High Cost Rail - Part 59 "Blended" Question

A couple news sources are reporting on the ESG (Eshoo, Simitian, Gordon)

The Caltrain corridor can accommodate two high-speed trains an hour in both directions without having to add passing tracks, according to a draft capacity report the transit agency released yesterday.

And the Daily Journal goes on to note

The report, presented to a group that calls itself the San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership, showed only that the “blended” system could work from an operational perspective and does not touch on the infrastructure needs or the design of the project.

While the capacity report may come as good news for the city of Burlingame, which staunchly opposes an aerial viaduct for the system, some cities may not be pleased with where the passing tracks will be constructed, if the rail authority moves in that direction.

So, I have to ask the OBVIOUS QUESTION:  If they can make high-cost, medium speed rail work on a 100+ year old railbed with existing tracks, why not just put it on the existing Amtrack rails and save us all $100 billion?   Sorry, just using logic here.  But of course it's all nonsense.  This is a dying gasp of a dying idea.  Our Moonbeam governor may still think it's a great idea, but anyone who is paying attention knows this train can't get out of the station. 

Comments

[JF]

How do these fools keep getting voted back into office? The only hope for peninsula cities for Washington to turn the cash spigot off. I have a feeling our presidient will detail HSR as part of his new jobs plan after labor day. The unemployed masses by then, may be so desperate it might actually get support.

[Hillsider]

Brown was bought and paid for by the unions so he cannot abandon their pet project. He hasn't got anything else to crow about either. It has been another wasted year in Sacramento because the fools keep getting voted in.

[pat giorni]

The Caltrain Critical Analysis presentation was BOGUS and we are being shined on. I have a recollection of the institutional history (and a cardboard box filled w/ old agendas and PowerPoint presentations) that few in that room know.

I had a conversation w/ Michelle Bouchard-Caltrain Operations Officer-directly after the presentation and gave her a heads up that I plan to ask why the electrification model used 6 trains/hour at peak when the original vision was 12 trains/hour long before Doty was brought in to add sparkle(pre-2007). The last downgraded # of trains/hour was 8 when it was assured that # could still give greater frequency of station stops + re-open Atherton, Broadway and the 2 closed stations in SCC. Headway at 12 trains/hour was 5 minutes. Headway for 8 trains/hour is 7 minutes. Headway for 6 trains/hour is now modeled at 5-20 minutes...quite a span. AND THAT'S BECAUSE 2 hsr TRAINS ARE THROWN INTO THE MIX WHICH EQUALS THE LAST PROPOSED (oops, hit the caps) 8 Caltrains/hour and includes passing tracks for the HSR which were not necessary in the 12/hour proposal.

So when you consider that Caltrain is NOW running 5 trains/hour, with some stations serviced only once per hour (1/2 hour-45 minutes during peak) no matter what they tell you, the new improved electrified Caltrain with 1 more train then is presently running is not going to get the closed stations re-opened, nor frequency of under-served stations increased.

In a nutshell, what has happened here is that Caltrain has significantly downgraded its frequency and service expectation in order to accommodate 2-4 HSR trains/hour.

The assumption that everyone seated at that table had was that electrification will bring all these new EMUs on line running side by side with the HSR trains. Not until 2030!! Caltrain must replace all rolling stock as it's nearing the end of its usability and that is in today's $$ 750M. Caltrain will be running a combination of EMUs and Diesel consists (most likely the Bombardiers because they are newest and there are 5 full sets, the expectation being that the Gallerys will be replaced w/ EMUs). Caltrain cannot run the older trains at the projected 110mph because they are heavier and will not stop and start as quickly as the EMUs. So where, again, is that service restoration and increased frequency?

Therefore, yes, a blended system will work, but only at the sacrifice of truly improved Caltrain electrified service because Caltrain is getting the short end of the stick.

What I am now expecting is that the alarm will be sounded and either Caltrain will continue to spin and dissemble and/or the model will be tweaked to at least bring Caltrain back to 8 trains/hour with 1 HSR train/hour, none arriving nor departing during peak. They have until Sept. 7 to get it "right" if they plan on presenting to JPB Board as completed.

[holyroller]

The concept of HSR has been forced down our colletive throat.
HSR is not been an issue I have ever read about or voted on.
The City of Burlingame, the City of Anywhere, CA need to ask themselves, family, and neighbors..]
What is in it for me?
Seriously,
When was the last time you, or anyone you know said..
I wish there was HSR so I could go to Los Angles.

[jennifer]

I just hope that before all of our local and regional officials jump on the "blended" bandwagon, they look very carefully at the details, few of which are currently available. In Van Ark's mind, he sees this as this as "phasing". (In fairness, he has been very consistent on this aspect.)

Placement of so many miles (7-8) of contiguous passing tracks, alone, could leave us with as problematic a system as having full-blown HSR.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between HSR and Caltrain needs to be broken and these two entities need to be dealt with separately with all their own warts. Nothing comes for free.

[pat giorni]

More in my e-mail today.....
"Peninsula Doings: Please don't think we're out of the woods on the peninsula. The SEG way plan (Simitian/Gordon/Eschoo), though well intentioned, is not good for us or Caltrain. They are attempting to put something together to get the HSRA to spend money on our segment perhaps simultaneously with the Central Valley if they can get FRA permission. The peer review group as well as the LAO said put some of the money toward the ends and that's what they are trying to do. I don't possibly know how this can be done since our segment is not ready to receive or spend money but they will try something.

Never the less, CC-HSR www.cc-hsr.org
sent a warning letter saying it is not legal for the federal government to fund Caltrain since it's a commuter rail service (well in advance of HSR) and the Joint Powers Board has no power to permit HSR on the Caltrain line because UPPR holds that permission slip since HSR is an intercity rail service.

Regarding the SEG way plan, realistically, Caltrain is sacrificing too much and we would get double the train traffic if this occurs. Our cities need to fight for tunnel or trench with cover to minimize impacts. Of course even the route has not officially been affirmed, no certified EIR, no good ridership numbers,no business plan, no UPPR permission plus CC-HSR with other cities and citizens still have a law suit working too which could change things dramatically if the judge rules in favor of invalidating the EIR once again and requiring them to re-work the ridership numbers.

All this and the Governor says, "I'm for HSR, not the concept, THIS HSR." Call him and tell him he is being fiscally irresponsible: 916-445-2841."

[jennifer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/californias-highspeed-rai_b_957386.html

California's High-Speed Rail Mistake
Joel Epstein

This is the piece in which I out myself about California's high-speed rail mistake. Let's face it, now is not the time to be spending a decent size country's GDP on a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Instead we should be spending that fortune completing much needed regional mass transit systems for Los Angeles, San Diego, Anaheim, Irvine, San Jose, the Bay Area, Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. Given the astronomical estimated cost of the high-speed rail project I doubt I have overpromised California's major population centers on the regional transit construction.

I had this epiphany while riding the Bolt Bus between 911-memorial soaked New York and Philadelphia. True, the bus took two hours instead of the one it might have taken on Amtrak's Acela Express. But the $13 I paid left a much smaller hole in my pocket than the $105 the Acela would have cost. And like my Bolt over Acela decision the choice facing the dysfunctional California legislature is whether it wants to spend the California taxpayer's money on critical regional mass transit that we need every day vs. the shiny, fast business travelers' sometimes choice when heading to a trade show in San Francisco. Wanna accelerate the regional transit construction process? Pass a law like the special one the Legislature is writing for AEG, a private company, so it can build Farmer's Field, a transit-oriented football stadium in downtown LA.

Why this change of heart for someone who is on record in support of the concept of high-speed rail in California?

(see his previous position: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/building-high-speed-rail_b_443859.html )

It's simple arithmetic that even this mediocre math student can understand. In an ideal world there would be enough money to build both the high-speed rail and all the regional mass transit California needs. But we don't live in that Emerald City.

I doubt my friends at the big infrastructure construction firms and AFL-CIO are going to swoon upon reading this but I hope they don't get me wrong. Because the plan I'm proposing involves as much if not more work for them and the union iron workers and sandhogs than the high-speed rail. But instead of having to fight for months for a lousy motel room in Shafter or Bakerfield, the first leg of the proposed high-speed rail, the engineers and laborers will be able to head home for dinner or to one of their favorite loncheras after work building the subway. Sure, Central Valley workers need jobs but far more are out of work in LA and the state's other big cities.

Our need for transit infrastructure construction hasn't gone away. It's just that we need to be smarter about it. As a public infrastructure investment high-speed rail just can't hold a candle to the Wilshire subway, a rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) option for the Sepulveda Pass and a dozen other overdue light rail and BRT projects along LA's existing transit rights of way and many broad, made for bus-only lane, boulevards. And that's just my recipe for LA. There are of course similar transportation planner dreams for California's other urban agglomerations.

Hard choices are the name of the game in this era of bickering over public infrastructure spending. But as Measure R, the half cent LA County transportation sales tax demonstrated, local voters are willing to spend on themselves when it comes to public transportation. Let's put that logic to work by changing the construction plans and building the Metro, Muni and BART trains and buses we need everyday rather than the sometime convenience we long for when we think of inter city travel in France, China and Japan. That train too will come but not until we make regular regional transit riders of most Californians.

Yours in transit,

Joel

[Hillsider]

Who is this guy and why should we care what he thinks? If he paid $13 instead of $105 why does he still think the HSR train will come eventually? Ugh.

[jennifer]

Yet another outspoken HSR advocate (and in this case, author and policy analyst who focuses on transportation issues) who is jumping the HSR ship. Why? It's becoming painfully clear to even the most ardent supporters that this system will result in tremendous loss of funding for true local public transportation that really gets us out of our cars.