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

[Eric Arons]

Thanks again Tom.  So when I was mentioning congestion relief, I wasn't at
all talking about building more highways to let more people drive.  But of
course, traffic congestion can't encourage alternative transit choices if
those choices aren't available.  That's more what I meant, that maybe money
would be better spent developing a first class regional transit system (like
they also have in major European cities) before we start building
inter-urban transit to connect LA to SF.  And electrification is already
being planned for Caltrain, right?  By 2014 or something?

Unfortunately it seems like budget constraints force us to be either-or
thinkers, at least as these ideas come up.  Of course we'd all love to have
everything, but choices are made.  Like you even say below, you'd rather
have HSR than BART to SJ.  So is it also a choice of possibly Caltrain
improvements with other major regional transit improvements vs. HSR?

So anyway, you say that it won't take away from other worthwhile transit
projects.  I guess that's the part I don't totally understand.  I mean,
suppose someone has ideas for bond measures in the future for...i
dunno...."general local transit improvements" or something like that (ok,
I'm making this up and revealing my ignorance).  Don't existing bond
issuances make it more difficult to issue future bonds?  Isn't that part of
the reason why our bond rating dropped already making it even more
difficult?  I'm just thinking we might not want to just take "whatever we
can get" just because it's available now.  I know that the perfect is the
enemy of the good, but I also think that the "something" can be the enemy of
the "something better" (that's terrible - maybe there should be a
competition for someone to come up with a better quote).

Ok, maybe I'm just skeptical about Quentin Kopp.....

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Tom Radulovich <tomrad at well.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Eric Arons wrote:
>
> Tom (et. al.),
>
> Interesting and thoughtful responses as usual.  My understanding though is
> that wrt "regional" transit, prop. 1A only has about $950 million.  Spread
> that over San Diego, LA, San Jose, Sacramento, and San Francisco, and it
> comes out to not very much.
>
>
> Local/regional transit will benefit from the Bond in two ways. The first is
> what you talk about above; $950 milllion will be disbursed to transit
> agencies that provide connecting services, on a per-passenger-mile basis.
> This capital funding goes directly to the transit agencies (LA county MTA,
> BART, Muni, AC transit, etc.), and they can spend it as they like.
>
> What I was talking about was direct investment in right-of-way, grade
> separation, multi-tracking, expanding stations, etc., which will benefit
> regional commuter and intercity services that use the same stations and
> tracks. Caltrain is the chief beneficiary of this investment, as the HSR
> bond will upgrade, grade separate, and electrify the entire Caltrain line.
> The southern California corridors will also benefit, but they aren't as far
> ahead in planning which local and inter-city services will run on the
> improved tracks.
>
>
>
> HSR is a nice to have, but regional transit is an essential.  So the
> concerns I have w/HRT:  how many Bay Area residents want to travel to SoCal
> each day vs how many want to get from the east bay to their jobs on the
> peninsula or in SJ?   Do we really think that HSR is going to relieve
> congestion in the bay area?  What worries me is that it could suck up all
> the available funding for transit, making it impossible to fund the regional
> network that will actually relieve congestion.
>
>
> 'Congestion relief' is not necessarily an environmentally responsible
> public policy goal; transit investments should be targeted towards improving
> mobility, social inclusion, and reinforcing a sustainable land use pattern,
> rather than fostering free-flowing highways. In my experience, traffic
> congestion encourages transit ridership.
>
> Sadly, transit advocates in the US are quite often either/or thinkers -- --
> bus vs. rail, BART vs. Caltrain, etc. (latent American fundamentalism?), or
> "magic bullet" thinkers -- "The answer to all our transportation problems is
> (fill in the blank -- bus rapid transit, light rail, personal rapid transit,
> plug-in hybrids, etc.) Europeans plan comprehensive networks; High speed
> rail links metropolitan cities, and complements intercity rail that serves
> smaller cities and suburbs, with urban mass transit systems (metro, regional
> metro, light metro, light rail, trams, BRT, local buses) within metropolitan
> areas, and quality pedestrian and cycling access to transit stations. It is
> the entire network that reduces automobile dependence and improves
> livability, rather than any one element.
>
> If the HSR bond was taking money from worthwhile transit projects, I might
> think differently about it, but it isn't.
>
> There are also cost-effective and cost-ineffective transit projects;
> Regional Measure 2 put billions towards transit, but mostly low-ridership
> BART extensions and ferry projects. I would rather have the HSR improvements
> in the region than BART to San Jose, for example.
>
> Again, HSR will serve the SF-LA market, but it will also serve a number of
> smaller markets; intra-Bay Area; intra-Central Valley, Central Valley to Bay
> Area, Central Valley to Greater Los Angeles, intra-Greater LA, Greater LA to
> San Diego, intra-San Diego. Presuming it passes, I'll use HSR to go to Los
> Angeles, but the improvements to Caltrain will help me when I travel to San
> Jose, Palo Alto, or even Visitacion Valley.
>
> Stopping the "high speed" part of HSR in SJ does make sense.  Let some HSR
> trains come all the way to SF, but just travel at a max speed of 79 mph.
> There are some 50 or so grade crossings between SJ and SF.  Separating them
> all is going to eat up a large chunk of the bond money.  Grade separate the
> key crossings (like Ravenswood in MP), put in more passing tracks, electrify
> the line, use positive train control, use quad gates, but leave the basic
> layout as it is today.  You will get nearly the same level of service at a
> fraction of the cost.  And can we even put four tracks in some parts of the
> corridor w/o taking some houses?
>
>
> Effective rapid transit service necessitates grade separation. Imagine if
> BART were built at grade; with BART frequencies (2.5 minutes in the peak)
> the gates would be closed almost all the time, and all traffic would stop
> (maybe it's not such a bad idea, but certainly not a practical one). Also,
> the Federal Railway Administration will probably insist on grade separation
> to allow the lightweight trains; its just safer. Neither the Japanese nor
> the French High Speed technology (the French technology is also in use in
> Spain, Italy, the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, and Germany) has ever
> experienced a passenger fatality in millions of trips.
>
> The system may not need four tracks everywhere. Plus so what if it HSR buys
> a few houses, and/or shortens a few backyards? Every big transit project
> usually takes property, but they typically need much less space than
> expanding the region's freeways and roads would take.
>
>
> The ultimate cost of this project is probably being low balled.  I think it
> will be at least double the $45 billion estimate.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the alternatives (expanding highways and airports) are
> probably subject to the same price inflation.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Tom Radulovich <tomrad at well.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20081022/ca1f54e8/attachment-0002.htm>