Caltrain MOU Vote Delayed As Lynn Schenk Voices Concerns
Usually California High Speed Rail Authority board meetings are interesting for the information learned about the project’s development. Rarely can I remember any genuine disagreement among board members over something substantive. But there was disagreement today and it was enough to cause a delay in approval of the agreement with Caltrain to share its tracks.
At the meeting in Redwood City today, Vice-Chair Lynn Schenk voiced her concerns about the so-called “blended plan” – the interim solution for sharing tracks with Caltrain and high speed rail on the Peninsula. Because there are three vacancies on the board, Schenk’s opposition meant that there weren’t the votes to approve the memorandum of understanding with Caltrain, and it was delayed to next month’s meeting:
Board Vice Chair Lynne Schenk, a long-time skeptic of the “blended” approach championed in the Peninsula, appeared to surprise her colleagues by playing the role of runaway bride and taking a stand against the new agreement. Since the nine-member board has three vacancies and because another board member, Michael Rossi was out of town, Schenk’s opposition effectively deprived the board from having the five votes it needs to ratify the new agreement.
Schenk, a former Congresswoman from San Diego and the board’s senior member, said she would be voting her “conscience” in opposing the new agreement. While her colleagues, most of who have been appointed in the past three years, have largely embraced the blended system first proposed by then-state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, and U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, Schenk has not been swayed. She said Wednesday that she cannot support the electrification of Caltrain “at the expense of the ultimate goal of high-speed rail.”
“I owe the people of California nothing else than voting my conscience,” Schenk told her colleagues at the Wednesday meeting in Redwood City, to which she jokingly referred as the “lion’s den.” “I hope you all expect that this is not something that is reflective of the work you’ve done and your very legitimate goals here.”
Schenk has been called the “mother of high speed rail” for having taken the lead in the early 1980s to propose the first high speed rail route in California when she was Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing during Governor Jerry Brown’s second term. Schenk strongly supports the original concept of high speed rail – Shinkansen style trains operating on dedicated tracks enabling them to hit top speeds.
The “blended plan” is a shift away from that model, at least for a short period of time. And it was adopted at the behest of anti-HSR politicians such as Joe Simitian, catering to wealthy NIMBYs along the Caltrain route.
I have never liked the “blended plan.” I would much rather see a full four-track buildout happen as soon as possible. And yet I have been willing to go along with the “blended plan” as a political move. By punting the ultimate decision about building a four-track system several more years into the future, it’s possible, in theory, to wait the NIMBYs out and once gas prices have soared higher, ridership and demand on the corridor start pushing limits, and as communities along the track realize their mistake, we revisit the four-track system then.
There’s a risk to that, of course, and in the meantime we’re left with a “blended plan” that isn’t as ideal as we deserve. So while I’m willing to support it (and I do, let me be clear about that), I also respect Lynn Schenk’s reasons for dissenting. She’s right to raise concerns and I won’t criticize her for doing so. Her goal is to preserve the original vision of the high speed rail project, which is exactly what she ought to be doing.
Never miss a chance to pour some beton, because with organization and electronics you just can’t waste enough money.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest to people living in San Diego–the film, “Rocky Mountain Express,” is coming to the Fleet Theater:
http://www.rhfleet.org/shows/rocky-mountain-express
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vieOm8HDWo
Good for Schenk!!! The blended plan is a terrible compromise. The project objective to enable HSR trains within legislative parameters is the ultimate goal. Blended plan compromises that.
joe Reply:
March 6th, 2013 at 10:49 pm
I agree.
Nice to see the HSR side push back.
Should HSR sign an MOU while CA State Rep Jerry Hill is planning legislation to lock money to Caltrain electrification and limit the 4 track option?
The only two track solution on the Peninsula involves HSR on the bottom and BART on top.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:48 am
Aerials are not acceptable in PAMPA. But if PB-CHSRA tries to renege on the blend Klein et al can revive BART Ring-the-Bay solo in subway with hsr terminating at San Jose.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:01 am
PAMPA won’t get aerials, but they will get a berm. And they won’t get a tunnel or trench either.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
No berms, no aerials but perhaps a BART subway if PB tries to back out of the blend.
Unlike Larkspur with SMART, San Jose would be thrilled to become the hsr terminus. And of course the cheerleaders would have to live with the consequences of their own obstinacy.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Except Prop 1A says termination in SF.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
PAMPA doesn’t get a tunnel or trench? Tell that to Mr. Gilroy
VBobier Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
If PAMPA wants a tunnel or a trench, then it’s up to PAMPA to pay for said tunnel or trench, not the CHSRA or anyone else.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
“tell that to Joe”.
joe Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Jonathan is conflating the Gilroy Station Study & Recommendation with the full PAMPA HSR segment and their unilateral demands.
Gilroy has cooperated with the CAHSRA – our city knows HSR will happen and CAHSRA doesn’t need Gilroy’s permission. The State has the power to build HSR.
Gilroy studied 2 locations, green field and downtown. With HSR guidance, Gilroy looked at grade & aerial and slight berm & trenched – again the station, not the alignment cutting thought town and bypassing the city like say Menlo Park.
The City recommended a downtown alignment and at grade station with trenched HSR and at grade UP. No demands. No threat.
CAHSRA is now going to provide details on that recommendation – and they have the reasoning behind Gilroy’s recommendation as well as the assumptions the city made.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Okay, so what you’re saying is Gilroy is doing the same thing PAMPA did only it’s saying it more nicely: “we want a tunnel/trench.”
joe Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 11:31 pm
What’s the point of trolling Alon? All you are doing is trolling.
We cooperated and were given options to study. The City spent money. The study recommended a downtown alignment and at grade station with a trench for HSR at the station. That was an option.
CAHSRA will provide more details. That’s where we are unless you can find a city report backing up your trolling BS.
It’s possible that the city will, after seeing impacts and costs, want the station moved to the green field – TBD.
I will point out that a green field station forces the City to build infrastructure to the station at our expense – hence the cost for that alignment exceeds the CAHSR estimate. That finding and the estimate of out of pocket cost to the city is in the study.
Also, the fact that site would be only the second HSR built in a green field. A fact City council recognizes and we do value keeping the city from sprawling out to that site.
These, and many other details, explain part of the reason for the downtown alignment – the trench for mitigating noise and minimal visual impact.
Let’s see how the CAHSRA responds.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 12:26 am
When the HSRA responds quite reasonably that it’s your problem, that even if it has to pay for the cost of access roads a trench is still more expensive, and that Gilroy is the smallest city on the LA-SF line and should be thankful it’s even getting a station, will Gilroy say “Okay, we accept it,” or will it sue the way PAMPA did?
William Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 12:43 am
joe, you are incorrect in saying Gilroy recommanded the downtown trench option.
In fact, most of the participants of the working group recommended the downtown split-grade alternative (DT1 “modified at-grade option”), not the trench alternative, primary because it also grade-separate UP tracks and is likely to be cheaper. Only the Gilroy city council saved the trench option from being dropped citing “more study is needed”, but they didn’t recommend against the WG’s recommendation either.
See here: page 22 http://www.gilroyhighspeedtrain.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gilroy_HST_CC_StudySession2_handout.pdf
joe Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 9:33 am
Hmmmm.
You are pointing to a council mtg presentation, not the report.
Page 22 is the summary of results for workshop #4. That’s the title of the slide.
FYI, there were several workshops in the city – not one. Obviously #1 2 and 3.
Page 24 “upcoming milestones” mentions the report is due in Feb 2012.
Gilroy endorsed the study results and recommend a trench and downtown station to the CAHSRA.
Joe, at this time given and what we know, prefers DT1 “modified at-grade option”. I’d like to see that studied further and hope, given a downtown alignment is favored, CAHSRA gives more deatils on that option as well as the Trenched.
Ted Judah Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:44 pm
You can put HSR in a trench and thus keep the aerials lower than they would be in other places. You would have to ford the Creek with two separate viaducts.
The lunacy is that you would propose a miles-long BART Tunnel under PAMPA.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:20 am
And presumably you want to build out DogLegRail.
BART under PAMPA makes more sense.
Only two countries in the world (I think?) have 100% non-blended HSR: Japan, which has insane demand, and Spain, which has insanely low costs.
Ya want separate HSR tracks, Robert? Then maybe you should stop cheerleading cost increases and demand that the US get costs down to Spanish levels.
‘Cause unless California gets a feeder system like Japan’s, Japan-style demand will never be there.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:52 am
So You want labor, materials and land to essentially not cost anything at all? Japan, China, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, etc, all have this thing called currency and it isn’t at the same value as the US Dollar, but then it never has either, right now China has been in the midst of a giant Housing boom that has sucked up concrete, steel and copper like crazy, they’ve got lots of empty shopping malls and apartments, the Chinese Housing bubble will make all the housing bubbles in the US look like small potatoes by comparison, as their bubble stretches over some 40 cities in China. So of course HSR costs more here, plus the value of the land in CA is bigger than in some areas of the world(like Spain), but not as bad as land values in Japan…
J Baloun Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:59 am
Those 40 cities are probable all the population of Los Angeles or Phoenix or Atlanta.
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 2:53 pm
No, those 40 cities are in China, You know the country with about 3 Billion people living there?
Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta combined don’t have even close to that much population…
Keith Saggers Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
the poulation of China is not 3 billion
VBobier Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Ok, so I misstated the size, I’m not perfect, the population of China is:
1,344,130,000 – 2011
Source: World Bank
Otherwise My statement is still correct, those 40 Chinese cities combined are bigger than the named US Cities, also combined.
Population: 3,819,702 (2011) Los Angeles
Population: 1,469,471 (2011) Phoenix
Population: 432,427 (2011) Atlanta
The combined population for all 3 US Cities is a mere 5,721,600. I’m sure those 40 Cities in China are bigger than those 3 US cities, by how much I don’t know, but I’m fairly sure the US can’t compete in that area.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:13 am
Metro LA is 15m, metro PHX is 4m
VBobier Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 6:02 pm
I wasn’t thinking of the metro areas, but thanks for the support.
Keith Saggers Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:56 am
Shanghai is over 20 million
VBobier Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Shocking…
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Demand or costs have nothing to do with this. Japan, Spain and Taiwan are 100% non-blended because their legacy rail networks do not use standard gauge.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Clem, I was hoping you would care to comment on 220mph operation over the DogLeg.
Keith Saggers Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Sy, picture a Muni Trolley bus going over Potrero Hill, got it
jimsf Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 3:43 pm
or the T thrid going through Dogpatch.
Syn, dog parts do not inhibit hsr.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Mark Zuckerberg bought a $3mil pad in Noe Valley. Maybe he can be talked into buying the Tejon Ranch.
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:11 pm
It’s not technologically impossible if they use some of these to check the train going downhill. Magnetic eddy current brakes. No other braking technology can handle the energy of a downhill emergency stop from 220 mph.
Uphill, you can’t do 220 mph, nor do they claim to.
Eric M Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:14 pm
And they stated if they have to slow down to 150 over the pass, it will only add a couple more minutes….Still at 2:40
Eric M Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
I should have aid 150 in certain sections, not the whole mountain grade
Eric M Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
….said…
Perhaps the question or goal should not be whether a separate ROW for HSR is needed through the peninsula, but whether a blended system with 2 tracks will eventually need 3-4 tracks because of ridership demand.
The only experience I have with the peninsula is taking HWY 1 from Monterey to San Francisco as I have always avoided HWY 101 (except for a few very early morning trips to get to SFO). This may be a dumb question, but do the current Caltrain stations have just 2 tracks through them or do they have 3-4 tracks through them? Even Fresno will have 4 tracks through its downtown HSR station.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:55 am
Bayshore has 4 tracks now. All the others except for Diridon have 2.
Reality Check Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Sunnyvale’s Lawrence Caltrain station has 4 tracks.
BrianR Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:38 pm
don’t forget about Lawrence’s 5th track to serve that concrete block manufacturing facility! After seeing that almost every day from the train it looks so much more impressive from above (in terms of scale that is).
Most of the caltrain row is already wide enough for four tracks. and an in a lot of it, already has four tracks. So why not put four tracks everywhere except the couple of spots where there isn’t room and then schedule trains accordingly.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:58 am
“[A]lready has four tracks”? Really? Where? There are 4 tracks through Bayshore. South San Francisco has more than 4 tracks, but all those extra tracks are for freight switching. There are various sidings, but I wouldn’t consider any of those as more than 2 mainline tracks.
J. Wong Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:03 am
And Diridon is shared with Amtrak Coast Starlight.
jimsf Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:18 am
mypoint was that there is plenty of four track row already, not that all the tracks are used by caltrain. in other words there is plenty of room to configure 4 tracks to accomodate caltrain hsr freight and so forth.
Jerry Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Amen
OT Proposal boosts valley-LA rail link
Officials confident $162M plan will pass
The argument about the blended compromise hinges on whether you believe that such a system presents a workable solution. There has been some vague discussion about doing it “like Europe” to plug in to existing lines to access city centers. As I hope readers of this blog know we may have rights of way but we do not have compatible systems with which to blend. Thus HSR is not blending with Caltrain but with a newly rebuilt and electrified railroad on the peninsula. Is this not simply a way of pretending to reduce the cost of HSR and transferring that expense to Caltrain? It’s even more of an issue in the south where the proposal seems to be to use 30 – 50mph Soledad Canyon (as engineered in 1870) to access L.A., and a station somewhere near Burbank to interchange to Metrolink. Some might call that idea a hoax. It’s certainly not HSR as advertized.
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 11:41 am
I don’t think anyone is proposing HSR via the existing Metrolink alignment in Soledad Canyon. It’s far too curvy, and all but impossible to add another track to. Plus, a recent agreement with UP guarantees at least one non-HSR track from Palmdale to LA.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Read the Metro report on the AV line
Joey Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
This one? It says almost nothing specific about HSR, except that portions of the corridor (without specifying which portions) would be shared by HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
That would be portions which are not Soledad Canyon, FWIW. There’ve been several iterations of HSR routings from Burbank to Palmdale. They follow Metrolink in the urban sections but they have been getting ever further away from it in the mountain sections as they attempt to avoid both environmental impact, and as they attempt to avoid annoying the rich landowners up in the mountains.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
My take on this is crude, simple-minded, but easy to follow. Goes like this:
PB runs the CHSRA. PB and BART are virtually the same. PB is permeated with BART-think. You can see this inspiration in the 99 ROW aerials ripped via eminent domain out of backyards and almond groves. Pure BART thru Berkeley.
So I am predicting, with nothing more than conjecture to substantiate, that the CHSRA will opt for the least possible interface with any existing rr operation. It will attempt to be as segregated, as proprietary, as unique as BART. Forced transfers between orphan train to nowhere on the north and DogLegRail on the south.
Pure BARTsy hubris fuels this. That sense of manifest destiny – no matter how great a scandal the sheer power of the patronage machine will find the money to complete the fiasco. PB-BART is a bully and bullies usually get their way. That’s why PAMPA and the Valley growers have no choice but to smack back. Offering no resistance just eggs on bullies.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, Concord.
Ted Judah Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Realistically, the reason to use BART as a model is that it mirrors the S-Bahn architecture that reinforces appropriate density and growth patterns. At *full* build-out, much of the HSR will carry multiple service lines radiating from the Bay Area to the entire West Coast.
The opposite approach is Metrolink. Build on the cheap, then figure out the land use patterns later. Nevermind competing with freight traffic and a a lack of grade separations.
Even on the Peninsula, where there is precious little freight left, you still don’t want a bottleneck between SFO and Chowchilla, where you could conceivably see the highest load factor on the entire system.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:29 pm
SFO and Chowchilla? I was thinking between Tehachapi and Mojave.
Diridon Rail Station plans to transform downtown San Jose into ‘Times Square of Silicon Valley’
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Times Square, Grand Central, pick one and stick with it!!
There are surgical procedures for this; they should check their spam folder.
John Burrows Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 4:03 pm
“For the first time in generations to paint on a blank canvas a vision for what a city can become”
Stuff like this was probably said 100 years ago, prior to the opening of the grandiose Michigan Central Station in Detroit.
BrianR Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 12:40 am
So what! Hubris and grand schemes in the hyping up and promotion of cities has been an American tradition for a long time. Why should San Jose be any different? Everyone get’s their panty’s in a bunch over San Jose’s most notorious boosterism as “capital of silicon valley” but in all seriousness who the f**k cares! I am sure San Jose is not the first city in America who’s business groups and politicians used a bit of posturing to influence the routing of a new railroad hoping to attract economic growth.
The day will likely come that the tech industry completely dries up in the south bay and San Jose will metaphorically become “the next Detroit” and all those tilt-ups and parking lots will revert back to orchards. At that time San Jose’s motto will officially change to “50 miles south of San Francisco”.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:21 am
SFers may hate of the South Bay but the Super Bowl 49ers thot it a good business decision to relocate down there
Reedman Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
One memory of visiting Diridon Station is a display case containing the statement that San Jose was the second busiest train station in California (after LAUS).
Michael Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:31 pm
True, but that’s trains, not passengers. I got off a Caltrain Bullet last Friday at 9am at Diridon. There were ten other passengers on the car I was riding. But they do have all the Caltrain trains stopping, all ACE, a subset of the Capitols, and the once-daily Starlight. That is a lot of trains, just not so many riders. For Caltrain riders, San Jose is fourth, after SF, Palo Alto, and Mountain View.
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/Ridership/2012+Annual+Ridership+Counts.pdf
BrianR Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 12:15 am
don’t forget to include freight trains too. I would have to think the best spots for train-spotting in the bay area would be at the Santa Clara and Diridon Caltrain stations, both of which (as I have heard) are technically part of the same yard. One evening at the Santa Clara station while waiting for a bus I saw a consist of about 20 UP freight locomotives pass through the station. Not sure what the purpose of that but it was an interesting sight. I assume they must of all been headed down to southern California to get serviced, re-built or scrapped.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
No it’s not
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA12.pdf
Clem Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:13 am
One thing you must always keep in mind is that San Jose is pervaded by a civic inferiority complex that colors everything the city claims about itself.
swing hanger Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:53 am
Gertrude Stein’s quote about Oakland is more apt for SJ nowadays, perhaps.
BrianR Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 3:13 am
yes, everyone knows that already including everyone in San Jose. San Jose is well aware that among the 3 largest bay area cities it will always be the “ugly sister” or the illegitimate “bastard child” born out of annexation and the land grabs of the 60′s and 70′s. We got to love the “Magnificent 70′s”! Flawed as it is it is still worthy of our love! Maybe it just needs a little time and perspective to find a soft spot in the rest of our hearts! It might not be what we would conventionally call a “city” but it is a product of it’s specific time as are all cities to some extent.
In terms of scale San Jose could almost be it’s own county or a “sub-county” of Santa Clara County. I’ve always felt that in terms of urban growth patterns San Jose should stop trying to compare itself to San Francisco and Oakland and embrace Los Angeles as the big sister in which it shares most of it’s DNA except for LA’s culture. Los Angeles is without a doubt one of the most beautiful and culturally rich cities in America. It’s a city with known flaws but why state the obvious! LA had an inferiority complex at one time but like a person it matured and grew beyond that. Los Angeles being a city of smaller villages and nodes has the most realistic pattern for San Jose to emulate rather than focussing everything on the downtown. I wouldn’t fault San Jose if it wants to build a transit system to connect these nodes together. It is currently dealing with the same issues LA has been dealing with in terms of transportation and urban planning.
Also, in my opinion there is a lot more dignity in San Jose calling itself the “most northerly suburb of Los Angeles” rather than as a “suburb of San Francisco”!!! If San Jose could gain just a small fraction of the cultural energy of a place like LA it would be a major improvement.
And finally I got to say the concept of “culture” is relative. Every place has it’s own “culture” to some extent. It’s just not always a culture that is “cool” or appealing in the conventional sense. The questions of whether or not that is a “problem” is up for debate but it is an issue that is beyond the abilities of city government or planners to address. Currently San Jose is one of the best cities in the bay area to live in if you really want to disappear! That’s just a statement of fact, not a judgement one way or the other. I’ve noticed that people in the south bay and San Jose seem a lot more transient or less attached to their communities than those to the north. Their reasons for being down here are usually exclusively because of their jobs and if they own property it’s primarily as an investment, not because they care to become part of a community and know their neighbors. Their real “home” is not San Jose but the place they came from or hope to move to. I still do not fault the city government and planners for trying to change this. I don’t know that they will ever succeed but being perpetually stuck in a rut as a “one industry town” is never an easy thing to address.
Downtown San Jose may currently be the bay area’s prime “Potemkin City” but maybe someday the emptiness and silence of it’s streets will become a tourist attraction in it’s own right second to the one and only San Jose attraction; the Winchester Mystery House. Like the Winchester House “they built it because they felt they had to or else they would be perpetually haunted in their afterlife”.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_22739401/dan-walters-more-hurdles-ahead-high-speed-rail
by Dan Walters, San Jose Mercury News
Do we really support Schenk’s reasons for dissenting? And does she really support the original goal of HSR, 4-track on the Peninsula? Think about it: Peninsula Nimby’s (through their obstruction and crying) force a blended approach, meaning Caltrain and HSR share track from San Jose to SF. OK, fine, let’s support this less ideal plan and utilize HSR funding to kick start Caltrain electrification on the Peninsula. BUT WAIT! Now we shouldn’t be using HSR funding for modernizing Caltrain (pss..what the Nimby’s don’t want either) because that’s not what the funds are intended for; they should ONLY be used for 4-track from SJ to SF (again, what the Nimby’s don’t want). IS THIS BRILLIANT OR WHAT! (Check out Clem’s blog to see how to “rectify” this dilemma. You guessed it! Altamont over Dumbarton that completely bypasses San Jose, Silicon Valley and PAMPA for 4-track from RWC to SF…BRILLIANT! Luv yah Clem;)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
but that’s the goal. Get one group of people to force them to look over the EIR with a fine tooth comb and delay it there. Then get another group of people to scream about how much it’s all costing ( including the costs and delays over nearly frivolous lawsuits ) and force them to scale back plans and timeframes. Then a third group can whine and complain that it’s not the plan in the Prop. By the time all that gets settled a fourth group can sue complaining that the EIR is outdated. Delaying it even more. So they will delay a few years and do an new EIR. Which will then get challenged. Which then has people muttering about how much all of this is going to cost and couldn’t we just scale back plans. Work it right and the NIMBYs become BANANAS. ( Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything )
Tony D. Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
I like this!
VBobier Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 1:24 am
With the possible ultimate goal of getting rid of Caltrain, no modernization thru electrification & no berms, plus forget about trenches or tunnels as the state doesn’t have to pay for those options, just the cities, who clearly want nothing passenger related via rail…
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
I think you might have missed my point. The blend is OK, so long as you don’t care about 2:40 from SF to LA. If you do care about the trip time, there are few good options, and they are not cheap. The one I described happens to be the best.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Conservatively, engineering construction and system plans have to be prop1a compliant (e.g. have a 2:47 solution). That compliance makes all construction eligible for Prop 1A funds.
Once spent, Prop 1a is gone. The State can continue or make modifications to the design.
The existence of an engineering solution for the system enables today’s construction. The solution has to be feasible, not the lowest cost nor does it have to be what is completed with other money at other times.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
This is absolutely 100% not true. You can’t tell any which parts of the system are prop1a compliant and which parts aren’t. This is a law, you can’t just ignore it when it does not suit you. Also, the whole authority is sanctioned by the law, the board, the authority to run the train and system, etc.
The line needs to run at 2:40 overall and 30 min from SF to San Jose or they are breaking the law…period
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
The Prop 1a is about the Prop1a funds – period. The system under construction has to be capable of meeting Prop 1a and by analysis HSR under construction will technically be capable to meet the requirements if completed as designed.
Once prop1a funds end the law ends. It’s done, over and gone. CA can decide to change the system – it’s really simple to do.
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Ka-ching! Station in Los Banos.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Not gonna happen. No point. No money to be made. Would annoy environmentalists without gaining any alternative constituency. (There are far better targets for developers.)
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:26 am
Joe is right, Clem is agreeing. A ~3hr SF-LA HSR ride will be a huge success
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:04 am
Just not true. Example: If you pass a bond to build a fire station. In this bond you say 1/2 the money for the station comes from the bond, the other 1/2 from matching federal funds (which just say you must build a municipal building). You use the bond funds to build the foundation, then you use the federal funds to build a courthouse on that foundation.
You can’t claim that the foundation was “capable” of holding a firestation so everthing is legal. It does not work that way. The states tried to make this argument with highways and the 55 mph speed limit (only part of the funds were from the feds so why should the feds get to set the limits). They lost.
If you take the money and promise the system you have to work towards that ends. No, it does not have to spring from the ground whole, I never said that in my argument. I said that you can’t take the money and NEVER INTEND to meet the laws requirements. Currently the official HSR plan ends at phase 1 blended. that phase 1 blended system must meet the laws requirements….period
Steven Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:48 am
But in this case the bond money is being used to build a foundation that really is capable of holding a fire station. Plus, we’re only using the building as a temporary courthouse because the fella from the town council says that we really need a courthouse more than we need a firehouse (when really, he just never wanted to build the firehouse… so joke’s on him, cuz he’s getting both).
Since we’re not really planning to start fightin’ fires until some 30 years after the foundation is poured (and heck, we all know that we’re still saving our pennies for that fire engine we want), since we’re too cheap to have both a firehouse and a courthouse in our town, and since there’s absolutely no reason at all you can’t hold court in a firehouse, why shouldn’t we take this compromise? Besides, what judge is going to overturn the court-in-a-firehouse plan? I mean gosh, why wouldn’t he want a new courthouse!?
It would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that the rail authority does not now–and does not, over the course of the given 30-odd year construction schedule–intend to use the prop 1a monies for the HSR service described in the proposition. If anything, the only parties that are trying to redirect the prop 1a money from it’s intended purpose are the nimbys, and their allies in Congress.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:36 am
its not that difficult if they can’t even produce a viable plan. I agree the bar is low for them (they basiclaly have to prove intent) but they are failing even that low bar and the fan boys are seeing it and resorting to this “that part of the system is compliant” argument
And i appreciated the funny sarcasm above, it was good
joe Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 9:00 am
its not that difficult if they can’t even produce a viable plan.
But CAHSRA has produced a viable plan and the contractor’s lead for that plan is now the CAHSRA CEO. The GAO’s preliminary findings on the Project, a reviewed asked for by the GOP, has backfired on opponents. It’s very supportive and deficiencies from the GAO ideal are actionable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Reduce your argument to the absurd and no money can be spent until they find a contractor willing to guarantee that the system will erupt simultaneously from the bosum of the earth and a train, filled with passengers will swoop down onto the tracks from the sky as soon as they are finished erupting.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Ansaldo-Breda deploying a driverless elevated in Kama’ainaLand.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:20 am
AnsaldoBreda already deployed a driverless metro in Copenhagen. It doesn’t suck.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Ansaldo signalling is fine. Breda vehicles have a bad reputation. The “driverless metro” is all about the signalling.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:29 am
You’re right AD, John is incorrect legally, politically and as a practical matter
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:59 am
I never made this argument. If you are building a system, under the authority of a law, at a minimum your PLAN has to be compliant to the law. The absurd argument is that they can take money and use it to build a system that does not meet the requirements of the law. Even the CAHSR authority is not making that argument. They understand they have to meet the law (which they keep claiming to be able to do with little to no proof).
The sytem can certainly be built in stages, but currently the plan ends at blended and that has to meet the law.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:28 am
so planning to build a fully grade separated Caltrain someday is okay then. And a run time of 3:15 until they build that fully grade separated Caltrain is okay.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:36 am
except they claim that the blended will meet 2:40 and have admitted numberous times that is both the requirement and goal
blankslate Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 7:38 am
No, they claim that the blended plan is a stepping stone to 2:40. Whether they ever actually get to the next stone is another question entirely.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:28 am
Yes, the CHSRA claims the work they are undertaking is not incompatible with the time requirements of 1A, and you are claiming the contrary. Someone might prevail in litigation if they can prove that CHSRA will in fact foreclose or prevent ever achieving those time targets; that would be tough to prove — especially since additional investment can reduce the minimum travel time in many places (e.g. add tracks and straighten curves on the SF Peninisula)
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:43 am
you can nibble at the edges all you like. Blended can’t make 30 min from SF to San Jose for sure and probably dooms 2:40 for the trip. but the authority has stated that the blended can and should make the time. When they dont they by their own admission are in violation of prop1a
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:03 am
I would assume PB-CHSRA will try to keep the salient details of the DogLeg a virtual state secret for as long as possible. Providing concrete plans would open them up to scrutiny. Opponents could then hire their own engineers and experts to debunk 220mph over the hill, etc.
Obfuscation works. It should worked with Prop 1A.
J. Wong Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:07 am
“The line needs to run at 2:40 overall and 30 min from SF to San Jose or they are breaking the law.”
The missing adverb is “eventually”. Nothing in Prop1A requires a “big bang” approach, neither an initial track that can be used from SF to LA on completion nor 2:40 initial operation time. Prop1A puts in place a goal and says just enough on how to achieve that goal.
Tony D. Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:33 am
Exactly! These “breaking the law” idiots over 2:40 at the outset really need to be put in their place.
flowmotion Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Correct, the actual wording in 1A is “would not have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train project.”
And at worse, the penalty is that HSRA can’t start construction of “Phase 2″ (Sacto/San Diego) until 2:40 SF-LA is achieved (if ever).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Once they spend the ten billion what’s stopping them from getting money from other places to build the rest of the system?
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
the same thing that prevents everybody else from breaking the law…the court system
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:27 pm
So the passage of the Proposition in 2008 means that in 2192, when they want to build an HSR station in Indio, they can’t because it says there can only be 24 stations? How about in 2347?
What remedies does the Prop have for punishing violating the Prop except for not disbursing funds? Once they run out of funds what penalty can the courts impose? Other than a very stern look and the admonition that they were very very naughty? And if they aren’t using funds from the bonds why entertain it? Though trying to get the state from spending money that isn’t coming from the bond on something not related to the bond is a very entertaining concept. Have you ever considered writing comedy?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
It all depends on how crotchety the judge feels.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
or you can…and I am just spitballing here…pass another law that changes the restrictions and requirements.
I know that this is just crazy talk, that you would pass a law so that everything is legal, it is a quaint old tradition called civilization.
As for intentionally breaking the law assuming the courts give you “a very stern look” I suppose you can try. I have noticed that the courts have a dim view of people they believe are gaming the system on purpose. There is a real difference between an authority that designed a system they thought would go at 2:40 and it only does 3 hrs and an authority that purposely designed a system that goes 3 hrs because “you can’t touch them”. The first is probably forgivable, the 2nd is the kind of thing that gets you contempt of court and creative ways to make you comply.
PS. If we still need HSR in 2192 then society has failed. From 1903 to date we have went from the Wright brothers to supersonic jet powered flight and space flight. If in another 200 years we are still doing trains, well that would be just sad.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
So all the bond money has been spent. They get a billion dollars by taxing unicorn farts and a 50% match from the federal government but they can’t spend it on building a station in Indio because….. or buildingt track from Riverside to Indio because………. Even if the bond money hasn’t all been spent what’s stopping the state from using the unicorn fart tax to build HSR between Indio and Palm Springs?
We been building roads forever. The Romans built some really nice ones that are still in use. Why wouldn’t we still be using trains in 2192? Unless someone figures out Heisenberg compensators it’s the best solution for many transportation scenarios.
Romans built some really nice aqueducts too. Some of which are still in use. I suspect that we’ll still be using aqueducts in 3188. And roads and trains. And probably sub sonic airplanes. Unless someone figures out how to make air thinner and denser at the same time.
jimsf Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
The law says they have to make la-sf in the 240 time. But it doesn’t say when they have to make that time. At some point at full build out on dedicated tracks they will in fact make that time. But as each segment is contructed, including interim blended portions, they will be utilized ( independent utility) as they can be.
The “blended approach” is simply a way to get some service started, prior to full build out. The blended approach is not the final approach because the system will be expanded and upgraded over time.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
And from 1960 to date, plane speeds have not increased. The only decrease in air travel time has come from longer-range aircraft, allowing you to fly long trips direct. Technology grows and then stalls, in every category.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
jimsf’s point is important. If CA legislates control over the Caltrain ROW such that local, unanimous consent is required to study (let alone expand) HSR then the project can be extorted by the very cities suing to stop the project.
blankslate Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 7:55 am
” From 1903 to date we have went from the Wright brothers to supersonic jet powered flight and space flight.”
That’s what we did 1903 to 1969. In the past 44 years, passenger air travel speeds have not increased (and the Concorde went out of service 10 years ago, didn’t you get the memo?). Over the same period of time, humans have not traveled any further into space either. In fact, in the past 30 years, the farthest humans have traveled from the surface of the planet is Low Earth Orbit (about 400 miles, or 1/600 the distance to the moon), and the shuttle program has been nixed.
Progress isn’t always linear.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:49 pm
John, if I’m not mistaken, Prop 1A isn’t constitutional. It can be amended by the legislature.
Tony D. Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Don’t care about 2:40 if we could get Caltrain modernized/electrified sooner rather than never. 2:40 can wait until HSR approaches SJ from the south AND all NIMBY’s on the Peninsula have died off, at which time we could then look to 4-track HSR.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:31 am
Agreed. And as I said above a ~3hr SF-LA HSR ride will be a huge success, no need to quibble about 2:40
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:38 am
its a LAW. If we can ignore the 2:40 part of the law then I want to ignore the part of the law that authorized bond sales. How do you decide which parts to ignore?
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:50 am
I don’t mean to come off as a hopeless pill, but the reality is Prop 1A amounts to a pack of lies, not worth the toilet paper it is written on.
We now have a one-party government locked into power. They simply write their own ticket. Anything emanating from them should be viewed as strictly propaganda.
So vote no on everything because any other tack will just make them worse. I did note that LA turned down a sales tax increase last week. There is some modicum of dissent out there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
if it’s the law then we are back to having all erupt simultaneously as a train full of passengers glides down from the sky.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
no we are not.
If you planned and built a system over 20 years that would meet the 2:40 requirement you are within the law
If you planned and built a system over 20 years that would never meet the 2:40 requirement you are outside the law.
It is not hard. You can’t state that “3 hrs is close enough”. You have to plan and actually belive that the plan will result in a compliant system.
It is no different than building a bridge. If you passed a bond that promised a 4 lane bridge between A and B then that is what you have to build. Not a 2 lane bridge between C and D, that would be wrong.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
it is no different than the requirement that it has to go to a specific station in SF. You can’t ignore that part of the law either…this is not that hard
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
John — we are building portions of a system that do not foreclose/prevent those target times. Given that this system inevitably costs more funds than 1A provides, future citizens and leaders will have to make decisions at what rate to implement improvements to reach or exceed these targets.
If they choose to invest in expanding HSR to Phase 2 cities and beyond, before achieving the 1A targets, those future decisions will not change the legality of our current investments. (I know it can seem complicated.)
What I am saying is that I predict that 3 hr service will be regarded as a huge win and future citizens and leaders will be comfortable investing in extending the system to San Diego, Sacramento and Phoenix before feeling the need to further accelerate the Phase 1 service.
It’s my prediction. Travelling between city centers in `3 hrs with full use of electronic devices and without removing our shoes will be hugely successful and appreciated. I don’t need 2:40 to get a ton of use out of such a service.
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 9:47 am
Then simply change the law dice the citizens and leaders on your vision agree. Don’t just ignore it
John Nachtigall Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 9:47 am
That should be since not dice
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
John: think about this carefully.
The *prop 1A bond money*, with a few exceptions (the ‘connecting service’ money, the overhead, etc.) has to be spent on improvements which are capable of reaching the 2:40 time. Which they are doing, in the Central Valley. There is no requirement that the system ever be finished — how could there be?
Other money can be spent on whatever, including the “blended system”. If a section of quad-tracking is suitable for the 2:40 time, then prop 1A money can be spent on that section. It could not be spent on the Caltrain electrification on for a two-track section adjacent to it which would have to be rebuilt for the 2:40 time.
Honestly, this isn’t a severe restriction.
Peter Baldo Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 5:02 am
Or by then the population center will have shifted, and it may make more sense to build a spur over the hill into the East Bay to increase capacity, rather than fight Palo Alto again. For a person in the East Bay, a 3-hour trip from Oakland or San Ramon beats a 2:40 trip from SF. A person in Marin or Sonoma County might be better served by a slower line North of the bay. Aside from the San Francisco airport, the peninsula isn’t worth fighting over.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 6:58 am
The Peninsula has climate, access to urban SF. That is what attracts people and where the jobs are which is exactly why PAMPA fights against homes and transportation.
Jobs jack up PAMPA housing/land prices. Restricting home construction and transportation jack up home prices.
Look at Menlo Park – they approved a 6,000 campus expansion for facebook and concurrently refused for 20 years to comply with state regs on home construction.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 11:08 am
You are not getting it. The primary reason the Peninsula is in on it is San Jose and its demand that the secondary Pacheco route be used because it puts the Capital of Silicon Valley essentially at the end of the line. The SF link via Caltrain was simply convenient and expedient coverstory, spin and strategy.
J. Wong Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 11:47 am
Evidence for any of your claims? And you can’t just point to what the plan is and claim it validates your reasoning. Stealing an analogy from Paul Krugman, that’s like sacrificing a virgin and claiming that doing so will cause the sun to rise in the morning, and when it does, justifying the sacrifice.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
you’re asking a card-carrying conspiracy-theorist for “evidence”?
VBobier Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Some still think Mars is inhabited by little Green Men…
True HSR supporters should embrace the blended approach. It is disappointing to see you and Lynn Schenk oppose the blended approach thinking that it would “compromise” HSR or something coming out from the NIMBYs, which are completely false.
The NIMBYs want nothing but 4-tracks on the table, because it would be easier to generate political oppositions than the blended approach. HSR opponents have been trying to create momentum by building up opposition in key areas along the alignment. The blended approach works against that momentum. NIMBYs have tougher time explaining their “reasons” for opposition when the blended approach is put on the table.
Under the old 4-track plan, there was no realistic path presented to get there. So my question is, knowing that there won’t be enough money for a full 4-track system in the next 10-20 years along the Peninsula, should Caltrain just be kept “frozen in time,” be eliminated until HSR comes, or somehow incrementally “blend” with Caltrain? The blended approach presented an early investment package to provide early benefit, and a realistic path towards HSR by incremental upgrades. We particularly need to improve Caltrain early because of growing ridership and traffic. We can’t have Caltrain be frozen in time or eliminated.
As for the alleged compromise of the full HSR, nothing is compromised. HSR will run at full speed with dedicated corridors in Central Valley and areas that count. People will not have to transfer to another train to get to and from San Francisco. Additional tracks and grade separations can be built along Caltrain whenever feasible and whenever there’s community support. The future generations would have opportunities to pursue further upgrades once HSR is implemented.
If the blended approach is not taken, the likely scenario would be HSR be defeated politically somewhat similar to Wisconsin and Florida, and thus losing a generation of opportunity. I don’t think that you or Schenk would prefer that instead.
Tony D. Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
I like this as well!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
I am not opposing the blended approach.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
How about a comment on Senate Bill 557.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:43 pm
But you sound as if the blended scenario is a terrible thing. When that was announced two years ago, I had a sigh of relief because we can end the insanity with the crazy NIMBY demands and uncertainties about Caltrain short and mid-term.
VBobier Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 1:25 am
For now the blended approach is ok, but forever? Not on your life…
Andy Chow Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:15 am
By that time things could probably changed so much and any of the 4 tracking plans you do now will have to do all over again. If that’s the case then why waste everybody’s time in planning for something that you will have to redo at some undetermined time.
4 peak trains an hour to SF is pretty good for HSR. HSR can also run trains to and from San Jose only. HSR might want to extend up to Oakland to be more accessible to the East Bay. There might be other opportunities where HSR could get a new right of way through the Peninsula or across the Bay.
It is not as if Peninsula cities want to keep Caltrain frozen in time, they also want upgrades and grade separations. It is just that they don’t want to be told by someone else in a short time frame. Probably by that time HSR needs 4 tracks Caltrain would be substantially grade separated with space for 4 tracks.
flowmotion Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:06 am
Exactly! It might be 20 years before the Pacheco tunnel is constructed and HSR makes it into San Jose. There will be plenty of opportunity to change the deal in the future.
And, once HSR is actually running, and a proven good thing, NIMBY opposition will be easier to overcome.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 12:11 pm
running 4 tracks from San Jose to San Francisco along the Caltrain ROW has been one of the options discussed since they started discussing things in the 90s. How many centuries will it take the people on the Peninsula to decide what they want?
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:54 pm
Andy: the facts of railroad geometry don’t change, haven’t changed for a very long time. Also, housing patterns don’t change very fast either. A 4-track plan now is going to remain good in 50 years.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
I can understand why you and Schenk dislike the blended scenario. You say you don’t oppose and even support it on political grounds, but I do wonder if you were on the CHSRA board whether you would vote the same way Schenk did.
But you and Schenk don’t live in the Bay Area and hear all the insanities (I know that you’ve attended some meetings on the Peninsula). Caltrain is also very important to us and I don’t know whether Schenk sees Caltrain as a obstacle, stepchild, or distraction to a pure HSR.
Clem Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
She probably sees it like Kopp did: the title holder to 700 acres of prime corridor real estate.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:21 pm
And that fact alone causes one to wonder whether Ring the Bay is nailed securely in the coffin.
Could the CHSRA handle crapping out in San Jose?
J. Wong Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:11 am
Not legally.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:22 am
The machine writes its own laws as it goes along. Helpful to own the judiciary.
J. Wong Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 11:50 am
I know that’s one of your axioms, but no one else agrees that it is an axiom and so it requires a little proof.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
After decades of observing how things go down, you come to accept that’s how it is is in the real world, not spinworld fantasyland.
I use whether I like something as a rule of thumb as to how events will not play out. If I like it, it is jinxed.
Thus I believe Ring the Bay will rise from the crypt and when pushed to decide PB will opt for a totally segregated, most proprietary version of hsr.
Electrified Caltrain would be excellent and would finally cast BART garbagetech in a profoundly pleasing bad light. That is why it won’t happen. The cheerleaders will have to cope with hsr bottled up at Diridon InterGalactic.
Building the DogLeg the most AAR compatible possible is preferable as it can be most utilitarian and most easily disposed of. It won’t go down that way because the most wasteful is always chosen.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
It’s not PB pushing for a “segregated” HSR track and right-of-way; it’s CHSRA.
In all honesty that’s been the *sensible* thing for them to do. They’re not actually stupid; the prior Board membership undrestood that there was just no way they’d meet actual HSR speeds if constrained by FRA dino-train regulations Therefore, the CHSRA pursued a route which _excluded_ FRA-compatible dino-trains.
If they’d done anything else — that is, if they’d pursued FRA-compatible trains — like Acela — they’d have been pilloried (rightly) and gotten nowhere.
“Blending” on the Caltrain right-of-way became feasible only after Caltrain obtained an FRA waiver, allowing Caltrain to run European EMUs (but with FRA-compatible grab irons, and big signs saying “F” on the “Front” of each EMU, just like a steam loco). Because, ahah, European EMUs and European HSR trainsets have more-or-less compatible designs, as far as head-on collisions.
That said…… more on Synon’s PB-as-in-control-of-all-transit-in-SFBA conspiracy-theory, later.
synonymouse Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
PB is CHSRA.
I am saying the blend will not happen – no integration whatsoever – all forced transfers north and south. HSR will terminate at San Jose. Dunno where in LA.
Proprietary BART-think will prevail – CHSRA might as well be Indian broad gauge. I will be happy to be proved wrong and Caltrain face to face with BART at Santa Clara and BART looking like absolute shit by comparison.
The Bombardier(?) rolling stock they end up buying will prove just as mediocre and pilloried as Acela in its own way.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:05 am
Thanks for being clearer. This is about Caltrain, not HSR. It is about guaranteeing Caltrain HSR funds and conceding anything away – like 4 track – to assure Caltrain gets hundreds of millions of state dollars.
Robert’s not a Bay Area resident but he’s a CA resident which means he has a right just as any other state resident can be concerned that statewide HSR doesn’t get taken by the interests of a few wealthy residents.
Jerry Hill’s Bill restricts HSR. It’s bad for CA. Maybe good for Caltrain which is put in a superior position to HSR but how does that help the State?
Andy Chow Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:03 am
Why not you just go ahead and advocate HSR to go to Oakland if you insist on HSR purity and against blending. Caltrain is offering a high quality right of way to San Francisco. Go ahead and try to get that from UP in the East Bay. They will demand a wide separation from their tracks and a wall. San Francisco is offering a downtown terminal. The East Bay option would require a transfer to the overstrained BART or bus or ferry.
HSR gets to use Caltrain’s electrification, so it is a statewide benefit. There’s no urgency or demand for full 4-tracking, at least in the near term. I also do not agree with the idea of non-blendable HSR system. HSR can and should blend with regional service wherever possible to increase local benefits. I am not going to say no to blend with Metrolink in Southern California even if I don’t live down there.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
I oppose changing the Law. Calling my position “HSR purity” and implying the HSR is at risk is mendacious propaganda.
The ends do not justify the means.
Andy
No fucken way.
If you were paying attention you’d read PAMPA and Rep Jerry Hill propose 1) to lock HSR funding to Caltrain with no way to move that funding (risks losing the hundreds of millions if there is any problem with the project on the peninsula) and 2) to require unanimous consent of the Peninsula prior to even STUDYING any alignment beyond the blended plan. This enshrined in law. Fuck them.
Bonus – PAMPA is considering appealing the lawsuit to halt HSR. Atherton donates money.
Tough shit – theses same cities want jobs to jack up property values (menlo Park went up 14% least year) and have the gall to complain about providing required housing as required by CA law. Fuck them.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Joe,
oh, relaly? well “fuck them” — your words — to Gilroy’s equally insupportable request for a trench through downtown Gilroy.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Gilroy’s offering some of its own money to *build* the trench. That is different.
I support Jerry Hill’s plan to lock in electrification funding. It makes sense and it is something already agreed upon by the state legislature and CHSRA. As to the approval to do anything beyond blended, Hill proposes to require a consensus from the 9 parties of the blended system MOU. You are wrong about unanimous consent from the peninsula because the cities individually are not parties to the MOU. The Peninsula cities are collectively represented through their membership on VTA, Caltrain, and MTC. Hill is not proposing to give veto power to any Peninsula city individually, but is requiring CHSRA not to ignore the Peninsula. This is a very balanced approach.
HSR is not and should never have been a wedge issue. It is an issue where details can change and where compromises can be made, which we are trying to do here in order to make HSR a reality.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
HSR isn’t a wedge issue – the Peninsula alignment with 4 tracks is quite popular statewide. I assure you very few people in the bay area let alone CA will be outraged at fast HSR service to SF. That’s why the MOU was NOT signed.
Palo Alto is a pain in the ass. It also thinks the State should also change the law to exempt Palo Alto from building housing that is required when the city allows job growth within city borders.
It’s sort of the Lindsey Lohan of CA.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
I think you and others misinterpreted the political support for HSR. People may generally support a concept, but if the concept is mis-planned (people who support HSR don’t think of a 4 track corridor for example), it will turn the project sour. Unless you got a poll that asks whether people statewide support a 4 track corridor on the Peninsula, I can also say that the blended scenario is just as popular statewide.
I support the blended scenario because all the planning for a hypothetical 4-track scenario (I have been in transportation advocacy long enough to know that things like that don’t get funded and built rightaway) means that Caltrain should either be frozen in time for a long time or eliminated. As an early HSR supporter I always envision some level of blending, so I am disturbed about the talks of BART-style infrastructure and BART-style separation from Caltrain. Equally as insane are the demands from cities to put everything underground.
HSR supporters should be grounded in reality and shouldn’t pretend that we can build HSR the way China is doing. We should try to get the maximum benefit with the least resistance, which the blended scenario is one of the elements.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
CA is a big State so I find it laughable to suggest LA cares about meeting Palo Alto’s demands if it increases HSR travel times to SF.
Supporting blended is NOT support for appeasing NIMBY deamands to restrict future capacity.
characterizing unanimous consent as a compromise is orwellian.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:35 pm
The future capacity should be added based on the demand experience later at that time. That’s how the freeway system has always worked. If the politicians can’t accept it today it doesn’t mean that their replacement in the future won’t accept it either.
As for the unanimous consent, you should know that most legislation in regional and local level are passed unanimously. The unanimous consent from the 9 parties don’t even require unanimous vote on those boards to give consent (and the fact that the MOU was originally consented by 9 parties already). A few extreme politicians aren’t to stop the consent, but widespread opposition would (which would be the case if there’s a very poor proposal and rationale to build beyond the blended scenario). Don’t try to make it look like what it isn’t.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:11 am
No. Not in my town. Not even the MOU , not the state funds for HSR. Not Prop 1a.
No – not at all Andy.
The regional transportation process for the Bay Area is terrible – I think that’s why you want to lock in HSR funds for Caltrain – failure for decades to get Caltrain steady funding.
But you should know HSR is not local rail. Giving local interests of the legal right to block even a study of a statewide project is terrible.
I am a Caltrain user and embarrassed by this selfish grab for money and power.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:34 am
If HSR is not local rail then why in hell is it being detoured thru Palmdale?
If the Loop Route is so superior why not relocate I-5 there, since Tejon has been condemned by PB as so unacceptable for transport purposes.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:35 am
I don’t know nor care where you live, but according to the legislation the only two cities with veto power are San Francisco and San Jose, both highly supportive of HSR. If somehow those cities turn sour on HSR then you don’t get a project whether the legislation is there or not. Other cities are represented collectively. I think it is fair for them to be represented but not giving those cities veto power.
We do have a history where local politics stopped projects of regional significance. The freeway revolt in SF is one of those, along with I-710 in Southern California. Are you suggesting that SF shouldn’t have the right to block and remove freeways? Even though most Marin-San Mateo county commuters prefer driving on a freeway instead of 19th Ave.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Jerry Hill’s bill is favored by PAMPA and NIMBYs. They and their local paper openly call his bill a way to make 4-track difficult of not impossible. You seem to like it and dismiss these claims.
I can see why a Caltrain/local transit advocate would lock on to the guarantee 700 M for Caltrain. It’s a lot of money.
You say not to worry – the change is not significant since if cities sour HSR will stop and yet you strongly feel it should be passed.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
BTW here’s how NIMBYOnline describes Hill’s Bill.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=28704
Hill’s bill seeks to guarantee Caltrain electrification.
Senator’s proposed legislation would also make it hard to revisit four-track alternative for high-speed rail.
Fuck no.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
First, read the legislation yourself.
Second, it doesn’t forbid 4-track scenario from consideration. Just forbid CHSRA doing it unilaterally. If you’re truly an HSR supporter, this shouldn’t be an issue since political attitude will likely change if HSR starts running and turns out to be a success.
Poor and unrealistic HSR planning is just as detrimental to HSR as NIMBYism.
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
I think it is disengenos to describe the unanimous consent requirement as a solution to fears of unilateral action by cahsra.
NIMBYism is best explained as entitlement.
For 20 years menlo park failed to comply with affordable housing laws. Palo Alto seeks leglislative relief from the same requirement.
Neighboring mountain view complies with the law demonstrating the problem is PAMPA exceptionalism.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
There are plenty of politicians in the area that are not extreme towards HSR and support the blended scenario. I don’t think it is helpful for HSR to make them join the opposition by you forcing them to make a choice between a 4-track corridor or nothing. It is not about PAMPA either. Other cities with similar wealth and political attitude will generate similar opposition. Pleasanton for example is against HSR through the city (which the Altamont corridor passes by) and against BART extension outside of I-580. Beverly Hills is against a subway line under the city’s high school.
There are still a few who are against the blended scenario and even Caltrain electrification (Larry Klein for example) but they sounds more and more insane and less and less credible. The 4 track scenario is their favorite weapon against HSR. We can’t eliminate them but we want them to be insignificant.
BrianR Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 1:08 am
Beverly Hills High School is a joke! They literally have oil derricks on their campus pumping out oil deposits from reservoirs beneath their buildings and they are concerned about an engineered subway tunnel beneath their gymnasium. I would rather have the subway tunnel! Everyone knows the real reason they are against the subway tunnel is “their fear it will bring black people and other non-whites into their community”. It’s more a classic racism issue than a conventional NIMBY issue but of course those can go hand in hand.
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:17 am
Exactly – great point.
I don’t see why CAHSRA has to let PAMPA win so HSR can will avoid other fights.
Capitulate here and every town will fight HSR and demand money and restricted service.
Not a problem for Andy Chow – the Caltrain project’s funded. Mission Accomplished.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:26 am
Seismic effects of tunnels are real and have to be dealt with. Lots of problems with subsidence occasioned by Muni’s Twin Peaks Tunnel in the Forest Hills area.
Watch Italian tv -TGR Campania – and see the images of collapsed buildings they are blaming(correctly or not)on close-by metro tunneling.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:11 am
Beverly Hills thankfully lost that fight, and the preferred alternative for the Westside Subway is a Century City stop at Constellation, with a tunnel under the school. (And there’s funding for that, too, if you can wait 25 years.)
joe Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 7:19 am
No true.
Menlo Park’s onboard? No. Antherton just donated 10K to King’s County.
Palo Alto hasn’t ruled out an appeal of the lawsuit and has a paid lobbyist to oppose HSR.
You know, they do publish summaries of Palo Alto city meetings.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:38 am
How does Jerry Hill’s proposed bill benefit the rest of the state?
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:28 am
Does anything the City and County of LA does or advocates benefit the rest of the state?
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Yes. I’m having trouble saying the same about anything Palo Alto does.
Andy Chow Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 10:50 am
By making HSR project possible by addressing Peninsula’s concerns (no more fight over the hypothetical 4-track alignment). CHSRA has already agreed to blend so he’s not asking something that CHSRA hasn’t already agreed to. The 4-track alignment is a distraction to bring HSR.
The HSR purists want the option to run 20 trains an hour, but right now we have 0 trains an hour. Having 4 trains an hour is very good considering that we don’t have the money to run 20 trains an hour and the next best alternative is run 0 trains an hour.
synonymouse Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:08 am
The cheerleader’s obsession with the Peninsula is FUD.
BART is contemptible but I’d enjoy Ring the Bay rattling some foamer cages.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
:rattling some foamer cages”? You want your own cage rattled?
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 10:59 pm
4 tracks are honestly desirable just for a decent Caltrain service. The hostility to a four-track alignment is ludicrous; have these people ever *seen* a four-track alignment?
Ted Judah Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:29 pm
So do we give every municipal corporation in the state the same veto power that PAMPA has, or are some Californians more equal than others?
joe Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Exactly. Free commuter rail upgrades for PAMPA and unanimous consent for any HSR upgrades.
It is a bad deal.
synonymouse Reply:
March 7th, 2013 at 10:10 pm
“are some Californians more equal than others?”
You better believe it. The Tejon Ranch Co. is the most equal of all.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Joe, I’m so glad you said that. HSR at ground level through the middle of Gilroy. So glad we see eye-to-eye on that. (pthbbbt!)
joe Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
If Gilroy’s Station is mandated to be at grade then the station will be in the green field location outside of town. That’s one of the options the city studied. I think the CAHSRA wanted to make the greenfield an aerial but if you insist at grade, then it’s at grade on the NE side of town and much further from my neighborhood.
Can someone explain the technical details why a blended 4 track ROW through the peninsula can not meet the 2Hr 40 Mn requirement, and a separate HSR ROW can?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 2:19 am
First things first: it’s unlikely either alternative can meet the timetable.
Now, the reason the non-blended plan is faster is that the blended plan requires HSR trains to make station stops at Millbrae and Redwood City, to reduce the speed difference with Caltrain. Even Clem and Richard’s blended plan, using Altamont, requires HSR to make those two intermediate stops. If there are dedicated express tracks all the way, even if they’re also used by Caltrain express trains, then HSR trains could run nonstop from SF to SJ, saving about 5 minutes.
All of this is academic, since I think that even with dedicated tracks there’s no good reason to mess with the timetable just to save 5 minutes on SF-SJ. But the legal department may care. Or most likely not, since SF-SJ in 30 minutes is very difficult even nonstop.
Neil Shea Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 3:40 am
2:40 is a red herring. We’re going to get ~3hr SF-LA and we’re going to love it. I myself can’t wait, I’ll use it often
Jo Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:13 am
You are correct. Also, I would think that even with a blended plan that there would be an express non-stop service between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 8:22 am
But aren’t Robert, et al going to point out that its THE LAW because Prop 1A is Holy Writ (except when its not?). Sounds like I”m channeling my inner Mlynarik there.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
No, Amanda. You haven’t called anyone sub-simian; or “inexplicably un-indicted”; or anything even close the RM’s style.
Jonathan Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Jo,
“Blended” is the very opposite of “four-track all the way through the Peninsula”.
No-one is proposing a separate, dedicated HSR ROW through the Peninsula. The entire debate is whehter to four-track — and grade-separate — the entire Caltrain Peninsula corridor; or to instead run “blended” through an upgraded, electrified Caltrain Peninsula ROW whcih is largely two-tracked.
Your own personal thoughts about “express nonstop” service beween LA and SF conflict with Caltrain’s schedule, and with any realistic estimate of much gate-down tlime local communties are actually willing to accept, once HSR creates a large increase in Caltrain-corridor train traffic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
with any realistic estimate of much gate-down tlime local communties are actually willing to accept
If they don’t like having the gates down 5 or 10 minutes at a time during rush hour, oh well, they were offered grade separations but they didn’t want them.
Look, the blended plan is seen by everyone as a stopgap measure even most especially by those in PAMPA. The reality is that HSR service will not initially meet the 2:40 requirement anymore than initial track construction will be SF to LA service. And nothing in Prop1A requires a “big bang” implementation.
Once the initial construction is underway, plans for the other segments will be completed. Once blended service is underway, planning for separation on the Peninsula, which means full 4-track, will be started, if for any reason because of the 2:40 requirement.
Start of construction on the ICS is the end of the beginning. Once it starts, opponents know they have lost, which is why they are fighting so hard to ensure that it doesn’t start. Of course, realistically they have already lost but are holding out hope for an unlikely miracle because they’re not able to admit that until its staring them in the face.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 8th, 2013 at 9:24 am
By the time they start blended service the 10 billion will be gone and there won’t be any way to enforce the 2:40 requirement.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
“Look, the blended plan is seen by everyone as a stopgap measure even most especially by those in PAMPA. ”
Everyone except the NIMBYs (BANANAs?) who are just throwing anything they can think of at the wall and seeing what sticks. They see the “blended plan” as the first step to killing HSR entirely. And perhaps killing Caltrain, who knows.
I, and I think a lot of other people here, take issue with the binary “blended” vs “non blended” paradigm. Infrastructure improvements should come from an integrated timetable and detailed cost/benefit analysis, not arbitrary assumptions about how many tracks are needed where. I’d also like to point out that even with four tracks the entire way, 100% segregated operations would be one of the worst outcomes for CalTrain service, since it would get rid of express service (for which two stop HSR is no substitute).
BrianR Reply:
March 10th, 2013 at 5:21 am
that’s a good point and I was thinking the same thing from the beginning. If 100% separated I would think 6 tracks total would be required with 4 tracks for Caltrain to have it’s own express and local service and maintain fully separate from the 2 HSR tracks. Those 6 tracks would probably want to be located through PAMPA or just north of it so Caltrain can have it’s exclusive “mid-line overtake” where needed most. PAMPA should consider itself fortunate only a 4-track ROW was proposed (under that original “blended” scenario “blended” meant primarily 2-tracks). Even under the “primarily 2-track blended” scenario I would think the ideal place to put those 4-tracks would be the same as before; directly through PAMPA and/or just north of it.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Since Caltrain has permission to use lightweight equipment, it’s perfectly viable to run a 4-track system. You can run a LOT of service on four tracks. HSR uses the two “fast tracks”. Caltrain locals use the two “slow tracks”. Caltrain expresses switch between the fast and slow tracks. There’s plenty of capacity for any serious operating scenario with 4 tracks, as long as you arrange them FSSF or SFFS (not FFSS or FSFS).
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Actually, FSFS is OK too.