This is in Germany which has a better record than the US with regards to infrastructure maintenance. Naturally, in the US, we just wait for the inevitable.

What started this post was the humorous note in the IRJ June 2011:

The reopening of the 107m-high Müngstener bridge over the River Wupper, which has been closed for renovation, has been delayed because of a miscalculation. German Rail (DB) had forgotten to include the weight of passengers in the train weight.

The larger story makes it a little less funny.

1. PARKING

   Because parking:

   1. is negative-revenue land usage ( costs to build/maintain/ generates no revenues or taxes )
   2. is NOT required for high-ridership. Palo Alto and Mountain View both have Caltrain ridership that vastly exceeds available parking. So limiting parking does not limit low ridership.
   3. costly: $35,000+ / parking stall in construction cost

   THEREFORE, Mountain View should :

   1. audit/survey of all parking lots on all parcels larger than 10 spots.
   2. determine if Shoreline office complexes and Shoreline Ampitheatre have parking lots that are consistently at less than maximum utilization. Map the excess parking.
   3. Identify mechanisms to utilize existing parking more efficiently to free up space for HSR passengers. For example,
      1. by increasing transit access to concerts
      2. enable Shoreline office complex landowners to lease part of their parking lots for HSR passenger usage.
      3. Utilize parking cash-out to reward local employee transit use.
      4. enable office complexes along the LRT line between Yahoo! and Evelyn LRT station to lease parking lots for HSR passenger usage.
   4. make walking/VTA MORE convenient than driving to the station. Bus/taxi connections should be positioned closer than the nearest parking spot.
   5. existing infrastructure should be utilized before building new: specifically the LRT line connecting Mountain View with parking lots and employers in north Sunnyvale.
   6. Take a wait and see approach. Minimize new construction, identify locations for possible parking to be constructed and then WAIT to see if the actual demand exists. 200+ affordable apartment units were torn-down to build BART 3,000 car parking structure in Millbrae. It sits empty most of the time.
   7. All new parking should be priced to cover the cost of construction and maintenance. Determine a pricing mechanism that will make any new parking places self-sufficient – Mountain View should not subsidize Los Altos residents driving to station.
2. RIDERSHIP DISTRIBUTION numbers are suspicious and should be questioned.
   

   Source		Boardings or Alightings
   Auto-dropoff		2,200
   Auto-park		2,400
   Rental car		740
   Taxi		680
   Transit		800
   Walk		1000

   Specifically, only 1800 HSR riders are coming from transit and walking. 4,600 riders are driving to the station. The “1800 from transit” number is significantly less than the number of existing Caltrain and VTA riders at the Mountain View station. Mountain View should control its own destiny and build a station that PROACTIVELY guides how people should access the station. If Mountain View builds a car-centric station, Mountain View will have a lot of car trips. If Mountain View builds a transit-centric station the riders will walk or take transit to the station. Proper schedule integration with LRT, Caltrain, VTA busses and community shuttle busses could easily reduce the number of car trips, congestion, and the need for parking

3. INCLUSIVE HIGH-VALUE STATION:
   1. right now the first 4 blocks of Castro are high value
   2. Moffet on the other side of Central is low value.
   3. Access to downtown from north side of Mountain View is difficult and dangerous for pedestrians ( Central + tracks)
   4. World-wide train stations are extremely desirable retail space filled with small shops.
   5. Land within 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile has high-value potential and should be reserved for high-value uses.

   THEREFORE,

   1. Mountain View should design a station that makes Mountain View an attractive DESTINATION.
   2. Mountain View should look to maximize land value. All land within 1/2mile of the station should be zoned to uses that increase sales tax revenue/property tax revenue.
   3. Mountain View should construct a 2+-story station/retail mall that utilizes the air rights over Central and Moffet to connect the underutilized Moffet Ave area to the rest of downtown Mountain View.
   4. Retail spaces should be integrated to the station and the Central/Moffet bridging (Similar to Vallco shopping center)
   5. Mountain View explore closing the Castro street crossing and turning the first 2 blocks of Castro into a pedestrian mall ( essentially make the Summer Thursday night street closing permanent )
   6. Integrated residential/extended-stay facility integrated into the station: A commute that consist of taking an elevator to the station is highly attractive and should be explored. Extended-stay facilities would also be useful for out-of-town people with relatives in local hospitals.
   7. A senior citizen assisted living facility should be integrated considered. Such a facility would allow seniors direct access to transit without requiring a car.

“The emissions were a significant factor” in the decision to cancel the runway-building plans, Teresa Villiers, Britain’s minister of state for transport, said in an interview. “The 220,000 or so flights that might well come with a third runway would make it difficult to meet the targets we’d set for ourselves.” She said that local environmental concerns like noise and pollution around Heathrow also weighed into the decision.

While the Missouri Department of transportation talks about how this is great for vehicles, it is also great for pedestrians:

1. all crossings can be signalled for long crossing times because pedestrians are walking with the main flow of traffic — so lots of time for moms with kids to get across.
2. the center island can be double the normal width — the 2 sidewalks on the edge of the bridge are combined to one double width sidewalk.
3. planter boxes or fencing on the perimeter of the center island can help reassure moms (and dads) that the 3-year old is not going to escape into traffic.
4. NO worries about people turning into pedestrians – all traffic is going the same direction as pedestrians — except for the initial right turn on to the freeway.
5. the right turn on to the freeway can easily be signaled and no right-turn on red allowed.
6. the gray areas at the end of the bridge also provide nice big areas.
7. Really, really easy to get across Missouri 13. It is now trivial to get do a diagonal crossing so that 44 and 13 are both crossed.

h/t to AdamHertz for pointing the NPR article out.

“Other potential benefits are also intriguing: a probable economic windfall for several cities along the route . . .”
and
“There will be as many as 24 passenger stations along the way . . .”

The train could more easily meet speed requirements if it stopped less. CA should do some land use planning first, then plan the train.

How would a station affect speed? Every train has to slow down to say “Hi”?

Stations have nothing to do with speed. Stations are INFRASTRUCTURE.

Station STOPS affect speed. Station STOPS are an OPERATIONAL decision and can be solved with a schedule change.

How come no one talks about having fewer freeway exits as a way to make freeways go faster? Because its stupid, drivers don’t get on and off at every freeway ramp. Yet somehow people think that a train has to behave like a stupid driver who takes every freeway exit! How come people think a train has to stop at every station?

News flash!

Trains can skip stations! If a train doesn’t stop a station the existence or (non-existence) of a station is irrelevant!

California High-Speed Rail Authority puts out this BULLSHIT as an excuse to avoid building a system that could actually serve dual purposes as both a long-distance system and a higher-speed adjunct to commuter rail.

“We can’t build more stations because that would slow down the train!”

This shinkansen train doesn’t look to be at all affected by the station:

Update 1:

Questions and astonishment from the email thread:

I’m not a train engineer, but I imagine money is spent on building a station with the expectation that some of the trains stop – because people live or work there.

I would hope so myself!

If there are stations for which trains stop infrequently, is that good planning?

Yes it is good planning. Stations can be built at relatively low cost. At the lowest end just a long enough siding, a asphalt boarding area, a parking lot and a place for taxis/buses. Even for HSR there is no reason a low frequency stop has to have even a building. Sure the HSR trains might require a high platform but that can be easily handled with a portable “step-up” carried on the train.

If I lived, or had a business near that station, I sure would want as many stops as possible.

well of course you would — and I want a pony. Wishes don’t mean you get.

Communities around those stations will use the existence of the station as marketing to attract development, but should it be happening at all 24 stops?

How is this a bad thing? Communities promoting passenger rail is bad?

Might there be some type of express/local arrangement, where a slower local (on a separate track) can feed the HSR? That doesn’t come through on the article.

You don’t need a separate track for anything except the station area. The station siding just needs to be long enough to allow for acceleration/deacceleration off of the main line. ( about 9 miles on the acceleration, less on the deacceleration ) Unless we are talking very impacted ROW the extra track is minor. The siding track is only necessary when the OPERATIONAL issues dictate that a train stopped at a station needs to be passed.

It probably doesn’t come through in the article because this is another operational issue that is decided after system is built. Running a train slower that system maximum because it is a “local” only matters when a higher speed express wants to pass. If there is nothing coming up behind it, a train can run at 40mph on the main high-speed line or it can stay stopped for 10 minutes blocking the main-line track.

How many stops do you think a typical train will make?

The system being proposed can run a train every 3 minutes / direction. 20 trains per hour going the direction you want as a passenger. If a passenger is going from one low traffic station to another they might have to transfer but at least they get service from a station close to their house. Why are we going to make them drive a long distance when the tracks are next to them. So what if only one train stops per day? This is just like Amtrak today!

Just make sure that the entire end-to-end trip time does not exceed a policy maximum.

How is it decided which stations to stop at?

By the people setting the schedule — same as today. Don’t get this question at all.

you’ve GOT to be kidding! Train Stations & Bus Stops have EVERYTHING to do with speed! Did you see: Muni floats plan to pull hundreds of S.F. stops

Really?
So the VTA 522 Rapid is slowed down by the existence of a bus stop on a curb? Did not notice that at all! Better go out and remove all those sign posts along El Camino Real for Route 22. That will definitely make the 522 go faster.

Update 2:

that bus is the transit agency’s version of BRT.
Not only have they eliminated stops (one mile length between most stop), it doesn’t even have a schedule after it leaves its origin at set time, meaning it doesn’t have to ‘wait’….

Amtrak buses doing something similar – on many runs, they will only stop if a passenger gets off, but not to pick up.

I think it important to recognize the differences between bus types – local, inter-city, BRT, and train types: commuter rail, heavy rail, LRT….speed is always an important factor – to some types more than others. Intercity trains are expected to go faster than commuter rail; commuter rail faster than heavy rail (though there can be express and local subway lines, of course), all both faster than LRT.

Can you imagine a ‘smoke break’ for HSR???

And ?

Once again — how is the *existence* of a bus stop going to affect a bus’s schedule if the bus doesn’t stop at the stop?

How is the existence of a train station going to affect a given train’s speed and schedule if the train doesn’t stop?

I am completely baffled.

I am completely astonished that the NYC subway routes are impacted by stations where the train doesn’t stop.

I really do not understand how the “6-express” subway runs slower because of the existence of the “Elder Ave” stop ( which the 6-Express skips ). Perhaps someone else can help explain this?

I have no idea what a “smoke stop” has to do with station planning. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Update 3 [ 15 June 2009 23:13:00 ]:

An intelligent question from twitter:

Is there a (federal) law requiring trains to slow below a certain speed in stations irrespective of stopping?

No Federal Law. A train can go through at whatever speed it wants to. Certainly, some sort of warning system may desirable. The only exception is “holdout” stations. Holdout stations are stations where passengers cross active tracks to board. California Ave USED in Palo Alto, Ca to be holdout station.

To many in western Taiwan, the commencement of the Taiwan High Speed Rail last January ushered in a new era of fast and convenient travel between the north and south of the island. However, to local airlines, the rail service has brought unprecedented challenges that strike at the very core of their existence.

Since the high-speed railway service began, half of the air routes between Taipei City and the country’s western cities have been discontinued, with those from the capital to Taichung and Chiayi closed last year and the one to Tainan ended in August. While flights between Taipei and the southern cities of Kaohsiung, Pingtung and Hengchun–home to Kenting National Park–are still in service, operators recently stated that their future is uncertain, with reductions or cancellations being considered.
Mandarin Airlines, a subsidiary of Taiwan’s China Airlines, is the only company still running flights between Taipei and Kaohsiung–once the nation’s most lucrative domestic route that was also operated by three other local airlines, Uni Air, TransAsia Airways and Far Eastern Air Transport (FAT). Despite reducing its Taipei-Kaohsiung service to one flight per day Aug. 16, Mandarin Airlines also applied to the Civil Aeronautics Administration under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to pull out from the route as of Sept. 1.

“Summer is supposed to be the peak season of air travel, but our passenger occupancy rate is barely over 50 percent,” said Irving Hsu, spokesman for Mandarin Airlines. “Airlines cannot survive with occupancy rates lower than 60 percent. It is increasingly difficult to maintain operations as more travelers now choose to take THSR’s trains,” Hsu explained.

In order to maintain an air service between Taipei and Kaohsiung, the CAA declined Mandarin Airlines’ application. CAA Director-General Lee Long-wen said his agency would continue to persuade the company to keep operating the route because “there is still market.”

“I conducted an inspection trip to the Kaohsiung International Airport Aug. 11 and many employees there asked us not to cancel Taipei-Kaohsiung flights altogether; otherwise the only domestic routes left for the airport will be those between Kaohsiung and the country’s offshore islands,” Lee noted.
The director-general explained that granting Mandarin Airlines additional offshore island routes or cross-strait charter flights would be one way of compensating its losses in running the Taipei-to-Kaohsiung service. Lee conceded that if the passenger volume does not improve, the route would have to be closed. “But at present we will try our best to find a solution to save it,” he said.

As a compromise, CAA has nevertheless agreed to the airlines’ reduction of flights between these two cities to one on Friday, Sunday and Monday starting Sept. 1. This will allow people to visit their families on the weekends, the administration said.

Meanwhile, Uni Air, which flies from the capital to Pingtung and Hengchun, has called on the CAA to subsidize its flights, emphasizing that though these southern cities still need the services, it cannot allow its losses to continue indefinitely. “Without the government’s assistance, we may have to end operations, and those who suffer will be residents in the south,” the company stated.

A CAA official explained subsidizing airlines would be complicated because it involves legislation and budget planning. “We have lowered the cost of an airport lease by 30 percent for these airlines, but this is unlikely to plug whatever financial gaps these companies have encountered in running domestic flights,” he added.

While FAT announced suspension of all operations in May because of financial difficulties, the official said the three other local airlines all reported losses in 2007 and for the first six months of this year. “These are hard times compounded by high fuel prices, declining market demand and the economic slowdown,” he admitted.

According to CAA statistics, the volume of domestic air passengers peaked in 1997, hitting 18 million that year. It however slumped by 60 percent to 8 million in 2006, and further dropped to 6 million last year. Airlines have predicted that the number of air passengers will barely reach 4 million this year.
A former Ministry of Transportation and Communications advisor, Professor Chang Shyue-koong from National Taiwan University’s Department of Civil Engineering noted that transportation experts cautioned the government on the effect the high-speed rail would cause local airlines a decade ago.
“But the government has not taken these warnings seriously and prepared for the changes. That’s why the nation’s airlines are now beleaguered by a host of difficulties,” he added.

The other problem remains to be addressed is how to handle the mostly empty local airports these days. One CAA official responsible for rejuvenating these facilities said the increase in cross-strait flights are expected to keep some of the airports busier in the future. “We are planning to turn part of these airports into shopping malls or recreation areas for tourists,” he said.

So trains once again prove that they can compete when the investment is made.

In the argument about bigger government and private enterprise, people miss the key points.

privatize only what you can afford to fail

Private enterprise is all about enabling people to take risks (and potentially failing) in return for a higher reward.

90% of new businesses fail. Usually in the first year. Can the US afford that kind of failure rate at “private” Air Traffic Control centers?

If not, then the US will be forced to subsidize the “private” ATCs that would otherwise suffer normal business failings.

Privatize only where you can afford to allow favoritism

Being successful is all about picking the businesses target audience and only serving those customers. A auto mechanic may decide to specialize in just BMWs. Can we afford to have an air traffic control system that specializes in just Boeing aircraft and does not handle flights using Airbus equipment?

Now with California High-Speed Rail a real possibility, CHSRA should just do what should have been done all along. Route Caltrain (and now HSR) to SFO.

This map shows how it can be done right:

View Larger Map

Benefits:

• Problematic stations are avoid ( South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Broadway).
• Problematic 70-mph San Bruno Curve avoid (+ thorny question of taking someone’s house).
• Direct SFO stop
• A unified People Mover, BART, Caltrain/HSR stop — people coming from the East Bay (Oakland Airport??) would have little to no transfers.
• The Baby Bullet trains would now also be a Airport Express train for people coming from the South Bay/Peninsula. (instead of the 33-step Millbrae disaster)
• More of a direct connection to the actual terminal the passenger is flying into /out of.
• Airport workers from the Peninsula/South Bay could now take a single train to get to work — instead of 33-step Millbrae disaster.
• Update: Also this avoids fighting with 4 cities ( Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco) as impacts to those cities are avoid almost entirely.

Is this likely to happen?

Well considering that Quentin Kopp is running CHSRA…

The article also talks about Braess’ Paradox and Nash Equilibria but the math is beyond my abilities.

He does get the idea of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled. Anything we can do to reduce the miles that need to be traveled to accomplish a task will lead to energy security and independence.

Man, oh, man …but…everything else…. thumbs down…..

1. EU’s policy on GMO was driven by the choice of its *people* (as in a democracy lets its people decide). Or does Chris now believe that you should not be allowed to decide what kinds of food you eat?
2. Africa doesn’t want GMO because they don’t want to have to pay Monsanto to grow crops that African farmers have grown for centuries. African farmers like most indigenous farmers save seed from one crop to start the next. GMO seed from Monsanto means that those farmers have to pay for the privilege of what they have done for free for generations. In a case in Canada — a farmer was accused by Monsanto of ‘stealing’ their corn seed because the GMO Monsanto corn had cross-pollinated with his corn stock. Whether or not you believe the defendant farmer is immaterial. Why would Africans be stupid enough to make let Monsanto, et.al. control their food supply?
3. Africa is the original source for barley (13 or so subspecies). Coming in with a GMO pollutes the seed stock. To see what I mean just google for “GMO Corn pollution”.
4. Blaming environmentalists for the lack of LNG terminals is just wrong. Most people don’t want to have an LNG terminal anywhere near them because if an LNG tanker is ever successfully attacked (and its already been attempted) everyone with waterside property will be crispy. There is a reason the Coast Guard establishes a 2 mile security zone in front, 1 mile behind, and 500 yards on either side of an LNG ship.
5. Natural Gas is another fossil fuel that is running out. Its prices are going up for the same reason that oil in general is going up … increased demand.
6. Corn prices have shot up because the US has decided that it would be a good idea to burn our food in our cars in the form of ethanol rather than eat it.
7. Our agriculture is a very fossil fuel intensive endeavor. Fertilizers are made from fossil fuels. Farmers use fossil fuel hungry tractors and equipment. The food is grown thousand of miles away from where it is consumed. And lastly, meat production is even more intensive as it takes all that fossil fuel in the form of corn and then feeds it to cattle. So we should not be surprised that fossil fuel prices sky-rocketing results in high food prices.
8. Nuclear — No nuclear power plants are being built because the economics simply are not there. Nuclear power plants come in only one size — extra large. Power companies are trying to adjust their production with the demand. A nuclear power plant is a decade-long bet on a huge increase in demand. This is a very dangerous bet that no sane energy executive will make. California has shown that it is possible to reduce per-capita energy consumption without severe noticeable economic issues. California has been doing this for decades (even before the Enron fiasco). So an energy executive has got to decide today that in 2018 electrical demand is going to be so high that any advances in solar, wind, geothermal + any advances in energy efficiency is going to justify an all-or-nothing bet on a nuclear power plant.
9. Nuclear — any nuclear power plant needs an enriched power source. More nuclear power plants means more incentive for other less stable nations to decide they want their own nuclear power plant — which of course makes it easier for nuclear fuel to fall into the wrong hands. Do you think it is a great idea for nuclear technology to be spread everywhere?
10. Nuclear — There really isn’t that much uranium in the world. And as this article explains most uranium comes from …. other countries. So once again our energy security would be out of our control!