Elizabeth Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Alon,

The plans priced in 2008 and 2009 were not realistic or representative of what was actually proposed. The previous cost estimates should have included them. I don’t know what you call this – cost overruns, low-balling, lying whatever but don’t buy the “scope changes” argument.

This is like going to actually buying a car and getting sticker shock. “You wanted 4 tires with it? Well, that would be a scope change”.

morris brown Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:53 pm

@Alon Levy

Elizabeth is being much to nice in her characterization of what the CHSRA was
advertising in 2008 and 2009.

The numbers seem to be that the costs are 94% higher than was was promoted then.
The reason we are now being told is that until they got to 30% engineering, they didn’t know true costs.

Hard to believe, especially in view of the older history of the project. Who was to believe that a $9.95 billion bond measure would pay for 1/3 of the project when that same number was being promoted 8 years earlier. Certainly the Reason report didn’t buy into those numbers, but, of course, none of the supporters on this blog, believed their report. Amazing how accurate they turn out to be.

Lynn Schenk admits the 2008 plan was nothing but a promotion piece, not as advertised a true business plan. Yet they went to the voters using this fraud.

As for YOE numbers. Prop 1A clearly states the funding for the project was to be in YOE dollars. That was true in 2008, just as it is true today.

So why were they telling voters in 2008, that the cost would be $33 billion, when the funding had to be in YOE dollars, not 2008 dollars?

Rick Rong Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Please don’t use the phrase “costs-overruns” unless you are talking about actual costs exceeding projected costs. Save “cost overruns” for later.

joe Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:40 pm

This is like going to actually buying a car and getting sticker shock. “You wanted 4 tires with it? Well, that would be a scope change”.

HSR base price included tires.

Good luck asking for that free HSR trench along some of CA’s wealthiest cities: Palo Alto, Antherton and Menlo Park. We can’t have scope creep or cost overruns.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Elizabeth, Morris: I don’t know what the Prop 1A wording said, but the business plan said $33 billion in constant dollars. (I never remember to which year, 2006 or 2008.)

Also, scope changes can be honest or dishonest. Sometimes, there really are complications – e.g. in the Soledad Canyon – and this produces an honest scope change. Most of the increase in the cost estimate is not like this. It’s one of two kinds of dishonesty:

1. Scope creep: the scope is increased from before, e.g. the Millbrae tunnel and Diridon Intergalactic; this can be reversed given better management.

2. Strategic misrepresentation, or incompetent misinformation: scope that was necessary all along was not included in the original estimate, e.g. the need for extra grade separations since the intermediate cities have sprawled more since the original alignment maps were prepared.

The good news is that most of the overrun seems to be of type #1: for example, everything in the Bay Area seems to be defensive overbuilding in order to preserve agency turf lines.

Rick Rong Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Here is a link to the arguments for and against Prop 1A:

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm

The Legislative Analyst’s analysis, at http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/analysis/prop1a-analysis.htm, states that “The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion.”

The text of the proposition is here: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf#prop1a. These provisions were part of AB 3034, which included other provisions that were not part of Prop 1A. The entire text of AB 3034 can be found here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html

Brsk Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Actual language from the LAO in the Voter Information Guide Rick linked to:

“Operating Costs. When constructed, the high-speed train system will incur unknown ongoing maintenance and operation costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year. Depending on the level of ridership, these costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers.”

Well, well, well, since the new business plan, based on a model approved by an internationally peer-reviewed panel of modeling experts that Elizabeth formerly liked, shows that the project will be profitable at all stages from IOS through phase 1 build-out:

It’s changed!

Quick to the ballot! to the ballot! How dare they propose a profitably operating project when the LAO told voters it may lose money every year! We demand a re-vote! How dare the private operators make money! CARRD, Concerned Citizens for High Speed Rail Accountability, to the barricades! The fight against the sin of profit must be joined! Revote! Revote!

/sarcasm

Rick Rong Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:59 pm

To Brsk:

Please see section 2704.08(c)(2)(J): Among other things, initial funding plan must certify that “The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy.”

Also see 2704.08(d)(2)(D): Before committing the funds, independent financial experts must report that “. . . the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy, . . .”

Brsk Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 pm

@Rick wRong

That does not change the fact that every voter who read the Official Voter Information Guide read that, “Operating Costs. When constructed, the high-speed train system will incur unknown ongoing maintenance and operation costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year. Depending on the level of ridership, these costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers.”

They were warned that the LAO thought it may lose money, the Authority’s 2000 business plan and 2006 EIR not withstanding. Despite that risk they voted to approve the bonds because they weren’t idiots. As only an idiot would think that a train that takes less than 3 hour to run between an 18 million person metro and a 6 million person metro area (on planet Earth) would loss money.

Of course after wasting thousands (millions?) on ever more development and review after review of its ridership model (CS love$ Elizabeth!) and tanking every factor they could to “highly unrealistic” levels to make the numbers more “conservative” the answer is: Surprise we are still on planet Earth, in California (the state where over a million people ride the slow-and-infrequent dino-train San Joaquins), and fast, frequent, HSR connecting the San Joaquin Valley to a coastal Metro area (SJ or San Fernando Valley without a bus) would make money!

In short, the answers to both 2704.08(c)(2)(J) and 2704.08(d)(2)(D) are IOS South and IOS North. Of course the Authority Funding Plan already laid this out weeks/months ago.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:31 pm

. . . the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy, . . .

That doesn’t stop someone else, Caltrans for instance via Amtrak, from providing subsidies. The Suthority wouldn’t be providing the service.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Brsk: profitable excluding depreciation and interest, i.e. by weaker standards than those applying to HSR around the world.

Nathanael Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:18 pm

As Alon says,
(1) political forces created the bogus $98 bn number, which is based on bogus inflation preductions
(2) the $65 bn number — the real one — contains an awful lot of scope creep. Mostly in segments which are far, far from being finalized.

We need to demand that those designs be fixed before construction (eliminate the useless Milbrae tunnel, for instance). However, this should definitely not stop us from supporting the Fresno-Bakersfield ICS, which contains very little such nonsense. Point of fact, so far neither does the mountain crossing from Bakersfield to Sylmar (though it’s still at a very preliminary stage).

The most important thing to change for the ICS is the stupid “airport security” station designs. I firmly believe that that can be fixed. But it can’t be fixed by people calling for the entire project to be killed! You people calling for stopping construction are actually making it *HARDER* to fix things like this!

flowmotion Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 am

@Alon

There was quite a bit of “2. Strategic misrepresentation, or incompetent misinformation”, particularly related to the ICS. The initial Prop 1A estimates assumed that nearly all of the Central Valley would be built ‘at grade’, something that was clearly impossible given the urbanization there.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:42 pm

@Flowmotion:

True, but the cost overrun in the CV is pretty small. There were some early bombshell numbers, but they were modified once the authority learned the trick of going around unserved cities and acquiring farmland. The lion’s share of the cost overrun is fully reversible.

Elizabeth Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Alon,

The overruns / previous undercosting/ dissemblence etc in the CV was very large. It is just a little hard to see because the previous estimates are not apples to apples with current ones.

Old one: $8 billion including inflation ($1 billion), heavy maintenance facility + connector from Merced ($1 billion), east Bakersfield (3 miles aerial structure through neighborhoods) ($1 billion).

New one: $10 billion -$14 billion not counting those things.

The number effectively doubled, and this is after they decided to go through farmland

Alon Levy Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:17 pm

@Flowmotion:

True, but the cost overrun in the CV is pretty small. There were some early bombshell numbers, but they were modified once the authority learned the trick of going around unserved cities and acquiring farmland. The lion’s share of the cost overrun so far is fortunately fully reversible.

The flip side is that sometimes there are obscene overruns while the projection is under construction. See, for examples, the Big Dig and the Bay Bridge eastern span replacement.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Elizabeth: the Business Plan’s breakdown of cost increases puts the CV overrun at much less than a doubling. It’s closer to 50%.

Arthur Dent Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:32 pm

@Alon: I’m confused. First you said the CV overrun is pretty small, then you said it’s closer to 50%. Are you correcting yourself or saying that 50% is pretty small?

BTW, aren’t they still at 15% engineering? (A made-up milestone, from what I hear.) Imagine the cost overruns we can expect to see when they reach 30%. If, that is, they’re allowed to make it that far.

Elizabeth Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Alon,

That report is riddled with inaccuracies. It is also authored by the same consulting firm who was responsible for the low-balling in the first place. From an oversight perspective, the Authority should not have put PB in charge of explaining the cost discrepancies.

synonymouse Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:36 am

There are some pertinent similarities between the Mexico to Queretaro electrification and Borden to Corcoran. Similar, relatively short distances, incremental obviously, and based upon a political decision that was easily undermined by a change of regime. The inherent, rational value of the electrification scheme was not enough to guarantee its survival. Same applies to the orphan trackage. I challenge the CHSRA and Van Ark to elicit publicly stated interest on the part of the class ones in purchasing the orphan line. That would bolster the case.

In contrast I believe that at least the Santa Fe would be interested in Tejon. They were in 1920, using steam on steeper gradients.

And for sure I do not think your diesel quasi, proto, neo, crypto, wannabe turbo-hsr will pass without legal challenge. Tweak and twist Prop 1A at your own risk.

Brsk Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:04 am

Question: What do call someone that refers to the Chowchilla to Shafter Initial Construction Segment (ICS) as “Borden to Corcoran” even though that changed over a year ago? ( http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9485 )

Answer: An ass-hat, that wants to discredit themselves.

As for the Grapevine, we will see the actual study by the actual engineers soon.
For some of us reality will be important;
For others what the arm-chair engineers say (“baah-humbug!”) will be more important;
For some particular people, steam-punk fantasies of giant, powerful cylinders throbbing against the mountainside are ALL that matters.

synonymouse Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 pm

I too await with great interest PB’s findings on Tejon.

And then on to I-5 thru the Valley to Sac.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:34 pm

Well there’s also the sleek shiny long long long train diving into the deep dark tunnel under the upthrust mountains straining ever higher, pulling valiantly, throbbing with electricity, until it bursts out in a climax of speed and noise at the other end of the tunnel into the glistening sunlight….

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:49 pm

As for the Grapevine, we will see the actual study by the actual engineers soon

What? Has PB been fired?

synonymouse Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:31 pm

adirondacker – there’s definitely a job writing dvd liner notes waiting for you in the San Fernando Valley.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:05 pm

It’s more Romance Novel than DVD liner. Either of them all you have to do is cut and paste a few pertinent phrases in a variety of ways.

synonymouse Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 10:42 pm

If Brown were come to the conclusion that the mountain crossing should take priority,
reallocating the funds could be accomplished forthwith. It’s that simple. That’s the power of the Machine.

If the CHSRA is afraid to take on Disney and Chandler lawyers they should resign. They certainly don’t show any reluctance to give PAMPA all sorts of grief.

J. Wong Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 11:17 pm

What is the reasoning behind thinking that it would be politically expedient to redirect the Federal money to the southern crossing? Those who are against HSR would still be against HSR. The current Congress would be no more likely to allocate further funding.

StevieB Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 11:32 pm

The DOT will not change its mind about the ICS for several reasons. The Tehachapi segment will not have an EIR in place in time to meet the deadline for spending ARRA funds. The funds available would not build from Bakersfield to anywhere south to enable “independent utility” as required by ARRA. It is not reasonable to assume there will be a change from initial construction in the Central Valley.

Rick Rong Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 11:42 pm

To J Wong: Regarding political expediency, what I am suggesting is that, faced with possibly growing opposition to the project and a need to show greater independent utility, DOT/FRA/Obama might decide that there is a better chance at keeping the project alive if the mountain crossing is chosen for the ICS. Obviously, there is a lot that would go into the political calculus, so what I am suggesting may very well be overly simplistic. It also has other obstacles, such as an earlier tilt toward linking to the LA Basin, which might not please Bay Area politicians, and delay in terms of the environmental process, as both StevieB and I noted, and higher costs, as also has been noted. If there is not enough money to build the ICS in the mountains and have independent utility, as StevieB suggests, that would be another obstacle.

One of the inducements to the Obama administration to keep the project alive is that California’s is about the only truly high speed rail project left, and Obama put a lot of emphasis on high speed rail. Faced with something versus nothing, if it were viewed that way, my guess is that the administration would pick something. On the other hand, based on how it has behaved so far, one cannot be sure how the administration would behave in the future.

VBobier Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am

The DOT hasn’t changed their mind before and LaHood who is a Republican said NO on moving the money.

Jonathan Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:13 pm

but are you under 18??? There’s the rub.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:09 pm

There’s a lot of things you can’t do if you are under 18.

Brsk Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Hence why they will never use the ICS.

A mythical $6 billion Bakersfield to Palmdale ICS would be even worse. How big and heavy, and how many Amtrak locomotives would it take to get each Amtrak train up the 3.5% grades that are planned for the mountain crossing (either Palmdale or Grapevine)?

Now do you see why Paul Dyson’s and others obsession over the mountain crossing 1st makes no sense when the first train to use the track will need to run Burbank-area to Fresno at the least?

Amtrak using the ICS is a bad idea, whichever ICS. Which is why that is the worst case scenario, not part of the planned phasing of the project.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:05 pm

An ICS from Bakersfield to the LA metro area would be usable by shuttle trains bridging the gap from LA to Bakersfield (or Palmdale to Bakersfield, in the absolute worst case). It would not provide decent LA-Bay Area service, but could provide good enough LA-Bakersfield service (or LA-Fresno).

Joey Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Bakersfield-Palmdale is pretty useless too, mostly because the Metrolink tracks (by which I mean track because there’s really only one) between Palmdale and Bakersfield is utterly useless for anything not pathetically slow.

Start construction at LA. Once you reach Santa Clarita then Metrolink can start running modernized electric operations. Once you reach Palmdale or Bakersfield (depending on the routing) there’s enough demand to buy some 200-250 km/h EMUs and operate them on a semi-frequent basis. As Richard has noted in the past, it makes sense to delay buying actual high speed trains until you have all or almost all of the route finished, firstly because the technology will improve with time and secondly because the speed difference takes a lot of distance to translate into meaningful time savings. The regional EMUs are useful elsewhere and/or have high resale value once you get to that point.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:28 pm

… usable by shuttle trains bridging the gap from LA to Bakersfield …

I know “shuttle trains” is a perfectly neutral quasi-technical term, but like “spur” (or even “branch” or “junction”), it does seems to bring non-technical baggage with it.

LA-Bakersfield is a perfectly good inter-city train route. Maybe it isn’t one that you’d design with 350km alignments as a stand-alone project (I wouldn’t design for 300+ regardless), but there’s no reason to tar the trains running on that route as somehow truncated shuttles, any more than those eventually shuttling their way between LA and SF are such.

I know that’s not what you mean of course, and I know I use the “s” word constantly myself.

Bottom line: LA-Bako’s not a terrible place to run trains, especially if you have to start somewhere. (My preference for “somewhere” was always San Jose-Fremont-Livermore-Tracy. That would have been under construction today in a less insane world.)

Nathanael Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Other problem with building LA-Bakersfield as a standalone (electric, non-FRA) route is that it requires a standalone maintenance base. Ye gods the fights there have been over the maintenance base — and all the proposed locations are north of Bakersfield.

Let’s just get the stations cut down to size, get the ICS built, and get Bakersfield-LA designed and built, get some trains running, and at that point the political situation will make it possible to design better extensions.

Right now the number of virulently anti-rail fanatics makes it impossible to have a serious discussion about a good design (especially when some of the fanatics pretend to be in favor of a “good design”, but no matter what is done they don’t like it). Once HSR is in and everyone is begging to be connected to it, it will become much more viable to push for better designs without helping to kill the project entirely.

Think about this, Altamont advocates.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:38 pm

The maintenance base isn’t that big a deal. Since LA-Bako is not exactly a 12 tph all day kind of market, the fleet would be pretty small. A 200-meter train every half hour would be peak-of-peak demand – that’s 4 sets if the line is full-speed throughout or 6 if it’s slow in the LA Basin and speed-limited. At this fleet size, there’s no point in constructing a dedicated maintenance facility. The trains could be maintained in the same shops as Metrolink.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Metrolink is busy expanding. Will there be room at the Metrolink shops in 2017?

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Other problem with building LA-Bakersfield … standalone [...is...] a standalone maintenance base.

http://www.stadlerrail.com/it/ritratto/sedi/hungary-h/

71 trains maintained at the site (some of them built by Bombardier, the maintenance contracts having been won under open competitive bidding.)
31 employees.
Much smaller than a minor US city transit system’s bus yard.

In short: Not an Issue. (Not unless you involve America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals, that is.)

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:32 pm

And when the trains need their annual week long inspection and servicing they can just send them to the HSR shops in Nevada or Arizona.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:32 pm

If only those backwards Hungarians with their whacky declensions had access to the same ethernal truths — or the same Arizonan HSR shops — as our adirondacker12800.

Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Uh, no, Richard. You don’t understand NIMBYism. The problem is, plainly and simply, locating a maintenance base anywhere between Bakersfield and Sylmar. The size is *irrelevant*, politically. The degree of NIMBY-explosion is relevant. The base needs to be located, politically, somewhere which *wants* it.

Sure, maintain at the Metrolink shops. Oh wait! You can’t get to the Metrolink shops without crossing FRA tracks! So that won’t work.

Yes, the FRA regulation here remains the primary problem. But if that can’t be fixed, watch out for the NIMBYs — having train tracks next to them is bad enough, but a MAINTENANCE SHOP, the horror, the horror!

Of course, if you manage to build the line all the way to LA Union, you can probably reach the Metrolink shops without crossing FRA tracks. But the San Fernando Valley / Los Angeles River section is way more trouble, politically, than it appears at first, even if it’s easier than the Bay Area…

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Uh, no, Richard. You don’t understand NIMBYism

Dodging a weaving here.

A contemporary maintenance site to keep a smallish (sub-100 equivalent “cars”) fleet of contemporary rolling stock safely and reliably providing service is a couple city blocks of land.

If America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals get in on the act then sure, you end up with something that fills entire counties and comes with multiple dedicated access roads, 24 hour delivery truck idling lots, dormitories just STACKED to the rafters with feather beds, a ferris wheel for testing trains at altitude, and an on-site casino, but if you look at how other small starter systems with limited aims and focus on service delivery do it, you find a small site that fits in the corner of any small office park and is run by a small staff who take advantage of good contemporary maintenance-oriented designs and good contemporary technology and machines to keep the right-sized fleet humming right along and carrying paying happy passengers every day.

The idea that office parks or industrial parks with leasable spaces don’t exist anywhere between Bako and LA is laughable, as is the idea that a small number of acres of land next to the train route couldn’t be graded for a couple smallish buildings and some access tracks.

Make it a problem — and America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals are all about making up profitable problems when none exist — then you have a problem. Act like a grown-up and do what the grown-ups overseas do and you don’t have a problem. This has nothing to do with the NIMBY bogey-man (er, straw-man).

BTW here’s what something three times the size we’re talking about looks like. Chosen solely because it’s in an English-speaking (and hence rail technology retarded) part of the world. If even they can do it…

thatbruce Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 3:19 pm

There are even examples of reasonableness here in California. Here’s the combination BNSF/Metrolink/Coaster storage/maintenance facility down near Oceanside . About half the required size, and has, gasp, inter-agency cooperation.

Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:21 am

All the more reason to use multiple units

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:09 am

Ah yes roaring along at 87 MPH is just the thing.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:35 pm

an ALP45 weighs 288,000 pounds. Much of the mainline freight network is capable of carrying 286,000 pound freight cars with a lot of it capable 315,000 pound cars. If it’s that important make the locomotoive Bo’Bo’Bo’ or Co’Co’ instead of Bo’Bo’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIC_classification

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 am

Sure, but those were privately-built schemes; they were grade-separated because they needed to maintain controlled access for tolling purposes. They had at-grade left turns, and at least the Long Island Motor Parkway was a narrow two-lane road (I’m not sure about the Bronx River Parkway).

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 am

There weren’t enough cars in 1908 to need more than two lanes.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:28 am

It wasn’t just the lane count – it was also the design speed, lane width, etc. Those roads were not designed for 100 mph (or 65 mph if you want to pretend that that’s what the Interstates can support).

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:38 pm

Race cars where breaking records at 60, 70! miles an hour back then too.

Jonathan Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:50 pm

I said the *route*. I’d already made the b>exact point about interoperability with a pre-existing network, in my response to Daniel Krause at 5:45pm today, almost exactly 3 hours before your comment. It’d be poor form to have repeated that all again here.

I’ll be charitable and assume you haven’t read my 5:45pm message. ;)
<

Jonathan Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:13 am

Going into towns based on lobbying? Ah, you mean like Pacheco (San Jose) vs. Altamont, or Palmdale? I see I’ll need to be less subtle here. Lesson learnt. ;-)

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:49 am

Alon, you appear to be creating a “German model” based on exactly one example: Frankfurt-Köln and its intermediate stations near Montabaur and Limburg.

If you widen your data set to include all Germany’s high speed lines on new alignments it’s harder to believe that you’ve detected a pervasive national engineering/political paradigm.

* The first new line Hannover—Würzburg serves the pre-existing main station of Göttingen; a completely rebuilt station but on pre-existing trunk lines in Kassel; and the pre-existing main station of Fulda.

* Mannheim—Stuttgart has a station stop at the completely rebuilt station on pre-existing trunk lines near Vaihingen.

* Nürnberg—Ingolstadt has a peripheral station on new line just outside Allersberg; ditto Kinding; pre-existing Ingolstadt Nord.

* Karlsruhe—Basel has no stations on the new alignment sections.

* Nürnberg—Erfurt has no stations on the new alignment Erfurt—Ebensfeld. (A loop is to run to and from the existing main station of Coburg). (Disclaimer: there once may been plans for a new station at Ilmenau, but I see no mention of it on the official project web site, and I’m too lazy and monolingual to spend a lot of time on this minor point.)

* Erfurt—Halle: no stations.

* Stuttgart—Wendlingen—Ulm: one new airport/convention centre station.

And that’s it.

This putative “German model” of minor stations controlling high speed lines exists mainly in the minds of people who, to their immense credit, have read about the Köln-Frankfurt line, but who are less informed about the rest of the country.

Sorry for interjecting German “flying-magic-unicorn-ponies”, Mr Brsk and Mr Krause.

Of course none of this has any relevance to Unique Californian Conditions and must as a matter of principle be actively ignored by The World’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals (who all happen to work at or for Caltrain and CHSRA, by an amazingly fortuitous series of hiring coups!) I mean, those fucking Germans only speak perfect English fluently as a second language — what the hell could they possibly know. Stupid metric foreigners with their “due process” and “no indefinite detention without triol” nonsense.

We now return you to the usual data-free citation-free reality-free blathering BS.

Jonathan Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:48 pm

@ Brsk; The politicians in the Bay Area didn’t demand a $1.9 bn tunnel solely to avoid inter-agency turf wars. The politicians in the Bay Area didn’t demand the, what was it, 6 miles of doube-track viaduct through San Jose. PB did. Is this an example of US “national engeering competence”? If it is, then “crisis’ seems a fair term.

It seems you are tacitly answering “yes” to Joey’s question’; are all these “because PB knows best”?

Unless you perhaps think it’s fine and dandy for PB to add billions and billions of dollars of unecessary, wasteful concrete — unless local politicians *explicitly* demand otherwise.
Is that what you’re trying to tell us?

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:05 pm

It’s a crisis of budget overruns, though.

Nathanael Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:07 pm

It is *definitely* a Bay Area problem specifically. I wish I hadn’t lost that online article about the dysfunction in San Francisco political culture specifically. It was several pages long. It described stuff you do *not* see in the rest of the country.

This is, for what it’s worth, why HSR should go from the Central Valley to LA before it heads to the dysfunctional Bay Area.

Brsk Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm

BART and Milbrae demanded the tunnel by not letting HSR use their land

Caltrain and City of San Jose demanded 6 miles of doube-track viaduct through San Jose. So Caltrain’s at-grade platform turf was protected and the neighborhood south of Diridon station was avoided.

I don’t know if PB or HNTB (the actual SF-SJ consultants) “wanted” these or not, I don’t have any insider info on that. But I think the problem comes from elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong and the CEO of PB masterminded getting all these cities and agencies to be turf-protecting and unreasonable, but that strikes me as unlikely. Three agencies that found it easier to design around each other rather than give and take seems more likely.

I agree Milbrae shouldn’t have a tunnel, but who will tell BART or Milbrae that Caltrain/HSR need four at grade tracks and to “make way”? So far no political leadership.

Nathanael Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm

That said, I suspect that the Boxer aide may have been wrong about CPUC regulation, because Metrolink sure doesn’t have an exemption, either. (Sigh.) And the aide was *definitely* wrong about FRA regulation, since we know how hard that has been to change, due to requests coming from the *rest* of the country.

Joey Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Brsk: BART never said anything about it. No one did, because the option was never studied

Jeff Carter Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:32 pm

“Dysfunctional Bay Area” now that’s an understatement!!

Here we have some two dozen transit agencies, each very utopian, with its own management/staff, schedules, fare structure, etc. There is very little co-ordination of schedules or fares… Transit customers using multiple systems and/or crossing jurisdictional boundaries have to endure additional fares/expense… Silly me, I forgot about Translink!!!!-OHHH, we have to change the name to (drum roll please!) CLIPPER!!!!! MTC’s $$Hundreds of millions$ 15+ years in the making, “solution” to the two dozen unique dysfunctional fare structures we have here in the Bay Area. Clipper does absolutely nothing to reduce the cost/expense to the transit users. Granted there are some multi-agency fare arrangements, but nothing worthwhile enough to encourage more transit usage.

Then we have San Jose/Santa Clara, the center of the inferiority complex universe, that absolutely hates living in the shadow of San Francisco… Ohhh we need the San Francisco Giants…. Well, we can’t get them now, so let’s go for the Oakland Athletics, and the San Francisco 49ers… WE can’t function without a major sports franchise or two…. We need BART to San Jose/Santa Clara to function properly as a city, we need all HSR trains to pass through Diridon Intergalactic… We are not considered a city without all this…

Can Bay Area politics get any worse that this?

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Well, SoCal wanted a one-level LA Union Station and no dedicated tracks LA – Anaheim and it happened.

Nope. Separate and incompatible platform faces. Mmmmmm … more concrete ….

Anybody with a clue would have immediately proposed a non-FRA Metrolink fleet dedicated and captive to the Orange-Anaheim-LAUS-Sylmar route — this isn’t rocket science, after all, and even your average simian would come up with thst solution quick smart — with shared platforms at shared stations and a single standard shared signalling system.

But no.

Garbage In (Metrolink and HSR are to be forever incompatible, except for using 1435mm track … except .. no .. they’re going to use a PB roll-your-own 4’’’8’½” track “standard” …) Garbage Out.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Nope. Separate and incompatible platform faces. Mmmmmm … more concrete ….

I thought putting the diesel trains on the lower level and the electric trains on the upper level was a particularly clever. Give the HSR passengers diesel fumes to inhale. How kind.

synonymouse Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Yes, Bay Area politix can get worse. Is there a point of no return for cupidity and stupidity?

The patronage machine takes its cues from the consultant-contractor-labor triad not vice versa. What interest in efficiency could come from an organization that had spent decades perfecting featherbedding?

The stupider the idea all the more likely it will materialize in air-head California. After broad gauge why not nowhere to nowhere?

Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Richard, the LA Union Station design will simply have high platforms and low platforms.

A bit like DC Union. I don’t know what your problem is with that.

Joey Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

It limits operational flexibility and for the most part eliminates any hope of cross-platform transfers.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:15 pm

You can have cross platform transfers with differing platform heights. The rail on one side is lower than the rail on the other side. No need to do that in California but it can be done.

Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:02 pm

“Like Richard, I have talked to top Caltrain staff. I advocated most of Clem’s ideas as things they should adopt. When I brought up Clem’s ideas for Milbrae they laughed out loud. With that reaction I think the local agencies are more to blame.”

<— This.

Joey Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:24 pm

It’s not a question of a specific firm doing it. It’s a question of engineering being put out to bid competitively, rather than one firm getting every contract. If one firm messes up one project then they’re probably not going to win any more bids.

PB does decent work overseas because there are consequences for failure. Here, they have no incentive to do anything right because no matter what they do there will always be more government contracts coming in.

Nathanael Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Arup? Balfour Beatty?

I’m personally fond of Arup’s work, as they seem to be good at designing “popular”. Although they tend to be a bit edgy in technical terms in order to do so.

Alon Levy Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:27 pm

It’s not a matter of conspiracy. The procurement rules make life hard for competent, honest contractors, who have to jump through hoops to get contracts. In New York, agencies are not allowed any discretion, so they’re compelled to write over-exacting specs and pick the lowest bid. The good contractors get private-sector work when they can. The remaining contractors do work so bad that it sometimes violate the specs, and the legal department rolls over because the cost of suing them is higher than the amount that could be extracted.

The PB issue is not exactly the same, but the same contracting problems crop up. There’s no separation of design and construction (or, alternatively, a competitive design-bid process), so the design is all done by one firm. There’s no in-house supervision, so the firm builds what it thinks best, which isn’t necessarily what is best for the public.

Jonathan Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:16 pm

@brsk: “the engineers” *ARE* the contractors!

Jonathan Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Hey, no fair!

I was *so* tempted to respond to Loren Petrich that HSR would’ve succeeded in Ohio if it’d been sold as Intelligent Design; but that’d be *so* off-topic here.
Hm. Richard, why don’t you try hanging out in talk.origins for awhile; it might do you some good.

Yes, Caltrain does look Bloody Stupid[*] for giving up its ROW in Millbrae to BART, causing so much pain for HSR. But at the time, if Caltrain had demanded more of the ROW, wouldn’t they have looked like an over-bureaucratized agency pointlessly defending turf?

And I repeat: where is the data showing the people who disagree with you are sub-simian?? You do realize these are human beings you’re talking about, don’t you?
Hmm, how about calling them “Untermenschen” instead of sub-simian?

[*] A technical term, borrowed from Terry Pratchett’s “Thief of Time”.