Thursday, October 16, 2008

Colma Is Not Bayview

NOTE: We've moved! Visit us at the California High Speed Rail Blog.

Unless you're John Horgan, in which case they're the same:

Speaking of reality, there is one more obvious and bizarre outcome for proponents of Proposition 1A to contemplate and explain, if they can do so with any semblance of logic.

If the grandiose setup is OK'd by taxpayers on Nov. 4, we would then have to prepare for — get ready — not one, not two, but three separate rail lines from Millbrae to San Francisco.

That is correct. You would have Caltrain, BART and the new high-speed outfit all providing much the same service. It would be one very crowded right of way.

Talk about redundancy and waste on a wildly expensive and outlandish scale.

Umm...wow.

The fact that BART and Caltrain take a totally different route from Millbrae to SF clearly escapes him. There's no ROW sharing at all beyond the SF Airport.

Nor do they "provide much the same service." Because they serve different routes BART and Caltrain are obviously different. High speed rail of course connects SF to LA - they're long-distance trains whereas BART and Caltrain are local commuter trains.

Who at the San Mateo County Times thought it was a good idea to let someone with no knowledge of trains write about trains?

20 comments:

Loren said...

He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the high-speed-rail line, either. It's intended as an express service, as opposed to Caltrain's (relatively) local service.

It's like calling a freeway a big waste if there is a surface-level street nearby.

jcdavis said...

Unless im missing something, wont Caltrain and HSR share a ROW? Its just adding to more tracks to the existing ROW, much of which already has room to support it

bossyman15 said...

mmmm san jose to Millbrae via BART? no the BART will not be going that way just from san jose to fremont. only Caltrain will be going from san jose to Millbrae (and HSR of course).

kamat said...

it is very needed now a days because to improve the time taken to reach destination.
--------
ragavendra

sreevysh corp

Pantograph Trolleypole said...

People need to freakin pay attention. This is the dumbest statement I've seen this week and it proves how for too long we haven't invested enough in transit. There's not enough transit left for people to get the difference in modes and for people to even know what the regional map looks like.

Spokker said...

Haha that's pretty hilarious. The guy doesn't even do his homework.

Anonymous said...

Robert, whatever happened to banning cut and paste jobs?

Not only that, but a cut and paste from the WSJ? Come on, the WSJ is opposed to any government intervention in anything... They're the Fox News of newspapers in terms of bias!

Also, I sent in my ballot on Tuesday. I'll let you guess how I voted on 1A.

Robert Cruickshank said...

I am indeed banning cut and paste jobs. I turned off comment moderation since I've been away from the computer most of the day and didn't want you all to be stuck (see how much I love you guys? Even you, Morris Brown.) But I am deleting them as soon as I see them.

qwerasdf said...

Caltrain and BART are on two different routes to SF, but overall it isn't too much different. If you're telling me you can't walk form BART to Caltrain, then you've got to be kidding me because YOU CAN. I think it says pretty clearly there's three separate lines. It's more that this is just redundant coverage. I don't think the purpose of this argument is to get jumbled up in technicality like this but rather to state that we don't need three separate lines to cover this same distance.

Rather than to get picky about his choice of words, I would rather see you comment how it is necessary to cover this same route in order to run an SF to SJ line. Duh? It's just like the El Camino Real vs. 101. Two same routes but necessary because they serve two purposes.

But in all seriousness this is one bad argument against 1A. I'd rather see you focus on the real opposition against 1A if you can.

Brandon in San Diego said...

John Horgan's comments are similar to saying you do not need a freeway in X corridor because you already have a boulevard.

Or, you do not need HOV lanes because there are already 4 main line lanes provided.

He obviously misses the difference between HSR, BART and Caltrain. Or, he's intentionally trying to confuse matters for voters ont eh fense.

Must he is a republican and think such a statement is fair game?

qwerasdf said...

Anonymous: As much as I love anti 1A articles, please don't copy and paste them in the damn blog. Link it and then provide your own commentary. We all can read.

Brandon: Trains have limited stops, so whether its HSR, BART or Caltrain, you all have limited stops. Redundant? Yes. I say get rid of Caltrain. BART has a long way to go to be like a real subway, but comparing the three to the 101 and El Camino Real is not correct. It's more like comparing 101 in traffic and 101 without traffic because with streets you have stores but with highways, not the case, only exits.

I believe no one is trying to make the point that redundancy = no HSR. It's more like we're spending a lot of money that's wasted. There's a benefit in connecting SF and LA, but the other benefits are less "worth-it." When a proposal has too much useless "not worth it" stuff, then it becomes wise to consider the whole proposal flawed, which is what some anti-1A people think. However, I personally believe that while redundancy isn't a huge issue for me, spending this amount of money is.

Spokker said...

Redundant? Last I checked Caltrain doesn't go to Los Angeles.

It's like saying the Metrolink Orange Co./Ventura Co. Lines and the Pacific Surfliner are redundant and wasteful. Both serve a different purpose. Metrolink is a commuter train that makes more stops and runs mostly during peak hours.

The Surfliner is an intercity train that makes less stops, provides more amenities, and service is more spread out through the day.

Having local, limited, and express service is a basic feature of any capable mass transit network.

Spokker said...

First of all, let's get a handle on where the BART Millbrae line and Caltrain actually go.

Relative to Caltrain, BART begins on Market St, in heading southwest direction toward Daly City. From Daly City it heads southeast toward Millbrae.

Caltrain on the other hand, starts at 4th and King south of Market. It heads mostly south hitting Bayshore and San Bruno stations before arriving in Millbrae. This is the end of the line for BART. Caltrain continues toward San Jose.

I really don't see what makes this redundant, especially considering BART and Caltrain are both coming and going to different places. That they meet in Millbrae, who cares?

"I would rather see you comment how it is necessary to cover this same route in order to run an SF to SJ line."

Because first, the high speed train will cover this same route in 30 minutes as opposed to Caltrain's hour and a half (or one hour on a Baby Bullet, a service that is only provided during rush hour).

Second, travelers to/from Los Angeles don't want to transfer to/from the high speed line in San Jose if they don't have to.

qwerasdf said...

Ok, I'm saying the three lines are somewhat redundant yes, but they are not completely redundant. Whatever the case, I'll admit even this is not a strong point to go against HSR. I for one don't even consider this an argument. WHO CARES. This blog clearly made it an issue, but I'm just trying to say yes I see what opponents are saying with this argument, but it's really a non-issue.

"I would rather see you comment how it is necessary to cover this same route in order to run an SF to SJ line."

What I meant by that line was I want to see this blog (Robert) cover how it IS necessary to run this same leg with HSR because obviously you need it to run the line all the way to LA. Countering such a lame supposed anti-1A argument shouldnt be that hard and his points should not have focused on how this person doesn't know anything about the 3 lines but rather that redundant or not, it is a necessary leg to make the entire project complete.

Of course he also could've addressed that redundant or not it's an upgrade and can be used to replace Caltrain which I believe has to GTFO and make room for better methods of transportation. The only reason we have it is because it goes down to Gilroy or whatever and the South Bay. If BART was extended to begin with, I'm sure we wouldn't have a craptastic 1.5 hour journey to SF.

nikko pigman said...

The problem is that when someone like this guy starts to spread lies, it does become an issue.

Anonymous said...

Political discussion has fallen to a conversation with a three-year old.

"Why is the sky blue?"

Because that's the color of the sky.

"But why can't it be green? Froggies are green."

Because the sky is blue.

It is tiring to see the uninformed about rail come and continue to pose questions. We see the need to answer all of them, because we care about the issue.

"Why can't people switch trains in San Jose to get to San Francisco?"

Because that's not what happens in the real world.

Grow up and vote for something that we will all be proud of in ten years.

-Anon, because I can

Brandon in San Diego said...

Anon 9:26pm:
Well, people can transfer trains in San Jose if they want to go to San Francisco... at the expense of quality service... and lower CHSRA ridership.

One-seat rides in as little time as practically possible is the goal. The importance of this is very high. Using the Japanese Shinkansen as an example, at great expense they have pursued straighten track alignments to reduce travel time by mere minutes.

I think that is the answer... not that this is the real world... as a response.

(btw, I origionally intepreted your comment as being sarcastic toward pro-pacheco folks. But not in the 2nd read-through).

qwerasdf:
Thanks for the pointer. I try to provide appropriate metaphors or analogies, but I goof at times. I am familiar with rail operations.

I agree with your point on Caltrain. Their staff may not, but I feel CHSRA could run the service for them using HSR trains. The objective would be to enable running two service types on the same set of tracks versus needing 2 sets of tracks to separate the differing equipment.

Additional track would only be needed at stations served by the local Caltrain-style service... and enable CHSRA trains to pass unempeded.

That is my opinion... I don't know if it's an option being discussed at this time.

Morris Brown said...

The State Senate Transportation and Housing committee is having a hearing regarding the business plan on Oct 23rd. It should be interesting.

(from their website)

Transportation and Housing

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING LOWENTHAL, Chairman 10 a.m. to 12 m. - Room 3191

INFORMATIONAL HEARING SUBJECT: Review of the High Speed Rail Business Plan

yes on1a said...

Once again...this paper/site is a
owned by media news group..they have been at this for weeks in all of there Cailfornia papers

Brandon in San Diego said...

Morris, what role will the committee have concerning this item? Review and commenting on a draft?