I’m no expert myself, but anyone who has ridden the European high-speed rail system knows that the trains are able to travel on conventional tracks, which is almost always the case when they approach major cities. That’s the beauty of using conventional rail technology (steel wheels on standard-gauge track, with overhead electric power) instead of an exotic technology like magnetic levitation or even a conventional but non-standard technology like BART (non-standard-gauge track and third-rail power). Existing lines like ACE and the Capitol Corridor could be upgraded to accommodate high-speed trains at conventional speeds at a tiny fraction of the cost of building dedicated high-speed lines parallel to the conventional ones. Even though the high-speed trains would have to slow down to use the conventional tracks, the full trip would still be much faster than it would be if passengers were forced to transfer.

Of course, once the initial connection is made, it’s always possible to go back and do track upgrades and add additional tracks. That’s one of the reasons European high-speed rail has been so successful: the track network has been expanded and upgraded incrementally, as ridership and demand grows. If European politicians had assumed that the entire system had to be built at once, from scratch, with all-new tracks and rights of way, it probably never would have been built at all.

The other mistaken assumption floating around is that cities along the alignment would only benefit from the high-speed trains themselves. This is often used as an argument against the Altamont Pass alignment: “Are commuters from Tracy really going to pay to take a high-speed train to work in San Francisco?” They won’t have to. The upgrades to the line to accommodate high-speed rail will make it possible to run faster, quieter, more frequent electric commuter trains along the same alignment. Some of these trains can be locals that make all stops, and some can run express. All of this can be in addition to the the long-distance high-speed service itself, which would be more expensive, less frequent, and would make the fewest stops of all. All of the layered additional service that would be possible along an electrified, upgraded right of way is what makes the Altamont route so much more cost-effective than Pacheco.

By contrast, the Pacheco route runs through the middle of nowhere, so there would not be nearly enough local riders to make full use of the expensive infrastructure in the corridor. People argue that development along the Pacheco alignment could eventually bring more local riders, but why drive development into largely empty areas instead of intensifying existing development along the already-developed Altamont corridor? Viewed in light of its recently announced commitment to fight sprawl, supporting Pacheco (or even “Pacheco first,” for anyone who actually believes that the “dual alignment” approach is anything more than a cynical political ploy) is height of hypocrisy for the MTC.

Oddly enough, BART now wants another $12 billion or so to do what they already did. Here’s the link:

http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.asp?id=399

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/implementation/ImplementationPlan.pdf

“The High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act (SB 1865/SB1169) directs that the first portion of the high-speed train system to be funded will be San Francisco to Los Angeles. Even along that route there may be regional segments that can be opened before construction is complete on the entire north-south line.”

For a lot of people, the nearest HSR station is going to be closer than the nearest airport.