, we want to continue to work closely with the Authority to design a system that will minimize negative impacts to existing businesses and agriculture. This is truly an exciting step forward.”
While some issues, like the details of the wye, are still unresolved this is a good step forward for project planning. The hybrid alternative was an example of innovative and sensible design choices, showing a willingness to find creative solutions that reduce impacts and save money in the process.
Wow! Amazing. That lowers the price tag to… what? $97.5 billion? I want this Authority to be stripped off its right to plan this. Unless the rails are build of pure gold or we are planning a 800-mile underground HSR network, nothing can explain the high cost.
I’ve said it and I say it again. California is not the United Arab Emirates where you just say “Hmmm…. $100 billion sounds okay. Let’s do it although it won’t pay off for the next 200 years.” If HSR makes it back to the ballot in 2012 it will get killed with fire.
Howard Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:08 am
Actually, if all of the segments have the same approximately 20% cost reduction through cheapest alternative selection the total project cost would go down to approximately 80 billion. The High Speed Rail Authority is moving in the right direction.
nslander Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:52 am
Instead of simply recognizing the significance of one of what could be many cost reductions, its much more pleasurable to dig in one’s heels, repeat hackneyed snark, and push a personal agenda! And the readers love it too!
Emma Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:19 am
Or: What about they go back to the original plan without all the compromises and promises to build a tunnel or a viaduct whenever people don’t want to see rails.
One good decision doesn’t turn me into an optimist. It’s just sad how they finally begin considering cost-effective ways to build this HSR. This is what they should have been doing from the beginning in order to prevent this embarrassing business plan. The anti-HSR crowd has all the reasons to rejoice.
Just because I think someone else could do a a better job for less doesn’t mean I’m against HSR.
StevieB Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:20 am
It is all part of the long and involved planning process. We are getting to the 15% completed planning stage and next will be the 30% stage. Money is saved by not doing more complete planning on each alternative that is then wasted when alternatives are dropped.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:43 am
Actually, this would lower the final cost by significantly more than $500 million, as the $500 million is in 2010 dollars, not whatever distant-future dollars were used for the $98.5 billion number.
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 7:30 am
Then that would possibly be about $64.5 Billion.
StevieB Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:25 am
If the $22 billion in inflation costs are reduced and not all of the $16 billion in contingency funds are spent then your figure is very possible.
How exactly do they announce they’ve adopted an alternative without going through the public meeting and public review and comment process? Do these pronouncements require some kind of a vote? Or are we finally just dispensing with the farce that there is a due process here?
Walter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 am
I’ll overlook your misunderstanding of “due process” and cut to the chase: Please provide evidence that this decision fails to comply with public input laws.
Call me crazy, but it seems like some anti-HSR forces want these public comment periods to last indefinitely while the costs escalate and the system never gets built. Very sneaky.
nslander Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:40 am
Ya think?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:54 am
“How exactly do they announce they’ve adopted an alternative without going through the public meeting and public review and comment process?”
I guess you missed the fact that this is part of the EIR process? That underwent public comment and had public meetings? Which constitute due process?
This is also simply the staff recommendation. Not the final choice from the Authority.
StevieB Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:39 am
Formal comments on the Draft EIR/EIS that were submitted during the public comment period between August 15 – October13, 2011 will be addressed in the FInal EIR/EIS in early 2012. Thursday a staff report recommended a preferred route for the Merced to Fresno Section. There will be an opportunity for additional public comment at the board meeting December 13, 2011 in Merced and also following the release of the Final EIR/EIS.
Now the CHSRA needs to look at a lower impact and lower cost UP alignment through Bakersfield as part of the new Fresno to Bakersfield Revised EIR. It should switch from the BNSF alignment to the UP alignment at the Shafter bypass and locate the Bakersfield station at the F St/Chester Ave. site.
Clem Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:55 am
Or veer south from Shafter and skirt Bakersfield to the west, joining I-5 into the Grapevine. There is no sense in severely impacting thousands of homes and businesses with the aerodynamic roar of 220 mph trains.
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 am
Which does not travel very far from the tracks or the row, what Ya said is so false.
Clem Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:32 pm
In an urban area, severe noise impacts stretch to about 500 feet on either side of the tracks. In suburban and rural areas the severe impact zone is even wider because of the lower sound background. Please get educated about sound impacts before making uninformed comments.
John Bacon Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Aerodynamic resistance sound energy is proportional to the square of the speed. Combine that physical reality with the observation that human auditory sensitivity quickly rises as sound frequencies rise in the sub 500 Hz range perceived train noise increases in proportion to between the square and the cube of train speed. Higher frequencies which tend to move in straight lines can be significantly attenuated by sound walls. But a TGV noise source chart indicates that at least 20% of its sound foot-print comes from the pantograph 12 to 18 feet above track level. Would one need to build sound walls nearly 20 feet high through densely populated areas for 220 mph trains?
In the Central Valley population density along the I-5 corridor is a small fraction of the population density anywhere close to a direct line between Bakersfield and Fresno. Wouldn’t a 220 mph I-5 corridor CHSR alignment parallel to a 110 mph regional service line connected to the I-5 220 mph alignment south of Bakersfield and west of Fresno with few high sound walls needed for either line be cheaper than the present combined functions along one track-way approach? Besides an I-5 CV corridor could be as much as 25 miles shorter than the current CHSRA proposal. (The CHSRA lists the Bakersfield to Fresno rail distance as 113 miles; the highway distance is 107 miles, the great circle distance is 103 miles. A 50 degree left turn to a 50 mile straight east- west alignment, in order to minimize property line disruption, toward I-5 would extend the regional service HSR line another 18 miles compared to a continuous I-5 routing.)
Matthew B. Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 7:39 am
You could do all that math, no objections, I’m a mathematician and love calculations. However, it has to hold up to empirical observation. My office is about 200 yards from a TGV line facing the tracks, and I have never been disturbed by the sound from a train. We have thin windows, too, and I keep them open when the weather is nice. Concentration is important for my work, but the trains definitely aren’t a problem. If anyone who was raising so much stink about this project and its “impacts” had any real experience living next to such infrastructure, they’d realize they’re making a storm in a teacup. I’ve lived in Britain and Germany, too. Britain was much worse, despite slower trains, because they were diesel and the vibration from the engine was very loud. Electric trains are very quiet and comfortable to ride, and don’t noticeably impact surrounding neighborhoods. I work in a neighborhood that has strong demographic similarities to the south bay communities that are complaining about CAHSR. Real estate around here is typically well over 1,000,000 EUR for a single family home, and those prices are boosted by convenient access to rail infrastructure. If there aren’t impacts here, trust me, California will be fine. Just take a deep breath and be thankful that there are people concerned enough about the future of your economy to build what in other developed countries is taken for granted as a good idea.
VBobier Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Here’s something I found online:
We Hear You
or
Here(pdf)
ICE 3 High Speed Train – Nice sound Dutch (NOT German), 1st 29 seconds has some ad in there had this on full volume, It didn’t sound terrible.
Then there’s this ICE 3 at 300 kmh / 186 mph entering a tunnel, careful It’s only 32 seconds long and I played this at
full volume.
This one here(Fastest Train 574 km/h – watch the top left speed ) is a bit noisier(and It’s in French), but then It’s one that holds the land speed record, CA if It played It’s hand right could try and smash that.
This one is of the Acela(acela express kicking up piles of snow!@Kingston ), No idea what the speed is of course.
And one for the Yellow(Shinkansen Dr.Yellow pt.3 ) Submarine, Er train…
Don’t say I didn’t warn Ya, But If You want Noisy, Here((#1 most viewed train) SP 4449 crossing at Roberts, Oregon) You go…
My speakers are amplified, It would be nice If someone had a db reading in one of these clips, but no one has had that foresight to do that.
Oh and since HSR is supposed to be grade separated with no at grade crossings, there will be no need for a train horn to be sounded.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 5:05 am
The noise in the French video is made by the low-flying TV jet following the train. Other videos exist, in English and without the jet’s noise.
None of the videos can any longer be accessed from France. All you get is: “This video includes TF1 contents and has been blocked in your country for copyrights reasons”. Exactly the same warning you get when trying to watch a soccer match. TF1 is a private TV channel.
I wonder if Fiona Ma, who was in the train, realized she was participating in a sports event whose exclusive brodcasting rights were sold to the highest bidder.
Joey Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:18 am
I’m convinced that if you are going to go through Tehachapi, then it makes sense to slow down to 150 in Bakersfield anyway. Not only does it make the noise less ridiculous, but it allows the alignment to much more closely follow existing corridors. Plus, the time cost is minimal, especially considering that trains will have to slow down in the mountains anyway.
William Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:23 am
I thought of the opposite: the train should gain as much momentum (speed) before climb the mountain, so to save energy and time.
thatbruce Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:42 am
Look at how far Bakersfield is from Tehachapi first. It’s not right up against the mountains, and there is plenty of room to get back up to speed before serious grades are required.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:11 pm
How far from Bakersfield would that be?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
severely impacting thousands of homes and businesses with the aerodynamic roar of 220 mph trains.
How much louder is a 220 MPH train compared to a typical diesel locomotive hauling a 50 car freight? Or you typical three lane grade separated almost Interstate grade highway?
Anthony Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:17 am
Just forget it adirondacker, these nutswingers will never learn. Goofy “NIMBY”s are going to loose this battle. Especially these nut bags from the central valley and east bay. I can’t wait until we have HSR and Autotrains and the rest of it.
In the meantime I’ll just live in Europe, Germany to be specific so I don’t have to read such trash and by the time I come back likely around 2020, a majority of it will be finished.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Good luck. I hear that at least 80% of the people over there who want jobs are employed at any given time.
VBobier Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
80db next to the tracks (from what the ca.gov link I found, the one marked pdf) above, which falls off to 66db at 950′.
The briefing states on page 3:
“the initial construction section of the California HST system is expected to occur within the Merced to Fresno section.”
Can’t wait for the groundbreaking.
Howard Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:57 am
It also states “The southernmost 24 miles along the Hybrid Alternative, from Ave 17 in Madera County through the City of Fresno to the downtown station, will be the first construction area included in the 130-mile initial construction segment. ” That is from the northern edge of the City of Madera to the southern edge of the Fresno station.
Mike Brennan Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:02 am
That will be a day for the history books! I wonder how one gets invited?
J. Wong Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 am
I think you can just show up assuming you know where and when.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
After the Board decides on a project, staff must then develop bid documents for contractors – to bid on the project. That might take about 1 year. I presume it might be ‘Design-Build” process whereas the bidders will do both the final design and construction. Initial activity once a contractor is selected would be utility relocations and bridges. Might see support columns go in early too.
J. Wong Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 am
Yeah, I fully expect @Morris Brown to be there lying in front of the bulldozers :-)
Somewhat OT:
I always see the $98 YOE Billion as the “no compromise” price between CAHSRA and all the parties and agencies it must deal with. It certainly is a figure that force lukewarm supporter along the line to rethink their priorities: one can insist CAHSRA to go out of its way to accommodate local need, or give in more to save CAHSR cost.
For example, if CAHSR and Caltrain were run by the same agency, will CAHSRA still designed a two-level station? Most likely not, since this one agency can dictate the platform height, fare collection system, and rolling stock dimensions.
I hope the “West Hanford Bypass” also saves money and reduces impacts too. The likely offset will be slightly lower ridership because the Hanford station is a little farther away from the more populous City of Visalia; however, I think the ridership loss would be very low due to the few other transportation options Visalia residents have. It is only 5 minutes more in travel time (SR 198 is a freeway through Hanford) and the Fresno station is a lot further away.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:56 am
I doubt there was ever going to actually be a Hanford station to begin with.
Howard Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Is the CHSRA planning for the ICS to build four tracks at the Hanford station site or just two. If they go ahead and build four tracks (two for stopping trains and two for nonstop trains) does that not commit them to building a station there. If they only build two that would seem to imply that they might not want to actually build a station there.
I’m curious if the “Hybrid” route will be at grade or on viaducts. It would seem to me that this stretch is going to require viaducts in part to make the turns tighter for the trains. That would also allow a power source to be included and away from harm.
The only quibble I would have is that the more viaducts that are used around the wye (regards of route selected) the harder it will be to upgrade the line’s capacity in the future further downfield.
Case in point, the tight loop in downtown Oakland make it impossible for Fremont bound passengers to disembark at 12th street. Although perhaps unintended, that’s a big detriment to BART and it also conveniently disadvantages Oakland’s downtown to SF’s… I could see how, especially if the HMF is north of the wye there could be some real headaches down the road as the system expands.
Namely, I think the design almost suggests there will be a new HSR line to carry Sacramento to SF passengers to avoid the logjam at the wye.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:48 am
They have significantly reduced the route miles on viaducts as part of the (albeit belated) value-engineering from a few months ago.
The “tight turns” still allow for 150 mph operation for the most part, I believe.
There will be no “logjam at the wye” because there will be flyovers, eliminating interference. Assuming the trains maintain a punctual schedule, they will be coordinated at the wye.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:07 am
I don’t think there are any new savings. The hybrid option was one of three on the table and it was always the cheapest:
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/303/306/e49eb7eb-66e8-48c8-b1af-35dfd0b2bcf1.pdf
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Well the issue isn’t what they have recommended now, it’s how this recommendation affects the wye selected. I think that they are going to come back and suggest the tight wye near the Fagundes Site. if that’s the case then it seems harder to expand it later or do the flyovers Peter expects.
I also don’t know if their plan assumes crossing either the BNSF or UP ROW. If so, I could see Viaducts in Fresno proper and then dropping to ground level until the BNSF. But above that if it’s a tight wye, I wonder if it’s possible to drop the tracks back down or if the flyover will connect to the grade separation over the BNSF tracks….
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
The vast majority is actually at-grade, except for the fly-over in southern Fresno, and a short trench/tunnel under the UP wye in Fresno.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:58 pm
South of Fresno, yes. I’m looking only at the Merced to Fresno segment. I have no doubt that van Ark and others will have a conniption fit if PB tries to argue for “stilts” near Corcoran. In fact, the only way we get “stilts” south of Fresno in my opinion is if they resurrect Tejon.
Merced to Fresno is what gnaws at me. I can’t help but notice the similarity to BART in Oakland. In the case of the latter, part of the frustration is that you could cross-Bay capacity if there was a separate track for Richmond – Fremont trains to sidestep the wye. As a result, you eliminate one cross-Bay train every time Richmond-Fremont passes through. Once the route network expands beyond “Bay to Basin”, I think this will be a big headache.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:49 pm
“I can’t help but notice the similarity to BART in Oakland.”
Compare the scale of the two wyes. Circa 500 foot turn radius in Oakland versus A LOT near Chowchilla.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Again, you need to look at the recommendation. The tight wye near Faguendas is 5…10% of what the standard AA reports show.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 5:21 pm
No. Check page 98. Turn radius TEN THOUSAND feet, design speed 145 mph.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Sorry, page 92.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Will the straight direction be set to LA-Sac, so that trains that stay in the CV can go through at full speed?
Joey Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Alon: I’m pretty sure the straight direction is LA-SF. It’s not a big difference though – slowing down will probably only cost a minute or two.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 5:30 am
Alon, for the Avenue 24 wye, the straight direction is set by LA-SF. They’re planning 150 mph turnouts, and 145 mph turn radii.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:10 am
Between Fresno and Merced, there will be one flyover when leaving Fresno to get from the southern to the northern side of the UP line. The alignment stays on the south side of BNSF the entire way, and then swings west and has a flyover of SR-99 and UP again. Other than at the wye, and a road crossing in Merced, the vast majority is at-grade. This is assuming they pick the Avenue 24 Wye option.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:26 am
Couple things:
Does the Avenue 24 Wye option mean the small wye near the Faguendas site?
And will the wye not be at grade.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 7:36 am
If by small wye you mean 10,000 foot turn radius designed for 145 mph speeds, then yes.
The wye is grade-separated, as in, the flyovers are grade-separated from the through tracks to San Jose.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 9:16 am
Think of this, but bigger.
Roger Christensen Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 8:57 am
Will there be an auto overpass at Road 12 just south of Madera? It’s near the Madera Ranchos development and connects to both 99 and 41.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 am
If you’re referring to Avenue 12, then yes. They’re planning on offsetting the road somewhat and build an overpass.
Roger Christensen Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 10:24 am
Thanks. That’s right, Madera County has numbered Roads and Kings and Tulare Countys have Avenues.
Roger Christensen Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
Forget this I’m still screwed up.
datacruncher Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
Madera and Tulare counties have both numbered Roads and numbered Avenues.
Both use Roads running north/south and Avenues running east/west.
Joey Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:24 am
Firstly, as Peter said, there is unlikely to be any real capacity constraint at the wye. All of the junctions will be grade separated and all of the curves are wide enough for 150 mph (which is the limit of how fast you can traverse a turnout in the diverging direction with current equipment anyway). SF-LA trains will still be able to pass through the wye at full speed. Secondly, if you cared about SF-Sac, it would be much more effective to go via Altamont (though this has little bearing on the configuration of the wye).
Clem Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Are you kidding? It has direct bearing on the configuration of the wye, in that it should be located near Manteca instead of Chowchilla!!
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Not that locating the wye near Manteca would be easier. It actually would be a lot tougher in my opinion….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I’m not sure what problems you’re anticipating.
Anyway, here’s a suggestion (1% conceptual engineering level) from several years ago
http://www.arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/mapindex.html
http://www.arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/1-MantecaJct.gif
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Those links don’t work..
Not architecturally more difficult. More challenging because you have the Delta to contend with and the natural chokepoint where the existing rail lines and interstate ford the San Joaquin River. And then where do you put it…around Manteca?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Can’t help you with that, sorry. “Works for me”.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
You probably use a competent ISP.
They don’t work with the “www.” which is odd, it’s usually the other way around. I’d hazard a guess that Time Warner has a hiccup in it’s DNS servers.
e.g. this works for me
http://arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/mapindex.html
but this doesn’t
http://www.arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/mapindex.html
All sorts of um um helpful suggestions from TIme Warner instead
this works too
http://arch21.org/BARegRail.dir/BayRailDetailMaps.dir/1-MantecaJct.gif
for what it’s worth http://www.arch21.org doesn’t work but http://arch21.org does
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
That did work, thank you….
Not to be a Kiljoy, but one has to wonder how much would be saved not plowing through to the city centers in the central valley markets which has considerably smaller ridership projections, build their stations in the open/near the 99 or I-5 and let those cities devlop to the station and/or provide other transit service to the stations.
Just a thought.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:11 am
The ridership projections would be even smaller if people had to travel 20-40 minutes out of their way to get on a train on I-5.
Also, part of the idea is to REDUCE further sprawl with HSR, not foster it.
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:26 am
And that means sprawl would eventually start near the I5, no one(outside of those who are developers unwitting allies), not even Farmers want sprawl.
synonymouse Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:28 am
No stops on I-5, no sprawl. Or are you saying the mere presence of hsr magically induces sprawl?
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:35 am
No stop no I-5, no CV ridership. Sobering Reality suggested an I-5 alignment with stations. That’s what we’re talking about.
synonymouse Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:15 am
The hell with the CV. Everybody knows “all the gold in California is in a bank in Beverly Hills in somebody else’s name”.
To wit: focus on real high speed between the Bay Area and the LA Area.
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Ok Mr Clampett, Say Hi to Jethro…
Shifting most of the initial high speed rail Central Valley construction to an 83 mile segment between the state route 152 and 99 intersection and Gilroy would make an immediate passenger rail service start-up between San Francisco and the Central Valley feasible. This approach would delay the unsound decision to run 220 mph trains through the most densely populated regions of the Central Valley.
Drastically reducing the cost of the Fresno-Bakersfield CHSR section and using most of the initial $6 billion for building an immediately usable Fresno to Gilroy CHSR alignment would begin to solve two major problems. 1. The finite risk that even initial construction will be politically stopped due to the perception, right or wrong, that the initial alignment could be of little use if further CHSR construction does not proceed. 2. The currently planned Fresno to Bakersfield segment designed so that 220 mph train noise would be tolerable in the most densely populated area in the Central Valley is likely to be more expensive than a 110 mph Fresno-Bakersfield track along current rail right-of-ways parallel to a 220 mph CHSR track along the I-5 corridor .
Is it realistic for the CHSR trains to run between San Francisco and downtown Los Angeles in 2 hours 38 minutes along the along the currently planned 447 mile alignment? The trains would need to average 212 mph across two passes and the Central Valley if the CHSR Authority run time simulation between San Jose San Francisco plus a similar run-time performance is achieved for the last 50 miles approaching Downtown Los Angeles is correct. Rand-McNally lists the SF-LA road distance to be 381 miles or 66 miles less than CHSR Authority scheme. An I-5 rail alignment across Taejon Pass and the Central Valley could reduce the total SF-LA distance by 66 miles and drop over 20 minutes from train schedules.
per visalia/hanford now that I live in the valley (merced) with a partner in visalia – I have become all too familiar with highway 99 (yes moving from sf to the valley has required the purchase of a car and the consumption of ridiclulous amounts of expensive fossil fuels – and the air here is so bad I haven’t stopped coughing since I moved here..) but I digress… per visalia hanford…. having become familiar… visalia is by far the larger, much nicer, much more robust city in that area. and more deserving of an hsr stop. ( the way you wouldnt believe the freakin gorgeous homes you can get there for a 150k)
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:41 am
The place for an hsr stop would be at the juntion of 99 and 198.
Jon Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
I was wondering why you hadn’t posted in ages. Welcome back!
Yes, if the routing was Hwy 99 a station in Visalia would make sense. With the current route I’m not sure there’s any point in having a greenfield regional station. If the Hanford bypass is changed to west rather than east there’s even less point.
Howard Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
The West Hanford Station locations are not “greenfield” like the East Hanford Station location. They are more empty lots in a small undeveloped gap between the City of Hanford and the town of Armona. With both sites surrounded by development on three sides, station area high density development could almost be considered infill, tying the two communities together and making it a better station site. Why would Visalia residents be less likely to use the Hanford station? It is only 5 minutes further away verses the 25 minutes further away for the Fresno station. Its not like they have a Visalia International Airport to go to. They are also not going to chose to drive all the way to LA or SF just because the West Hanford Station is five minutes more of a drive to get to.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
I doubt many people would disagree with you that Visalia would be a better station location than Hanford. The problem is Union Pacific (of course) refusing to play ball between Fresno and Bakersfield, forcing the alignment to the BNSF alignment. Apparently, UP is a lot more protective of its ROW between Fresno and Bakersfield than north of Fresno.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:51 am
Why did you inflict this move on yourself? It sounds horrific…
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
horrific isnt the word for it when you wake up and realize you’ve gone from the ferry building to dining on things like hambuger helper and spam.
Donk Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:59 am
I thought you were moving to LA.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
The move to socal is complicated and a step by step due to districts/ seniorty blah blah blah. Teh goal is palm springs for retirement. How I get to that point is still in the works and now I have another person to consider. The valley is a stepping stone working my way south. Luckily as a californian I appreciate and have plenty of experience living in all the “californias” and will make the best of it. For instance yosemite in autumn a couple weeks ago was nothing short of wonderous!
To me the best thing about hsr as planned is the way the fully built out route ties most of the californias together – high desert, inland empire, sand la cvalley, bay sac valley. leaving out only the redwood curtain and the shasta/northeast ( to be conintued)
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
In the 60′s Yosemite was even better, but then they had the firefall at Glacier Point, Fortunately Dad took slides, so I have plenty of memories.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I know of this. Was probably ver cool. Never the less. fall is sure the time to go. forget summer.
VBobier Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Especially when one was about 5 or 6 yrs old too, Yeah Dad rented a Scotsman Travel Trailer for a number of Years and We went there either through the front entry or through Tioga Pass.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Hey, welcome back! I hope you eventually get the coughing thing resolved. I don’t know if the LA area has cleaner air than the CV, though.
Now, even Visalia and Hanford both want the station in Visalia: Visalia wants a station, Hanford opposes HSR. The problem is, first, UP are assholes. And second, urban grade separations are expensive, and this entire region is so sprawly that there’s not too much loss from skirting the urban areas and building a station in between the two cities (which would’ve happened anyway with the UP option) or just west of Hanford.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:26 pm
well the thing is, i see tons of room all the way throught 99/198 interchange area near the VIS airport and the VIS option is also closer to Tulare which is as large as HNF. Not mention all the other communites to the north and east ( selma, goshen, exeter, lindsay etc) damn UP. No chance of using the 99 row I guess.
Teh cough is a slight asthma that never bothered me in sf, neither did my brutal hay fever… im dreading next spring – as for socal, my goal is the desert and the air is quite clean beyond the pass at cabazon.)
Im disappointed that a tulare kings station is not going to be centrally located.
i don’t know if this was posted already but they have also put forth merced station concepts
station
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I know the area about 12 blocks from my apt, but the design seems a little ridiculous for merced. how bout a normal simple station instead
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
the location makes sense though as merced has done up a very nice central downtown along main street… putting the station just to the north of that will help draw those upgrades further up along main. An area that needs a brush up. ( with nothing better to do, im just becoming the merced expert and planning the entire redo of the city… you know since they made some mistakes)
thatbruce Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Looking at the wider picture of Merced, looks like through passengers are going to have a roller-coaster ride as they pass through Merced. This is based on the height of the proposed Merced station looking to be the same as CA-99 as it crosses the UPRR RoW.
Either the HSR line is going to go over CA-99, lower to the Merced station level, and rise again to pass over CA-99 once more, or the inverse in passing under CA-99 and rising to the station level then down again. I’m not sure if there is room to do that comfortably at speed in that distance.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
At the speeds they’ll be traveling at, there will be no “roller-coaster effect”. The curves in Merced limit them to 150 mph, so even trains coming down from Sacramento will have to slow down, eliminating the problem.
Peter Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Also, those are old plans, Jim. The current plan is for an at-grade station.
It will be yield managed. Id bet lucnh. just watch. id love to see a bart like set fare structure. but yield will maximize revenue. fare buckets and classes of service will be the result and this will be sold as “consumer choice”
just watch and see.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Heck, even the Surfliner is getting yield management.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Simple rule: if Amtrak does it, it’s wrong.
JJJ Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
You keep repeating this, and it’s remarkably stupid.
Amtrak does trains. I guess we must abandon HSR because if Amtrak does it, it’s wrong. Amirite?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Which part is the wrong though: The current unreserved flat fare or the yield managed reserved seating they’re planning on doing?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:05 pm
All is not lost. The yield management on the NEC is quite mild. There’s an advance fare, advertised clearly as the fare you can get two weeks in advance. There’s the regular fare, which is one-way and stays until the train fills up; in my experience, it’s available until almost the last minute except on the more crowded Friday trains (thus, I travel on Thursdays), so it acts more like peak pricing than like true yield management.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Actually, it seems to be more like an airline’s yield management or perhaps SNCF’s given the presentation. Of course, I could simply be reading more into a single slide than is warranted.
Max Wyss Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 4:22 am
The yield management model may work when it comes to manage a few operations (trains, flights, buses) per day. The more frequent the operation is, the more yield management is a failure and counter-productive. The SNCF does it, but they don’t have really regular intervals. The FS does it, and it is a good way to drive customers away from the trains because of the non-customer-friendly handling of missed connecitons because of delays. On the other hand, the attempt to introduce yield management in the IC/ICE network, cost the then chief of the DB his job.
Considering that there will be trains following every few minutes in California, it would be best to completely forget about yield management, and look at the fare structures in Germany (where there are discounted advance purchase tickets, but even they are not tied to a specific train. As a convenience for customers, reservations should, however be possible.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 6:54 am
It might be, I don’t know. Legacy airline yield management typically has the following features:
1. Opaque fare system.
2. Roundtrip tickets except on domestic markets with competition with low-cost airlines; this is where the Saturday night stay rule comes from.
3. Fares that irregularly rise and fall over time based on whether bookings match expectations.
4. Fares that change based on what day of the week and time of day you book.
5. Special web-only fares.
6. Advance discounts, and expensive walk-up fares.
Amtrak’s fares are not really opaque – e.g. the standard fare bucket is consistent, and so is the advance-purchase bucket. Points 2-4 are definitely not true, at least not on the NEC. Point 5 I don’t really know – it wouldn’t surprise me either way. Point 6 is the one that’s true.
Low-cost carriers have different features – they still do yield management, but at least the ones in the US have a much simpler fare system.
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:43 am
The fare buckets, at least at amtrak are farely simple. there are usually four of them on reserved trains and you can get the lowest one even at the last minute if the demand happens to be low for that departure. You can also get the highest even if you book in advance, if that departure happens to already by fully booked.
a san joquin trip will be a dosj bosj aosj or full yosj simply based on how many seats have been sold when you make your booking for a specific departure. online fares and ticket window fares are the same. there is no online discount ( except that you can lock in the current fare more quickly online, and if you wait till you drive over to the ticket office that fare can go up in the meantime if more seats are sold between the time you leave the house and arrive at the office – in fact the fare can change while we are making the booking if some seats sell during the booking process)
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:46 am
If you are an organzied person and can plan ahead you can usually get a D fare. If you are a last minute disorganized mess, you may pay more. If you are a frequent rider you have multi ride discounts to cover you.
then you have all the usual discounts which, I really personally think should be elminated. ( senior discount, disabled discount, triple a discount, miliatry active duty discount etc etc – but americans are wedded to these discounts as are marketing departments across the land)
aw Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Are there blackout dates for the AAA, NARP, etc. discounts?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
No but then if you want to buy a ticket for Christmas Eve on Dec 23rd the cheap tickets won’t be available either.
aw Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
It’s probably already too late to get a low bucket fare on many routes for Christmas Eve.
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
they wont be available only because the cheap tickets have already sold out
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
no balck out dates for those discounts ( I don’t know anything about NEC though I only know long distance and amtrak ca) but there is a 3 day advance purchase requiremnt on all “membership type discounts -aaa narp student advantage etc)
Alon Levy Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
On the NEC, it’s cheaper to buy tickets in advance individually than to buy a multi-ride ticket or a season pass.
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 11:57 am
hsr could also try a zone system like caltrain.
I think a per mile pricing like barts would be good, priced to match the cost of driving so that the cost to drive from merced to bakersfield would be about the same as a train ticket from merced to bakersfiled. currently that would be about… hmmm 6 gallons of gas x 4 dollars 24 dollars.
or how bout a flat fate rate per stop. 8 bucks per station stop
sf-sfo 8
sf-fno 40
fno-la 48
la-san 64
sf-la – 88 (counting kings/tulare)
Thas a simple fare structure the public can understand
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Then the fare between Transbay and SFO will be the same as the fare between Fresno and Bakersfield. And the fare on the super express – which doesn’t make any stops – will be the same.
jimsf Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
hopefully the whole project is giving him indigestion.
question
in orer to reply to a post the promt says “subscribe to comments feed” with a link. And the link goes to “page can not be displayed not avail”
Qu’ est ce que c’est?
Robert,
Here is something you may or may not want to talk about. It is interesting that Howard McKeon is a cosponsor on a bill (HR 3143) that would put a freeze on federal funding to the California high speed rail project, but wants to spend billions on an extra engine option for the F-35 joint strike fighter which is already way over budget as is. Talk about hypocrite.
VBobier Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
He only listens to Repugs, Independents, Democrats and others, they only get to listen in to His call town halls. Yeah He’s a hypocrite, He wants Yer vote, not Yer opinion, unless Yer a loyal Repugnican…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 7:18 pm
But loyal Republcans don’t have opinions, they have dogma. That’s a feature, not a bug, for many of them.
VBobier Reply:
December 3rd, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Yeah, My Sister in law will barely admit that the top 1% need to have their taxes raised and Yes She’s a Republican and is for HSR as are Her two Daughters(My Nieces) as all 3 have ridden on HSR in France and in the Chunnel going to the UK, My Nephew is against HSR, but then He has never been on a train, He’s almost a Tea Partier.
In the hanford west side alignment there are two station locations. Id say use the north station location because its on the sjv rail raid line. this could come in handy if in the distant future that row is utilized for transit. Of course that would make sense and require forethought. So im sure it wont happen.
Howard Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 9:58 pm
I agree that the northern west Hanford station location is better because of its local rail transit transfer potential. I have heard rumors that this is already being considered, probably by the City of Visalia (who really wanted the High Speed Train Station. I think previously the City of Visalia and the City of Tulare studied building a new light rail line between their two downtowns (I think it was not found to be cost effective and BRT was chosen instead). The existing east-west rail line could be used by a HST feeder DMU train with stops in downtown Lemore, the CHSR station, downtown Hanford, western Visalia (SR-99 P&R), downtown Visalia and maybe downtown Tulare. If diesel got expensive enough someday it could be converted to a EMU. However, in the short term (IOS opening day) there will likely just be an express bus from downtown Visalia and downtown Tulare, with local busses from Hanford and Lemoore like there is today at the Hanford Amtrak station.
John Bacon Reply:
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:16 pm
“…if in the distant future that row is utilized for transit. Of course that would make sense and require forethought.”
Any rational purchase, especially a project of this magnitude, requires considerable forethought. If anything like the CHSR Authority’s projected Central Valley ridership materializes, 4,700 daily boardings from Fresno and 5,100 from Bakersfield, demand may justify an hourly rail service three miles between stops through both major CV towns partly as a feeder to CHSR stops might be justified. But if 220 mph trains are using the same tracks not a chance. Safely crossing frequent switches at 220 mph would require too many expensive track safety checks and component replacements to ever be practical. And transit-oriented-development is unlikely next to the considerable fast train noise. A parallel 220 mph track along the sparsely populated I-5 corridor would be 66 miles shorter, at least 20 minutes faster, safer, and system-wide cheaper and operationally more flexible and reliable than the currently intended alignment.
thatbruce Reply:
December 5th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
This sort of careful management of different speeds around the terminus of ‘local’ services somehow manages to happen in other places. Claiming that the problem is too hard to be practical, thus we must build another expensive track, is beyond the pale even for PB.