Newt Gingrich, High Speed Rail Advocate?
Led by the radical extremists in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party has gotten itself a reputation as being vehemently opposed to not just high speed rail, but passenger rail itself. There are still many Republicans around the country, including in the state legislature, who do support HSR. And as the New York Times reminds us, those include some Republican presidential candidates:
President Obama’s program to bring bullet trains to the United States has been left on life support by the strident opposition of Republicans in Congress and in statehouses around the nation. But the idea may carry more favor with some of the Republican candidates vying to unseat Mr. Obama, who have a history of supporting high-speed rail.
Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, has written books and given speeches about the importance of high-speed rail in the United States, and he supported a study for a high-speed line from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn., sought by local boosters when he was in Congress. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saw a role for high-speed rail in his failed $175 billion transportation plan to build what would have been called the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Even Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a small-government libertarian, signed a letter that several members of Texas’ Congressional delegation sent to federal officials in 2009 urging them to give the state money for rail studies to help it build “a truly ambitious and world-class high-speed rail network.”
The article goes on to describe how Gingrich and Paul have made strongly pro-HSR statements in recent years, although they haven’t done so in the current campaign. And it also notes that the 2004 Republican Party platform endorsed high speed rail.
So what changed? It was the rise of the Tea Party, driven by its hostility to 21st century infrastructure and its refusal to accept any change from 20th century values – and crucially, funded by oil company donors who had a stake in preventing alternatives from developing. The Koch Brothers funded Tea Party organizing as well as gubernatorial candidates like Scott Walker, John Kasich and Rick Scott. Once elected, they rejected their state HSR projects and with it, federal funding. Similarly, many of the extremists whose victories helped deliver the House to Republicans in the 2010 elections were influenced by Tea Party ideology, Koch/oil money, or both.
The NYT article has a good quote from Petra Todorovich about the need for more Republicans to step up and back HSR:
“I hope that we can move past high-speed rail being a partisan issue — it certainly wasn’t always that way,” said Petra Todorovich, the director of America 2050, a branch of the Regional Plan Association, an independent urban research and advocacy group. “While politicians may differ over how to structure and manage high-speed rail, politicians on both sides of the aisle have recognized that there are certain corridors in the United States where this makes sense.”
I share these sentiments. But as long as the national Republican Party is under the sway of oil billionaires and ideologues who are determined to resist 21st century infrastructure, I am not confident that these presidential candidates’ attitudes will be reflected in the House Republican Caucus anytime soon.
The article also didn’t examine Mitt Romney’s position on HSR. Even with the outcome of tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses being too close to call, Romney remains the presumptive leader for the GOP presidential nomination. His attitudes regarding HSR will be important to consider closely as this year’s presidential election campaign unfolds.
You could ally with Newt Gingrich on high speed rail but you’d have to ask him every two weeks if he still supports it.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
The same applies to Mitt Romney. :-( And see what JJJ writes below.
There are certainly Republicans who favor HSR and also ordinary passenger rail. As an example, Mica wants HSR on the NEC.
But in California we are dealing with a project that was described by Joe Vranich as the “worst HSR project he had ever seen”. and there are many others with that view. This description pretty much tells the whole story.
Four years later, this has persisted and that’s why this project, aptly described as a boondoggle, and why it should be stopped and stopped now.
Derek Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:12 pm
That’s a nice example of an argumentum ad populum! Do you have any others like it?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm
I’d bet $1 to your 2 cents that every single large infrastructure project has been called a boondoggle by one person or another…. as if that person were an expert on the matter.
It doesnt matter if the candidates support HSR 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even last week. Every GOP candidate has shown a remarkable ability to flip on issues that they think will win them a vote or two. Yes, even the unwavering Ron Paul has signed a pledge or two he would never have done in 2008, now that at least one victory is within grasp.
Gingrich is being hammered on his flip flop on health care and climate change. Tell the media he once supported something else that Obama has expressed mild interest in, and watch the flames spread.
The only republicans that currently publicly support HSR are the local types, like Fresno’s mayor, and only because the party doesn’t really matter at the local level.
Another reason is, I think, that they want to deny victories to Obama and the Democrats, no matter what the cost. I remember the right wing looking for things to hate about Bill Clinton, even if doing so went against their most cherished principles. About the firing of the travel agents, they turned into labor unionists and defenders of wasteful government spending. About the Paula Jones scandal, they became feminists, accepting that sexual harassment exists. About Bill Clinton’s wars, they became pacifists, if not outright traitors. Traitors? That would be by the standards that they apply to opponents of most other wars.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:09 am
Maybe Obama should champion a Teach the Controversy bill.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
No, you are absolutely right. In fact, the official motto of the GOP is “no to Obama”.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Actually, the RNC just released their first ad in New Hampshire… it’s pretty tough stuff:
http://youtu.be/DisxgSdajJM?t=19s
This may be asking for too much, but hopefully after this years elections republicans will adopt somewhat more progressive and more realistic positions on rail travel in the U.S. including high speed rail. The arguments against high speed rail are sounding more and more stale, they certainly do not sound factual.
Peer Group recommends that Prop 1A bonds should not be authorized by the legislature.
LA Times: Full report due later today.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/state-bonds.html
California high-speed rail funding could be in jeopardy
The Legislature should not authorize the issuance of $6 billion in bonds to start building California’s $98.5-billion bullet train project, a state-appointed review panel says in a key report to be released later Tuesday.
The conclusion by the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group is a serious blow to the project as it is currently designed because state law specifically empowered the group to make recommendation before any serious money on the train could be spent.
Gov. Jerry Brown has said he intends to ask the Legislature this month to appropriate and sell bonds to raise billions of dollars to start construction of the project.
But that plan is facing an increasingly skeptical Legislature and general public. And now, lawmakers would have to disregard the recommendation of the very group it directed to guide it on the project if they decide to approve the bond issue.
Voters authorized $9 billion in bonds for the bullet train project in 2008, but the measure required that the Peer Review Group sign off on the feasibility and reasonableness of the plan to build the rail system before the state issues the bonds.
A recent poll indicates a sharp drop in public support for the project.
The report was expected to be issued Tuesday afternoon, but the overall conclusions were described to The Times by members of the group.
The panel concludes that the plan to start building a $6-billion initial segment of the project in the Central Valley without any assurance of additional federal funding for many years is not sound. It cites a lack of clarity in the business plan that was unveiled in November.
While the panel supports the concept of high-speed rail, it believes the best action now is to take a timeout on the project and reevaluate the overall goals, routes, financing and phasing of the effort, members of the panel said.
In an interview in late December, Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), chairman of the budget subcommittee for transportation, said he also believed that a one-year delay in the project would allow time to reexamine and refine exactly what the state wants to do.
The California High Speed Rail Authority wants to build a 130-mile segment of the project in the Central Valley, running from Chowchilla to Bakersfield. Critics have questioned the entire strategy of starting the project in the Central Valley, rather than first improving rail systems at ends in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 am
I cannot imagine how you can believe that never having HSR in California is a good thing for the state. Better connectivity between north and south would be of immense economic benefit to all Californians.
Derek Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:31 pm
How do you know the benefits outweigh the costs?
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:49 pm
How do you know that the costs of not doing HSR have any benefits at all?
Derek Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:13 pm
The burden of proof is on the one who’s requesting the money.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
The proof was provided by voters in November 2008. Voters had all the relevant information and nothing has changed since then.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 6:28 pm
False.
Voters were led to believe it would cost $43 billion, would have 100 million riders and cost $50 a seat. It now costs $65 billion, plus inflation, plus whatever it costs to build out to Sacramento and San Diego (easily another $30 billion in todays dollars) plus interest.
Everyone opposed to the measure said the ridership estimate was double what it should have been and the the cost was about half what it should have been. Who was right?
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Whoa. I thought he was being sarcastic. Tough project when you can’t distinguish between defensiveness and sarcasm.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
The thing is, you assume that if the voters had been told it would be $15 billion in bonds, with fewer riders and higher tickets that the measure would have failed.
But you have to be real with yourself. In Los Angeles County Measure R won by a 2/3 vote on the same ballot as Prop 1A. If you get that margin of victory in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties you barely need the rest of the state.
Now the argument is going to be that there was excessive “Chicago-style” voter fraud and that if that is curtailed this year, it will look more like 2010. But the election is going to be tight no matter what. And oh yeah, repealing Prop 1A doesn’t eliminate the High Speed Rail Authority or its Board. It would still exist and still be part of the political calculus….
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
The problem is that your making the assumption that voters wouldn’t have choked on $100 billion price tag, or a $130 billion price tag when you add in San Diego and Sacramento. If price wasn’t an issue, suporters wouldn’t have discounted the cost claims of opponents – who by the way where pretty much dead on.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
What Tom said.
And I’ll note that the difference between 43 and 65 is “one and a half times”, and the ridership numbers at constant ticket prices have only gotten larger over time, so the people who supported the measure were closer to right than the people who opposed it.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Actually no. Putting up $9 billion for a $43 billion project is one thing. Putting up $9 billion for a $100 billion project is something else altogether. Stop clinging to $65 billion. It ignores the cost of the entire system which will include San Diego and Sacramento (also promised to voters) – in year of expenditure or otherwise, never mind the cost of financing $65 billion which is about another $38 billion assuming the best bond rating out there which this program will never garner.
The true cost of this project, including debt service and year of expenditure adjustments is going to be on the order of $130 to 150 billion. And that is a conservative number.
StevieB Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
California will not service $100 billion or even $65 billion. California will sell $9 billion in bonds only. You seem to have limited knowledge of the project or the financial plan.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Clearly you didn’t read what I posted. I didn’t say”who” would finance all of it.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Nevermind the fact that anything not derived from the State, Fed or private investment is expected to come from “local governments”.
Where exactly do you think that money comes from and how do you expect that will be repaid?
Talk about having limited knowledge of the project or the financial plan.
Money is money. You either make enough to absorb the debt or you don’t. Right now, that financial plan doesn’t make enough money to cover the cost of the debt to build it and cover the O&M.
StevieB Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 1:58 am
Where you obtained $38 billion in debt service on $9 billion in California bonds is not visable. Perhaps you can explain.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 4:30 am
The whole project is $65 billion. Where do you think that money is going to come from? A printing press?
Don’t be so dense.
thatbruce Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:33 pm
@J. Wong:
Morris is quoting an opinion piece by everyone’s favorite student of the practices of the Times’ early years, Ralph Vartabedian.
morris brown Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:39 pm
@thatbruce, @ J. Wong
You many not like what he wrote, but he is not editorializing, he is a reporter. In any case, I posted blow a link to the report, which can be read and you can form your own opinions.
see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77069354/CHSR-Peer-Review-Group-Comments-on-CHSRA-2010-Funding-Plan
to view the report.
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm
@ morris brown Actually I was posting that question to you.
thatbruce Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
@morris brown:
Search the LA Times’ archive for other articles by Ralph, and compare the tone of the articles with that of other reporters covering the same issue. A good example is his coverage of the Japanese post-earthquake nuclear incidents. The articles exclusively by Ralph have a certain air of ‘the sky is falling, doom, DOOM! your homes will be destroyed by incompetent people in authority!’, where other reporters covering the same story have a more restrained reporting style of ‘there is trouble, but this is what is being done. no need to panic’.
Ralph’s reporting style harkens back to the ‘reporting’ practices of the early years of the LA Times, which spun any issue it could to the profit of its owners and close friends, even to the intentional misrepresentation of facts, something Ralph appears to do irrespective of the story being covered. At one point, the practices of the Times were deceptive to the point of other news services maintained their own LA bureaus rather than pay for stories authored by the Times.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Morris wants to stop HSR because it might go near his house, if I remember correctly. He’s not thinking further than that. He’s just digging up whatever he can to throw at it. And no, Ralph V. is not a credible reporter, and he is editorializing.
Jack Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:32 pm
This is absolutely ridiculous. The peer review group is basing their recommendation because they “think” there will never be any more federal money… ridiculous…
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:46 pm
You can expect to see a lot of pols protecting their backside from the embarrassing possibility of a CHSRA implosion with statements of skepticism a la Simitian, Lowenthal, etc.
A year’s hiatus would allow for return to Tejon and the concomitant enabling legislation and financing and a second look at I-5 and Altamont.
Howard Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:37 pm
A one year hiatus would result in all of the Federal money going to the Northeast Corridor and canceling the California project. If we reject this money now we will not receive any future high speed rail funding (just like the other states that gave back theirs) in a self fulfilling prophecy, and all future high speed rail money will go to the Northeast Corridor too. Obama wants to create construction jobs (and a photo op ground breaking) before the election, a year later is too late politically. Would we reject highway funds without a guarantee of future highway funds?
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Naah, the Demo machine can keep the money in California if it wants. But it is all a question of what Brown & co. decide, which almost certainly will be stay the course with stupidity. Pure 3rd world incompetence and corruption. Move on, people; nothing to see here.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Nope. LaHood is very, very straightforward, and quite consistent.
A one-year hiatus would result in the following:
every state which applied for HSR money and didn’t get its full wishlist, other than California, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, would suddenly get everything it asked for.
LaHood understands that you must punish ingrates, and he has done so with Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin; he would do so with California too. The main beneficiary would, in fact, be North Carolina, which has several rather expensive projects with nearly-complete EISes.
Mike Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
But recall that LaHood made a last-ditch effort to salvage the Florida project and was rebuffed by Gov Scott. If California got ready to shut down our project, I expect that LaHood would be clearing his calendar to figure out how to keep the project alive, even if it means agreeing to let CA redefine the project, spend ARRA bucks before 1A bucks, delay construction start, whatever it takes to avoid the definitive failure of Obama’s high speed rail vision. In the end, that may not be enough, and the money might go to other states like North Carolina. But not until after LaHood has exhausted his options with California.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
The same way they exhausted all their options in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida?
Mike Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 10:30 am
Yes, the same way LaHood exhausted his options in Florida. I’ll grant you that in Wisconsin and Ohio, LaHood basically shrugged and took the money back, but those weren’t marquee HSR projects in any event and Obama’s HSR vision didn’t hang on their success.
Mike Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Indeed, weasels will be weasels and pols will protect their backsides. And the Dem machine will push ahead regardless of the tidal wave of negativity.
A one-year delay might be desirable, but is it really feasible? Not if Congress must act; the only bill the House will pass is to strip all funds from CA HSR. DOT can probably change the description of the project without involving Congress; and it can probably agree to let CA spend all of the ARRA money first, in order to get it spent before the 2017 deadline. But could all this happen quickly enough, if the nature of the project is significantly changed (I-5; Tejon; Altamont; bookends-first)?
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Yes, it could.
But very unfair to weasels, who follow instinct to survive, unlike pols in pursuit of coke and hookers.
Mike Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Unfair to pols, who are not *only* into coke and hookers, but also (like weasels) have a powerful instinct to survive (given that most are otherwise unemployable outside of elected office).
So what specifically needs to be done in order to get successfully use a one year delay? Aside from everything else, there would need to be a new EIR/EIS, and just one extra year doesn’t seem like enough time to me.
morris brown Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:43 pm
The Peer review report on the funding plan can be viewed at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77069354/CHSR-Peer-Review-Group-Comments-on-CHSRA-2010-Funding-Plan
StevieB Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:39 pm
A spokesman for Governor Brown, Gil Duran, reiterated the governor’s support for the rail plan, saying the report “does not appear to add any arguments that are new or compelling enough to suggest a change in course.” The report comes to the conclusion it wants future funding before construction starts. This is nothing new and will not change the minds of supporters or detractors.
Derek Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
“Until a final version of the 2010 Business Plan is received, we cannot make a final judgment on the Funding Plan. Therefore, pending review of the final Business Plan and absent a clearer picture of where funding is going to come from, the Peer Review Group cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project.”
That doesn’t sound so bad.
VBobier Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Considering the poll was flawed by design to get the desired answer, if people were given the truth, people know that nothing is written in stone until a contracts signed and it’s later paid for.
Hey Caltrain … let’s make a deal!
Guest opinion: Caltrain can survive without high-speed rail
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Unfortunately for the Peninsula and Caltrain right behind the paper tiger of the CHSRA looms the legendary 800lb. gorilla, whom we shall nickname for the new year BART Vader.
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
BART Vader… that’s pretty good.
I don’t deny that BART wants Caltrain (must Ring the Bay, must Ring the Bay…), but is that such a bad thing? Looking at their recent eBART construction and their effective running of the Capitol Corridor, BART is more than capable of running standard gauge rail operations. Would it be so bad if BART swallowed Caltrain whole, converted it to electric locomotives/EMUs (whether it be bilevel or if we insist on single level HSR, how about some already in production North American EMU’s like the ones used in the Northeast?). BART will at least have the regional leverage (aka MTC) to do what is necessary on the Peninsula to get stuff done.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Synonymouse doesn’t like the Brutalist aspect of BART. He’d prefer to live next to a Superfund site than a BART station.
Ultimately, Ring the Bay solves a few problems. By using elevated tracks, BART can save the Cal Train ROW for HSR and use the same power delivery mechanism, even though there will be a splitter between the different voltages.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
It is not “and” but “or”. A solo BART subway in PAMPA will be highly gentrifying and a good investment by the burgs.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
The superfund site will be much quieter.
Jon Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:01 pm
BART swallowing Caltrain whole and running it as a standard gauge operation would be an excellent idea. BART swallowing Caltrain whole, pulling up the existing tracks and connecting Millbrae to Santa Clara with broad gauge would be a very bad idea. It’s technology that matters, not agency.
If BART went for the first option it might be more willing to sacrifice one of it’s three existing platforms at Millbrae to avoid construction of a $1.9B tunnel under the station. Plus we might finally get rid of freight trains and all those antiquated FRA/CPUC regulations. Just a thought…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:35 pm
It’s a lot cheaper to change the regulations.
Jon Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Yes, but Caltrain have shown no inclination to do so. BART don’t operate any of their existing or planned lines under FRA regulations so it would be natural for them to want their newly acquired peninsula line to be non-FRA.
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Couldn’t agree more on the Millbrae solution… the airport/millbrae makes a fine terminus for BART forever (at least on that line). Banning Freight trains, now that would be difficult because then you run into UP fun.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I cannot imagine BART in our lifetime repudiating the Bechtel curse of Indian broad gauge and the unique 1000vdc. To my knowledge they have never acknowledged the grievous nature of this error and sworn off for good reprehensible, irresponsible eccentritech.
BART is invidious, deceitful, incorrigible. Of course they would rip up Caltrain and replace it with the Bechtel proprietary garbage at the first opportunity
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:56 pm
While the broad gauge thing was a mistake, at least it is compatible with a major nation’s rail network. The unique 1000vdc electrical system was stupid and will cause financial woes forever
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Compatibility with India … I’m sure that helps a lot.
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Hey they could have invented a new rail gauge… not to excuse them for their actions
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:50 pm
India is busy building subways all over the place, many of them built to Indian Gauge with rolling stock supplied by the usual worldwide vendors.
synonymouse Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:25 am
If BART, Bechtel and the SP had given a thought to the notion that 5’6″ constitutes a standard in India they would have adopted 5’7″.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Many others are built to standard gauge, to make vendors’ life easier.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Maybe the true plan is to connect BART to India. :-)
The fact is that 1000V DC used to be pretty standard worldwide for mainline systems. It’s not actually the voltage which is the problem here, it’s the choice of DC and third rail, which is great for a subway, and terrible for a suburban rail system. BART, of course, is inexplicably trying to be both at once.
Really, the Indian broad gauge is a terrible mistake.
Jonathan Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:21 pm
No, actually it isn’t. India may use the same track gauge, but BART has its own special and unique loading-gauge, boarding height, and weight restrictions. If you could buy off-the-shelf Indian trainsets, or even regauge iberian-gauge trainsets and run them on BART, that’d be a different story.
And the 1.0kV DC is very much non-standard. Modern trams (light rail) using third rail typically use 750V. 1,500V or 3,000V DC is “standard” for DC overhead catenary — in English-speaking countries as well as French- and German-speaking.
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Anyone know why they went with the 1000VDC BS? From my limited knowledge… it has something to do with BART EMU’s being generally faster and thus having high power requirements than most third rail metro systems. Why not go with 1500V? Just wondering.
As for the gauge, as before, couldn’t they have made up an even more crazy gauge if they had their mind set on it. It sure gets windy on the bottom deck of the golden gate….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Trains on standard gauge railways don’t blow over in the wind.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Frankly, voltage changes are relatively cheap to make. I wouldn’t sweat the 1000V DC.
The non-standard loading gauge is just as bad as the non-standard track gauge, however. Ouch.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 3:39 am
Third rail voltage is not a problem. Modern trains no longer use DC motors. DC is converted into triphased variable frequency. The frequency is low to get the train started and then increases as it gains speed. Adapting the converter to any input voltage is no big deal.
Jon Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
…apart from eBART, which will use standard gauge DMUs.
They may not want to go to the expense of re-building their whole system, but they may be willing to run an entirely new and separate line with different technology.
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Yeah, that’s going to happen. Here’s my reply to the Opinion:
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:10 pm
The Kardashian marriage of the CHSRA and Caltrain was at the least to stop the BART-MTC bullies from stealing Caltrain’s lunch money. And to find funding to electrify the SP ROW. PB, steered as always by its #1 cliient, never intended to make good on the promise, thus the berm nonsense, and so forth.
Take it for sure the Empire will make its move and the Peninsula will be forced to choose. I endorse the underdog with the vastly superior standard gauge “open source” tech.
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:15 pm
By the way, Caltrain is proceeding with grade-separation on its own (witness San Bruno). It’s only a matter of time before it comes to your city (Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto).
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Caltrain is engaged in pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars without a clue and without a plan.
Whether this results in grade separations or not, or whether the grade separations are useful or instead actively harmful to rail service, is something that does not concern the agency staff or the agency consultants and contractors in the slightest.
On the contrary, in fact. Do it over five times and get paid twenty times more than doing it once in accordance with a plan of providing public benefit — could there every be a question where their interest lies?
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Hmm, is it anywhere in Caltrain’s charter to be useful for HSR? (Not to say I don’t agree that it is short-sighted and limited, but you won’t get what you [Richard] want unless they are legally mandated to do so.)
Mike Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Just for yucks, which of these three entities would you rank as least incompetent at the assignment of modernizing and efficiently operating Caltrain?
1. Caltrain JPB
2. CHSRA
3. BART/CCJPA
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Mike, the problem is that you’re drawing from the same applicant pool in every case, just with a different agency skimming the overhead. If you survive more than a couple years in any of those organizations at any politically visible level it’s because you revel in failure and in turn will cut down any newcomer who “thinks different.”
That said, there are assuredly non-incompetent people at BART operations (core BART, not CCJPA steam train basket case, not the CEO or in extensions or capital projects), but they’re never allowed to affect the fucking insanity of BART capital spending … they just have to try to clean up the mess afterwards, and have to keep their mouths shut.
People, of course, are equally smart or not smart everywhere in the world, and most humans will act ethically if they find themselves in an ethical environment; it’s just that in the US we have a policy of ensuring that only saddest quality of humans are allowed to engage in “public service” via “transportation engineering.” There are powerful economic forces involved — failure is highly profitable! — but even if those were to vanish overnight it would take a decade to clear out the deadwood that positively thrives enforcing a culture of mandatory non-achievement.
My glib answer has always been that if English is your first language (it’s mine), they you’re not the candidate we’re looking for, so sorry. Not perfect, but what can you do?
Mike Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Well, I figured that there wasn’t really a winner in the bunch, but I can’t think of any other candidates to operate Caltrain and oversee its capital planning. I guess we’re hosed.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Not quite the same applicant pool — CHSRA gets people willing to live in Southern California, the other two only get people who are willing to live in Northern California. :-)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Caltrain’s astonishing electrification EIR — approved by agency staff, prepared by The World’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals at Parsons Transportation Group — anticipates trivial trip time savings and increased operating costs.
Since they’re just slapping a layer of expensive electrical lipstick on a disgusting pig of Olde Tyme COmmuter Railroading — Skip stop service! Hourly service except at peaks! FRA regulations! conductors! assistant conductors! NO LEVEL BOARDING! horn blowing! Slow turnbacks! Olde Tyme railroading union featherbedding! Hideously high FRA-mandated maintenance costs! — this is hardly surprising.
Electrifcation Caltrain-style isn’t a modernization plan, and it’s not a proposal to drag the system out of the 19th century. It’s just a want to piss away hundreds of millions of public dollars on an unplanned capital spend, then, the gift that keeps on giving, end up with a system that costs more to run and more to maintain.
Pure genius.
Don’t take my word for it: read what the sub-siminans have written about their own project, the one they’re supposedly selling and whose massive benefits the environmental document is supposedly promoting. You can’t make this stuff up.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:49 pm
It may not have been from the beginning but it doubtless is now: the MTC plan has hsr terminating at Haupt-Galactic mit Ring the Bay. This is, in Richard’s words, truly sub-simian. An extremely peripheral, ridiculously skewed approach to the Bay Area.
Altamont is preferable to Pacheco in every regard. Alas the hsr cheerleaders and foamers are being skillfully played like a baby grand by Maestro BART.
Clem Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:08 pm
The powers that be may still grow to like Altamont. Once BART to SJ is firmly underway (including the yet-unfunded portion to Santa Clara) they can switch HSR from Pacheco to Altamont. This reduces the four-track section (2 HSR + 2 BART) to Redwood City – Burlingame only. PAMPA gets a BART subway. HSR gets exclusive use of the Bayshore Cutoff and Transbay.
What makes this scenario more likely than terminus-in-SJ is (a) BART still wins, (b) Concrete is poured everywhere and everyone profits, and (c) HSR reaches the core of San Francisco and its huge business market. There are more jobs within a half-mile radius of Transbay than there are jobs within a half-mile radius of all the other Caltrain stops combined, from 4th & King all the way down to Gilroy.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Clem, your scenario is practical, legible, feasible and does please all the players, except poor Caltrain. It is the most likely outcome tho the Peninsula is going to miss the Baby Bullets. BART is the big winner, as usual.
It eliminates the intricacies and delicacies of interoperation and hsr has the TBT trackage all to itself. Too bad MTC didn’t appreciate ca. 1991 your eloquent apologia pro TBT.
A BART-CHSRA marriage jilting Caltrain could also include in its dowry to hsr certain privileges, chal we say, concerning BART alignments and property in the Dublin-Livermore area?
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 pm
dunno know how “shall” became “chal”
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Clem, what about hsr on 101 from Redwood City to SFO-Millbrae?
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Because what we want to do is add more aerials.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I could really get into some serious Stilt-A-Rail along 101. Bringing Brutalism back home.
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:56 pm
I could really get into a reasonably priced, transit-integrated solution which uses the almost universally amply-wide existing right-of-way and doesn’t have unfixable 70 mph curves to boot.
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:07 pm
How fast do you anticipate going on the approach to the SFO station?
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 pm
What relevance does that have? The curve in question is miles from the Millbrae station.
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
It also eliminates express service on top of adding 15 minutes to every trip to downtown SF.
Clem Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Split the BART line at San Bruno and run a new branch up the Bayshore Cutoff next to HSR (plenty of room), and then follow 101 to a short tunnel under Bernal Hill that rejoins the existing BART line at 24th. Now you’ve got a BART overtake capability with express service *and* a shorter run length.
Local: San Bruno – SSF – Colma – Daly City – Balboa – Glen – 24th (5 stops, circuitous)
Express: San Bruno – Bayshore/Visitacion – Cortland/Bernal – 24th (2 stops, much shorter)
Reasonably priced? No. Integrated? No. Drew a line on a map? Yes.
Tim Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Careful… If a rail corridor / freeway median becomes available, BART will want in on it. Though reliable metro service in that part of the city would be awesome.
Combine that with a reconfigured muni metro subway — replaced with BART out through the twin peaks tunnel (extended in a new subway out to the 19th street median or so and hang left to Daly City) — and BART to the Beach (Geary) + the eventual Second Transbay tube and Folsom/Townsend to Van Ness line = real metro service in the city. Of course, many parts of this are complete transit fantasy.
Was wondering though, I know BART was originally suppose to have the upper deck of muni metro… could BART vader it up or would that require some crazy flying junctions underwater. But hey it would be more expensive and require lots of concrete.
Joey Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:11 am
Wonderful – even more 100% unique overpriced high-O&M infrastructure to deal with.
And that’s ignoring the fact that you deny the J, K, L, and M lines access to the Twin Peaks Tunnel and Market Street Subway. The N alone attracts more daily riders than all of CalTrain.
Also it’s 19th avenue.
synonymouse Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:19 am
A very interesting proposal for BART.
But I am hopelessly stuck to the past; Just more comfortable with the old ideas and the old ways – Still like to prefer an upgraded Caltrain to the TBT and just put downtown bound hsr passengers on it at SFO. Good enough for the airline passengers, good enough for the rail bound.
Broad gauge on Geary? Now that’s a downer. Why does every city lust to be either New York or LA? SF used to be the Buddha’s middle way, in terms of civics. Now it’s just another wannabe Manhattan, like Montreal.
Tim Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:07 am
Meant Avenue….
Don’t want to turn this hsr blog into my bay area transit fantasy musings, but oh well screw studying for my LSAT. My proposal would eliminate the M all together and replace it with a split J line (or two separate lines) along Ocean Ave and the old M row. One of these lines, idk which, would be able to go past a new BART transfer station at St. Francis Circle/19th Ave north and hang a left at Traval (New L I guess). This of course makes no sense for the current L commuters who would have to detour around the city (though a quick transfer to BART would be better than most muni meltdown scenarios). This is where the N comes in. The N, with grade separations, signal priority, new rolling stock, etc. (this goes for all of the lines), could be split and after exiting the sunset tunnel could hang a left on 19th ave and then go right on Traval. This opens up the possibility of a cross avenues’ line that could link up the Mission St, 19th Ave / Twin Peaks and Geary BART lines (somehow getting across the GG Park). As for downtown, switch the remaining streetcar lines to a new surface grade separated row on Mission (combined with the 14 bus, maybe?) ala T-Third. Finally, kill the central subway and run it through the existing streetcar infrastructure of past generations, the Stockton tunnel. Remove all private automotive traffic (within reason) or create grade separations for this important transit street and continue it all the way either to the marina on Stockton or down Columbus. Split the T or create a new line from hunters point to where current T service goes (along the embarcadero) to maintain connections to the water front. Remove some stops and bring back the 15-Kearny bus.
As for no broad rail on Geary… it’s what we are stuck with in the Bay Area, hybrid solutions (LRT run like a bus and a metro subway, Metro run like commuter rail and a subway, etc. all using proprietary consultant designed stuff) to what should be conventional problems.
As always… just food for thought
Joey Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:25 am
Sorry, meant J, K, L, and N – the M is a non-issue under the subway scenario as you mention.
synonymouse Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:32 am
My current pipedream is many orders of magnitude less ambitious and revolutionary: relaying streetcar track on San Bruno Avenue and connecting via 11th Street to the Market lines. Kinda like to reopen Potrero Carhouse to streetcars. Yeah, I know the tc’s run outta there now but just “transit fantasy musings”.
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 5:10 am
@ synonymouse:
“… and just put downtown bound hsr passengers on it at SFO. Good enough for the airline passengers, good enough for the rail bound.”
I have to disagree here. Although the CAHSR is expected to partially replace air travel within the state that doesn’t mean hsr and air work the same way. The reason that HSR is time competitive with air travel on
short-haul routes is because of better access (time getting to station/airport, time getting on train/plane) so not placing the station in a more accessible location is foregoing one of the most important advantages and selling points of HSR.
Jon Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
My current pipedream is many orders of magnitude less ambitious and revolutionary: relaying streetcar track on San Bruno Avenue
Apart from the fact that San Bruno is bisected in several places by Hwy 101 and SF General Hospital, that’s a great idea.
Here’s a better one, and a way to salvage something from the Central Subway mess. A major problem with the CS is the mismatch in the frequency required on the busy downtown subway section compared to the sparsely used Third St surface section. So, re-build the H-Potrero line to double the frequency in the subway while providing service to SoMa, Potrero Hill/East Mission, Bernal Heights, Portola and Visitacion Valley. Here’s one I prepared earlier…
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:54 am
No. BART Vader does not want competition through Altamont because it needs ACE to drop passengers on its extension in zee hinterlands. The last thing that Dan Richard and the Wheelhouse Gang want is to give the high paying business passenger a $30 alternative to stepping onto ACE in Modesto and then transferring to BART.
The Death Star’s current problem is that its ridership is highest in the central part of the system. That means its riders take shorter trips and generate less revenue for the same cost. The Directors meanwhile keep asking the Empire to conquer more distant galaxies that do nothing except keep their construction friends in business. So, BART needs a way to get higher ridership not just on the system, but at the end points of the system because those passengers pay more.
But if you look at things from a Peninsula-centric viewpoint all you see if Evil BART trying to crush quaint and antediluvean CalTrain for its nefarious purpose of getting San Mateo and Santa Clara taxpayers to join the District and funnel zillions in property tax dollars its way. While that dream will never die, there’s a finite number to the amount of taxable property in Silicon Valley. The number of new passengers transferring from ACE if the latter serves the San Joaquin Valley, on the other hand, is a lot more….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 11:07 am
synonymouse Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 11:17 am
gotta go with it is always about the money with BART-PB-MTC.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
So you agree with me… BART doesn’t want competition for its services with another provider.
BARTland, BARTland, Uber alles…
Where I think you are mistaken is that while people may have told you things to contrary: CAHSR wouldn’t go through both Altamont und San Jose Diridon.
The Chim-PAMPA-nzees would argue that Redwood City would make an excellent station location and as such, because of lost momentum from alightings, be where you want to turn direction and head due east through the Pass.
Rod Diridion’s “why would I go north to head south?” comment corroborates this.
Now, if the choice between Altamont and Pacheco is really between Redwood City, Livermore, and Fark-ding-astan or Palo Alto and San Jose, then I’m 110% for putting Palo Alto and San Jose on the grid and not the formers. Why? Because encouraging transit options around suburban headquarters empowered by sprawl and car traffic isn’t that prudent. Safeway and Electronic Arts can move to SF or god forbid Oakland or San Jose. Human society will survive.
thatbruce Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
2.3.3.3 if you don’t want to wade through all of the EIR. The costs are higher compared to non-overhead operation, but do not state one of the underlying assumptions that Richard is alluding to, that things will continue to be done The American Way, instead of taking lessons in how to maintain an electrified commuter railroad from outside the US, or even from outside California.
2.3.2.8 is amusing in the sense that the ‘high’ number of trains per day (114 in 2015) is used one of the rationales for the development of CBOSS.
Mike Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Is the Caltrain electrification plan inherently incompatible with intelligent and efficient operation of Caltrain? It kind of sounds like the electrification infrastructure is a separate issue from the complaints about operations (service patterns, conductors, sub-conductors, whistles, etc).
thatbruce Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Very few things about Caltrain infrastructure are incompatible with ‘intelligent and efficient operation’. You can (mostly) do that with the existing infrastructure, but not the existing management.
Jonathan Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:13 pm
@thatbruce: huh? say what?
Caltrain is going to get a waiver from the FRA to buy wolrd-standard EMUS, but then they’re going to operate these non-FRA EMUs in the Good Ole American Way? (or is it the Same Ole Caltrain Way.)
Is that the plan?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Not even that. They and their World Class Rolling Stock Procurement Specialists (who did such an awesome job ensuring that SMART is a piece of useless crap) have rigged it so that only one 15 year old double decker EMU from one manufacturer will be in the running, and that after a ton of modifications for “unique local conditions” … which means years of “design work” and “specifications” and “acceptance testing” and “do it all over again” from the World Class Rolling Stock Procurement Specialists, of course.
And yeah, then they’re going to operate them as FRA trains. Lots of conductors and brake tests and Clean Oil Test and Stencil and Highball on the Green action. No level boarding, so any wheelchair anywhere on the line blows up everything.
Futuristic.
The plan is to spend money. Lots and lots of it. That is all. Superior public outcomes are antithetical to the motivations and skills of all involved parties.
Jonathan Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Well, given current CPUC regulation, isn’t Caltrain legally required to not have level boarding.
Given that Caltrain managment *does* have sufficient clue to pursue FRA waivers, why aren’t they pursuing changes to CPUC regulations which permit level boarding?
I’d have thought the Americans with Disabilities Act would be a very heavy hammer to argue that one. Just find a wheelchair activist group, and tell them that Caltrain could and should allow level boarding…. if only the CPUC would allow it, ADA could force Caltrain to implement level boarding at new construction and for future rolling-stock purchases.
I don’t how how Caltrain drew a box which only allowed a 15-year-old EMU.
But the FIER has a drawing which specifies Plate F clearance. (Running dome cars and Superliners up the Peninsula is clearly vital ;)). *If* Caltrain’s arm were twisted to require level boarding, they’d have a hard time NOT fitting UIC-gauge rolling stock into Plate F.
Wouldn’t they? I could be making a mental-arithmetic mistake converting to real units.
and, ahah, the arm-twisting would equally apply to CAHSR ;)
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:06 pm
It would be nice if someone sued Caltrain. I’ve discussed the matter with activists in the disabled community, some of whom successfully sued BART. The issue of wheelchair lifts doesn’t seem to register. I’m guessing because the lifts mainly inconvenience all the other passengers.
Or it could just be that none of them had to suffer with Caltrain.
J. Wong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Actually, ADA wouldn’t force Caltrain to implement level boarding. Caltrain has wheelchair lifts similar to those on buses that allow a wheelchair bound passenger to be boarded. I’m guessing that sufficient to comply with ADA.
And it is a minor inconvenience for the other passengers, but having seen it in operation, it’s surprisingly fast.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
It is a major inconvenience for passengers, because it necessitates paying conductors ($$$).
As for the legality, I am not a lawyer, but ADA generally has a “maximum feasible” provisions.
Transit (and rail in particular) often falls into “gray areas”, but one would think that an agency planning on buying new rolling stock and building new platforms….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:47 pm
You guessed wrong.
http://www.access-board.gov/transit/html/vguide.htm#CRCF
Subpart E-Commuter Rail Cars and Systems
1192.91 General.
(c)(1) Commuter rail cars shall comply with 1192.93(d) and 1192.109 for level boarding wherever structurally and operationally practicable.
Subpart F-Intercity Rail Cars and Systems
1192.111 General.
(b)(1) If physically and operationally practicable, intercity rail cars shall comply with 1192.113(d) for level boarding.
Peter Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 4:39 am
Caltrain’s loophole would indeed be the “structurally practicable” stipulation, as they can argue that level-boarding would prevent them from complying with CPUC regulations, thus exempting them from the level-boarding requirement. Doesn’t matter that all it would take would be a phone call to CPUC…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 6:22 am
Sure.
And six minutes late — with cascading delays for all trains following, and immense problems for any trains scheduled (what’s that mean?) for overtaking or being overtaken, and possible delays continuing for an hour even in the reverse direction as trains turn back late — is “on time”. Just buy a few extra miles of overtaking track and a couple extra trains and crews to make up for choosing not to have righted a 1940s rule of no possible relevance to any possible freight on the line … nothing to it! Spending money is fun! Lots of money. Lots of other people’s money. Mmmmm … money.
Can’t imagine why anybody would want or could even imagine anything better than that. Set your sights low enough and you can shoot yourself in the foot with certainty.
Why can’t we have nice things?
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
“Subpart E-Commuter Rail Cars and Systems
1192.91 General.
(c)(1) Commuter rail cars shall comply with 1192.93(d) and 1192.109 for level boarding wherever structurally and operationally practicable.
Subpart F-Intercity Rail Cars and Systems
1192.111 General.
(b)(1) If physically and operationally practicable, intercity rail cars shall comply with 1192.113(d) for level boarding.”
I have a solid legal argument that level boarding is structurally practicable (build the platforms), operationally practicable (they do it all over the world), and physically practicable (build the platforms).
There is no exception for “prohibited by antiquated state regulation”.
I think a good lawyer could make the case that the CPUC regulation is in violation of federal law, and therefore void. SPRINTER are the people who should have made the argument.
thatbruce Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:01 am
@Jonathan:
and, ahah, the arm-twisting would equally apply to CAHSR ;)
Level boarding and fully ADA-compliant stations are already planned by the CAHSRA.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“I’d have thought the Americans with Disabilities Act would be a very heavy hammer to argue that one.”
Honestly, I’m surprised that CPUC regulation still exists.
Federal law trumps state law, and I would expect the ADA would be able to void the CPUC regulation ENTIRELY. After all, we already know that there are places where the clearances demanded by the CPUC regulation don’t exist, and they just put up “do not hang on the sides of cars” signs.
Has anyone tried suing CPUC to eliminate the regulation? Caltrain could, Metrolink could, but SPRINTER *definitely should have*.
Reality Check Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
@Nathaneal, by “SPRINTER”, do you mean this?
Robert on several occasions has declared the controversy on the Ridership numbers had ended, with the publication of a report by the review group on ridership.
As previously noted, this group was anything by transparent. They were, appointed by the CHSRA, being paid handsomely by the CHSRA and were under a non-disclosure agreement to discuss their results outside of the Authority.
Well the Peer review group in their report just issued, doesn’t agree with Robert’s conclusions.
From the report we read:
Demand Forecasts. Demand forecasts are at the heart of the eventual success of the system. If the forecasts are too optimistic, the first IOS may not operate at a surplus and the legal ability of the CHSRA to proceed could be called into question. More broadly, the demand forecasts underpin the benefit/cost analyses and the estimates of avoided investment on which the public justification of the system is based.
The demand forecasts have been developed and peer-reviewed by reputable professionals. After seeing the forecasted demand rise steadily from the 2000 Business Plan through the 2008 and 2009 Business Plans, the draft 2012 Business Plan rnay be taking a somewhat more realistic approach, with generally lower forecasts and with a range of demand employed in “low,” “medium” and “high” scenarios, though there is no apparent quantitative basis for the range of estimates provided.
Unfortunately, despite a strong recommendation from this group, the demand forecasts remain an internal product of the CHSRA and its internal peer review panel. The forecasts have not been subjected to external and public review, and many of the internal workings of the model, especially as applied to the lOS and Bay to Basin scenarios, remain unclear. Absent such an open examination, which could easily be provided before the final Business Plan is published, we cannot characterize the demand forecasts as reasonable ¬they are simply unverifiable from our point of view
So in the opinion of the Peer review group, the ridership forecasts are still under considerable question.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
:eyeroll:
All ridership forecasts are unverfiable without actually BUILDING THE RAIL LINE.
You want them verified? Let’s build it.
Morris can gnash his teeth all he wants, but this is actually “good news”. What this does is allow the Board to redirect the money to Merced – Fresno and use some of the cash to electrify. There’s a couple reasons for this:
1) Jim Costa isn’t going to run in his old district that stretched from north of Fresno to the Bakersfield suburbs. Instead he’s running further north. Also, the Democratic favorite what became of Costa’s district is not going to run and its likely to end up a GOP win. No better way to reinforce the “It’s a choice, not a referendum” strategy of Obama 2012 than to shower your love on districts and states that agree with you vision and freeze out those that don’t.
2) If Paul Dyson’s allegiations are true that the Exeuctive Budget will include eliminating Amtrak California and rolling it down to a JPA… that gives Merced and Fresno cover to create a revenue source for it that can be commandeered for HSR operation.
3) BART Vader seeks to establish its footprint on the Yosemite Galaxy. They want to switch ACE to being a service that drops commuters from the San Joaquin Valley to Silicon Valley to a service that drops commuters from the San Joaquin Valley and drops commuters into BART (who eventually will conquer Silicon Valley because um, no one can stop us this time…)
4) It’s not like UC Merced was built overnight either. Mercedians have learned to be patient if they want state investment that doesn’t involve greenfield prisons and big ugly dams….
datacruncher Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:23 pm
1) With Rubio dropping out current speculation is that Dean Florez may step in as the DEM candidate against the GOP’s Valadao. While Valadao beat Fran Florez in 2010 for the state Assembly seat can he best Dean for a Congressional seat? It will be interesting to see if Dean Florez runs and how he plays with voters in the new district.
Speaking of BART and “ring the Bay”:
Skanska to extend BART to San Jose
BART Extension: Santa Clara Co. Awards $772m Contract for SJ Line
BART Oakland airport connector [gadget bahn] rising but still stirring debate
Alon Levy Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:09 pm
As a reminder, New York transit advocates view Skanska (which is often the only bidder on subway contracts) even more negatively than California advocates view PB. Even fairly political transit advocates in New York attack Skanska – they just do not fault the MTA itself for high costs.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
The problem in NY is that somehow regulations have been arranged so that Skanska is, often, the ONLY bidder. Which means they can get away with practically anything. What are you gonna do, fire them and hire the second-place bidder?
Joey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Is there anything that can be done at this point?
Donk Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:05 am
I love this line:
“There was a lot of debate about the San Francisco airport expansion, but now anybody you ask raves about it. You are going to see something similar in the future with the airport connector,” said BART spokesman Jim Allison. “Generations from now, people will wonder why there was any debate about it.”
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
To get to SFO airport from Palo Alto, you take Caltrain to Millbrae; take BART to San Bruno, then take BART in the opposite direction to SFO. This Millbrae-San Bruno-SFO Magical Mystery Tour costs $4.00 in addition to the $4.50 Caltrain fare. Before BART there was a FREE shuttle form Millbrae to SFO.
Now this is something to really rave about… What brilliance in intermodal transit connections, I wish I could use it 20 times a day….
As Richard M. might say: What more can we ask from Americas Finest Transportation Planning Professionals!!!
The Authority comments on the Peer Review report. (they are not pleased)
See:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/california-bullet-train-funding-state-response.html
The rail authority quickly shot back that those conclusions are not a sound basis for lawmakers to decide whether to proceed.
“It is unfortunate that the peer review committee has delivered a report to the Legislature that is deeply flawed in its understanding of the authority’s program and the experience around the world in successfully developing high-speed rail,” said Roelof van Ark, chief executive of the high-speed rail authority. “As someone involved in many of the successful high-speed rail programs internationally, I can say that the recommendations of this committee simply do not reflect a real world view of what it takes to bring such projects to fruition.”
Added Thomas J. Umberg, chairman of the authority board, “What is most unfortunate about this report is not its analytical deficiency, but that it would create a cloud over the program that threatens not only federal support but also the confidence of the private sector necessary for them to invest their dollars.”
It should be noted that the Peer Review Group as mandated under Prop 1A was chosen by the Authority (see section 18503(a))
Will they fire them now? They were chosen for their expertise in various areas.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
The Peer Review Group has its own website.
CORRECTION: Morris, the members of the Peer Review Group were NOT chosen by the Authority. See section 185035, subdivision (b), which states that the appointees to the Peer Review Group are selected by the Treasurer, the Controller, the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, and the Director of Finance. Although subdivision (a) says that “the authority shall establish,” all the appointments are by others and none are by the CHSRA.
Nadia Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Actually, I believe Morris is referring to the Ridership Peer Review Committee selected by Van Ark and headed by Frank Koppelman.
Unlike the Peer Review Group established under Prop 1A, the Ridership Peer Review group has no website.
Rick Rong Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Nadia, maybe Morris is thinking of the ridership peer review, but at the end of his post Morris says, ” “It should be noted that the Peer Review Group as mandated under Prop 1A was chosen by the Authority (see section 18503(a))” In other words, he is referring to the Peer Review Group as described in Prop 1A.
thatbruce Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:11 pm
No, the articles and Peer Review group that Morris is referring to is the ‘Peer Review Group’ as per Arthur Dent @4:57pm. Unless Will Kempton, who signed the ‘CHSR Peer Review Comments on CHSRA 2010 Funding Plan’ serves on both.
Nadia Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Sorry – my bad. I was reading the ridership comment he posted and somehow conflated the groups being discussed!
You are correct – per Arthur Dent’s post – Kempton’s group is NOT appointed by the Authority
morris brown Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 6:55 pm
@Rick Rong , @ Nadia
My error –sorry. Indeed the Authority does not make the appointments to the Peer Review Group — Rick is correct. I was indeed referencing the Peer Review with my statement there, and clearly that is an error on my part.
In other news: Riders give Caltrain a boost
synonymouse Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Caltrain always was a winner, but try to tell that to MTC and Heminger.
Donk Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 12:58 am
Your commentary has become very tiresome.
Nathanael Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Ridership is going up, very fast, on almost every passenger train service in the country. Even the bad ones.
This should tell people something. Right now, it’s more important to build passenger rail than to make it perfect.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to get through the heads of many. I expect this behavior of national-level Republicans, who long ago decided to ignore reality, but it is tiresome to see it elsewhere.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
For the most part, it tells you that ε + ε/10 ≈ 0, sadly.
110% of nothing and you still have close to nothing.
Some products or services things start out small because they’re starting out from nothing; other times they’re small because the product is crap and has been crap for a long time and only an epsilon-magnitue number of people will put up with it.
On the other hand, a, say, oh, just for example, 50% increase in under one decade starting from an immense number, let’s say, 230 million annual passenger trips and ending up near 350 million last year and no sign of the growth stalling, well that would be hugely significant. But, of course, Not Relevant To Unique American Special Transit Olympics Conditions (“we grade on a curve!”), so we won’t even mention it here.
Of course it would be possible for hsr via Altamont and Dumbarton to blend with Caltrain from Redwood City north. SJ passengers would have to utilize their coveted BART to connect with hsr.
All I can say is that $9 billion can build you some good HSR light at 120 mph in the most feasible corridors (SF-SJ, LA-SD through LOSSAN, LA-San Bernadino) by providing rail upgrades and to shorten traveling times.
The stations would be built through additional federal funds, money from the city, redevelopment agencies and transit authorities who all share and benefit from the station as their main hubs.