High Gas Prices Aren’t the Problem – Lack of Affordable Alternatives Is

Mar 20th, 2012 | Posted by
Leave a comment

Once again, rising gas prices are dominating the national conversation. And unsurprisingly, Republicans are making it sound like the problem is somehow President Barack Obama’s fault. Newt Gingrich is running around the country promising $2.50 gas, which is an impossible thing to actually deliver. Meanwhile some on the left want to blame the problem on greedy oil companies or greedy commodity speculators.

Of course, we know that the problem is much more fundamental. We’re approaching, if not already at, peak oil, which means that the oil left will be harder to extract and cost more to bring to market even as global demand continues to rise.

The problem then isn’t that gas prices are too high and that if we could somehow bring them back down we’d all be OK. That’s not going to happen. No, the problem is that we don’t have affordable alternatives available to enough people. That means people – whether commuters, businesses, farmers, or travelers – are usually stuck paying the high gas prices or simply deferring other economic activity.

The evidence is clear that rising prices are a decade-long trend, not some anomaly:

And as Deutsche Bank predicted in 2009, the long-term increases will continue, reaching prices of $175/bbl by 2016:

The effect of peak oil – the declining rate of new oil discovery combined with ever-increasing global demand – will push prices upward until there is significant demand destruction. There are two ways demand destruction can happen – either we build alternatives to driving and enable people to use mass transit to continue getting around, or people just stop driving with no alternative in place, and economic activity falls dramatically as a result.

This process worsens with economic recovery. During the worst recession in 60 years, gas prices never fell below $3/gal in California for any significant period of time. As the economy recovers and gas demand rises, so too will the price.

The solution is obvious: we have to build affordable alternatives to putting gasoline in a machine and lighting it on fire. Californians understand this very well, which is why they not only approved $10 billion in high speed rail funding, but also why 2/3 of voters in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Sonoma and Marin counties voted to tax themselves to expand their passenger rail systems.

But as gas prices retreated from their 2008 peaks, a new bubble emerged. This was the anti-rail bubble. NIMBYism on the Peninsula, right-wing ideological attacks on rail, and Alan Lowenthal’s concern trolling on the project are tolerated instead of laughed out of the room only because gas prices had retreated to $3 (which is higher than they had been at any time prior to 2006).

When oil prices retreated from their 2008 peak, many older Californians assumed it was the return of normalcy. Having lived their lives with low oil prices, with the 1970s seemingly acting as an anomaly, they came to expect that low oil prices had returned for good, and that there was no need for what they viewed as the “inconvenience” of building things like fast, electric, grade-separated high speed trains. At the same time, state legislators made a series of crippling cuts to public transit agencies even though they had seen dramatic ridership increases in 2008, which were generally sustained through 2009 and had even begun increasing again in 2010.

Enabled by a temporary lull in the upward trend of oil prices, the anti-HSR “bubble” can only be sustained as long as those prices do not rise further. Now that the prices are indeed rising again, Californians are reminded of their desire for a sensible alternative to driving and paying unaffordable prices.

The persistent refusal to deal with the lack of alternatives is one of the great failings of the current California legislature. Local elected officials, such as Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, understand the need well and have successfully fought to fund and build passenger rail. But legislators like Senator Joe Simitian and Senator Alan Lowenthal believe somehow that the risk to the state’s economy from dependence on gas prices is less important than a perceived risk that HSR may take time to get properly funded.

California’s greatest transportation need is to develop affordable alternatives to oil. High speed rail is part of that solution, part of a broader rail network that connects neighborhoods, cities, regions, and even states. Californians want that system built. They understand the path out of high gas prices involves building alternatives. Will their legislators follow their lead?

Tags: , , ,
  1. joe
    Mar 20th, 2012 at 21:51
    #1

    Some links

    Public transit use is on the rise but still short of the peak use.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/end-of-an-error-the-car-century-begins-to-wane-Despite their much smaller numbers, Americans in the middle of the 1900s took more public transit trips on buses, trains and so on than we do today as a whole. Many more. In 1947 — the peak year — they racked up 23.4 billion trips in total. Last year it was a paltry-by-comparison 10.4 billion.

    LA has lower car ownership rates than….

    http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/12/13/density-car-ownership-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-los-angeles/

    It’s no surprise that New York had the lowest rate of car ownership per person, but I think that many people will be surprised to see that Los Angeles actually has a lower rate of car ownership than San Francisco. As with population density, vehicle density is more evenly distributed in LA than in the other two regions.
    …
    From a policy standpoint, this suggests that simply increasing density is likely to exacerbate rather than mitigate congestion–something we see borne out by most congestion data. (Increasing density and congestion can sometimes allow people to make more trips while avoiding congestion, but the congestion itself is still bad). So the trick for transportation and land use policy is to find ways to pull apart density and vehicle use. That’s what pricing does, and that’s what minimum parking requirements do the opposite of. Parking requirements make it very easy for increases in density to move in lockstep with increases in vehicles, because new dwelling units automatically include housing for cars.
    …
    So there’s the challenge for our local planners and transportation engineers.  As Los Angeles grows and becomes more transit diverse in the coming years, the city, county and Metro needs to get rid of parking minimums in dense, transit-rich areas and find other ways to encourage people to not feel the need to own cars.  It sounds as though Metro ought to be urging cities to relax their parking requirements in the areas around their new rail lines or, at a minimum, get them relaxed for the developments on land that the agency owns.

    NIMBYs in LA – Parking needs trump bus lanes.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/opinion/la-ed-buses-20110204
    Wilshire is L.A.’s densest business and residential corridor, and it’s among the city’s biggest traffic nightmares at rush hour, which is why devoting a lane in each direction to bus use only is a good idea. More people already travel by bus than by car along the route during peak hours, and a fast bus lane would lure even more out of their cars, reducing pollution and radically reducing commuting times for bus riders.

    But when wealthy Westsiders complained about a loss of street parking and increased automotive congestion, politicians started looking to carve out chunks of the 9-mile route.

    Parking takes up to one third urban space.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/17/americas-parking-spaces-cover-more-area-than-puerto-rico/
    Ben-Joseph estimates that there are 800 million parking spots across the U.S., taking up enough space to cover Puerto Rico in asphalt. In fact, Ben-Joseph says that many large cities have up to one third of their overall space dedicated to parking.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 12:27 am

    First link was misbehaving; it’s fixed here.

    http://tpmmedia.tumblr.com/post/19398449044/end-of-an-error-the-car-century-begins-to-wane

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 2:49 am

    Just one third of urban space? Go to Google Earth and look at downtown Houston. It’s more like one massive parking lot with the occasional building rather than vice versa.

    I’ve always wondered about the economics of that. Seeing these parking lots are costing small change at best, does that mean the land is so dirt cheap? Or does it mean there is a subsidy hidden somewhere?

    Brian Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:57 am

    Houston has parking minimums too. It is an unfunded government mandate. Almost all cities require developers to build enormous amounts of parking as a requirement of building anything else. It is not uncommon for a city to require 3 sqft. of parking for every 1 sqft. of building. It is a travesty on so many levels…

    Matthew Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Minimum parking requirements. It’s a subsidy that must be paid for by all development in the city.

    http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/city-reviewing-off-street-parking-ordinance/
    http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/12/we-are-25-looking-at-street-area.html

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:16 am

    It’s good to hear they are doing something about it.

  2. missiondweller
    Mar 20th, 2012 at 22:36
    #2

    Monetary expansion is the main cause of the rise in oil. The dollar has been debased though QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist. Just look at the price of oil as measured against gold rather than dollars (Gold is still gold and oil is still oil, only the dollar has changed value):

    http://macrowealthpreservation.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-do-you-hedge-cost-of-rising-oil.html

    This doesn’t change the fact of course that oil is becoming more scarce and will become more so as millions more Chinese and Indians by their first cars. We need HSR.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Meh. Televisions are still televisions, housing is still housing, unit labor is still unit labor, and steel is still steel. Oil, gold, and other commodities are inflating relative to the bulk of the economy, which consists of manufactured goods and services.

    missiondweller Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 10:25 am

    I’m not sure what that even means but you did not address how printing trillions of new USD is irrelevant.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 11:25 am

    People actually consume significant quantities of television sets, housing and steel etc Price of gold triples or quadruples because people are listening to Rush Limbaugh flog gold futures the price of your television set goes up by a few cents.

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 2:57 am

    Those millions of Chinese and Indians are buying both gold and oil so the price of both has rocketed. The price of gold is historically also driven by speculation rather than its real metallurgic value. So it’s not very useful as an index. Economic activity (expansion) tends to drive up the demand for oil whereas speculation and retrenchment (economic contraction) drive up the demand for gold. If gold is rising faster than oil it’s because we’re in a recession and people are banking on gold rather than investing in the means of production.

    missiondweller Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 10:24 am

    World demand for oil has dropped since 2008.

    World demand for gold has increased as global currencies have been devalued, Euro, Yen even the Swissie which is now pegged to the Euro.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 11:22 am

    World demand for gold always goes up during hard times because the gold bugs come out of the woodwork. When times get better demand and prices drop.

    ComradeFrana Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 5:22 am

    “and will become more so as millions more Chinese and Indians by their first cars”

    or, y’know, that the production of conventional oil is peaking and will start rapidly declining in just a few years and that there is no way in hell the supply will be able keep up with the world’s rising or even the current demand. Fun times.

  3. D. P. Lubic
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 00:12
    #3

    “High Gas Prices Aren’t the Problem – Lack of Affordable Alternatives Is”

    Whooee!! Watch out, Robert, the same people who blame the current President for high gas prices, who claim the current President wants high gas prices to make Americans into people riding the subway from their dingy, cramped apartments to their boring civil service jobs, are going to come after you!!

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Of course, higher gas prices can be a “good” thing, in terms of inspiring conservation and other changes (especially in view of peak oil), but there are some who will take that out of context, and call is socialist social engineering:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Tmi_fpUHs

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:39 am

    Another look at why “drill, baby, drill” may not work out as its proponents would like:

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/19/447095/the-charts-that-prove-obama-doesnt-set-gas-prices/

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 2:59 am

    Because choice is socialism right? Capitalism doesn’t like people to have alternatives?

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 4:12 am

    “Capitalism doesn’t like people to have alternatives?”–And M.

    Capitalism likes choice, provided the choice is what capitalism offers, or specifically, if it is what a large, dominant business in a capitalist market offers. It doesn’t like choice if the choice is the competition, even if privately owned. See the history of the National City Lines, a/k/a Great Streetcar Scandal.

    (Yes, I know there are other aspects of the loss of the street railway systems, but the cabal of GM, Firestone, Standard Oil, Twin Coach, and Mack Trucks still has a lot to answer for.)

    joe Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    Coke or Pepsi?

  4. Paul H.
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 00:22
    #4

    Most people here I think understand how huge of problem Peak Oil really is and the implications of depleting oil resources will have on all of our lives. I hate to say it but the price is gonna have to be to a level unseen before where it simply is unaffordable for the middle class before we really get to work on the most important project to reducing our oil demand: re-building and electrifying passenger rail across the country. ARRA and Prop 1A was a good start, but this has to become a part of the national debate about transportation. Do we continue to build highways and airports or do we invest in the long-term vitality of the United States and invest in rail again? I think that has to be the debate, and high oil prices is our opportunity to have that debate. The suburban sprawl model isn’t going to work out for us, we’ve got to do better.

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 3:04 am

    Exactly.

    The oil price is high enough to be of annoyance and to acuse anger but not high enough to force people to ask the logical questions and consider the alternatives.

    Meanwhile, sand is being rubbed in our eyes through such schemes as bio-fuels.

  5. JJJ
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 00:27
    #5

    Robert, you may have missed it but I updated the charts showing Amtrak California ridership from October-December of last year. Predictably, ridership is up, especially in the ICS.

    January numbers just came out, and the numbers show the exact same trend. It’s almost become boring to point out that the San Joaquin keeps hitting 10,000 riders more than the same month a year ago every month….and last years numbers were higher than the year before. The “nobodies” are riding the train in very high numbers.

    The same trend continues into March. A family member rode the San Joaquin this past Sunday, and the tickers were all over $60 between LA and Fresno, which is the highest possible bucket. The advance rate is $33. Even the 7pm bus-only departure was above the base rate.

    The charts,
    http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2012/02/amtrak-california-ends-2011-with.html

    Demand is there, and gas isnt even that pricey right now.

    With higher gas prices, + trip times that make the car look like a covered wagon, it would be foolish to not take the rail.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Had these up before, and thought it might be appropriate to look at them again:

    General link to the 2009 edition for Highway Statistics (most recent version available):

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/

    Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/fe210c.cfm

    Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund in more detail:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/fe210.cfm

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Highway funding and disbursements, PDF version (for some reason, the basic link has incorrect labeling, showing all state and local funding and disbursements combined as total Federal funding and disbursements). Of note is that the user fees–gas taxes and tolls–only cover 47% of highway expenditures in 2009. This is down from the more typical 51% that was covered in 2008:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/pdf/hf10.pdf

    Disposition by state:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/pdf/hdf.pdf

    Revenues by state:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/pdf/hf1.pdf

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Motor fuel use by state:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/mf21.cfm

    Using total highway expenditures (rounded) of $195.6 billion, subtracting a (rounded) road revenue of $93.4 billion, gives a net cash subsidy of $101 billion. Divided by a rounded fuel consumption of 168 billion gallons, we have a subsidized cost per gallon of 60 cents. This is on top of the about $4 per gallon you are paying now, and of is cash flow only. It does not include deferred maintenance, outside emergency costs, and externalities such as a share of oil wars.

  6. morris brown
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 06:37
    #6

    Well well, President the hero of so many here with his anti Keystone XL pipeline policy will not be so happy read this:

    Obama to fast-track part of Keystone XL pipeline

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-fast-track-part-keystone-xl-pipeline-233205036.html

    What ever it takes to get re-elected I guess…

    jimsf Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:57 am

    So if the president does’t do what you like, he’d bad, and if he does do what you like, hes still bad?

    first-The part of the pipeline he is authorizing is in not in the environmentally sensitive area.
    second-The part still in question is.
    third-many of us don’t have a problem with the pipeline as it will create jobs
    fourth- the only benefit is that it will create jobs. It doesn’t do anything for the cost of gas for americans.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    That’s not how it works. Anything a Democratic President does is bad and anything a Republican President does is good.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    The issue with the pipeline is not just that its route is environmentally sensitive. It’s also that the place where the oil is being mined is environmentally sensitive (tar sand production causes more local damage than conventional oil drilling), and that the entire world is sensitive to burning that oil.

    If Obama wants to create jobs in construction, he should whip votes for 30/10 (especially the Wilshire Subway and the Regional Connector), the completion of Second Avenue Subway, Houston’s light rail lines (especially the Universities Line), and other high-quality transit projects.

    jimsf Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Tell me morris do you support the pipeline? just curious.

    J. Wong Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    He fast-tracked the non-controversial part from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. The controversy over Keystone XL has always been connecting to the Alberta Tar Sands and passing through the Nebraska Sand Hills. The southern part of Keystone does neither.

  7. Peter
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 07:52
    #7

    Well, if Ron Paul is elected President, at least we wouldn’t have to worry about him for very long…

  8. morris brown
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 12:14
    #8

    Peer Review Group Report on the Business Plan just released.

    Link:

    http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/comments_on_draft.pdf

    There should generate plenty of discussion.

    It is supposed to be read in conjunction with the group’s earlier report on the funding plan which is found at:

    http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/CommentsonCHSRA2010FundingPlan.pdf

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Mostly predictable pablum but I like: “…it places the Authority in the position of making a number of design decisions that might better be made by the eventual operator…” To say the least, like the entire routemap.

    The notion of a private operator is just nonsense as the unions will simply not permit it, as they know they can extract much richer compensation packages from the State. Just look at the preposterous compensation being given to the CSU campus presidents. Their pay should be cut in half.

    Just picture a private operator for BART.

    Matthew B Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Excellent argument. Let’s compare Cal State presidents’ salaries to private university salaries:
    http://chronicle.com/article/What-Private-College/129979/

  9. morris brown
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 12:23
    #9

    Regarding future funding for HSR, Ken Orski’s news letter has the following:

    ARTBA Washington Newsline Plus for March 20, 2012
    FY 2013 House Budget Resolution and HSR

    The narrative accompanying the proposed FY 2013 House Budget Resolution contains the following commentary concerning high-speed rail:

    “The mechanisms of federal highway and transit spending have become distorted, leading to imprudent, irresponsible, and often downright wasteful spending. Further, however worthy some highway projects might be, their capacity as job creators has been vastly oversold, as demonstrated by the extravagant but unfulfilled promises that accompanied the 2009 stimulus bill, particularly with regard to high-speed rail.

    “In the wake of these failures, and with the federal government’s fiscal challenges making long-term subsidization infeasible, high-speed rail and other new intercity rail projects should be pursued only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial services. The threat of large, endless subsidies is precisely the reason governors across the country are rejecting federally-funded high-speed rail projects. This budget eliminates these projects, which have failed numerous and clear cost-benefit analyses.”

    Vastly over stated job creation numbers were so clearly evident in numbers the CHSRA kept producing and which have now been so thoroughly discredited by some good reporting, especially from the SJ Mercury.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    The quality of planning is so abysmal that these projects cannot “be established as self-supporting commercial services”.

    A private entreprenur would:

    1. Out of hand reject the Tehachapi Roundabout

    2. Seriously question the wisdom of the greenfield eminent domain ripped ROW paralleling 99.

    3. Insist on Altamont over Pacheco as the preferred default entree into the center of the overall Bay Area.

    A very fast lo-ball starter proof of concept is the most prudent way to proceed. Tejon, I-5, Altamont. The problem with the 99 greenfield is that the actual environmental downsides of hsr in the California environment are not known, not demonstrated. Noise in particular. This is not Japan or Switzerland; BART is the only example we have to extrapolate from. Noise levels 3 times BART would be atrocious. If the hsr proved to that obnoxious and objectionable a neighbor the Valley locals would almost certainly call for much reduced speeds and massive sound walls. Along with deeply disappointing ridership counts what a black eye for the hsr concept.

    Better to start along on the very well-buffered cordon sanitaire of I-5.

    thatbruce Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    the actual environmental downsides of hsr in the California environment are not known, not demonstrated.

    Hmmm, you’re right. We’d better build a test track so we have something to demonstrate.

    BART is the only example we have to extrapolate from.

    You need to get out of your Bay-area cocoon more often. There are other rail-based systems in California, with some even operating at times on elevated concrete guideways and/or at higher speeds than BART, and mostly quieter.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I am very interested. It would have to be electric, not on wooden ties, in an urban environment, designed by PB. It would have to have enough trains to generate corrugation. It would have to have union guys doing deferred maintenance due to operating losses and bloated payroll. In other words flatted wheels and corrugated rails.

    The only other operation I can think of is the LA subway, which I have unfortunately never ridden on. How are the noise levels in comparison to BART at comparable speeds?

    thatbruce Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    You’ve really got this thing against PB, even to the extent of your ongoing erroneous association between ‘designed by PB’ == ‘uncaring operators who run it into the ground’.

    Unfortunately I don’t know whether the LA Subway utilizes properly disgruntled union workers, or their exact maintenance schedule. My experiences in traveling on the LA Subway are that it is quieter than BART even at top speed and with less vibration, although that might be due to their choice of an established rail car manufacturer, rather than the then new entrant of “we’ve built planes, how hard can trains be?” Rohr.

    Speaking of Rohr units, I don’t remember the units they manufactured for the Washington DC Metro around the same time as the BART units being extremely noisy in operation, which the BART units are. Must be the different levels of grunteling on the part of the maintenance workers.

    Rail on elevated guideways. The instances that I know of in SoCal either have lower speed light rail or FRA Metrolink running on them. None of them have the excessive noises that you seem obsessed with.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    The newer BART cars are Alstom.

    PB is designing the CHSRA system and we all know PB is virtually synonymous with BART. With that kind of power PB could have incorporated whatever noise mitigation engineering that in its infinite technical wisdom and expertise it was aware of into the BART to SFO line. The latter is incredibly noisy – try it sometime, but bring along your earplugs. The crux of the problem is the Brutalist mindset celebrating noise as a natural and desirable characteristic of subways in a perverse interpretation of form follows function. A Bechtel legacy which PB has devotedly carried on.

    Put simply if you want an hsr that is not extraordinarily noise get rid of PB, because they don’t give a shit about how noisy it turns out. To them that’s just inherent to steel rail and reinforced concrete.

    Edward Carroll Reply:
    March 24th, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    You might find this interesting:

    “There appear to be two types of curving noise. The first and most prevalent is wheel squeal caused
    by sustained nonlinear lateral oscillation of the wheel. The second, less obvious, and less common,
    is wheel howl, which may be due to the resonant but unsaturated response of the wheel to dynamic
    lateral creep forces. There are reasons to believe that these types of curving noise are separate
    phenomena: (1) they do not sound the same; (2) wheel howl at curves increases with train speed,
    while conventional wheel squeal may disappear with sufficiently high train speed; and (3) wheel/rail
    howl may be closely associated with short pitch corrugation at curves.

    Of these two types of curving noise, wheel squeal is the more prevalent, while wheel howl may be
    limited to lightly damped aluminum centered wheels such as used at BART. In fact, wheel howl
    may be unique to BART, because BART is the only transit system employing rigid aluminum
    centered wheels.”

    For more on this than you ever wanted to know (220 pages) see:
    TCRP Report 23: Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual

    http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_23.pdf

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    @ Morris

    Is the “RevoteRail”website LaMalfa’s peitition?

    Jack Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Bulls*&$

    Job number were oversold because they purposely went in and undermined every project in the country. Self-fulfilling prophesy is self-fulfilling.

    How many people would be working in Florida, RIGHT NOW if they didn’t go after the governor just to make Obama look bad.

    Bull—-

    joe Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Epic fail.

    For example FL’s Scott pushes Metro Rail for Orlando – it costs more than HSR.

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/jul/01/3/scott-oks-state-funding-for-orlandos-sunrail-ar-241159/

    Republican State Sen. Paula Dockery of Lakeland, who supported high-speed rail but opposed SunRail, said in her blog that Scott betrayed the trust of the conservative electorate by moving forward with the least cost-efficient commuter rail project in the nation.

  10. yoyo
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 17:19
    #10

    We do have an affordable alternative to high gas price: I bought a All-electric Nissan Leaf last year to replace a 28mpg car, and have supplemented 80~90% of my family’s petro needs (and 100% of my commute’s petro need).

    joe Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Well, the Leaf gets reduced mileage in off ideal conditions, idea being about 37 mph and no heater or A/C.

    YMMV but DOE’s survey data show the 72% of Leaf owners drive less than 40 miles per day.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    To say nothing of the Leaf’s terrible well-to-wheels performance. It’s actually a little bit less emissions-efficient than the Prius, at the average US electricity source mix.

    joe Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Emissions Today – maybe. I like the fact the generating source can evolve and also adding residential solar cells to offset peak demand.

    BTW from the MTC
    http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035-Travel_Forecast_Data_Summary.pdf

    Table B.2 Pricing Sensitivity Analysis Assumptions
    Gasoline in 2035 projected to cost $9+/gallon in 2008 dollars.

    Table B.3 Linear Regression on Bay Area Gas Prices, 1988-2008

    $11.02 / gallon if the regression uses 2003-08 data
    $7.47 /gallon if 1998-2008.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    Yes, this is true. That said, it’s still a lot of energy being generated just for transportation. It’s straightforward to beat it with urban rail even per passenger-km; the emissions efficiency of heavy rail in the US is, well-to-wheels, equivalent to 82 passenger-mpg. When you consider the fact that urban rail’s characteristics encourage shorter trips, and the additional fact that they encourage energy-efficient dense construction, it turns into a slam dunk.

    wu ming Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:33 am

    comparing it with average US electricity source mix makes no sense when we’re talking about CA, which has a much less carbon-emitting mix than elsewhere.

    yoyo Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Exactly, I thought we are in California. PG&E’s power mix is over 56% non fossil fuel, and 23% unspecified. Of the remaining, close to 20% is natural gas, which I believe doesn’t run as much in the evening, when leaf drivers are plugged in.

    http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/index.shtml

    The point is, in places like California, Oregon, Washington, Prius cannot touch EVs in terms of emission.

    If any of you are considering a 2nd vehicle, I’d definitely recommend getting an EV. You’ll find that the EV quickly becomes your primary vehicle, and that you’ll rarely take the ICE car.

    yoyo Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    I have a Prius and a Leaf. For daily commute and weekend trip to San Francisco, Prius’s got nothing on the Leaf.

    Leaf has much better smoother acceleration, quieter ride, terrific handling (all the weight is on the bottom) compare with the Prius.

    ComradeFrana Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 5:51 am

    “an affordable alternative”

    it damn should be, that’s what the 7500$ per car subsidy is all about.

  11. morris brown
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 17:20
    #11

    @synonymouse

    I just found RevoteRail and know nothing about it.

    The full text of LaMalfa’s petition is located at:

    http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1052_12-0004_bullet_train.pdf?

    I know nothing about any of the petitions except what I have read in the media.

    A link to the S.O.S page showing clearance of petitions is at:

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/cleared-for-circulation.htm

    (amazing how the Governor was able to get clearance to circulate in about 1 week, whereas, others wait for 2 months and more ).

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Vladimir is the most equal of all us equals.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Are you speaking in your own private dialect?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Can you legally sign a petition on the internet?

  12. Alex M.
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 18:30
    #12

    I live in California now but plan to move to Switzerland eventually.

    Why can’t the US understand that cheap oil is not going to last forever? This country is so dependent on cheap oil that it makes the worst meth addict look healthy. If we don’t have viable alternatives in place by the time cheap oil goes away, will we not enter a period of time so horrible that would make the Great Depression look like the Roaring ’20s? What will it take to get people to realize this?

    Gas prices are such a hard topic to deal with, because if they are low, people use it recklessly and pollute the air even more than usual. But if the go over a certain amount, our economy will collapse, because of how ridiculously dependent on oil we are. This country is screwed if we don’t immediately start a serious, balanced, careful transition away from being cripplingly dependent on oil.

    This is why I’m going to Switzerland. They actually realized that cheap oil won’t last forever. What a concept, right? They currently get 95% of their power from nuclear and hydro. Their average population density is much higher than here, and, of course, they have the best public transit system in the world. Not to mention having a healthy economy, a high standard of living, and a very low unemployment rate.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    And they’re not scared of base tunnels.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    and they don’t have to pay PBQD prices for them, either.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    oh, and last I heard, Switzerland doesn’t straddle a tectonic plate boundary and it associated faults.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    the only fault of significance here is the one that can be assigned to planners pandering to corrupt politics. sua culpa

    Peter Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 5:13 am

    The implication from your statement, “Switzerland doesn’t have to worry about earthquakes” is so patently false that it’s ridiculous. Because the Alps never get earthquakes…

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:08 am

    No, Peter, that was your inference, not my implication. Switzerland has a bloody World Heritage thrust-fault, and it has a historical record of earthquakes. But Switezerland doesn’t cross the San Andreas fault, or any other tectonic plate boundary.

    I’m left wondering if you know what a tectonic plate *is*.

    Peter Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    My apologies. I interpreted your comment as meaning that Switzerland doesn’t have to plan for seismic events. Sarcasm tends to get lost over text.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Thanks for the apologies. Not necessary, but graceful nevertheless. Thank you in turn.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Why can’t the US understand that cheap oil is not going to last forever?

    Is this a rhetorical question? The people who don’t understand that are, by and large, the ones who pooh-pooh climate change.

  13. Neil Shea
    Mar 21st, 2012 at 19:07
    #13

    MTC to vote 3/28 on $1.5B Caltrain electrification with $706M from CHSRA, per this article. I don’t find any document on the MTC site itself though.
    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2012/03/21/mtc-to-vote-on-15b-to-electrify.html

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    I like this!

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    $1.5bn won’t go far. isn’t that about Caltrain’s base price for electrification, including substations and catenary; but excluding trainsets and CBOSS? (I could well be mis-remembering, it’s been a long week already)

    Clem, Richard: numbers at hand, anyone?

    Clem Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Supposedly includes new fleet and CBOSS. I never thought I would see the day when HSR bond money was used to fund that project. Looks like the cities are about to throw a hissy fit because they don’t want MTC to commit to the blended system (and 10 tph) on their behalf.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    Please elaborate – which cities. PAMPA?

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    If SF and SJ want this to happen, it won’t matter what PAMPA likes or dislikes.

    morris brown Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    @Tony d.

    You write

    “If SF and SJ want this to happen, it won’t matter what PAMPA likes or dislikes.”

    Nonsense!

    If this were the case, indeed they would be building right now 4 tracks and aerials along the peninsula.

    The Cities made it quite clear at several meetings, they didn’t care to have MTC taking the lead in in any negotiations with the CHSRA, yet MTC and CalTrain have ignored those statements.

    The Cities have plenty of power and this deal isn’t going to fly.

    The $9 billon in Prop 1A was meant to build a HSR project. For all you advocates, its is time you looked through the somke and see exactly what is taking place.

    There sin’t gong to be any HSR, at least for many many decades. Furhter Federal funding is not going to occur. So the local transit agencies are set to grab what they can of Prop 1A funds for their own purposes.

    So here up north, CalTrain with the help of MTC is making the big grab of Prop 1A funds to electrify. MTC sees electrification as absolutely needed for the DTX tunnel, which HSR or not, at least would bring CalTrain to the TBT.

    Down south, the OCTA and friends are doing the same, by grabbing as much as they can to spend the way they want.

    CHSRA is going to be left with less then $4 billiion of Prop 1A funds if they do the Central Valley
    and these projects at both ends. CHSRA will be short more than $50 billion to complete
    Phase 1. Lots of luck ever seeing that kind of funding.

    Clem Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Curiously, the projects Caltrain proposes to undertake mostly (nearly 100%) coincide with how you would build HSR in multiple phases. Using some 1A money to electrify the corridor is entirely appropriate, as is funding some of DTX. CBOSS is the only exception, unless they re-architect it around ERTMS.

    morris brown Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    @Clem

    Building HSR in “multiple phases”, as you put it Clem, doesn’t cut the mustard. Prop 1A
    says build in “usable segments” and just electrification and CBOSS don’t make for a “usable segment”. Sorry Clem, clearly not appropriate.

    Clearly illegal under Prop 1A ground rules, but the CHSRA certainly doesn’t seem to
    care about any of that.

    This will all be played out in court.

    Clem Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Yes it’ll go to court. One side will point out that building HSR can’t be done in Big Bang fashion. The other side will argue that the law mandates the Big Bang approach. The irresistible force will meet the immovable object. Pass the popcorn.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    That the “Cities” are not enthralled with this “gift” does not augur well. I suspect they don’t trust anyone, as well they shouldn’t. On the other hand I assume Simitian supports this approach and will reassure PAMPA, etc. that the “blend” is set in concrete, so to speak, and the rest of the project is nothing more or less than the electrification and TBT tunnel envisioned ca. 1991 Back to the future.

    What is also clearly illegal in re Prop 1A is a system that does not meet the 2 hour 42 minute travel time requirement. AFAIK there is no way in hell value engineered Tehachapi can do that, maybe not even the original cost is no object stilt blowout..

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:42 am

    By the way, can’t believe that some here (syno, MB) are actually trying to argue against improved Caltrain from SJ-SF. Trying to be all “technical” and nit picky about the wording of Prop. 1A. Why don’t you guys just come out and admit it: you don’t want ANY rail in your backyard! Not even Caltrain! Thankfully, in the end, you will loose and the majority like myself will win.

    joe Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 7:03 am

    As a result, Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt, who heads a consortium of six critical Peninsula cities, said local communities still fear the rail authority will eventually build four tracks. He noted that Peninsula cities weren’t directly involved in the process.

    I thought when Palo Alto said “No way” to HSR that they were directly involved — they walked away.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:56 am

    When this goes to court, spending Prop 1A HSR money (i.e., not the $950m for regional connectivity) on on non-HSR equipment, like new CalTrain EMUs, will not pass a sniff-test, let alone muster.

    Similarly, spending non-regional HSR money on routes outside Phase 1 — anything in SoCal that isn’t on an eventual HSR construction route — will not pass muster.

    @Tony d: note how CARRD has very little to say about any of this. Nadia spoke at Simitian’s dog-and-pon show, and was reduced to saying how CV cities would be against HSR once they discovered the Authority’s true plans.

    It’s very very hard to use “For it, but only if done right” as a fig-leaf to cover opposition to “blended” construction at the “bookends” .

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:07 am

    First of all, the ROW between SJ-SF is technically part of phase 1. Second, who’s to say Prop. 1A funds will be used to purchase Caltrain EMU’s? If Prop. 1A funds are used just for electrification and HSR-related improvements from SJ-SF, then no harm, no foul!
    I tell yah what: how this project is changing to accommodate commuter rail on the bookends is awesome, and its very pathetic how the PAMPA foamers are trying to cry foul. You don’t hear any other cities along the line complaining about this latest development: tells you a little something now does it.

    thatbruce Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:59 am

    @morris brown:

    Building HSR in “multiple phases”, as you put it Clem, doesn’t cut the mustard. Prop 1A
    says build in “usable segments” and just electrification and CBOSS don’t make for a “usable segment”. Sorry Clem, clearly not appropriate.

    This thread is in reference to the 706 million authorized by 2704.095.(3), and what Caltrain would do with its share. Prop1A/AB3034 doesn’t limit the recipients of this sub-pot of funds to the draconian ‘usable segment’ requirement and associated semantic arguments. Instead, the limitation is on projects that provide or improve connectivity with the high-speed train system or for the rehabilitation or modernization of, or safety improvements to, tracks utilized for public passenger rail service, signals, structures, facilities, and rolling stock.

    Your response to Clem’s observation assumed that Caltrain was going to be spending from the larger pot of Prop1A funds which does have the ‘usable segment’ requirement. That’s not the case here.

    Clem Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 am

    It is the case, actually. See detailed funding plan from MTC, along with the text of the Bay Area MOU. The $706M of Prop 1A funds break down as $600M from the HSR portion of Prop 1A, and $106M from connectivity funds. Out of that $106M (which has already been peanut-butter earmarked to the various transit agencies), $42M would come from Caltrain’s allocation, i.e. all of it, $26M from VTA’s allocation, and $38M from BART’s allocation.

    Yes, hell just froze over: BART funds are being re-allocated to a Caltrain project!

    Neil Shea Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Wow, hell froze over, cool =)

    But to folks’ assumption that this does not represent a usable segment, why would not electrified track with a compatible PTC along a designated part of the route not be usable? Certainly it has independent utility but the HSR can use it as well. If it has a max speed of 79 mph until the remaining grade seps are done then we may not yet achieve our total SF-LA time target, but it is a fully functional step forward along that route.

    Clem Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    79 is a limitation of the existing human-in-the-loop signal system. With PTC 110 mph is legally and technically feasible.

    thatbruce Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    @Clem:

    Oh, I’d been thinking that it was all from the connectivity pot. I stand (or type) corrected then.

    Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    While 110mph is fast enough for both Caltrain and HSR operations on the Peninsula, the FRA allows even 125mph with a more sturdy grade crossing barrier system. Even CHSRA has never proposed running faster than 125mph on the Peninsula, so grade seps have never been a necessary part of the equation for HSR operation on the Peninsula. That was only the wish of the construction interests.

    With electrification, PTC, and a waiver for lightweight trains, we suddenly have a “fully armed and operational” HSR line!! Can you believe that??? An actual HSR line. Does it have to be so hard? Does it have to be so expensive?

    The MTC MOU is certainly a positive trend towards a pragmatic approach of getting fast trains up-and-running sooner than later, but the Electrication program should cost far less than $800 million. $200 million is a more reasonable estimate.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Last I read, the 125mi/hr hadn’t ever been built or applied for without full grade separation.
    “Impassable” quad-gate barriers _may_ suffice, but isn’t that still an open question as to whether any specific quad-gate crossing meets FRA approval?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    From a cost-benefit perspective the wisest move would be to spend all of the $6bil on the bookends, as that is by far the greatest passenger rail market.

    Outside of the bookends the most valuable project would be Santa Clarita to Bako via Tejon, as Van Ark had come to realize. A brand new alignment; short, direct and fast; optimal for passenger rail. I can’t wait what a basket case the value Tehachapi Roundabout will look like and still more expensive than Tejon. The CHSRA is making LaMalfa’s case that their hsr scheme is deficient.

    No accountability guarantees mediocrity and/or failure. How could Villaraigosa be so dumb as to saddle the State with such a turkey.

    Mike Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Just read the actual documents. It refers to “Advance Signal System (also known as Positive Train Control, or PTC)” and does not specify CBOSS. The only place that CBOSS appears is in the splshy project description pages at the end, which clearly are recycled from some previous document. So maybe this suggests that CBOSS technology is not a done deal.

    Clem Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Monthly reports to the CHSRA from the PB program management office also alluded to ongoing coordination on train control technology between HSR and Caltrain, at least in the last few months of 2011. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up very far…

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Clem, it may be worth your time to listen carefully to what Caltrain’s Director of Modernization said in the Menlo park meeting of, oh, was it last month? “Public discussion of techology” and technical discussion with CSHRA to ensure that the Peninsula’s “Advanced Signalling System” (not, repeat NOT CBOSS by name) will be compatible with the HSR signalling system.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Furhter Federal funding is not going to occur.

    Nonsense. In 2000 the newspapers were filled with stories about what would happen when the Federal government retires all the debt in a decade or so. How’s that working out?

    MTC sees electrification as absolutely needed for the DTX tunnel

    More nonsense. Diesel trains can use electricity for the last mile or so into the underground station. It’s been done for decades all over the world.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Mpfh. Auckland Britomart has the diesels running as diesels into the underground station.
    Very good design, very good ventilation.

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:37 am

    There isn’t any funding for 4-track aerials; hence why THAT isn’t being built at the present. Post 2030; maybe.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 11:41 am

    There’s plenty of money for a four track railroad. All the Federal government has to do is print some. ( Though nowadays all they have to do is transfer some electronically to the right account ) It isn’t being built because people think it’s going to rain death and destruction down on their bucolic suburbs.

    flowmotion Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Aside from the fact that four continuous tracks aren’t going to be needed for several decades at least.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    there are already three tracks for nontrivial stretches….

    J. Wong Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    There will be 4-track sections even in the initial Caltrain ROW upgrade especially where aerials weren’t required or already exist. The Hillsdale section is the most obvious. So where else do you see 4-track expansion occurring?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Since, as far as we know, hell does not freeze over and so Morris, the fabled NIMBYs of PAMPA, the Cities, etc. do have a very good reason, buttressed by the historical record of MTC treachery towards Caltrain, to utterly distrust this development. It literally sounds too good to be true.

    First off it represents an enormous humiliation for the BART Empire. Ring the Bay is lost and BART is reined in to its relative East Bay ghetto. Worst of all, at Diridon Hauptbahnhof spanking new standard gauge ocs trainsets will bump shoulders with the beercans. Awesome.

    Could this be a premature ejaculation? Little early for dancin’ in the streets.

    Jon Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    So either it’s a deal too good to be true, or synonymouse’s conspiracist world of titanic political power blocs doing battle with each other might not bear any resemblance to reality. I wonder, which shall it be?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Only one titanic power block in California and that is the Democratic Party of which Nancy Pelosi is the titular head and in which Jerry Brown and Antonio Villaraigosa are merely cogs.

    BART’s history with Caltrain is not pretty and its need for money is huge. So maybe MTC leaned on them for the $30mil but the Directors might not see it that way. What do they have to lose – the public is with BART over hsr.

    Tom McNamara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Jon,

    Synonymouse’s hyperbole aside…this is a mirage. This is MTC and the hypothetical Pelosi-Brown-Burton-Brown-etc… Machine calling Simitan and company’s bluff. BART wants it to happen, because Simitan won’t vote for the bonds anyway and then that drives a stake through CalTrain’s heart.

    There’s no reason in God’s green earth to approach it like this. You are going to spend valuable bond dollars in the bookends while it’s not even certain we can link it to existing routes with the current level of funding.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    If we spend the entire $6bil on the bookends then that will create time and opportunity to revive Tejon. Jerry might have an epiphany, like a real guru, not a poseur.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    “Diridon Intergalactic Signature Station” is not an HbF. An Hbf has decent architecture and is designed for people to move efficiently to and from trains.

    Calling Diridon Intergalactic an Hbf is an insult to Hbfs. Even to 1920s Hbfs.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    Excuse my withering attempt to deride High Diridon.

    William Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/3-1-12+Caltrain+Modernization+Program-Early+Investment+Proposal.pdf

    Page 7 has some number from Caltrain

    Electrification: $785M
    Electric Trains: $440M
    Advanced Signal System: $231M

    If Prop1A is needed to fund this, CAHSRA ought to have more say on Caltrain’s choices from Signal systems to Trainsets.

    Jon Reply:
    March 21st, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    This is just a wish list from Caltrain; doesn’t mean they got everything they wanted. Has anyone seen a document that specifically states that CBOSS will be funded with this money?

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:37 am

    An improved Caltrain is not an essential element of the HS plan. It is at best a symbiotic benefit. Therefore HS funds can at best be used for things that are of co-benefit to HSR. New commuter trainsets or improved commuter stations are definitely not in that category and therefore the money will have to come from other sources.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Yes, exactly. It will be very, very hard to claim that $750m of Prop 1A money — which requires matching non-Prop-1A funds – is going to be spent on “electrification”, while the `matching’ MTC money is spent on “new trainsets”. I don’t see how that is going to fly. Maybe Synon is right on that score.

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Again, the $750 million could definitely be used for electrification, signalling, and grade separation. Other funding for trainsets and station improvements. Simply amazing how some are searching for technicalities (ie reaching) to try and throw a wrench in this latest development. Again, simply pathetic! Glad PAMPA and the obstructionists aren’t in charge here.

    Jonathan Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    PAMPA obstructionists? Hell, no!
    HSR advocates wanting to not have HSR dollars pissed away on Caltrain trainsets or CBOSS: yes.

  14. joe
    Mar 22nd, 2012 at 07:00
    #14

    The HSR can share the Caltrain ROW, that means cooperation with Caltrain is cost effective.

    $706 million: High-speed rail bond funds
    $500 million: Federal grants earmarked for Peninsula transit construction
    $180 million: Sales tax revenue split among Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties
    $24 million: State transit construction grants
    $20 million: Bay Area air quality grants
    $15 million: Caltrain grants earmarked for electrification
    $11 million: Bay Area bridge toll funds

  15. Paulus Magnus
    Mar 22nd, 2012 at 11:14
    #15

    Florida East Coast Railway is introducing private passenger rail service, no subsidies, from Orlando to Miami in 3 hours, starting 2014

    This, I think, is probably the single biggest passenger rail bombshell in years.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    If they are still non-union I doubt the FEC could ever receive subsidies, as the rr unions would scream like hell to Obama and the NLRB.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    The FEC indeed remains non-union and its route does not incorporate a politically dictated 50 mile detour offroute into the hinterlands.

    The Pelosi machine would never permit a non-union operation in California.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Never been in Orlando have you?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Can’t say as I have had the pleasure. Only been to Jacksonville and that in 1958. What am I missing?

    Tom McNamara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    More like the biggest vaporware announcement since the X Train….

    D. P. Lubic Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    I’ll admit to being skeptical, too, but there’s an important difference–this is being proposed by a current, working, real railroad that once had a very strong passenger background.

    We’ll just have to wait and see.

  16. Mike
    Mar 22nd, 2012 at 11:17
    #16

    @Morris, regarding this new plan to use Prop 1A $ to electrify Caltrain: I get that you believe that it’s not legal under Prop 1A. You may be right. But Caltrain, MTC, CHSRA, etc seem to believe that they can get away with it, so what I’m wondering is: do you want them to succeed? In other words, what objection (if any) do you have to this new plan?

    What about the Peninsula cities? You reported that they were unhappy to not be directly involved in developing this agreement, but what is it about the substance of the agreement that they don’t like? Didn’t the agreement land on what they would have asked for at the start?

    I’m not trying to bait you; I’m just trying to understand what is left to be opposed to? I feel like, as someone said above, only people who want Caltrain to simply go away can oppose this agreement, but I may be missing something.

    J. Wong Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    The very existence of HSR is what @Morris is opposed to as are the Peninsula NIMBY cities (note that not all Peninsula cities are opposed to HSR, e.g., Redwood City, San Mateo, etc.)

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Morris may the last opponent this plan has to worry about. I presume a raid against $30mil of BART funding would have to be ratified by the BART Board of Directors. BART is accustomed to grabbing not giving so they might be the ones to take Prop 1A to court.

    Perhaps MTC has already anticipated this and it is all part of the longer range Ring the Bay strategy. Stranger things have happened on the way to the forum.

    Best way to assure this plan would be for another party to go to court with a laundry list of violations of Prop 1A provisos, including the 2 hour 42 minute travel time requirement. In order to protect Tehachapi, now PB’s mecca, the patronage machine would have to order its judiciary to grant the CHSRA legal carte blanche to “interpret”, aka modify, nullify and substitute any language or stipulations they wish. Voila le blend comme fait accompli.

    StevieB Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    If after the completion of Stage 1 the train from to San Francisco to Los Angeles is only capable of 2 hours and 45 minutes what do you think would be the consequences?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    You are missing the magnitude of slower – 3 minutes slower is the PB-CHSRA cover story we should be prepared for. Way slower is the reality.

    By the time this thing would be finished decades from now Prop 1A would be long forgotten, trampled in the dust. They are just building an Amtrak-TEE paralleling the UP. Where they are going to find the money for the operating subsidy is the real question.

    Meantime SPUR in the City asserts union compensation packages are now transit’s biggest problem:

    http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/six-ideas-saving-bay-area-transit

    Jon Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    …that’s really not what they’re saying at all.

  17. Tony d.
    Mar 22nd, 2012 at 13:37
    #17

    @Clem,
    Looking forward to your new thread over at your blog re this awesome news for Caltrain ;)

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Awesome news for HNTB and PTG and Alstom, no doubt.

    Pity about the taxpayers and passengers, but, well, priorities are priorities.

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Pity about the taxpayers and passengers? WTF?!! WOW, it must suck to be miserable over this development. To the rest of us, REJOICE!

    Peter Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Some to be happy about, other things are still being piss-poorly managed:

    According to MTC, “Advanced Signal System” still refers to CBOSS (check the last page).

    Jon Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Yes, but that attachment is not referenced anywhere in the MTC resolution, or the MOU. In other words, legally MTC are committing to fund an ‘Advanced Signal System’, not specifically CBOSS. My guess is that the wording was kept vague enough so that whatever system the Caltrain and CAHSR engineers thrash out between them can be implemented. Still doesn’t mean that CBOSS is dead, but all hope is not lost.

    Peter Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 6:34 am

    Yes, but that attachment is not referenced anywhere in the MTC resolution, or the MOU.

    Not true. See page 2: “See Attachment C for further descriptions of the Electrification and the PTC projects.”

    In other words, legally MTC are committing to fund an ‘Advanced Signal System’, not specifically CBOSS.

    Meh, MOUs aren’t really legally binding, anyway. An MOU is binding until one party withdraws from it. *shrug*

    I do agree with your last two sentences, though.

    Peter Reply:
    March 23rd, 2012 at 6:43 am

    Just realized you referred to MTC’s resolution and the MOU, while I was referencing the memo with the staff recommendation. You are correct that Attachment C is not referenced elsewhere. My bad.

    Jon Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Wait, I thought you and Clem were all about intelligent improvements to the peninsula that generate the most bang for buck, rather than laying four tracks everywhere?

    Or would actually supporting something done by CAHSR/MTC, even critically, damage your worldview so irreparably that it must not be countenanced?

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    This is just the usual non-managed immense capital spend with no planning, no strategy, no performance goals, no coherent implementation phasing, and zero cost/benefit analysis anywhere.

    Business as usual, with wires on top.

    If you can point to the “intelligent” parts of what they’re up to, I’d love — LOVE — to see them. Really.

    “Give us a billion and we’ll spend it” is the sum total of the advertised customer and community benefit delivery proposition.

    Tom McNamara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    This might surprise you Richard, but I agree with you.

    The only reason MTC is “considering” this is because it’s an attempt to placate Simitan and company. It’s never going to happen…BART and Metro are not going to turn this money over. This is merely a head-fake to call Simitan’s bluff.

    And the fact of the matter is once MTC approves this, people will see that Simitan is never going to vote for the bonds anyway. Then MTC can renege on the plan, and BART can get down to business.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    I tend to agree, but I suggest it might unravel sooner rather than later. The BART Board of Directors is a cranky politicized bunch(elected), even by Bay Area transit standards, and any one of them could want to contest that $30mil. Even if they are buddy-buddy with MTC. BART has nothing to lose as it needs a lot of money to replace its fleet and it enjoys deep public support and media support.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Not to mention Amalgamated, which knows to link funding with payroll.

  18. Mara
    Mar 22nd, 2012 at 15:21
    #18

    Here’s one person’s logic behind the skeptical position: The neighborhood two-track blended system is a Trojan Horse, bringing HSR (in a slower, more palatable form) to the Peninsula. Regardless of what individual board members say at public meetings when they pledge their personal support for keeping it at two tracks, the EIR calls for four-tracks, and compliance with Prop 1A calls for four-tracks. Hence, the blended system is only a stepping stone to four-tracks/aerials ultimately running the length of the Caltrain corridor. The phony horse was warmly embraced in Troy, until its true purpose was revealed. We all know how that story ended.

    J. Wong Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    As far as I know, no one on the board or otherwise has said anything about keeping it at two tracks. You must realize that the ROW already is wide enough for 4 tracks along most of its length.

    What this shows is that the NIMBY’s of PAMPA (plus Burlingame) aren’t really interested in HSR done right, but really want no HSR no matter how it’s done. The blended plan works to show them up for this.

    Mara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Both board members attending the Mountain View meeting expressed a “personal” desire to maintain four-tracks. Sen. Simitian tried hard to get them to agree to more, such as by tying funding to two tracks. However, they wouldn’t/couldn’t bite, due to Prop A1 compliance issues.

    And by the way, even though Prop 1A passed, don’t forget that 48% voted against. Not everyone is a “do it right” person. Some prefer “don’t do at all.” And if you look at the polls (or even the election results) the vast majority of those do not live on the Peninsula. They disagreed with CHSR on its own merits. Many of these people see the Peer Review and other assessments as vindication of their point of view. There are many reasons to oppose CHSR. You don’t need to live near the tracks.

    Mara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Sorry — should say, “to maintain two tracks.”

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    The only way PAMPA is going to get or be guaranteed 2 tracks only is with solo BART Ring the Bay and hsr terminating at San Jose.

    Tom McNamara Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Almost….

    Neil Shea Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Simitian will get something in writing limiting the peninsula corridor to two tracks with passing lanes. HSR will launch on this basis. Later riders will emerge as the true majority and politicians (and local papers) will shift away from the few remaining NIMBY voices.

    As HSR gets closer to launching, peninsula cities will begin clamoring for the missing 4th stop, especially Redwood City, probably Mountain View and maybe even Palo Alto with Stanford sweetening the deal (the requirement of huge parking garages will be greatly scaled down).

    After service launches it will prove as popular in California including the Bay Area as it is everywhere else that it exists. Soon voices in SF, at the MTC, the Bay Area council, and yes, on the peninsula, will begin the discussion about how to widen the corridor to four tracks in a way that addresses peninsula concerns. This will be done with a subsidy to PAMPA, e.g. a 75% subsidy for trenching 1/2 of PA and 1/2 of MP if the cities raise a local match.

    It’s a done deal folks. The transportation technical folks are looking silly trying to find something to complain about, but for everyone else this is as positive a moment as it appears.

    Tony d. Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Where’s Rafael when you need him?

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    How about an alternate scenario.

    The entire US and California goes into a severe prolonged economic downturn. The Detour is built, with a major increase in cost. Hybrid service is inaugurated but passenger counts are poor and the operating deficit mounts. A State verging on bankruptcy tries to privatize the CHSRA property but there are no takers at the auction. The State then tries cut costs by suspending the union contract with resulting wildcat strikes and sabotage. The CHSRA and Caltrain are separated, with hsr stopping at San Jose and Caltrain operating alone from there. Existing track facilities are adequate.

    Peter Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Or we could all die when an asteroid crashes into the planet.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Depressions occur with much more regularity than asteroid hits. It’s been 80 years – we’re overdue.

    As to a Tehachapi crossing that turns out to be more costly because they’ve jiggered the figures down to favor their alternative – that’s not a possibility, nor a probability, but a certainty.

    Tim Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Comparing the “blended 2 track approach” to a trojan horse… um ok?

    There will be a 4 track caltrain/hsr network on the peninsula. Whether it happens now or 30 years in the future. Capacity issues will dictate when this happens, no matter how much PAMPA NIMBY’s scream (even though they live next to 100+ year active railroad). Instead of trying to block/stall/spew FUD about every single aspect of the rail plan, why don’t they, like others have suggested, use their significant (well funded) resources to pay for their own trench/tunnel themselves, like Berkeley did in the 60′s. Dragging this country into the 21st century, transportation wise, is going to be quite the process…

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    PAMPA could afford to defray the cost of a BART cut and cover subway but a four track tunnel would be prohibitively expensive.

    It is up to PAMPA to resolve whether a trench is ok. I think it is the best idea. But PB will try to scuttle it.

    Neil Shea Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    It’s not up to PB, and anyway PB has proposed both trench and aerial alternatives elsewhere. But the sheer height of rail cars plus catenary requires a lot of deep, expensive digging — much more as you say than BART.

    Currently Peninsula folks assume an aerial solution has to be bad, largely I believe because they have not seen good-looking, well designed examples. Similarly we assume that trains are always noisy and smelly.

    I believe if we could see examples of well designed aerial structures, with shops, parking, and frequent ped/bike passages through, perhaps in red brick with nice planting, people may find that it’s actually even better than a long trench.

    Peter Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Plus “gravity drains” (creeks and such) require trenches to drop down even further.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    My best suggestion to those who would pimp aerials is to spend some quality time in Daly City around BART hollow-core,etc. One lady I used to work with lives in Daly City but some miles from BART – she can hear BART trains loud and clear all the time. PB’s aerials are atrocious.

    How ’bout some aerials for Presidio Heights?

    PAMPA would be wise to go for solo Ring the Bay if you want to keep out aerials for good.

    J. Wong Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Actually, there won’t be that much aerials, berms mostly. And what does the noise of BART have to do with HSR? Different technology, @syn.

    synonymouse Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    BART=electric railway on concrete designed by Bechtel-PB;HSR=electric railway on concrete designed by PB.

    Tim Reply:
    March 22nd, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Synonymouse, I love your, unrelenting, opinions as much as the next guy… but come on. While many arguments can be made about the quality of decisions made by PB, Bechtel, Rohr/Morrison-Knudsen, Bay area bureaucrats, etc…. continuing to bring up the “Tejon Cartel”, the “Greatest Public Transportation Consultants” and “Broad Gauge” conspiracies is just frankly a waste of your time. Are you that much of a pessimist to believe that all segments of the public sector are in some sort of grand alliance to do everyting possible to screw up rail based transportation in the bay area? Just wondering………

Comments are closed.