SOCIAL: [Party_Car] DETAILS: 'Deep Slate November 2008: VOTE TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH

[Tom Radulovich]

The great thing about prop 1A is that it accommodates several  
different high speed, intercity, and regional services -- high speed  
from LA to SF, but also services that connect the main Central Valley  
towns to one another, the Bay Area, LA, and the international  
airports. Right-of-way improvements for High Speed Rail will benefit  
regional metro services and faster intercity services, too.

Caltrain will be thoroughly transformed by the HSR bond, and for the  
better. Caltrain will finally become a fully electrified, frequent,  
reliable rapid transit system connecting SF to the Peninsula, San  
Jose, and Morgan Hill -- the same concept as in their 2025 plan, but a  
decade or two sooner. The current plan, if HSR passes, will introduce  
lightweight, European-style trains for High speed service, but will  
also replace Caltrain's lumbering diesels with electric multiple-unit  
trainsets. Lightweight electric trains will save time (faster  
acceleration and deceleration) energy (Japan's high speed trains use  
much less energy than US and British intercity trains, despite  
operating at much higher speeds), and reduce air pollution, noise, and  
vibration. Adding more third- and fourth tracks will accommodate  
Caltrain's current pattern of local, limited stop, 'baby bullet'  
service (15-30% faster, thanks to electrification and lightweight  
trains) as well as HSR. Grade separation is expensive, but essential  
if one is going to use the lightweight trains; they can't risk running  
into whatever might wander onto the tracks. No fast, frequent, and  
reliable rail rapid transit service can exist without grade  
separation, and the HSR bond will complete Caltrain's grade separation  
program in less than a decade.

Caltrain is the furthest along in taking advantage of High Speed  
rail's right-of-way upgrades to improve regional service, but a few  
other corridors are promising ones for supplemental commuter service,  
including the Palmdale-Sylmar-Burbank-Glendale-LA, LA-Whittier- 
Fullerton-Anaheim-Irvine, LA-Pomona-Ontario-Riverside, and Murrieta- 
Escondido-San Diego. The HSR program will make LA Union Station a  
through-running station, which will improve existing Metrolink and  
Amtrak operations. The HSR bond also allows funding for upgrades to  
the Altamont corridor as a rapid (but not high speed) intercity and  
regional rail corridor.

Serving city centers is expensive, but essential. European and Asian  
intercity rail systems rarely dump folks on the edge of town to take  
local transit the rest of the way in, even though it may cost billions  
more to get all the way downtown; high speed trains are designed to  
reinforce existing urban centers, and to provide the shortest point-to  
point journey between centers. It would make little sense to, as  
Supervisor Scott Haggerty has proposed, build a high speed service to,  
say, Livermore, and then add an hour to the journey by making folks to  
transfer to BART and make every local stop on the way to downtown SF.  
Bringing HSR into town centers will relieve existing transit capacity  
problems by providing complementary service, rather than exacerbate  
capacity problems, as edge-city stations would do.

The other issue is that bypass stations and big park-and-ride hubs  
outside city centers will draw development out towards them, just like  
airports do, which creates a less sustainable land use pattern across  
the state. Park and ride hubs also abet sprawl. HSR made the decision  
to locate stations in existing town centers, serve them well with  
local transit, walking, and cycling, and foster transit-oriented  
infill development, as a deliberate sustainability and land use  
strategy. Spending the extra billion, or billions, may be worth it, if  
it draws tens of billions of private development back to the town  
centers.

On Oct 21, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Eric Arons wrote:

> I do feel like I need to comment on (at least, and at this point, no  
> more than) one of these recommendations.
> High Speed Rail.  I've had a lot of conversations down here with a  
> co-worker and vice-mayor of Menlo Park, and we're not so sure high  
> speed rail makes much sense in its current incarnation (beyond the  
> sexiness of it).  It will be ridiculously expensive, and ultimately  
> it does exactly what Deep says, gives people a convenient way to get  
> from here to LA and back.  It requires major rework of the  
> infrastructure (grade separation all the way up and down the  
> peninsula), and integration of current use of the rail (Caltrain and  
> freight) with this new use.  Do we need this long distance transit  
> solution for lots of money?  Or would that money be much better  
> spent for regional transit planning that would allow us to get  
> around the Bay Area more easily?  Would a better plan be to stop the  
> train in SJ and then let it connect to better local service, saving  
> billions?  A large part of the cost will be in revamping the current  
> rail line.  Yes, I know that money is not immediately transferable  
> from project to project, but there is a massive budget shortfall  
> right now.  And there are some real concerns about the particular  
> plan for this potential boondoggle.  Anyway, I'm not necessarily  
> opposed to it, and we were actually hoping to have a debate on it  
> here at SRI, but it's worth looking into more carefully.  Maybe this  
> isn't the right plan.
>
> A few relevant links (some from people actually supporting the prop,  
> but not the current plan):
> http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/CAMENLO/CAMENLO_1/CAMENLO_1_20080925_en.pdf
> http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html
> http://www.bayrailalliance.org/statement_on_high_speed_rail_and_lawsuit_against_hsra
>
> And a debate on the issue on the radio Wednesday:
> http://www.kalw.org/listen.html
>
> KALW Radio, 91.7 FM, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, debating Quentin Kopp,  
> the Chair of the CA High-Speed Rail
>
> Authority.  Please call in with questions and comments during the  
> second half of the show.
> The number is 415-841-4134.
>
>
> State Initiatives:
> 1A: YES  - HIGH SPEED RAIL
> This much delayed bond measure will start the funding for California  
> to build a new High Speed Rail system connecting SF to LA but  
> eventually Sacramento to SF to LA to San Diego.  If I didn't love it  
> because it was a great way to get people out of cars, or love it  
> because it would represent a hugh Green House Gas emissions win (it  
> will reduce instate plane flights DRAMATICALLY as well as reduce car  
> trips), or love it because it represents a big investment in CAs  
> decaying infrastructure & will dramatically improve service on our  
> very own CalTrain, I'd vote for it because it will get me to LA in 2  
> & a 1/2 hours door to door (4 by air? 8 by car?) & I'll probably be  
> able to bring my bike :-) YES YES YES
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081021/1697ade3/attachment-0001.htm>