Majority of Californians Still Want HSR Built

Mar 23rd, 2016 | Posted by

The Public Policy Institute of California is out with its latest statewide poll and, as in past years, they find that high speed rail continues to enjoy majority support among state residents:

Eight years after state voters passed the $10 billion bond to build high-speed rail with 53 percent support, 52 percent of adults and 44 percent of likely voters continue to favor building it. When those who are opposed are asked how they would feel if it cost less, overall support increases to 66 percent among adults and 59 percent among likely voters. How important is high-speed rail to the future quality of life and economic vitality of California? A third of adults (34%) and a quarter of likely voters (26%) say it is very important.

These numbers have not changed significantly over the last four years that PPIC has been asking the question – and when you compare it to Proposition 1A, the numbers have not changed in the last eight years.

What that means is despite eight years of NIMBY attacks, biased media reports, endless lawsuits, and a Republican Congress that is ideologically opposed to passenger rail, HSR retains the support of a majority of Californians.

HSR opponents might take comfort from the poll’s finding that more likely voters oppose HSR than support it, by a 54-44 margin. I’m not excited about that. But I’m also not too concerned by it. The fundamentals still favor HSR, such as the question cited in the blockquote above that shows HSR support grows when people see it costs less. Young Californians strongly support HSR, and as more and more of them enter the ranks of likely voters, that will favor HSR as well.

Overall these results paint a positive but not perfect picture of public support for the HSR project. I’d like even stronger numbers, but I also take comfort from the fact that support has remained consistent even during all the nonsensical attacks of the last few years.

  1. synonymouse
    Mar 23rd, 2016 at 22:45
    #1

    53% of voters want World Peace.

    Eric Reply:

    Yes, but that proportion increases to 100% if you only poll Miss America contestants.

    Zorro Reply:

    Cyno would make a terrible Miss America contestant.

    synonymouse Reply:

    53% think PBCAHSR is HypeLoop.

  2. morris brown
    Mar 23rd, 2016 at 22:46
    #2

    Robert’s amazing analysis of the poll.

    Please remember that in 2008, Prop 1A passed with a 52.5 YES to 47.5 NO vote. These are actually voters.

    This poll reads that only 44% of likely voters now continue to favor building it. That is a drop of 8.5%, which is hardly to be characterized as “numbers that have not changed significantly”, which is what Robert writes.

    Also noted was the recent poll from Stanford, showing that HSR was at the very bottom of the twenty priorities California residents would consider important.

    Quite obviously, support for the project has not remained consistent; support has dropped dramatically, despite constant promotion from our Governor and the Democratic party, which he controls.

    john burrows Reply:

    From the 2012 PPIC Poll
    Among likely voters—43% for HSR—53% against
    For all adults———–51% for HSR—45% against

    From the 2016 PPIC Poll
    Among likely voters—44% for HSR—54% against
    For all adults———–52% for HSR—45% against

    Robert said these numbers have not changed significantly over the last 4 years—I would say that they have hardly changed at all.

    It is true that the PPIC poll numbers for HSR are lower than the 2008 yes vote for Prop 1-A, but typically “likely voters” means “older voters”. This November, however, the “likely voter” may be much younger than usual and this could be bad news for the Runner-Huff Water Grab if it should make it to the November ballot. If this initiative does end up on the ballot and goes down in flames it would be a real vote of confidence in high speed rail.

    john burrows Reply:

    Among all adults the 52% to 45% vote for HSR in the 2016 PPIC Poll actually surpasses the 52.5 YES to 47.5 NO Prop 1-A vote. It is only among likely voters that poll numbers were lower than in the 2008 vote. The California voter this November may not be a good fit with the “likely voter from the PPIC Poll.

    synonymouse Reply:

    52% want HypeLoop.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    I propose that we have an internet referendum every Friday evening to decide whether Californians like the project that week or not. That will determine whether any construction will be done in the following 7 days.

    Roland Reply:

    I second the motion.

    Zorro Reply:

    And remember, State Sen Rob Huff’s term ends in Nov 2016, His district will elect someone else in Nov 2016…

    Zorro Reply:

    He(Huff) is termed out in 2016, yep, times up, bye bye Huff!! Good Riddance!

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    It’s hard to gauge who is a likely voter for the November 2016 election here in March. So I stand by my analysis.

    It also doesn’t matter whether Californians rank HSR as one of their top priorities. I doubt it would ever crack the top 5 or even top 10. It didn’t in 2008 and Prop 1A still passed.

    synonymouse Reply:

    A little negative media blitz and it is outta here. The media could elect Kim Kardashian Governator.

    trentbridge Reply:

    So that’s how Meg Whitman became Governor!

    On February 10, 2009, Whitman announced she would run for governor of California in the 2010 election. Her campaign was largely self-funded. She spent more of her own money on this effort than any other self-funded political candidate in U.S. history and ultimately lost to Jerry Brown.

    California voters are not sheep, Syn. They don’t let a barrage of TV ads change their minds – and I doubt if the anti-HSR mob are going to dump as much money on TV ads as the wealthy Meg Whitman.

    Zorro Reply:

    And thanks to CA clean money laws that are now on the books, political ads paid for with dark money for anti-HSR efforts can’t be used in CA, unless they own up and tell where the money came from and I seriously doubt any want to open up their books. Plus I think Gov Jerry Brown still has a war chest that He could defend HSR with, maybe.

    synonymouse Reply:

    – Aqui Sergeant Garcia

    I am saying all they need to defeat any anti-PB measure is spend a few pesos.

    California voters are not sheep; they are zombies stumbling around muttering phrases from tv political ads.

    Mejico is getting to be almost as corrupt as California.

  3. JimInPollockPines
    Mar 23rd, 2016 at 23:08
    #3

    Californians generally like big projects and like progress. They are very jaded when it comes to expectations of projects being completed on time or on budget, but they still value the projects and the progress. The least support will come from people who are all set with their current lives and don’t see any personal benefit, and the most support will come from newer arrivals and younger people. The newer arrivals and the younger people are the ones who will actually benefit from a high speed statewide transit system and they are also the ones who will be paying for. So all is as it should be and California marches forth to its own drumbeat as always. The desperate and withering print media will have to find something else to sensationalize and someone should really call up the jealous east coast California hating media and tell them once an for all the California doesn’t care what they think and never has. The constant critics on this blog should accept reality and find something more productive to do with their remaining years instead of wasting time hoping for things that wont happen. ( cough –the two comments above mine)

    Donk Reply:

    Seriously, what is with people spending all of their time fighting against things they hate? Why focus all that energy on something negative? This is unhealthy. Why not spend time on something they like and that makes them happy instead? Sure I occaisonally watch USC football games hoping that they will lose etc., but spending all this time being a negative Nancy on a blog that covers a topic that you hate is a complete waste of life. WTF?

    Nathanael Reply:

    It’s fun to fight things you hate when you’re *winning*. (And when the things you hate are genuinely terrible.) The campaign to eradicate dirty, toxin-spewing coal power plants is going *very* well.

    car(e)-free LA Reply:

    Hey….what do you have against USC?

    Danny Reply:

    because backing the MuskPod now requires learning Slovak

  4. Aarond
    Mar 23rd, 2016 at 23:23
    #4

    It doesn’t matter what Californians want now unless they put up another Prop repealing Prop 1A, or they elect Republicans that rip apart Caltrans.

    That said, of course people want HSR and transit because of the (slow) densification of suburbs into cities.

    Alan Reply:

    Exactly. Morris desperately clutches at whatever straws float his way, but the fact is that a poll of “likely voters” is completely irrelevant unless there’s a specific HSR proposition on the ballot.

    It’s a sad time to be Morris–one lawsuit after another being lost, public opinion against him, construction underway and headed for the Peninsula. Maybe he should focus his energies on something that isn’t a lost cause.

    calwatch Reply:

    I would expect the California Farm Water Alliance high speed rail bond repurposing to make the ballot easily, it has the funding necessary to complete signature gathering. It will probably be the 15th or 17th measure on the ballot since, at least when I stopped by to see a local signature gatherer, the petition was towards the middle of the stack (the death penalty and tobacco tax ones were more prominent because they paid more), and as folks have noted, the later on the ballot a measure is, the more likely the no votes go up. So haters will still claim that voters meant to vote against it, but didn’t read all the way to the end or were concerned about the repurposing of funds.

    Zorro Reply:

    I’m still for HSR, so if it shows up on the ballot, I’m guaranteed to vote NO on any anti-HSR junk…

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    And it’s going to go down in flames, as recent polling shows.

    Peter Reply:

    It just passed the 25% of required signatures mark last week.

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/initiative-and-referendum-status/circulating-initiatives-25percent-signatures/

    Joege Reply:

    CV republicans will have to figure out where they stand. The prioritzarion of urban over Ag interests complicates the matter.

    Zorro Reply:

    What about the other initiative, the one to kill HSR in CA? Huff wrote that piece of garbage too.

    1767. (15-0109A1)
    High-Speed Rail. No Issuance or Sale of Future Bonds. Suspension of Project. Initiative Statute.
    Summary Date: 01/25/16 | Circulation Deadline: 07/25/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880

    So far that is not at 25%, at least not yet, and neither has had the sigs verified as legit.

  5. Reality Check
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 00:28
    #5

    The U.S. is just pathetic on high-speed rail

    […]

    Ranked on population coverage alone, the U.S. is also second-to-last, with only 3.7 percent of the population served by high-speed rail. Arguably, the U.S. should not have been included on the list at all, as its sole operational high-speed rail service, the Acela on the Northeast corridor, only attains the 150-mile-per-hour speeds that GoEuro ascribes to it on a tiny portion of its route. Still, the basic truth that the U.S. has fallen far behind Asia and Europe is accurately captured here.

    […]

    Republicans may be about to nominate an economic nationalist for president, but beating China takes a back seat to penny-pinching and transit-hating. The only high-speed rail system that looks likely to come to fruition in the U.S. in the foreseeable future is the California line currently being built from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento, which is drawing heavily on state funds.

    GoEuro notes dryly that the “USA and Russia, both once in competition during the Space Race,” are now struggling just to move their citizens around swiftly on land. Well, Russia is actually in 15th place, so unlike the space race, we’re losing this one. Well-known rail leaders Japan, South Korea, China, and France are the top four nations, in that order. Spain, which is persistently economically troubled, ranks fifth. None of these countries has as high a GDP per capita as the U.S., so our problem isn’t lack of resources, it’s lack of political will.

    Reality Check Reply:

    Global High-Speed Train Ranking

    High-speed rail networks may be a relatively new phenomenon, but for 20 countries worldwide they already form the backbone of the transport network. Although first introduced in Japan, high-speed rail was truly established in Europe during the 80s and 90s. Recently, technological advancements have pushed Asian countries up the ranks with regard to population served by the high-speed network, price per kilometer as well as operating and top speeds, cementing Japan in the number one spot.

    GoEuro’s Ranking of High-Speed Trains

    […]

    Aarond Reply:

    I always enjoy these articles on how America sucks at HSR, but the problem is that half the country doesn’t care. If someone says “china has better HSR than us”, most of the responses will range from “I’ve never taken a train in my entire life” or “I haven’t taken a bus since I was in grade school”.

    The lack of Political will isn’t something to be scoffed at. Most Americans can’t even conceive of a world where they take mass transit on a daily basis. Getting them to at least recognize there’s another option is like trying to teach the blind to paint.

    Faber Castell Reply:

    A whopping 65% of Americans have never travelled outside of the US. In my best guess that would translate to probably 95% of the American population never personally experiencing HSR.

    les Reply:

    Media freaks them out. Every time a bomb goes off overseas every tube in america broadcast it a zillion times.

    Faber Castell Reply:

    With all due respect, and not to delve into another issue entirely, there is a long list of reason many Americans never see the rest of the world — I don’t believe the threat of terrorism is anywhere near the top. Not to mention that abroad rate has not changed significantly post-9/11.

    les Reply:

    It doesn’t help that the american middle class is pathetically poorer these days and no chump change for expensive trips.

    les Reply:

    Or that americans only have 2 minute vacations compared to Europeans.
    yes there are millions of reasons oh wise one.

    Faber Castell Reply:

    Not to pile on but I don’t really see your two latest examples as particularly valid either. The claim that the middle class is poorer now implies there was a time when a plurality of the American middle class was globetrotting all over the place because they had an abundance of disposable income. There’s no evidence for this. You mentioned the less generous vacation time Americans have come to expect and accept compared to Europeans who often have 6 weeks or more of annual holiday time. This may have some residual effect on the low abroad travel rate amongst Americans, but I think it’s mostly a false conclusion as most individuals and families with enough wealth to fund an international vacation also benefit from employer vacation time to allow them to do so. Most people’s domestic and international vacations or travels do not exceed 3-4 weeks even if their benefits provided for more time. I think a good explanation for the lower rate of travel abroad, especially amongst teens and young people, is the unique [North] American situation where a significant portion of income is used to fund an automobile and the insurance to keep it and the driver in legal operation. Many European teenagers and young people whereas are not burdened with this “necessity” or cultural “right of passage” and save their money to, at the very least, backpack and travel their own continent and in many cases see multiple corners of the world during their shorter school breaks. The personal benefits of this possibility cannot be underscored enough and brings this full circle back to the issue of rail travel and public transportation. Yes you will hear the arguments that say there is “no reason to leave the country” there is an “endless amount of things to see here.” While this is true, this is a huge, beautiful and fascinating country, this is no excuse for not experiencing the cultural enrichment that one can only experiencing by leaving our shores. The silver lining here is that I believe there is a growing appetite amongst younger globally minded Americans to seek out the exchange and knowledge that comes with international travel and are willing to prioritize it unlike previous generations.

    Thanks for the compliment. I don’t pretend to be wise though, I just think it important to think before writing.

    Edward Reply:

    There may be truth in what you say. I am pushing 70 and have never owned a car. Licenses on the other hand are cheap. More than once I have had to add a supplement to my passport. That extra money comes in handy.

    I just noticed that the State Department will no longer add 24 page supplements to passports. When you apply for a new passport you can request 28 or 52 pages. Two and a half years to go and three pages left. Should be ok, especially as you need a remaining validity of six months to enter some countries.

    les Reply:

    I search the net but no mention of car ownership being a contributing factor oh wise one.
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/04/americans.travel.domestically/
    http://thehungrypartier.com/why-dont-americans-travel-here-are-7-reasons/

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    I think it is unfair to compare US international travel to “EU-domestic” travel. While I have crossed European borders since pretty close to forever, I have only gone to a non-EU country after coming off age. And my parents have not ever left the EU…

    EJ Reply:

    It’s true even among many Americans who take trains. You talk to people who use the Acela regularly, and it’s usually only the ones who’ve been abroad and ridden on “real” HSR in Europe or Asia that realize it could be better.

    Bahnfreund Reply:

    Well how come the Acela has a bigger market share than the airlines then?

  6. Reality Check
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 15:47
    #6

    Attention beleaguered BART riders … announcing an important new hire:

    ART DIRECTOR IN TRANSIT: Jennifer Easton, who has spent the past 11 years working in San Jose’s Office of Cultural Affairs — including the past two as Public Art Director — is switching tracks to become public art director for BART.

    Easton told me it’s a bittersweet goodbye, as she’ll miss San Jose but is looking forward to tackling a new challenge. Of course, she won’t be gone for long, as she’ll be part of planning public art for the BART stations in the South Bay when the connection gets closer to the finish line.

    EJ Reply:

    I guess you mean this sarcastically, but public spaces should have art. And, yeah, it needs to be someone’s job to figure out what that art is.

    Alan Reply:

    Public art is wonderful, but at the moment I’d suspect that most BART passengers would prefer trains without exploding thyristors. Although the art does give them something to look at while they’re waiting for the train to be rescued.

    Frankly, whatever spare funding BART might have at the moment should go to fleet and infrastructure maintenance before art. If the art funding is coming from another souce that’s different, but it may not make much difference to passengers.

    synonymouse Reply:

    OPB on the BART predicament courtesy of the Altamont site:

    http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,131142,131159#msg-131159

    Reality Check Reply:

    BART officials ratchet up effort to solve mystery power surges

    Assistant General Manager Paul Oversier said at a BART Board of Directors meeting Thursday that it was time for a fresh set of eyes to focus solely on the power spike problem until it is resolved. Six to seven BART managers, with different areas of technical expertise, will be pulled from their usual jobs and given all the resources they need, inside and outside BART, to find the gremlin causing the surges, Oversier said.

    “We had to try something different,” he said.

    BART’s investigation has determined that the power surges occur in nanoseconds. They happen all over the system on a weekly basis, Oversier said, but are usually quickly resolved. The problem of persistent spikes surfaced about three weeks ago when a concentration near the West Oakland Station knocked 80 cars out of service before the problem disappeared.

    […]

    BART is working on plans to restore direct service to the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station, Oversier said, by using only rail cars that are less susceptible to being damaged by the surges. Significant damage has been largely limited to BART’s C cars, a type of car that can run in the middle, front or back of the train. Removing those cars from the Pittsburg/Bay Point line would require reconfiguring where BART stores and dispatches its trains. Once a plan is ready, Oversier said, it could take days to shuffle the rail cars into place.

    […]

  7. keith saggers
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 19:28
    #7
  8. JBinSV
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 20:26
    #8

    http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/23/city-could-close-castro-street-at-train-tracks

    If Mountain View achieves grade separation by closing the crossing then can HSR make the closure permanent? Still could use some pedestrian underpass access. Extend the underpass to the other side of Central Expressway.

    Michael Reply:

    Wow. I have a renewed respect for the leaders of Mountain View. They realize that people and not cars are what makes their downtown so pleasant. I sincerely wish them the best in their bold plan. I’ll be stopping off there from Caltrain next time I’m down the Peninsula to grab a meal.

    Nathanael Reply:

    I am also very pleased to hear this. Apparently Mountain View is finally authorizing construction of apartments and condos near the Googleplex, too. Sanity starts to prevail…

    Neil Shea Reply:

    It’s impressive. Alternatives are looking costly and/or difficult, whether getting a raised track back down to grade under the Shoreline Blvd overcrossing, or getting a trenched track around Stevens Creek. It’s a great solution. A shuttle drop off area will be needed

    JBinSV Reply:

    Extend light rail from Castro Street, across central to Stierlin to Middlefield and along Middlefield all the way to the Redwood City station. Middlefield would have to reduce from four lanes to two in some locations.

    Ben in SF Reply:

    Possible (Middlefield is an interesting corridor). But since it sounds like Caltrain is staying at grade, then it might be simpler to extend the light rail north into the business parks, toward Google, so there is an amusement park at the end of the line. (I proposed this a few months back, but it’s topical). Unless it crossed Caltrain somewhere nearby on an existing overpass, it would almost be simpler to have a separate light rail system on the inland side of the tracks. Though maybe build a non-revenue connector track for maintenance. (Assuming we had the wisdom to make the two sides compatible, and same gauge).

    Joege Reply:

    Middlefield is way too residential to support light rail.

    El Camino would be better for light rail. If MountainView is serious about closing down Castro then run Light rail down Castro to el Camino Real (on cross over at wider Shoreline Blvd ) and on to Palo Alto transit center. That’s the end of the VTA jurisdiction.

    If you stay on the bay side the. It needs to cut across Moffett Field to the google complex.
    No way you can afford to tie up land on the at side with an amusement park. Also too congested to get to the park given the current overloaded streets and competition with Great America.

    JBinSV Reply:

    VTA Light rail is standard gauge. The line passes by Moffett Field and Moffett has a freight spur. The connection between light rail and main line is disassembled but can be installed if it is necessary to deliver freight to Moffett. The last activity at Moffett was delivery of some wind tunnel parts and removal of some contaminated soil but that was 18 years ago before the Mountain View light rail was built.

    Joege Reply:

    I used to bike some of this area recreationaly.
    Stay along the HW 101 on Moffett Field and add a second stop at Castro/

    Make a loop.
    RT Jones is being expanded and will cross the creek so turn right and follow RT Jones towers the bay. Take a left and cross the creek at Charleston. Follow to Shoreline and take a left heading inland. Cross the HW 101 on shoreline, past computer science museum and loop back to the Caltrain ROW. Take a left on to the ROW back to Mtview Caltrain.

    Ben in SF Reply:

    All true. But it is highly unlikely for VTA to cross Caltrain/HSR at grade. Of course it could be done, but the tendency is under- or over-passes like (closest examples are 1st St in San Jose and large chunks of Sacramento RTA). Of course there are probably a number of counter-examples, modern and historical. (Most of the freight spurs along the MBTA of my youth had full-grown locust trees between the ties).

    Ben in SF Reply:

    And I apologize for reading your orignal post too fast – I was thinking you had in mind crossing at Castro, but FROM Castro along Central (Expressway) north to Stierlin/Bailey would get you to a nice, modern overcrossing like those VTA has borrowed from Mtn View to Milpitas.

    Neil Shea Reply:

    Yes, just extend light rail out Stierlin and Shoreline to the Google Plex, Shoreline amphitheater and the Century 16 movies.

    (I know some folks have discussed an LRT connection down to the Moffitt station, and you could loopback there if demand warrants in the future, but a connection to downtown and Caltrain would be the best for North Bayshore)

  9. StevieB
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 20:37
    #9

    Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance) has introduced a bill that would direct money now allocated to the state’s high-speed rail project to local transit projects.

    Hadley said recent changes to move the high-speed rail’s first segment out of Southern California has threatened the project’s reliance on $600 million in state cap-and-trade dollars that must go toward pollution relief in underserved communities. The new initial route from Kern County to San Jose, Hadley said, wouldn’t help enough low-income residents to meet state requirements for the cap-and-trade money.

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    Has David ever been to the san Joaquin valley? Poorest population and worst air pollution in the state.

    Aarond Reply:

    Torrance is no Fresno. Different flavors of Republican. Perhaps this is a thinly veiled attempt to put money into a green line extension?

    JimInPollockPines Reply:

    republicans are just absolute morons.

    Zorro Reply:

    Hadley’s a Repub goon, He doesn’t have a leg to stand on, Torrance(Manhatten Beach) might be about to throw Him out in 2016, Democrats are 40.23% of the 66th State Assembly District, Hadley I hope will be gone soon…

    40.23% Democratic
    32.33% Republican
    22.75% No party preference

    Alan Reply:

    DOA. An election-year move to make Hadley look good to the teabagger faithful. No way this bill makes it through committee.

  10. Reality Check
    Mar 24th, 2016 at 22:23
    #10

    Caltrain blog: Behind the scenes of upcoming Caltrain timetable change

    When Caltrain’s new timetable goes into effect April 4, passengers will notice that the daily schedule is tweaked by only a few minutes here and there. The big change will be in which equipment is now assigned to each train. It takes many a cross-functional staff and reams of ridership data to make these decisions.

    […]

    The team also looked at bicycle boardings and bicycle bumps specifically to help inform decisions about where the new three-car bike trains would be most useful. Bombardier sets, which will run with a 3rd bike car in the six-car consist, carry more riders overall with a seated capacity of 780. Gallery sets offer capacity for up to 650 seated riders. Using ridership numbers and bicycle demand, we then attempted to schedule the Bombardier equipment on the highest demand trains.

    Caltrain had previously used Gallery sets to serve some of the higher demand trains to accommodate a high-rate of bike boardings. With the new consist configuration, we are now able to reserve all of the Bombardier equipment for the trains with the highest demand.

    There is one additional consideration that goes into the train assignment process: turns. A turn is what train the equipment will become once it reaches its terminal station. For example, based on the new schedule NB 319 has to turn for SB 134, which then turns north for 257 and so on. Caltrain has about 20 sets of equipment operating on its corridor to serve the 92 weekday schedule. The agency does not have much spare equipment. The spare equipment we do have is staged at each end of the corridor to be used as “protect” sets or being used to replace regular cars as equipment is rotated in and out of service for maintenance.

    (see full article for new “Equipment lineup and Train Turn chart”)

    Jeff Carter Reply:

    What assessment has Caltrain done?

    What is Caltrain doing to assess the effect of this change on current customers?

    This was asked at the July 16, 2016 CAC meeting and Caltrain couldn’t answer the question.

    They have moved the #156 train which leave SF at 3:07pm back to 3:00pm, and leaving 22nd at 3:05 (instead of the current 3:12) making it useless for us working poor who get off work at 3:00pm. The next train to stop at 22nd is the #264, 90 minutes later at 4:33pm. The other choice is to make your way to 4th and Townsend wasting considerable time and expense (MUNI). My own (and other working poor) days are long enough and Caltrain wants to make our days longer, this is totally unnecessary!!!

    All trains that were leaving at xx:07 after the hour have been moved to leaving on the hour. Generally when people leave work it is on the hour or half hour, so with trains departing on the hour can be quite inconvenient. It would have made more sense to move them from 07 to 10 or 15 minutes after the hour.

    This was supposed to be a few minor tweaks to improve the reliability of the schedules. The changes I mention above are quite significant if it causes a major inconvenience to riders. There was no public input/review whatsoever on this proposal.

    Jeff Carter Reply:

    Sorry my typo.. Should have wrote March 16, 2016 CAC meeting.

    Also posted on this about a month ago.

  11. Reality Check
    Mar 25th, 2016 at 01:18
    #11

    Palo Alto’s anti-Caltrain suicide “Track Watch” guards caught still behaving badly:
    Palo Alto security guards caught sleeping, masturbating, texting, and abandoning posts

  12. Robert
    Mar 25th, 2016 at 10:21
    #12

    No 2016 ballot measure to grab bullet train money:

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-20160321-htmlstory.html#5245

    jwb Reply:

    It’s always refreshing watching these reactionary tools burn a few tens of millions on a stupid and futile plan. I can hardly wait to watch the rerun in 2018.

    Zorro Reply:

    Yay!

  13. Bahnfreund
    Mar 29th, 2016 at 05:38
    #13

    It will be interesting how HSR polls after the line comes online…

    I have not heard of any major transit project that did not convince doubters once it finally came online…

Comments are closed.