From: Martin Engel <martinengel_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Sun Feb 03 2008 - 14:32:10 PST

Here is a blog with more about the
Altamont/Pacheco difference for the high-speed train.

http://www.sworddance.com/blog/2008/02/02/california-high-speed-rail-project-altamont-immediate-benefit-v-pacheco-pass-fuzzy-future/

  I think both routes are bad (for a number of reasons). Committing to either one or the other means that you are committed to the basic concept of the train. And, the train is fundamentally a bad idea. It's an academic issue. The Pacheco choice has been made, mostly on political grounds.

What this blog doesn't really get into is the central issue of whether, by going through the Altamont route, the system becomes a genuine inter-urban or regional mass transit commuter line, while the Pacheco Pass route re-affirms what they have been saying right along; it's a high speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, period. Not for commuters. Just for the "suits." It's the point that Mayor Andy Cohen pointed out at the grade separation study session last week. Will our transportation systems become public service utilities, or will they remain unsuccessful, economically distressed businesses? While that comparison may be too absolute, it does suggest that the Altamont route could have made the high speed train function far more as a commuter transit utility, and therefore justify its claims on taxpayer support.

Also what this pro-Altamont blog doesn't say is what the Dumbarton crossing would entail. Most people simply say, we can use the Dumbarton rail bridge by fixing it up. Well, no. The existing ruins are not fit to be retrofitted.
Earthquake/seismic standards will require bedrock, underground-up construction. One report even raised the problem of liquefaction of soil beneath the Bay in that area. It's a big deal with very big dollars. The Dumbarton rail project, brought courtesy of Caltrain to a Council chamber near you, also ignores (or pretends it to not be an issue) the bridge reconstruction. Folks, a coat of paint won't cut it!

There are some other points that raise eyebrows. ". . . proven revenue potential of the train itself."?
Proven? Passenger rail, wait, all transit in the US is a money loser, not a money maker. Why isn't that public knowledge yet? One hears from Caltrain or the other operators that with this or that investment they can increase their "run" times by 10 minutes or so. Unfortunately, that still doesn't compete with those whose "run" times by car are 30 to 60 minutes better. Remember, transit has to be as fast or faster than driving in order to seduce people out of their cars. Also, as we keep saying, it has to be more convenient, such as the "first and last mile." Then there's the whole cost-benefit ratio, and full-cost accounting issue for operators like Caltrain and the CHSRA that we need to examine in future emails.

Martin

---

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm and is filed under sierraclub, political, transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

« where, oh where is the list of all those magic -XX java parameters?

California High-Speed Rail project: Altamont
(Immediate Benefit) v. Pacheco Pass (Fuzzy Future)

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is trying to pretend that the Pacheco Pass alignment is somehow equivalent to the Altamont Pass alignment.

They are not. There are a number of key differences.

The Altamont Pass roughly follows the i-580 corridor - a heavily used freeway connection the Bay Area with bedroom communities to the east.

The Pacheco Pass follows the CA-152 - a relatively lightly used (in some places it is only a 2-lane road) state highway (not even a freeway).

So clearly there is a huge difference in terms of potential passengers.

Altamont Pass: Immediate Benefit

And more significantly, for the Altamont Pass - each segment as it is completed can be put to immediate use.
Because of inflation, a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow. So having a revenue stream start after a couple years of construction has a tremendous impact on the actual costs.

Every segment of the Altamont has existing traffic/commute patterns. So running existing transit service such as Altamont Commuter Express on each 10-15 mile newly-constructed segment as will result in ACE getting increased ridership
(and revenue). The revenue increase should be
split with the CHSRA as payment for use of the improved ROW.

Some examples. Construct the Dumbarton Bridge - ACE can start using it immediately to provide service to Redwood City and north to San Francisco. Construct the High-Speed Rail line through Niles junction in Fremont - Capitol Corridors and ACE both have 10-15 minutes shaved off of their run time. Those services become more reliable and are able to increase their frequency.

Give ACE its own ROW in segments from San Jose to Stockton. As each is completed (even before the overhead wires are strung) start letting ACE use the track. ACE would only need it for 3-4 trains each way a day - it shouldn't interfere too much with construction. Many systems would need to be in place before ACE could start using the tracks. Signaling for one wouldn't need to be in place. The ACE train would be the only train on the new ROW. Either way, the payback to the public is immediate and visible. This builds ridership and support for the rest of the system.

It also establishes hard 'floor' ridership numbers for the financiers. The Wall Street types will now have less risk - and this will affect the credit rating of any bonds that California issues to the cover the construction cost. Furthermore, the bonds could be issued not as general obligation bonds against the State of California's General Fund - but rather against the (proven) revenue potential of the train itself.

-- 






**********************
Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net
**********************

Received on Sun Feb 3 14:33:02 2008