08 April 2014

HSR Peer Review Group on Blending

The California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group was established by AB 3034 (the Proposition 1A bond law) to independently review the HSR Authority's plans, assumptions, analyses and estimates.  The Peer Review Group recently sent the legislature its comments on the Draft 2014 Business Plan, including a number of recommendations concerning the plan to "blend" HSR and Caltrain on the peninsula corridor.  The Peer Review Group comments on blending follow:
Blended System issues. Access to San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal has posed a challenge to the program from the beginning. The ideal engineering outcome – a new, four track system separating HSR from Caltrain and freight service – was problematic because of its high cost and environmental impact. An alternative approach was adopted that blends the services of Caltrain and HSR on the same two track system, mostly within the existing right-of-way but with specific additions of passing tracks where needed and with the possibility of incremental increases in capacity when justified by demand. When combined with electrification of the Caltrain lines, paid half-and-half by Caltrain and HSRA, this approach should work to serve the needs of both systems at least through the first decades of the Phase I Blended system. In a number of our previous letters, the Group has supported the blended system approach; our comments below are aimed at improving its implementation.

The blended approach will require a true joint effort by Caltrain and HSRA with full participation of other parties including the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (that has the responsibility for the connection from the current Caltrain terminus at 4th and King Streets to the Transbay Terminal) and the Union Pacific Railroad (that has freight operating rights on the same lines). There are a number of issues on which the interests of the parties must be explicitly balanced if the blending is to work:
  • Currently, Caltrain uses a platform height of 8” above rail. This means that boarding/de-boarding requires stepping up/down from the floor of the train (25” above rail), which can impose delays and risks of tripping and falling, especially when the needs of disabled passengers must be accommodated. The result is longer and less reliable schedules. The low platform height is dictated by the regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that require platforms to be no higher than 8” on tracks that may also carry freight trains. Unless a waiver from this regulation is granted, or expensive track work is installed, Caltrain will be limited to low platforms. At its current frequency of services, the lack of level boarding is manageable (if undesirable), but it will become much less tenable when Caltrain frequencies are increased and HSR trains are added.
     
  • Under current plans, the floor of HSR trains will be about 50” above the rails, which is typical practice for most of the world’s HSR systems and consistent with Amtrak’s plans in the Northeast Corridor. Caltrain is experiencing rapid demand growth, a process that will accelerate when service to the Transbay Terminal is inaugurated. Caltrain’s plans call for acquiring new bi-level, electric multiple-unit rolling stock. Since the existing Caltrain coaches have a 25” floor level, consistency would suggest a 25” floor level for the new equipment. This would mean that platforms for the two systems would be at different levels, making transfers within station more difficult to arrange. This might be manageable at many common stations where Caltrain and HSR could have separate platforms, but the platform disparity would be more serious at the Transbay Terminal because the number of platforms is limited. As a result, routing of traffic into and out of the station will be more complex, and dispatchers will not have the flexibility to send either system to all platforms when delays or operating problems would otherwise dictate. One approach, turning a number of Caltrain services at 4th and King and limiting the number of Caltrain services to the Transbay Terminal, has been suggested, but would pose restrictions for Caltrain’s access to the Transbay Terminal.
     
  • The basic standards of the PUC for electric catenary wire call for a clearance of 22 feet 6 inches above the rail. One the one hand, both Caltrain and HSR may want a lower catenary height in order to reduce construction cost for which the PUC will have to grant permission: on the other hand, the Union Pacific and port interests may want to protect the hypothetical possibility of future freight cars requiring even more clearance. HSR’s current electrification designs are appropriate for HSR-only operations and may not be acceptable for use in the Caltrain area. There are a number of specific locations where Caltrains’s clearance is already below 22 feet 6 inches, but there is no generally agreed height limitation.
     
  • Positive Train Control (PTC) is a requirement of Federal law. Facing this mandate, Caltrain developed its own system – CBOSS – that is now being implemented. CBOSS may not be appropriate for use by HSR trains. If so, HSR trains may have to deal with two signal systems. In addition, the Union Pacific Railroad will have to operate in the same territory so will have to have conforming signal systems in its locomotives. 
None of these problems is impossible to resolve, albeit at added investment and operating cost by one or more of the parties. There is nothing unique about having multiple freight and passenger operators on a single line and there is experience in the U.S. and Europe with resolving the normal issues. All parties in the blended area are aware of the issues and there has been full cooperation among them.

We are concerned, however, that near-term decisions could be made by the parties acting separately that would ultimately compromise the performance of the system. For example, a decision by Caltrain not to plan for at least 25” platforms, which would provide an essential approach to level boarding, would lead to increased delays and uncertainty that could become unmanageable when Caltrain frequencies increase to meet the rapidly growing demand, especially that caused by the opening of the Transbay Terminal. This problem would get worse when four HSR trains per hour are added to the blended system in 2026. Caltrain will definitely need an expanded fleet, and bi-level cars are an efficient way to meet the need. That said, a decision to buy 25” floor level, bi-level coaches would mean that Caltrain and HSR would be committed to operating on incompatible platforms, which would add rigidity to a system that will be challenged for capacity. This problem could be alleviated if Caltrain ordered coaches that can serve both platform levels or if it adopted a uniform 50” platform, but either solution would clearly add investment costs above those planned. In all cases, the design of the electrification for Caltrain will need PUC approval and will need to consider the interests of all of the operators on the line.

This is a complex issue involving technology, investment, system performance and sequencing including the interests of a number of parties. Clearly there is no perfect answer and it is actually a problem resulting from success in attracting more passengers. We recommend that the Legislature request periodic joint reports from Caltrain, HSR and the Union Pacific Railroad that will use the tools available, including line capacity simulators, to assess the impact of alternative approaches to coach floor and platform height on capital and operating cost, capacity and reliability of both systems. This would include the impact on Caltrain if it has to construct 25” or 50” platforms. This study should also include the investment and operating cost impact of the alternative approaches to catenary height and platform clearance and should outline the decisions that the PUC will be asked to make.

Blended operations also pose the issue of accidents at grade crossings. Even at its existing speeds and frequencies, Caltrain experiences about 20 grade crossing and intruder deaths per year and generates delays on the local streets as autos and trucks wait for passing trains. This will get worse as train frequency and road traffic both increase over time. It would be difficult to overstate the risks of more frequent, faster and quieter Caltrain service combined with 110 mph HSR trains interacting with growing road traffic in the middle of California’s increasingly busy cities. We recommend that the Legislature ask Caltrain, HSR and the communities involved to develop a joint report assessing the likely future risks of increasing train traffic and speeds on the grade crossings in the areas impacted and identifying possible approaches to resolving the issue over time.
The Peer Review Group's comments are a wake-up call to start breaking out of the silo mentality that is prevalent in our transportation agencies, where "staying the course" is too often the overriding consideration.  The blend can only succeed if all stakeholders adjust their plans and projects to achieve better coordination and system-level integration.  The Peer Review Group understands that we are at a juncture where this opportunity must not be squandered.

45 comments:

  1. 50" platforms: 20 year future HSR tail (SINGLE LEVEL HSR TAIL) wagging present-day dog. Stop it. Just stop it.

    There is no supportable engineering or economic reason use high level platforms for Caltrain OR FOR HSR in California

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many supportable engineering or economic reasons to go single-deck, not the least of which is the avoidance of vendor capture. There is only one factory in the world that makes double-decker HSR cars: Alstom in La Rochelle, France. It has never sold a double-decker HSR car outside the borders of France. Meanwhile, the global market for single-deck high-speed trains is well-developed with competitive offerings from all major rolling stock builders.

      There are numerous things to be upset about, but I'm quite sure 50" HSR platforms isn't one of them.

      Delete
    2. There is only one factory in the world that makes double-decker HSR cars: Alstom in La Rochelle, France.

      Only true if you ignore the JR East E1 and E4 series bi-level Shinkansens, made by both Kawasaki and Hitachi.

      Delete
    3. E1 and E4 are not argument for 25" platforms: Shinkansen are built to ~50" platform height.
      The priority is to get CPUC revised the platform height directive on line shared with freight.

      Delete
    4. No longer made by Hitachi and Kawasaki... my point exactly!

      Delete
    5. TGV Duplex is also no longer in production. I think it reasonable to assume that Hitachi and Kawasaki are every bit as capable of producing new 50" platform bi-level units, as Alstom is of producing new 24" units. What was your point, anyway? Whether or not bi-level TGVs (or Shinkansens) can be readily purchased, Caltrain won't be buying them. The only real questions are whether Caltrain or CAHSR should be using 24 or 50 inch platforms. Either way ends up blocking out "off the shelf" commuter or HSR designs from one set of manufacturers or another.

      Delete
    6. TGV : la SNCF commande 40 rames Duplex à Alstom
      Publié le 25.07.2013

      La SNCF a conclu jeudi avec Alstom une commande portant sur 40 rames de TGV de type Duplex. Ce contrat permettra de faire travailler un millier de personnes en France. «La commande totale des 40 rames représente environ 1,2 milliard d'euros», a indiqué une source proche du dossier. Ce contrat doit être signé jeudi par Guillaume Pepy, président de la SNCF et Patrick Kron, le patron d'Alstom au ministère des Transports en présence du ministre des Transports Frédéric Cuvillier et du ministre du Redressement productif Arnaud Montebourg.

      La SNCF lève ainsi une option qu'elle avait passée en 2012 lorsqu'elle avait commandé 30 de ces rames de trains à grande vitesse à deux niveaux. Le contrat, annoncé en avril 2012, était alors assorti d'une option d'achat de 30 rames supplémentaires déjà enregistrées dans le carnet de commandes du groupe industriel Alstom. Les 10 rames supplémentaires valent à elles seules 300 millions d'euros. Ces nouvelles rames ont une capacité supplémentaire d'environ 10% par rapport aux anciennes rames. Elles comptent 560 places sur deux étages. Selon des sources proches du dossier, «la livraison doit s'échelonner entre 2015 et 2019».

      ...

      Delete
    7. My point is that for all the complaints about the tail wagging the dog, Caltrain isn't about to get the CHSRA to adopt 25 inch platforms. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

      If you accept it as given (as I do for good reasons described above) that HSR will use high-platform single-deck rolling stock, then there has to be a plan for Caltrain to become compatible. The logic is extremely simple.

      Delete
    8. If you accept as given (as I do for good reasons we've discussed in person many times) that if HSR will use high-platform single-deck rolling stock, then there is no way (BECAUSE TRANSBAY IS A MINIMAL-aCAPACITY CLUSTERFUCK mostly, and because the Caltrain ROW has had its capacity systematically slaughtered thanks to Caltrain staff actions) that the state-wide high speed network can ever provide a level of service that can come remotely close to justifying its lowest of low-ball cost estimates. You might as well throw in the towel now on CHSR, because an inescapable hard limit on state-wide capacity and profitability has been dug in San Francisco, at the low low low cost of $4 billion.

      The only solution that can possibly work is 150m unit (not 200m, because Transbay can only work with double-berthing and mid-platform crossovers, but was mis-designed to have have exactly 400m long platforms with no breathing space and grossly inadequate passenger platform accessibility) for HSR and Caltrain, with the "lost" 25% of train length made up by double decking.

      Oh, and Caltrain needs to order its EMUs in the next two years. HST's aren't going to be needed for nearly twenty years, during which time both network capacity (SNCF is uninterested in any non-Duplex HST) and handicapped accessibility are going to drive the European market to lowish-platform level boarding.

      Meanwhile, one guess what the global "market" is for magic unicorn high-platform/low-platform EMUs for Caltrain, today? One vendor, exactly. Buy Bombardier stock (not rolling stock), Clem!

      Delete
    9. From the post you linked to: "That order is in itself noteworthy, because Bombardier beat French firm Alstom, the incumbent provider of the previous generation of double-deck regional trains, on its home turf." Alstom has lost the skill since they bid on the work?

      Delete
    10. Richard, if I may summarize your comment in a single sentence: you believe that California HSR will not be viable without double-deck rolling stock.

      Opinions vary on this point.

      Delete
  2. Why does the CPUC limit platform height to 8" where rails are shared with freight? How do Asian and European operators manage to share freight and passenger traffic and use high platforms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why does the CPUC limit platform height to 8""
      There is no valid reason.

      " How do Asian and European operators manage ..."
      They manage without the CPUC and the FRA! Flippant answer, but true.

      A complication is that the US freight railroads, who, like all large US corporations, nakedly control the agencies that "regulate" them, are perfectly happy with the existing requirements, and in general see any attempt to change any regulation relating to passenger rail as a threat to their private interests. Or at the very least they claim so, in order to extract huge concessions from the public, while giving up nothing of value in return. How could little isolated Caltrain be relevant? As an "edge of the wedge", setting a precedent they don't want. UPRR doesn't care about freight on the SF Peninsula (it's a real money-loser): what it cares about is keeping the rest of the country in line.

      It really is as simple as that.

      Bottom line: as long as Caltrain is run and regulated and perceived as a "Commuter Railroad", nothing is going to improve and a lot of public money is going to be spent for no public return.

      Delete
    2. The FRA lets freight run next to level boarding platforms.

      Delete
    3. Richard - Don't the CPUC requirements need to be rooted in real technical issues? If those issues are identified then I'd expect that technical or business solutions will come forth. For example if platform height is being limited by some rare railcar or load configuration (for example a low floor flatbed carrying wide cargo) then the next question is "how frequently does such a load need to be hauled up the peninsula?". If the answer is "Once a decade, maybe" then a reasonable response is to make an exception for the platform-intensive peninsula and require such loads to be delivered by truck. I don't think any rational mediating party would prioritize infrequent once-a-decade activities over nearly a hundred Caltrain runs daily.

      Delete
    4. Thielges: It's my understanding the 1948 CPUC rule (General Order 26-D) limiting platform heights (and, therefore, level boarding) has its origins in protecting railroad workers riding on (or hanging off) the side of trains from being hit by platforms.

      Here's a searchable text version of GO #26-D. Near the end, the door is clearly open for exemptions, as described in "Section 16--Exemptions":

      "16.2 If in any particular case, exemption from any of the requirements herein is deemed necessary by the carrier concerned, the Commission will consider the application of such carrier for such exemption when accompanied by a full statement of the conditions existing and the reason why such exemption is asked. Any exemption so granted will be limited to the particular case covered by the application.

      "16.3 The Commission reserves the right to modify any of the provisions of these regulations in specific cases when, in the commission's opinion, public safety, convenience or necessity would be served by so doing."

      Delete
    5. "Don't the CPUC requirements need to be rooted in real technical issues?"

      No!

      All those arguments you've made, I've made, and many others have made.

      The problem is that Caltrain's super professional staff of hundreds never make them, haven't made them for the last 20 years (during which time they rebuilt all the platforms at all but two stations, and did so at the wrong height), and aren't interested in making them.

      They're interested in capital grants, and the salaries and stress-free employment that come with massive "agency overheads" skimmed off those capital projects. There is no interest anywhere in providing service or in any sort of cost-benefit analysis.

      Simple regulatory, operational or cultural changes that hugely improve the service delivered while having zero or negative capital cost (one person train operation, off the shelf train control, level boarding, escape from FRA oversight, timetable-driven infrastructure, timed transfers, etc) don't ever have a look in. Why bother, when you can control a couple billion dollars of capital slush instead?

      It would be great if there were a way to fix this. If would be great if real technical issues had any effect upon their actions, other than unfailingly determining they they take the exact opposite action, every single time.

      It's insane. Or not insane, if you're on the inside. It works in nearly everybody's interest: "public" regulators, "public" agencies, private railroads, private contractors to "public" agencies. (It doesn't work for the public, but they just don't figure in any of the accounting.)

      Delete
    6. The FRA lets freight run next to level boarding platforms.

      With a seven-inch gap, yes. That's not quite "level boarding" in the ADA sense, as wheelchairs still require bridge plates to board.

      Delete
    7. It's crystal clear that Caltrain, PR flakery aside, isn't ever going to implement level boarding, at least not unless somebody either legally compels them and/or comes gifts then a billion dollar pot of money to spend on themselves (with do-it-over-again station platforms a possible side effect.)

      I suggest that the only "legally compels" route that will get any traction is ... (dramatic pause, sinister foreboding music) ... The ADA Lobby. Nobody else has any traction locally, state-wide or nationally.

      That is a "be careful what you wish for" option, no question, because many of the ADA accessibility regulations make Caltrain engineering practices and Caltrain cost effectiveness look OK-ish ...

      Delete
    8. Surely you mean a 5" gap? 10'4"/2 = 5'2"; the track center-to-platform separation is 5'7".

      But the loading gauge is supposed to be 10'6", so it's really 4", which on straight track is ADA-compatible assuming no tolerances and spherical passengers in a vacuum.

      Delete
    9. I would expect Caltrain to adapt to CAHSRA's Shinkansen loading gauge of 3.38m or about 11.1 ft or 5 ft 6.54 in from track center. So if only FRA standard needed to be met then ADA's level boarding requirement of 3 in gap can be met without much issue.

      Delete
    10. I recall a late 1990s Caltrain newsletter claiming that stiff rail-car suspensions were required in order to safely traverse the current four San Francisco tunnels. While Shinkansen train’s low weigh per seat is truly impressive largely due to more seats abreast enabled by an exceptionally wide loading gauge Caltrain is not in a position to emulate the Japanese loading gauge without paying a high price for tunnel widening or reducing potential speed, ride quality, and most important consideration passenger safety. What would happen if two trains were running in opposite directions at high speed during an earthquake? Fast operation through the tunnels is a plausible situation given the low passenger volumes at stations along the tunnel section (with the possible exception of 22nd Street). Most trains are near their peak loading while having few passengers to board at tunnel district stations. They should roll through these four tunnels at the highest speeds safety considerations allow. Wider trains than the 10.5 foot loading gauge those tunnels were designed to accommodate doesn’t make sense.

      Delete
    11. @William: the CHSRA does not have a loading gauge picked out. As you can read in their engineering documents they are designing their infrastructure to a composite loading gauge so as not to restrict their future choice of rolling stock, but that should not be construed as having picked out an extra-wide Japanese gauge. Quite the contrary, their recent joint RFP with Amtrak indicates that they are going for the same dimensions as the Northeast Corridor.

      @John Bacon: yes, the tunnels are most definitely the biggest constraint, as I mentioned in my earlier article about extra-wide trains. Nevertheless, it makes sense to maximize train capacity in whatever way possible under a blended scenario where Caltrain's throughput (in trains per hour) is constrained by HSR.

      Delete
    12. Shinkansen are extra wide, whatever that means, compared to the narrow stubby things they run in Europe. They are almost the same as "Amtrak" loading gauge.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    15. @Clem, I think there is room for Amtrak and CHSRA to order trainsets with different dimensions without major cost differences, as Amtrak's 20-set order and CHSRA's 27-set order are each actually more than what HSR operators ordered at once. Any sharing, I think, would be on major power and traction components only. If the platform is sufficiently flexible, I don't think car-body dimension is going to be a major cost driver.

      Judging from the cost differences between European HSR trainsets and Shinkensen, it is probably safe to say it cost less to widen a train to accommodate the same amount of people than to lengthen it. For example, a 460-seat 7-car NTV AGV set cost ~$30 million, while a 990-seat 12-car THSR 700T set cost ~$45 million. So in my opinion it would be wise for Caltrain to order wider trains, and work with CHSRA to fund projects that would allow these wider trains to SF, such as building parallel single-track tunnels and use the original tunnels for one-track only.

      Delete
    16. Shinkansen loading gauge is 3.38m; Caltrain's MP36PH-3C is already at 3.30m; AGV, ICE-3 are at 3.00m

      Delete
    17. Who cares what the Shinkansen loading-gauge is? They're not a good choice for Calfornia HSR.
      They're a bad choice to run on track which has FRA-compatible dino-trains.

      Oh, I suppose except for the semi-literates claiming to be experts who say, in effect:
      "I have carefully considered all aspects of the NEC, and therefore.. it is obvious that an NEC-compatible, 48in-above-top-of-rail, platform, is the best choice for California HSR".

      You know who you are. And you *know* that's indefensible reasoning.

      Delete
    18. Adirondacker writes:
      " ... compared to the narrow stubby things they run in Europe. "

      Europe does not run "stubby things". Europe includes the Swiss/German loading gauge, which is considerably wider than the French loading gauge. It definitely includes the Swedish loading gauge, which is bigger still. It arguably includes the Russian loading gauge, which is *larger* than the US loading gauge.

      Stating that "Europeans" .. "run narrow stubby things" is factually incorrect. You know that.

      I'd say, "don't repeat it, as being called a bare-faced liar often causes offence". Except I've *already* said that, and you continue to repeat it.

      Delete
    19. So then Shinkansen aren't very much wider than the upmteen different loading gauges in Europe. Or they are? If they aren't extra wide compared to European trains what are they extra wide compared to? Canal boats? Funiculars in Valparaíso? Conestoga wagons?

      Delete
    20. They're extra wide compared the loading gauge on the non-Shinkansen, narrow gauge lines that comprise the majority of the Japanese rail network. You're the one who claimed they're wider than European rolling stock.

      Delete
    21. Shinkansen are wider than French and German trains, but not wider than some Scandinavian ones.

      Delete
    22. They are wider than Conestoga wagons too. Wider than Erie canal boats, Venetian gondolas and skateboards. Only a little bit wider than North American freight gondolas. Why are narrow gauge Japanese trains pertinent? Or some Scandinavian trains? are the Scandinavian trains plain old wide? Compared to what? The meme is "off the shelf European trains" If Sweden has a different loading gauge compared to Germany and Germany's is different than France's and none of them are anything close to conventional Spanish trains, which of them is off the shelf?
      The chances of someone running conventional narrow gauge Japanese cars outside of Japan is remote. Except perhaps for obscure narrow gauge legacy systems. Or using Conestoga wagon outside of tourist operations. What makes Shinkansen "extra wide".

      Delete
    23. To summarize: some trains are wider than others. Most trains are between 3.0 and 3.3 meters wide. Making fun of European trains gets a rise out of some people. Move right along.

      Delete
    24. Inquiring minds want to know where "extra wide" starts. Is it at 3200 millimeters? 3250 perhaps? Maybe 3155.2?

      Delete
    25. How about: not compliant with AAR Plate F.

      Delete
    26. If the difference between Plate F and Shinkansen is the difference between "wide" and "extra wide" then most of the stuff running in Europe or on Japanese narrow gauge lines is extra narrow. Stubby too.

      Delete
    27. Clem: Of course wider trains that would accommodate 5 or 6 seats abreast or a wider aisle for wheel chairs and bicycles will provide more useful space per unit weight. But there are far more important design aspects that contribute to rail transit efficacy. Conforming to the U.S. Northeast corridor platform level car width would give Caltrain a reasonable shot at matching whatever train width the CHSR Authority orders but also have the advantage of Caltrain being able to economically tack-on relatively small numbers of additional EMU orders to major Northeast Corridor fleet expansions while simultaneously complying with the requirements of the ‘Buy American Act’. The least awkward approach to blending two different train widths to a single platform edge would be to use gauntlet tracks at station platforms; adding considerably to maintenance costs and serious accident risk especially when maximum speeds exceed 80 mph.
      Caltrain should purchase low-slung EMU trucks with the option to accept a few inches of shims in order to accommodate any probable final system platform level or construct all platform track-ways so they can readily be either under-cut or raised in order to match the final CHSR platform height decision. Laser platform height sensors driving rolling stock air suspension bellows in order to precisely match car-floor and platform levels at every stop could shorten dwell times and reduce the need to construct and maintain exact matching track-way−platform levels.
      One reason to match Caltrain−CHSR platform levels is solve the ‘last-train-home’ problem. Normally most potential CHSR passengers distributed along the SF Peninsula Corridor should be collected by Caltrain runs to very few CHSR transfer stations. But there should also be a credibly reliable means to catch the last evening CHSR train home for most of their riders distributed along the SF Peninsula. An all major Peninsula stop last CHSR train would meet that requirement.

      Delete
  3. As built, the top of the San Francisco tunnels was a 30-ft semicircle centered 8.48 ft above the top of the rail-- so a 10-by-16-foot cross-section car would be 15 inches from the wall. Is that not enough, or is the ballast taller now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the ballast got any taller, but the tunnel lining did get reinforced by shotcrete application about a decade ago, which resulted in the radius becoming somewhat less than 15 feet. See engineering drawing for typical cross-section. The tunnels are definitely a key constraint for vehicle cross-section.

      Delete
  4. Mike burlingameresident09 May, 2014 14:32

    Richard Mlynarik, Clem Tiller

    Please take this to the NBC 11 Bay Area investigative unit. They are currently exposing questionable accounting practices at Samtrans. You guys have great technical expertise on these issues NBC 11 needs to know the lowdown on CBOSS and all the other unprofessional crap going on there before they completely bankrupt the peninsula transit system.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reality Check09 May, 2014 20:41

    Why can't NBC11 just read the CBOSS (and other) blog postings here? Then they could just email Clem and/or RIchard if they still have specific unanswered questions after that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wouldn't call any of this stuff unprofessional or fraudulent by U.S. standards. It's just par for the course in the transit industrial complex, a wealth-transfer system that does very well by all its participants. Think Bay Bridge East Span, but on a much smaller scale. Half the product for triple the price!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nah California is special. The commuter railroads not in the Bay Area are doing it much cheaper. But then the commuter agencies not in the Bay Area don't see themselves as so very very special

      Delete