New Poll Shows State Split on HSR Project
A new poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University includes a question about the state’s high speed rail project, showing the public is split in their opinion on the project:
Please read the following statements about the high speed rail project and indicate which statement you agree with most:
a) We should keep funding the high speed rail project because it is creating badly needed jobs and because we need an economical and environmentally-friendly way to move people up and down our growing state: 39%
b) We should stop the high speed rail project because the taxpayer price tag has exploded from the advertised $10 billion to nearly $70 billion and we need to pay down our state debt and prioritize funding programs like education: 43.6%
c) Unsure/don’t know: 17.4%
A 39-43 split is actually not that bad, especially given some other recent polls that suggested the anti-HSR position had greater public support. My guess is that since the legislature’s approval of releasing the HSR funds in July the number of supporters has risen. And that is probably due to the fact that, for the first time in years, pro-HSR messages got out to the broad public through the mainstream media (not for lack of trying on our part). Since early 2010 the message one saw on TV and in the papers on HSR was increasingly and almost unceasingly negative. So it should be no surprise that took a toll.
But there’s another point about this poll I want to make. The anti statement is not entirely accurate or fair. I don’t fault the pollsters because I would agree that their b) statement is a faithful representation of the anti-HSR message.
The problem is that it’s flawed. First, the cost estimate given in 2008 was $33 billion, not $10 billion. Second, the implication is that the cost estimate rose because of mismanagement or waste. In fact, the cost estimate changed in part because the rules about how you make the estimate changed (from current year to year of expenditure, assuming inflation that may not actually happen).
More importantly, the cost estimate also changed because the nature of the project itself changed. The $33 billion estimate was an early estimate that came before a lot of the detailed design and engineering work was completed. Since 2008, we’ve learned more about what the project actually looks like on the ground. That has helped create a much more stable $68 billion cost estimate, one that isn’t likely to change without significant changes to the design.
So it’s true that the cost estimate has risen, but that’s not a sign of a flawed project, as anti-HSR forces want you to believe.
“the implication is that the cost estimate rose because of mismanagement or waste…
The $33 billion estimate was an early estimate that came before a lot of the detailed design and engineering work was completed.”
You are correct that the $10bn figure is not the whole truth, as that was just the initial bond measure, not the initial system cost estimate, but the rest of your assessment is unfair, Robert. Why automatically assume option B implies gross mismanagement or waste? As far as I see, option B merely says what it says — the cost has gone way up (which it has).
And yes, the reason for the $68bn is that we’ve learned much more about the project, but that doesn’t change the fact that the current cost estimate is more than double the initial estimate. This type of spending boom is very typical of state propositions where voters approve an idea before having a real clue about project details.
I still support high speed rail, because I think it’s an important piece to the future of our infrastructure, but I can also understand the erosion of voter support (through a combination of economic downturn, state debt, and rising cost). I also think there *IS* tremendous cause for concern, not because HSR is a bad idea, but because some of designers and folks in the CAHSRA have proven themselves to be inept in the past, and history often repeats itself. A successful CA-HSR could bode very well for the future of rail in the US, while a botched CA-HSR could be disastrous, particularly for the future of transportation in CA.
Finally, some here are quick to assume opponents of high speed rail are part of some black kabal of oil moguls, tea party members, or inevitably have the facts wrong / are just plain dumb. A word of advice: stop it. You’re alienating potential supporters with these accusations, and making HSR supporters look like a TFH crowd.
Derek Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 11:25 am
The original cost estimate was $35.7 billion in 2009$, which is $38.7 billion today. The current cost estimate is $68.4 billion in YOE$, which is $55.2 billion today.
$55.2 billion is only 55% more than $35.7 billion, not “more than double” as much, unless you’re ignoring the effects of inflation.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 11:34 am
If the numbers produced by the consultancies were “estimates”, you’d occasionally see them revealed as having been 200% too high, or 100% too high, or 50% too high, or 30% too high, once “detailed design and engineering work was completed.”
It’s perfectly clear from the historical record that “fraud” is the perfect explanation for the estimates produced by PBQD and its mafiosi allies.
VBobier Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Fraud My ass, It’s an Estimate, it is not a cost set in stone until the money is allocated and spent, so there is no Fraud, except for those with a political axe to grind…
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Costs have a tendency to trend in one direction, and it’s not down.
Nathanael Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Actually, it is down. Bids have been routinely coming in under budget; thank you global recession.
trentbridge Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Absolutely: wikipedia entry for O’Callaghan/tIllman Memorial Bridge:
The bridge was the first concrete-steel composite arch bridge built in the United States, and it incorporates the widest concrete arch in the Western Hemisphere. At 840 feet (260 m) above the Colorado River, it is the second-highest bridge in the United States, following the Royal Gorge Bridge. The Hoover Dam Bypass project was completed within budget at a cost of $240 million; the bridge portion cost $114 million (2010 prices).
There is evidence during the current slack economy that many public works projects are costing less than originally estimated. It is not obvious that the cost of CAHSR will “explode” because the terrain is very flat and the technology is existing and proven. Anyone who believes that steel rails or concrete ties or labor costs to build a mile of HSR are going to “explode” is probably turning their existing assets into gold because they believe that the Fed is stoking worldwide inflation with QE.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
The main concern with HSR is not that costs will increase during construction but that they have already increased beyond what is reasonable given what other countries pay for HSR.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
That’s a laugh. “The Main Concern”
If true the push polls would explicitly state the French can build rail system less expensive than the CA project’s estimates. They don’t. It’s not a main concern.
BART system and new cars would be very unpopular. They are not.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
I was talking about cost estimates in general, not this poll specifically.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
If I saw comparisons and unhappiness with comparative costs for BART or highways, I’d consider the possibility.
The overruns are partially due to CA Law placing too much emphasis on lowest bid. Much of the Bay Area work is won by a contractor that is skilled at low estimates and then adding costs due to changes or unforeseen events.
SFGATE
A construction giant with a history of cost overruns and expensive legal battles is the leading candidate to build a new subway station in San Francisco.
Tutor-Saliba Corp.’s $239 million bid to build the Chinatown station for the planned Central Subway is the lowest of four bids being evaluated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. By law, the lowest bidder has a significant edge in public contracts.
…
Tutor-Saliba has continued to win new projects despite attracting both criticism and lawsuits that allege the company drives up the price of projects.
…
“They have had very good success with intimidating public agencies with litigation,” Casselman said. If the SFMTA approves the Chinatown station contract, city officials should “go forward knowing full well that they’re going to get into litigation.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Low-bid-on-subway-station-could-cost-SF-3780385.php#ixzz26VkdwAjy
Guess who gets the money and who gets the blame?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Dipshit.
The exact same people who opposed BART to Millbrae (and were proven right, in every detail, about PBQD/Bechtel/Tutor-Saliba’s fraud on ridership and budget) and who opposed BART to San Jose (and will be proven right, in every detail, on PBQD’s fraud on ridership and budget) and who oppose freeway widenings around the Bay Area (which of course are championed by the same people who profit from BART extensions), are the ones questioning the transparently fraudulent “budgets” and ridership “predictions” that PBQD has fabricated for CHSR.
VBobier Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Yeah, the Fed whom Repugs want to get rid of, even though the Fed doesn’t print any money, they can make electronic money though, which is done in Canada too. To print money one would need the cooperation of the bureau of printing and engraving which is a part of the Treasury Department, so no inflation…
Elizabeth Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I would not use the Tillman bridge as an example of things that go right.
The $114 million bridge contract was awarded on the basis of price AND construction time. There were significant contractual liquidated damages for any delays.
The urgency for the bridge was that trucks were diverted from the Hoover Dam crossing after 9/11, with extra costs of $30 million / year in time and fuel.
There was a major incident related to the system the contractor was using to speed up construction. It ended up turning a 3 year project into a 5 year and incurring all sorts of additional costs.
There was a undisclosed settlement with the insurers and various contractors to figure out who ate the extra costs (in the tens of millions). http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2010/10/18/news/iq_38953806.txt
For some reason, the FHWA waived the liquidated damages so the trucking industry ate the extra $60 million in extra costs from continued detours for the extra two years.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
More
http://www.disputesinconstruction.com/construction-consulting-engagement-summary/
Billy Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
The original estimates on the ballot were somewhere around $40 billion? And THAT was controversial. The current cost has gone to almost $100 billion back down to $68 billion, and no ground has been broken yet. That’s all most people see since they don’t really know what’s going on, they just see numbers fluctuating therefore, so is public support. I’m sure when the shovels hit the dirt people will stop freaking out about costs so much. Right?
synonymouse Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
@ CalBear
It is absolutely assured that CAHSR is botched, not will be. It is a purely political scheme. Jerry Brown belongs to a political machine that now boasts an unassailable supermajority. He and PG&E Richard can do whatever they want in the way of hsr and no one can stop them. Certainly not the courts, machine puppets.
The botchjob on CAHSR results directly from pandering. Crude ward healing, along with patronage(ergo blatant payola), is how the Machine was built. It does not really matter if Frankenrail is the product, because the project only has to function somewhat. Efficiency and performance is not important – making good on the payouts and the fixes is paramount. BART is the template, the dull grey epitome of disappointment and devolution, the bizarre meld of the eccentric and the mediocre.
I like my trains to be just about perfect; so for me somewhat functional equates with dysfunctional.
Jon Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Personally, I like my trains to exist. A less-than-perfect actually existing train is far preferable to a perfect fantasy train.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
On the contrary, the thoroughly less than perfect BART, like the Beatles blue meanies, produces mostly sprawl and noise. LA, in this instance, got lucky by waiting. No blinking Bechtel to muck things up totally in LA.
If you want less than perfect let’s relay the #11 to Noe Valley and on down Mission. Not perfect and costs some money, but that seems to be the idea anyway. Helluva lot more fun to ride than grubby tinny BART and most probably the Stubway .
Jon Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Some of us don’t ride transit for fun, we ride it to actually get places. Indulging your nostalgia is of no use to those of us who rely on transit on a daily basis.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Enjoy your cacaphonous cattle car experience but be sure to bring along your ear plugs
Since PB, BART, the CHSRA just shovel piles of money into their hopelessly politicized, dumbed down schemes, why not restore some streetcar lines? It is after all California, land of exceptionalism, where everything costs twice.
Jon Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 1:06 am
A streetcar in mixed traffic is no better than a bus in mixed traffic. This ain’t the 1940s anymore; there are plenty more private vehicles on the road than back in your day. Give me a subway (BART is fine), modern light rail, or BRT, in order of decending preference. You can keep your streetcars for looking cute on Market St, they don’t solve the real transportation needs of the city.
Miles Bader Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 1:34 am
Streetcars are not exactly the same as buses, though, e.g. a streetcar probably has a much smoother ride. A streetcar might also have more latitude to be made wider than a bus which must be street-legal.
Jon Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Streetcars are smoother, but this same property (fixed guideway) makes them more vulnerable to delays. Last week two of Muni’s busiest metro lines, the N and the L, we’re delayed for hours in separate incidents where private vehicles were abandoned on the tracks. When Muni replaced the rails at St Francis Circle and ran bus shuttles for the M and K, many people observed that the ride was quicker for that section of the route. And Muni recently implemented a very successful express bus service for the N line, because streetcars are slow and cannot do express service as they cannot pass each other.
Streetcars in mixed traffic need to die. Upgrade them to modern light rail with separate travel lanes and widely spaced stations. The F is fine as a tourist attraction, but don’t kid yourself it’s anything more than that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 6:21 am
My experience with streetcars is a smoother ride and MUCH better overall performance, both in acceleration and in hill climbing in hilly Pittsburgh. I once rode a PCC car in that city with a bored looking motorman who drag raced the automobile traffic between stoplights in the street running section of Dormont, and won! No bus I’ve been on could do that. Streetcars are also much quieter and sound better–no screaming engine in the back, no transmission shifts with their additional jerks, and of course no jerking on the steering wheel and no potholes (real problem in an eastern or northeastern city).
Against this is the problem of other vehicles on the street. That’s part of why Pittsburgh buried its streetcar line in the downtown area and also in a section in the suburbs. The latter particularly speeded up the operation, but against this was the cost and the loss of a view. We quit living in caves about 7,000 years ago, man, and what do we do with rail transit? Put it in a cave!
As for BRT, it’s no cheaper than rail if you’re doing more than painting lines in the street and reserving a lane for a bus. If it’s a new right of way or rebuilt right of way, you might as well make it rail for the money you spend.
Neville Snark Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Hey DP – I’ve also wondered: Is it not a streetcar system much cheaper to operate and maintain than a bus system (or trolley-bus)? Or even comparing single streetcar with a single bus: isn’t the street car cheaper (initial purchase, maintenance, operation)? I wonder if the high initial expense (witness the Edinburgh fiasco) is the main reason that our short-sighted masters don’t build more of streetcar lines, since in the long-term it’s not only better but cheaper.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Neville,
No.
Or not at US construction and operating costs, and constructed along zero-ridership routes.
Rail makes sense when the service demand can’t be met by a fleet of articulated buses, when the operating and maintenance costs of the bus-replacing rail are significantly lower than running the equivalent bus system, and when the construction costs of the rail replacement are in the same galactic mega-cluster as rationality.
The generic concept that rail is “better” and “cheaper” than nasty old stinky old mean old poor people’s buses is 99.97% pathetic railfan fantasy. unfortunately.
When each “higher capacity” rail vehicle runs mostly empty most of the time, when having any rail vehicle actually out on the tracks costs several hundred dollars every hour just in operating cost, when the bus line replaced by the train was only carrying a few thousand passengers a day, and when the rail service ends up slower and less reliable than the bus, well … WELCOME TO AMERICA! Enjoy your visit!
The hope-but-don’t-analyze wish that electricity is so much cheaper and sparkier than stinky old ditry old nasty old diesel is make-believe irrelevancy in the context of US operating costs. Perhaps you save $1 a day on fuel, but you’re paying interest on a $1000000 “investment” and you’re paying $2 a day more on maintenance.
Fortunately for the sleazebags who peddle snake oil, US politicians are very cheaply biddable, and US electorates are about as interested in value for money in public works as their railfan subset, so pissing away billions on retarded full-scale model train sets isn’t about to go out of fashion.
Neville Snark Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Richard,
I see … Why then are streetcars/trams the norm in European cities? Is it just because they were built early, well before big buses were available? And: The best solution, as far as I can see, is the humble trolley-bus; I say ‘trolley’ because unlike diesel buses, they’re practically silent.
Jon Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:24 am
See above. Acceleration means nothing if you’re stuck in traffic, or stuck behind an obstacle you can’t get round.
I would prefer modern light rail over BRT, but both are preferable to mixed-traffic streetcars. Separate travel lanes are what matters, not technology.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
All of the factors I mentioned: much higher ridership, lower construction cost, efficient operations, lower operating cost. Urban form that supports and can sustain the costs. Add to that willingness to prioritise movement of expensive transit vehicles ahead of private motor vehicles (ie transit-only and transit/pedestrian-only streets.)
Pretty much the exact opposite of every US “light” rail disaster, in other words.
Liking trams and liking trains (guilty as charged, for my part) is one thing.
Pissing away hundreds of millions of fine American money dollars on boondoggles that provide worse transit service at higher cost than a bus is another.
Max Wyss Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
@Neville: As it has been said, it is a question of needed line capacity. The “natural” way for increasing capacity is: Bus –> Articulated Bus –> Trolleybus (articulated, maybe double-articulated) –> Streetcar –> Subway (light, later heavy).
The big investment steps are the electrification for trolleybus, then the trackwork for streetcar (which is very often combined with a total renovation or remodelling of the utility lines, and some privileges in the lanes), and then, of course putting the whole thing underground (or above ground). These investment steps must be justifiable (and are quite often). There are often ten to twenty years between the steps.
Why are streetcars/trams the norm in European cities? Well, it depends on the city, and whether the city has a legacy network (as most cities with a network in Germany and Switzerland), or has a new network (as most networks in France). Cities with legacy networks either had the capacity needs for streetcar, or simply saved the already done investment, and just upgraded them. This may be some sections in the sensitive bussiness/shopping sections or in the old town, such as for example in Zürich (Bahnhofstrasse), or Freiburg (old town). In the case of Zürich, there were big efforts to “soft” separate cars and tram, in many places by simply reserving the lane for the tram (but tolerating some left turn traffic if it does not block the tram), or giving the tram priority at traffic lights (which may also mean that some road traffic gets priority to clear for the tram. In some other cases, the streets were actually narrowed, to force all traffic on one single lane, with a widened sidewalk. This last system works amazingly well, because the tram still has priority, and it kind of acts as a plunger for the traffic. And, yeah, get the big purse ready if you want to leave your car obstructing the tram; besides the fee for towing, you will pay a hefty fine plus you have to refund the VBZ for their expenses…
synonymouse Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
All of Richard’s points are correct and the #15 was probably more efficient and reliable in many instances than the T streetcar. But the streetcar is more comfortable and “fun” and you are probably at least a little less likely to get thrown to the floor hanging on to a pole by an aggressive TWU250A driver.
In defense of streetcars there is definitely the sparks effect and some systems have managed to optimize pretty well, for instance San Diego. In the case of a small town operation like Johnstown Traction Co. the street traffic was never that big a problem and probably not much worse today anywhere in the rust belt. Streetcars were somewhat more expensive and inflexible but compensated in their novelty and better riding experience. And then you have Shaker Heights which was mostly grade-separated and used PCC’s for years.
Where the traffic is bad there is money for transit; where the streets are empty there is hardly any money even for buses.
My point is if you are going to blow billions away on the monumental stupidity of a 50 mile Tehachapi DeTour that will be ridiculously underutilized in relation to cost and useless to freight, the trolley aficionados should get some of that throwaway workfare cash to resurrect the #11 to Noe Valley. Or maybe wire the #71, almost anything electric.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
“Why then are streetcars/trams the norm in European cities?”–Neville Snark
“All of the factors I mentioned: much higher ridership, lower construction cost, efficient operations, lower operating cost. Urban form that supports and can sustain the costs. Add to that willingness to prioritise movement of expensive transit vehicles ahead of private motor vehicles (ie transit-only and transit/pedestrian-only streets.)”–Richard Mlynarik
To these factors of Richard’s I would also add a matter of timing and ownership. The streetcars in America disappeared when the systems were largely under private ownership; the owners couldn’t afford a subsidy, nor was one available to them. This was in great contrast to the road system, in which the motorist has never paid the entire cost of his right of way. Bus conversion was thought to be a way to get out of paying for track and overhead wire maintenance and the property taxes on the same, while getting a right of way that was paid for by the taxpayer; it was also thought that diesel fuel would be 10 cents per gallon forever. Finally, a number of systems were converted by National City Lines, the actual corporate entity of the so-called wrecking of trolley lines by General Motors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://www.intransitionmag.org/archive_stories/streetcar_scandal.aspx
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread506005/pg1
It should be mentioned that not everyone blames National City Lines for the demise of the streetcar:
http://blogging.la/2007/03/09/top-la-legends-1-the-auto-industry-killed-los-angeles-streetcars/
http://www.debunkingportland.com/printables/TQOrigin.pdf
My own take is that National City Lines was a big part of the loss, but not the only one. A general attitude by planners, the public, politicians, and businessmen that rail transit was “old fashioned,” a failure to properly charge the automobile driver for his road system, over-regulation of the fare system, and the NCL group as well, all caused the street railway to almost entirely disappear in North America. The survivors largely lasted due to a combination of early municipal ownership and at least a partial private right-of-way that gave the streetcars a time advantage that could not be matched by a bus. That private right-of-way ranged from a true private line in Pittsburgh, to trolleys running in a grassy median in New Orleans, to subways in Boston, Newark, and San Francisco. A notable exception in regard to the right-of-way seems to be Toronto, which still had the advantage of early municipal ownership, and apparently one that wasn’t as susceptible to the blandishments of auto salesmen.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Having said all this, I still have to wonder about how buses were considered an improvement over streetcars in terms of ride quality. Even with air-bag suspensions, a bus rattles and shakes when it hits a bump, the engine screams in the back, and the transmissions still kick. They were even worse before, in the so-called “old look” bus that replaced most of the streetcars, and even in the “new look” bus of 1957 that eventually replaced the old TDH series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_%22old-look%22_transit_bus
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-gmc-tdh-5105-old-look-transit-bus-gms-greatest-hit-9-despite-being-the-agent-of-a-gm-deadly-sin/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/curbside-classic-1947-gm-pd-3751-silversides-greyhound-bus-the-first-modern-diesel-bus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_New_Look_bus
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/02/curbside-classic-gmc-tdh-4523-transit-bus/
synonymouse Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
@ D.P
You are forgetting the carmens’ union insisting on 2-man operation, a major factor in San Francisco. They even had PCC’s outfitted with conductor’s chair by the back door.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Well, I can’t say I forgot about the carmen’s union in San Francisco, because I didn’t know about it at all! I do know there was a considerable flap about two-man vs. one-man operation in the Washington, DC system, but I think that got resolved on a sort of attrition business that progressed as what was then Capital Transit purchased more PCCs. It would have been a stronger consideration in San Francisco, where that issue was apparently never resolved, based on your comments.
Out of curiosity, did San Francisco have to abandon lines when a bus couldn’t go where a streetcar could? That happened in Pittsburgh, where the Fineview line–I think it was route 21 in that city–was abandoned when it turned out bus conversion wasn’t practical. Long 13% grades, a right of way that went down streets that were little more than narrow alleys, and having to negotiate intersections in these alleys that passed for streets meant that buses just couldn’t go there.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3610/3524651165_6305ddd6d0_o.jpg
http://pittsburghtransit.info/1697fv.jpg
http://seashoretrolleymuseumlibrary.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
http://www.transitgloriamundi.com/trolley_videos/pittsburgh_north_side/big_video_images.html
http://www.transitgloriamundi.com/images/pittsburgh_north_side/fineview.gif
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Some notes about the Fineview line:
“Another time I boarded a car downtown about 8 or 9 o’clock at night. The car went across a bridge across a major river, and soon began climbing a hill through quaint neighborhoods. Then it made a sharp turn and began climbing an even steeper hill. I have since learned this was the steepest hill in Pittsburgh and had a fleet of cars with special gearing made just for that line.
“The car made a couple sharp turns and went along some narrow streets where you were a couple of feet away from people sitting in their kitchens or living rooms watching TV. Then – wonder of wonders! – it was no longer narrow streets but brick paved track through the woods. Branches scraped the right side of the car, then branches scraped both sides, but we were still on that paved single track. The climax of this adventure was when we went over a little hill and scraped the bottom of the car. I thought I had disappeared into some kind of parallel universe. The car finally arrived at an intersection on a busy street back in civilization and reality.
“It turns out the line was the very famous ’21 Fineview’ and the darling of trolley fans the world over. What a great experience to discover it without ever hearing about it before hand.”
http://seashoretrolleymuseumlibrary.blogspot.com/2010/01/recollections-of-trolley-fan.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sFulFL9Ldno/S0tTunTYv7I/AAAAAAAAAHM/5ISFkJwt9-Q/s1600/fineview.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=276769&nseq=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=276768&nseq=1
Syn will probably like these photos, even if they are from Pittsburgh:
http://pittsburghtransit.info/index3.html
Jon Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Why then are streetcars/trams the norm in European cities?
Note that I’m focusing my ire on mixed traffic streetcars here. Modern light rail systems, with lanes separated from private vehicles, are perfectly fine.
I can’t speak for continental Europe, but I don’t know of any existing tram/streetcar system in the UK which is predominantly mixed traffic. There are a few modern light rail systems, and a few subway systems as well, but by far the most common transportation setup for UK cities is an extensive DMU commuter rail system, and buses for local travel. Leaving aside the organizational issues caused by having multiple private bus and rail operators, this works fairly well.
thatbruce Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 10:23 am
@Jon:
Note that I’m focusing my ire on mixed traffic streetcars here. Modern light rail systems, with lanes separated from private vehicles, are perfectly fine.
You still need to choose the correct route for them. Replacing a little-used bus route with a mostly separated light rail is a waste of money, unless there are housing tracts planned to be built and populated along the route (and in that case, I’d say build the main road with the light rail reservation first, wait for two of the housing tracts to be built, then the light rail).
Neville Snark Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
dp, syno, richard m, jon and that bruce, thanks! Very enlightening. My favourite streetcar/tram lines in Europe are easily those in Lisbon, btw. You can’t ride them without musing on how wonderful sf could be …
Neville Snark Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
oh shit: Max Wyss also.
synonymouse Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
@ Neville Snark on Lisboa-like in SF
Visualize the 9 line on Chenery St., ca. 1940. If you know the locale pretty damn narrow, windy, and hilly.
Those who experienced the 7 on Haight Street recall there was much “fanning” of the brakes on the very substantial hills, like around Divisadero.
synonymouse Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
substitute winding for windy.
What an awful poll question — what is “education” doing in there? It basically pushes people who don’t have strong opinions about HSR to think “education=good” and choose “b.”
I can write a better one.
Which of the following statements do you agree with?
A) High speed rail should be funded.
B) High speed rail should be stopped and you should be given a million dollars.
CalBear Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Yes, it is annoying and unprofessional when pollsters create polls like this with choices that go well beyond just saying “yes” or “no.” There are inevitably going to be people who support HSR, but don’t necessarily agree with the superfluous text about jobs and the environment, and people who oppose HSR, but don’t necessarily agree with the part about education funding.
“Which of the two options would you prefer?
1. Death.
2. Cake.”
The headline the next day is that 98% of people are gluttons.
CComMack Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 1:01 am
“Church of England continues to dominate airline industry”
If the poll wasn’t meant to be biased, why would they use long-winded explanations? Seems to me that “fund it” and “don’t fund it” are all that’s needed, perhaps with a short, factual description beforehand. If the goal wasn’t to put a finger on the scale, there would be no need for language like “exploding” costs (accompanied with incorrect figures) and offering as an alternative “prioritizing…education” which is, of course, not something the bond or stimulus money can used for.
Robert, you don’t suppose HSR might have more support if the Authority were doing a better job, do you? I know that a lot of the opposition is irrational, but the CHSRA has done a very poor job of (a) controlling costs (b) providing the best service and experience to future passengers and (c) integrating into urban areas (a subtlety I’ll explain below). What if instead they:
- Put some minimal effort into keeping costs down. The $2b Millbrae tunnel is the prime example of why this isn’t happening, but there are others.
- Emphasized connectivity with local transit, esp. CalTrain and MetroLink. Timed transfers and fare integration would be nice. This would also lower costs because it would require less infrastructure in many places, esp. San José and LAUS.
- Sell grade separation as increasing corridor permeability. Commit to re-opening local streets which are currently severed by the tracks, and increasing the number of pedestrian crossings. A lot of the opposition to aerial alignments is silly, but some of it might go away if people saw the benefits. PA has already admitted that the current situation is a problem. Try to use retained fill rather than aerial structures to reduce noise/vibration AND cost.
- Grade separate parallel freight railroads, especially in downtown areas. This is one of the few situations where I believe that cost increases due to feature creep are actually justified. It makes the experience much better for everyone involved – passengers and residents, who wouldn’t be required to climb up and down repeatedly to cross the tracks or access station platforms, and improving local pedestrian and road connectivity.
Of course there will always be those who will oppose HSR, but if the Authority acted like it was designing the project for people, rather than building for the sake of building, then maybe, just maybe, there would be a lot more general public support.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
AOL.
joe Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Robert, you don’t suppose HSR might have more support if the Authority were doing a better job, do you?
No.
In fact some of the suggested changes are in place with the current Plan. Other criticisms are unsubstantiated fluff.
Joey Reply:
September 14th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Perhaps you’d like to comment specifically on some of the things I mentioned?
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
1.Emphasized connectivity with local transit, esp. CalTrain and MetroLink. Timed transfers and fare integration would be nice. This would also lower costs because it would require less infrastructure in many places, esp. San José and LAUS.
This is being done now – the blended approach with money at the bookends and for the CV core. How would CAHRS resolve fare integration and timed schedules with HSR at this time?
2.- Sell grade separation as increasing corridor permeability. Commit to re-opening local streets which are currently severed by the tracks, and increasing the number of pedestrian crossings. A lot of the opposition to aerial alignments is silly, but some of it might go away if people saw the benefits. PA has already admitted that the current situation is a problem. Try to use retained fill rather than aerial structures to reduce noise/vibration AND cost.
Permeability in PA is a topic, sadly PA had no draft plan for the ROW area until this summer. I don’t think CAHSRA has a responsibility to plan how and where crossings would happen in PA. The draft study indicates PA government knows additional crossings are an option – this is not a point of confusion for the City. They know it is an opportunity if they would stop pretending the entire project will go away.
3.- Grade separate parallel freight railroads, especially in downtown areas. This is one of the few situations where I believe that cost increases due to feature creep are actually justified. It makes the experience much better for everyone involved – passengers and residents, who wouldn’t be required to climb up and down repeatedly to cross the tracks or access station platforms, and improving local pedestrian and road connectivity.
Gilroy’s Downtown alignment has an option to grade separate UP and HSR. This took the city working with CAHSRA to study the option. Too few cities are involved by ignorance or choice.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Right now they’re planning faregates for HSR but not for CalTrain. You’re right that fare structures can always be changed, but they seem to be making no effort to make sure that the operator does so. As for schedules, the infrastructure and the schedule must be designed together. Current plans show potential schedules, but no coordination between HSR and CalTrain (I’ll dig up the blended plan document if you want).
They’re the ones doing grade separation, but at the very least they should be working with communities to make sure crossings are put in the right places. Like I said this has the potential to increase public support if done right.
Well then Gilroy is doing the right thing (though I’m still skeptical that express trains through downtown is a good idea in any case). But in other cities, the CHSRA should be taking a more active role in this. What they’re planning in Bakersfield really is a pedestrian nightmare.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
1. No need to dig up fare gate documents. IMHO, this is getting ahead.
2. Engaging local communities about ROW permeability… It’s a discussion so the Cities need to have a plan they approved for the HSR to engage. Plan as in what the city would like to see, not this is what we will build.
Surprisingly Palo Alto had nothing until a draft this May. Menlo Park has nothing. How do you engage when the city has no position and is suing ? Any concession on crossings undermines their EIR lawsuit. They ain’t talking and PA and MP have a long history of extorting traffic mitigation money money out of every project at Stanford. 3.5 M to MP for the hospital expansion – MP allowed the construction but only after they get paid.
3.
I also am skeptical.
Gilroy isn’t being The Daddy and dictating to residents or passive. They are actively engaging residents and choices were given and explained. Resistance is muted and citizens are better informed but the details are missing and I suspect the alignment might move when the next phase provides better details on each of the candidate alignments and stations.
Bakersfield is, IMHO, disengaged. Embarrassingly so for a city of it’s size.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 5:17 am
Since the current plan does not revoke the Millbrae tunnel (it just postpones it until later), does this mean you think that the criticism of it is unsubstantiated fluff?
StevieB Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 10:32 am
The Millbrae tunnel plan is a placeholder. There is no money to build the tunnel. Do you think the tunnel will be built?
Clem Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 11:02 am
A $2,000 million placeholder to squeeze past a $100 million station? That’s some placeholder! I’ll tell you what this is: it’s blank check engineering. Heck, it’s not even engineering, because a big part of the art of engineering is to balance cost into complex technical tradeoffs. It’s simply stupid, and describing it as a placeholder to be improved later doesn’t change that it’s stupid. And as a high-speed rail supporter, I resent that my taxpayer dollars were used to come up with this dreck.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 11:53 am
I’m sure that more than one engineer or even the whole engineering team brought up that it doesn’t make sense to spend 2 billion to save a 100 million building. Someone in management told them to avoid any changes to the existing station.
… 2 billion makes the Second Avenue Subway look inexpensive….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
You’d be surprised how limitlessly stupid America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals are. Or maybe not, if you look around you and see what they’ve bequeathed us.
The field actively selects against basic intelligence, understanding of goals, and design ability, and in favour of blinkered cost maximization.
Possess basic AutoCAD skills? Like feet and inches? Live by “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department“? Do straddle bents get you hard? You’re in!
StevieB Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
The High Speed Rail Authority cannot tear down a $100 million station without political support. Showing the alternative would be a $2 billion tunnel could help gain political support for replacing the station. Because the alternative has been assessed does not mean it will ever be built. This is a decades long project that will proceed in increments. Addressing a solution to Millbrae will take place in due time.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
1) The station wouldn’t have to be torn down, just modified slightly
2) There has been no presence/lack of political support because they have not floated the alternative. It does not show up in any documents.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 9:46 am
The political / personal issues should not be ignored however. The station was a Quentin Kopp/ Dan Richard initiative, who were made aware at the time that the station design would be a problem for HSR. From Drunk Engineer: http://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/bart-sfo-redux/
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Fun fact to know: BART (some agency staff, not the PBQD/Bechtel overlord contractors who pull the strings) actually offered to configure the Millbrae station to allow three (not four, but more than two) Caltrain platform tracks. I have a sketch they prepared for an inter-agency meeting. No skin off their nose, after all: just a bit more concrete.
Caltrain and SamTrans staff — who actively sought to terminate most Caltrain service at Millbrae and force transfers to “profitable” BART — rejected the proposal out of hand as “unnecessary for our needs”.
“Die in a fire” is far too kind.
Marc Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Richard, Millbrae DOES have three Caltrain platforms, only two are routinely used. The third platform is past the gates at the south end of the northbound platform (adjacent to the BART yard) on a siding long enough to hold another train. The only times it gets used (in my experience) is to allow passengers to transfer from a malfunctioning train to another, or allow a northbound BB to pass a delayed northbound local.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Marc, I’m perfectly and painfully aware of Millbrae as it unfortunately exists today. “Die in a fire, Quentin Kopp” is the nicest thing anybody who isn’t on the take could possibly say about it.
I’m referring to something that wasn’t built, and could have been built, and that BART had no problems allowing to be built, but wasn’t built, because of the deliberate and conscious actions of America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals.
Jon Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Work on the peninsula EIR stopped before the whole ‘value engineering’ thing started. The last document posted on the CAHSR website is from nearly 18 months ago. While the Millbrae tunnel has not been explicitly redacted I think it very unlikely it will end up being part of the blended plan.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
We can only hope. That still leaves a whole slough of issues along the CalTrain corridor unaddressed though. Hopefully the “blended plan” will give them some encouragement to at least consider a common platform height…
Clem Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Since when is “value engineering” a separate discipline? Value should be engineered into everything from the beginning, not as an afterthought. The very idea of “value engineering” is an admission of guilt: we piss away taxpayer dollars by default, so we need to “value engineer” things to make them more palatable, which really means doing them twice rather than doing them right. Ka-ching!
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Clem;
Value engineering in the CAHSR context is prioritizing building segments that are the least expensive per mile built.
That concept was one of CARRD’s arguments to move the project out of the higher cost bay area and their backyards.
This differs from your blog’s analysis that include ridership and other factors besides building more per dollar.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
And considering other factors is a bad thing?
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Define the value function. CARRD defined it as constructed track per dollar.
You can choose any one you want and Clem has his ideas. The context for CAHSRA is amount of the system built per dollar. Hello Central Valley.
Joey Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
When did this become about where to build first? There are plenty of project elements, particularly on the peninsula, which never should have passed the early stages of the AA, rather than having to be “value engineered” away later.
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
There is no HSR EIR in place to start the cornucopia of project elements on the peninsula. You have a PAMPA lawsuit to stop the project’s EIR.
These project elements probably don’t comply with Prop1A so do you want to now spend more money on a second lawsuit over Prop1a ?
Since you have ideas about value engineering, what are they?
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 12:16 am
They’ve already gone through two iterations of the alternatives analysis with little hope of resolving the issues. The blended plan gives a little hope of at least bringing the issues to light, but the results of that are still to be seen for the most part. I’ve mentioned most of the issues already but I’ll mention the big ones again. And for the record many of these ideas aren’t mine. You can find a detailed explanation of the issues at Clem’s blog (see especially, corridor to do list). Clem gives a very good analysis of the issues at hand here, and I highly recommend reading. Now, the big things are:
– Adopt a common platform height and fare collection system so that CalTrain and HSR can share platforms. This will reduce the amount of infrastructure that has to be built in a lot of places, San José chief among them (CalTrain and HSR can share six or so at-grade platform tracks with no massive multistory structure built on top – this also eliminates the long viaducts which would have to be built north and south of the station). It allows operational flexibility at Transbay, where capacity is most constrained. This would allow problems to be recovered from more easily and allows future operating changes (maybe we don’t need 9 HSR trains per hour – most large city pairs in Europe have 4 or less – and maybe we don’t want half all CalTrain runs to terminate at Mission Bay, a mile away from half of the corridor’s employment base). Common platforms would also allow cross-platform transfers (if scheduling permits).
– Get rid of CBOSS. There’s no reason to be developing a new signaling system right now, when there is off-the-shelf train control available and much more productive ways to be spending money. The CHSRA has already stated (justly) that only ERTMS Level 2 fits their requirements, and putting a separate, proprietary, untested signaling system on the CalTrain corridor will mean that HSR trainsets would need to have two types of signaling installed, further increasing costs.
– Design the corridor around a good timetable. The current plan gets rid of CalTrain express service in favor of a bizarre amalgamation of skip-stop patterns (slower than current express service). Use predictable service patterns at predictable intervals, and ideally have a mid-line cross platform transfer between locals and expresses. This timetable (including HSR) will tell you where 4 tracks are needed and where they aren’t. Again, the blended plan seems to be tackling this somewhat, though so far the result still leaves a lot to be desired.
– Get rid of the Millbrae tunnel. We’ve been through this a lot lately. Take one BART track and they will still have excess capacity. No reason to waste $2 billion here.
There are other issues too, like how to do grade separations, straightening curves, and the track order (having the fast tracks on the outside is better operationally), but I think this comment is long enough already.
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:42 am
So I have a comment here, but apparently I went crazy and my comment is long enough that it requires moderation before being posted.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
It’s a pro-idiot filter: if you post random unsubstantiable crap it appears immediately.
If you spend several hours tracking down references and providing dozens of careful links, you end up in moderation bit-bucket purgatory until the discussion has moved on. (No slight against Robert’s moderation intended; it’s just how WordPress works, for semi-legitimate anti-spam reasons.)
Not that any posting matters one way or another. Writing checks with a minimum of five trailing zeroes is the least you can can.
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
There. It showed up. Thanks, Robert, or whoever approved it (I don’t know if anyone else actively moderates here).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Joey, I checked your post that required moderation, and I can tell you it had too many links in it, which tripped it up in the spam filter this site is using.
The non-moderation limit for links is five per post, which is fairly generous; the old Infrastructurist site had a limit of two. Hope that helps you out.
Joey Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 12:41 am
Thanks. That’s good to know. Looks like I was just over the limit…
Alon Levy Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 5:03 am
Value engineering is not about where to build first; it’s about how to build each segment for less money. The first use of the phrase was in the context of the Central Valley segment: the original plans called for following existing rail lines, this turned out to require expensive grade separations, so now they’re swerving around unserved towns because acquiring farmland is cheaper.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Thank you for the lesson on Value engineering.
Your definition of value is to “build each segment for less money.”
CAHSRA could pay minimum wage for labor, use inferior materials.
I say it’s to build *where* the cost per unit construction is the least. Not *how*. I think that better captures the decisions including the ones you mention.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:18 am
“There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Interesting.
<blockquote
However, in The Annotated Alice, Martin Gardner ….
.. cautions the reader that there is not always intended symbolism in the Alice books, which were made for the imagination of children and not the analysis of "mad people".
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:41 am
joe, you have to build everything eventually anyway … prioritizing segments that get you more track for your money doesn’t have much benefit unless the track you’re building has a very strong case for interim use (which the CV segment doesn’t).
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Sure, if this were a project that was not under attack in political circles I’d expect things decided differently.
The CV segment, it benefits the CV. That’s not a bad thing. Interestingly, most critics here don’t live there. hm….
CV also happens to meet the stand alone utility requirement for ARRA funding and meets the Prop1A requirement.
Project elements do not satisfy both Prop1a and ARRA.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
So …. if there were 100%, unanimous political and social support for PBQD, no questions asked, then they’d have come up with a cost-effective and reasonable plan.
But … because there are mean old Republicans and Environmentalists and NIMBYs and Future Denialists and Koch Brothers and Sierra Clubs and PAMPAs out there in the big bad world, therefore PBQD was required to dream up something that costs two or three times as much as anybody else would consider paying for HSR; was forced to minimize ridership through insane and expense-inflating routing; was coerced into to reinventing the wheel on design standards; was blackmailed into inventing new and square wheels on the 220mph-through-city-centers front; prohibited from sharing platforms and stations with existing lines; and absolutely forbidden to produce anything but the most expensive possible design.
It was Mitt Romney, in collusion with Halliburton and OPEC, no less, who passed a law that said that PBQD had to paint a huge “KICK ME” sign on the back of all their “Alternatives Analyses”.
You certainly have an interesting way of “reasoning”, Joe.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
No. You have an illness – PBQD derangement syndrome. I bet you had to wipe your screen after your comment and that your lips moved as you typed.
Joey wrote:
The order matters. That’s all this is about.
Prioritizing construction that has useful utility in the CV is a political objective by the Administration to show the ARRA stimulus was not wasteful. It’s political.
Prop 1a’s constraints are Political compromises to appease legislative members and vote for the Proposition.
Your objective to stop HSR and punish the contractors is failing. It’s a religious. I read arguments, language terms and absolutisms as if this were a battle to impose god’s will. People are to burn as if has n hell. You are the Prophet of Transportation.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Joe, do you not care that your ideas of cost control are exactly the same as the Manhattan Institute’s? They, too, oppose anything that reduces the amount of labor or construction scope needed; to them, it’s all a distraction from the real goal of cutting wages.
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
So we shouldn’t care about what exactly is being built?
But it doesn’t really have useful utility (except political, as you mention). The tracks will sit mostly dormant until one of the mountain crossings is built (i.e. when you can actually justify buying high speed train sets). And what political objective does it fulfill? A moderate number of construction jobs to the CV?
I have never implicitly or explicitly promoted either objective. Just because I argue tirelessly about the details doesn’t mean I don’t want HSR built (and I do, just so we’re clear). But I would like to see it built in a way that maximizes the transportation value. As for the contractors, I’m more inclined to blame the processes used to hire such contractors, and the politicians who fail to fix them. Even PB does good work when they have incentives to do so.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Lot’s of shoulds and outta’s but no answers.
How do you meet ARRA requirements?
How do you meet Prop 1A requirements?
How do you dismiss PAMPAs EIR lawsuit to start construction?
Take stab.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
@Alon
I care deeply abut wages and fair pay. Pop was a CTU teacher. Mom’s living on a CTU pension. Grandpa was a organizer and executive with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union.
I propose no cost control. Build in the CV to meet the ARRA, Prop1A and you get more track per dollar.
WHERE they build. Not HOW,
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
You’re right that the Central Valley segment first is basically a done deal at this point. I am unconvinced that the Authority and the state had no part in telling the feds where the money should be spent first, and if pushed they might be willing to change that requirement, but there’s also the fact that the Authority pushed the CV EIRs ahead long before all this, so there’s probably no changing it at this point. I will continue to debate this the same way I and many others will debate the way that BART was built (even though that was long before my time). At least it gives us a bit more time to try and work out the more serious issues on the peninsula and elsewhere.
Prop 1A (2008) doesn’t require that any segment be built before any other segment. It also specifies that any segment built must have independent utility, which is sorely lacking in the Central Valley. Claim it’s political benefits all you like, but don’t pretend that a few Amtrak runs a day provides any transportation value.
If it were up to me (and it isn’t) one of the mountain crossings would have been built first (probably the southern one). This is for a number of reasons, primarily that (a) they have a lot of transportation value on their own and (b) these segments will probably take the longest to complete (from groundbreaking to opening). But as I mentioned at this point it is all academic…
With that attitude we will end up with nothing. Prop 1A only provides a small portion of the necessary construction funding, and federal funding will continue to be scarce regardless of who’s in Washington (the question is how scarce). As costs escalate, the project will take longer to complete, and, in fact, our chances of seeing it complete at all diminish (an outcome which, believe it or not, I do not look forward to). If you have no cost controls you end up with overbuilt labyrinthine stations which will deter passengers, no coordination with connecting transit, massive structures and massive property takings, perhaps comparable to the horror that freeways inflicted upon our cities half a century ago. You end up with contractors who have no incentives to make the project functional, and will not do things intelligently simply because they have no incentives to do so. Is that really what you want?
In absolute terms this might matter, but given that it’s all part of a system that will all be built eventually anyway, building more track now as opposed to later buys you nothing, especially on a segment that will be relatively useless on its own (again, I make a distinction between political usefulness and transportation value).
Drunk Engineer Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
You mean the “requirements” that were specifically written into Prop 1A by the CHSRA itself? That is a circular argument.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
the mountain crossings would have been built first (probably the southern one). This is for a number of reasons, primarily that (a) they have a lot of transportation value on their own
Going from Mojave to East Bakersfield is more useful than going from Bakersfield to Fresno?
Joey Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
1) The southern mountain crossing includes Sylmar-Palmdale. 2) It was implicit that it would have been a bit more than the mountain crossings. The EIR section is Bakersfield-LA, and that’s what I think should have been prioritized (emphasizing again that this is all academic at this point, but maybe we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future). Sometimes I think you argue just for the sake or arguing.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Do the high risk stuff first, cross mountains. That way when you encounter a problem you are over budget, and sitting duck for the critics think HSR should be terminated.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
If California doesn’t want 3 billion dollars the Northeast Corridor could suck up 3 billion by 2015 without breaking a sweat. Constant tension catenary between NY and DC is estimated to cost 2 billion. The other billion could go to the 100 year old or older bridges that need to be replaced. And that wouldn’t even get it to a state of good repair.
The half billion to restore service to Scranton has a record of decision. They could trade a bridge or two and do that instead. Connecticut would love to have money fall out of the sky to put in high level platforms on the Shore Line.
…You wanna pass up 3 billion so the perfect plan is executed, there’s plenty of places it could reallocated.
Joey Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 12:43 am
joe: that argument is perfectly valid (though there are other factors to consider), but you moved the goalposts again.
Jon Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
We already know that PB aren’t interested in finding the most cost effective solutions to problems; they have, as you correctly say, been engaging in blank check engineering. The value engineering that has occurred was forced on them by the authority once they realised that they were never going to get anything built with cost projections 3x the original estimate. It shouldn’t be a separate phase, but that’s how it worked out.
No-one’s really paying attention to the peninsula right now, the focus for the next 10 years will be on the Central Valley and SoCal. Caltrain are gonna come up with their wish list of capital projects and get it approved, but tunneling under Millbrae will not be on there as it’s of no benefit to Caltrain. Only once HSR gets close to reaching San Jose will the issue of what to do at Millbrae be revisited.
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
CAHSR sets up a measure like amount of usable track constructed per dollar.
They prioritize construction according to that measure. Tunnels are expensive and consequently lower priority.
CARRD supported this approach (IMHO) because it moved the project out of the Peninsula. That gives them additional time to push back on the local segment and kill it, move it, sell their home.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
…well if your intent is to maximize your property’s value you push to have it completed as soon as possible. Having easy access to San Francisco on fast frequent electric trains would increase property values…
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Within reason but some folks will be impacted and live next to thew ROW and Palo Alto is a world on to itself. Who needs SF?
I live 0.5 KM from the ROW, and 1 KM from the Caltrain Station. My town should benefit and is trying to engage the CAHSRA. I speculate that same proximity in PAMPA would worry people.
Funny that the football game like today in Palo Alto totally screw’s the town with cars but it’s the right kind of people choking the streets and it’s a good cause. They are quite adaptable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Getting rid of noisy smelly loud fume producing diesel trains is not going to increase property values hard against the tracks?
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Get real. The Peninsula was ready for electrification and the TBT Tunnel in 1991. You have got your villains all wrong; your real “nimbys”(hiss, hiss) were and are BART, Heminger, Kopp, Willie Brown.
At least Kopp in recent days has tried to redeem himself a trifle by pissing on Rose Pak’s misbegotten Stubway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
The Peninsula and SF was ready for electrification in 1901 when the Southern Pacific wanted to go all the way to Ferry Building.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
And by 1946 SF(at least Roger Lapham and all the honchos at Muni)was ready to rip out most all the streetcar lines and by the time BART came on the scene official SF was ready to rip out all the trolleybuses. Fortunately, this time, the bond issue was voted down – the voters remembered being tricked in 1946.
The Ferry Building extension idea was hopeless as the City has slated this area for exteme highrise for decades. And then Loma Prieta and the demise of the loathed Embarcadero Freeway and finally the Ballpark. The TBT Tunnel was and is the only way to go. Personally I would just go for Caltrain solo to the TBT, just as in the 1991 plan as it appears that the planning for the trminal layout is, what, inadequate to poor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Nobody was planning on extreme highrises in 1899.
synonymouse Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
I cannot figure why the cheerleaders have such a hard-on against CAARD, PAMPA, and the Peninsula in general. The latter are the ones who turned down BART as a crappy alternative to continued SP commute rail service and they were right. Had they opted for BART the SP ROW would be gone by now and your stupid CAHSR would be stuck in their much-hated East Bay, which even now Heminger and MTC are spurning. Or they would have found a way to use 101 or Dumbarton.
Face it: PAMPA is rich as Croesus and getting richer by the day. Villa, Antonovich, Barry Zoeller paupers, chump change, by comparison. And Moonbeam has bent over for these LaLa clowns – you think he is going to try to eff with PAMPA and get away with it?
Nathanael Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Dishonesty from CAARD, blatant dishonesty from PAMPA NIMBYs (not all of PAMPA).
synonymouse Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Dishonesty – what?
The PAMPA people are simply taking care of their own best interests, like everybody else and anybody with a pulse and half a brain.
You don’t think Villa, Antonovich, Barry Zoeller aren’t taking care of their own best interests, by whatever means? The cheerleaders are hopeless hypocrites.
And speaking of dishonesty, how can you get more mendacious and crooked than Moonbeam and Reid. Turns out the whole damn hsr scheme is to build a railroad to enable California suckers to dump their social socurity and welfare checks in another state, Nevada. And that’s with California carrying a huge and disproportionate chunk of the US welfare load. How about we use TehaVegaSkyBahn to relocate some CA welfare recipients to Sin City? There is a huge housing glut there.
You gotta luv the irony of Adelson benifitting greatly from a project created by his political enemies.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
NONE of Caltrain’s capital project are of benefit to “Caltrain” — if you take that to mean “Caltrain riders, potential Caltrain riders, Caltrain neighbours, and Caltrain taxpayers”. The agency’s projects are, on the contrary, uniformly detrimental to the short-, medium- and long-term viability of the system.
Caltrain’s capital budget is however of large benefit to Caltrain’s contractors and the “public” staff who keep them fat and happy.
To believe that the Millbrae tunnel — which was developed by Caltrain’s very own — would be off the table because it is useless, mind-boggling expensive, and mind-boggling stupid is exactly backwards: Caltrain only funds projects which screw over its own riders and its own taxpayers.
Millbrae Intergalactic. San Bruno grade separation. SFFS track configuration. Multi-level San José Pandimensional. Separate non-Transbay terminal in SF outside the CBD. Encouragemenbt of freight. Rebuilding every station to not have level boarding. Active staff endorsement of Los Banos HSR. CBOSS. CBOSS. CBOSS.
The bigger the failure, the more the staff will back it.
America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals, on the job.
joe Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Caltrain’s capital budget is however of large benefit to Caltrain’s contractors and the “public” staff who keep them fat and happy.
…
Caltrain only funds projects which screw over its own riders and its own taxpayers.
Ridership is up. That must be horrible news.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 9:58 am
You have got to figure a way to make more people unhappy and stop using Caltrain.
If more people boycotted the Caltrain system, you’d have a better justification to fire everyone and stop these projects that are designed without any benefit to ridership.
Increased ridership is a benefit. It confuses people and undermines perfection.
Stephen Smith Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 1:36 am
Ridership is (way) up since British Rail was privatized, too, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster.
Ridership is up all over the US, and the fact that a rail line running from SF through the heart of Silicon Valley is seeing slightly increased ridership at a time when tech workers are migrating to San Francisco and demanding transit in droves (see: Google, et al’s private bus fleets) is not that impressive.
Sure looks like a push poll to me.
“taxpayer price tag has exploded”
Nope, no bias there at all. /sarc
As opposed to “estimate has been revised higher in inflation adjusted dollars”
Paul Druce Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 9:53 am
It’s significantly higher in real dollars as well.
missiondweller Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Yet I’m sure you got the point of my post.
Simple poll:
Question 1: are you are a registered Republican or Democrat? If answer “Republican” – ask question 2a: If answer “Democrat” – ask question 2b.
Question 2a: Should the taxpayers of California support the out-of-control expenditure on Jerry Brown’s Democratic/Labor Union boondoggle known as HSR that will destroy valuable farm land in the Central Valley?
Question2b: Do the citizens of California deserve a highly energy efficient surface transportation system that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and bring California into the 21st century?
Mac Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
What one “deserves” has nothing to do with what one can “afford”.
There are a lot of other infrastructure projects that could bring thousands of jobs to Californians…and they have nothing to do with HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 1:45 am
Even “afford” is the wrong question. California can undoubtedly afford HSR. The question is whether it’s a good investment.
OFF TOPIC
Terrified Caltrain passengers forced to jump out of way of train
By Mike Rosenberg mrosenberg@mercurynews.com
Posted: 09/14/2012 06:47:50 PM PDT
Updated: 09/15/2012 07:32:28 AM PDT
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21547798/terrified-caltrain-passengers-forced-jump-out-way-train
Paul Druce Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Why in the world is there at grade pedestrian crossings of track in the first place?
Clem Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 11:10 am
This was not an at-grade gated pedestrian crossing. It was a situation where the southbound should have stopped outside the station per operating rule 6.30, a.k.a. the “hold out” rule.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 15th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
A grade separated crossing, a central platform, and non-grade-separated pedestrian crossings with blinking-lights-and-dinging-bells at South San Francisco were defunded by America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals at Caltrain and the funding pissed away on the catastrophically stupid San Bruno clusterfuck — you know, the one that makes service worse, forever, while being transparently incompatible with quality Caltrain service and quality shared corridor HS service.
Nathanael Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Richard, there’s a reason the Caltrain corridor has gotten pushed to the back burner — mismanagment at Caltrain and rampant NIMBYs — but what sort of excuse is that for knee-jerk opposition to the Central Valley To Los Angeles HSR program?
Stephen Smith Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 1:38 am
There’s no actual link under “defunded.”
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 9:06 am
It wasn’t an interesting link: http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Projects/Caltrain_Capital_Program/South_San_Francisco_Caltrain_Station_Improvement_Project.html
You just can’t make this up: “make certain that today’s investments are not deemed obsolete in the near future.” Comedy gold from Caltrain! CBOSS! San Bruno! San Jose! Transbay! Eight inch platforms! CBOSS! CBOSS! CBOSS!
Previously: http://web.archive.org/web/20090104153006/http://www.caltrain.com/project_South_San_Francisco_Caltrain_Station_Improvement.html
September 10, 2012 – Surging Amtrak Ridership Sets 11 Consecutive Monthly Records [pdf]
joe Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Plot of historic prices is available at the link.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2012_fotw741.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 16th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
One opinion on why we don’t have high speed rail in America–yet:
http://www.latitudenews.com/story/why-the-u-s-doesnt-have-high-speed-rail-yet/
Does anyone else find it fundamentally dishonest to use YOE costs when talking to lay-people? When you say “$70 billion” (rounded up from $68.4), they will interpret this as current dollars, not future inflated ones. There is absolutely no excuse to use that figure in a poll or in any public relations context. It will inevitably be mis-interpreted.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 4:09 am
It’s pretty bad, but what’s worse is comparing constant-dollar costs with future YOE costs. It is correct to say that costs have run over from $33 billion to $53 billion, or that they’ve run over to $65 billion, but not that they’ve run over to $98 billion.
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 7:45 am
It wasn’t unfair when they told them it would be 40 billion to build. You can’t have it both ways, they can’t be too stupid to understand the poll but smart enough to vote for prop 1A.
John Nachtigall Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 7:47 am
sorry that should have been 33 billion in prop 1A
Alon Levy Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 8:34 am
The poll says $10 billion, not $40 or $33 billion.
thatbruce Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Welcome to news reporting, LA Times style.
Off topic, but something to give us a little respite, the Pumpkin Festival returns to the Western Railway Museum in Suisun City:
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_21556479/pumpkin-festival-returns-western-railway-museum-suisun-city
http://www.wrm.org/