tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post2964234018805785061..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Quentin Kopp Defends Pacheco ChoiceRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-39135432132973632432009-08-16T08:52:19.952-07:002009-08-16T08:52:19.952-07:00HSR through Gilroy would service Salinas, the Mont...HSR through Gilroy would service Salinas, the Monterey Bay and coastal areas north, like Watsonville. <br /><br />There already are busses connecting Monterey's bus hub to the caltrain stop.<br /><br />I suppose feeder trains can be run along the SP line and via Castroville and HW129, connect to GilroyJoe Sezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398247167384877957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4854906193700175592009-08-15T21:40:32.226-07:002009-08-15T21:40:32.226-07:00Anonymous said...
"Are you going to ignore de...Anonymous said...<br />"<i>Are you going to ignore defense needs? They can't abandon even if they so wish.</i>"<br /><br />That's not how STRACNET works. There is a list of alternative actions, in priority order. Relocating the railhead may be the second last preferred outcome, but its one of the possible actions on the list.<br /><br />They cannot, of course, abandon without a formal abandonment hearing in any event - what being on STRACNET means is that the military logistics command has standing at the abandonment hearing.<br /><br />And I'll note again that I have not seen the most recent state maps, but the only map I've seen based on the most recent report leaves it uncertain whether the Caltrain corridor is still in STRACNET.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-32369132150558658142009-08-15T16:41:32.672-07:002009-08-15T16:41:32.672-07:00Clem:
Well I read the rights agreement many times...Clem:<br /><br />Well I read the rights agreement many times -- Do you rally think trying to invoke an abandonment clause, put in for possible BART expansion, can possibly prevail. Are you going to ignore defense needs? They can't abandon even if the so wish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-23553283738762334972009-08-15T11:53:35.819-07:002009-08-15T11:53:35.819-07:00Rafael,
Re: Splitting trains...
That's a go...Rafael,<br /><br />Re: Splitting trains... <br /><br />That's a good reminder and point not to forget that you raised.<br /><br />However, splitting trains is not as easy as 1-2-3. It takes additional crews and time. It introduces an operational in-efficiency, and, needless exposing riders to marginally greater safety issues.<br /><br />But you're right; it's done elsewhere... including on some local light-rail lines, such as in San Diego.<br /><br />But, let's not overlook and forget... although splitting trains may mitigate a reduction in the number of trains from Southern California destined to San Francisco or San Jose by not splitting trains, it does not mitigate:<br /><br />1) The reduction in capacity (split trains = shorter trains/fewer seats);<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) The need for direct service between, SF and SJ, without additional and costly service. It means more Caltrain or more CHSRA trains to make up that difference. But a problem with that... additional trains will fill-up, or infringe, on available capacity of the line between SJ and SF.... and uncessarily cap the total seat capacity of line segment.<br /><br />----<br /><br />Altamont is far from ideal and the operational difference in details between the two is not part of the debate that continues... <br /><br />Hypothetically, if Altamont were selected (either in a previous decision, or somehow it were re-decided) as you point out, could result in shorter trains along the peninsula; however, more trains would need to be operated to provide the necessary capacity. <br /><br />Wouldn't that be ironic!Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-43646053678715131062009-08-15T09:30:46.632-07:002009-08-15T09:30:46.632-07:00What is overriding is that UPRR cannot be forced o...<i>What is overriding is that UPRR cannot be forced off the corridor</i><br /><br />Umm, have you read their trackage rights agreement? If you had, you might not be saying this.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36983237067786804512009-08-15T08:31:01.108-07:002009-08-15T08:31:01.108-07:00No the nimbys dont have a clue... and will find ou...No the nimbys dont have a clue... and will find outAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-21850250227187160182009-08-15T06:21:02.429-07:002009-08-15T06:21:02.429-07:00Rafael:
Sorry that link on freight doesn't wo...Rafael:<br /><br />Sorry that link on freight doesn't work for you --- it still works for me.<br /><br />What is overriding is that UPRR cannot be forced off the corridor if that is indeed their plan, and quite frankly that seems to be their outlook.<br /><br />In their scoping comments, they make quite sure they would get overhead clearance for whatever they wish to run.<br /><br />You should be aware that a very pro development group in Palo Alto is planning a workshop, wherein a tunnel would be financed by selling development rights over the tunnel.<br /><br />Their aim is to transform Palo Alto into a SF like environment along the tracks. PA is having a local election this year --- 14 candidates looking for 4 seats. HSR and how or whether it should be permitted will be a major issue.<br /><br />Quite frankly this blog doesn't have a real clue as to what is really happening along the peninsula.looking onnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84994821454360795772009-08-15T03:47:34.603-07:002009-08-15T03:47:34.603-07:00@ anon @ 1:14am -
as opposed to what, the actual ...@ anon @ 1:14am -<br /><br />as opposed to what, the actual "1984" world that Bush and Cheney perpetrated for eight years? I'll take electric rail and transit-oriented development over that garbage any day, thank you very much.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63924174774148019952009-08-15T01:14:01.879-07:002009-08-15T01:14:01.879-07:00@ Rafael
The 1984 world you endorse is anathema t...@ Rafael<br /><br />The 1984 world you endorse is anathema to some of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63939593038571576582009-08-15T01:06:43.472-07:002009-08-15T01:06:43.472-07:00@ anon @ 12:49am -
I didn't mean to imply tha...@ anon @ 12:49am -<br /><br />I didn't mean to imply that there's a solution that will make everyone happy. Some people may indeed move out of their homes.<br /><br />Grade separation will indeed prompt some communities to rezone the environs of their stations to promote the development of clusters of mid-to-high-rise office and residential buildings, which will create some shade issues. However, provided most people actually reach those buildings with public transportation, they won't generate a lot of additional motor vehicle traffic.<br /><br />The changes coming to the Caltrain corridor create a lot of opportunities as well as a few downsides. Only those communities that refuse to embrace change and make it work for them are guaranteed to see their fortunes decline.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-44304944804457303232009-08-15T00:56:34.363-07:002009-08-15T00:56:34.363-07:00@ Brandon -
just FYI: a full-length HSR train con...@ Brandon -<br /><br />just FYI: a full-length HSR train consisting of two trainsets can easily be split up, with each trainset continuing on to a different destination.<br /><br />Conversely, HSR trainsets can be combined in a matter of seconds to continue on as a single train. This protects throughput capacity on a congested trunk section of the network.<br /><br />Both operations are commonly performed in Japan, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_VrHVh1CZ4" rel="nofollow">Germany</a>, France and elsewhere. Other than line capacity, splitting/combining also reduces the number of drivers needed to provide long-distance service.<br /><br />However, none of this applies until ridership is high enough to create capacity problems. In the early years, whoever ends up operating the California HSR network will focus on building that ridership, which means running short trains frequently. In avoiding a line split, Pacheco ensures every train has a chance to stop at both ends of the Bay Area, putting enough bums in seats to make running them profitable.<br /><br />So yes, you are correct: Altamont would reduce service frequency to both SF and SJ relative to Pacheco.<br /><br />Kopp, however, is wrong: line <i>capacity</i> is the same for Altamont and Pacheco. Same number of possible trains per hour to SoCal, same number of possible seats to and from the Bay Area.<br /><br />Note that splitting and combining single trainsets in Fresno and LA, respectively, may occasionally happen sometime after the phase II spurs go live. If a connector to the DesertXPress line gets built, the LA-Mojave section will be the busiest on the network.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-81561762360042178802009-08-15T00:49:16.502-07:002009-08-15T00:49:16.502-07:00There is no "vertical alignment" that to...There is no "vertical alignment" that today's Palo Alto can live with. Faced with defeat the elevated's opponents will simply leave an area that is not as attractive as before. Other people will replace them.<br /><br />Decay will in time result in urban removal wherein the noisome and hulking elevated will be "mitigated" by being masked or dwarfed by high rises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41881628757213766152009-08-15T00:31:56.188-07:002009-08-15T00:31:56.188-07:00@ looking on -
your link didn't work for me, ...@ looking on -<br /><br />your link didn't work for me, this one does:<br /><br />http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13096956<br /><br />Mike Rosenberg's article is a steaming pile of bull puckey. Overhead electric lines do not prevent diesel-powered locomotives from operating underneath them.<br /><br />Also, it is technically possible to run OCS wires high enough to support even AAR plate H freight (double-stacked containers), Indian Railways is doing it already and the new Betuwelijn in Holland is also set up for the purpose.<br /><br />As Clem <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/02/port-pork.html" rel="nofollow">reported</a> back in February, UPRR cannot operate AAR plate H rail cars today. The Port of SF would like Caltrain to jump through hoops just so it can earn an extra $2.5 million a year by transshipping imported cars into bi-level autorack cars.<br /><br />In particular, it wants Caltrain to construct a central <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track" rel="nofollow">gauntlet track</a> in tunnel #1 just north of Bayshore station, because extra-tall plate H cars wouldn't fit any other way. They could only run when there's no Caltrain traffic and the overhead electric line in that location switched off to avoid arcing, i.e. at night.<br /><br />It is grossly misleading to present this as electrification killing off freight rail. AAR plate H cars don't run on the peninsula today!<br /><br />Similarly, the 1991 purchase agreement does not give UPRR the right to operate freight trains for 15 out of every 24 hours. The requirement is for Caltrain to provide a 30-minute window during the day so UPRR can run its switcher traffic to the marshaling yard in South San Francisco. In addition, Caltrain has to provide a 30-minute slot to let UPRR run a train at commuter speeds down to San Jose during the day and, to provide a five-hour window for running freight at night.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong: there are <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/effect-of-heavy-freight.html" rel="nofollow">good arguments</a> for converting the SF peninsula into a short freight line with moderate axle load limits or else, eliminating FRA-compliant rail freight there altogether. It's just that Caltrain electrification isn't one of them.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-37200333449509615922009-08-15T00:24:48.967-07:002009-08-15T00:24:48.967-07:00In my opinon, the "threat" of constant l...In my opinon, the "threat" of constant lawsuits to tempt the CHSRA to terminate the line in San Jose or re-select Altamont will be a failed strategy.<br /><br />If it were the correct strategy, some day we would see the CHSRA have their attention diverted and ground breaking pushed back. The number of days delayed would be the measurement of success by those threatening and filing lawsuits.<br /><br />So, someone tell the group here what and when a lawsuit of sufficient merit has arisen to do that... can they?<br /><br />What we've seen recently is more humourous than serious... filing a suit without having standing? <br /><br />I think we should do the peninsula trolls and proponents here a favor if we did not highlight and promote their agenda. Unless something makes it to the San Jose Merc or SF Chronicle... it's not news or worthy of a write-up. As we know, those little daily and weekly rags on the peninsula are itsy bitsy tiny... probably written by volunteers for volunteers.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20092214099432912152009-08-15T00:04:13.129-07:002009-08-15T00:04:13.129-07:00As I have written numerous times, Altamont provide...As I have written numerous times, Altamont provides less service versus Pacheco. <br /><br />As Kopp accurately stated, which in my opinion is the crescendo of the points made, is that all northbound trains would need to have a chosen destination, either San Jose or San Francisco... not both. That ultimately means less service to San Jose and San Francisco. <br /><br />Further, the argument that more service could be thrown at the problem fails when considering the Central Valley, if you consider it a throat, will be limited in teh number of trains it can process. And lest we not forget, more service to mitigate the handicapped Altamont alignment means it is a much more costly system to operate. And it's not chump change.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-5759947787007265872009-08-14T23:59:24.679-07:002009-08-14T23:59:24.679-07:00@ Eric, Tony D -
the "6 tracks in Fremont&qu...@ Eric, Tony D -<br /><br />the "6 tracks in Fremont" snippet refers to a short section south of Niles. In an Altamont scenario, there would have been 2 UPRR tracks (FRA compliant) + 2 HSR tracks down to hwy 262 + 2 BART tracks (broad gauge).<br /><br />UPRR isn't about to sell any part of its marshaling yard in Fremont Warm Springs nor the northern access to it. The medians in hwy 262 (a city street) and I-880 that were pencilled in for HSR early on have since disappeared, mostly thanks to the delays in getting HSR onto the ballot.<br /><br />Ergo, there is no longer any place to construct an HSR spur down to San Jose via the East Bay. That means HSR-via-Altamont would de facto mean either no HSR service to the Bay Area's largest single city (fuggedaboudit) or else, splitting the line at the existing Redwood City wye.<br /><br />Atherton and Menlo Park joined the TRANSDEF lawsuit challenging CHSRA's decision in favor of Pacheco precisely to deflect HSR away from the Caltrain ROW through their downtown areas. Johnny-come-lately Palo Alto filed an amicus brief for the same reason.<br /><br />Once they figure out that Altamont isn't the cure for the common NIMBYtude they thought it was, perhaps they'll drop that particular lawsuit and concentrate on the task now at hand: designing a vertical alignment that everyone can live with - albeit grudgingly - without breaking the bank in the process.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-14698602343956665072009-08-14T23:30:41.825-07:002009-08-14T23:30:41.825-07:00They should name the Great Wall of Palo Alto after...They should name the Great Wall of Palo Alto after Quentin Kopp. The Koppian Way?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41056297835996417032009-08-14T23:14:55.816-07:002009-08-14T23:14:55.816-07:00@ Alon Levy
Your first guess was most likely corr...@ Alon Levy<br /><br />Your first guess was most likely correct as seen on slide 29 on the link below. Kopp was right about possibly 6 tracks using Altamont as shown in slide's 12 & 13. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080128163228_110407_prsntn.pdf" rel="nofollow">CHSRA Preferred Alternative pdf</a><br /><br />This seems to be before the prefered alignment was officially chosen.davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-57456771603372613762009-08-14T23:10:52.340-07:002009-08-14T23:10:52.340-07:00So when the CEQA lawsuit wins with a ruling that S...So when the CEQA lawsuit wins with a ruling that SJ to Gilroy, if used must be re-certified and a whole new EIR for that segment must be done, taking at least 1 year, and ROW for the segment must be acquired, probably can't use Pacheco until 2020 at the earliest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-35575255356715325252009-08-14T22:59:39.704-07:002009-08-14T22:59:39.704-07:00Very interest article on UPRR freight carrying on ...Very interest article on UPRR freight carrying on the SJ to SF corridor<br /><br />http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13096956?nclick_check=1looking onnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-16558221180957941052009-08-14T22:39:42.962-07:002009-08-14T22:39:42.962-07:00Sorry, strike my answer to question 2. Another rea...Sorry, strike my answer to question 2. Another reason Gilroy could get high ridership is that it'd be used by commuters going to SJ and SF. In SJ the train would have a smaller advantage over Caltrain or driving.<br /><br />It's similar to traffic patterns in New York State, where, after New York and Albany, the busiest Amtrak stops are Rhinecliff and Hudson, where people can commute to New York and Albany but have no local commuter rail option.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-68879933798331174392009-08-14T22:37:12.969-07:002009-08-14T22:37:12.969-07:00R. Motorist:
1. I have no idea. If I had to guess...R. Motorist:<br /><br />1. I have no idea. If I had to guess, it'd be that Pacheco involves less splitting of trains, which means a higher frequency of trains to each destination. That means more convenient Stockton-LA traffic, which is going to be far larger than Stockton-SF traffic in any case.<br /><br />2. Maybe because the Gilroy station would also serve Monterey Bay? I'm not sure.<br /><br />3. The Sierra Club was afraid that a station in Los Banos would allow development in an environmentally sensitive area. It agreed to support Pacheco in exchange for a guarantee that there would be no station in Los Banos. It doesn't care so much about tracks, which have very little footprint when there's no station.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-91846133594851603202009-08-14T22:19:20.873-07:002009-08-14T22:19:20.873-07:00Fist I have to say that the sierra club are not re...Fist I have to say that the sierra club are not real envrionmentalists. There isn't a scientist among them they are lawyers who make a living extorting huge sums of cash by suing using the guise of environmentalism but they did support the hsr decision - "......, the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton filed suit in August 2008 against the HSRA over the Authority's acceptance of the Program EIR and the choice of route up the Peninsula. Sierra Club would also have preferred a different route.--- However, after considerable deliberation, Sierra Club California chose in January 2008 to focus on influencing AB 3034, which became the basis for Proposition 1A, and, ultimately, to support the measure on the November ballot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-48412647050050401682009-08-14T22:03:38.898-07:002009-08-14T22:03:38.898-07:00For all of you Pacheco/Authority boosters out ther...For all of you Pacheco/Authority boosters out there, can someone give me a rational explanation for the stat above?<br /><br />While your at it, can you tell me why, according to the authority website, Gilroy (pop 51,000) has station boardings similar to San Jose or San Diego?<br /><br />Also, for all this talk of the environment, tell me why the Sierra Club was a supporter of the Altamont alignment, and not Pacheco?<br /><br />If someone can solve those three riddles for me, then I will shut up about Pacheco being a sub-optimal choicer. motoristnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-35923717173455620402009-08-14T21:35:23.311-07:002009-08-14T21:35:23.311-07:00Another important advantage of the Pacheco route i...Another important advantage of the Pacheco route is that it serves the city of Stockton better than Altamont.<br /><br />According to the Authority, Stockton's annual boardings for the differing routes looks like this...<br /><br />Pacheco: 1,711,000<br />Altamont: 1,251,800<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090403113249_R8b_FINAL_Ridership_Report_2007-26-10_AXK.pdf" rel="nofollow">Link</a>r. motoristnoreply@blogger.com