SCAG and San Gabriel Valley Embrace HSR Alignment
In 2010 and 2011 there were a lot of tense discussions in the San Gabriel Valley regarding a possible high speed rail alignment, with concerns in cities such as Alhambra and Rosemead about losing homes to a rail route. (See here for a bit of background.) This past week, the Southern California Association of Governments and cities in the San Gabriel Valley approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the California High Speed Rail Authority that may help resolve many of those issues, and bring the San Gabriel Valley fully on board the HSR project. Oh, and it might also bring some funding as well:
The Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Council Thursday approved a memorandum of understanding with the California High Speed Rail Authority with an eye toward claiming $1 billion in voter-approved bonds. The bonds would not go directly to the proposed L.A. to San Francisco bullet train, but rather be used to upgrade local Amtrak and Metrolink lines and stations that can, in turn, help serve the future high-speed line. The improved existing regional systems would work as feeders into the high speed lines.
SCAG recommended that the high speed rail authority use $1 billion out of $9.95 billion in Proposition 1A funds for Southern California rail improvements and make it an amendment to its 2012 Draft Business Plan.
The so-called “blended systems and blended operations plan” concept could be a boon to aging Metrolink commuter rail lines that go to Los Angeles, either from from Anaheim to Industry or from San Bernardino through Claremont, Covina, Baldwin Park and Monterey Park.
The bulk of the listed projects include new train stations in Palmdale, part of the newly aligned high speed rail project. Also, stations in Anaheim would be upgraded.
In the San Gabriel Valley, the money could be used to “double track” Union Pacific Rail Lines in Industry, West Covina, Irwindale and Alhambra, according to the SCAG document. These types of improvements to existing commuter lines would enhance speed and capacity, while helping develop a state-wide high speed rail system.
This comes on the heels of recent news that San Gabriel Valley cities are “warming up” to HSR:
“We are still very much against taking homes on either side or the elevated (high-speed rail),” said Rosemead Councilwoman and COG board member Margaret Clark, who voted in favor of the new agreement.
Barbara Messina, an Alhambra councilwoman and first vice president of COG, said the high speed rail authority has a new attitude. “I hope they have learned their lesson as to how they ignored the San Gabriel Valley cities by turning a deaf ear to what had been said,” she said Friday in an interview.
Many in the media, egged on by die-hard high speed rail opponents, believe that the CHSRA doesn’t listen to or work well with communities along the route. But here again, as with their adoption of a blended proposal on the Peninsula and their willingness to explore alternate routes in Kings County, we see that the CHSRA is very much willing to work with localities on HSR routing and design. Of course, that has to be a two-way street to be successful. When cities like Palo Alto or counties like Kings oppose HSR for ideological and selfish reasons, they’re not working with the CHSRA in good faith.
As to the substance of the SCAG-CHSRA agreement, it opens the door to spending some money immediately to upgrade rail in Southern California. That’s something CHSRA Board Chair Dan Richard has been hinting at and it makes sense – alongside the Initial Construction Segment in the Central Valley, there would be some work done in urban areas that could help carry passenger trains in the interim while true bullet train tracks are built in the urban areas, which will be a costly and longer-term process.
This was also enabled by SCAG abandoning their maglev plan as being too costly and unworkable, a message nobody apparently bothered to deliver to Steve Lopez at the LA Times.
We can expect a new draft of the 2012 Business Plan in the very near future, and it certainly looks as if the pieces are being put in place to make urban rail a part of it.
PS: The Pasadena Star-News is eating the LA Times’ lunch on this story.
Keep in mind, that the San Gabriel Valley cities don’t support the HSR route through the San Gabriel Valley at this time. They support the Bakersfield to Palmdale to LA segment in Phase I in exchange for the money promised in the MOU. There still is a lot of work to do for HSR to convince the San Gabriel Valley cities that the 220-mph route through the SGV is feasible and not going to destroy their communities. At this time the SGV cities would and do support the blended approach (i.e. enhanced Metrolink) through the SGV.
But yes, they were willing to compromise to support the blended approach and bring in some HSR money into the County and potentially into the SGV. Let’s not overstate their official position, please.
Matthew B Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Who said that trains would run through the SGV at 220mph?
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Speed though developed areas would likely be limited to 150 mph. Probably considerably less, given the curvature of alignments currently under consideration.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest:
http://www.donkeylicious.com/2012/02/how-does-oil-critique-of-us-foreign.html
I’d prefer if SCAG, SANDAG, and the Authority instead agreed to reopen the analysis of using LOSSAN for HSR to San Diego. Building through the IE seems like a gigantic waste to me.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:41 am
Where’s the “Like” button on this thing?
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Doesn’t the IE deserve better, more enhanced commuter service to LA/LAUS? Just asking.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Yes, they do. So does Santa Barbara. Hell, so do Phoenix and Las Vegas. A much more expensive alignment is much less likely to be built than an upgrade to an existing alignment.
LOSSAN is a highly successful (for U.S. standards) passenger rail corridor with proven demand. Upgrading it to 110 or 125 mph service with electric trainsets (UIC EMUs) would be a much better investment than trailblazing a completely new alignment through the IE.
Hell, I’d even favor pulling the funding for the ICS and applying it to upgrading LOSSAN.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:48 am
No.
That is shortsighted and small minded.
One has to have the patience to achieve the full purpose of hsr. Yes its going to take a long time to get there but the IE is a region that will continue to grow. The full build out of hsr wil accomplish it purpose of connecting all the major regions together with a single system.
Too many people here are stuck the idea of getting from sf to la or sd to la as those are the only places that matter. Its the rest of the system that is actually what makes it great. Easy access for everyone in all regions to everyone else in all other regions. With a single format. hsr. Getting from fresno to temecula will and should be as easy as getting from la to sf.
We are all paying for this so it is to be a proletarian system not a system for the urban elite.
I can say this as a someone who is a: older than most of you here, and b: a lifelong bay arean,…. and former younhg urban idealist………you young urban idealists are not as important as you think you are. you’ll learn.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Jim, I’m not arguing to dump the IE alignment to “stick it” to people “less deserving” of a high speed train.
I’m arguing it for cost reasons alone. When the new cost estimates for LAUS-SD come out, we’ll be looking at a LOT more than previously estimated. I’ll otherwise eat my hat. That will make upgrading LOSSAN look like a bargain.
I think the IE would be perfect for an EMU-based commuter rail system using existing tracks. Again, I’m not trying to stick it to the IE.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:15 am
No you’re not trying to stick it to them, but the result would be that you defeat the purpose in the long run, of having a statewide system that connects everyone to everyone. access to everyone by everyone. IMO the ultimate goal (the extreme northern corners excepted perhaps) should be that all californians should be within 30 minutes of their nearest hsr station.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Not every location needs close access to HSR. How many areas of France, Germany, Japan do not have HSLs? If the benefits are outweighed by the costs of building HSR to a certain area, it shouldn’t be built. Lower-speed rail (79 – 125 mph) should fill that gap then. I think that the IE is just such an area that would be well-served with such lower-speed (but likely more frequent) service.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:28 am
No. you’re wrong.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:29 am
you are being short sighted.
Stand up and be a real Californian.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:40 am
“Stand up and be a real Californian.”
What?
Gain some perspective. Like I said, no country connects every area via HSR.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:46 am
I dont care what other countries do. This isnt another country. What Im saying is to plan for the future growth for the next 100 years the ultimate build out will give 90 percent of the population 30 mintue access. The IE and even the Sacramento valley (sac-rdd) are significant players in the scheme of things and will become more so in the future. Can we do ait all tomorrow? no. but stick with a grand plan and work towards it decade by decade. too many people want their thing right now.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Does nobody actually read any more?
LOSSAN and the “phase 2″ LA-Inland Empire-SD HSR route are proceeding *in parallel*, with the “Inland Empire” route being a superexpress.
LOSSAN is sucking up massive amounts of money already, and is planned to be absolutely full with local trains running constantly on double track at up to 110 mph. This may be an optimistic projection, but this is the projection based on which the LA-Inland Empire-SD super-express is being designed. It’s worth at least designing the superexpress.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
2 billion dollars over twenty years is hardly “sucking up massive amounts of money” and it won’t be absolutely full with commuter trains given that 36 Surfliners per day (up from current 22 and 2014′s 24) are planned for in 2030.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
1) LOSSAN needs to be upgraded anyway
2) The IE has enough demand to eventually get it’s own upgraded line. Not sure about service to SD but it’s probably a pretty small market anyway.
3) There’s no reason why, given the necessary upgrades and FRA/Amtrak independence, HSR trains couldn’t use LOSSAN to reach SD.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:21 am
and stop worrying about money. Thats what the right wants. for us to always believe we cant afford perks for ordinary people. We can find and raise money to build what ever we want to build. And the gola should be 90 percent of californians within 30 mintues of their nearest hsr station. do that, make it that simple for that many people, and people will abandon car and air travel in droves for many of their trips and further, the induce travel demand will be a huge economic stimulus into the next century.
Americans have become so beaten down and complacent from negative messaging over the years that no believes we can do anything and thinking small (or not at all) has be de rigeur. ( thinking small or not at all – hey thats a snappy tag line for the republican nominee!)
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:45 am
“and stop worrying about money”
Uhhh, building something cheaper is not necessarily bad.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:47 am
it is when you sacrifice a higher goal.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:47 am
in return for instant gratification.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:53 am
We’re not talking about instant gratification. We’re talking about decades down the line for LOSSAN or IE. Just one would be completed years before the other. Because it costs less. Namely LOSSAN.
StevieB Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
One billion dollars has been spent on LOSSAN and another billion dollars will be spent on improvements in the next 20 years. It will take billions more and many years to double track the LOSSAN corridor. Incremental improvements take time and are nearly invisible.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:49 am
StevieB Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
In 2030 90% of Californians will live where they live now. There will be no great migration to the deserts or mountain tops. People live where jobs and services are. A good transportation system with transit oriented development can alter living patterns to some extent over several generations but in one generations time people will live mostly where they live now.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
You’ll be surprised how rapid suburbanization was. Suburban counties could double their population within 20 and even 10 years given appropriate infrastructure. Queens, which was suburban in the early 20th century, went from 153,000 people in 1900 to 1,080,000 in 1930 as the subway made it reasonable to commute from there to Manhattan. Then the region switched from transit to roads, and Nassau County went from 300,000 in 1930 to 1,300,000 in 1960, and Suffolk County went from 276,000 in 1950 to 1,125,000 in 1970. Likewise, in California, Orange County went from 216,000 in 1950 to nearly 2 million in 1980.
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
If California is only slightly close to Europe and Japan, cities will pop up around major central stations/HSR hubs.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Jim,
I understand the nexus of your argument, but you need to look at the numbers more closely.
As proposed, over 1 million people in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties have no connecting transit option to HSR other than the Surfliner. Another 2 million people living along the coast in LA County don’t even have that. That’s awfully close to the 4 million that inhabit San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
Except that many of those individuals don’t live in the IE, but either in the High Desert or Coachella Valley which aren’t going to CAHSR… So a solution that has to work for 3 million people or so in your argument, won’t work for 3 million other people.
But wait, there’s more.
Southern California survives using imported and irrigated water. There’s no way that the IE can get large enough (unless we discover Earth core is actually frozen water) to necessitate the “dog leg”. It’s a fanciful cover for LA getting an HSR airport link just like SF does.
Secondly, even if you make the argument that it’s more “proletarian”, consider that while population will fluctuate it’s not as if coastal property is going to go down in demand. The six million people living in San Diego and Orange County aren’t going anyplace, nor the million plus in Ventura and Santa Barbara. The only reason you could build homes in Moreno Valley was that it was cheaper. Well once gas gets to $5 a gallon this summer that won’t be true anymore.
If we can find a way to get the 3 million people living west of LA Union Station, I’m betting we can do the same for the 4 million or so that will be living west of it come 2030…
Donk Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
I agree with Peter and Tom on this one. Lets build out the core first – starting with the Bay Area-LA and in parallel build out LOSSAN. Since it is actually feasible to build these two at the same time.
At the same time we can PLAN for building out LA-IE-SD. We are going to need lots of cash to build LA-IE-SD. This will only be possible once HSR has become more accepted and hopefully when revenues start coming in from SF-LA, LA-OC-SD (via LOSSAN), LA-Sac, LA-IE (via Metrolink upgrade), and LA-Santa Barbara (LOSSAN). LA-IE-SD HSR can come after all of that is done.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
This is ALREADY the plan.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
As they say in the Hertz commercials, “Not exactly.”
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Im sticking with the plan as planned. You won’t deter me. I am patient.
Donk Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I guess you are a glass half-full kind of guy.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
I am. And Im fed up with the national negativity being perpetuated mainly by one side of the political spectrum. California is better than that.The fact that real californians know we are better than that is the very thing that keeps us going, and keeps us successful against the odds and to the dismay of the Negative Nadines. Teh only thing that threatens the california dream, is the decision to stop dreaming. ( its just like that fear itself thing from back when) im up to here with the whining and crying about how we cant do this and we cant do that and what if this and what if that oh no! Knock it off people. We live in paradise. We have access to everything a person could ever want in a place to live. people need to mellow out and get out and do their thing, as we used to say around here. Thats what makes us go. so snap out of it people. sheesh.
if I could pass one law it would be to deport everyone who has a cant do attitude to nevada where they could sit around with the nuclear waste waiting for the sky to fall, without bothering the rest of us.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:53 am
but back on topic.. this is all good news. seems like there are some reasonable people in the SGV. Under the SGV suggestions, would train run at what……125 150? was that the original plan?
Alon Levy Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Yes.
That said, there’s one advantage to the IE, which depending on comparative alignment difficulty may make it better than LOSSAN: it is better for crosstown service, connecting San Diego to Las Vegas via Cajon (there should not be another Vegas connection) and to Phoenix.
It’s not quite the SoCal equivalent of Altamont, since Altamont and Pacheco are a wash on Phase 1 cost and travel time, and Pacheco’s advantage is just the lack of branching. LOSSAN is much cheaper for the same travel time. But it has some analogs.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Are the 336,000 people in Anaheim for instance, more deserving of a quick trip to SD than the 860,000 people in Riverside?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
You know that a train can come from Riverside and use LOSSAN to get to SD, right? Heck, LOSSAN folks are already planning that. And I would definitely say that OC deserves faster service to SD than does Riverside.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
And I would definitely say that OC deserves faster service to SD than does Riverside
why?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Because there are more of them and more jobs and more people already commuting between OC and SD.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
there aren’t more of them. And the commute on the 5 between south oc and sd doesn’t hold a candle to the nightmare on the 10 60 and 91.
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
@ Jimsf: Oh and the jams on the 10, 60 and 91 are legendary, I spent many a day in those.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
The last trip I made from newport to riverside took 4 hours.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
if there is a hell it must be the 91
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
because they are prettiier?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
HSR must service the pretty people. Of the San Fernando Valley.
Jonathan Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
How does it feel to be / One of the Beautiful People?
….
Richard, you’re a rich man, too.
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Nope, not really.
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Well, too bad that the current plans scrapped a station in Riverside.
The answer to your problem is simple:
We need to build LA-SD through LOSSAN and in addition to that a new extension from LA to San Bernadino.
Jonathan Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
no worries. If you need it, Emma, you pay for it.
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Oh yeah. That makes sense. Anything else, Ayn Rand?
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Not “like”. It IS a huge waste. LOSSAN has far more potential riders and the Anaheim extension could easily incorporated into that.
LA-IE-SD consists of 90% above-grade track as if we’re The United Arab Emirates or something to spend that kind of money in nowhere.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
nowhere huh. right.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
you know whats nowhere. San Juan Capistrano.
An you know where you will NEVER get a high speed rail line through, deep south OC.
yes new the Laguna Niguel station is sure to be a hit. The people who live in the corridor from newport beach to san diego make pampa look like a bunch of hippies.
You will NEVER get a high speed rail line through there.
Not ever. It wont happen.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
San Juan Capistrano is one of the more frequented stations in CA (18th) and LNL station is actually a hit for Metrolink. And as reiterated many times, all the areas where NIMBYs are an issue are already scheduled for tunnels for other reasons.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
its not happening.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
With a few minor realignments and maybe a couple of grade crossings, Santa Ana-San Juan Capistrano is already suitable for 125+. Same for SD County Border-Oceanside. The difficult, likely NIMBY-intensive areas that run along the bluffs (San Clemente, Del Mar) would have to be bypassed anyway – San Clemente with a combination of tunnels and at-grade and Del Mar with a few km of tunnel.
People would probably be less hostile to upgrades if some attention was paid to improving local service as well…
If San Gabriel Valley work can double track UP then it plausible to also fix the Altamont Corridor Express.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Altamont_Corridor.aspx
Bills were introduced
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1504.IH:
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to make grants for engineering, final design, and construction of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, California, and for other purposes.
This would anchor the San Jose Station and provide better commuter service.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:19 am
Where’s the “like” button on this thing? ;)
Explain the relevance of this agreement to anything that may happen in the next two decades. None of this falls into Phase One. It’s just more time wasting, calender filling, billable hours for consultants BS. This billion dollars will be stretched so thin it certainly won’t trickle down to the SGV. LA to Palmdale is the target. If SCAG had any relevance they would be looking for $1 billion to upgrade LAUS, the most important project in So Cal which would improve service throughout the region.
Re Maglev, SCAG had SCAGLEV on their plans for two decades and has finally removed most (not all) of the routes. Thanks to SCAG’s former director’s obsession with MAGLEV we lost those two decades during which they should have been pushing for incremental upgrades to conventional regional rail. OLDA or at least some of their members still pine for MAGLEV. (see their website) It still catches some people’s imagination in a way that conventional rail doesn’t, regardless of whether it is a good idea.
We still seem to be left with $6 billion of hole digging in the SJ Valley and pocket change to upgrade the lines that people use and where journey time and reliability improvements would make a real impact on peoples’ lives soon. It’s still unacceptable. We’ll see how it plays out.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:47 am
It’s called a “bribe”.
Not in the “stick a fifty in a cop’s face” way, but in the “parents giving treats to the kids to distract ‘em” way.
If SCAG gets the 1 billion in bond funds from Prop 1A to pass out like candy to schoolchildren, the MTA and Metro can buy a lot of peace.
Your point belies the fact that in California, cities have a lot of constitutionally vested power that the state simply can’t yank away if it gets pissed. And you get more bees with sugar than vinegar.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:48 am
*the MTA and MTC can buy a lot of peace*
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:41 am
They are just funneling money to Villaraigosa, who is now dictating CHSRA planning.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Villaraigoisa is playing the opposite tact to John Mica. He’s spreading the wealth around as much as he can so that he gets every member of the California delegation possible to vote for 30/10. He knows that a little here and a little there in new CDs can turn the tide.
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
It’s true that one can get more bees with honey than with vinegar, If SCAG has the money to match the prop1a funds, then they should get the money, faster upgraded service is always a plus.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
I’d give you $50 to stop posting comments.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Next two decades? Construction on the superexpress SD-IE-LA line MIGHT get started within the next two decades. Whether or not it does, getting intergovernmental agreements now will make it easier to get it started within the next THREE decades, given the snail’s pace of Environmental Impact Statements these days.
…which Robert may soon regret.
The progressifs are not winning in this story:
The Alameda Corridor East Authority types are mercilessly tearing up old San Gabriel with the hopes of putting in a giant, concrete-filled ditch to support their construction plans that require not one, but two separate grade separated railways from Redondo Junction to the Colton Crossing.
(Nevermind the fact that the Alameda Corridor that goes to the port itself is only triple-tracked…)
PB for it’s part has come up with an alignment that is complicit and will do little to boost ridership anywhere else other than Ontario Airport. The Alameda Corridor trenches will eliminate most of the locations where HSR could stop and build transit-friendly development: San Gabriel, El Monte, Pomona, and Montebello.
Meanwhile, the HSR alignment is going to require lots of very complicated grade crossing through Covina and Baldwin Park. Nevermind the whole tunneling under Kellogg Hill and Puddingstone reservoir. That’s child’s play, apparently.
BMF from San Diego Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 10:56 am
How many HSR stops are truly necessary between Union Station and say Ontario Airport (if even) or Riverside area?
I suspect only 1 more. And, Pomona seems as good a place as any.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:04 am
ALong the entire full build out route for hsr, the point is that if you can put more people closer to the nearest hsr station than the nearest airport, its easier for them to hop the train to their destination than fly there, and faster than driving there, further, at the other end, the train drops them close to their destination, the the nearest arrival airport would. If you live in Merced or Pomona or Riverside, and you are going to Oceanside or fresno or Mountain view then its easier to access the train stations at each end than it is to access the nearest airports at each end. And most people don’t live at least 30 mintues to 90 mintues from the nearest airport. If you put everyone withing 30 mintues or less of an hsr station at each end, then you capture the market. The total travel time is less than the total travel time for driving to an airport and flying, and its faster than staying in your car and driving. then on top of that add the comforts and on board perks and you have a success. Its pretty simple.
“How many HSR stops are truly necessary between Union Station and say Ontario Airport (if even) or Riverside area? ”
Both of them.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Badoom-ching.
O/T, but precious: Indonesia battles train roof “surfers” with goop
A rational approach to rail
New priorities — start in urban areas, build on what’s in place — could propel the bullet train.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 11:59 am
This is sounding more and more promising each day.
Thank God no one is talking about using the $950 million on BART.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
heh heh heh
Clem Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
The $950 million in transit connectivity funding under Prop 1A has already been divvied up (but not yet disbursed) and yes, BART is getting more than a third of the statewide total.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Seems they’re reconsidering that allocation.
Jon Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Didn’t Jerry Brown veto that allocation?
Clem Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
He vetoed an attempt to disburse some of these funds, but they still remain allocated more or less as described in the above link.
Jon Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 11:40 am
I’m guessing that the reason he vetoed that attempt to disburse the funds was so that he could reprogram them to the sections of Caltrain and Metrolink that parallel the HSR route as part of the ‘blended’ approach. Smart move.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
BART is getting a third of the $950 million? Can you cite this Clem? Interested in knowing more about this; thanks.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Never mind; you already did in your comment.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“a pretty big attitude change”
What a joke. Tejon Ranch mob still firmly in charge and the entire state pays for a gold-plated super-BART for LA to Palmdale. More of the same in spades.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Nice find RC. As I’ve stated previously, as long as an Altamont alignment serves SJ/Diridon directly such a (possible) change from Pacheco will work for me.
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Notice how they’re reporting that construction on the ICS in the Central Valley would still be going ahead concurrently with the urban enhancements. Without the CV there will be no HSR. And take that NIMBY’s! You’re going to get berms to grade-separate along the Peninsula along with electrification, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
If we could both the ICS and urban areas concurrently, the merrier! I’m sure the peninsula will certainly get grade separations for Caltrain, but will berms be necessary along the route? Especially if Caltrain, future HSR service is blended? Good stuff (potentially) for NorCal, SoCal AND CV!
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Grade separations are either elevated, which means berms or aerials, below-ground, which means trenches or tunnels, or at-grade with the road overpasses or underpasses. No one disputes the fact that trenches or tunnels are too expensive, which means this is not going to happen even though this is the preferred alternative by the Peninsula NIMBY’s. I don’t believe there are many instances that road overpasses or underpasses could be used either since I think that they would involve more property takings. So that leaves berms or aerials, which the PAMPA folks including Burlingame are adamantly against. Yet, Caltrain already has berms between Belmont and San Carlos, and will soon have them in San Bruno as well. In practical terms, that means berms, for example along California Avenue in Burlingame with aerials where access is important such as downtown Burlingame. Their only hope is to kill the project in its entirety, which includes any upgrades to Caltrain in the long run as well, which is why most of the arguments against it are complete red-herrings based on costs and ridership (no one will ride it so why build it).
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
I say underpasses for heavily travelled roads and simply closing off (culture de saccing) lightly travelled roads along the Caltrain route.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Meant cul de saccing.
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Or as signs in the 60′s said “Dead End”.
Brian Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:08 am
I agree with the ‘cul-de-sac’ approach.
As example I think in Palo Alto if berms and aerial structures are out of the question and ‘at grade’ is the only option the city will accept (besides tunnel) you can meet the requirements for traffic grade separation by simply closing the Alma Street, Churchill and East Meadow crossings and replace them with pedestrian and bicycle underpasses to not completely destroy connectivity.
You add one new under-crossing at Charleston, remove one lane of traffic along Alma, upgrade the ROW to 4 tracks, replace the bridges across University and Oregon Expressway accordingly and that’s it. You are done. And of course you fence it off like hell.
Minus some trees and bushes it will hardly look any different than it already does today. No need to hear any more bitching about aerial structures and “berlin walls”. Regarding the closed crossings: when driving a car it only adds a few minutes to go to the next closest grade separated crossing. For pedestrians and bicyclists it’s a different matter but accommodating pedestrian and bicycle under-crossings is much easier.
Internally the city would coordinate with their fire departments and emergency response services to make sure they are staffed and balanced correctly based on the revised traffic flow. The closed crossings could always be re-opened if the city decides to fund full underpasses to “un-cul-de-sac” them in the future.
Anyways that whole chapter could be closed and no need to hear anything more about tunnels or their selfish needs to kill the entire project. Cooperation is a 2-way street and Palo Alto like all other cities should be willing to accept at least some concessions. Even if the Altamont route is selected and no HSR runs thru Palo Alto the full grade separation of Caltrain would still be extremely desirable and in everyone’s best interest.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:11 am
Brian, that’s a very reasonable-sounding proposal, and it sounds like you’re also familiar with Palo Alto and the Peninsula, which I’m not as an Eastern observer. But an important question–will the residents of Palo Alto, and their politicians, go along? Will they understand?
Oh, a key thing to remember–grade crossings are an insurance cost for a railroad. In Shepherdstown, W.Va. a railway station got preserved partially because the closure of one of four crossings in the town saved the railroad enough on its insurance to make it worthwhile for the same railroad to allow the station to be donated to the town, and also to be kept on its original site. This allowed the railroad to afford the risk of the station at its site (stations have been destroyed by trains derailing in front of them), and in the process saved about $500,000.00 by not having to move the station back from the tracks. (If you question the cost of moving the building, it may be noted that the station is fairly large as small town stations go, and is made of brick.)
http://stationatshepherdstown.com/
http://stationatshepherdstown.com/our_history.htm
http://stationatshepherdstown.com/our_history8.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:15 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7742224@N05/2375024124/
http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns516.jpeg
morris brown Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:35 am
@ Brian, D. P Lupic etc.
What the Hell. Let us really solve the problems in the Bay Area and close down 101.
(Maybe close El Camino as well).
We don’t need autos at all. CalTrain will save the day.
I have read ridiculous proposals being floated around here, but this takes the cake.
A ” reasonable proposal you say D. P. Lubic” — no not reasonable just stupid.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:47 am
For once I have to agree with morris. That would be very stupid, indeed.
Jeff Carter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:36 am
Once again, grade separations DO NOT have to take dozens of properties…
Check out the Hillcrest grade sep. in Millbrae, this grade sep. was built to accommodate FOUR tracks (according to Caltrain).
http://g.co/maps/cvxae
600 Hemlock Avenue, Millbrae, CA – Google Maps
This did not take 100’s or even dozens of properties. The Road impact is approx. 431 feet from Hillcrest to Aviador. The road at Hillcrest is 17.5 feet under the rail bed/structure.
Can the anti-rail folks please explain why grade separations can not be done like this one?
Or does this just make too much sense?
Or does this not pour enough concrete to make it worthwhile?
Or is the LOWER cost of practical grade separations out of the question?
Brian Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 1:15 am
@ morris brown,
I stand by my so called ‘stupid’ proposal. I grew up in Palo Alto and it is my so called ‘hometown’ with family that still live there just several blocks from the tracks. I care about Palo Alto as much as anyone else but have been consistently disgusted by Palo Alto’s inflexibility on anything to do with HSR. Maybe I am just ‘crazy’ or downright ‘stupid’ like you have kindly stated but I really don’t think closing 3 grade crossings and adding an underpass at Charleston is going to destroy the community.
Some of the grade crossings are so close to existing underpasses it makes me wonder why they were not closed years ago. They are extremely dangerous to say nothing else. People have died there, and no they were not all intentional suicides. At least the ‘cul-de-sac’ approach immediately addresses the dangerous situation and gives the city time to plan for an underpass if they want to add it in the future.
Underpasses would of course be preferable for traffic flow but I am just saying it’s not critical in every situation. Sometimes a ‘cul-de-sac’ is good enough, and you just take other measures to negate some of the connectivity problems (such as bicycle / pedestrian underpasses). I wouldn’t call that a stupid idea at all. Charleston is a significant cross-town route so I think an underpass is important there. None of this is rocket science. I just find it pathetic and comical there has been so much bickering on this one stretch of the line. Whether 4 tracks or 2 tracks with just Caltrain and no HSR, grade separation at crossings is a very basic requirement in either situation.
It just takes a little bit of compromise between the parties involved. The CAHSRA may not get it’s berms or aerial structures and Palo Alto will not get it’s tunnel but a compromise solution can meet all the primary objectives adequately enough. Instead in Palo Alto it’s like “Oh my god, a stretch of Alma is going to lose one lane of traffic for a limited portion. Never mind the melting ice-caps. The world is really coming to an end now!”
Peter Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 4:42 am
Unfortunately, it’s not just grade crossings in Palo Alto you have to deal with. You also have to figure out how to implement six grade separations in quick succession in Menlo Park and Atherton. Those are going to be somewhat more difficult to do.
J. Wong Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 7:31 am
The problem in Hillcrest situation is different. None of the properties had driveways or other access on Hillcrest itself. This meant Hillcrest could be graded to pass under the ROW. If you remove access to a property you have to take it. Other grade crossings have access on the street that would be graded, which would cause them to lose that access.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
In other words: “Dear human beings: fuck you!”
Win-win synergy! With friends like this …
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Is it possible for you to respectfully disagree, or do you always have to resort to childish diatribe? I’m looking for compromise on the peninsula dammit! If you don’t want massive property takes due to grade separations, then perhaps dead ending less travelled roads along the Caltrain route is the way to go. You can’t have it all on the peninsula (ie no rail whatsoever) so you’d better grow up and learn to @#$%& compromise! That is all.
joe Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Tony and Wong
1) The improvements along the Caltrain ROW worked. The San Carlos mayor said they added cash value to local properties. These improvements also made the trip easier for me when I rode form SF to MtView. I don’t know if the changes were inconvenient but the Mayor San Carlos advocates these
changes resulted in improvements and probably saved a life or two.
2) In PAMPA, there are few crossing to begin with as those cities seem to have intentionally cut off roads to block traffic and route riders on a few main roads – PAMPA doesn’t like traffic?
3) ADDING some pedestrian / bike crossings would improve the quality of life in the area, get people out of cars.
Tony d. Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Thanks for the excellent info Joe.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I believe Richard is commenting on the inconvenience caused to pedestrians than anything else.
Miles Bader Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Of course, pedestrian bridges or underpasses are a lot easier and cheaper than their vehicular equivalent… no reason not to provide them liberally…
joe Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
The PAMPA strategy has been to block streets and push outsider auto traffic onto a few major roads. They want to make their entire city a cul-de-sac.
This underpass at San Antonio is a legacy from the Old Mill Shopping Center. Adding some of these long the ROW would allow people and bikes to cross and control car traffic.
joe Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
http://g.co/maps/qd3av
Peter Baldo Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Lakeshore Drive, in Chicago, has some nice pedestrian/bicycle underpasses:
http://www.hydepark.org/parks/jpac/underp63rd.htm
With all the talent in the Bay Area, Palo Alto should be able to insist on excellent architecture and urban planning for their portion of the high speed rail corridor. Good architecture adds around 10% to the cost of a project, compared to the cheapest engineering solution. But good architecture can turn a potential blight into an asset.
The current situation – the El Camino and Caltrain corridor separating Stanford from Palo Alto – is not particularly attractive. I can see why people don’t want it to get any uglier or more disruptive. However, with all the $Billions potentially available to remake the area, it can become a lot nicer than it is now.
Somebody with money could sponsor an international design competition for that stretch of the right-of-way.
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Berms and aerials (i.e., overpasses for the ROW) will give you a better result. Use can use Google Maps Street View on El Camino Real between 42nd Ave in San Mateo through Brittan Ave in San Carlos to see the existing Caltrain berm plus overpasses. Basically everywhere there was a grade crossing was replaced with an underpass for the road and roads that dead-ended (cul-de-sac) where unchanged, but since the berm also raised the trackbed, the roads need not dip so low resulting in less property takings.
Jon Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Berms are the only sensible solution for the peninsula. Just compare this to this. Once the peninsula realizes that a tunnel is off the table and it’s stilt-a-rail or berms, people will get over the “Berlin wall” crap pretty quickly.
One exception is downtown San Mateo, where the ROW really is too narrow for a four-track berm to work, and also too narrow for a four-track tunnel. Here it will likely be a four track aerial or a more creative solution such as a two-track tunnel plus two track aerial. Also, as most of the existing Caltrain parking will be lost to the two extra tracks, some cities may wish to have an aerial segment so that parking can be provided under the tracks. Not my preferred choice of land use but there you go.
Miles Bader Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
I agree… Berms are a great solution where there’s enough ROW width to support them (rural and semi-rural areas) and in many cases probably make an area more attractive by providing some variation in otherwise unrelentingly flat landscapes. They are not so expensive, make underpasses easy and cheap, and make it easier to isolate the ROW from intrusion (which will be necessary for HSR especially).
Like so many issues related to the project, the objection to them seems mostly mindless resistance to any change at all…
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
I couldn’t agree more. Especially on the mindless resistance by the zombies…
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
I want something above-grade. I don’t like the idea of underpasses in America. I’ve simply seen too many train crossing accident videos to deny where this is going. Teenagers will do some vandalism here and there which is annoying but what truly worries me are all the adults who would throw couches on the rails.
That might sound funny, but then again. Our highways have more furniture than IKEA.
VBobier Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
I agree on this, the RR’s had problems with kids throwing rocks at Train windows in the 70′s. Above grde ROW is a must, if that means Berms and Bridges for the HSR ROW, then so be it.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:30 am
In the 70′s? They’re still doing it today. My wife was on Caltrain when some kids trespassing on the ROW threw big honkin’ rocks against the train. She found a conductor and reported it. He called the dispatcher, and by the time the train got to San Jose the conductor told my wife that the police had arrested the kids.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Berms are nice but hard to cross (so make extra wide overpasses over the roads); aerials are troublesome unless you can embed buildings under them (so, they’re ideal for stations).
Miles Bader Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Hmm, why are aerials “troublesome” (other than they cause synonymouse to froth)?
Here’s an example of an aerial: http://g.co/maps/hg2zn
Aerial on left, other small-scale urban stuff on right. I’m not sure how one is more objectionable than the other… If anything, the elevated line is kind of nice because it feels more open than another row of buildings.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Bums and junkies are really intractable under aerials in urban and even suburban areas. This is a real police problem for the municipalities. Maybe mostly a California thing
Miles Bader Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Maybe that is a “California thing” but it has precious little to do with aerials. If bums and junkies are a problem under aerials, then they’re also going to be a problem in parks, on streets, in alleys, in parking lots, …
In other words, if you’ve got a bum and junkie problem, that’s your problem. Aerials are do not change anything.
swing hanger Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Then fence off the open areas underneath, or lease the space to businesses like self-storage, rv parking, build basketball courts, etc. In areas near stations, you can have retail space occupying that area- the authority can collect the rent then.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
You can’t hang out under a berm. Or retained fill.
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
“Here’s an example of an aerial” – Which shows parking under the aerial. A good way to keep out the bums, @synonymouse, you must admit.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
In some places it might work, but SF no – the bums are too numerous. They’ll find a way.
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Well, the Peninsula is not SF.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:45 am
I can see the wikipedia article already:
“The Great Bum Migration of 2018 was caused by many socio-economic factors, primarily the construction of aerial structures along the Peninsula for California High Speed Rail.”
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Aerials: “embed buildings under them” or parking. I imagine the Burlingame aerial near downtown would be parking, which replaces parking lost on the surrounding roads anyway.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
You must want Ring the Bay real bad. PAMPA is richer than ever and has the scratch to pay for a BART subway sans hsr. You are as likely to see berms in front of Feinstein’s house in Pacific Heights.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
If they can afford a BART subway they can afford a Caltrain/HSR tunnel.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Not at all true. Kopp actually made a statement that a BART subway would be much cheaper.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
So, are you saying they can’t afford a Caltrain/HSR tunnel? I thought PAMPA was richer than ever?
Jon Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
BART tunnels are cheaper than Caltrain/HSR tunnels, because they are much smaller. Clem has already made this point.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I know. I’m just using the mouse’s methods against him. You’re getting in the way of my entertainment. ;)
Jon Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
The proposed Altamont route previously was rejected by the rail authority in favor of the Pacheco routing. But the agency’s new management is trying to make the project more practical and popular. Example: the recent scrapping of a possible Grapevine route and choosing the Palmdale link.
I think this is the clearest admission yet that the Grapevine study was sandbagged for political reasons. And also that Altamont may be resurrected, again with another sandbagged study for political reasons. Sadly there are no direct quotes from Dan Richards on this, so it could just be the journalist’s interpretation of what he said, but it’s a pretty damning acknowledgment that the alternatives analysis process is anything but impartial.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
No private entrepreneur would tie his hands this way.
Tejon Ranch Cartel has its way with CHSRA:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/rail-338754-high-speed.html
Mike Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Why so fixated on Tejon, in particular? Isn’t Pacheco even more obviously stupid than Tejon?
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Yours is a good point but Van Ark and PB came to appreciate the value-added(as in the VAT concept)by returning to Tejon. Abjectly capitulating to Tejon Ranch muscle is incredibly inequitable, undemocratic, discriminatory and establishes a powerful anti-eminent domain precedent for all the other landowners in the CHSRA path who happen to be poorer and less politically connected than the Chandlers.
If the State does not have the resolve to enforce the Constitutional anti-embargo principle and go with the clearly superior transport route where do you think the moxie is going to come from when this thing requires large operating and maintenance subsidies. Much has been made of the alleged dangers and risks of Tejon but the truth is that the money-bleeding and thus deferred-maintained Tehachapi Grand DeTour is more of a casualty in waiting.
Suffice it to say I remain utterly and totally in favor of Altamont as well as Tejon.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Mr Mouse has been on about it for years. So he’s consistent, at least.
And at least in this case, it looks like he (and the other Grapevine-istas, among whom I didn’t number myself until a month ago) was right all along, given what the CHSRA’s consultant’s heavily-sandbagged recent analysis failed to say. They’re tens of billions short, they come up with a way to save billions (no question; read what they wrote), and they bury it ASAP.
I found it fairly shocking, given the circumstances. Generally one can be pretty certain that malice rather than stupidity drives the largest political decisions of CSHRA=PBQD, but in this case, with the threat of the gushing money spigot being shut off entirely looming larger and larger, they seem to have mixed political tone-deaf stupidity (we don’t care about lowering costs screw you) with customary evil (we love the highest possible costs screw you) in comparable measures.
DingDong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I’ve only recently begun following this blog. Is there somewhere where this story about Tejon is summarized well? I’ve tried Googling and nothing is helpful (the best I found is a May 4th, 2011 post from this blog). Synonymouse, your comments are consistent, but usually assume a lot of knowledge on the part of your readers.
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I’d read the Authority’s documents on it. They’re on the website. You may need to hunt for them a little.
StevieB Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Central Valley – Los Angeles Basin Mountain Crossing (I‐5 Grapevine
alignment)/
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Dear DingDong,
“Conceptual I-5 Corridor Study Bakersfield to San Fernando Valley (Sylmar) January 2012″ is the (latest) smoking gun. (Or is that “reeking”?)
CHSRA Board Briefing Item: 4 January 2012 Central Valley — Los Angeles Basin Mountain Crossing (I-5 Grapevine alignment) (ie Here, sign this, right now, suckers. Approved unamimously. Next agenda item …)
“Executive summary” of the above.
(Unlike 90% of the wittering bozo commenters, I generally do try to post relevant links. And then I get neener-neenered, generally by the most ignorant of them, if I should make a typo and screw up the HTML markup somehow. It’s much easier to just make random assertions unhinged from external reality, after all.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Trust us you life will be much easier….
http://www.webmasternow.com/copyandpaste.html
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
A high-profile issue embedded in the CHSRA capitulation at Tejon has been entirely overlooked.
Going beyond pleading nolo contendere against the position of the Tejon Ranch Cartel, the CHSRA has effectively agreed with and endorsed the Chandler contention.
And what is exactly that contention: that the CHSRA railway on or about the Quantm alignment will inherently and of necessity lower the value of their property. And it will lower the value under any and all, even the best, of circumstances. No matter there is no one living there; there is an enormous buffer zone; and much of the route will be in tunnel. They insist the negative impact cannot be mitigated. Lowering the value of property is the textbook definition of blight. So I am going to put in bold the upshot of this surrender:
THE CHSRA PUBLICLY AGREES THAT HSR IS AN INHERENT AND UNMITIGATIBLE BLIGHT.
Any adjacent property owner will be equally injured, has the right to resist eminent domain, and requires compensation. Similar and/or equivalent to what the Tejon Ranch received, which was complete exemption.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Nope. The statement was actually quite specifically that the local governments wanted it to go through Palmdale.
Which they do. Read the report.
They don’t really concede anything.
Though the fact is that railways on the surface *without stations* do act as a minor blight, and everyone knows this. Being next to the railway is a bonus within a mile (or so) of the station, and a penalty further from a station. This is why sane municipalities keep asking for stations.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
FYI, the Authority’s report makes it absolutely clear that what local governments want, local governments get, unless it’s completely impossible (such as Kings County demanding that the rail line go neither through town nor through the countryside). Moral: if you’re a NIMBY, don’t be a BANANA, and you will probably get what you want.
The PAMPA NIMBYs appear to be BANANAs.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Nonsense, the CHSRA passively accepted a major monetary loss, a route that was cheaper, shorter, faster. Palmdale does not have the legal standing or right to limit the State’s freedom to select a route that is overall beneficial in terms of cost and efficiency.
Tejon insisted in the media that negative impacts of hsr could not be mitigated and the CHSRA did not repudiate that allegation. Effective admission.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
@ Nathaniel
Where is it writ in Prop 1a that this is to be named The Palmdale HSR?.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
If you assume that CHSRA can go it alone….
Tejon got “buried” because it would have unraveled the deal apparently struck between the consiglieres at various entities that ultimately may save the Authority money.
For example, if Metro gives it’s ROW over to the Authority for Palmdale to LA…that’s going to help just as much as say…I don’t know BART giving over the CalTrain ROW after the latter ceases operations….
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
The counties own the SP ROW, not BART.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Counties or county transportation districts?
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Shared ownership I believe. Could be they own what is in their county.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Tehachapi is an operational dog – ask the UP. Tejon is worth real money; that’s why the CHSRA got aced out.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Here’s the thing: if it’s really successful then a Tejon bypass may yet be added. But with the resources that CHSRA currently has, I don’t think the loss of six minutes is worth the additional cost (assuming Metrolink rolls out the red carpet) of building brand new, elevated track through Witch Mountain.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
So … the way to make a 100%-over-budget fiasco, one in imminent danger of collapsing because of overspending. even more successful is … to spend more money now, choosing the costliest path, and then … to make up for it … spend even more money later.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
joe Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Another 100% intentional, real-world-over-budget-fiasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Construction
Government approval came in December 1958, and construction of the first segment of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka started in April 1959. The cost of constructing the Shinkansen was at first estimated at nearly 200 billion yen, which was raised in the form of a government loan, railway bonds and a low-interest loan of US$80 million from the World Bank. Initial cost estimates, however, had been deliberately understated and the actual figures were nearly double at about 400 billion yen. As the budget shortfall became clear … someone resigned.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 8:11 am
Over-spending?
Fo’ realz, dawg?
So, you are going to reduce the project costs by choosing an alignment that requires more elevated track, less existing ROW, and more complicated tunneling just so you can avoid scratching a transit agency’s back?
Are you starting to moonlight on the Ron Paul campaign, Richard? It’s okay, I won’t be mad.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Yes, overspending. The mongrel alignment studied by the HSRA to avoid pissing off the Tejon Ranch people is $1.5 billion cheaper than going through the Tehachapis. To make it look worse they had to make up a risk adjustment factor and then apply it selectively.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
There has to be something that the Tejon crowd would want that the CHSRA could offer in return for a reasonable attitude adjustment. The CHSRA footprint would be tiny in relation to the immensity of the Tejon Ranch property.
Rappers can get away with flipping the bird to the tv public at large but I don’t recommend it for high profile big shots like the Tejoners. PG&E acting over and over like a total a**hole over the years towards the little people certainly has not helped it get any sympathy at all in its current crisis. Maybe someone can get thru to Mr. Zoeller or whomever that a good public image does count for something.
LIkewise can’t somebody in engineering or planning at PB sneak a few secrets into Jerry Brown’s ear about how many billions can be saved here and maybe almost a half hour. Remember the value engineered Tehachapi is going to be slower. I hope they find some more shortcomings and snags that will give them pause. And soon.
Joey Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
The Metrolink alignment from Palmdale to Santa Clarita is 100% unusable by HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“the deal apparently struck between the consiglieres at various entities”
This is precisely the problem the CHSRA faces with a private operator. Political considerations way trump schedules, operations, maintenance costs. A franchisee can be expected to regularly have a crooked politician or crooked union in his face with a list of non-negotiable demands. If you insist on the Grand DeTour you will get stops at Mojave and Tehachapi. Some hefty subsidies indicated.
We cannot know precisely what is need to construct at Tejon without be ok’d to engineer out the optimum route. Clearly it was looking good until trouble back at the Ranch.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Fill-in “needed” and “being” – need to be more careful.
Tom McNamara Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Maalox, long fingernails, and beta blockers.
Santa Fe looked at the idea a century ago and signed a deal with its rival to use Tehachapi. Quantm’s ten year old proposal requires crossing the faults at grade. Seven miles of stilts to the sky to get to the top of the mountain. And one 8.0 earthquake and the state is severed in two logistically.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 10:23 am
1952 did not happen.
Why are you so afraid to engineer out the Quantm proposal? Could it be it is so good as to displace the Grand DeTour.
Good luck to you down the road finding enough taxpayers to subvent this money pit. I’ll be pushig by the time the TWU has taken over running your Palmdale BART on steroids but goes on strike every couple weeks. The limousine liberals and Buffett phonies will have sheltered all their fortunes and you’ll be taxing the underclass to pay for welfare.
Meantime Jerry and Antonio will have drained you precious CV dry as a bone and tumbleweeds will be drifting thru the auto theft capital of the US.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 10:23 am
pushing daisies
Jon Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I am forced to agree with both synonymouse and Richard M on this one. I’m generally a firm believer that the root cause of failure is incompetency rather than conspiracy, but the I-5/Grapevine report was so obviously sandbagged that they must have been under political pressure to give the result that they did. There is no other plausible explanation. Thoroughly shameful.
synonymouse Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
If you want hsr to succeed, it is incumbent they study the 2 alternatives fairly. To proceed blindfolded is for the CHSRA to put on the t-shirt that reads “Trouble comes looking for Me”.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 11:38 am
OPB suggests a 20 mile base tunnel:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,69389,69472#msg-69472
What’s not to like?
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
20 year construction time? Crossing multiple earthquake faults in tunnel?
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Dunno about the faults, but for sure very fast
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Oh, right, and, assuming Swiss construction costs, $5.7 billion for the 20 mile tunnel alone. In 2012 dollars.
Based on St. Gotthard Base Tunnel construction costs.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Well, the Quantm or Bear Trap Canyon route could be roughly viewed as the loball or partial version of the price-is-no-object ideal. Faster and saves money in terms cost of construction, operation and maintenance. Put bluntly, Palmdale needs to get an open source BART and the Tejon Ranch needs to get a clue.
Much has been made of seismic risk at Tejon. Crossing the two faults manages this risk. Meanwhile an extra 30-50 miles of extra mileage at Tehachapi still does not put it out of seismic territory. 1952 proves that. Entirely ignored is this talk of risk is the fact longer innately increases it. We usually speak of danger as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. More track literally means more of the wrong place and a longer schedule means more of the wrong time.
Add to this that an inefficient route is less profitable – less money available for maintenance. I’ll bet deferred maintenance has brought down as many bridges as earthquakes.
And Tehachapi still suffers from 3+% gradients and significant tunnels. If you could get it down to 1% the class ones would have already been on it. This brings up the argument that the Santa Fe turned down Tejon as not feasible or not pencilling out. First off it was the teens-twenties not 1870. The big money was now going into highways and airports,etc. Secondly it still would have gradients comparable to Techachapi. Third, and I think very important is the connection to the East at Mojave. Tejon would have to go around. Interestingly this is one upside to Tehachapi that the CHSRA never mentions, but I am pretty sure Amtrak would recognize it off the top.
synonymouse Reply:
February 7th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Should read crossing the two faults at grade
Peter Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Interesting how this article makes a big deal out of the fact the HSR is planned along/through BNSF properties. Wasn’t that the whole idea?
Van Ark said appraisers will likely begin meeting with property owners in the Fresno area in late February and early March to explain how the authority plans to buy the right of way it needs to lay tracks through the city.
The Florida high-speed rail project that Gov. Rick Scott doomed last February by turning down more than $2 billion in federal money would have made an annual surplus of $31 million to $45 million within a decade of operation, according to a state report.
J. Wong Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Well, we knew that. The problem I have with Right wingers is their apparent willingness to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Jonathan Reply:
February 6th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
apparent? Apparent? The Republican party has made it quite explicit that their #1 priority is to ensure Obama is a 1-term President. Even if that means opposing Obama initiatives which Republicans had previously espoused.
[FL] High-speed rail would have been profitable, state report says
Good LA Times article from Skelton about the new blended approach, including advocating using Altamont:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-train-20120206,0,3152471.column?page=1