HiSpeed Services and Branding

by Rafael

Conventional wisdom has it that HSR in California equals long-distance trains from Northern to Southern California. However, just because trains can cross mountains doesn't mean that passengers will always want to. More often than not, their origin and destination will lie in the same region, i.e. Bay Area, Central Valley or Southern California. Over time, HSR may change that, but it would be prudent to study service models that accommodate a combination of intra-regional and inter-regional trains on the same timetable.

Keep in mind that CHSRA is not a railroad, it is only responsible for planning and constructing the HSR infrastructure. That will be owned by a separate, yet-to-be-created entity in which the various investors, including the state of California, will have equity stakes. This entity will also fund any extensions. If European trends are any indication, a long-term (e.g. 20 year) contract for day-to-day operations and maintenance of the infrastructure will be awarded via open tender. Train operations governed by a timetable defined by the infrastructure operator may or may not be delivered by separate companies that bid for slots at regular auctions, e.g. every 4 years. Note that CHSRA has yet to announce the gory details of all this, so the above is just my personal educated guess.

NS HiSpeed

A useful example from overseas is NS HiSpeed, a relatively new joint venture between the Dutch national railways (NS, 90%) and KLM (10%). On the one hand, this is an umbrella brand and online portal for all high speed trains to and from destinations in Holland, including those that cross borders. On the other, in terms of passenger volume, the most important segments of the HiSpeed network will likely be Amsterdam-Schiphol Airport-the Hague-Rotterdam-Breda, to be served by AnsaldoBreda V250 trainsets.

In part because of teething troubles with ETCS level 2, this Italian manufacturer is late in delivering the equipment to NS HiSpeed and SNCB, the Belgian national railways who will deploy them on the Brussels-Antwerp-Rotterdam-Amsterdam route. In addition, the faster but also more expensive Thalys service featuring WiFi on board will remain operational. This somewhat confusing proliferation is a result of the planned liberalization for cross-border rail traffic in the EU in 2010.

This eye candy promo video features text in Dutch, but should be self-explanatory:



A key objective of the expensive HSL Zuid high speed line and the new NS HiSpeed services on it is to decongest the extremely busy motorways linking the dense randstad conurbation, home to about 10 million people. Most Dutch motorways have just four lanes total, though some have been widened to six.

The Dutch railways have long offered deeply discounted traintaxi service at 36 stations throughout the country, provided only that you buy the requisite coupon together with the train ticket. The service operates as a jitney, conceptually similar to airport shuttles in California but typically based on smaller vehicles. The driver selects the route ad hoc, rather than plying a fixed route (cp. dolmush in Turkey).

Caltrain HiSpeed?

The construction of dedicated HSR tracks in the SF peninsula will mean the end of Caltrain's existing "baby bullet" service. However, electrification plus an expected FRA waiver to operate lightweight non-compliant EMU equipment plus a top speed of up to 90mph means that future Caltrain locals will have the same SF-San Jose line haul time (p2) as baby bullet do today.

This is in keeping with Caltrain's traditional role as a standard-speed commuter railroad and also the only service being planned today. However, if there is sufficient demand, there is no reason why there could not be a Caltrain HiSpeed service in addition to the upgraded locals. After all, the PCJPB does own the right of way in the SF peninsula and could easily negotiate the right to run a certain number of Caltrain-branded trains on the HSR tracks there. It will be many years before long-distance trains will saturate the capacity of the new tracks, so why not use the empty slots for a new genuine bullet Caltrain service, running at top speeds of 125mph in the peninsula? CHSRA has yet to define a speed limit between San Jose and Gilroy, it could be higher in that stretch but nowhere near the 220mph expected through Pacheco Pass and in the Central Valley.

That means Caltrain could deliver a HiSpeed service using cheaper, previous-generation equipment. Note, however, that combining relatively frequent HiSpeed with long-distance express trains only works well if the headways are long enough and the HiSpeed trainsets have superior acceleration and braking performance. One option would be embedded asynchronous linear electric motors in the track infrastructure for a certain distance on either side of the stations. Aluminum plates integrated into the underbody design of the HiSpeed trainsets would be used to leverage this supplemental propulsion without adding significant axle load or drawing excessive amounts of power from the catenaries. During acceleration and recuperative braking, HiSpeed trains would then be hybrid electric/electric vehicles.

The primary purpose of any putative HiSpeed service would be to leverage the HSR tracks in the peninsula and especially, the HSR platforms at the new Transbay Terminal in SF. The downside is that there will only be five HSR station on the route: SF Transbay Terminal, Millbrae/SFO, mid-peninsula (RC, PA or MV), SJ Diridon and Gilroy.

An extension to Hollister would be relatively cheap but require San Benito county to join the PCJPB. That might well entail restricting further residential development to transit villages, ostensibly to protect agricultural acreage but really to protect residential real estate values in Silicon Valley. Given the proximity to the San Andreas fault, buildings in such transit villages would need to feature steel frames and at least 7-8 stories. Earthquakes tend to generate ground excitation at frequencies of around 1Hz, close to the typical base harmonic in bending of buildings in the 4-5 story range.

Running HSR tracks out to Monterey county would be much more expensive due to the interceding coastal mountain range. FRA and CPUC rules plus opposition from UPRR prevent non-compliant equipment from using existing track at standard speeds and stopping at existing stations.

Note that AnsaldoBreda already has a production facility in Pittsburg (Contra Costa county) and is planning to open another in Los Angeles. Siemens has a light rail assembly plant in Sacramento.

Metrolink HiSpeed?

In much the same vein, SCRRA, which operates Metrolink, owns the right of way between Palmdale and Redondo Junction plus the one between Fullerton and Irvine. Therefore, if it wanted to, it could negotiate the right to run a certain number of Metrolink-branded HiSpeed trains. The stations served in phase I would be Palmdale, Sylmar, Burbank, LA Union Station, Norwalk and Anaheim. In this case, the primary purpose would be to create a sufficiently large catchment area for Palmdale airport, including visitors to both Los Angeles and Disneyland.

CHSRA has already mentioned the possibility of local HSR service between LA Union Station and San Diego once the phase II spur is built. It's not yet clear where such a service would park its trains, given that no HSR yard appears to be planned between LAUS and Burbank. The train parking situation in San Diego is also unclear, it might make sense to run tracks all the way down to a terminus/yard in the Southland via the ROW west of I-5.

Amtrak San Joaquin HiSpeed?

A third possible HiSpeed service could be Amtrak California-branded and connect Palmdale airport, Bakersfield, Fresno and Merced in phase I, with an extension up to Sacramento in phase II. If CHSRA's arm is twisted enough to build a station in Hanford, at least some of these particular bullet trains would stop there as well. However, considering the rather small populations near the stations served and the need to run at 220mph to avoid impeding long-distance express trains between SF and LA/Anaheim, the Central Valley presents arguably the least compelling HiSpeed proposition, at least in phase I.

It might make sense if the Merced county station were at Castle Airport, directly inside a new passenger terminal (same as Palmdale) and Fresno Yosemite plus the blighted land beyond its runways were converted into a new mixed used district with excellent transit connections to the HSR station and downtown area. That, however, would be a huge step for Fresno to take and is not currently contemplated.

Moreover, given CHSRA's preference for Pacheco Pass, it might make more sense to defer any development of Castle Airport into a commercial airport to phase II. By that time, HSR will have had a chance to establish itself as a mode of travel and, both Fresno and San Jose might be ready to close their airports to accommodate population growth and eliminate runway blight. Already, e-ticketing and mobile boarding passes mean that check-in at the airport can boil down to dropping off any bags you may have. For passengers hailing from or headed to Silicon Valley, a comfortable 45 minute train trip to Castle Airport with broadband internet access may be preferable to the risk of fog-related delay and a clunky transfer at SFO.

The arrangement would hinge on making Castle Airport the only HSR station in Merced county, such that all trains to and from Sacramento would pass through it. Note that Sacramento's own airport is somewhat constrained by its location smack in the Pacific Flyway, which means it experiences a lot of bird strikes. In addition, it is nowhere near the future HSR station on top of the new STIF. Plans for a light rail line out to SMF call for 13 stops, none of which would be right at the STIF or either of the airport terminals. An HSR trip to Castle Airport would take about 40 minutes.

New Transbay Terminal Renderings

by Robert Cruickshank



Thanks to Andy at Curbed SF for pointing me to the new design renderings for the Transbay Terminal. Here's how he described it:

[It] shows in more detail in the immediate surroundings of the 1,500-foot-long building, one of whose principal concerns is to not be the dank, enclosed transit station most of us are used to. To that end, large skylights called "light columns" puncture the building from the 5.4-acre urban park on the roof, and penetrate deep into the building— underpasses, notes the architect, also get the airiness treatment. LEED Gold certification is a distinct possibility for the building, whose "urban room" will be similar in scale to Grand Central Station's. The building will almost entirely be naturally ventilated, and there's even talk of tapping into geothermal energy. The park, designed by landscape architect Peter Walker, may also feature a water thing running its length, with fountains spurting whenever a bus passes by underneath. There's room for sky bridges to the park from surrounding buildings, and there'll be a funicular (see: tourist attraction) to take people from ground level to the top.

Ambitious, to be sure, but it's also the right move. A 21st century transit terminal should be an open and inviting place, to suit the renewed interest in mass transit and passenger rail in particular. The folks that redesigned the Ferry Building did a good job with it, but the Transbay Terminal requires a more open design - something that is easy to use and familiarizes San Franciscans and Californians generally speaking with transit as a centerpiece of the city.

Worth keeping in mind the big picture here even as we continue to debate the implementation of the train box and HSR connectivity.

DesertXpress EIS and Public Meetings

by Robert Cruickshank

DesertXpress, the company that proposes to build high speed rail from Victorville to Las Vegas, has a Draft EIS ready on their project, and are scheduling some public meetings this week to discuss it (details below). From the DesertXpress press release:

Operating at speeds of up to 150 mph on exclusive tracks along Interstate 15, DesertXpress trains will make the 180-mile trip between Las Vegas and Victorville, California in an hour and twenty minutes. According to the EIS, DesertXpress is forecasted to carry over 10 million people per year by 2015 and over 16 million people by 2030. Ultimately, the system will have a capacity of more than 60 million people per year....

"The project is estimated to reduce up to 360 million pounds of CO2 emissions in the Interstate 15 corridor by greatly reducing automobile travel and replacing it with energy-efficient mass transportation in one of America's most congested transportation corridors," Rogich said.

They believe they can break ground "early next year", which strikes me as a tad bit ambitious. DesertXpress is also aggressively (and in my opinion correctly) pushing back against the concept of building a maglev train on the LA-LV corridor, citing a study for the SoCal Logistics Rail Authority that suggests maglev's costs are going to be too high to afford:

"Maglev has been a thirty-year study of a system that only operates in one other area in the world, which is Shanghai. And we believe the reason it hasn't been further developed in other parts of the world is that according to the BSL Study, the latest cost estimates by public authorities in Germany and the United States put the cost of construction for a Maglev line in the range of $60 million to $199 million per mile - which would bring the cost of the proposed 260-mile Maglev line to US $16 billion to $52 billion - making it the most costly transportation project in U.S. history. On the other hand, the DesertXpress project is estimated to cost from $3.5 to $4 billion, and high speed rail lines are a proven commodity and are successfully operating all over Europe and other parts of the world," said Rogich.

There will be three public meetings this week on the DesertXpress EIS:

Tonight: Las Vegas
5:30-8:00 pm
Hampton Inn Tropicana
4975 Dean Martin Drive

Tomorrow (Wednesday): Barstow
5:30-8:00 pm
Ramada Inn
1511 East Main Street

Thursday: Victorville
5:30-8:00 pm
Green Tree Golf Course Club House
14144 Green Tree Boulevard

Of course, ANY Vegas HSR project, no matter the details, is going to run into opposition from Congressional Republicans who like to use the proposal to criticize federal stimulus spending and trains more broadly. But as the Huffington Post reports, that criticism is usually hypocritical:

While the stimulus was being debated in January, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor called a group of reporters into his office to outline the GOP's objections. As we filed in, we walked past a giant poster ridiculing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for allegedly pushing for high-speed rail connecting Disneyland and Las Vegas.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Cantor called that project an example of "waste and pork-barrel spending."

Yet one man's pork is another man's prudent investment in transit -- and sometimes the same man's.

Asked about high-speed rail at a recent local event in Virginia, Cantor was all thumbs up. "If there is one thing that I think all of us here on both sides of the political aisle from all parts of the region agree with, it's that we need to do all we can to promote jobs here in the Richmond area," Cantor said of the high-speed rail.

One can hope that Senator Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party today will provide a 60 vote majority for HSR funding and render moot idiotic claims like Cantor's.

How Exactly Will HSR Connect To Airports?

by Rafael

One of the objectives of the California HSR project is to provide effective connections to existing airports. This should allow airlines to offer connecting train journeys for their long-distance flights. It is also supposed to make secondary airports more attractive to air travelers, but success will depend heavily on getting the last mile transfer between platforms and terminal and other details right.

CHSRA claims the chosen route will achieve this for SFO, Palmdale and Ontario airports. Lindbergh Field (SAN) could now be added to that list, but the purpose of the multimodal transit terminal there is a different one: making it convenient for those arriving by car to take the train rather than fly to other California destinations. Freeing up slots for long-distance flights by displacing short-hop shuttles is another objective for California HSR, but other cities perceive downtown stations as more effective in that context. That is part of the reason why HSR trains will be not be tightly linked to Oakland, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Burbank, LAX or Sacramento airports.

So let's focus on SFO, Palmdale and Ontario: how exactly will long-distance flights and short-to-medium-distance HSR trips be combined into an attractive value proposition for the traveler? To answer this, we need to look at the following aspects:

1. How many long-distance flights will be offered out of each airport?
   
   In the aviation business, there is no formal definition of "long haul". In the US domestic market, it appears to refer to flights of at least 6 hours, e.g. coast-to-coast and transoceanic. California-Hawaii is borderline. Of course, some HSR customers will take a short train trip to connect to a much shorter flight, e.g. to the Pacific Northwest or the interior west. Unfortunately, airports don't publish their statistics down to that level of granularity - at least not free of charge.
   
   SFO statistics reveal the airport handles 20,000-25,000 air carrier movements a month, 2.5-3.5 million passengers, of which 550,000-850,000 are international. The airport experienced robust growth in 2008 and now ranks among the nation's top 10, though passenger numbers still have not recovered to pre-9/11 volume. Note that in 2006/7, SFO commanded much higher fare premiums for long-distance flights than e.g. LAX. About 25% of all passengers flying in or out of SFO hail from or are headed to other California destinations. Factoring in aircraft size, this probably translates to ~1/3 of all aircraft movements.
   
   Ontario is a much smaller airport, with just 7-8 million passengers a year. Most of the long-distance flights appear to be to domestic destinations, with just a few flights to Mexico and other Latin American countries out of the small international terminal.
   
   Palmdale is another of LA's "world" airports, but it recently lost its one and only commercial service (United to SFO) when the subsidy ran out. There is now talk of converting part of the huge area to a solar thermal power plant, though it's unclear if that would prevent the resumption of commercial operations once HSR puts this airport within ~30 minutes of downtown LA. Note that the combination of elevation and high summer temperatures mean that air density at PMD is lower than at LAX, so any fully laden 747s or A380s would need an extra-long runway and a gentle ascent slope to take off.
   
   
2. How many HSR trains will be offered to these airport stations?
   
   In general, this is still very much up in the air. A great deal depends on how easy it will be to find attractive fares, get to the nearest HSR station and, transfer between HSR and flights at the airports. The number and ease of transfers is especially critical for passengers with more than just carry-on baggage.
   
   In spite of the large volume of traffic at SFO, only a subset of HSR trains serving the Bay Area will stop at Millbrae. Expect fares between downtown SF and Millbrae to be artificially elevated to avoid low seat capacity utilization on long-distance trains and cannibalization of Caltrain and BART ridership. The purpose of the station is to provide connectivity for passengers hailing from or headed to destinations well south of SFO, e.g. Silicon Valley, the Central Coast and the Central Valley. Note that CHSRA expects just 3,000 boardings/alightings per day at Millbrae.
   
   Ontario airport is supposed to be on the phase II extension between LA and San Diego via Riverside. HSR trips to and from LA Union Station are expected to take 25 minutes and, CHSRA expects 10,000 boardings/alightings per day. For reference, the FlyAway bus between LAUS and LAX currently takes 30-50 minutes, depending on traffic. However, a new light or heavy rail link via the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor could easily cut the budgeted transfer time in half.
   
   It's too early to say what fraction of HSR trains will stop at Ontario, except that CHSRA is planning to use LAUS as a through station, with most trains continuing on to San Diego because of track capacity constraints between Fullerton and Anaheim. San Diegans may well decide to use HSR - possibly including Amtrak Pacific Surfliner at 110mph top speed - rather than fly within California, just so more long-haul flights can be offered out of Lindbergh Field. Taking HSR to catch a plane at Ontario would be an inferior solution for them, though perhaps not for residents of the Murrieta-Escondido area.
   
   Palmdale will be included in phase I. In addition to passengers that would otherwise have used LAX or Burbank, there will be some from the Central Valley. Commercial services to Fresno Yosemite and Bakersfield do still exist, but they are expensive. Even so, it will take some aggressive lobbying of airlines and sweet flight/train bundle deals to build enough ridership, which CHSRA optimistically (?) estimates at 12,000 boardings/alightings per day.
   
   Note that IFF a spur out to Las Vegas ever does materialize, Palmdale would be roughly 75min from Sin City, possibly close enough to serve as a relief airport for McCarran during crunch periods such as major conventions. Ontario via Cajon Pass would be a little further. The bulk of the relief would come from the gradual elimination of flights to California cities on the same bullet train network, comprising almost 1/3 of aircraft movements at Las Vegas.
   
   
3. How will customers discover plane/train combo fares?
   
   If it has not yet done so, CHSRA will presumably request IATA codes for all of its stations so they show up as destinations in airline flight reservations systems. Systems like SABRE are also used as the back-ends to many internet travel portals. It is far more likely that a passenger would discover an HSR trip as a connecting service for a flight than vice versa.
   
   At many airports around the world (e.g. Atlanta, London Heathrow, Paris CDG, Frankfurt/Main, Amsterdam, Vienna, Oslo, Copenhagen, Geneva, Cologne, Leipzig, Kansai (Osaka)), the train platforms are within easy walking distance of the airport terminals. At others, there are frequent people mover connections (e.g. Birmingham UK) to those terminals that are beyond walking distance. However, IATA appears to permit code-sharing even if the train station is many miles away. This is disingenuous as it causes the reservation system to show the plane/train combo journey as having just two legs when it's really three. Many IATA codes for train stations not co-located with airports begin with a Q, X or Z, but this is also not enforced. The use of just three letters also means the most obvious combination may already be in use for an airport somewhere else in the world.
   
   For a sense of how long-haul customers would book a connecting train journey, consider United's GroundLink service to most of France via Paris CDG and SNCF TGV. An enterprising airline could just as easily offer transoceanic service to e.g. Palmdale plus connecting service to any destination on the California HSR network.
   
   In California, it would be desirable to use SFO for the Millbrae, PMD for the Palmdale and ONT for the Ontario HSR station. SAN could arguably be used for Lindbergh Field and BUR for Burbank IFF there's a courtesy shuttle bus. MER for Castle Airport would only be appropriate if CHSRA acquires part of the BNSF row for that segment and a terminal for commercial passenger and/or cargo flights is constructed.
   
   
4. How will these be priced relative to connecting short-hop flights?
   
   The question may not be all that relevant as most passengers will use HSR to connect to final destinations that are too close to be served by connecting flights. The exception will be those in the Central Valley, e.g. SFO - FYI (Fresno Yosemite, previously called FAT). However, those are far more expensive than HSR will be, so expect them to disappear from airline schedules quite quickly to free up slots for long-haul flights that can achieve high seat capacity utilization (aka "load factor"). Passengers will also prefer the trains because they will run more frequently, more than offsetting the longer trip time by cutting the layover interval.
   
   
5. How will passengers get from the train platforms to their gates?
   
   In SFO's case, BART really does run into the airport. However, anyone arriving at Millbrae by Caltrain currently needs to transfer to BART, execute a cross-platform timed transfer at San Bruno and then a third transfer to the Air Train to reach the check-in counters. See here and here for the gory details.
   
   One of the reasons the BART shuttle between SFO and Millbrae was discontinued is that the unions insisted that it constituted a line in its own right, so drivers should be permitted to take a 15-minute break at the end of each journey. Alternatively, each train would have to be operated by two drivers, each twiddling their thumbs more than 50% of the time.
   
   Running the AirTrain out to Millbrae would be very expensive, so either a BART shuttle or a SamTrans (?) bus would have to be paid out of airport taxes if that station is to share the IATA code with the airport.
   
   At Ontario, the last mile transfer depends entirely on the right of way CHSRA can obtain through the San Gabriel Valley. The plan of record is to leverage the UPRR Colton alignment that runs right past the gigantic car park in front of the three terminals on S Moore Way and E Terminal Way, respectively. Given how spread out the terminals are, the most likely solution would be a shuttle bus or people mover that also serves long-term parking. This approach is still viable if HSR ends up in the I-10 median. However, if HSR were forced even further from this secondary airport, e.g. to the CA-60 median, it could not act as an effective feeder. In that case, it would make more sense to extend the starter line from Fullerton to Riverside and San Bernardino, with a view to one day reaching Las Vegas. Any money saved should then be put toward upgrading the Pacific Surfliner route to higher speeds or else, on a spur down to San Diego at Corona.
   
   In Palmdale, the existing terminal is located almost 3.5 miles from the Metrolink station. The most likely connection would be a shuttle bus. Of course, now that commercial operation has anyhow ceased, it might make sense to build a brand-new terminal near Sierra Hwy/Ave N with detour tracks for HSR trains at grade and check-in/baggage retrieval on a concourse level. Note that Palmdale could also serve as a high speed cargo transshipment point, as the northern terminus for HSR trains serving only Southern California and as a maintenance facility.
   
   In essence, much the same logic would apply for Castle Airport in Merced county - right now, there's a long runway and a nearby rail line but not much else.
   
   Remote secondary airports have little or no chance of commercial success without a high speed train station within walking distance of the airport concourse. Even then, some caution is in order: the spectacular Satolas station was built right next to the airport in Lyon, France, in the 1980s. The hope was that the TGV would attract additional passengers from south of Lyon to the airport such that airlines would offer more international flights.
   
   However, in one of France's worst transportation planning failures, SNCF/RFF never constructed the turn-off that would have permitted regional TGV service between downtown Lyon (Part-Dieu), the airport, the Rhône Valley and beyond. As a result, Lyon was never able to emerge from Paris' long shadow. In 2010, a new express light rail service will finally provide a 20-minute transit link between downtown and the airport but that's no more than a consolation prize.
   
   The lesson from Satolas is that a secondary airport without a substantial local catchment area will struggle to attract the flights that would prompt passengers to ride a train to the airport in the first place. It's a chicken-and-egg situation that can only be overcome with a plan for integrated service. This has to be driven by one or more innovative airlines collaborating closely with one or more rail operators to offer a combined service that is hassle-free, fast, punctual and competitively priced. The notion that a government agency like CHSRA or LAWA can "build it and they will come" is false.
   
   
6. Where will check-in and security screening happen?
   
   Some operators in Europe (e.g. Deutsche Bahn) do provide flight check-in facilities at selected train stations, but all security screening still happens at the airport. In 2010, the European rail networks will be opened to international competition. At that point, Air France and others intend to compete directly with Eurostar on the London-Paris route, where baggage and passenger screening is already performed at the train stations because the UK is not a signatory to the Schengen agreement. However, the rail and airport security zones are currently not equally strict nor integrated, so passengers will still probably have to submit to screening twice.
   
   Afaik, no rail operator anywhere allows passengers to take care of flight check-in formalities on board the train to save time. Reliable wireless internet connections are still a new phenomenon and there are also logistical issues, e.g. with weighing bags.
   
   However, consider this scenario: you go online and book a train/flight combo ticket with XYZ airline, which has decided to operate out of a secondary airport with an integrated HSR station. You print out your ticket/write down your confirmation code. At the appropriate time, you board the train with your baggage. Once you're underway, you head to the cafe car, which features a courtesy desk where you can check in for your flight. In addition to your boarding pass(es), you receive self-adhesive baggage tags that you need to attach yourself. Upon arrival at the airport, you need only drop off your bags. The person there will check that your bags are in order (size, weight, condition) and scan the bar code before letting you proceed. The airline would not be responsible for lost bags prior to this point.
   
   
7. Will baggage be checked through to the final destination?
   
   Train stations that permit combined train/plane check-in on the outbound leg also provide the boarding passes and baggage labels for the flight. However, in most cases passengers still have to take their bags onto the train themselves. One exception is Vienna, Austria, where you can check your bags the night before or, up to 75 minutes before the shuttle train leaves for the nearby airport. Baggage is forwarded automatically to the airport's handling facility. Returning passengers do have to pick up their bags at the baggage carousels as usual, though.
   

Gavin Newsom on HSR

by Robert Cruickshank

In a meeting with bloggers yesterday at the California Democratic Convention here in Sacramento, Gavin Newsom answered questions on a wide range of topics, including one from Becks who writes at Living in the O on restoring transit funding.


(I'm the one sitting next to Gavin)

Newsom's answer was that California is a wealthy state, and that we should be able to find the means to support transit. He pointed out the absurdity of the federal stimulus supporting spending on infrastructure and rolling stock but not on operating expenses - "we can buy buses but can't pay people to drive them." Newsom specifically mentioned high speed rail in his answer - that when he was younger he took a trip to Europe and rode their high speed trains, but when he came back "all we had was Caltrain." Newsom was a strong supporter of last fall's Proposition 1A, and has been one of the leading forces behind getting the Transbay Terminal done. Newsom wants to build HSR as governor of California - if he won two terms he might be able to preside over the opening of the LA-SF route in 2018.

Of course, his leading rival for the Democratic nomination for governor, Jerry Brown, is also a longtime supporter of HSR, having created the state's first HSR project back in the early 1980s when he was governor. Both men, if they became governor, would presumably be strong supporters of HSR.

I'm headed back to Monterey on the Capitol Corridor this afternoon - use this as an open thread.

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The LA Times reports that the California Air Resources Board has just released a complex new environmental regulation called the "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" (LCFS). This is relevant for High Speed Rail in that it will inevitably raise both vehicle and fuel prices for cars and trucks in the medium and long term. That in turn should boost ridership on all types of mass transit and the popularity of transit-oriented real estate development statewide.

Objectives

One objective is to diversify the fuel sources for the millions of internal combustion engines powering motorbikes, cars and trucks in California, away from (mostly) imported fossil crude oil and toward substitutes derived from locally grown energy crops and agricultural waste streams or, from other local, renewable sources of primary energy. Considering that California requires so-called "boutique" gasoline with special additives to curb summer smog, it could not import finished product from out of state or abroad if one of its refineries went offline. Therefore, the diversification of fuel sources is a priority both for energy security and for the state's balance of trade.

A second objective is to reduce net carbon emissions of each gallon of fuel pumped at California gas stations to help meet climate policy goals. Vehicles fueled partially or wholly by substitutes must of course not emit more toxic compounds than those running on conventional oil distillates, but their net CO2 emissions will be lower. The savings accrue not at the tailpipe when the vegetable matter that is used as a feedstock for the alternative fuel production grows back a year later. This is why ARB selected the GREET model for the entire carbon life cycle of each type of fuel. For biofuel compounds, it also takes land use and food web impacts into account.

Note that California's new low carbon fuel standard does not aim to directly reduce total vehicle miles driven, nor to increase vehicle occupancy rates, nor to reduce aggregate net CO2 emissions from ground transportation in the state. Some or all of these outcomes may materialize indirectly as a result of higher vehicle and/or fuel prices.

Exempt Industries

The aviation industry was apparently exempted from the new state regulations. Part of the reason may be that jet fuel is subject to very stringent quality standards for safety reasons. In addition, federal laws and international treaties restrict individual states' ability to tax aviation fuels and/or enforce the use of fuel substitutes in blends or neat form.

In general aviation, there is a desire to phase out 100 octane low lead (100LL) AVGAS, but all substitutes - 91 octane gasoline, methanol, ethanol - require significant modifications to airframes, fuel system components and engines. In the US, any retrofit kits would have to be certified by the FAA, so the industry is moving toward new designs featuring turbocharged diesel engines that can run on either diesel or jet fuel. Some US airports have already stopped selling AVGAS, perhaps in a thinly disguised effort to free up more slots for commercial flights.

Off-road, marine and locomotive fuels are also not covered by the new regulation, nor is the US military.

Natural Gas, Hydrogen and Electricity

Returning to trucks and cars: natural gas, hydrogen and electricity are all included in the list of alternative transportation fuels in the new regulations, which do not consider the details of the alternative drivetrain technologies required to take advantage of them. The GREET models for these fuels do account for how these substitutes are produced and distributed.

Regular natural gas is less carbon-intensive than gasoline but it requires some engine modifications. In addition, achieving an acceptable operating range of ~200 miles between fill-ups requires heavy, bulky and expensive fuel tanks that can withstand 250-300 bar (3630-4350 psi) of pressure plus a network of gas stations equipped with the requisite compressors. On the other hand, biomethane blended with a small amount of propane is the only cellulosic biofuel that could easily be produced in bulk today. EU regulations already permit producers to feed it into the existing European network of natural gas pipelines.

The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is steam reforming of fossil natural gas, but this releases copious amounts of CO2. There may still be a niche application for it in the context of blends of natural gas and a small amount of hydrogen, e.g. Hythane. Relative to CNG, the hydrogen additive accelerates flame propagation and ensures near-complete combustion while improving thermodynamic cycle efficiency. It is best used in efficient homogenous lean-burn spark ignition engines equipped with oxidation catalysts and NOx traps or SCR systems originally developed for diesel engines. To avoid hydrogen embrittlement, special alloys or composite materials must be used to contain fuels containing hydrogen.

This also applies to the entire distribution chain of neat hydrogen and the 700 bar (10150 psi) pressure tanks deployed in fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). However, thanks to the GREET model, hydrogen will now have to be produced using electrolysis of fresh water using electricity from controversial nuclear or expensive renewable sources. Thus, the LCFS virtually guarantees that FCVs will remain a niche phenomenon.

That in turn could create more of a market for vehicles that can store such zero-carbon electricity directly in on-board battery banks. High-volume manufacturers prefer the more expensive and less energy-dense chemistries based on nickel metal hydrides (NiMH), lithium-manganese spinel or lithium nanophospate to banks of commodity lithium-cobalt ion cells found in cell phones and laptops (cp. Tesla Motors). To understand why, watch these videos of nail penetration tests of commodity vs. automotive-grade Li-ion cells, simulating a severe crash scenario.

Regardless of chemistry, all automotive applications of advanced traction batteries have to be maintained at intermediate states of charge (30-90%) and forcibly cooled to near room temperature to ensure they will last for the lifetime of the vehicle. The battery packs used in electric bicycles and scooters are much smaller and cheaper, but owners typically have to replace them after a few years.

Implications for Oil and Utility Companies

Santa Barbara County recently reversed itself on a controversial decision to lift a ban on new offshore drilling in the area. From the oil industry's perspective, the new LCFS adds insult to injury as the carbon life cycle analysis also exposes oil produced from tar sands (cp. Athabasca, Canada) as incredibly carbon-intensive. Developing the US Navy's vast oil shale deposits in Colorado would be even worse.

The new rules point in exactly the other direction: they require refineries to cut the net carbon emissions from their products by 10% in the next decade by blending in renewable compounds or, by selling neat substitutes alongside traditional oil distillates. The latter option would permit oil companies to set up networks of rapid recharge stations for battery electric vehicles, though fire safety considerations will require these to be located sufficiently far from gasoline pumps. Note that oil companies could presumably also comply by taking equity stakes in utilities or else, in specialized start-ups such as Better Place.

However, it's far more likely that oil companies will invest in emerging, relatively benign liquid hydrocarbon technologies such as cellulosic ethanol that are more compatible with their existing distribution infrastructure and the existing vehicle fleet. The fuel systems and engines of all cars and trucks sold in the US since the 1970s can tolerate E10 (10% ethanol) blends. In addition, a loophole in CAFE rules allows auto manufacturers could avoid gas guzzler taxes for popular SUV and pick-up models equipped - at modest expense - with seals and gaskets made from materials that can tolerate blends as high as E85. Millions of car and truck owners are not even aware that their vehicle is already flex-fuel capable.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest headaches presented by cellulosic feedstocks is that they are usually solid and therefore expensive to transport to a large central biorefinery. Moreover, the end product ethanol is highly hygroscopic i.e. it attracts moisture from the ambient air. To avoid corrosion risks, it must be distributed via truck or freight rail instead of existing gasoline pipelines. In addition, storage tanks at gas stations must contain stirrers for fuels containing ethanol. California refineries currently purchase most of their ethanol from the Mid-West, where it is produced from glucose contained in corn kernels - competing directly with applications in the food web. Cellulosic ethanol avoids this problem, but large amounts of energy are needed to increase the surface area of readily available feedstocks like corn stover, switch grass etc. Only then can bacteria begin to break the cellulose down into simple sugars and then ferment those into ethanol. Fermentation into the more desirable biobutanol is in a much earlier stage of microbiology R&D.

An alternate, more easily scalable route is the conversion of cellulosic waste streams, including lignocellulosic biomass, into synthesis gas, a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This can be converted in Fischer-Tropsch reactors into a variety of useful fuels including synthetic natural gas (SNG) and, alkanes suitable as bulk substitutes for diesel, even gasoline. Unfortunately, F-T is highly exothermic (i.e. inefficient) and also not very selective (i.e. you get lots of worthless by-products) and the results become worse as you scale plants down to reduce the overheads associated with feedstock logistics. This makes F-T unattractive in the context of the carbon life-cycle analysis at the heart of California's new LCFS, unless both the waste heat and the waste CO2 can be leveraged for secondary processes such as steam generation and algal oil production.

Implications for Car and Truck Manufacturers

Gasoline and diesel are the dominant fuels for internal combustion engines used in ground transportation for two very simple reasons: low cost and high energy density. They are also very well suited to precisely controlled combustion in spark and compression ignition engines, respectively. All of the technologies involved have been the subject of continuous refinement for over a century. In addition, there are well-established networks for fuel production and distribution plus vehicle maintenance and repair.

Auto manufacturers therefore also prefer incremental changes, e.g. new and retrofit fuel systems for ethanol and biodiesel (FAME). Only modest changes to fuel pumps, combustion control and/or exhaust gas aftertreatment are required for these. Keep in mind that fuels with lower energy density (e.g. E85) are consumed at higher rates, so MPG goes down, as does range on a full tank.

The problem is that lawmakers and regulators see a need to go much further much faster, in terms of both toxic emissions and energy security/climate change. To that end, they are pushing concepts such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and various types of electric hybrids using both mandates (Zero Emissions Vehicle Program) and incentives (Tax Credit Programs) to overcome substantial technical hurdles and encourage the construction of new distribution infrastructure.

Battery electric vehicles can be charged off the existing grid, if you happen to have a garage or reserved parking space. Unfortunately, using a standard 110V/15amp household circuit require a charge times of 4-8 hours for an operating radius of just 40-100 miles, depending on vehicle mass, aerodynamics and how aggressively they are operated. High acceleration/deceleration rates and high speeds are very detrimental to range, as are hotel loads such as cabin heaters and A/C. Fortunately, research has shown that privately owned motor vehicles are typically operated less than 2 hours out of every 24 and, cover less than 30 miles on most days.

General Motors is betting the farm on a technology that combines a full battery electric drivetrain with a small gasoline engine attached to a generator to extend vehicle range. This concept was first presented in the Lohner-Porsche Mixte Hybrid in 1901. It remains to be seen if consumers will be willing to pay a premium of $15k for a Chevy Volt over a comparable conventional Malibu, even if the federal government provides a super-generous $7500 tax credit for early adopters. Even if your daily commute distance (15-20 miles each way) allows you to very nearly deplete the grid electricity charge without firing up the gasoline engine, it will take many years to recoup the additional initial investment as long as gasoline remains comparatively cheap.

Supply regulations like LCFS that indirectly force consumers to shell out for motor vehicle features that they would not purchase voluntarily tend to reduce both profit margins and annual unit volume. Approaches that deliver fiscally sustainable changes in consumer demand would ultimately deliver a greater aggregate impact on climate policy while also making a smaller auto industry more profitable.

Implications for Transit and High Speed Rail

As indicated at the beginning of the post, the new Low Carbon Fuel Standard will above all make buying and operating a motor car more expensive, because essentially all alternative fuel and propulsion technologies cost more than the status quo. This means California families will likely own fewer and on average, older cars and trucks than is the case today.

In the long run, high school and university students may not be able to afford owning a car. Instead, they make do with a scooter or electric (folding) bicycle instead. In addition, simple economics may force them to use local and regional transit more frequently. From there, it is a just a small step to riding high speed rail instead of catching a short-hop flight. Later, this new generation may well prefer living in an apartment in a walkable transit village to their parents' dreams of a large free-standing house in the suburbs where cars are the only way to go anywhere, at least in the winter months.

Electric passenger rail is today and will likely remain the only transportation technology capable of moving millions of people across hundreds of miles quickly, safely and in comfort while making time spent in transit productive via reliable broadband Internet access. The much-ballyhooed zero tailpipe emissions vehicle is actually a very old hat, the hard part is getting urban planners and real estate tycoons to revert to thinking in terms of linear rather than area development patterns, i.e. dense transit villages instead of low-rise sprawl across a grid.

Coda: The Future of the LCFS

If history is any guide, it is very likely that a variety of business interests will lobby California politicians as well as ARB bureaucrats to make incremental changes to the complex new regulation. The cumulative effect will likely be a gradual watering-down, even if crass excesses like the aforementioned E85 loophole are avoided. If the state is serious about reducing its net carbon emissions, by far the most effective approach would be to raise fuel taxes as Japan and European countries did long ago.

Unfortunately, very few politicians are prepared to be honest with voters, so they favor new regulations such as this one. Moreover, forcing industry to lobby them fills their campaign coffers.

It is not yet clear if other states will adopt California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard in addition to its strict limits on toxic tailpipe emissions. Note also that the Obama administration has recently given EPA jurisdiction over CO2 emissions, which may well translate to fleet average limits per mile that will render CAFE (administered by USDOT) and the gas guzzler tax (administered by the US Treasury) essentially irrelevant. That sets the stage for a new arena of jurisdictional conflict between EPA and California ARB.

CHSRA and Peninsula Cities Agree On Planning Process

As reported by the Mercury News:

In the first signal that individual Peninsula cities will have a direct voice in high-speed rail planning, a state official Thursday unveiled plans to launch working groups in which local representatives will help shape the massive project.

San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco counties would each get a working group that would meet eight times with high-speed rail officials between May and April 2011, said Tim Cobb, project manager for the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of the high-speed rail line....

Cobb said after the meeting that the working groups were based on similar setups already in place in Southern California, where planning of the train is further along. The "technical working group" meetings will take place during project milestones, such as when key planning documents are released.

The Santa Clara County group will consist of representatives from the five cities along the Caltrain line — including Palo Alto and Mountain View — plus the county government. The San Mateo County group will be made up of representatives from the 11 cities along the train tracks, as well as a county official.

It would be up to the cities and county governments to choose who would be their representative, said Cobb. Ideally, each delegate would remain through the duration of the planning process, he said.

Obviously this is the right thing to do, although as usual, the devil is in the details. It's good that the cities have a formal seat at the table with CHSRA, and that should do much to ease the concerns of the cities that their concerns are being ignored. As I've argued before though, that never really was the issue here. Instead the issue is the desire of some Peninsula cities to exercise a veto over the project and interject themselves into decisions, such as operations, that they really have no place or right dictating about (and make no mistake, many of these cities will want to dictate terms).

It will be very interesting to see how this group approach proceeds, especially when the astronomical cost of tunneling becomes clear. That's when the big fight will take place.

The above was announced at sn HSR info session in Belmont last night. Not much else took place, although this was worth noting:

While going underground in general is expensive, it might be worth it in areas where there are many grade separations with which to work.

“At this stage, I don’t think we can talk about the costs of the alternatives yet and I don’t think we want to,” said Tim Cobb of the High-Speed Rail Authority.

At the same time, even if a tunnel is listed among the alternatives, cost will likely be the deciding factor. We'll see what happens.

Note: This weekend I'll be here in Sacramento for the California Democratic Party convention. If there's any HSR news to report, I'll be sure to post it here. Otherwise I'll leave you in the capable hands of Rafael and the open threads!

Upcoming Public Rail Meetings

Next week in Los Angeles there will be two public events to showcase and build support for passenger rail in California, high speed rail included. Both are worth attending, especially if you live in Southern California and have the time.

First up is the May 1st 21st Century Transportation for Los Angeles Conference being hosted by CALPIRG. It'll be from 10-3 at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels at 555 W. Temple in downtown LA. Among the speakers will be Quentin Kopp.

The next day, Saturday May 2 at 9:15 AM, also in downtown LA (this time at Union Station) is the RailPAC and NARP joint meeting, with a general topic of Steel Wheels In California. Some of the leading figures in passenger rail will be speaking there - Joseph Boardman, the new CEO of Amtrak; Bill Bronte, who heads Caltrans' Division of Rail, and several other LA-area rail figures. Specifically for HSR, Rod Diridon of the CHSRA board and Bruce Armistead of Parsons Brinckerhoff will be there to talk about the HSR project.

I'm going to try and attend both events, but it's unclear whether I'll actually be able to (the next week and a half is shaping up to be unusually busy for me). Regardless, if you're in Southern California, you ought to consider attending one or both of these excellent public events, a good opportunity to learn about the status of the HSR project - especially since the CHSRA hasn't yet held public workshops in SoCal just yet.

Earth Day 2009: Focus on Electricity

Ever since 1970, April 22 has marked Earth Day in the United States. The objective has always been to raise awareness of environmental issues and to prompt individuals to take actions that benefit the environment in some way.

Today marks the first Earth Day of the Obama administration. The President will head to Iowa to promote renewable electricity generation, specifically wind farms. This is part of a larger strategy to gradually wean the US economy off fossil fuels in general and oil in particular. Reducing US dependence on these finite resources is an essential contribution to both climate policy and national security. The administration's energy-cum-green-collar-jobs legislation is already making its way through Congress, albeit slowly.

Of course, any sensible energy policy needs to address not just how electricity is generated but also the total amount used. Without aggressive conservation, renewable electricity - hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass - will always struggle to cover more than a tiny fraction of total demand.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Florida Power & Light has embarked on a $200 million project to install "smart meters" in all homes in Miami-Dade county. Each meter contains a WiFi transceiver that allows consumers to track their electricity usage with software installed on their PC. Knowing when they consume which amount of electricity on a given circuit - mapped to specific rooms or appliances - makes it much easier for them to identify and eliminate power hogs.

California's Bay Area and San Diego are just as exposed to the threat of slowly rising sea levels as south Florida. Yet it is air conditioning demand in the hot inland areas of both states that places enormous strain on the utility companies on the 10 hottest days of the year. In California, aggregate demand can jump by as much as 50% when people return home in the late afternoon and switch on their central A/C unit, often at full power to bring temperatures back down quickly. According to a KQED Quest radio report, simply selecting a device that is optimized for the temperature and humidity range in a particular area can save 20% on A/C-related electricity consumption. There are more than just cost savings here, because the rarely-used power plants that exist purely to cope with extreme peak demand have to deliver that power quickly and reliably - which means using gas turbines. While these could run on stored biogas, the regulatory structure still favors the use of fossil natural gas.

There are plenty of other examples of scope for structural reductions in electricity consumption in California:

• for new buildings, solar architecture encompasses everything from avoiding large south-facing windows to insulation to self-shading, water features and vegetation, all in an effort to keep the indoor and interior courtyard areas naturally cool during the summer months
  
• in some locations, apartment complexes and businesses can already choose to deploy green roofs with drought-resistant plants supported by recycled water to provide natural insulation
  
• the pumps used to transport water from the Sierras to Southern California and the Bay Area consume around 2% of the state's total, so encouraging newcomers to move to where the water flows naturally is a good idea - especially since it will also discourage the agriculture of thirsty crops
  
• Internet data centers in California also consume around 2% of the state's total, of which about half is A/C load. Emerging liquid cooling technology for servers and mass storage units should help bring that down.

Of course, all of the conservation measures described above relate to stationary devices. Small mobile devices like cell phones and laptops, even bicycles, can easily be powered using grid electricity stored in batteries. The same is not true of large vehicles - the high cost, limited range and safety aspects of large battery banks are the reasons why virtually all cars and trucks on the market use internal combustion engines that rely on oil distillates. Commercial airliners rely on kerosene-guzzling jet engines, though when they are fully booked, the newest long-distance aircraft do consume less per passenger-mile than single-occupant cars do on the highway. By contrast, short-hop flights are among the least energy-efficient modes of transportation. That means aggressive conservation and/or switching to electricity is especially important for the transportation sector.

While some bus systems have been electrified using overhead catenaries, it is far more typical of rail transit: streetcars, light rail and subways. In the US, regular heavy rail has been electrified in the NEC but virtually nowhere else. The California bullet train system will be electrified, if only because it's the only way to achieve 220mph. At full capacity, the fully built out network is epxected to require around 480MW of electrical power, roughly 1% of the total installed generating capacity in the state today.

In keeping with the spirit of Earth Day, CHSRA wants it to run entirely on renewable electricity, something that will be easier with energy conservation in stationary applications. In this context, 100% renewable means that for each kWh consumed during a given time period (e.g. 1 year), there must be a corresponding kWh produced at a wind farm or other renewable source. In terms of global warming impact, it isn't strictly necessary that there be sufficient active renewable electricity generating capacity to power all of the trains at any given instant. This arbitrage is exactly where President Obama's smart grid concept comes in, something German scientists have already been working on for a while. For political reasons, that country wants to phase out both nuclear and coal-fired generating capacity.



In the context of a busy rail system, brake energy recuperation from one train to others on the same segment further improves overall energy efficiency, especially if the grid operator gets 20-30 seconds advance warning of a train braking. That information is readily available to the rail infrastructure operator, except in emergency situations.

For all these reasons, I couldn't agree more with this article in today's Des Moines Register, entitled simply:

To push clean energy, back high-speed rail

Even diesel-based "emerging HSR" is a lot more efficient than cars are at comparable occupancy rates. Considering that most cars have just one occupant, that's a low hurdle. Electrification just makes trains an even more strategic element of the passenger transportation mix going forward.

Update by Robert: This seems like a good occasion to remind folks of the CHSRA renewable energy study that we discussed last September. The report goes into detail on just what is necessary for the CHSRA to achieve 100% renewable energy for their system, a goal the Authority's board adopted last fall.

Is Vegas HSR Out of the Obama HSR Stimulus Derby?

When President Obama announced his HSR Strategic Plan last week, the USDOT report that accompanied the announcement included this map of HSR corridors, based on the 2001 map:



One route you don't see on that map is LA to Las Vegas. Does that mean the project, which right-wingers tried to generate controversy around back in February, is ineligible for the HSR stimulus money? That's the topic examined in an article in the Barstow Desert Dispatch:

The Obama administration’s strategic plan for spending the $8 billion in stimulus funding allotted to high-speed rail projects makes no mention of a proposed rail line from Anaheim to Las Vegas that would stop in Barstow.

Project proponents are still hopeful that some of the funds may come their way.

The plan released Thursday by President Barack Obama and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood lists 10 designated high-speed rail corridors where projects are eligible to receive funding, none of which include the Anaheim to Las Vegas route.

So does this mean that the map shown above really will determine HSR funding priorities? Well...maybe not:

Lori Irving, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Transportation, said projects that are not located in the existing corridors may still be eligible to compete for some of the stimulus funds.

And the backers of the maglev train are optimistic:

Bruce Aguilera, chair of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, which is tasked with moving the Anaheim to Las Vegas train project forward, stated via email that the project proponents still plan to file a request for stimulus funds and expect to be eligible.

“We have a plan and (are) moving fast to have the first leg built during the president’s first term,” Aguilera wrote.

Of course, unless they suddenly abandoned the maglev plan in favor of Desert Xpress and are planning to break ground this afternoon, I'm having a hard time seeing how they'll have the first leg built by the end of 2012.

I wouldn't be surprised if the LA-Vegas corridor got some amount of startup funds, to complete environmental design work - perhaps as much as $100 million or more (but certainly no more than $500 million). But with so many other corridors also looking for funds, with a much more developed and realistic plan - and sorry folks, maglev on this scale really is gadgetbahn - I am hard pressed to see how Vegas HSR is going to get very much out of the USDOT process.

The more I look at this, the more I think that if Vegas HSR is going to happen, the state of Nevada is going to have to take the lead in stepping up to fund a big chunk of it. If Obama is somehow able to create a stable funding source for HSR then that could put Vegas HSR in the pipeline - but it could also take 20 more years to bring it to fruition. If Vegas interests (that would be the casinos) want it to happen sooner, they'll need Nevada to help accelerate the timeline.

That will eventually raise the issue of how much California wants to spend on Vegas HSR. In the 1980s and 1990s there was a long standoff between Caltrans and NDOT over widening Interstate 15 between Barstow and the state line. California did not want to spend money on that project which benefits an out-of-state interest, especially with so many other road projects around the state clamoring for money. Eventually NDOT agreed to help pay and the widening projects were undertaken.

With Vegas HSR, Nevada and the feds could reasonably argue that California should put up more of the money since the route would serve California residents for in-state trips (especially if they use a Cajon Pass routing - Victor Valley residents would have a way to commute to and from jobs in the LA Basin). I'm not sure that's a high priority HSR corridor for this state, and I would be wary at this time of committing California to funding Vegas HSR. Ideally we could revisit the matter around 2020. But Vegas' timeline is much more aggressive, and I am betting we'll see Nevada leaders pushing California for financial commitments much sooner.

Something to keep in mind.

How The AVE Is Changing Spain

Today's Wall Street Journal offers a fascinating look at how Spain's AVE high speed trains are changing that country in some interesting and generally positive ways. As you know from our previous posts on the topic, not only do I have a personal affinity for the AVE, but their dramatic success in a nation whose pre-AVE travel habits, population densities and natural geography are very similar to those of California is a strong indicator of how HSR will be successful here in California.

To sell his vision of a high-speed train network to the American public, President Barack Obama this week cited Spain, a country most people don't associate with futuristic bullet trains.

Yet the country is on track to bypass France and Japan to have the world's biggest network of ultrafast trains by the end of next year, figures from the International Union of Railways and the Spanish government show.

Although the AVE was initiated by a Socialist government in the early 1990s, both the PSOE and the right-wing Partido Popular are strong backers of the AVE trains, and now Spain will have a large network of fast electric trains connecting its major cities. Already Sevilla, Málaga, and Barcelona are linked to Madrid - Valencia, Bilbao, and some of the northwestern cities are next in line. But they don't plan to stop there:

But the AVE-which means "bird" in Spanish- proved to be a popular and political success. Politicians now fight to secure stations in their districts. Political parties compete to offer ever-more ambitious expansion plans. Under the latest blueprint, nine out of ten Spaniards will live within 31 miles of a high speed rail station by 2020.

That's some amazing penetration of the HSR network that is planned for the next ten years. And it's even more fascinating considering that until the first AVE line opened in 1992, Spain's travel habits closely resembled those of California:







And although those numbers stem from the Madrid-Sevilla AVE line, they've been repeated in particular on the Madrid-Barcelona line, which has taken nearly 40% of the market on what was one of the world's busiest air routes.

The WSJ article suggests that the AVE has not only reshaped travel habits, but social and economic habits as well, maybe even cultural habits:

"We Spaniards didn't used to move around much," says José María Menéndez, who heads the civil engineering department at the University of Castilla-La Mancha. "Now I can't make my students sit still for one second. The AVE has radically changed this generation's attitude to travel."...

The AVE was originally designed to compete with the airplane for commutes between major cities around 300 miles apart. But the biggest, and least expected, effect of the AVE has been on the smaller places in between.

Perhaps the most striking example is Ciudad Real, a scrappy town 120 miles south of Madrid in Castilla-La Mancha which, Mr. Ureña says, "had completely vanished from the map." In medieval times, the town was a key stopover point on the route between the two of most important cities of the time, Córdoba and Toledo. But the railway and the highway south later bypassed the town, and Ciudad Real began to wither.

Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and Ciudad Real has come alive. The city has attracted a breed of daily commuters that call themselves "Avelinos." The AVE helped attract a host of industries to Ciudad Real, and the train is full in both directions.

Ciudad Real is a town somewhat analogous to Merced, and one can imagine that the California HSR trains will make UC Merced a more attractive option to students in the Bay Area and in Southern California. You can be sure that Central Valley cities are looking to the experience of places like Ciudad Real as a possible model of how their towns can provide more stable and lasting economic growth built around the high speed train.

Of course, the article does mention some criticism of the high speed trains:

Not everyone is pleased. ETA, the militant Basque separatist group, has said it would target anyone involved in the construction of a high-speed train line that will connect the restive northern region with Madrid and France. In December, ETA killed the owner of a company working as a contractor on the project, and in February detonated a bomb at the headquarters of Ferrovial SA, another contractor working on the project.

This issue is not so relevant to California, for obvious reasons, and it's worth noting that ETA's concern is that the AVE will be so successful that it will erode the Basque Country's autonomy by linking it more closely with the rest of Spain. The other main criticism voiced is that Spain's HSR focus is leaving other transportation infrastructure less funded:

Other, nonviolent critics say the country's massive investment in high speed rail has come at the expense of other, less-glamorous forms of transportation. Starved of funds, Spain's antiquated freight-train network has fallen into disuse, forcing businesses to move their goods around by road. That means the Spanish economy is unusually sensitive to changes in the price of crude oil.

And yet that's not really an argument against the successful HSR project - instead it's an argument for the investment in freight rail. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

Critics say the AVE will never stop losing money. Even its backers say high-speed rail can only be economical if the state bears much of the construction costs. But they say the train's benefits-lower greenhouse-gas emissions, less road congestion and, in Spain's case, greater social cohesion and economic mobility-make it an investment worth making.

Of course, Spain's roads were built with state money as well. Here in California our airports and freeways were built with state and federal money. Freeways are not expected to turn a profit. The whole notion that our transportation infrastructure should turn a profit is absurd, even if most HSR systems break even or generate surpluses, more than covering their operating expenses. And that's a sensible approach - the state makes the investment in the infrastructure, and the ongoing operations are self-sustaining.

Spain is like California in another way - it's getting extremely hard hit by the global recession. Like California, Spain experienced a significant property bubble and is now paying the price with high unemployment. I don't know how this will impact the ambitious AVE construction plans. But at least Spain spent the last 20 years investing in sustainable transportation - whereas California frittered away its economic boom on sprawl, roads, and tax cuts. Spain is in a better position to weather the economic storm and recover from it thanks to its investment in the AVE.

It's not too late for California, of course. With Prop 1A and President Obama's support we can start down the trail Spain blazed nearly 20 years ago. HSR will change California in interesting ways, and although we're already a far more mobile population than Spain apparently is, HSR will still provide economic and environmental benefits that so far we can only imagine.

Open Thread: Next Steps for California?

Last week's announcement of a national strategic plan for HSR was essentially the official start of the intense lobbying efforts by multiple states to secure a slice of the $9.5 billion in federal dollars currently on the table. The plan clarified that "emerging HSR", i.e. selected upgrades from 79mph to 110mph top speed, would be prioritized for phase 1. Related grant awards are supposed to happen by the end of summer, in keeping with the objective of the stimulus bill: turn dirt early.

Strategic corridor development, i.e. "regional HSR" (speeds up to 150mph) and "express HSR" (bullet trains at speeds in excess of 150mph) would be addressed in phase 2. This presumably includes both the Acela, California and Florida corridors. Texas still needs to decide if it wants to split into 5 states so the other 49 will kick them out of the union. Sometime after that, they may get around to deciding on the T-bone network. SoCal-Vegas would also be a bullet train of one type or another, preferably compatible with the California network, but at this point it's not even on the map of federally designated corridors yet.

Congress will have to allocate significant additional funding to make any bullet train system at all feasible in the US. Perhaps the President expects Congress to do just that for him, since his budget proposal includes just $1 billion per year for the next five years for HSR, over and above the $9.5 billion already on the table. He knows full well that's not going to be enough.

So what should the next steps be for California HSR regarding funding? A focus on increasing the regular budget allocation for HSR? A tariff on all crude oil and refined products imported from non-NAFTA contries? A hike in federal or state gasoline tax?

Or should the focus instead shift to making California a center of excellence in HSR technology and associated regulation? Should the state ask FRA to designate a senior liaison who would sit across from a counterpart from the CPUC, with Caltrans Dept. of Rail and CHSRA engineers down the hall in a building in Sacramento? Should there be a formal federal program for developing standards for mobile broadband internet access at speeds of up to 300mph, headquartered in Silicon Valley?

Obama's HSR Plan (Mostly) Lauded - But How To Pay For It?

Thursday's announcement by President Barack Obama of the HSR Strategic Plan got a lot of attention in the media and on the blogs - which is just what California's project needs at this time. Obama's high-profile leadership for HSR should help focus our state, especially those involved in the contentious debates over how to build the trains along the planned corridor, on the big picture and the need to move forward quickly and effectively in building the high speed trains that are so essential to our nation's future.

Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic offered this assessment of the plan:

But I think the report’s basic outlines of the kinds of projects the federal government wants to fund with rail money are demonstrative of the administration’s seriousness in undertaking this project. By arguing that high-speed rail is most applicable for corridors between 100 and 600 miles in areas of moderate to high density, we can be assured that the government won’t be funding just any project with the limited funds available for rail. It’s good to know, in other words, that a line between El Paso and Phoenix isn’t going to get money over the connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

He also noted that a new National Rail Plan will be prepared and published in October. That plan may revise the list of HSR corridors, last updated in 2001:



This map includes such outdated concepts as an HSR corridor along the Coast Route from San Jose to LA via Salinas and SLO (not that I'd personally mind such a corridor, but it was rejected in the CHSRA's 2002 plan and isn't being considered for anything other than some upgrades to enable the Coast Daylight to operate) or defining Dallas to Tulsa as a vital HSR corridor but not Dallas-Houston.

One of the most common responses to Obama's announcement was the all important question of "how will we pay for it?" That's the question the LA Times tackled in yesterday's editorial:

High-speed rail networks might very well be the "smart transportation system" of the 21st century, as President Obama declared Thursday. The trouble is, we're using a very 20th century method to pay for them....

"Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. ... It's been happening for decades. The problem is, it's been happening elsewhere, not here," Obama said, referring to countries such as France, Japan, Spain and China that have impressive bullet-train networks. But there was something he failed to mention: With the exception of China, whose government can spend any way it likes, all of these countries impose steep taxes on gasoline. The taxes have the dual purpose of providing the funding to build public transit and encouraging people to ride it because they make driving prohibitively expensive. Gas taxes in the United States are minuscule in comparison.

Instead of raising the money to pay for his vision, Obama proposes to fund it with debt. So does the state of California, where voters last November approved nearly $10 billion in bonds for the San Diego-to-Sacramento train Obama aims to support. That's all well and good, except that the California train alone is expected to cost in excess of $40 billion. Obama's $13 billion over five years won't go far in building a national network that would cost hundreds of billions. So where's the rest of the money going to come from?

The LA Times is basically calling for a higher gas tax to be part of the upcoming transportation bill, and to fund passenger rail - including HSR - through that mechanism.

I strongly support that concept. I don't oppose using debt to build trains - long-term infrastructure projects are the best use of debt there is, and it's hard to make a case against spending $50 billion or so on a national HSR network when over $1 trillion has been spent to bail out well-connected Wall Street bankers - but we DO need a higher gas tax, and it ought to be used solely for improving mass transit, with passenger rail at the center.

A higher gas tax would also help provide long-term stable funding for high speed rail, just as the federal gas tax provided the funds to build out the Interstate Highway System (which took nearly 40 years to complete), instead of making HSR projects dependent on a highly unstable annual funding appropriation from the Congress. The moment Republicans take control of Congress or the White House back from the Democrats, which is a distinct possibility over the next 10 years, HSR funding would be in serious jeopardy.

President Obama is likely to tread very carefully and cautiously here. Despite the cries of "socialist!" from his right-wing opponents, Obama is a moderate Democrat who has tried hard to avoid alienating swing voters. His tax policies are designed to cut taxes for the lower and middle-class while raising them for the upper class. That's the right move for income taxes, but the moment he proposes a gas tax increase, he risks the possibility of giving fuel to the right-wing attacks and pissing off swing voters.

A higher gas tax is a very smart and necessary policy for this country. But it's also a political decision that the president is going to weigh with an eye to the 2012 election. I'm far from convinced Obama will support it, but it's something he ought to do.

The Vexed DTX Tunnel

Just a techie tidbit note today regarding the DTX tunnel that is at the heart of the engineering side of the dispute between CHSRA and TJPA on whether the current design meets CHSRA's future needs. I know we've been over this too many times already, but somehow the issue needs to be put to bed such that everyone can save face and focus on maximizing California's share of the $9.5 billion in federal dollars already on the table. Protracted tiffs don't do much for the confidence of the general public, let alone potential private investors, in either TJPA or CHSRA.

My objective for this post is to suggest a tunnel sharing and operations timetable strategy that might help bridge the gap. First, a quick recap of the saga so far.

Issues Related to Planning and Funding

TJPA has been planning the entire Transbay Terminal since SF voters approved prop H in 1999, with the objective of bringing not just Caltrain but eventually also HSR under the same roof as a large number of bus services. The old building dates to 1939, has seen better days and is anyhow no longer up to seismic code. The only part that will be re-used are the bus ramps that once allowed electric trolley cars to run across the lower deck of the Bay Bridge. The underutilized neighborhood south of the new building will also be redeveloped.

The DTX tunnel is the bit between Caltrain's existing terminus at 4th & King Street and the basement of the new terminal building. As designed, it features three tracks under Townsend and 2nd Streets and widens into a curved throat section to reach six platforms tracks accessed via an underground concourse level and three full-length wide island platforms. Of these, two will feature the level boarding height to be chosen by CHSRA and the other the one chosen by Caltrain. The outside tunnel tracks are to be shared by both services and are permanent as inbound and outbound tracks, respectively. The center track will apparently alternate between inbound and outbound traffic.

CHSRA has recently raised a red flag regarding the design, claiming it couldn't support the 12 HSR trains per hour (tph, meaning that number each way) during peak periods claimed in the most recent ridership forecast for 2030. There seems to be fairly broad agreement among the readership of this blog that this is a new and excessive demand made public only after TJPA decided to bypass CHSRA in seeking a slice of the HSR dollars in the recent stimulus bill. Quentin Kopp is concerned this would set a precedent and cause CHSRA to lose control of project cost.

TJPA claims its plans are based on a previous estimate of just 4tph and a minimum dwell time of a full hour. The latter is itself a highly questionable requirement, given that terminal stations in Europe manage to turn HSR trains around in 6-10 minutes. They are treated as through stations that happen to require trains to reverse direction, generally with a change of driver. Old-fashioned terminus stations are grand buildings providing small town folk with access to a metropolis, reached after many hours or even days on the move. Thanks to high speed, even San Diego-SF-San Diego will amount to just a single eight-hour shift for employees, so in that sense SF could indeed be considered a through station along out-and-back routes originating in SoCal and Sacramento.

The Authority would be on much firmer ground if it stuck to AB3034, which point blank requires that the entire network must support headways of no less than 5 minutes. This refers to the time interval between the nose of one train and the next one running in the same direction on the same track. The technically required minimum is a function of speed and emergency braking distance at that speed. For moderate speeds, experienced operators of modern train control infrastructure can make do with as little as 2.5 minutes, so the legal target set by the bill is conservative. As will become evident shortly, the link between short headway capability and system throughput is not always straightforward.

Technical Issues and Solution Concepts

The beef that Clem/Richard Mlynarik, BruceMcF and yours truly have with the current design of the DTX tunnel is twofold:

a) at just 500 feet, the two curves in the tunnel will prevent at least the HSR trains from running them at much more than bicycle speed. In addition, we expect screeching noises as the long wheelbase trucks needed for high speed stability are dragged kicking and screaming around the corner. Passengers on board and especially, anyone present on the platforms would hear a sound reminiscent of fingernails on a blackboard, just much louder. Special lubricants might help keep both the noise and the wear and tear down, but no brand-new design should need them. The radii are also too tight for off-the-shelf Japanese shinkansen designs, which need ~925 feet. Even for European designs, 500 is the number the marketing department made the engineers sign up to, not one they'd recommend for brand-new track.

b) the slow speeds combined with the tunnel layout combined with train lengths of 660-1320 feet mean that during peak periods, inbound and outbound trains of both operators will block each others' paths to such an extent that the "throat" between the tunnel proper and the platform tracks becomes the throughput bottleneck. It's highly unlikely that HSR could achieve 5 minute headways during Caltrain's rush hour with that design.

Both post authors and commenters have propsed a wide range of solution concepts on both this blog and Clem's. Here's a recap:

• terminating some or all HSR trains at 4th & King
  
• a central rail station at Market & 7th instead of the Transbay Terminal
  
• redefining the Transbay Terminal to include a narrow two-level heavy rail station under Mission Street, reached via a short underground pedestrian passage and featuring moving walkways along the 1/2 mile concourse level
  
• keeping the tracks in the basement, but redesigning the DTX tunnel as a one-way single-track loop through the building from east to west; any future second transbay link would then be BART down Mission Street
  
• redesigning it to run up 3rd Street to increase curve radius for just two - possibly individual track - tunnels
  
• minimally, some tweaking of the curve radii and the use of curved switches in the throat of the official three-track tunnel design
  

Dedicated Single Tunnel Tracks

In the vein of this last concept, I'd like to add one more suggestion to the list. Since HSR and Caltrain are supposed to get dedicated platforms and platform tracks anyhow, I figured why not give each of them a single, dedicated track in the DTX tunnel as well. That would at least get the operators out of each others' hair. A third track should be avoided to keep the tunnel engineering as straightforward as possible so the curve radii can be increased without breaking the bank.

The idea is really quite simple: each operator sets the signals in the tunnel track to outbound and runs a group trains out in quick succession. The timetable is arranged such that an equal number of inbound trains arrives at the mouth of the tunnel just as the last of the outbound trains clears it. The operator sets the signals in the opposite direction, the platforms tracks fill up again and the process repeats.

The advantage is that as long as traffic is guaranteed to be one-way, headways as small as three minutes are quite realistic. No outbound trains blocks any inbound one, no HSR train any Caltrain and vice versa. In other words, there is no throat in the classic sense, just two independent tunnel tracks that fan out to two resp. four platform tracks that are alternately used in one direction or the other for a well-defined period of time.

The disadvantage is that each operator's timetable would feature a number of trains in quick succession, followed by a period without service in that direction. Note that in each of these groups of trains, the fastest service classes (e.g. express) come first, followed by the slower ones (e.g. semi-express). This ensures headways do not decrease below three minutes in nominal operations. For two consecutive trains of a slower class, it may go back and forth from the minimum value to a higher one.

Spreadsheet Model

To get a better sense of the kind of timetable this would produce, I made a number of assumptions and plugged them into a spreadsheet. In addition to the three-minute headways, I assumed that the cumulative delay for an outbound group of trains would be no more than one minute. For inbound groups, I allowed a three-minute buffer and assumed a two-minute dwell time for trains making a stop between San Jose and SF. Finally, I assumed Caltrain's commuter EMU equipment would traverse the 1.3mi tunnel in two minutes (39mph average speed thanks to high acceleration and short wheelbase trucks), whereas HSR trains would take three (26mph average).

For service patterns based on half-length trains (660ft or less), the first inbound train would proceed to the end of the platform track. The second would stop before colliding with the first. However, since it's a terminal station, the later arrival would have to be the first one to leave, resulting in uneven dwell times. Also, I assumed a platform track would be cleared entirely before trains from the next inbound batch are admitted. This is how an operator would use the facility during rush hour. At off-peak periods, the ends of the platform tracks can be used for parking.

The results were as follows:

• For HSR service based entirely on single trainsets, I assumed a group size of four trains occupying one track on each island platform. The first two were express, the second two semi-express trains on the SJ-SF segment. This affects the length of time the track needs to be reserved for inbound traffic. Note that I did not consider service class impacts south of San Jose for this preliminary analysis. Instead, I assumed appropriate service groups would be created via wait states in San Jose.
  
  After allowing four trains to leave, four new inbound ones would be admitted, followed by the other four trains still in the station and four inbound ones to replace them. The period for this pattern of 8 trains each way works out to exactly 60 minutes, i.e. 8 tph. The minimum dwell times for the trains in each group worked out to 38, 44, 36 and 42 minutes, respectively. Because of the buffers built into the schedule, they could be up to four minutes longer.
  
  
• I also looked at HSR service based exclusively on full-length trains. With a group size of four, this also works out to 8 tph - but each of train would now have twice as many seats! The snag is that the minimum dwell times are down to just 11, 11, 9 and 9 minutes, respectively. As discussed above, that is considered enough for a terminal in Europe. However, if a large fraction of seats is actually occupied in SF, seat reservations and some pedestrian flow control would be highly advisable to avoid delays. Evidently, trainset utilization rates are much higher if full-length trains are used. Note that it's very easy to couple and uncouple HSR trainsets at stations, so operators could transparently switch to single trainsets during off-peak hours.
  
  
• HSR service based on full-length trains and a group size of just two yielded a throughput capacity of 7.06 tph, with minimum dwell times of 21 minutes.
  
  
• Separately, I looked at Caltrain local service based on 8-car trains that would be used during rush hour. With a train group size of four, throughput worked out to a very respectable 9.23 tph. Minimum dwell times were 6, 12, 6 and 12 minutes, respectively.
  

Fiddling with the parameters, it quickly became apparent that the minimum headway had the greatest effect on throughput, followed by the time required to traverse the DTX tunnel, dwell time at through stations down the line. Doubling the cumulative buffer period allowed for inbound Caltrain groups from 3 to 6 minutes resulted in a loss of only 1 tph in throughput.

Overnight Parking

Note that CHSRA still needs a solution for overnight parking of additional trainsets, as the first ones of the day will take some time to arrive from Merced and LA. The old Brisbane yard near Bayshore Caltrain would do nicely and could double as a transshipment center for High Speed Cargo trainsets that ride piggyback on single passenger trainsets during off-peak hours. Toward the end of the day, selected passenger trains would terminate at Millbrae/SFO.

Conclusion

Provided that inbound trains are grouped neatly and operators are willing to accept that consecutive trains in the same direction may run anywhere from 3 minutes to 13, 17 or even 21 minutes apart, aggregate throughput of over 17 tph is possible with this concept. For reference, a single loop track serving all six platforms with a minimum headway of 3 minutes would support 20 tph and provide more flexibility if CHSRA and Caltrain decide on a common platform height after all.

Cost Containment Opportunity

Just for kicks, I also looked at the possibility of saving some money in phase I by extending the dedicated single track for HSR beyond 4th & King to Bayshore. Caltrain already has four short tunnels in that stretch, CHSRA intends to bore new single track tunnels to either side of that. The CHSRA web site gives a time of 13 minutes for Transbay Terminal to Millbrae/SFO, so I figured it would take about 9 out to Bayshore. This longer single-track section caused HSR throughput to decrease from from 8 to 5.71 tph (4.14 tph for full-length trains with a group size of two but minimum dwell times of 33 minutes). For the single-trainset scenario with a group size of 4, minimum dwell times went up by 12 minutes. For full-length trains with the same group size and throughput number, they were unchanged.

In other words, it would be possible to shift some tunneling overheads south of 4th & King from phase I to phase II of the overall bullet train project, given that 4.14-5.71 tph will be enough for HSR operations for a while. Note that running northbound HSR trains east of Caltrain in that section would currently force UPRR trains to cross the HSR track. By the time HSR needs dual tracks between Bayshore and 4th & King, it's entirely possible the mighty Port of SF will no longer be served by UPRR's South City Switcher - a freight train running in streetcar mode.

Obama Announces HSR Funding Plan

Today President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced the DOT's high speed rail strategic plan. You can find the full details of the plan at the USDOT website.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's an important announcement and contains some long-awaited policy changes that will help make HSR a reality across the nation. It's not yet clear how this will impact the California HSR project, but the way the funding allocation categories are set up appears to be quite favorable to us here in California.

First, I want to quote from both President Obama and VP Biden - these guys get it when it comes to HSR. It is a sea change from the last 25 years of refusal to speak openly and honestly about our nation's transportation needs.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

He nailed it. This quote has it all - energy independence, job creation and long-term economic growth, and relieving congested airports and freeways. Joe Biden's quote is equally as good:

“Today, we see clearly how Recovery Act funds and the Department of Transportation are building the platform for a brighter economic future - they’re creating jobs and making life better for communities everywhere,” said Vice President Biden. “Everyone knows railways are the best way to connect communities to each other, and as a daily rail commuter for over 35 years, this announcement is near and dear to my heart. Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I don't know who was writing their speeches, but they clearly understand the case for HSR.

That case is made strongly and powerfully in the HSR strategic plan document (PDF, 3MB). It is one of the best arguments for HSR that I've ever seen. This administration is serious about HSR. The plan includes a good overview of the history of rail funding in America, explaining that we have spent over $1 trillion on roads and airports in the last 50 years but have starved rail - even though, as the report makes clear, high speed rail is one of the best methods to move people over distances from 100 to 600 miles:




The report also recognizes the need to update the FRA's regulations to make HSR more of a possibility in this country (this should be music to Rafael's ears):

While most high-speed systems overseas have a good safety record, usually on dedicated track, U.S. railroad safety standards are designed to keep passengers and crew safe in a mixed operating environment with conventional freight equipment, which is much heavier than comparable
foreign equipment. The advent of Positive Train Control (PTC), crash energy management, and other advances provides the United States with an opportunity to revise its safety approach in a manner that accelerates the development of high-speed rail while preserving and improving upon a strong safety regime. This will be a challenge for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as it seeks to administer its critical safety responsibility and facilitate high-speed rail development. The systems approach required to ensure safety of new HSR corridors will necessitate consideration of additional changes in several regulations, including equipment, system safety, and collision and derailment prevention.

The heart of the document is a three-pronged approach to funding HSR projects. I'll include the full text of the "tracks" below for folks to peruse:

1. Projects. Grants to complete individual projects eligible under Sections 301 (IPR projects) and Sections 302 (congestion projects) described above, for the benefit of existing services. Eligible projects include infrastructure, facilities and equipment. In order to qualify, these projects must: (a) be "ready to go" (i.e., environmental work required by law (National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) and preliminary engineering (PE) are complete), and (b) demonstrate "independent utility." For projects that meet the independent utility test but have not yet completed NEPA and PE, funding is available to conduct NEPA and PE work to make projects ready to go and, therefore, eligible under a subsequent grant solicitation. For rolling stock proposals, DOT will encourage acquisition of new, standardized, interoperable equipment
that incorporates modern safety features. Under this track, funds would be obligated for successful applications under standard grant agreement terms and conditions, including ARRA oversight and reporting procedures.

2. Corridor programs. Cooperative agreements to develop entire segments or phases of corridor programs eligible under Section 501 (HSR) and Section 301 (IPR), benefiting existing or new services. In order to qualify, these corridor programs must: (a) be based on a corridor plan that establishes service objectives and includes a prioritized list of projects to achieve those objectives; and (b) have completed sufficient corridor/ section/phase programmatic or project environmental (NEPA) documentation and sufficient planning to provide reasonable project cost and benefit estimates. For corridor programs that do not qualify under (a) and (b) above, funding is available to complete this work and make corridor programs eligible for subsequent solicitations. Under this track, funds for selected applications of a corridor program phase and/ or geographic section would be set aside at the outset, and provided at pre-specified milestone approval points. This approach would involve a higher level of Federal oversight and support than under even the
heightened scrutiny inherent in standard ARRA grant agreements.

3. Planning. Cooperative agreements for planning activities (including development of corridor plans and State Rail Plans) eligible for funding under Section 301 of PRIIA, using non-ARRA funds. This third track provides States an opportunity to prepare themselves for any funding remaining in subsequent rounds of ARRA, and/or future year appropriations. It is intended to help create the pipeline for future corridor development needed to build out a national HSR/IPR network.

As I read this, California's project is eligible for all three tracks. Of course, so would many other states. The plan also recognizes distinctions between what they call "HSR express" which is a California-style system that can achieve 150 mph or above; "HSR regional" which can achieve speeds of 110-150 mph; "Emerging HSR" where new corridors of around 90-110 mph are to be built, and "Conventional Rail" which is basically Amtrak outside the NEC. I hope that as the only true HSR express project on the drawing board (the NEC is in a somewhat different category as it already exists) that will give us a big boost, as other states fight over the rest.

So overall I think this is a huge boost for HSR, even though it does leave some things unclear as to how exactly our own project will fare. The DOT will be making the first project funding announcements later this year, for tracks 1 and 3 - track 2 will be announced toward the end of 2009 or in early 2010.

This announcement has gotten a lot of reaction around the blogosphere, but I want to single out for criticism Matthew Yglesias's take on the announcement:

My take on this is that the most promising projects on the merits, from a federal point of view, are probably those that upgrade the existing Northeast Corridor (where we know demand exists) and those that connect to the Northeast Corridor since the existing passenger rail corridor extends the utility of the new link. The Chicago Hub Network and the California Corridor concepts strikes me as very important for the long-term future of their regions, but for it to be useful will take a lot of time and money. I assume that the relevant state-level politicians for the Gulf Coast and South Central Corridors aren’t going to be interested in ponying up the sort of state funds that would make these projects competitively viable, and that may be for the best since I think those corridors may be a bit ill-conceived. It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.

This is a pretty flawed way to look at things. What Yglesias proposes is in fact the model Clinton eventually adopted. In 1993 he proposed a broad national HSR plan, but by the late '90s he decided to just focus on upgrading the NEC and rail was left to wither around the country.

Yglesias is wrong to say that we should prioritize the NEC and connections to the NEC. Significant improvements in speed and carrying capacity can be made in the Midwest with a few billion dollars, and the California project need federal cash infusion now to ensure completion by 2018. All of those will revolutionize rail transportation in America to a much bigger scale than upgrades to the NEC. Too much focus on the NEC is one of the primary reasons for the lack of passenger rail upgrades and improvements around the country. It's time we took HSR national.

And with President Obama's plan, that is exactly what will happen. Now, to make sure this all gets funded...

UPDATE: Rafael's comments:

Nothing particularly new here, except that USDOT will be sticking with the 11 already designated corridors (incl. the NEC). Disneyland to Las Vegas, the Texas T-bone and other hopefuls are not mentioned. So far, the President is talking about the $8 billion in the stimulus bill plus a measly $1 billion for each of the next five years. That's enough to get started, but not nearly enough to leave a legacy.

On the plus side, he mentions the need for long-term commitments from states. Presumably, that translates to a preference for those willing to put some serious skin in the game, e.g. California.

California's much more ambitious bullet train network would presumably fall into the second "track" but it's unclear if there will be anything left in the kitty at that point. Still, given the increasing amount of political capital the President is investing in HSR, it seems likely that future bills will increase the total amount available once USDOT has put in place a suitably technocratic process for evaluating grant applications on their merits. Washington being what it is, the notion that political considerations such as swing state status won't matter is probably more pious hope than realistic expectation.

In particular, additional federal funding for planning and development of additional HSR corridors will be sought in the context of the regular surface transportation bills. In plain English, that means rail proponents will have to duke it out with the highway lobby. Fortunately, the principle that transit projects will be eligible for up to 80% federal funding, putting them on par with highways, has already been established. Note that those regular bills would also be the appropriate place to make adjustments to the map of eligible corridors. The current one dates back to 2002.

In addition, FRA will need some additional funding for drawing up rules enabling mixed traffic on rapid rail routes as well as bullet train operations at speeds exceeding 150mph. The various HSR allocations do allow USDOT to retain a small fraction of the total grant volume for its own operations in support of HSR implementation.

Homeland Security Theater

HEADS UP: More on President Obama's strategic plan for HSR this afternoon.

---

Remember ye olde threat level chart and the "chatter" that mysteriously reached a crescendo every time the previous administration wanted to change the subject? Ah, those were the days. Of course, nothing last longer than a temporary measure, so air travelers still have to subject themselves to ritual humiliation every time they want to board a plane. Next up: full body scanners based on terahertz lasers. And, being government employees, TSA officers will have no interest in anyone's privates. Except ...

By contrast, travel by train remains a very civilized affair from the passengers' point of view. Usually, you just board, sit down, stow your bags and show your ticket to the conductor when he/she asks for it. True, Amtrak has been conducting sporadic random searches on platforms for a year now, but that's about it. Like most railways around the world, it had previously kept its visible security measures to an absolute minimum.

The reason for the apparent lack of security at train stations is fairly simple: trains can't fall out of the sky, nor can they be made to crash into buildings. Even if he could reach the driver's cab, a would-be hijacker could not force him to go to a different destination, because the automatic train control system - if present - will force the train to stop before it can run a red light.

So, No Worries Then?

Instead, terrorist attacks based on bringing a device on board a train have tended to target crowded subways and commuter rather than long-distance trains in a perverse effort to maximize the carnage, though terrorists in Italy have in the past set bomb timers to explode while a regional train was traversing a tunnel (h/t to Devil's Advocate).

Examples include the Aun Shinrikyo sarin release on a Tokyo subway train in 1995, the Al Qaeda bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 and the Islamic terrorist bombings in Mumbai in 2006. Chechen separatists are suspected of multiple suicide bombings on trains in Russia in recent years.

Another type of terrorist attack is directed against busy station halls, e.g. by neo-fascists (h/t to Devil's advocate) in Bologna in 1980 and ETA's foiled attempts in Spain on Christmas Eve of 2003. The venues of the Mumbai attacks of 2008 also included a train station.

The above list is not exhaustive, just intended to underline that trains and train stations have indeed been targeted by terrorists in a number of countries in the past. Recently, Spanish state airline Iberia has complained that RENFE's AVE passengers are still not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as its own, in spite of past terrorist attacks against Spanish trains by both Al Qaeda and ETA. Meanwhile, RENFE's market share on the busy Madrid-Barcelona route has increased at the airlines' expense. In other words, Iberia is complaining about the supposedly unfair competitive advantage trains still enjoy in terms of the customer experience. It's entirely possible that some US airlines will talk up security concerns once they start losing market share to HSR on medium-distance routes like SFO-LAX.

In 2007, a PhD student in Australia researched SNCF's security for the TGV system and identified weaknesses related to passenger and baggage screening. Note that Eurostar does perform passport checks and requires check-in, e.g. using an e-ticket with a bar code on it. In addition, passengers have to go through metal detectors and run their bags through x-ray scanners, just like they would at an airport. The railway has also hired outside security personnel to supplement its own staff. Premium fare passengers are asked to reserve just 10 extra minutes to pass through security, everyone else should arrive half an hour early. These procedures are a reflection of the fact that the UK is not a signatory to the Schengen convention, compounded by the strategic importance of the Channel Tunnel.

The bitter irony is that high speed rail systems are actually hardly ever the target of attacks based on devices smuggled on board. Meanwhile, security for the local commuter trains and subways that provide connecting transit for HSR remains comparatively lax - scanning every person and bag would severely constrain their capacity. While no politician or rail operator would ever dare say so, implementing the homeland security theater so selectively may actually deliver no more than marginal system-wide benefits. It may make the general public feel safer, but in reality it just shifts some risk from one type of train onto others.

You can always argue that doing something is better than doing nothing, but perhaps rigorous screening of every passenger and bag for HSR only isn't the best way to spend the limited security dollars available to rail operators. Amtrak's concept of random spot checks could deliver greater security at lower cost and inconvenience to passengers, provided it applies to anyone on any type of train operated by any company, on railroad property or loitering just outside it. In practice, that would mean replacing railway security staff with regular TSA or police officers. They would already have the legal authority to enforce checks, so attackers cannot just beg off and try again at some other time.

Infrastructure Surveillance

Some readers may consider anything less than the measures already in place at airport as inadequate. After all, back in 1983, Carlos the Jackal did plant a bomb on a TGV in France, killing three innocent people. However, afaik there haven't been any bombings on board high speed trains since, even though some now routinely carry over 1000 passengers at 300 km/h. The reality is that life is risk and, terrorism is a fact of life most people around the world are resigned to living with. They assess it in relation to other risks, e.g. accidents on the road or on the home. The US population may not have reached the same conclusion yet because it has mercifully suffered relatively few terrorist attacks to date. Sadly, there is no such thing as perfect security, nor is the price for anything approaching it worth paying.

More recent attacks against long-distance trains have tended to focus on the rail infrastructure instead, especially on the tracks, e.g. in Palo Verde, Arizona in 1995 or Russia in 2007. Some (attempted) attacks are suspected to have been perpetrated by terrorists, others by saboteurs (e.g. rogue elements during a strike), extortionists (e.g. disgruntled ex-employees) or simply vandals (e.g. misguided teenagers). In other cases, both the perpetrators and their motives remain unknown.

Again, this list is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, my purpose is to highlight the simple fact that rail networks are huge, yet a small amount of explosives or even just some concrete slabs can be enough to derail a train. The resulting casualties can be minimized by choosing very stiff train designs with articulated frames, e.g. products from Alstom or Talgo. However, the primary objective should always be to make it as difficult as possible to trespass onto the tracks in the first place.

That means tall sturdy fences/sound walls plus video surveillance of the tracks along the entire route, plus a train control system that will force any trains approaching the site of an identified (potential) problem to perform an emergency stop. These measures make it more difficult to gain access to the tracks, easier to detect a breach of security and less likely that an attack will succeed. An important fringe benefit is that mentally confused or suicidal persons as well as livestock and wild game will all be less likely to wander onto the tracks.

In locations where HSR tracks run in close proximity to legacy tracks, these measures should be extended to them as well, perhaps with automatic gates at freight spurs. Video surveillance of the entire right of way means the HSR infrastructure operator may well be able to detect a minor derailment of a freight train before the its engineer does and take appropriate action. This capability could be enhanced by adding microphones and is worth discussing with e.g. UPRR, since they cited their trains potentially fouling an adjacent HSR track as a safety concern.

The downside is the cost of implementing and maintaining all of these measures on the entire network. Fortunately, ever-improving software is reducing both the overheads and the risk of human error through partial automation. CHSRA has already budgeted for this in the scope of the engineering work to be done for the California network (see p6):

"The line will be fenced and equipped with intrusion detection equipment that can detect persons, animals or debris entering the right-of-way and linked to a central train control center."

In addition, road overpasses will need to be fenced off. Typically, railway security operations are tied in with those of law enforcement and when appropriate, those of intelligence services as well. It's difficult to know how many lives anti-trespass and surveillance measures have already saved. What is certain is that they are almost completely transparent to passengers - which is as it should be.

Feedback to CHSRA

Many thanks to all those who contributed to the post Suggestions for the CHSRA Web Site over the Easter weekend. Below is my summary of the feedback, plus some suggestions of my own. An unsolicited copy has been sent to CHSRA.

1. The Authority should think of its web site as the primary means of detailed communication with the general public. Print, radio and TV media appearances should be used to plug the URL and increase traffic.
   
2. In its current form, the site does little to support the current phase of the project, i.e. securing funding while implementing multiple simultaneous project-level EIR/EIS processes. The Authority needs to move beyond advocacy of the general idea of HSR to documentation of specific business processes.
   
3. Overall project status: milestones achieved, upcoming milestones, timeline (at high level). Special focus on funding, including e.g. list of components expected to be eligible for federal stimulus funding.
   
4. Count-down to start of construction and start of operations. Count-up of miles of tracks laid, funding secured and dollars spent to date.
   
5. Revamp of library section: much smaller documents (= faster downloads) with embedded hyperlinks/references. Design for web, not hardcopy. Slice and dice existing PDF tomes to support project-level EIR/EIS and fundraising. Relegate versions that include discussions of options already discarded to an archive.
   
6. Each project-level EIR/EIS process should have its own section on the web site. Desired resources are:
   
   
   
   • info on consulting firm hired for the segment
     
   • process status: milestones achieved, upcoming milestones, timeline (at segment level)
     
   • timely announcements of scoping meetings
     
   • explanation of project-level EIR/EIS process in general (link)
     
   • CHSRA's obligations regarding comments received (link)
     
   • options for how to comment (link unless segment-specific)
     
   • summary of reasons why segment is part of the preferred route
     
   • geographic scope of the segment
     
   • description of right of way ownership & easements (+ link to docs)
     
   • description of other rail services in or near ROW, associated constraints
     
   • description and scale drawings (cross-section + elevation with human figures/other structures for reference) of implementation used for cost estimation
     
   • summary of reasons for choosing that implementation as a starting point
     
   • electronic copies of comments already received during the comment period
     
   
   
7. Glossary explaining technical terms like "retained fill", "embankment", "cut and fill", "aerial" etc. to the layman using drawings (cross-sections, elevations with human figure for scale reference). General discussion of pros and cons during and after construction (esp. underground options). Cost per mile for relevant precedents.
   
8. Scientific sound recordings of actual HSR trains at various distances (up to 1/2 mile) and speeds (up to 200mph), for various track elevations, in open countryside vs. urban area, with and without noise mitigation etc.
   
9. Addition of realistic soundscapes (incl. other sources like road traffic) to NC3D animations
   
10. Reference material on/links to: grade crossing safety, hardened vs. separated grade crossings, bells & horns, diesel locomotive emissions, overhead catenary system parameters and safety, relevant noise & vibration metrics
    
11. Reference material on the concepts of eminent domain, reverse condemnation. Articulation of CHSRA policy incl. stage/conditions in project-level EIR/EIS process that will prompt a decision on this.
    
12. Summary of project history to date, archive of superseded documents (clearly marked as such on background of each page)
    
13. Avoid the use of HTML frames and Javascript links to ensure all documents, videos etc. can be referenced via an easily obtained permanent URL. Put link to Google Map of route at top of routes page, enable references that preserve pan and zoom values.
    
14. Consider using Google Sketchup for 3D sketches of possible implementations. Publish recurring model elements (tracks, trains, OCS, earthworks/concrete structures, generic houses, generic cars & trucks, generic trees, surface textures incl. climbing plants etc.)
    

Quentin Kopp On Transbay Terminal

In response to yesterday morning's post on the Transbay Terminal Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority, called me up to chat about the project and to give his side of the story.

First, he said that there is no agreement yet on the Transbay Terminal capacity issue. The Steven T. Jones article in the Guardian shouldn't be taken to imply that any solutions have been reached. The notion of 8 trains an hour at TBT and 4 at 4th and King came from a meeting with MTC engineers, but again it's just a proposal. I asked Kopp what he thought the right solution should be and he said he needed to hear back from his engineers, and that might take up to 6 more months.

Second, Kopp explained from the CHSRA's perspective the debate over the Transbay Terminal solution. Two months ago engineers from the Transbay Joint Powers Agency, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and the CHSRA met to discuss the Transbay project. It was there that the engineers, without dissension, agreed that the existing design was inadequate to accommodate the 12 trains per hour that CHSRA requested.

And where did that 12 trains per hour figure come from? According to Kopp, it's based on the 2035 ridership projections in the 2008 study done by Cambridge Systematics.

Third, Kopp emphasized that the Transbay Terminal remains the CHSRA's preferred SF terminal, has been since 2006, and is of course written into Proposition 1A. Kopp does have financial concerns about the project - he quoted a cost figure of $2.8 billion. He believes that TJPA is moving too quickly on this and that CHSRA will be forced to commit some of its $9 billion HSR bond money to the project sooner than he'd prefer.

This is problematic for Kopp because of the possibility of precedent-setting. As he explained it to me, if SF gets a $2.8 billion tunnel and train station, then many other stations and cities along the route will point to that and demand that similar amounts of money be spent on their own preferred station designs and grade separation solutions. Kopp is determined to bring the project in on-time and on-budget, and doesn't want the Transbay Terminal project to suck up an undue amount of the available money at the expense of the rest of the line.

Kopp also expressed dissatisfaction with the track layout, specifically the curves of the track from 4th and King to TBT, but the above issues seem to be at the heart of his and the CHSRA's concerns.

Ray LaHood: HSR To Be "Obama's Legacy"

NBC News interviewed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently, and he gave a very good set of statements about high speed rail and the reasons to invest in the system:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Of course his statements also suggest we here in California are well positioned to get some of the $8 billion in HSR stimulus. Later this week President Obama will announce his plans for HSR including criteria by which the USDOT will allocate the $8 billion in HSR stimulus. As the Sacramento Bee reported over the weekend Mehdi Morshed of the CHSRA believes that California can get as much as $4 billion of that money, although the Bee did not list any specifics.

Instead of providing details on what the $4 billion would buy, the Bee decided to give space to one of the main HSR deniers, Joseph Vranich, to spout his usual nonsense:

Critics also contend that California's proposed system is riddled with greatly inflated ridership estimates and greatly understated cost projections.

"The California authority has ignored the lessons of Florida and Texas, and has repeated all the mistakes," said Joseph Vranich, a former Amtrak official and former president of the High Speed Rail Association. "It hasn't produced a single number or report or prediction that is true."

For example, Vranich argues, California should be disqualified from receiving federal rail aid because its environmental impact statements are outdated and inaccurate.

Morshed, who denied the state's project lacks accurate EIS documents, said a bigger fear is that federal transportation officials will adhere to political expediency and disburse the money in widespread, but tiny, amounts.

This is some rather poor reporting from the SacBee. They set up Vranich, whose hatred of passenger rail projects has been the subject of several exposés on this blog, as some kind of expert. I guess all you have to do is have a title that makes you sound like a rail expert to dupe credulous journalists into repeating your claims without question - and in fact using those claims to put Mehdi Morshed on the defensive when the charge, that the EIS documents are inaccurate, is complete nonsense and lacks a factual basis.

The ABC News article linked above on Obama's forthcoming announcement falls into a similar trap - except this time it's the other big HSR denier, the Cato Institute, that gets the ink:

"You might as well have the government invest in nuclear-powered bicycles," [Daniel] Mitchell added. "That's probably the only thing I could imagine that would be more of a waste of money than inter-city rail."

Riiiiight. Because god forbid we try to get America off oil, reduce carbon emissions, provide jobs and economic growth. Oh wait, Cato Institute doesn't believe it's government's role to provide any of those things. Sorry that our national priorities and the public will conflict with your nutty ideology.

It's a shame that the media sees its job as providing "he said, she said" stenography and passing it off as objective journalism, instead of actually drilling down to the truth of the matter. Still, with President Obama's extremely strong support for HSR, we have some powerful allies to help push back against this nonsense. Obama spoke highly of HSR on his recent swing through Europe:

"I am always jealous about European trains," Obama said April 3 in Strasbourg, France. "And I said to myself, 'why can't we have high-speed rail?' And so, we're investing in that as well."

I look forward to hearing the details of that investment later this week.

Transbay Terminal Compromise In The Works?

That's what Steven T. Jones of the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported Friday night:

TJPA spokesperson Adam Alberti tells the Guardian that involved agencies are hoping operational adjustments can be made to handle up to eight trains per hour at Transbay, and that the additional four trains per hour that the California High-Speed Rail Authority says it wants might have to stop at the existing 4th and Townsend station.

Several commenters have floated this idea in our various Transbay posts, of having some trains go all the way to SF Transbay and others terminate at 4th and King. I'm curious which trains would stop where - won't most riders want to go all the way to the Financial District? Do we believe the typical Southern Californian* will understand the difference between SF 4th and King and SF Transbay Terminal on an HSR map, timetable, or website? Perhaps they will, and a 4th and King solution is dependent on the Central Subway - but this is probably the best solution given the politics of the matter.

Operationally, I can live with it, but as you all know by now I tend to take the big picture view of all this - I'm curious what those of you who are skilled in the details of the Transbay Terminal issue think.

Jones's article continues, still paraphrasing Adam Alberti:

He said there is a growing consensus against building a second floor of train platforms, which could add $1 billion to the price of the project. The TJPA board needs to land on a plan by May so current contracts can be issued and so regional agencies can come together on a request for about $1 billion in federal stimulus money when the state makes its formal request for federal high-speed rail funding in June.

That says to me that SF city and Caltrain officials, who have many of the TJPA seats, and the MTC are part of this "growing consensus" against the second floor concept that CHSRA has been pushing. They want to move quickly to get the contracts out and to show the feds that we really are moving on the shovel-ready aspects of the HSR project in order to get some stimulus money. I think that is exactly the right approach to take.

Of course, Quentin Kopp still isn't happy:

CHSRA Chair Quentin Kopp continues to question the Transbay Terminal project, saying its schedule and location have been dictated by its bus component and noting that its costs have been creeping ever higher. “This has all the earmarks of San Francisco’s Big Dig.”

I don't really understand what is up with Kopp's opposition to the Transbay Terminal project, but this does not reflect very well on him. It will only cause more people to think that his whole "we need a second floor for unspecified operational reasons" was in fact an effort to kill the train box idea entirely and terminate the line at 4th and King. And that may well be exactly what is going on here. But Kopp isn't doing himself or the Authority or the project any favors by his stance on this. And his use of the "Big Dig" canard is really not a good idea at all. The HSR deniers have been using that frame against us for months, and although we've done well in beating it back, the last thing we need is for an official of the CHSRA to start using it themselves. There is in fact NO indication whatsoever, at this point, that the Transbay Terminal project will be plagued by the kind of massive cost overruns that hit the Big Dig - and as many have noted, one of the reasons for those overruns was constant meddling in the design process by various authorities.

At a time when Kopp has a much bigger problem on his hands - the unrealistic demand of mid-Peninsula cities for a tunnel - he should not be going around pissing off and alienating potential allies with attacks on the Transbay Terminal project. Let's hope that this compromise is workable, that it holds, and that we can move on with the overall HSR project.

* - I was born and raised in Southern California and while I love that place dearly, not everyone there is skilled at grasping these kinds of details.

An Interesting Story From Menlo Park

For nearly a year now we've been told by Menlo Park residents that an above-grade structure along the Caltrain ROW is somehow going to destroy their tightly-knit community, that there's just no way to provide methods to cross under the tracks that can preserve community, that unless the CHSRA gives them the tunnel they demand, well, they'll just have to oppose the whole project in order to ensure their community's very survival.

Those claims have always been overwrought and questionable. And now those claims may be shown to be hypocritical, as a group of Menlo Park residents demand a planned pedestrian bridge be canceled because of concerns it will draw the wrong kind of people - i.e. the poor - to their community:

A Menlo Park neighborhood is circulating a petition asking the city council to rescind a decision made 16 months ago to build a new bridge that connects them to the low-income Belle Haven community after the old, existing one is demolished.

Once the 53-year-old Ringwood Avenue pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 is demolished by Caltrans as part of the state's $81 million project to add a freeway auxiliary lane, no overcrossing should replace it, say residents of the Flood Triangle neighborhood west of 101 between Marsh and Willow.

They trot out the familiar "property value" and "nobody told us" arguments:

"Literally everyone I'd talked to about this petition had not heard of this issue, or had heard of it in the last couple weeks," said Flood Triangle resident Mark Throndson, one of the petitioners. He said his house has been broken into, and police subsequently arrested someone who came over from the east side of the bridge....

But residents such as Cathy Tokic argue the project also affects homeowners farther from the overcrossing and insist that most residents are just now learning of the council's decision.

"The people in this neighborhood have spent millions of dollars remodeling their homes," Tokic said. "People's homes have been broken into multiple times; windows broken multiple times."

And then propose inane and unworkable "solutions" designed to give the appearance of meeting existing needs but that in fact do no such thing:

Ideally, she said, residents would prefer that the Willow Road overcrossing be rebuilt to and made safer, although that bridge is about a half-mile away from the Ringwood Avenue walkway. In addition, she said Menlo-Atherton High School students, who make up a majority of the bridge's roughly 50 daily users, should be given better bus access across the freeway.

[Menlo Park Transportation Manager Chip] Taylor said the bus option would be costly and it is inconvenient for pedestrians to travel out of their way to Willow, the closest access across the freeway from Ringwood.

Why does none of this surprise me? Belle Haven is a part of the city of Menlo Park - but apparently it doesn't quite count as much as the wealthier parts do. In one breath Menlo Park residents say they don't want transportation infrastructure to divide their city. In the next breath they say that's exactly what they want - gotta keep the poor, presumed by some Menlo Park residents to be carriers of crime, out!

I find it difficult to take Menlo Park's concerns about HSR seriously when so many of their residents are actively trying to keep other members of their out of their neighborhoods. The HSR project is designed to improve mobility AND the community by making it easier to cross the Caltrain ROW. What they have run up against in Menlo Park is a community of wealthy people who believe it's government's job to keep their individual property values high even if it means gutting the state's efforts to solve global warming, dependence on oil, joblessness and congestion, and even if it means an entire city neighborhood is cut off from the rest of the city.

Menlo Park's more vocal anti-HSR activists are good at dressing up their arguments. But when you look at the city's overall attitude towards infrastructure, it seems to be typical NIMBYism in a different guise. I don't see any reason why we should let these people dictate to the rest of the state how to build and implement passenger rail.

Alstom: "Make It Happen"

Alstom put out a great video about possible interior designs for HSR trains - picture yourself sitting in one of those configurations looking out at the Tehachapis circa 2019 (h/t to Seattle Transit Blog):



In fact, the exteriors do indeed look like parts of our Golden State (such as the Tehachapis) and it's entirely possible this ad is aimed squarely at us. If so, bravo - this is an excellent way to continue to build public interest in HSR trains here in California. No airline can or will provide that kind of level of comfort or on-board amenities, certainly not Southwest.

Suggestions For The CHSRA Web Site

Happy Easter everyone! The metaphor of the Easter egg is apt, since the authors and the readership of this blog keep finding nuggets of information buried in the various tomes CHSRA has compiled over the years. To its credit, the Authority has published them on the web for anyone to download. In some cases, it has reformatted documents to make individual chapters easier to download, but there is always room for improvement.

In particular, we have moved beyond the campaign phase leading up to the November election to the project-level EIR/EIS process. This is the period during which the decisions regarding how the route will be implemented city-by-city, county-by-county will be made. The objective is to seek comments on what alternatives should be studied, but many members of the public are still bewildered by this legally required but bureaucratic process.

I'd like to focus the discussion on this particular thread narrowly on CHSRA's web site, i.e. on the scope and modalities of its online communications and their place in the planning process going forward. Please think of this as a brainstorming session with each comment a Post-It - or tweet, if you prefer - that only has room for one succinct idea or response to one contributed by someone else. This will help me summarize the thread so I can send your collective input/feedback to CHSRA in a format they can choose to utilize.

Here's a list of questions to get the ball rolling:

1. Do you consider the web to be CHSRA's primary tool for communicating with the general public?
   
2. Should the entire CHSRA web site be bilingual (English and Spanish)?
   
3. Which resources on the web site have you found useful to date?
   
4. Which do you consider gimmicks at this point?
   
5. What were you able to find easily?
   
6. What took a lot of digging?
   
7. What were you not able to find?
   
8. Does the web site need a dedicated search tool?
   
9. What took too long to download for your liking?
   
10. Should old versions of documents remain available forever?
    
11. Were you able to obtain official information from CHSRA in another way?
    
12. Was it easy to reference information you obtained in e.g. blog comments?
    
13. Is the status of the project and its many components articulated clearly enough?
    
14. Is the status of CHSRA's planning integration with other government agencies articulated clearly enough?
    
15. Do you have specific requests for fresh text or multimedia content, including audio recordings?
    
16. Do you have specific requests for additional resources and links to tools that would allow you to create sketches or other content yourself?
    
17. Should CHSRA host a public discussion forum, blog or similar?
    
18. Should CHSRA provide a means of uploading reader content or links to web resources that it may choose to publish after review?
    
19. Should CHSRA maintain a list of or links to job openings, including those at consultants it has hired to work on the project?
    
20. Where would you expect/want others to look for this fresh content on the CHSRA web site?
    
21. When would you like CHSRA to publish it, relative to dates on its calendar?
    
22. For how long should it be considered "fresh"?
    
23. How would you like CHSRA to keep improving its web-based communications going forward?
    
24. Would you consider it taxpayer money well spent if CHSRA hired a team dedicated to supporting its web site?
    
25. Should CHSRA have a formal customer service desk with tracking etc. that would - within reason - ferret out or create specific project-related content (e.g. page references, excerpts, sketches, sound recordings, Google Sketchup 3D models)?
    
26. What's missing from this list?
    

For your convenience: CHSRA web site (opens a new tab or window)

Why We Call Them NIMBYs

"High-speed rail opponents hope to shed 'NIMBY' image" is the headline of a San Jose Mercury News article examining the attitudes of a handful of people along the Peninsula toward the HSR project, and their lobbying efforts up in Sacramento. I find it interesting that they realize "NIMBY" is something they don't want to be seen as, which suggests to me that we were on the right track after all in leveling that criticism at the folks who are demanding an expensive tunnel or a gutting of the proposed HSR system. Here's what Ben Fuller, a resident of east San Carlos who claims that the above-grade tracks have isolated his neighborhood, and Sara Armstrong of Palo Alto had to say:

Fuller and Armstrong said the consortium should also help dispel the NIMBY, or "not in my backyard", stereotype often tagged on homeowners who oppose high-speed rail. By working together as a regional group, they hope to prove that they represent the interests of many property homeowners in the region and not just their own backyards.

In fact, they said a better name might be YUMBY, or "Yes Under My Backyard," a reference to their preference for tunneling the train.

"We're not NIMBYs," Fuller said. "We care about what happens to communities throughout California."

Really? So do you support the Palo Alto city council's reckless demand that the CHSRA consider terminating HSR trains at San José, which throws the financial viability of the entire system into question? Do you believe that it's a tunnel or nothing? If so I would indeed say you're NIMBYs.

Why? Because in this instance, a NIMBY position is one that says the HSR system must be built according to the specifications of a few neighbors or shouldn't be built at all. THAT is a classically NIMBY position. If they do not reject an above-grade solution, then they're not NIMBYs. If they do reject it, then they are.

The key question underlying everything is this: Do you believe that your aesthetic preferences about how the train should be built in your neighborhood are more important than what is operationally or financially necessary? Then you're putting yourself above the needs of the state as a whole. Perhaps the term "NIMBY" doesn't quite capture what they are exactly saying, but the outcomes are the same: you think that the train should be built your way or not built at all.

I don't see how that is a defensible position. It is arrogant and self-interested, denying the very real need for HSR as part of the solution to the state's dire economic, energy, and environmental crises. Unfortunately these few people seem to have bent the ears of two Democratic legislators who ought to know better:

The groups have bypassed local officials and gone directly to their state representatives, having held meetings recently with state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos.

Ruskin said that after meeting with the group recently he called California High Speed Rail Authority officials into his Sacramento office and relayed the residents' concerns, including their preference for tunnels or some other non-bridge option.

"I share their concerns," Ruskin said. "I got the assurance from the high-speed rail people that there would be a below-grade (option studied) as part of the (planning) process.

"I really admire that they have become a part of the process and want their voices heard," he said.

If all Ruskin did was relay concerns, that's fine. But Ruskin has a higher duty - to ALL his constituents, and to the state as a whole - to ensure that HSR gets built on time and on budget. Ruskin has made a name for himself as a leader in environmental legislation. So one would assume that he will be supportive of the HSR project.

Especially when he and Sen. Simitian are facing a major budget crisis. The great unanswered question here is who will pay for the tunnel that pretty much the entire Peninsula wants. Tunnel proponents assume that either the state or the federal government will pay.

I am here to tell them that will not happen. There will be NO support at the state level to pay for a tunnel through these wealthy neighborhoods. None whatsoever. Anyone who thinks there will be is deluding themselves about fiscal and political realities in California.

There might be a possibility of getting federal money, but I believe this to be very, very small. Maybe a 10% chance. Consider that the Democrats who control Congress and President Obama are NOT going to see Peninsula voters as a particularly important constituency ahead of the 2010 and 2012 elections. Obama in particular needs to hold on to states he won that went for Bush in 2004 - Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. You can bet he will find a way to direct a lot of federal infrastructure money there. If it comes down to paying for the Peninsula's tunnel or paying for a rail project in Virginia, or a bridge in Ohio, he will pick the latter. Peninsula residents have barely any leverage federally.

Ruskin and Simitian must know this. They must also know that the Peninsula's tax base is finite, and that in an era where core city services are imperiled, perhaps it might not be the best use of local tax dollars to buy a tunnel for a few people when libraries, schools, and hospitals are in need.

What's at the heart of the NIMBY and "tunnel or nothing" attitudes? A mistaken but powerful belief that anything that divides cities is inherently negative or destructive to neighborhoods and the city as a whole:

Greater East San Carlos group president Ben Fuller said his neighborhood feels isolated from the city's downtown because of the Holly Street grade separation along El Camino Real, built in the late 1990s. He added that nearby sidewalks have been narrowed, making it difficult to walk through the area, and that noise and vibrations near the tracks have increased since they were elevated.

"What they chose to do is literally just separate us from everybody else," Fuller said. "We just want to be part of 'The City of Good Living,' " he said, referring to the city's motto.

And while city officials say the majority of residents favor the Holly Street rail bridge — which has improved safety and traffic flow — the east neighborhood group says its special interests as direct neighbors of the rail line should be heard. The group has found friends in neighborhoods such as Felton Gables in Menlo Park and Charleston Meadows in Palo Alto, which also lie next to the tracks, and they hope that together their voices will be louder as a regional group.

First, it's pretty amusing that even though the Holly Street rail bridge has improved conditions in the city, a few people are convinced it is somehow a negative. Fuller hasn't explained how literal separation means that East San Carlos is somehow not a part of the rest of the city. Are they being deliberately denied city services? Are they being denied business and jobs? Are they being denied representation? Fuller assumes that we should take his claims at face value, but to be honest, I'm not seeing anything here that makes me feel for his position.

I'm no stranger to this issue. I grew up in a city in Orange County - Tustin - divided in two by Interstate 5.


View Tustin divided in a larger map

The area to the south of the 5, which has no name but is sometimes known as South Tustin, sometimes seems separate from the rest of the city. But in practice the freeway isn't that much of a barrier. We learned to adapt to it. If you have friends south of the freeway, as I did, or if your church was south of the freeway, as ours was, you just drove under the overpass. Sometimes we walked to a friend's house south of the freeway from our high school, just north of the freeway. No big deal. Even when the freeway was widened in 1992 and the structure made wider and taller, you didn't let it change your habits.

I currently live in a city divided into four parts by various natural and man-made features. Monterey has at least four distinct neighborhoods:


View Monterey divided in a larger map

I live in New Monterey, the neighborhood that runs uphill from Cannery Row (signified by the blue pin). We're wedged between Pacific Grove and the Presidio of Monterey, which cuts us off from the rest of Monterey. Ours is a very distinct neighborhood, but it is vibrant and thriving. Sure, it can be inconvenient to get downtown on days where there's lots of tourist traffic, but we manage. Our neighborhood doesn't suffer because of it.

Lake El Estero is another divider in Monterey, separating the older downtown (dating to 1770, signified by the red pin) and the neighborhood immediately to the east. And that in turn is separated by Highway 1, a freeway built through town in the 1960s. North Monterey is the neighborhood beyond Highway 1 (green pin), and that is indeed cut off from the rest of Monterey, and generally neglected by city government.

But is that a causal factor? North Monterey and New Monterey are physically separated from the city center. But whereas New Monterey is vibrant with thriving businesses and a high perception of quality of life, North Monterey has none of these things. I wouldn't ascribe that to the freeway, however. The problems are based in class and bad urban design. North Monterey, located just across Laguna Grande from Seaside, is a diverse low-income community built in the 1950s and 1960s. There's no real community center, and North Fremont Boulevard is full of strip malls and doesn't serve as the thriving commercial center Lighthouse Avenue is here in New Monterey. City government apparently hasn't done much to try and apply better urban design principles to North Monterey and it doesn't have a whole lot in the way of city services.

That was the case prior to the freeway, and persists not because of the freeway, but because the small population of North Monterey is generally disempowered anyway because of size, lack of an economic base (New Monterey has Cannery Row), and lower income. Monterey can and should devote more attention to this neighborhood, but the freeway doesn't make that impossible.

If you look at most cities in California, America, or the world, you'll see they're divided by any number of features, natural and man-made. Every city has neighborhoods, and in every city there is political jockeying among them for resources, tax dollars, services, and jobs.

Especially on the Peninsula, where a rail corridor has divided cities for a century and a half. I'm sure that if those tracks weren't already there, and Caltrain proposed to build them, Menlo Park and Palo Alto and every other city would flip out and raise all kinds of objections. Yet now they defend the existing tracks - because they found a way to keep their cities together in spite of - and perhaps because of - the tracks.

This notion that an above-grade structure that can be built elegantly is some kind of city-killer is totally absurd, especially when there's already a rail corridor there. Cities and neighborhoods can and should work to ensure that these structures, as with a creek or a university or a large park, do not prevent different neighborhoods from getting different treatment. Nor should they prevent the different neighborhoods from being effectively integrated - otherwise there would be four Montereys, two Tustins, a hundred Los Angeleses, and so on.

If "omg you're going to divide our city!!!" is all that these Peninsula residents have...then I see absolutely no reason to let their objections shape HSR implementation policy. They can find ways to manage, as numerous other cities have. If this was a totally new ROW, or if a large number of homes were to be demolished, then they might have a point. But it isn't. They have successfully managed the existing rail corridor. They can do so with an above-grade solution. The only thing holding them back is their own preconceived 20th century automobile-centric notions of what a good city or neighborhood is like. If they want to pay for that preconceived notion, well, it's their money. But if they think the rest of us will pay for it, they are not in touch with reality.

Sweden's Gröna Tåget (Green Train)

While the California bullet train system will run almost exclusively on brand-new, dedicated tracks, most other HSR systems (in the federal sense of the word) will require fast passenger trains to share track with heavy freight trains if dual tracking is to make economic sense. Sweden's national rail administration, Banverket, has essentially the same problem as many state DOTs in the US: large distances between cities, low population density, heavy freight trains (lumber, iron ore et al.) and on top of that, severe winter weather.

A particular problem is that high speed passenger trains (200+ km/h = 125+ mph in Europe) normally need tracks in very good state of repair to operate safely and with sufficient passenger comfort. Unfortunately, heavy freight trains with up to 25 metric tons axle load (cp. 17 for bullet trains) tend to chew up tracks pretty quickly. Without special train technology, the tracks would have to be repaired very frequently at great expense to maintain operational safety. Indeed, Banverket now wants to move toward a model in which train operators (from Sweden or other EU countries) pay trackage fees based on the amount of wear and tear they generate.

Safe, comfortable operation at 125mph on legacy tracks shared with heavy freight trains was achieved with the introduction in 1990 of rapid rail service based on the X2000 train, featuring a locomotive and up to 16 unpowered single-level cars (though 5 is typical). Designed in the 1980s by AdTranz, now a subsidiary of Bombardier, it features an array of technologies such as automatic train control, sensor-based active tilt control and an important innovation: soft bogies. In US terminology, bogies are called trucks; the standard configuration is two trucks of two rigid axles each underneath the car. What makes the X2000's bogies "soft" are special actuators that keep each individual axle perpendicular to the track, even in fairly tight corners. You can see them clearly in this video:



Note that Spanish manufacturer Talgo has long relied on a passive mechanism that links the single wheelset at the front of each short car with the body of the previous car to ensure wheels are always perpendicular to the rails, thus avoiding contact between the wheel flange and the inside of the rails. In addition to screeching, that causes wear and tear. The downside is that Talgo trains are by definition articulated trainsets that cannot easily be reconfigured into longer or shorter consists.

The X2000 trains are complex and therefore expensive to buy and maintain. However, that must be weighed against the savings achieved by using legacy instead of brand-new track. Passenger volume went up dramatically with the new service, as did public willingness to invest in major rail transportation upgrades, e.g. the Øresund bridge/tunnel to Denmark. They were also tested by Amtrak, along with first-generation ICE trains from Germany. In the end, the Acela Express contract went to Bombardier. Late in the development of the design, FRA insisted on ludicrous crash compatibility requirements that severely compromised the mean time between failure (MTBF) of the active tilt and other subsystems.

A few years ago, Banverket launched a new public-private research program called Gröna Tåget (Green Train) to build on the success of the X2000. Partners include top Swedish engineering universities and Bombardier. Key objectives include:

• improved reliability in severe winter conditions
  
• increasing top speed in commercial operation to at least 250km/h = 155mph
  
• exploiting the generous track spacing with five instead of four seats abreast
  
• improved passenger comfort in corners
  
• reduced wear and tear on the infrastructure
  
• lower electricity consumption
  
• no increase in noise over the X2000
  

The project overview states that the new, higher top speed will only be achievable on upgraded or brand-new track sections. That's because the signaling on the legacy tracks imposes a limit of around 125mph. In addition, the popularity of the X2000 has introduced capacity problems. The high cost of enhanced rail infrastructure in rural areas makes more sense if it can support passenger trains running at higher speeds.

The key innovation expected from the research program is active lateral suspension (ALS), which will reduce wear and tear on the rails and also improve passenger comfort in curves. Most other upgrades, including electric multiple unit (EMU) traction based on permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) technology, triple brake system, wide car bodies etc. are already present in Japanese, German and/or French train designs. What sets the Swedish effort apart is the ambition to make all of that work very reliably in arctic winter conditions - a task that off-the shelf HSR train designs on the European market aren't quite up to.

In the summer of 2008, the Gröna Tåget test train set a new Swedish speed record of 303 km/h on a section of straight legacy track originally designed for 200 km/h. While that's less than modern bullet trains can achieve on dedicated tracks, it represents a major technical milestone for rapid rail. In spite of the inevitably high cost of train designs that will be derived from this R&D platform, they could prove a good fit for HSR in North America - especially for the frigid winters of the Midwest, Northeast and Canada. Interested readers may want to check out the technical documents.

In California, HSR train designs that get the most out of legacy freight track could make a lot of sense on the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor routes, perhaps others as well. The idea would be to spend public money on adding a second track and upgraded signaling, while the freight operator upgrades his existing track. Then, both share both tracks via mutual trackage agreements or else, the infrastructure becomes the property of a public-private partnership.

However, it is imperative that FRA develop a regulatory path toward mixed traffic, i.e. allowing slow, heavy freight trains and fast, light passenger trains to share dual track alignments via appropriate signaling upgrades, timetables and bypass sections. Rapid rail will require close relationships with freight rail operators and substantially more public money that the US has traditionally spent on passenger rail, but it could make electrification and high speeds a reality for many existing rail rights of way in the designated federal corridors.

Infrastructurist Compares HSR Projects Around the World

Yonah Freemark, who runs the excellent The Transport Politic, also writes for Infrastructurist where earlier this week he posted a a great chart comparing HSR projects around the world, including our own:


(Click for full size image)

The chart compares our project to the Beijing-Shanghai HSR route, Argentina's TAVe, Israel's Tel Aviv-Jerusalem route, HSL Zuid from the Netherlands to Belgium and Paris, Lyon-Torino, and Saudi Arabia's HSR plan. Our cost per mile is third highest, but does much better than the shorter HSL Zuid line and is comparable with the Lyon-Torino line (whose high costs are likely due to Alpine tunneling).

It also shows a wide difference in what is actually considered as "high speed rail" - only our project, Argentina's, and China's will provide average speeds above 150 mph.

Ultimately this shows that California is actually getting a lot of bang for our buck. We're getting a much longer route than the higher cost trains in Europe. Sure, we're not looking at Chinese levels of cost, but then I don't think we will either want or would accept the labor standards and wages of China either.

Tren de Alta Velocidad en San José

Several Spanish-speaking residents of the Gardner/Willow Glen neighborhood in San José are circulating a petition asking the California High Speed Rail Authority to extend the comment deadline for the SJ-Merced project level EIR/EIS:

A group of Willow Glen residents who say Spanish-speakers were not properly notified of community meetings about the high-speed rail slated to cut through their neighborhood has been going door to door collecting signatures to temporarily stop the plan from moving forward.

"The Spanish-speaking community knows nothing about this; they have been neglected," said Dee Urista, who lives in the Gardner neighborhood, where there is a high number of Spanish-speaking residents....

She and others in her neighborhood say they were never notified of the community meetings in Spanish and haven't had the opportunity to submit their concerns about the project, which is slated to bring California's 800-mile high-speed rail line through the Gardner neighborhood.

The deadline for submitting questions for the environmental impact report is set to close April 10.

The CHSRA's public outreach manager claims they have offered translation services and a phone number for Spanish-language residents. I am sure they feel they've done the right thing on outreach, and I don't see any cause for claims that they deliberately tried to cut out Spanish-speaking residents, but the CHSRA should grant both requests - extend the comment time AND hold a bilingual meeting in San José.

The CHSRA extended the comment period for an entire month along the Peninsula, which was also the right move. The Authority needs to emphasize openness and public outreach to the entire state, and in California that's just not possible without Spanish language outreach.

Further, the Willow Glen neighborhood's request is reasonable. They're not coming at this from a NIMBY position (at least not as quoted in the article) and it would go a long way toward building goodwill in that community for the CHSRA to hold a Spanish language scoping meeting.

Speeding Up Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner

A couple of weeks ago, the Ventura County Star published an article on California HSR that we mentioned, but only in the context of a negative response to it. What sort of fell through the cracks are these intriguing paragraphs in the original article and their possible implications for Amtrak Pacific Surfliner (APS):

Because the stimulus plan defines "high-speed" as trains capable of traveling at least 110 mph, more traditional rail systems in the Northeast and Midwest might be able to qualify for some of the funding — as might commuter systems in California.

"Some trains in Southern California corridors are pushing 110 mph," said Darren Kettle, executive director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission. "Some of my peers in Southern California are looking at that stimulus money to improve the Los Angeles-to-San Diego line and get that up to 110 mph."

Pacific Surfliner: Service Frequency, Speeds and Punctuality

The Pacific Surfliner route is primarily a semi-local train service between San Luis Obispo and San Diego via Santa Barbara, Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim. The full route is 350 miles long, but the schedule shows that only a single daily train serves all of it. The LA - San Diego section is served by 11 daily trains (12 on Friday through Sunday), Santa Barbara - LA by 5, Santa Barbara - San Diego by 4 and San Luis Obispo - LA by 2. Many trains skip some of the smaller stations.

To get a sense of the speed profile along the route, I looked at the line haul times for a slow semi-local train (#774 southbound), which takes 8 hours 41 minutes from SLO to San Diego. Typical average speed between stations is 35-55mph. The busiest section, LA - SD, takes 2h40min to 2h50min, regardless of which train you take, at an average speed of 45-50mph. Average speed for SLO-Santa Barbara is comparable, the slowest section is Santa Barbara - LA at ~36mph average.

The upshot is that APS isn't really time-competitive against car travel in terms of speed, so its modal share of total trips along the South Coast is probably less than 1% right now. Its popularity relative to other Amtrak services is probably due to population density, the fairly long distances, the cost of driving if you're alone and, avoiding the stress of stop-go traffic in some sections. For business travelers, the most important factor may be punctuality, which for LA - Fullerton (BNSF section) has improved from 92% in the 2007 (Aug YTD) to 95% in 2008 (Dec YTD) and 97% in 2009 (Mar YTD).

Unfortunately, Amtrak's figure for the route as a whole was only about 85% in the last 12 months. According to the Glossary of Terms link off that page, Amtrak defines "on time" as less than 10 minutes late for routes up to 250 miles long and less than 30 minutes for routes of 550 miles or more. Interpolating linearly, the threshold for the full 350-mile Pacific Surfliner route is presumably 17 minutes. However, since many Surfliners actually implement part of the route, it's possible that the the threshold is computed separately for each train. If so, it would be closer to 10 minutes for most. That would mean 15% of all trains arrived more than 10-17 minutes late at their final dstination in the last 12 months. These details are relevant because rail operators in other countries use their own thresholds, so the numbers aren't directly comparable.

The primary causes listed are train interference, i.e. lack of capacity and - somewhat alarmingly - tracks and signals, i.e. infrastructure failures and maintenance impacts. Note the relatively high fraction of passenger-related delays, which would be reduced with improved on-time performance generally (reducing knock-on effects at transfer points) and level boarding platforms. These three leading causes reflect 84% of the total number of minutes of delay.

The most troublesome section is Moorpark to LA Union Station (not LAX airport), mostly because of Metrolink has to maintain the infrastructure and run a lot of trains on a shoestring budget. The San Clemente - San Diego section is a close second, because NCTD has to do the same. Only the top three segments contributing to each type of delay are listed, they don't add up to 100%.

Amtrak Ridership Statistics and Oil Prices

In FY 2008, Pacific Surfliner was the nation's second most popular Amtrak service with 2.89 million passengers (up 7%), after 3.3 million for Acela Express (up 6.5%). However, the revenue numbers paint a very different picture: $51 million for APS (up 6%) vs. $468 million for Acela Express (up 16%). APS serves a larger number of stations per mile than Acela Express, many passenger trips are probably shorter. Nevertheless, the numbers suggest that US consumers - at least those on the East Coast - are willing to pay a hefty premium for rapid over conventional rail service when short-hop flights become unattractive, as they did last summer. For 2009, Amtrak is offering discounted fares on Acela Express in a bid to sustain ridership. This is a reflection of reductions in short-hop air fares in response to falling jet fuel prices.

The Pacific Surfliner trains compete primarily against car travel rather than short-hop flights, but gasoline prices are nearly as exposed to oil price volatility as jet fuel due to the relatively low level of taxation (compared to Japan and Europe). Diesel is exposed as well, but trains make more efficient use of the energy at comparable seat capacity utilization rates.

Any high speed rail proposal in the US must therefore consider forecasts of future oil prices. In the coming months and even years, prices will remain depressed as the world economy deals with the aftermath of a massive burst asset bubble in US mortgages and derivative products. However, in the medium and long term, prices will rise again as China, India and other emerging economies achieve higher living standards. This will be exacerbated by peak oil considerations, i.e. the notion that the world will gradually run out of easily produced oil going forward.

Eligibility for Federal HSR Funding

If you take a really long view, as anyone contemplating upgrades to rail infrastructure ought to, it's a fairly safe bet IMHO that prices of oil-based fuels are going to rise faster than purchasing power in coming decades - exactly the opposite of the long-term historic trend. That's precisely why California has chosen to hedge its future by building an all-electric bullet train network that can run off a wide variety of primary energy sources, including the renewables favored by CHSRA.

Prop 1A reserved $950 million for HSR feeder services, with a generous slice of that reserved for the Amtrak California routes.

However, the federal concept of HSR is broader than the one promoted by CHSRA. Rapid rail, with top speeds of 110-125mph and some grade crossings retained, is also potentially eligible for federal funding. The South Coast is arguably an excellent candidate for such an upgrade, even though CHSRA has planned bullet train service between LA and San Diego for phase II. That's because funding for phase II extensions will depend on the commercial success of the starter line, which in turn depends in part on effective feeder services. Besides, no direct bullet train service is planned between Anaheim and San Diego so the two would not exactly compete against one another. In addition, plans do not include bullet train service to Santa Barbara.

Note that as e.g. Caltrain has shown with its "baby bullet" semi-express service in the SF peninsula, it isn't actually necessary to increase top speed to attract new ridership. Passengers care much more about line haul time and punctuality. Nevertheless, HR 110.2095 redefines HSR as follows:

"The term ‘high-speed rail’ means intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour."

In addition, only applications for capital improvements to meet this new federal definition in one the 11 federally designated corridors are eligible for any part of the $1.5 billion that HR 110.2095 allocates for the purpose. Note that FRA's map is out of date with regard to the California system, Texas T-bone and other proposals. Chances are, Congress will fix that in this year's omnibus transportation bill now that there's federal money on the table. I wouldn't be at all surprised if e.g. LA - Las Vegas were added, hopefully as a spur off the California network.

As p136 the Joint Explanatory Statement Division A - part of the conference report - for HR 111.1 makes clear, the $8 billion in the stimulus bill for HSR use the same definition to determine eligibility.

Fortunately, this is vague enough to give USDOT a lot of leeway: neither bill specifies that 110mph or more needs to be sustained over a long distance. In practice, that means Pacific Surfliner would be eligible even if 110mph could only be reached in one short section, e.g. in Camp Pendleton. However, I suspect USDOT bureaucrats would then need to see a strong business case based on realistic forecasts of incremental ridership and fare box returns as a result of significantly improved line haul times and ideally, the provision of terrestrial WiFi on Board (cp recent trial on the Amtrak Capitol Corridor route). In addition, they would presumably want insight into the opportunity costs of sticking with the current service parameters: demand for more highway lane-miles, continued severe exposure to oil price volatility and, productivity loss due to time spent driving.

Potential Improvements

To get a sense of what might be achievable with appropriate investment, I assumed the primary strategy for improving line haul times would be express service between the primary population centers along the way, i.e. SLO, Santa Barbara, LA, Anaheim and San Diego. Let's call this Pacific Surf Express in analogy to Acela Express.

Next, I figured an express service might achieve an average speed of roughly 2/3 of the specified top speed. That's a very rough model, no more than a first order approximation. At the present top speed of 79mph, that would translate to a minor increase in average speed from ~40mph over the entire 350 miles to just ~53mph.

Nevertheless, even that would worthwhile: 19min gained from SLO to Santa Barbara, a whopping 53min gained between Santa Barbara and LA and a further 19min between LA and San Diego. Closer examination reveals that the largest single gain (~23min) would result from investment in the six-mile section between Glendale and LA Union Station. Average speed there is currently an abysmal 11.6mph, perhaps because of wait states associated with congestion in the throat of LAUS.

Run-through tracks for FRA-compliant equipment would benefit not just Amtrak Pacific Surfliner but other Amtrak and Metrolink services as well. These would be separate from those for the bullet trains. Considering the final EIR/EIS was completed over three years ago, the problem appears to have been a lack of funding. In a joint press release last May, Gov. Schwarzenegger announced that the state of California would invest $290 million into this and closely related rail projects as part of the Strategic Growth Plan. Of course, the state's finances are now in worse shape than ever, so it's unclear if the related appropriation of prop 1B (2006) bonds will happen in 2009.

All the more reason then to re-label those $290 million as a state contribution toward making Amtrak Pacific Surfliner an HSR service in the federal sense of the word. Other sections with low average speeds include:

• Moorpark - Van Nuys (37mph)
  
• Burbank Airport - Glendale (32mph)
  
• Fullerton - Santa Ana (33mph)
  
• San Clemente Pier - Oceanside (50mph, Camp Pendleton section)
  
• Solana Beach - downtown San Diego (36mph)
  

In most of these cases, double tracking and/or signaling upgrades would be the primary approaches to improve line haul times. In Fullerton - Santa Ana, noise mitigation and bypasses at stations may be needed to increase existing speed limits. CHSRA also has a vested interest in that, because the last section to Anaheim is too narrow to accommodate dedicated bullet train tracks and, FRA currently permits mixed traffic only if there is sufficient and guaranteed time separation. South of Solana Beach, a short tunnel between Torrey Pines and University city would rectify and shorten the route.

North of Burbank, two approaches are conceivable for a Pacific Surf Express: a second tunnel bore between Chatsworth and Simi Valley or, switching the route to run through Santa Clarita and Santa Paula (CA-126 corridor).


View Larger Map

The ROW along CA-126 also belongs to UPRR but is probably little-used and in fact, abandoned between Fillmore and Santa Clarita. It contains some tight curves that would need to be rectified in order for trains to run through this mostly rural valley fast enough to overcompensate for the greater distance. Note that both the regular Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink would continue to serve the Simi Valley. Once the starter line for the bullet trains is operational, a Pacific Surf Express service via the CA-126 corridor could add a stop in Sylmar.

Ludicrous Speed!

All of the above applies for an express service with a top speed of 79mph, except in the Camp Pendleton section (and that only to become eligible for federal HSR funds). If the entire 350 miles were upgraded such that average speed jumped from ~40mph for semi-local to 73mph for express service, there would obviously be even greater time gains relative to the present situation: 58 minutes less between SLO and Santa Barbara, 86 minutes less between Santa Barbara and LA Union Station, 14 minute less minutes between LAUS and Anaheim and 47 minutes less between Anaheim and San Diego. That last section would then take 1h20m and LA - San Diego 1h45m. Improvements on this order of magnitude would be game changers.

For comparison, CHSRA is promising 20min for LA - Anaheim and 1h15m for LA - San Diego via Riverside. Considering that dirt probably won't be turned on phase II of the bullet train network before the 2023-2025 time frame, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to avoid the regulatory complication of mixed traffic in the Fullerton-Anaheim section? Is it wise for California to equate HSR with bullet trains at a time when the federal government is offering money for rapid rail projects as well?

In closing, this video shows how long all Surfliners might have to be to satisfy demand, if only they were substantially faster. The second locomotive is only needed because FRA compliance adds a lot of mass to passenger trains; enable mixed traffic via appropriate signaling, buy some lighter cars and one loco will be plenty for a Pacific Surf Express. Note that smoke and other emissions from diesel locomotives will be down sharply once EPA Tier 3/4 locomotive engines become available and operators switch to ULSD. As for those infernal bells and horns - mercifully brief in this case - quiet zones and grade separations, please!

Americans Favor High Speed Trains

HNTB, the consulting company CHSRA has hired to conduct the project-level EIR/EIS in the SF peninsula, has commissioned a national survey to get a set of baseline data about how US consumers perceive high speed rail now that oil prices have come back down.

Remarkably for a country with passenger service that is patchy and slow by international standards, more than half of Americans (54%) would choose modern high-speed trains over automobile (33%) and air travel (13%) if fares and travel time were about the same. [Respondents were] most excited by the possibility of more convenient travel (71%), less expensive fares (69%) and faster trains (55%) with the introduction of high-speed rail in their region.

There was a clear split between respondents who had had an opportunity to ride high speed rail trains before and those who had not. The experience gap was 28% for the fraction who would prefer to ride a train to next city and 13% for business travelers who expected to be more productive on a high speed train trip. It's not immediately clear if those expectations were influenced by the fact that WiFi on board is already available on Thalys and TGV Est in Europe.



An overwhelming majority of high-speed train travelers (82%) found it more enjoyable than plane travel. Among those who had not experienced HSR yet, the idea still appealed to 22%, while 69% responded they would still prefer to drive to the closest large city. About half of all respondents expected such trains would permit convenient travel to cities up to 400 miles away, in line with industry experts who consider 100-400 miles or 1-3 hours of travel to be the sweet spot.

The survey also showed that fewer than 3 in 10 felt they understood the environmental impact of high speed vs. traditional rail service. Of course, "environmental" can mean the impact on global warming to one person and the impact to their property to another. In this case, it appears the survey questions emphasized the dispersed benefits to the population at large, e.g. fuel efficiency and carbon footprint, rather than the changes felt most acutely by those living and/or working in close proximity to a high speed line.

The gist of the survey is that a majority of Americans perceive high speed rail as an option they would like to have. While the poll did not include the question, chances are that this same majority also approves of the strategic investment Congress has embarked on at the urging of the Obama administration. The survey also didn't ask if they considered the federal funds allocated so far - $9.5 billion - too much, about right or just a down payment.

The most recent annual "Infrastructure Report Card" compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave barely passing grades for virtually every type of infrastructure. Rail actually got a C-, but Transit earned a D, like most other categies. Granted, ASCE does have a vested interest in drumming up business for its members and, its $2.2 trillion price tag reflects the cost of getting everything to an A or at least a B. It's a lot of money - about four times the annual Pentagon budget.

However, the HSR survey suggests that the US electorate is far more willing to invest in civilian infrastructure worth having than lawmakers may realize. For the moment at least, the experience of two costly foreign wars, $4+ gasoline plus the mortgage bubble bursting because no-one in Washington was minding the financial store has concentrated minds on the need for not just repairs but new alternatives to oil-centric transportation. That is why it was so important for President Obama to seize on HSR as one example of how the US can rise again from the ashes of the bonfire of its vanities in real estate. Observers around the nation and in other countries will be watching California as it does the heavy lifting of planning and constructing the first brand-new bullet train network in North America.

CHSRA Gets Its $29.1 Million

As we discussed last month, the legislature's ongoing budget standoff put the California High Speed Rail Authority on the verge of shutting down its operations as it had run out of money to pay contractors and staff. This was an especially worrisome problem for two reasons: 1) the need to continue operations to position California to get HSR stimulus funds, and 2) the need to provide up-to-date information to concerned residents along the proposed route.

Last week the state had a successful sale of bonds, and yesterday the pooled money investment board gave CHSRA the $29.1 million it needed to keep working through the end of June:

California's financially strapped high-speed rail project has received an infusion of $29 million to get it back on track through the middle of the year...

That led most of the private consultants who were performing engineering and environmental reviews to stop working because they weren't being paid, said Mehdi Morshed, the rail board's executive director.

He said the treasurer's decision to issue commercial paper to provide the $29 million was "excellent news."

"We're finally back to work again," he said.

We're probably going to have to have this fight again in June, when the state tackles an $8 billion shortfall (which could be larger if the initiatives on the May 19 ballot fail). Let's hope that we see some true political leadership this time from Sacramento in support of this project.

East Bay Blues

No, that's not Bob Dylan on the left, but it might as well be. Of all the major population centers in California, the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay - Alameda and Contra Costa counties - arguably drew the shortest lot. True, East Bay residents will be closer to HSR stations on the starter line than anyone in San Diego or Sacramento, but there are currently no firm plans for an HSR station in either Oakland or Union City - ever.

Moreover, the new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco will be ~1/3 mile from the nearest BART station, Embarcadero, which gets overcrowded during rush hour. TJPA's plans for a pedestrian passage under Fremont Street are still "optional" at this point and, BART has made no commitment to use any of its $241 million share of the prop 1A bonds for additional side platforms at Embarcadero plus ramps featuring moving walkways connecting to such a passage. Unless that changes, BART passengers would have to hoof it across SF city streets to the HSR station, in any kind of weather, with baggage and perhaps children in tow. AC Transit will operate buses into the building, but its unclear how many HSR passengers will take advantage of that option.

Millbrae will hopefully offer a more convenient transfer, but BART takes it's sweet time getting out to there. Worse, on any given day of the week, only one line runs out to Millbrae, so many HSR passengers will have to transfer twice. Either way, the time lost just getting to and from the nearest HSR station will mean Oakland Airport will continue to offer flights to Southern California for many years to come.

HST/Commuter Overlay

Recently, CHSRA did award a $70 million contract to AECOM, for project-level EIR/EIS work on the awkwardly named "HST/commuter overlay" that is "under consideration" (see the pink bit here). The overlay concept was introduced toward the end of the whole Altamont vs. Pacheco debate as a punt ahead of the November election. The idea is to recycle the work done on the Altamont options studied for HSR into an ill-defined regional adjunct to the core HSR network. The overlay would link Stockton and Modesto to Oakland and San Jose via Tracy, Pleasanton and Union City. There is, however, no money at all for building this overlay in either phase I (starter line) or phase II (spurs to San Diego, Sacramento and Irvine).

Moreover, the originally selected route between Pleasanton and San Jose would have trains emerging from a curved tunnel in Niles and then proceeding south via the UPRR and WPML rights of way, CA-262 and the I-880 median. Now that Santa Clara county voters have voted to add another 1/8th of a percent to their sales tax to actually bring BART to San Jose, the short but vital WPML section is no longer available. Co-operation from UPRR was always an iffy proposition anyhow, especially in Fremont. Note that Parsons Brinkerhoff are the lead consultants on both HSR and the BART extension to SantaClara/SJC. That obvious conflict of interest alone ought to speak volumes about how major transit infrastructure projects are run in Northern California.

Realistically, nothing will come of the overlay concept anytime soon. And by soon, I mean before 2030. The only exception would be if CHSRA were unable to obtain a ROW out of San Jose and down to Gilroy, e.g. because of environmental justice issues or opposition from UPRR in principle. Some observers have characterized that railroad's stance as a negotiating ploy and that may yet turn out to be true: as a for-profit enterprise, money talks even for UPRR. On the other hand, it is a long-standing, profitable enterprise that just might walk away even from a juicy deal if it thinks it could be detrimental to its core business. Time will tell.

Existing East Bay Passenger Rail Services

Meanwhile, there are already several passenger rail services in the East Bay, in addition to BART. First, there's Amtrak Capitol Corridor, which is operated by Amtrak but managed by BART (h/t to anon @ 12:50pm). It connects San Jose to Oakland to Sacramento and Auburn. The core segment between Oakland Jack London Square is served by 16 trains each way on weekdays and 11 on weekends/holidays. San Jose is served by 7 trains.

Second, there are the four daily Amtrak San Joaquins (each way) between Oakland Jack London Square (OKJ) and Bakersfield. There are also two daily Amtrak long-distance trains serving the area: the Coast Starlight between Seattle and LA and the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, with a bus connection to San Francisco.

Third, there is the Altamont Commuter Express between Stockton and San Jose, also offering four trains each way but only on weekdays.

However, this isn't quite the transit smorgasbord it may seem to some: Amtrak Capitol Corridor only connects to BART at the OaklandColiseum/OAK and Richmond stations. San Joaquins connect only at Richmond and the other standard gauge services don't connect at all. With some track work, the San Joaquins could have an intermodal station with BART in North Concord now that the Navy has returned the inland portion of the old Naval Weapons Station to the city. However, planners there appear to see no value in an intermodal station and appear to have settled on a TOD concept served by BART alone. That means the questionable eBART project to extend service to Antioch - using new DMU equipment rather than regular BART rolling stock - remains alive and kicking.

Amtrak via new Nelson Mandela Station

In particular, the OKJ station is served by a grand total of just two AC Transit bus lines, with a few more stopping 1/4 mile further west. For a city of 400,000 that is also at the geographic heart of the BART system, OKJ isn't an effective Central Station for standard gauge rail. Unfortunately, running tracks right into downtown (near 12th/Broadway) would require many miles of expensive tunneling.

Fortunately, there may be a more affordable compromise: a shortcut between Emeryville and Jack London Square via Nelson Mandela Parkway. That is a city street, so the alignment would have to run in a mostly covered trench. It has also been lovingly landscaped, something that might have to be re-done at the end of construction. The prize, however, may well be worth it: an intermodal station with West Oakland BART, just one stop from downtown Oakland and downtown SF. In addition better connections into Oakland, the point of the exercise would be to reduce line haul time between SFO, downtown SF, Sacramento and Truckee (in Winter), thus relieving pressure on I-80.


View Larger Map

While not exactly a Central Station in the traditional sense, the West Oakland location could act as a regional transfer hub. The station is currently served by three AC Transit bus lines, more could conceivably be added. There are also plenty of empty lots in the area that could support parking or taxi service if there is demand.

The biggest obstacle to construction, other than funding, would be the UPRR yard next to I-880 and 3rd Street. Passenger trains are not permitted in freight rail yards, so the alignment would have to skirt the terrain while rising back up to grade level. A couple of industrial businesses, one of which looks like a cardboard recycling center, might be affected by eminent domain as a result. Note the single track connector hugging I-880: it would only be used by southbound trains that need to return to Emeryville. There is not enough room for a dual-track loop, nor is one needed. Note that a new "Nelson Mandela" station might prompt Amtrak to reduce service to Jack London Square.

Amtrak CC: WiFi on Board

Like Caltrain before it, Amtrak Capitol Corridor recently conducted a WiFi on Board trial based on terrestrial WiMAX connections to the fixed infrastructure. The service proved much more popular than Amtrak California had bargained for. Nevertheless, the plan is to upgrade bandwidth capacity and still offer it at no charge - something that would be easy enough to do: just print a one-time password good for 2 hours on the ticket. The rationale is evidently that courtesy internet access will help boost seat capacity utilization. Stay tuned.

ACE via Union City BART

Further south, there is scope for an intermodal station with BART in Union City. There is a little-used single-track freight spur running from Industrial Parkway to Niles via Van Euw Common, right alongside the elevated BART tracks. SMCTA had already identified this possibility in the context of plans for limited commuter service across the 100-year old Dumbarton rail bridge, but this has been postponed by the suspicious 1998 fire that destroyed the western trestle and, by the need to repay a $145 million loan from the BART extension to Fremont Warm Springs that San Mateo county had to take out to pay for cost overruns related to the extension to Millbrae/SFO. Some $54 million is still outstanding, the project time line keeps slipping.

However, one opportunity appears to have been overlooked in this context: with some additional track work and trackage rights, the existing ACE service could in theory make a detour via this anyhow planned intermodal station with BART in Union City, cut over to Union Landing (I-880/Whipple Rd) and back down to Newark, as shown in green on on the map below. In addition to the BART intermodal, there would be two new stations to improve transit options for the army of Silicon Valley worker bees that sleeps in the East Bay. Like the Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains, this modified ACE route would still include a stop at Great America in the heart of the "Golden Triangle" bordered by CA-237, I-880 and US-101. BART does not and will not reach that destination.


View Larger Map

ACE to SF via Niles Canyon north slope

Shown in red on the map is the option of a new ACE service direct to additional Silicon Valley employers, Millbrae/SFO and SF 4th & King. In addition to a little bit of access track work north of Sunol and in San Jose, this would involve trackage rights from UPRR or NCRY (whichever now owns the old SP ROW along the north slope of Niles Canyon) plus trackage rights from UPRR along the Milpitas line. At the wye in San Jose, trains would head north up to San Francisco via the Caltrain ROW, in baby bullet mode. That would require trackage rights from PCJPB plus permission from UPRR, which still owns the rights to intercity passenger service on the SF peninsula. One option would be for ACE to accept Caltrain tickets on the peninsula and deduct their value from the trackage fees.

The Milpitas Line is little-used south of 101 but represents a valuable back-up route in case the Alviso line through the salt marshes ever becomes unavailable, e.g. because of an earthquake. However, any passenger rail service on this line south of 101 should implement FRA quiet zone regulations first. Of course, if and when the Dumbarton rail bridge re-opens, there could be scope for further improvements to ACE.

The bigger issues may be in Pleasanton, Livermore and especially, in Altamont Pass itself. Single tracking and slow freight trains mean ACE is at the mercy of UPRR as it tries to stick to its schedule, though it has earned high marks for punctuality recently. That said, the service does take 2h10m to cover 86 miles - not exactly a high speed train.

Transbay Terminal Redux

Heads Up: Neighborhood meeting on HSR for residents of the Willow Glen neighborhood in San Jose, on Wednesday, April 8 at 1292 Minnesota Ave from 7-9pm. Resources at the end of this post.

---

The fair city of San Francisco has probably had more than its fair share of coverage on this blog. In just the past couple of months, we've already had quite a few posts recently on the controversial new Transbay Terminal Center (see posts 1, 2, 3). In addition, Clem Tillier has published a post on the Focus On: SF Transbay Transit Center on his Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog.

So why revisit this issue yet again? Well, because Quentin Kopp is once again saying that 4th & King would be good enough for him - knowing full well that this will unleash howls of protest from SF city officials and residents, in no small measure because CHSRA consistently marketed the starter line as going from downtown San Francisco to San Jose Diridon, LA Union Station and Anaheim ARTIC.

Note, however, one flaw in the snippet from the Examiner: supporting a five-minute headway on the HSR line down the peninsula is not quite the same thing as actually running a train literally every five minutes. It just means that the signaling and other technology has to cope with an HSR train following another within the space of five minutes, something that may well happen at certain times in a timetable supporting multiple service classes (e.g. express, semi-express, semi-local, local). Recovery from unexpected delays and other off-design conditions may also require operators to minimize headways at certain times. Safe operations of sections of a line with moderate speed limits are possible with as little as 2.5-3 minute headways, so 5 is actually conservative.

The number of platforms is a potential issue a number of decades down the road, maybe. On the other hand, the poor design of the connection between the DTX tunnel and the platforms, the so-called "throat", is a real issue right now because Caltrain will also use the tunnel and downtown station. It's a bottleneck even an expensive three-track tunnel cannot fully resolve. Moreover, according to Clem, the current design of the DTX tunnel features curve radii so small that they effectively preclude the use of Japanese shinkansen train designs for the California system.

Recap

The current design features 6 long platform tracks, some slightly curved, accessed via three-track tunnel out to Caltrain's existing 4th & King terminus station. The six tracks would be accessible via three island platforms, one for Caltrain and the other two for HSR. The split is partly a result of Caltrain's decision to stick with low platforms even at the Transbay Terminal, where no freight train will ever go.

The reason for the ongoing brouhaha over this one station is really quite simple. CHSRA has raised a very late red flag on the design of the DTX tunnel and train box, claiming it does not support the 12 HSR trains per hour (tph) each way that he thinks it should support, in addition to the 10tph Caltrain is hoping to run during weekday rush hour in 2025. I've argued that (a) any sane operator would anyhow choose to terminate some HSR trains further south long before reaching 12tph and, (b) that four platform tracks is anyhow enough for 12tph if you enforce some pedestrian flow control.

Tellingly, the red flag came - or rather, was shown in public - only after the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) decided to apply directly for a slice of the HSR funds in the stimulus bill, rather than route that request through CHSRA. TJPA had previously been under the impression that 4tph would be sufficient for HSR operations. While that's true for the early years, perhaps even for several decades, CHSRA thinks its job is to deliver an infrastructure with enough capacity for the next 50, even 100 years. There is some method to that madness, as expanding a constrained downtown station decades after initial construction is usually extremely difficult/expensive or downright impossible.

While the timing suggested a political motivation, there does appear to be a real problem after all: the so-called throat, in which the six platform tracks have to converge to the smaller number in the tunnel, is very tight and by all accounts poorly designed. It constrains throughput for no good reason, Clem included a much improved version designed by Richard Mlynarik in his post.

Still, with a minimum curve radius of just 150m (~500ft), even Richard's improved version would effectively preclude the purchase of proven, off-the-shelf Japanese high speed trains - those need at least 280m, preferably more. SF real estate development should not drive HSR vendor decisions with statewide implications. To my mind, this is a red flag well worth raising - though CHSRA could and should have done so much sooner and publicly if TJPA was dismissive of this particular issue.

Station Requirements

Like any building, the aesthetics of the Transbay Terminal have their fans and their detractors. You can't argue about taste. What matters more to transportation engineers is functionality, which the current design might meet, sort of, for both CHSRA and Caltrain, but only after some modifications.

I've thought about this some more since my last post on it and have come to the following conclusion: the train portion of the design is suboptimal because planners interpreted the intent of SF voters (prop H, 1999) very narrowly as bringing the trains into the building itself. However, nobody except the developers really cares about that. IMHO, the voter intent was that the trains should stop within walking distance of the financial center, preferably also close to the bus terminal and such that an option of a second transbay tube to downtown Oakland is created.

If you subscribe to this more liberal interpretation, it is no longer essential to run tracks into the basement of the Transbay Terminal building. Rather, the focus can shift to a design that better meets the requirements of modern railway operations:

• large platform number (more than six)
  
• no platforms dedicated to any one operator
  
• all platforms full length (400m, i.e. 1/4 mile)
  
• all platforms straight
  
• all platforms level boarding (see Caveats below)
  
• high pedestrian flow capacity between trains and city streets
  
• minimum curve radius 280m (vendor flexibility, screeching noise)
  
• minimal cross-blocking of trains entering and exiting the terminus station
  
• all platform tracks run-through if second transbay tube is ever constructed
  

Train Station Under Mission Street

Fortunately, it's actually possible to meet these requirements in San Francisco, though it requires divorcing the design of the Transbay Terminal building from that of the railway station. The two would be linked via city streets, possibly a short underground pedestrian passage. If that's good enough for linking to BART and SF Muni subway, why the absolute requirement to put standard gauge trains into the basement? The upshot is that the Transbay Terminal should go ahead as planned, but without a train box or concourse level.

The following map and topology diagram show the concept I've come up with: a Central Station for San Francisco underneath Mission Street. Detailed design and construction would be far from trivial: many SF city buses use Mission to reach downtown, so tearing open that street would be quite disruptive during construction, even if it is done one block at a time. In addition, the street is quite narrow, around 85 feet including both sidewalks. That's only enough room for three tracks, two side platforms and narrow escalators/flights of stairs - which implies a lot of those would be needed to secure sufficient pedestrian flow capacity. Finally, there is almost certainly plenty of plumbing, ancient sewer mains, power mains etc. lurking underneath street level.


View Larger Map



Tunnel Route

The first thing you'll notice is that the DTX tunnel runs down 7th and Mission Streets, a very different route from the one currently proposed. I'm advocating just two tunnel tracks side-by-side, shared by non-compliant HSR and equally non-compliant Caltrain EMU trains, protected by appropriate signaling. Any legacy FRA-compliant trains need to terminate at 4th & King anyhow, since they're diesel-powered. Nevertheless, track sharing is only possible if FRA approves both Caltrain's request to switch to non-compliant EMUs and CHSRA's intent to buy proven, off-the-shelf but non-compliant bullet trains capable of cruising at 220mph.

One fringe benefit of the changed tunnel route is that no platform tracks are lost at 4th & King. Only a single 90 degree turn is required, in an area where real estate is probably less expensive than in Rincon Hill or downtown. In combination with the less complex excavation methods required for two single-track curved tunnels, this ought to permit a sufficiently generous curve radius. The map shows the maximum feasible radius of ~325m, there are various length constraints along Mission Street. A more detailed design would seek to optimize the radius as tunneling under existing buildings is expensive. Note that I have assumed the curve would be level; a helical curve would permit gradients of less than 3.5% in the vertical elevation change sections at either end.

My point is that the radius can be made large enough even for off-the-shelf Japanese high speed trains. This also eliminates any screeching noises from the long-wheelbase trucks required for stability at high speed. Crucially, it also increases station throat throughput because speed limits are proportional to the square root of curve radius. With appropriate tracks superelevation, it should be possible for outbound trains (non-tilt types) to take this corner at speeds as high as 60 mph, assuming the curve radii and speed limits for the various points along the way also have appropriate values.

The design objective should be to permit a train to pull away from any platform at maximum acceleration (~1.1 m/s^2 for Caltrain locals) and maintain that until it either hits the speed limit or has cleared the station's outer throat, i.e. the point at which tracks from the two levels converge. The minimum available distance for acceleration is about 1/2 mile, though trains on the lower platform face a 3.5% uphill climb for half that distance. Either way, any given Caltrain leaving an east platform should be able to clear the inner throat near 3rd Street within 75 seconds and the outer throat within 120. Maximum acceleration for HSR trains is more like 0.6-0.8 m/s^2 so they may take a little bit longer. Note that an incoming train may proceed past the outer throat as far as the inner one while a train is emerging from the same level; this provides a 15 second buffer.

Conclusion: as long as the curve in the access tunnel can be taken at fairly high speed, the elongated nature of the station layout does not appear to present a throughput bottleneck since the maximum time required to clear the outer throat is still less than the absolute minimum time separation imposed by the two-track access tunnel, i.e. 150 seconds at 24tph for HSR and Caltrain combined. Platform dwell times of at least 16 minutes are possible even at this insanely high level of traffic, which SF will almost certainly not attract in the next 50 years - if ever.

The downside is that the Mission Creek outfall needs to be crossed at grade, so a short section of 7th Street would lose two traffic lanes. More significantly, Townsend Street would be permanently severed at 7th unless an overpass were constructed.

Throat And Platform Layout

The second thing you'll notice is that the approach to the station is both long and straight, ideal conditions for designing a throat for minimal interference. In this case, the inbound and outbound tracks need to split into two levels that I call -2 and -3 for reasons that will be come obvious shortly. This split begins immediately east of the curved section. By the time the tracks reach Jessie St West, they need to be stacked 2x2 on top of each other. This ensures that any inbound trains waiting to reach a platform can wait west of 3rd Street on the correct level, without blocking inbound trains on the other level.

Near 3rd Street, the two tracks on each level first combine into a single track and then immediately split via a three-way point into a through track and sidings left and right of it. These sidings are the west platform tracks (2-1, 2-2 & 3-1, 3-2), each with its side platform. A second three-way point near Shaw Alley reconnects these sidings to the through track. East of this point, the through track may descend for a block to compensate for changes in the surface level (at-grade does not mean constant elevation above MSL). Regardless of length, trains always stop on the west platforms such that one end is at Shaw Alley.

A third three-way point at 1st Street provides access to two additional platform tracks east of that location (2-3, 2-4 & 3-3, 3-4). Regardless of length, trains always stop on the east platforms such that one end is at 1st Street. Space should be reserved for a future fourth three-way point reconnecting the east sidings to the through track, for reasons that will become obvious shortly.

Since there is no room for an access platform, the through track between these east sidings can only be used for train storage. Perhaps it could also be used as a tail track for the western platforms if cleaning/provisioning staff board and alight there. However, the only emergency escape route would be at Spear Street, which implies walking the length of the train first.

The layout described above means trains don't block each others' movements any more than necessary. The longest wait states would occur for an inbound train waiting for another to clear one of the east platforms, since that needs to travel up to half a mile first. At an average speed of 20mph along the center track, that would take 90 seconds. The worst-case wait state for a western platform would about a minute. In practice, well-planned operations would minimize wait states or eliminate them altogether by slowing inbound trains down rather than forcing them to come to a full stop. Worst case, there is room for one full-length train between Jessie Street West and 3rd Street.

Operationally, any given train would always stop such that one end ends up at 1st Street, within half a block of the Transbay Terminal building. In addition to supporting regional buses, the building would also contain the customer service counters for train operators, baggage depot, police station, shops, cafes, lounges/waiting areas, bicycle parking etc. Taxi and city bus stops are located on the plaza between Minna and Mission, Fremont and 1st. In other words, the concept of a multimodal hub is preserved even though the tracks are not underneath the building.

The train station would be really a bare bones affair: just the trains and access infrastructure plus some ticket vending machines and restrooms at intersections with cross streets. Mission Street isn't wide enough to accommodate any other facilities on the platform levels.

Concourse Level

Strictly speaking, there is no need for a formal concourse level at -1. Since the design uses side platforms throughput, surface streets could be used to access all of them. However, given the anticipated number of passengers, it is safer to provide pedestrian underpasses across Mission Street, even though that means digging a deeper (i.e. more expensive) trench than would otherwise be necessary. Moreover, the desire to provide four full length platforms per level means long walks are inevitable for some passengers on full-length trains. The concourse level would therefore feature moving walkways in both directions along its entire length, interrupted at the eight locations at which there are exits to the surface on both sides of Mission Street.

To either side of these central moving walkways would be regular ones, about 10 feet wide each. To either side of those would be the baggage screening areas, if Homeland Security requires any. Airport-style check-in is possible but usually (a) conductor(s) on board the train will inspect passengers' tickets. Note that security procedures are pointless unless they are implemented at all HSR stations. In any case, terrorists haven't attacked a long-distance train in Europe since Carlos the Jackal did in 1983. Instead, they've targeted subways and commuter trains as well as high speed tracks. Train stations are also at risk.

Optionally, staff could prevent passengers waiting to board from descending until they get a signal from colleagues below that all arriving passengers have cleared the platform. Unless the fire marshal requires this at all times, it would normally only be done during peak periods to avoid excessive congestion on the platforms. Note that the platforms on the two train levels would feature multiple stairs/escalators to the concourse level. Escalators intended for the disabled, women with baby strollers etc. would connect all three levels. Connections directly to the surface are ok only if Homeland Security decides it doesn't need to enforce access control to the platforms.

Pedestrian Cross Passages

A pedestrian passage underneath 1St Street between the train station and the Transbay Terminal building would not be absolutely essential but nevertheless very useful, given the vehicle traffic on the surface. Such a passage is currently planned as an optional extra between the building and Market Street, but under Fremont Street. Note that in the station design discussed in this post, the building would not need a concourse level for transportation purposes, just stairs/escalators/elevators to the pedestrian passage, if any. Moving walkways along this 200 foot stretch would be convenient for passengers and increase throughput capacity.

Additional pedestrian passages under Main and 2nd Street could connect the train station and indirectly, the Transbay Terminal building to both Embarcadero and Montgomery Street BART/SF Muni. Again, not strictly necessary but useful.

Note that all these underground pedestrian passages would provide shelter against the elements. Unfortunately, they may also attract pickpockets, buskers, alcoholics, drug addicts, graffiti artists, homeless people and others just hanging out for no apparent reason. Bright lighting, ventilation, cleaning and security patrols are needed to ensure passengers will feel safe and comfortable enough to use these facilities. It may make sense to ensure the passages are private rather than public property so security has a legal basis (trespassing) for evicting disruptive individuals.

Phasing And Extension to East Bay

What I've described above is actually the fully built out terminus station. If desired, construction could be divided into two phases to accommodate budget constraints. Phase One would be the access tunnel via 7th an Mission plus the four west platforms, possibly the pedestrian cross passages to the the Transbay Terminal building and Montgomery Street BART as well. Phase Two would be the east platforms beyond 1St Street plus the pedestrian passage to Embarcadero BART. The west platforms could already be in operation at that point.

If and when a decision is made to build a second transbay tube, the Mission Street station design affords a fairly straightforward if expensive connection via Point Alameda and into downtown Oakland up Franklin. On the SF side, the tracks should already be deep enough to avoid conflicts with the descending SF Muni subway tracks under the Embarcadero. There is enough room for the through track at level -2 to descend to level -3 between Spear Street and the water's edge. However, unlike the west throat, there is no need to double-track this new one on the east end: instead, the four platforms on the upper level would be used for inbound and the ones on the lower level for outbound trains (or vice versa). This operations change turns all eight platform tracks into run-through types, thanks to the four three-way points installed on each level.

In addition, the presence of a through track in each direction would permit trains to bypass all of the platform tracks. That could be useful for e.g. high speed cargo trains if a transshipment terminal were built in the East Bay or, for trains supporting a major sports or other event on Point Alameda or in Oakland. Normally, however, trains would dwell for a considerable amount of time in SF. Even at 24tph for HSR and Caltrain locals combined, having four platforms each way available means dwell times of close to 20 minutes would be feasible.

Caveats

I've already touched on a number of caveats, such as the consequences for 7th and Townsend Streets and, the need to pass under SF Muni tracks at the Embarcadero. In addition to those, there is a potential conflict with the planned SF Muni Central Subway. That is supposed to dive under the BART tracks at level -3 and, it looks like the chosen alignment (alternative 3B, Fig 2.12 would be deep enough at Mission Street to avoid a conflict with the alternate heavy rail access tunnel described above. However, if heavy rail station under Mission Street is considered, the clearance issue at 4th Street ought to be double-checked before ground is broken on the Central Subway. I don't have a good sense of how the surface grade changes between 4th and Embarcadero along Mission Street. The heavy rail tunnels should be level from 3rd to Shaw Alley and from 1st to Spear Street yet still deep enough to permit a concourse level plus a future extension to Oakland.

Another caveat is that passengers need to know not just the platform but also the car number of their train to descend at the appropriate point. The preferred approach is mandatory seat reservations (cp. TGV in France), the receipt can then include this information. Given the width constraints, pedestrian traffic along the platforms should be minimized. Reservations also ensure there are no standees on the train and that no-one needs to walk far inside the train to reach their seat.

Also on the receipt could be helpful hints, e.g. the nearest BART/SF Muni subway/SF Muni streetcar. Indeed, a good reservation system would ask about your connecting transportation to offer you a seat that minimizes your transfer distance. That could be printed on the receipt, along with an indication of how many minutes to budget for an comfortable transfer incl. security screening, if any. The flip side of seat reservations is that a late change to the platform, especially from one west of 1st Street to one east of it (or vice versa), would cause significant inconvenience for passengers.

Finally, I've assumed throughout that all eight platforms in the design would be created equal, i.e. that all would feature level boarding at the international standard of 3'6" (1067mm). Caltrain is hamstrung by a ridiculous 1948 rule intended to protect freight railroad workers hanging off the sides of cars. Is it really appropriate to perpetuate ye olde tyme practices to the detriment of passenger convenience and throughput capacity, in a station that no freight train will ever enter? IMHO, if Caltrain wants access to any downtown station in SF, it needs to buy EMU equipment that can cope with both level boarding and the lower level (2'1" = 639mm) that the platforms at its other stations are built to. If UPRR and CPUC have no objection, those could be upgraded to level boarding as well over time.

---

Heads Up: Neighborhood meeting on HSR for residents of the Willow Glen neighborhood in San Jose, on Wednesday, April 8 at 1292 Minnesota Ave from 7-9pm.

The purpose of the project-level EIR/EIS phase is to nail down how the HSR alignment should be constructed in each location, after close consultation with the affected communities. The starting point will be what CHSRA consultants suggested for the purposes of cost estimation prior to the election. This information has been available online since 2007, though you do have to look for it. The Authority is a planning body, i.e. a bureaucratic organization - most of its documents were designed for hardcopy rather than the web.

The objective of the HSR project is to deliver a net gain for the state California, especially for the cities served by stations. The following resources may help you understand what CHSRA has done to date regarding San Jose and the Willow Glen area in particular.

Resources:

• CHSRA Google Map of implementation details used for cost estimation purposes.
  
• CHSRA Pacheco Pass implementation details such as height of structures, embankments as used for cost estimation purposes. Willow Glen is on page 4.
  
• CHSRA Station Fact Sheets, San Jose Diridon is on pp41
  
• CHSRA Various Cross Section Drawings, San Jose Diridon is on p20
  
• CHSRA Speed Limit Ranges for the route (NOTE: part of draft EIR/EIS documentation, no longer present in the final version. Possibly out of date, as Altamont Pass and East Bay sections have since been scoped out of phase I and phase II of the HSR project.)
  
• CHSRA Capital Cost Estimates for the Bay Area to Central Valley section (line item details)
  
• CHSRA Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIR/EIS
  
• UPRR owns the existing rail right of way between San Jose Diridon and Gilroy, Caltrain and Amtrak have trackage rights on UPRR's tracks. HSR needs land for two additional dedicated tracks, preferably adjacent to the existing ones. See our posts on How Important Is UPRR To California HSR? and Union Pacific Speaks for more information.
  
  
• How others do it: first pass analysis of alignment options and local impacts by San Mateo city planning staff, prepared for the city council
  

If you plan to attend this meeting, you may want to download selected resource documents at home and bring them along on a laptop.

Sacramento Bound

In recent months, whenever we mentioned Sacramento on this blog, it was in the context of state politics - especially the saga of AB3034 (the bill enacted by proposition 1A), the even more tortuous state budget process and its impact on CHSRA. Yet there is also a bona fide HSR spur from Merced to Sacramento that is planned for phase II of the project and that we've not given the attention it deserves. Like the spur to San Diego and the extension to Irvine, this will be funded using non-state bonds backed by net positive operating revenue from the starter line, which may take several years after start of operations (2018-2020 time frame) to materialize.

In other words, actual construction on the spur to Sacramento won't begin until 2023-2025 and the first trains won't run into the state capital until several years after that. That's a very long time to wait, but the city is already busy planning for its bullet trains. Specifically, a huge 240-acre site northwest of downtown is being developed as a mixed-use transit-oriented development that will preserve and partially re-purpose the historic rail yards at its center.


View Larger Map

The part of greatest interest to us on this blog is the Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility (SITF), which will be located just south of the historic yards. UPRR and Amtrak will remain at grade but the alignment between the rail bridge across the Sacramento river and 7th/D will be straightened out starting this year.

An overview of the SITF component of the redevelopment project was presented at a recent workshop. Still to be decided is if the historic depot (station) should remain where it is or be moved 500 feet north. The latter would create a more compact facility and free up space for general development on the downtown side of the site.

Either way, the light rail transit (LRT) station for the SITF will be relocated to the east, near 5th Street. Among other lines, Sacramento is planning one out to SMF airport via the Natomas district. It will be a slow ride with a total of 13 stops and, the airport station appears to be far removed from the two terminals. It's unclear how successful the service will be at attracting passengers with baggage - most of those connecting at the SITF will probably prefer a taxi or shuttle bus. The project has progressed to the project EIR/EIS stage for the first mile along 7th Street, but it doesn't appear to integrate into the design options for the SITF depot at all well. Either the documentation is out of date or, the left hand doesn't know or care what the right is doing. It's not intermodal if you have to walk two blocks.

Just north of the new LRT tracks will be the relocated run-through tracks for UPRR and Amtrak. The area reserved for these will accommodate two island platforms for a total of 4 platform and two through tracks on the outside. To avoid the freeway supports, designers moved the islands further from the river than strictly necessary and tacked on severely curved sections at the eastern end. The straight sections are approximately 250m (800ft) long. The HSR station would be a terminus featuring what appear to be 10 full-length tracks on an upper level, with a concourse in-between. It's not immediately clear if the current plans for the SITF already reserve enough space for all ten elevated tracks.



Elevating the HSR tracks implies two things: first, that HSR trains will never cross the Sacramento river. And second, that UPRR agrees to let CHSRA run an aerial structure above its own tracks on the way to that station. Please zoom in on Sacramento for details of the implementation CHSRA used for cost estimation purposes.

As we have recently discussed (How Important Is UPRR To California HSR?, Union Pacific Speaks), it is far from clear that UPRR will in fact agree to this concept. If so, CHSRA could find it very difficult to reach the SITF at all. East of 46th Street, CHSRA intends to run at grade, except for short sections in Elk Grove, the Lodi bypass and downtown Stockton. All of those aerials are overpasses of other rail lines or freeways. South of Stockton, CHSRA is counting on the UPRR ROW that runs east of the Sharpe Army Depot and is currently used by ACE. Between Manteca and south Fresno, CHSRA would prefer to keep running alongside UPRR tracks and I-99.

It very much remains to be seen if UPRR will go along with all that, early indications are that CHSRA might have to partner with BNSF instead for the south Stockton-south Fresno section. That might mean greenfield bypasses for both Fresno and Merced plus relocating several stations. For example, Merced county may well prefer a station at Castle Airport to the Amtrak stop on W 24th, in a residential neighborhood at least eight blocks from downtown. Considering that express trains will run through the Central Valley at 220mph (as opposed to just 125mph in the mid-peninsula), it's not clear that CHSRA has fully communicated the noise impacts to Central Valley towns hungry for the construction work.

None of the videos produced by NC3D features audio, something that may well come back to haunt the planners. Just how much would it cost to send a sound recording specialist to Europe or Asia, anyhow? Example: grade separations in Fresno.



Sticking with BNSF would mean all of the stations in the Central Valley would be intermodal with Amtrak San Joaquin trains, though it's unclear if that service will remain viable once the HSR network is fully built out. One problem for HSR is that the BNSF tracks UPRR's at very nearly a right angle, with insufficient room for a high-speed corner. One possibility would be to cross over between Escalon and Ortega/French Camp, roughly along an existing secondary rail ROW. The ever-useful 2005 Rail Rights of Way and Abandoned Corridors Study commissioned by Caltrans' Division of Rail (aka Amtrak California) shows this section as active. My guess is UPRR owns it now.


View Larger Map

Even if CHSRA were to bypass Stockton to the east on a brand-new ROW - something that it never even considered - it would still have to deal with UPRR north of Lodi and up in Sacramento. For this spur, even more than any other part of the planned network, CHSRA needs to be in UPRR's good graces.

Two Quick Peninsula Updates

1. Caltrain board approves MOU with CHSRA:

One last-minute change to the deal was the elimination of a controversial passage that indicated the bullet train would operate on a four-track alignment, assuming there typically would be two tracks for Caltrain and a pair for high-speed rail.

This was only "controversial" because Palo Alto insists on having veto power over the operations and basic needs of the system, which they have no right to claim. As others have pointed out in the comments, a four-track solution is still expected to be adopted. Personally I think Caltrain and the CHSRA should have kept that language, since NIMBYs cannot be appeased, as they immediately proved:

Palo Alto Council Member Pat Burt, echoing the concerns of other officials and residents, said the cities should have the right to partner with the state as well, not just Caltrain.

"The cities must be allowed to enter into this process in a substantive way," Burt said. "(The Caltrain board) is not designed as its first priority to preserve and protect the quality of life of the cities that the railway passes through."

Right. Their priority is to operate efficient passenger rail service. Burt's words are significant though for explaining what this is all about for him - preserving a 20th century model of urban life that is obsolete and not at all workable in the 21st century. He thinks Palo Alto can live in a kind of permanent 1995. Is this the kind of forward and progressive thinking Palo Alto wants to be known for?

Still, this is a welcome development that shows the high speed rail project is making important progress.

2. Court throws out Menlo Park's letter to CHSRA:

In August 2008, Menlo Park and Atherton joined a lawsuit against the rail authority. One of Menlo Park's arguments in joining the suit was that rail officials had not responded to their letter. Under law, the agency is required to respond to every letter it receives.

But in the March 27 ruling, Judge Michael Kenny said the city did not adequately prove that it had in fact sent the letter, and that it didn't do enough to make sure it had been received. Furthermore, after the release of the final environmental document but before it was certified, there was a 40-day window in which Menlo Park could have resent its letter, the judge said. The city apparently did not do so.

During the City Council's March 31 meeting, City Manager Glen Rojas said the plaintiffs' attorney did not think the exclusion of the city's letter would have much effect on the case, because similar arguments had been made by others, including the town of Atherton.

The article also has an interesting discussion of whether Menlo Park will reconsider its decision to sue. You'd think that in a time of financial crisis for virtually every city in the state, Menlo Park residents would prefer that their taxes pay for libraries and pothole repairs, not frivolous lawsuits against the CHSRA.

Mythbusting the Caltrain Corridor

Over the last few months the debate on the Peninsula over high speed rail has been dominated by lots of myths, misunderstandings, and in some cases, deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

As far as I can tell it's a simple issue - some residents believe their property values are more important than the state's efforts to solve the environmental, energy, and economic crisis by providing sustainable transportation solutions. It's not a new phenomenon and we should not be surprised that "even" Palo Alto, when confronted between a perceived threat to their property values and a very real threat to their economy and environment, are choosing to cling to obsolete models of prosperity rather than take action to solve the much larger crises facing us all.

This would be much easier if we were dealing with a town that prided itself on political conservatism. They'd just say "high speed rail is a waste of money" and be done with it. (Which is pretty much Morris Brown's position anyway.) Since Palo Alto likes to see itself as more progressive they cannot actually openly admit that they'll try and derail HSR in order to possibly preserve the property values of a small handful of people (I am unconvinced that above-grade HSR would actually hurt property values, but I also don't anticipate many in Palo Alto will agree), HSR critics and opponents have to find other reasons to articulate opposition. Unfortunately, most of those reasons are based on myths.

Will Oremus of the Daily News interviewed Dominic Spaethling, regional manager of the SF-SJ section of the HSR project for CHSRA, to determine which of these myths is true and which isn't. In some cases I disagree with Oremus's conclusions, and it's Spaethling's answers that are the most revealing.

Claim: The default plan for the Peninsula is to run the high-speed tracks on an elevated platform, likely in the form of a "retained fill" design that some have likened to a 15-foot-high "Berlin Wall" dividing local neighborhoods.

Status: Mostly fact, with caveats.

Explanation: In its broad, initial study of the high-speed rail line's feasibility, the rail authority assumed that the tracks would alternate between underground, at-grade and elevated alignments at different points along the line. A diagram available on the authority's Web site shows the tracks going underground at points in northern San Jose and southern San Francisco, but above-ground in between. While some parts of the tracks would stay at ground level, the "retained fill" option was chosen for many intersections because that's what was used in Belmont and San Carlos, the sites of the most recent grade separations on the mid-Peninsula.

In other words, the retained fill option was a possible solution that was being considered based on what has been done elsewhere on the Peninsula. Whether one likes the Belmont and San Carlos grade separations, they are part of the Peninsula's urban geography now, and it made sense to offer them as an option - as Spaethling explains:

The big caveat is that the preliminary study was just that — preliminary. Spaethling described it as a "proof of concept" to show just one way that the marriage of high-speed rail and Caltrain could work. The next step is the project-level environmental study, which by law is required to evaluate all options put forward in the public scoping process that concludes Monday. That means the rail authority will look at underground as well as above-ground options in places such as Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and downtown San Mateo.

This has been true for months. But to the small NIMBY contingent in those cities, options aren't enough. They believe they have the right and the power to dictate solutions to the rest of the state, and that unless their preferred option is chosen, then the project is illegitimate. They don't want an open process at all.

A second caveat is that the "Berlin Wall" analogy is exaggerated. The purpose of the retained fill is to lift the tracks over certain key cross streets, meaning it wouldn't be one continuous wall. Many in Belmont and San Carlos would likely dispute the idea that their cities are divided like East and West Berlin.

Here I think Oremus is hedging unnecessarily. The Berlin Wall analogy is bullshit. The Berlin Wall was meant to be an impenetrable barrier crossed only upon pain of death. An above-grade solution on the Peninsula would be designed to be a passable barrier to be crossed often and safely. We have previously examined elegant above-grade solutions and yet these appear to have not been discussed in any great detail, if at all, on the Peninsula. That leads me to further question just how open a process some HSR critics and NIMBYs actually seek. In particular it is objectionable that the Palo Alto city council does not appear to have given much consideration to these kind of options before voting to file a brief in support of the HSR deniers' suit against the CHSRA.

Claim: El Palo Alto, the historic redwood tree that gave Palo Alto its name, will almost certainly be fatally damaged or removed due to construction of the high-speed tracks just north of the downtown Palo Alto Caltrain station.

Status: Myth, hopefully.

Explanation: It's true that El Palo Alto stands perilously close to the Caltrain tracks, and the city's arborist has determined that any expansion in its direction, even underground, could doom it. But Spaethling said officials know it's there and will aim to avoid it. The authority's initial study showed trains running at-grade at the Palo Alto station and the San Francisquito Creek bridge, meaning construction there would be less intensive. Though nothing has been decided, Spaethling said the natural approach would be to build the tracks to the west of their current location — the opposite direction from the tree.

An interesting thing I learned recently was that El Palo Alto used to have a twin trunk and that by the 1950s the tree was severely damaged by train pollution. The tree is intensively managed today in order to stay alive. One has to imagine that the near-total removal of diesel emissions would help preserve the tree's health. And of course, it has been known for quite a while that any new tracks would go west of the tree, but that hasn't stopped the critics.

Claim: There is a chance that construction will force the authority to acquire private property, perhaps through eminent domain.

Status: Fact.

Explanation: The authority has been reluctant to discuss eminent domain, pointing out that it would be used only as a last resort. Gary Kennerly, regional manager for the San Jose-to-Merced section, said an initial review estimated 85 percent of the Caltrain corridor is wide enough to accommodate four tracks side-by-side. But that leaves portions where engineers may have to get creative.

Spaethling said they'd look at solutions such as stacking the Caltrain and high-speed tracks two-by-two before resorting to acquiring property. If they do have to acquire property, he added, they'd prefer friendly negotiations to the legal process of eminent domain. That said, no one is prepared to rule it out.

The chance is certainly there that eminent domain may have to happen, but I wish Oremus had gone into further detail about what that might actually mean. It's not anticipated that many houses will have to be torn down. The most common impact would be a yard, and I have no sympathy for that whatsoever - if someone has to lose part of their yard so California can get off oil dependence, cut carbon emissions, and grow its economy, then that's what needs to happen. That being said, it's right for a city like Palo Alto to debate the best way to implement HSR for their community. But it's absurd to argue that yards > HSR.

I would be VERY amused to see a stacking solution used, especially in Menlo Park and Atherton. It'd be like the spite fence built on Nob Hill back in the 1800s. Again, if they want a tunnel, they will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. It is highly unlikely federal money will be forthcoming - things have changed dramatically in the 40 years since Berkeley was able to use some redevelopment funds, along with a local tax, to bury BART.

Claim: It's too late to push for the tracks to follow a different route; the decision to use the Caltrain corridor has already been made.

Status: Fact, pending court ruling.

Explanation: In 2008, after years of debate, the California High Speed Rail Authority approved a report that selected the Pacheco Pass alignment over the Altamont Pass option, meaning trains would reach San Francisco via the Peninsula rather than the East Bay. Included in the report were plans to use the Caltrain corridor rather than alternatives such as Highway 101 or Interstate 280. Officials said all the overpasses that cross the freeways presented an almost insurmountable design challenge.

Aside from those active in transit boards, Peninsula officials largely sat out the battle, which raged in San Jose and the East Bay. Several have said recently they weren't even aware of it.

I have less and less confidence in the basic competence of "Peninsula officials" every day. We discussed this decision frequently last year - prior to July it was THE #1 topic on the blog. There is no excuse at all for any public official representing a jurisdiction along the Caltrain corridor for not knowing about the battle.

The decision left several transit groups angry, arguing the East Bay alignment would have served more Bay Area riders. They, along with the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton, filed a lawsuit in August challenging the environmental report. Unless they prevail in Sacramento Superior Court, however, the Caltrain alignment is likely a done deal.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why these groups should expect to win in court. They are merely unhappy with the decision in the final EIR/EIS.

As the article shows, there could be a lot more truth and evidence interjected into the debate over HSR on the Peninsula. I don't think any of that matters to the NIMBYs. But it should matter to everyone else, and especially to the members of the city councils along the route.

Note: we'll shift focus away from Palo Alto tomorrow and on Saturday, so get your Palo Alto-related comments in today, as I'm going to request that comments on the next two posts stay on-topic.

Avoiding Palo Alto Altogether

While I greatly appreciate Andrew Bogan's excellent summary and comments regarding the most recent Palo Alto city council meeting, I think it's time to let the vocal minority in that town know that the state isn't going to play along with its famously drawn-out "process", in which everything gets studied until all the planners die of old age. California needs construction jobs and a new transportation artery. What it does not need is delay, so this needs to get resolved sooner rather than later.

There are alternatives. There are always alternatives, especially if you're willing to zoom out of your own back yard. I had hoped to keep the couple I've come up with under wraps to avoid distracting from plan A, but these fantasies about boring tunnels for four tracks through suburbia to preserve some supposed rustic charm are getting out of hand. In particular, Palo Alto city officials need to be disabused of the notion that they wield some kind of veto power over this state project, which is in the vanguard of a new national transportation policy.

Plan B: The Alviso Gambit

The whole tedious discussion regarding HSR through Palo Alto would of be moot if trains could stop in Redwood City, then head out to Dumbarton and use a causeway to reach Alviso (see blue line on the map below). It would be possible to thread that past two small portions of the DENWR. Perhaps US Fish & Wildlife would accept this idea if the sections nearest the boundary were enclosed to mitigate noise and other impacts on the birds. Whether environmentalists in the state and in the Bay Area would go along with that is open to question, there's the issue of methyl mercury levels in the bay mud to consider.

The next problem is that the UPRR ROW is too narrow to accommodate two HSR tracks down to SantaClara/SJC. Besides, that railroad wouldn't sell any of it even if it were. Still, it might make sense to at least consider tearing up Lafayette Street one lane at a time to obtain two individual subway tunnels for HSR tracks. This street runs right through the Golden Triangle, but mostly next to Guadaloupe creek. Trenching should not pose as serious a flood risk as it would in the mid-peninsula, but the high water table could be an issue. Vibration and other impacts during and after construction might still present major obstacles, especially if nearby chip factories are affected.

CHSRA would have to grade separate against UPRR in Alviso, probably by flying over both its tracks and CA-237. Down in Santa Clara, the alignment would have to switch to under De La Cruz Blvd, the employee/long-term parking lots at SJC, Aviation and Coleman. That's about 7 miles, though, so there would need to be an open trench section for emergency access between the Lafayette and De La Cruz sections.

Construction cost and impacts would be high, but implementing dozens of grade separations in the mid-peninsula was never going to be a picnic, either. CHSRA is currently planning a tunnel from San Tomas Expressway to SJ Diridon to avoid CEMOF and accommodate BART's desire to run at grade under I-880. The causeway alternative would get trains as far as the HP Pavilion, emerging east of the UPRR tracks just north of Diridon Station. If HSR can manage to stay on that side through south San Jose, there would be plenty of room for HSR to get out of UPRR's hair on the way down to Gilroy.

Plan C: Out Of The Fire, Into The Frying Pan

However, if UPRR or local NIMBYs block CHSRA's path through San Jose, there would be no point in pursuing Pacheco Pass any further. A much shorter causeway-cum-tunnel (cp. Øresund bridge, but on a much smaller scale) between Dumbarton and Newark would preserve the shipping lanes and avoid permanent impacts on the DENWR. Construction impacts would be significant, though, especially in light of the creosote-soaked timbers of the old rail bridge, which would almost certainly have to be removed. A tunnel-only concept from Dumbarton to Newark would also be possible, that decision should be made on the basis of cost alone.

Cargill Salt would have to be persuaded/forced to permit the construction of a low aerial structure above its still-active ponds, rising only to pass over the UPRR line. This viaduct would skirt the DENWR boundary, possibly with another enclosure section. Tracks would dive under I-880 to connect to another tunnel under CA-262, a short but busy city street in south Fremont that connects to I-680 on the other end. Residents there are no more likely to welcome construction with open arms than those in Palo Alto. However, in this case the tracks would stay in a tunnel to cross over to Calaveras Road. The active Calaveras fault would have to be crossed deep underground, which ought to give pause.

In Haynes Gulch, the tracks would run essentially at grade up to the I-680/CA-84 interchange and across via yet another tunnel to an intermodal station with the BART extension to Livermore at El Charro Road, bypassing Pleasanton to shave some time off the trip. There are some ponds at that location, not sure what they are used for - could be a problem. Burrowing under Livermore municipal airport, which is only used for general aviation, the alignment would then essentially follow the I-580 median to the Central Valley. The HSR tracks could cross UPRR/ACE, the ponds and the BART extension on an aerial, but only if the airport is turned into a parking lot.

An intermodal with BART in Fremont Warm Springs would be challenging to construct and require BART to move its station some 4000ft (~1km) south. A spur down to San Jose via the I-880 median would be possible, but that would make building ridership harder as any given train would only have a fraction of the catchment area to draw passengers from. There would be fierce opposition from San Jose, the entire Gilroy catchment area and CHSRA to any plan that would fork the starter line in the East Bay.

Any future spur up to Oakland would be substantially harder, since Caltrans will almost certainly want to retain the median north of CA-92 (San Mateo Bridge). That means cutting across to the unused ROW just west of the BART tracks at Industrial Pkwy in Union City. Light commuter rail traffic could probably squeak by there with the existing single-track ROW, but HSR would require some eminent domain against businesses. Fortunately for them, a spur up to Oakland isn't likely to happen this side of 2030.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that of SF-LA express line haul time, which AB3034 limits to 2h42m. While Altamont-via-Dumbarton is shorter than Altamont-via-SantaClara/SJC, it would nevertheless add a few minutes that have to be clawed back somewhere else. Worst case, the whole Tehachapis vs. Grapevine question would have to re-opened just to achieve the time target. That in turn would make it harder to connect Las Vegas to the network. On the plus side, service between SF and Sacramento would be time-competitive with driving, even more so for SJ-Sacramento. If CHSRA is forced to partner with BNSF in Merced and Stanislaus counties and there is an HSR station at Castle Airport (instead of Merced town) on the starter line, its catchment area would extend well beyond the Central Valley into the Bay Area, serving as a relief/complementary airport for OAK and SJC.


View Larger Map

NOTE: black lines indicate the relevant DENWR boundaries.

Consequences

Either approach would pretty much nix Dumbarton commuter rail because FRA has strict rules regarding FRA-compliant and non-compliant equipment to share track, but that's probably a survivable loss. Much more painful would be having to do a significant portion of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS yet again just because Palo Alto couldn't be bothered to throw a spanner in the works at the appropriate time - basically, any time before the November election. Each year added to the schedule for planning reasons adds around 6% to estimated project cost, i.e. around $2.5 billion because of knock-on effects on phase II. That's on top of actual escalations due to more involved construction techniques. And make no mistake, dear Palo Alto NIMBYs: whatever the personal miscommunications of Messrs. Kopp and Diridon may have been, it will be you the rest of the state will blame for the resulting cost escalation if plan A falters on your account at this late juncture.

Consider for example Lodi, a small town out in the Central Valley that managed to secure a bypass for itself without a whole lot of fuss because it spoke up clearly and early. LA county persuaded CHSRA to run the route past Palmdale instead of across the Grapevine because it acted early. You had 12 years to get involved but instead - to be blunt - your elected officials chose to sit on their collective duff until just a few weeks ago. There's a time to raise a red flag and a time to accept the consequences of failing to do so. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a couple of alternatives to be priced out if the initial concept is flawed. However, it's not acceptable to expect the rest of the state and nation to pay through the nose to increase your property values while the tent cities in places like Fresno are growing larger by the day. If you want something over-and-above the norm, you're going to have to figure out a way to avoid breaking CHSRA's time and dollar budget in the process.

Note that if plan A falls through, all of the mid-peninsula cities between Redwood City and San Jose would have to fund any new grade separations of the Caltrain ROW themselves if and when commuter rail traffic reaches the high levels Caltrain is forecasting in its 2025 plan. They'd also need to pay for electrification and other improvements south of Redwood City themselves. As for the Transbay Terminal, there may not be any money left over for any HSR contributions to the DTX tunnel and the train box in phase I if CHSRA needs to switch to plan B, let alone plan C.

Conclusion

Let's hope cooler heads prevail and Palo Alto doesn't become the state's new poster child for NIMBYism, after a clear majority of its residents endorsed prop 1A. As soon as CHSRA gets its funding, HNTB needs to get cracking on affordable and acceptable solutions for sticking with the Caltrain ROW all the way to San Jose. Meanwhile, CHSRA needs to secure a ROW down to Gilroy, which means talking turkey with UPRR. Alternatives do exist, but each would create as many problems as it solves.