High Speed Rail and Security Theatre

[kevin_standlee]

I've been reading a number of news stories and opinion pieces about the California High Speed Rail projects hesitating steps forward. We might really be able to vote on the massive bond issue this year. Given a chance, I will vote for it, even though I think the route they've picked is wrong. (They caved in to political pressure from San Jose and picked the Pacheco Pass route through San Jose, rather than the Altamont Pass route. In essence, San Jose's politicians said, "All trains must stop in our city, or we'll kill your project." This means the route will go through more undeveloped, sensitive areas instead of serving more built-up areas that could really use it -- it's more than just a mechanism for moving people between San Francisco and Los Angeles. But I digress.)

In reading some of the opinion pieces out there, some of the things I read that leave me shaking my head in frustration with my fellow humans:

One piece said, more or less, that if the ridership projections are correct, trains would have to run every fifteen minutes, and of course that would be technically infeasible; nobody could possibly run trains that close together. Presumably the writer has never actually looked at how trains run in the real world. And not just in countries that haven't mostly forgotten how to run a railroad like Japan. Right here in the Bay Area we have rail systems running on tight headways. There's certainly nothing earth-shattering about it.

Another piece claimed that the time savings you get by taking the train -- much of which is because you don't have to arrive two hours before your 40-minute flight in order to satisfy security theatre at the airport -- would be negated, because naturally you'll need to arrive just as early for your train trip, because passengers will have to be screened airport-fashion for your safety. The only way I see that happening would be if the airlines were able to twist the government's arm into requiring it. (You can't hijack a train and drive it into the side of a building.) And if you need this security theatre for high-speed inter-city trains, then why isn't it necessary to ride Caltrain or BART -- or AC Transit, Muni, Greyhound, or MegaBus for that matter?

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the state legislature or the US Congress who never actually uses train travel his/herself figures that airport-style screening for intercity rail systems would be a good thing. After all, Don Phillips, who used to write on transportation issue for the Washington Post, wrote a few years ago in his column in Trains magazine that his editors were aghast when they discovered that you could get on a train without having to go through metal detectors and the same sort of mess that makes the airline travel experience so irritating.

When I see things published that seem so obviously wrong to me, I have to wonder if the people writing them genuinely believe these things. Alternatively, do they just have to find a way to object that doesn't sound like "I don't want trains near me" or something the writer knows will be seen as absurd on the surface, so they hunt around for things that are plausible sounding.

Comments

[twilight2000.livejournal.com]

Same damn stupid kinds of arguments (the San Jose arguments( that forced BART to sit pointing at the airport with Open Ends for so many years -- South City wouldn't let BART come through town unless it was "underground" which was VASTLY more expensive, holding the whole damn line hostage.

As one can now BART to SFO, that seems to have been solved in some way (I've not been down to ride it since the solution was found) -- but it took close on to 20 bloody years for no good reason other than one small city's ridiculous refusal to benefit the whole Bay Area.

[querldox.livejournal.com]

Ah, but if you're coming from the South Bay, BART to SFO has just screwed up what used to be a simple and quick method of getting to SFO.

The old way was take Caltrain to Millbrae, where a shuttle bus met the train and drove (free of charge) to the terminals. The bus was coordinated with the train schedule.

The current way, which necessitates allowing 45 minutes to be sure you'll get to your flight *once you've gotten to Millbrae* is:

1) Get off Caltrain. Frantically try to buy a BART ticket (which you can't do on the train or at a train station) from 1 or 2 machines along with just about everyone else on the train. Reasonable chance you'll miss a BART train if it's there already due to time needed for everyone to buy a ticket.

2) If you missed a BART train there, wait 20 minutes for the next one (admittedly, this is the big potential time gap).

3) This one's new since the start of this year. BART doesn't run from Millbrae to SFO anymore. Instead, you have to take BART to San Bruno, the next station up the line, then cross over to BART heading in the opposite direction, which does go to SFO. Adding time to the trip. Admittedly, they do seem to have at least synced up schedules so you only have to wait a minute or so for a train once at San Bruno.

Oh, and if you get the bright idea to drive to San Bruno rather than Millbrae if driving rather than training, the Millbrae-SFO BART fare is $1.50, including that silly round trip to San Bruno, while the San Bruno to SFO fare is $4.50. WTF?

4) Two trains and 10 or so minutes later, you've finally reached SFO. If you're in the International Terminal, great (although you're in the far end from the security checkpoint and actual gates and it's a fair hike across it). Otherwise, you have a couple of minutes walk with escalator to Airtrain, SFO's internal transit.

5) Get on Airtrain, wait for it to get to somewhere near your terminal.

6) This has actually gotten better, although it took over two years; cross a skybridge to actually get into the terminal, then escaltor down to check in level. Previously there were long convoluted routes to get you down to street level then across to the actual terminals.

So, to take Caltrain/BART to SFO for a domestic flight from the South Bay, you have to get on four separate trains, pay via two different, unconnected systems (alas, it's probably not cost effective for Caltrain to revise their ticket machines to offer a ticket that works with the BART ticket readers), and allocate more time to get from Millbrae to your terminal than it took you to get to Millbrae from as far south as Mountain View. Bring back the old shuttle bus!

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's why I'm all about the Samtrans KX bus. Take train to Belmont or San Carlos, switch to KX, go straight to your terminal on an express bus.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

By the way, the old shuttle was paid for by the airport, not Caltrain or BART or any other public transit agency. That's why it hasn't been brought back since BART's change -- the public transit agencies couldn't afford it back then, they can't afford it now, and the airport hasn't seen fit to restart it. If you want the shuttle bus back, petition the SFO governing body.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

Yeeeaaaah, clearly you haven't taken BART to the airport, or you'd know how crappy it actually is. KX from San Francisco is a better choice, and almost as fast, since it expresses from downtown straight to individual terminals. Oh, and it costs less, too.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

It was a big deal just to add checking for ID's on Amtrak -- prior to that, as you know, you could just show up and hand them your ticket. I am amused with people who think it requires a lot of early checkin to take the train; I regularly talk to people who want to arrive at San Jose an hour early for an Amtrak train, as if they're going to the airport, "To make sure they have time to check in and board".

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Even at that, Lisa has gotten so angry at the way the Salem station agent treated her when she was trying to pick up a ticket that she won't ride Amtrak anymore.

The only reason I'd allow an hour at San Jose would be in case I hadn't picked up my ticket yet, because it has taken that long for me to collect it when I've had to go to a staffed window. Fortunately, the new-generation ticket vending machine at Fremont/Centerville actually seems to work most of the time, so I haven't been in that position for a long time.

One thing I don't understand is why people who think that trains require long security check-in times (or should do so) don't see the same things being necessary for BART or Caltrain. Maybe they haven't ever been on any form of public transit, so BART/Caltrain and other systems simply don't exist in their minds. Or alternatively, BART and other rail-based transport urban transit systems aren't "real trains" or something like that.

A modest security proposal

[caindog.livejournal.com]

Point out to them that trains are on rails and thus can't be easily taken off course. The next logical step would be to require full TSA screening of every non-rail vehicle using federally funded transportation systems (you know, like highways and interstates...) at every entrance ramp. After all, the Oklahoma City bombing was a guy in a Ryder truck, not a plane or a train.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

On the positive side it gave Keith Lynch yet another topic to rant about and he loves that.

Re: A modest security proposal

[howeird]

Because of the stretches of remote areas trains go through, it is relatively easy to damage the track and get away sight unseen. It doesn't take much to derail a high speed train. The terrorist threat is very real, but it doesn't come from the passengers.

[howeird]

Part of the problem is the local pundits assume that there will be lots of RR crossings, and the more often a train runs, the more automobile traffic will be delayed.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. A real high-speed rail system, of course, would have to be completely grade-separated. The trains could run on existing rights of way (like the Caltrain mainline) at reduced speed; however, clearly as the frequency goes up, so does the need for grade separations.

Re: A modest security proposal

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

You are correct that the infrastructure is the weak point. (This is true of all sorts of infrastructure, of course -- roads, bridges, electricity transmission, dams, etc.) A proper track signaling system will also include checks for track integrity, but these can be bypassed by sufficiently savvy saboteurs, such as in the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment and the possible copycat 1995 sabotage on the Sunset Limited.

[twilight2000.livejournal.com]

You're very right -- haven't gotten to yet -- last time I rode BART it deadeneded in (I believe) Daly City, waiting for South City to get it's political act together...

But that wasn't really my point :) The irritation with South City whinging about how it would destroy their town if BART went through and stopping the whole bloody line while they piddled about alternatives was the comparison (something about "de-beautifying the place -- South City? Really? Are we JOKING?).

Too bad the ride to the airport doesn't work the way it was originally envisioned... glad for KX tho :>

[(Anonymous)]

Both the California HSR system and the privately funded DesertXPress from Victorville to Las Vegas will be traveling at or above 125mph in most locations. That means they are legally obliged to implement grade separation plus fencing to address illegal trespass.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/217
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/Content/338

This will be difficult in some built-up areas as replacing every single level crossing with an under- or overpass would be cost-prohibitive. Many will simply be closed, especially if there is already an existing structure nearby. In Silicon Valley, for example, this could affect the busy Castro Street crossing in Mountain View plus several crossing in Menlo Park and Atherton (aka NIMBY central).

Re: A modest security proposal

[(Anonymous)]

The threat is real enough, other nations have suffered terrorist attacks against their rail infrastructure. Here are some examples:

France: bomb explosion on TGV train (Carlos the Jackal, 1983), bomb buried under tracks (AZF, 2004)

Japan: sarin release on subway train (Aum Shinrikyo, 1995)

Spain: bomb explosion on commuter train (Al Queda, 2004)

UK: train set ablaze (IRA, 1997), bomb explosion on subway train (Al Queda, 2005)

Italy: bomb explosion in train station (Red Brigades, 1980)

India: bomb explosion on train to Pakistan (suspect Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, 2007)

All of them decided that airport-style security checks would render their trains essentially useless. This "lack of security" hasn't stopped passengers from riding on trains. Indeed, ridership is growing rapidly. Once Pres. Bush leaves office, there's a good chance the American people will see the actual - as opposed to the manufactured - terrorist threat in a different light.Like people everywhere else, Americans do understand that life is risk. Fact is, you're still far more likely to die in a car crash than in a terrorist attack.

Note that cars in articulated trainsets using Jacob-type bogies almost never tip over if they derail for any reason, including an earthquake. Most high-speed rail trainsets use such bogies. Cars are both shorter and wider than regular standard-gauge rolling stock, but reconfiguring trains and servicing them requires non-standard facilities and equipment.

http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Articulated_trains__Jakob_type_bogies__12.php
http://gees.usc.edu/GEER/Niigata-ken/October31.html
http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20030116elpepunac_2/SCO250/Ies/heridos_leves_descarrilar_Talgo_Gijon-Madrid_Leon.jpg
http://www.talgo.com/htm/English/productos1.htm

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I expect that in areas where, for whatever reason, they are unable to grade-separate or close grade crossings, the trains will instead run at current speeds (max 79 mph). That's a little unfortunate, but it also shows the value of using equipment that is compatible with the existing infrastructure.

Also note that while I did unscreen your comments, I much prefer that people sign their posts if they don't have an LJ account.

[(Anonymous)]

CHSRA wants to use European and/or Japanese rolling stock, which doesn't have the buff strength (crash protection) the FRA normally mandates. The federal agency normally considers passenger trains to be also-rans on freight lines, which must therefore be constructed to let passengers survive low-speed crashes with freight trains. This focus on passive over active safety is analogous to NHTSA's position for passenger cars.

It explains why passenger trains in the US use locomotives and rolling stock that's far heavier than it really needs to be - plus, they are limited to 79mph. In many places, the tracks are actually in such poor state of repair that the top speed is just 30-40mph. Btw, track and track bed wear and tear increase dramatically with rising vehicle weight, again analogous to road infrastructure.

Rail freight companies enjoy special privileges that protect them from eminent domain proceedings, so cannot be bothered to invest in positive train control and other modern crash avoidance technology. HSR trainsets use modern in-cab signalling and therefore need dedicated track for very high speed operation. To avoid a redesign of the trainsets, the FRA will be asked to issue a regulatory waiver for HSR to cover the small portions that are shared with freight trains. Whether it will do so is still uncertain, its Record of Decision from 2005 merely states that a Rule of Particular Applicability *may* be required for operation above 200mph and shared-use rail corridors.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/hst_rod.pdf

The section of the network where this will be most problematic is the LOSSAN corridor from LAUS to Irvine, because there is only room for two tracks. Unlike the East Bay spur, the Peninsula corridor between San Jose and San Francisco actually carries very little freight traffic and has room for four tracks. It also already features numerous over- and underpasses, but closing the many remaining level crossings will remain difficult. Worst case, operation there will be limited to 110mph.

rgseidl