Just wondering….

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.

September 2, 2006 Siemens used the recently-opened Nuremburg-Ingolstadt high-speed line in southern Germany to set a new world record for an electric locomotive. The Austrian Federal Railways class 1216 locomotive reached 357 km/h or 221mph

December 2, 2003 a manned Japanese maglev train set a new world speed record of 581km/h or 361mph on a test track.

In 1990, a TGV train (which does not use a locomotive) reached 515.3 kph or 320.2 mph

The Boeing 737 is the most common plane for short-distance hauls of less than 400 miles (50% of all flights in the U.S. are less than 400). The top speed of a Boeing 737-900 is 624mph.

Using the TGV speed record, over a straight-line distance of 400miles, 737 has a time advantage of (at best) (75min - 38.5minutes) of only 36.5 minutes. This is ignoring the realities of landing/take-off/taxiing on runways.

It is no wonder that according to the International Railway Journal October 2006 issue:

Air France-KLM says that the opening of the Paris-Strasbourg high-speed line next year could slash the number of flights on the route by half .

The airline expects around 500,000 passengers, equivalent to half of its current business on the route could be lost to rail. Air France will maintain its four flights per day between Strasbourg and Paris Charles de Gaulle airport but it will cut a third of its service to Paris Orly when TGV Est opens in July 2007.

This week there was a news release by the Eurostar company about the comparative emissions of a Eurostar trip vs. the same trip via airplane.

each passenger on a return flight between London Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle generates 122 kilograms of CO2, compared with just 11 kilograms for a traveller on a London-Paris return journey by train. A round trip between London Heathrow and Brussels airport generates 160 kg of CO2 per passenger, against only 18 kg of CO2 for a return journey by rail.

The distance between London and Paris is 495km or 298 miles via car (and probably close to what the train distance is). But the plane trip is shorter since the Chunnel is to the north of the straight-line route. The straight-line distance is 214 miles between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle Airport. Google map of car route here. So the train pays a route penalty but still manages to easily beat the airplane.

Airplane: 0.57 CO2kg/mile. Train is between 0.037-0.05 CO2kgs/mile.

For the London to Brussels route, the car route is 418km or 251 miles. The Chunnel looks to be inline with the most direct route. The straight-line distance is 219 miles. Google map of car route here.

Airplane: 0.73 CO2kg/mile. Train is between 0.07-0.08 CO2kgs/mile.

Original new release reported:

Passengers who fly between London, Paris and Brussels generate ten times more emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than travellers who go by rail, according to a study commissioned by train operator Eurostar.

The research shows that each passenger on a return flight between London Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle generates 122 kilograms of CO2, compared with just 11 kilograms for a traveller on a London-Paris return journey by train. A round trip between London Heathrow and Brussels airport generates 160 kg of CO2 per passenger, against only 18 kg of CO2 for a return journey by rail.

Eurostar claim the figures are the most detailed ever produced and are based on actual passenger numbers, exact distances of rail and air routes, actual aircraft types in use on different routes, and the mix of electricity sources used by the company’s high speed trains.

Eurostar chief executive, Richard Brown, said: “Travellers are increasingly demanding factual information about the environmental impact of their travel plans, and what they can do to reduce emissions of gases which are causing climate change.”

With journey times between London and the Continent set to be cut by 20 minutes with the opening of the line into St Pancras in autumn 2007, Eurostar say the environmental advantages of using their service will be further increased. The research also shows that travelling by high-speed rail will generate even less CO2 per passenger in future years, due to increased supplies of renewable energy and UK policies to reduce CO2 emissions.

I got this information from a Sierra Club email list I am on that has some useful technical information about how to build a really first class railroad. This comment was posted by Clyde L. Anderson, Treasurer, Nebraska Chapter - Sierra Club [email address: remove spaces: Clyde L Anderson (near somewhere around) Cox.net ] in response to a discussion about the secretly proposed NAFTA “super-highway”, discussed here. I thought others would be interested in the technical details.

Some key technical data that I found interesting is highlighted.

Using a combination of the best rail routes between Laredo and Kansas City, we could build a Super Railroad with a capacity exceeding the capacity of the proposed NAFTA Super Highway while occupying only a 125-ft right-of-way. (Modern railway lines are built on 25-ft centers, but most of our existing multiple-track routes were built decades ago on 15-ft or smaller centers. If track centers are at least 25 ft, the FRA allows trains to pass track maintenance operations without shutting down the maintenance work.)

What’s need is a well-engineered double-track railroad with modern signaling system, universal crossovers every 10-15 miles, 10,000-ft sidings every 15 miles (for slower trains to pull off the main lines to allow faster trains to overtake them), and 4 main tracks through major terminals like San Antonio and Ft. Worth. Grade separations would also be needed where the NAFTA Railroad crosses other major rail routes, such as the Sunset Route in San Antonio.

Think of the energy savings of using trains instead of trucks. If the NAFTA Railroad was electrified, look at all of the energy options available to propel the trains — solar, wind, biofuels, etc. ) [China has a goal of electrifying 2,000 km per year of its rail routes as a means to reduce its dependence on oil.]

The closest thing the U.S. has to a super freight railroad is Union Pacific’s busy route across Nebraska which handles more tonnage than any other rail route in the world. The huge terminal at North Platte is also the world’s largest. Unfortunately, the route is not electrified, so North Platte has the world’s biggest railroad fueling facility because all of the trains are powered by diesel-electric locomotives.

The Coast Rail Coordination Council met at the Paraiso Winery in Soledad on Fri 9/22.

Meeting in Soledad was mainly a good-will gesture, and to familiarize the council members of the growth and potentials of the area persuant to a Coast Daylight stop in Soledad.

After the normal opening business (minute approval etc) was over a lively discussion commenced on getting the Daylight started. Tom Mulligan of UP stated that they would need a formal request from Amtrak (on behalf of DoR) to start service. This request “shall include a start date”. A joint evaluation of the road would also be required as the last capacity study has a “limited shelf life”.

Jonathan Hutchison of Amtrak stated that lease (Amtrak) rolling stock is available from Beech Grove (both single level and Superliner). This equipment would need refurbishing and would fill the need till new cars come online. Chair Dave Potter emphasized how we all have to get behind Prop 1B [The Sierra Club after much arguing is neutral on this ballot measure, mostly because of the excessive highway components. -Pat] and that CRCC is striving to get local support from cities and counties. 1B would yield $450 M for transit, $125M needed for rolling stock and $50M required for track and signals. [In other words a small token percentage goes to transit] Art Lloyd emphasized that key persons from the counties make appeals to Bill Bronte (DoR) to persue the Amtrak cars.

Art Lloyd will make a Daylight presentation to the Peninsula Joint Powers Bd (Caltrain) on Oct 5th persuant to obtain a “Bullet” slot in their 96 train schedule.

Hutchison (Amtrak) reported that “The Starlight” has been badly bruised by the On-time Performance (OTP) [1 train on time in January - see this post for more information] with ridership and revenue plummeting and in name (e.g “Starlate”). Amtrak and UP are now in “High Level” meetings addressing the OTP.

Mulligan (UP) stated that track gangs have now moved to the Zephyr route and UP is striving to keep a max 90 minute “down” time on #11 and 14 north of Sacramento.

The meeting started with several local (Merced, Mariposa) speakers advocating service to/from Yosemite. One speaker from Mariposa Cnty was endeavoring to gain a seat on the committee (being considered) . A visual presentation was made entitled “Blueprint for San Joaquin Valley” which includes all the counties. The big pitch was control of air polluton and need for improved public transit. This was a good lead into the “Resolution for Rail” on the UP line in Tulare Cnty (Holscher). This could be “dovetailed” into “The Blueprint”. The “Resolution” was tabled and will be on the next mtg agenda. In the interim, there will be dialogue with UP, Division of Rail, SJVRC (as suggested by UP rep Jerry Wilmoth who was in attendance).

Rick Depler of BNSF stated that OTP was up to 88 to 92% and they predict 95% soon. Asked how the OTP was improved, he replied “thru dispatcher stabilization”, i.e. utilizeing dispatchers familiar with the territory and keeping them there. A tie (85k) and rail (120k ft) replacement program between Stktn and Bkrsfield will commence Jan 14 and finish Feb 15. Work scheduled to minimize slow orders . Electronic Train Management System (ETMS) moving along (in Tx) Expect FRA approval shortly.

Bill Bronte, Chief, Division of Rail reported that the San Joaquins surpassed the Capitols in ridership gain last month (7 1/2%). Fuel prices are cutting into fare box return bigtime. Plans for a joint mtg of all Bds (CCJPB, SJVRC, LOSSAN, CRCC, SANDAG etc) to coincide with APTA in San Jose in Oct. to gin up support and sign a letter of support of S1516 (80/20 Capital Grants).

Chair Hall, who is also Mayor of Bakersfield, reported that he had held successful meetings in his office with BNSF, DoR and SJVRC members to gain a good understanding of problems and to achieve solutions. It is this writers opinion that Mayor Hall is a definite asset and makes a very positive contribution to this committee.

Bad News: Chair Hall announced that Eric Schatmeier of Division of Rail is leaving and will join Marin County where he will lead a new Transportation Planning Group. Eric has been the Marketing Group leader for the San Joaquins these past years. Prior to coming to DoR he was with Caltrain.

I found out that the reason BART has the non-standard guage is because back when BART was first being conceived, Southern Pacific didn’t want BART competing with them for freight business, so they got BART to go with the 5 foot guage instead of the standard 4′8″.

Also, the airports around here, pariticularly San Jose, don’t want people to take public transit ( light rail or BART) because they would lose the revenue they get from parking, which is a significant portion of their income. So if anyone wondered why both VTA and BART don’t go to SJC, that’s it. I got this straight from a from a former member of the SJ airport commisision.

Ed

I read BBC regularily. The amount of climate news provided by this service is excellent.

This is positively scary:

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at anytime in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

The “scary thing”, Dr Wolff added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

“The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records,” he said.

At this rate it is not inconcievable that we are looking at climate failure (not just change) within our lifetime.

I ran across this interesting article today. This article from a very unlikely source goes to demonstrate what we in the transit community have known for a long time, Americans can and do want an alternative to their cars.

This is from Commercial Property Online, hardly an environmental or transit-oriented publication. In their article, Commuter and Light Rail Driving Development in California :

The development and expansion of commuter rail systems in California has spurred a great deal of commercial development, a cross-sector expansion that most in the industry agree is only in its early stages.

The projects, which range from the proposed $40 billion high-speed rail connection spanning the 700 miles between San Francisco and San Diego to the more modest $200 million Sonoma Marin rail transit line (SMART) stretching 75 miles from Cloverdale to San Rafael, have been a boon for commercial developers, who have seen increased demand for development–especially near rail stations–as a result of the expanding lines.

“You’re seeing a lot of development at these stations, all generated by proximity to rail, and these would not have happened without the rail,” said [Transwestern Commercial Services west region president George] Garfield. “If our cities are to grow in a compelling way, rail will be a meaningful component of that.”

This demonstrates that being pro-transit, pro-environment can also be good business.

Personally, I am so glad that my wife and I brought a house within walking distance of both a light-rail line and Caltrain. Also I know that The Crossings development in Mountain View California is very popular and has a strong sense of community. (link to google map). People within that development, even when they are looking to move up, try to find a larger townhouse still in The Crossings.
The Crossings has a density of about 21 units/acre and is located at Caltrain’s San Antonio train station. On the other side of the train tracks, the 27-acre Mayfield Mall development will have 578 units for a similiar density of 21.4 units/acre.

This is what the EPA says about The Crossings:

The Crossings, located in the city of Mountain View, 30 miles south of San Francisco, transformed a failing 1960s auto-oriented mall into a vibrant neighborhood that offers a variety of transportation choices. The 18-acre infill project, developed by TPG Development, demolished the original shopping mall and replaced it with homes, retail shops, and a daycare center, all oriented toward the new San Antonio Avenue Caltrain commuter rail station. San Mateo Transit busses meet each train and connect to nearby communities. Narrow tree-lined streets and sidewalks and small pocket parks all combine to create a walkable and bikeable neighborhood. It takes residents less than five minutes to walk from any of the houses to the stores or to the commuter rail station, and two minutes or less to walk to a park.

The Crossings project was built starting in 1994 and as the EPA notes:

Citizens asked for low densities with open space.

Twelve years later, Mountain View residents came out saying that for The Mayfield Mall project … they wanted …(drumroll) a big park and that the proposed housing development would result in high traffic volumes.

But has that happened with The Crossings? Remember according to the EPA, The Crossings is “a vibrant neighborhood that offers a variety of transportation choices”. In other words, people aren’t driving!

Furthermore considering the prices in the area as blogged by burbed.com, the EPA’s comment about cost seems appropriate:

Using on-street parking places to meet minimum parking requirements allowed more land to be used for homes, increasing overall density [when compared to the overall city density of 7-20 units/acre].

Although priced at market rates, the compact design makes the units relatively affordable in the high-cost Silicon Valley real estate market.

So here is hoping for more rail development for more affordable homes!

The Sierra Club was recently approached by Growth Options for the 21th Century, a group that wants to increase federal funding to expand freight railroad capacity.

My general feeling is that we should be very wary. The law of unintended consequences starts coming into play pretty quickly.

The railroads are multi-billion-dollar corporations with well-funded lobbyists and growing traffic volumes, including I might add, Powder River coal.

According to the June 2006 issue of Railway Age, the 141,641 coal carloads are 41.1% of the 344,772 carloads transported by all major U.S. railroads in 2006 to-date. Coal volume grew by 11.1% at the same time all other categories declined in volume (except for agriculture products). By signing on without question, the Sierra Club may be signing on to help make coal-fired plants more cost-effective.

The Sierra Club should not be in the business of providing a direct corporate assistance to any corporation unless the environmental movement extracts some sort of meaningful concession for something that the corporation would not otherwise do.

Freight railroads have not been a friend of passenger rail and the price of help in getting money should be a changed attitude.

For examples:

1. Minnesota’s Northstar commuter line which will begin operation on BNSF tracks from Big Lake, MN to Minneapolis was scaled back from 18 trains/day to12 trains/day. It was originally supposed to extend to St. Cloud, MN. The line in question is part of BNSF’s transcontiental route. Any improvements on that route should allow for the originally planned 18 trains/day. Those lost 6 trains represent 1200 more cars each day being driven.
2. The UPRR has been causing the Coast Starlight to be running up to 12 hours late.
3. The Coast Daylight project has been hampered by UPRR’s refusal to even state that they would permit it to run even if the state of California does contribute money toward improved infrastructure.

According to the May 2006 issue of Trains Magazine, January 2006’s tardy top 10 are:

Just one on-time Coast Starlight for the entire month of January!

From another Sierra Cluber:

Between June 30 and July 6, UP alone accounted for 1800 minutes of delay along the 124-mile Cascades Amtrak route (2 Cascades passenger trains/day, heavily subsidized by Oregon) between Portland and Eugene OR.

Recently, the National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP) wrote to the Surface Transportation Board urging enforcement of 49 USC 24308 (c), which requires Amtrak trains be given ‘preference over freight transportation…except in an emergency.’

Their letter reads in part:

Host railroads cause the majority of delay minutes. Amtrak’s April report, available on-line, shows that 54% of all delay minutes on long-distance trains that month were in two categories: “freight train interference” and “slow orders.”

In June, 2006, for example, just 15% of trips of the Los Angeles-Seattle Coast Starlight, which primarily uses UP, reached final destinations less than four hours late; the comparable figure for the Sunset Limited (UP) was 32%. On the shorter New York-Florida line (mostly CSX), only 57% of trips (including Auto Train) reached final destination less than three hours late. During the month, more than 100,000 passengers rode Amtrak trains that reached their final destinations over four hours late; the overwhelming majority of these passengers were on routes that use CSX or Union Pacific exclusively or primarily. By contrast, the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief (BNSF) and Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder (BNSF and CP) were on time (no more than 30 minutes late) 63.3% and 80.0%, respectively.

This suggests that UP and CSX do not take seriously 49 USC 24308(c), which requires that Amtrak trains be given “preference over freight transportation…except in an emergency” or where the Secretary of Transportation, in response to a railroad’s application for relief, has “established the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.”

The fact that BNSF can post numbers that are so much better than UPRR and CSX’s proves that the tardyness is caused by corporate indifference, not by any inherent Amtrak issue.

Any Sierra Club legislation support should be tied directly to a requirement that any improvements make it possible to increased passenger rail service over the right-of-way (ROW) improved with federal dollars and that increased passenger service be permitted or on a parallel ROW. This would allow for the case of shifting freight traffic off of one ROW to make room for passenger rail.

The Sierra Club should know who is funding Go21 before we sign-on as well. We need to know who we are getting into bed with.

We should also not be forced into a false either-or choice of funding freight-only improvements at the expense of passenger rail or having more trucks on expanded highways. And certainly, we should demand that the above numbers be improved!