Dry and Tame in San Francisco
by Rafael
Heads up, denizens of San Francisco: Supervisor Chris Daly is hosting a Rincon Hill neighborhood meeting on the High-Speed Rail Authority’s Terminus Proposals on December 16 from 6:30-8:00pm. The alarmist FUD being bandied about is familiar enough to NIMBY watchers by now: omg, those barbarians going to take your property by eminent domain!
Closer to the truth is that CHSRA is studying a Main/Beale alternative for the SF HSR station, ostensibly to comply with CEQA requirements to study a sufficiently broad range of options. To date, only one alternative in the downtown area has been looked at. Afaik, no-one is even considering cut-and-cover construction of any access tunnel into downtown SF. It’s possible to excavate underneath existing buildings, even in earthquake zones, so eminent domain takings should be minimal or zero. Construction nuisance is a more legitimate concern, especially if tunneling must continue at night. It’s not clear if anyone from the PRP’s CSS team will be there to provide a factual response to the information supervisor Daly is going to provide.
UPDATE: My apologies, CHSRA engineers apparently did inform some Rincon Hill residents that their properties would have to be taken in a Beale/Main Street station scenario, though it’s not exactly clear to me why. It could be an overabundance of caution, as the rock in the area is quite soft and the water table high. TBMs with pressurized bentonite shields can usually cope well enough with that, but there’s still a residual risk of subsidence, in addition to the general seismic risk.
This upcoming meeting gave me a new idea I figured I’d share with you for your amusement: why not run tracks below grade without tunneling under downtown SF city streets and neighborhoods at all?
To date, CHSRA has not considered the theoretical possibility of constructing a type B immersed tube in the Mission Creek Channel and out to a large offshore station complex for HSR + Caltrain immediately south of the Ferry Terminal, which is located at Mission and Embarcadero. The complex would be enclosed by a sea wall on three sides and abut the Barbary Coast Trail on the fourth. The platforms and a multi-story car park would be located in the basement, below sea level. There would only be single-story structures at grade level, to minimize impacts on views of the bridge and Bay. Even so, there would be scope for a vaulted roof above the tracks, with sunlight penetrating down to the platform level. Optional extras include a loop track for SF Muni streetcars and a public park.
View SF HSR station below sea level in a larger map
Crazy? Definitely. Crazy like a fox? You tell me.
A serious issue that engineers would need to address is the seismic safety of both the immersed tube and the sea wall. Other complications include stirring up a lot of Bay mud and temporary impacts on ferry services south of the main terminal. Still, it’s not a given this would cost more than the $2.8 billion DTX tunnel + train box already under consideration. Who knows, that’s a very large sum. This might even be cheaper.
Downsides include the relatively long distances to Embarcadero BART, downtown attractions and the Transbay Terminal site. Upsides include the large area, the architectural freedom to construct a showcase train station interior and easy access to connecting ferries and SF Muni streetcars. Selected transbay buses could use Folsom, Howard and 1st to provide connecting transit to the East and North Bay.
Whether or not this concept would force the city of SF to cancel the Transbay Terminal Center or merely to scale it back to the portion above grade, I cannot say. Considering the planning maturity of that project, CHSRA would have to enumerate very good reasons for pursuing any alternative, be it an upgrade to 4th & King, a station at Main/Beale or this new off-the-wall offshore idea.
Cool idea Rafael, I would support something like that. It does have some disadvantages, as you mentioned, but also has some advantages. It would connect very well with ferry services. I think it would be something worth examining. Not likely to happen, but nice outside the box thinking.
that underwater terminal is totally MYST, raphael.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:40 am
I had to look that one up ;-)
The terminal I had in mind isn’t actually underwater, though. It’s just completely fills the deep pit created by erecting a sea wall and pumping out all the water. You know, 25 kilovolts and all that. I suppose we could have a few bullseyes in the sea wall, though, so passengers can watch the marine life swim past as they descend into the belly of the beast.
wu ming Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:58 am
run with it: an underwater terminal with steampunk-style portholes, lots of wood and brass. you could even design the atrium to look like a sunken ship, barbary coast style.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Can we have pirates, too?
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Disney could be contracted to design the entertainment.
Spokker Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I didn’t know Rapture was getting a high speed rail station. I thought Andrew Ryan was a free-market libertarian!
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
He’s a libertarian? Well, that explain the PRT pods.
Spokker Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
He built Rapture because he was sick of high taxes and government oppression and regulations against people being able to shoot lightning bolts from their fingers. The only place where a laissez-faire market can exist is at the bottom of the ocean apparently.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Well If we can lay this tube along the waterfront, and we can run our extension cord from sf to pittsbug, then we can run my polar garden hose plan along the coast to get the melting run off.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:55 am
MYST? I played that computer game way back when, but I still don’t get the reference. Someone remind me?
Spokker Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I was referencing a game called Bioshock.
All of this just reminds me how much better and cheaper it would be to build a central station at 8th and Market. If I still lived in the city, I would be willing to start a serious campaign on that front. Let me recap the advantages:
-There is (or was) property there just ripe for redevelopment.
-It would be more or less a straight-shot from the existing track geometry, there would be no need for hairpin turns that rule out most of the world’s HSR designs.
-There would be plenty of room for upwards of eight platform tracks, it wouldn’t be limited to the measly six at the TBT.
-It would be mere steps from Civic Center BART/Muni, no need to consider long underground pedestrian passages or moving walkways.
-The area around there is dying for some urban renewal.
And yet everyone’s arguing about spending billions to do a shoddy job of cramming all of the rail services into the basement of the TBT.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Yes, I always liked that idea (MAP). I think 4 platform tracks would be the absolute maximum you could possibly squeeze into a space 80 feet wide, though – and that already includes the sidewalks. Three would be comfier. Fortunately, a second set of platforms could be under 8th, on the other end of the BART station.
Admittedly, the setup would be funky and not actually near downtown. Part of block just south of Market St. was redeveloped recently, so it would be difficult to find land for a traditional station building above ground. Fortunately, it’s not as if HSR passengers are going to spend a lot of time lounging around anyhow, bullet trains run frequently and on time. You just buy your ticket at the machine (or at home), arrive by transit or taxi, board the train, sit down in your cushy seat and within minutes, off you go.
In transportation terms, a central station at Civic Center would probably work well as a regional HSR terminal because the connecting rail transit is right there, plus buses plying Mission Street. For Caltrain commuters headed into downtown, it wouldn’t be much of an improvement over 4th & King, though. Developing the Civic Center area into a new business district wouldn’t be easy or quick, even though there Ninth Circuit Court is right there. If the Tenderloin weren’t so seedy, high-powered law firms would probably be quite interested in setting up shop there.
However, that would require SF to think in terms of adapting land use to transportation infrastructure rather than the other way around. That’s not the American way, so we’re left with trying to figure out how to make trains contort themselves to go where a couple of bus ramps already happen to be. All it takes is a boatload of OPM and some ear plugs to block out the wheel squeal. Either that, or get wet’n'wild on the Embarcadero.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:13 am
You may have noticed that west of the Civic Center there’s lots of housing. That’s why MUNI runs all those buses and trolley cars. I’m sure the people west of there are just peachy keen with the idea of adding 30,000 people to their morning and afternoon commute. And MUNI is just thrilled with the idea of adding 60,000 fares and all the extra equipment and staff for people who don’t live in San Francisco.
And the people who live in the East Bay and have no other way to get to San Francisco than by bus are just dying to go from Transbay two blocks to MUNI or BART and take a ride out to the Caltrain/HSR station near the Civic Center. Sounds like a great idea all around. Not to mention the people north of San Francisco….
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Actually people in SF have been trying to clean up/revitalize/gentrify that area for years, they might be more receptive than you think, and the most important thing is to have a BART connection. People from the east bay aren’t going to be riding Muni LRTs to the Civic Center Station, they’re going to ride BART or in much smaller numbers, a bus. It’s only the people on the bus that will be transferring to Muni or BART. It won’t be 30k new people on muni or BART anyway.
But you’re right that the station needs to be near the financial district because that’s where the jobs are. If we’re going to try to use the station as a catalyst for redeveloping a neighborhood, then 4th and King is probably a better option.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
The Caltrain passengers are going to walk from 7th and Market to their jobs? They are going to be getting on Muni or BART. There’s 40,000 passengers a day now, how many more does fast, quiet electric service bring even if the terminal is on 7th?
BART doesn’t serve everyone. They are spending a few billion dollars building a new bus terminal, I’d hazard a guess that’s because they expect people will be using well into the future.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
never say “gentrify” unless you want to kill the idea.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@ adirondacker12800 -
the 7th/8th station idea could easily exclude Caltrain, since the improvement over 4th & King + Central Subway is slight. HSR is expected to generate some but not a whole lot of commuter traffic.
As for transbay buses … most of the traffic across the Bay bridge is and will remain related to commuting. If the HSR station were to end up far from the TTC, adapt the route of a small subset of those buses. With BART right next to the HSR platforms, many passengers hailing from the East Bay would presumably prefer to use the subway anyhow.
The GGT buses out of Marin probably already use Mission Street anyhow, in which case all they’d need to do is add a stop.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I live at 8th and market and as much as Id love an hsr station in my basement. its not gonna happen. neither is rafaels drawing. What is going to happen is what is already planned. This is one of the few – perhaps only issue that chris daly, ( my district supe by the way) agrees with the mayor on. In fact the supes and the mayor are with the tjpa on making sure the train is in the station and so are san franciscans.
sorry. move on to another topic.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
unfortunately its way too late to consider civic center.
Although these thought exercises are always interesting, it still seems the best option is to stick with the existing Transbay Terminal, with efforts to resolve some of the known issues such as the “throat.” I still do not understand what CHSRA thinks it is going to accomplish by dragging out this fight.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:59 am
My guess is they’re looking to
(a) get a railway station with enough platforms
(b) avoid tight squealing curves
(c) get a handle on construction costs
and/or
(d) avoid a CEQA lawsuit by actually studying more than just one option for the SF station
The TTC’s main claim to fame is that it has a decision of record and city hall has all the real estate deals sown up. That’s not trivial, but cities only get to build a new main railway station for themselves once in a blue moon. If you build it, you’re stuck with it for 100 years or more. Therefore, it has to actually work really well in transportation terms and, the train box concept is inherently suboptimal in many respects – especially given the $2.8 billion price tag for all the underground bits. I see nothing wrong with CHSRA double-checking if there really isn’t a better alternative.
dejv Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
but cities only get to build a new main railway station for themselves once in a blue moon. If you build it, you’re stuck with it for 100 years or more.
Exactly. City I live is in kind of similar situation. It’s central station is perfectly located but has screwed up design and it’s approaches make a bottle neck for today traffic needs. Plans to change this arrangement were in 1890′s (last successful one, the approaches got rid of switchback later according to these plans), 1920′s, 1930′s, 1970′s, 1990′s and 2000′s, all of them proposing new well-designed station, but after the recent pre-crisis cost cuts, the throats of this station got a cancer similar to that Richard Mlynarik is talking about. With crisis cost cuts, the project was delayed again, there is threat that it won’t be started early enough to be co-funded by EU structural fonds and it will likely be once again scrapped and around 2012-2013 we’ll start again at point zero. If everything will go right way then it could be completed around 2025-2030.
I’d put it this way: 100 years is actually lower estimate of such station lifespan. There’s no point doing it wrong with plans to fix (“improve”) it later, it simply won’t happen during screwed station’s lifespan.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:26 am
To be fair, the long priority axis routes in the EU’s TEN-T program has actually given a few cities an incentive to finally replace their old head-end stations with new ones featuring run-through tracks. Stuttgart and Vienna come to mind. Berlin is a special case because it was a divided city for many decades.
If anything, these exceptions prove the rule: get it right the first time.
In an ideal world, there would already be specific – if unfunded – plans for extending the SJ-SF line to the East Bay and up to Sacramento. An early decision regarding where a new fixed rail link across the Bay would connect at either end would provide a valuable data point in evaluation station location and orientation options. As it is, I doubt there will ever be a standard gauge heavy rail link between SF and Oakland.
A second BART tube connected to a tunnel under Mission Street might happen one day. In the case of the offshore station complex discussed in the post, it would be possible to anticipate run-through tracks for a future BART stop, but there would be knock-on effects on the ferry terminal.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Both the TBT and the Beale/Main stations are very and somewhat poorly suited (respectively) for any future expansion to the east bay. The TBT’s location and curve radii don’t allow for runthrough tracks to the east bay, which combined with the limited number of platforms means any future transbay tube would also need new a new station and platforms. The Beale/Main option would provide more capacity than is likely to be needed from trains coming up the peninsula, but as it is a true “terminal” design, it makes through service to the peninsula more difficult.
Of the three options, the existing Caltrain station and 4th and King is best suited to mesh with a future east-bay connection as it’s both wide enough to have a large number of platforms and angled such that they could be run-through, the problem is it’s not nearly as convenient for most San Franciscans and even less convenient for people riding in on BART from the very large catchment area in the east bay.
Something like the new pier you outlined above might work, there’s even the large concrete pier between briant and brannan that is currently a parking lot. It’s not quite large enough for a full station, but expanding that would likely be easier from a political standpoint that building absolutely anything new in the bay.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 7:21 am
There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the TBT design, CHSRA’s effort to consider an additional alternative, and the risk of the TBT being denied ARRA grant funding to support their project. TBT’s thinking is that the TBT accomodates HSR, and it’s additionally consistent with historic comment provided from CHSRA. ((( I guess??)))
The problem is…
…AB3034 changed the CHSR project and the TBT design is no longer consistent. At the very least, AB3034 formalized planning and design criteria for the project… most notable allowing no less than 5 minute separation between trains.
There seems to be additional TBT design issues too…. insufficient tangent platforms… length and number of… and the limited ability of the terminal to process anticipated service levels.
All that said… when it came time for TBT to submit the ARRA grant application for their project… TBT design was no longer consistent with HSR plans. Certainly, TBT has the right to submit an application… and cross their fingers… but pointing a finger at CHSRA for being obstructionest (my word) for sending mixed signals to FRA (overseer of ARRA grant applications)… is rather disengenous. Of course CHSRA has the right to consider alternatives consistent with AB3034 – it’s encumbant on them!!!
No ones opinion here concerning their own view on future expected train service levels…. essentially what they think is going to be needed… has no value except for entertainment purposes.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Agreed, though what would the internet be without rampant, uninformed speculation and hand-wringing?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 9:47 am
With regards to (d), I’m not sure how they will be able to use that as an excuse when they didn’t study alternatives to ARTIC in Anaheim. The Alternatives Analysis punts on that and just says:
“ARTIC is being designed and environmentally analyzed as part of a separate project, so the HST project will only add service to the station.”
That said, the issues with the TBT have been discussed at length, perhaps they think they would be more open to lawsuits if they don’t evaluate the other options in SF than they would be in Anaheim, which is a much simpler design and location.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’m not aware of significant opposition to the concept, location or design of ARTIC. San Franciscans love the idea of a multi-modal transit hub but the other aspects have turned out to be more contentious that CHSRA had initially bargained for.
Since the only way to challenge an agency’s self-certification under CEQA is to file a lawsuit, CHSRA may merely be playing defense where it thinks it needs to.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
That is exaclty what is happening. Ive talked with some folks at tjpa, ( and sent them my drawings per the amtrak space in the buiding which they to my surprise they took seriously)
the train will be in the transbay terminal. San franciscans and city hall won’t allow anything else and if city hall and san franciscans say so then that is the end of it.
Clem Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
> I still do not understand what CHSRA thinks it is going to accomplish by dragging out this fight.
What it will accomplish is that the TTC might lose any ARRA HSR funding they might have applied for. Two pigs, same trough.
Andrew Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I find myself extremely nonplussed about the TBT in general, but I’ll get behind it if they get the following in order:
-Straighten out the damn curves, we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.
-Expand the train box under Mission Street to make room for 4-6 additional platform tracks. CAHSR very well might be able to do with four platforms, but I don’t see how Caltrain can only do with two. Add the possibility of Amtrak Coast Daylight trains to the mix and the situation quickly becomes untenable.
-Guarantee a high-quality pedestrian connection to Embarcadero BART/Muni.
-Make provisions for a future transbay crossing from the site. In addition to expanding HSR and Caltrain to Oakland, it would open the possibility of Capitol Corridor trains being pulled by two-mode locomotives serving the TBT, making it much more a world-class intercity station and even more necessitating the need of additional platforms.
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I agree on most points, but unfortunately, you can’t really expand the TBT space horizontally because of tall buildings on nearly all sides. A two level station (12 tracks on 6 platforms) was considered, but eliminated on the grounds that it would apparently cost 225% as much as the single level station…
There is a very large chunk of (mostly) open space one block south of the Transbay Terminal which I think might make a decent location for a second terminal (you could potentially fit 10 or more tracks side-by-side!), but I’m not sure if the development rights to that property have been sold already.
Another thing I think might be worth considering is putting the tracks under third street rather than second. Granted, you would have more property takes at the station throat, but you could vastly improve the curve radii, as well as assuring full length platforms for all tracks. Also, third street is, AFAIK, a lot flatter than second (as well as wider), so cut-and-cover tunneling might be easier.
Andrew Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I see that now, looking at Google Earth, however the TTC project website’s map shows a redevelopment area right up to Mission Street. Barring expanding the currently planned train box horizontally, a separate but connected platform area under Mission Street would suffice.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Two terminal tracks are capable of turning around 24 tph in New York. Caltrain would need to stop thinking of itself as a commuter rail with long dwells, but once it did it could shorten TBT dwells to allow two-track operation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am
…but California is special and even though the rest of the world is capable of doing it California is special.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:44 am
It’s the US, not just California. If NJT and the LIRR turned trains at the same speed as the subway, they’d use 6 station tracks at Penn between them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
There’s room for ten that are wide, have lots of stairs and elevators. It’s too bad they didn’t complete East Side Access on schedule, I seem to remember that the original completion date was 1983. They could have reconfigured in phases to be able to clear a platform of 2000 passengers in a few minutes. … but they didn’t…
Still would have left them with pedestrian traffic jams on Seventh Ave between 31st and 33th. The new entrances north of 34th street should alleviate that to some extent. Transbay is going to be um um interesting when there’s a Caltrain load of passengers every 6 minutes and two or three buses a minute are arrriving….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Then close 11 tracks and replace them with 10 that are wide and have lots of stairs… that ought to be cheaper than the $4.8 billion difference between the full ARC project and just four-tracking the existing tunnels.
As for pedestrian traffic jams, again, if they can build new walkways and exits at Grand Central, they can build new exits at Penn. Is it expensive? Yes. Does it cost $4.8 billion and make through-routing impossible? No.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Reconfigure the 21 platforms into 10 or 11. It would have to be phased because taking the staion out of service for a decade while they tear down Madison Square Garden, the station and platfomrs down to track level and rebuild it, isn’t a viable option. Paving over the even numbered tracks and putting staircases over them would be cheap and fast. It wouldn’t be good, it would still leave aa forest of columns, stairs, elevators etc next to the track. Taking out 4 tracks at a time to create a very wide island platform, getting rid of the columns etc and generally making it a better pedestrian experience would take a very long time and cost lots and lots of money if it’s possible at all. Go down there sometime, you’ll notice the great big arena hovering over the station, that takes a bit of support down at track level.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Taking out 4 tracks at a time would cost a lot of money, but surely it would cost less than building a new deep-level cavern. Deep-level construction always cost more. In Tokyo the depth of new subway lines is one of the factors behind the escalating costs (now up to almost $500 million per route-km, a full 30% of the cost of Second Avenue Subway).
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:55 am
You did post a link just the other day about how the 24tph in NY is untenable, leads to cascading delays, and is the reason for building a new station and a new tunnel.
Let’s not pretend that just because something is possible, that it is a desirable end-state.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I linked to the websites for the new bridges and tunnels and commented that it will double capacity. They normally run 23 trains per hour into the tunnel, rumor has it that this time of year there is a 60 minute period when they do 25 or 26. LIRR and Metro North manage 60 or so an hour but they also use three tracks in the peak direction.
The tunnels max out for the annex, not the platforms. They’ll be running 26 trains per hour into the new platforms, 6 of them. Ones that are wide and have lots of stairs and escalators and elevators that lead to new entrances/exits away from the existing Penn Station. If I remember correctly 14 car platforms so 12 car multilevels will fit easily. Peak hour multilevels can carry 2000 passengers. Keep the math simple, 24 trains per hour into 6 tracks means from the time an inbound train crosses the first switch in the interlocking until it passes the last switch in the interlocking going outbound gives them 15 minutes. Ten-ish from the time the doors open until the time they close. LIRR is going to be doing something similar at Grand Central but they will have 8 platforms and tail tracks to work with.
Haven’t they got something like this in Hong Kong?
Back in september when we were all speculating about where CHSRA was looking at for the Beale/Main station, it seemed like it was going to be difficult to avoid taking the BayCrest Towers in addition to the warehouse/office building across the street. Without some of the more exotic alignments, the station throat would be under the baycrest building, so bentonite shields aren’t going to help.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
That’s why I would prefer they study a variation based on staggered platforms under and just west of Main Street and forget about Beale.
If you’re going to remain on land, at least try to minimize eminent domain takings. Besides, Beale Street is the location of the western Bay bridge anchorage. I’m not sure Caltrans would be all that crazy about someone constructing a tunnel literally right next to that. Main Street is a short block east of it, which ought to be far enough.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Yeah but main street is the site of a support for the bay bridge. Not as important as the anchorage, but also worth staying away from. I think your main street option could work, but the TBJPA rejected a similar alignment on beale because it would be too difficult to excavate that close to the existing historic buildings.
Also, it looks like the Baycrest Towers have an underground parking garage, making it even more likely that tunneling under or next to the building will result in taking it.
While the link above mentions “many properties” that’s true, there are lots of condos in that building, but it’s still “just” one building, and some of those are long term corporate apartments. That’s little consolation to the people who are facing eviction, but it’s all about the tradeoffs.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Yup, that’s why I figured the immersion tube + offshore terminal idea might be worth talking about. Eminent domain isn’t the only consideration, of course. Location, platform count, access to connecting transit, architecture, seismic risk, curve radii in the approach, total cost – there are lots of factors.
I don’t see any evidence that any priorities are applied in that “advantage/disadvantages” list.
Number 1: it integrates better with local transport than other available options, or else it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, no need to look at advantages/disadvantages further down the list.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Relative to the TTC, the offshore terminal would offer better connections to the ferry terminal and SF Muni’s T and F lines, worse connections to transbay buses (unless some of them are rerouted). Connectivity to SF Muni Subway and BART is a wash unless the city actually build a pedestrian passage under Beale in the TTC scenario. Something similar between Embarcadero and the offshore terminal would be harder to pull off. Don’t know enough about SF city buses.
I don’t agree that alternatives to the TTC are worth considering only if their connectivity to local transit is better. If they score about the same, other factors need to be looked at as well.
Cool that meeting is on my day off. I will be there. not only that but I will be in touch with the BOS and the mayor on this one. The train will be in the station. You know, I can see city hall from my house. ;-)
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
and chris daly lives in my hood. and i looks like its time to start a train in the station campaign.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Then you should also start a campaign to raise funds for improving the 4th/King station, because that’s where caltrain is going to be stuck for the next 30 years until a new terminal is built to replace the TBT. The whole point of the train box under the TBT was to bring Caltrain downtown. Now you’re going to get a station that doesn’t serve HSR properly and doesn’t serve Caltrain either.
And you complain that the peninsula NIMBYs are irrational? The SF TBT is a $4B bus station with a half-assed train station squeezed underneath. And no, it’s not just San Franciscans that are paying for it.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Don’t you people worry about. SF will do things the way SF wants to do thing. I’d focus on your own stations in your own neighborhoods, but thanks for your concern.
I assure you, the trains will be in the station, our way, on our schedule. Once a coalition is formed that includes the wealthy Rincon Hill Dwellers, the transit activists and cyclist coalitions, you can be sure that the TTC will be the place. add to that the City’s plans for the adjacent property and there you have it. I’m not sure how one goes about getting a city ballot initiative, but if there was one, I know what the result would be. I’ve contacted all the pertinent players and will wait to see what the general consensus is on this issue. Rest assured I’ll keep you posted.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
You sound just like someone from the peninsula: “The train will be in a tunnel or it will not go through our town. We’ve got money and we’re going to do what we want”.
Just like with the peninsula NIMBY’s, the only people you’re screwing are yourselves (well, and the rest of us that have to pay for $4b vanity projects).
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
okay, you are not paying for the vanity project. The project, as far as the terminal is concerned is being funded by development rights. Developers build the terminal in exchange for the right to build high rises basically. highrises are generally not welcome here, especially the really tall ones, but in exchange for building a transit center, the people have granted permission to develop the area. Of course public money goes in too, but I think the city is getting a ton of cash that the winning designers put up for the land. As for who pays for what in this state, I can only wonder how many of southern california’s boondoggle…er I mean freeway interchanges er I mean hollywood subway cave ins….. where paid for with my tax dollars.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
But I hope it does go to a fight. I severely doubt that most people in SF understand the problems with the TBT, and what that means for SF in the long term. If there’s controversy, at least there will be some discussion around it. Right now people in SF want the TBT because they think it means they’ll get HSR and Caltrain downtown. There will be hell to pay when they realize the TBJPA spent $4b building something that doesn’t deliver that.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Again, the city has plans for the surrounding neighborhood already, the city has a route that is the least disruptive to residents, especially in that neighborhood, and caltrain will be in there as will hsr. The alleged problems here are being blown way out of proportion which is not surprising seeing how this is mostly a blog for hsr purists. I get that. but compromises are going to made from one end of this system to the other and the authority will have to bend to appease every locality. Its not something to worry about, just a political reality. Not to worry, in the end there will be a very fast train that goes to lots of places and people will use it. So you needn’t fret.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I think the possible exclusion of an entire category’s worth of trains that operate at noise levels 10-15dba lower than their european brethren is plenty of reason for the entire rest of the state to “fret”.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
dont worry they’ll fix the problem.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
What was this about: “Is there a demonstrated need for the extra capacity, that would justify somehow scraping together even more funding for Transbay? In Tokyo, 13 trains per hour at peak time for the Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen line use just six platform tracks. But that’s for a line that carries 145 million passengers, which exceeds CHSRA’s projections even at full-system buildout — and that’s in a country whose current population is at least double California’s projected population by the year 2050. The TJPA also considered a worst-case scenario with a higher Transbay ridership (12.7 million annual riders), in which an especially large number of passengers happened to concentrate on peak hour trips. But even in that worst-case scenario, combining the CHSRA’s ridership projections with its new alleged need for increased peak capacity, the trains would only be 12-43% full at the newly increased service levels. Note that there are still other design options that were once considered — including tail tracks and an underground track loop — which would improve the flow of trains in and out of the station.
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Does that account for CalTrain?
Andrew Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
CAHSR might do fine with four platforms, but I don’t see only two is going to be enough for Caltrain. Also, we might be seeing Amtrak serve the TBT in the form of the Coast Daylight someday. How’s that expected to fit in?
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I wonder if the currently planned CalTrain tail tracks could be extended into a loop, thereby granting CalTrain a lot more capacity…
In terms of the Coast Daylight, that might not be allowed to get into the TBT anyway, since it would presumably use diesel locomotives (which I doubt would be allowed in the tunnel). Assuming that it could (with dual-mode locomotives or somesuch), it would have to use the low-level CalTrain platform(s). This would add additional capacity strain to already congested platforms, but then again, it’s only one train per day…
Andrew Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@Joey: Diesel locomotives might be allowed into the tunnel if their emissions are rated low enough, I’m not sure what the current regulations are. I’d love to see Amtrak run lightweight, low-emission DMUs up and down the coast, but FRA regulations stand in the way of that.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
@ Andrew -
the Coast Starlight could use 4th & King. A company called US Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar) does make FRA-compatible DMUs, i.e. rolling stock with purely mechanical rather than series electric propulsion. Tri-Rail in south Florida uses it. The downside with DMUs is reduced passenger comfort, as the diesel engines slung underneath the passenger compartments generate noise and vibration. The transmissions are hydrodynamic, so gear changes are smooth – but you can still hear them.
These are generally considered manageable issues for relatively short regional/commuter rail lines. For SF-LA along the Central Coast, they might not be.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
@ Joey -
there wouldn’t be room in a locomotive for both a diesel engine and a transformer for a 25kV OCS. One concept that could works is to combine a regular locomotive with one or more custom unpowered rail cars housing the pantograph, transformer and power electronics needed to supply the electric motors in the electric motors in the locomotive via an alternate power source. The custom cars could still ave passenger seats, though there might be fewer of them.
A separate issue is that large diesel engines usually need to be warmed up before use in order to meet life expectancy goals. In any scenario that calls for dual-mode traction to be switched on the fly, that presents a problem for the first trains of the day departing from a terminus where running a diesel is not allowed for safety or air quality issues. It might be possible to install electric coolant heaters and auxiliary pumps to pre-heat the engine blocks early in the morning. Some engine designs feature heat exchangers in the oil carter, so that could be pre-heated indirectly.
@ Andrew -
EPA Tier 3 and 4 regulations for locomotive emissions will kick in between now and 2015. The new rules require massive reductions in particulate and NOx emissions, but only for new or replacement engines. A locomotive typically undergoes one or more engine refurbishments/replacements during its long life span.
The scrubbing technology basically exists but it has to be tightly matched to the engine characteristics. It is, however, sensitive to sulfur in the fuel so operators will have to switch from LSD to the more expensive ULSD grade. On the upside, this also greatly reduces SOx emissions, which are especially harmful to health in combination with particulates.
Andrew Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:11 am
@Rafael: Thanks for the info on the EPA regs.
I’m aware of US Railcar’s DMUs, but I don’t really think they’re the right tool for the job. What I had in mind was something similar to the JR Shikoku N2000 that run from where I live in Tokushima. They make the 46-mile trip to Takamatsu in about an hour, are comfortable and reasonably quiet. I’d also love to see something similar on the Pacific Surfliner route.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Why does the Coast Daylight have to run through to SF? It can stop at SJ and make people transfer cross-platform. It’d be inconvenient for all 7 people who are going to ride the train, but retooling the Peninsula line for mammoth trains would be even more inconvenient.
Andrew Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
@Alon Levy: 1. Way more of a precedent exists in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties for passenger rail service to San Francisco than you give credit for, and 2. freight trains are still going to run on the peninsula, so there will be no “retooling for mammoth trains” to begin with.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I wish I had as much faith as you.
Do you have any evidence that they are going to straighten out the insanely tight curves?
This thing is looking very haphazard….
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The thing is there won’t be any fight. Say someone got it on the ballot in the next citywide election. ( although I doubt it will actually come to that) but just for conversations sake, say it was on the ballot “shall it be the position of the city of san francisco that the terminus for high speed rail be within the transbay terminal train box.” or something like that right, there wouldn’t be any debate, people would just read it and say, yes of course it should and that would be the end of it. There wouldn’t be any opposition within the city to oppose it because none exists.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
@joey, I agree on the loop concept and don’t know why this isn’t considered as the best and most obvious solution.
its possible that this could be the plan but maybe wasn’t put forth up front in order to keep cost down, and it could surface later as a solution presented as a “compromise” between the two authorities. We all know that’s how it works behind the scenes.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
TJPA did study the concept of a one-way single-track loop that would turn the TTC into a run-through stations. They concluded this would increase Caltrain capacity. However, CHSRA still believes it needs high (30-45 minute) dwell times at the SF station so the trains can be cleaned and provisioned. That means they want more platforms.
Idea: do build a loop track but such that trains parked at 4th & King can double back. Then, HSR trains could drop off passengers at the TTC, dead-head to a track at 4th & King for cleaning/provisioning, then dead-head back to the TTC to pick up new passengers. The distances involved are short, but the direction reversals involved would make this concept awkward to implement. Also, there might not be sufficient capacity to clean/provision every HSR train at SF.
You had previously suggested the problem may anyhow be overblown because SF could be treated as a stop on routes that begin and end in SoCal or Sacramento. I guess that depends on the number of people on those trains all sharing the restrooms. The number will be higher than for existing Amtrak services.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Those dwell times are ridiculous. What are they thinking? There is absolutely no need to reprovision a train after a 3 hour trip. Some san joaquin trains run three days from okj to bfd to sac to bfd to okj without being reprovisioned.
chsr doesn’t know what they are doing. As for the bathrooms, again, every three hours? How often does those people think they need to go in a 3 hour period, lol.
come one now. what are they thinking.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am
This?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/OP-2668.jpg
i’m starting that today.
I wish Willie Brown was still Mayor, He’d get this thing done once and for all.
This just popped in, now phoenix is getting into the act
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Care to fix the link?
PHX
Spokker Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Jim you need to go to link posting school and then post a link to your diploma.
I know i tried twice. hold on…..
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Phoenix-to-push-for–78960497.html theres the address and here again is the link if that didn’t work I give up.
also read this – not the last two paragraphs….
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) is making exciting progress on building the new Transbay Transit Center, the “Grand Central Station of the West.” A groundbreaking ceremony on December 10, 2008 marked the formal commencement of the program beginning with construction of the Temporary Terminal that will serve passengers while the new, multi-modal Transbay Transit Center is under construction.
The Temporary Terminal is scheduled to be completed in early 2010. Following completion, transit operators will conduct test drives on the site. AC Transit, MUNI, Greyhound, and WestCat operations are expected to move to the site in late Spring 2010. SamTrans and Golden Gate Transit operations will move to the Temporary Terminal in Summer 2010.
The timeline for the opening of the Transit Center is later than earlier projections. This is not a result of delays in the construction of the Temporary Terminal, but is driven by the pursuit of federal stimulus funding for the underground train box for the Transbay Transit Center. Currently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is considering which areas of the country will receive funding as part of an $8 billion federal stimulus package that President Obama billed as a first step toward a nationwide system of high-speed trains linking the nation’s largest cities. The train box for the Transbay Transit Center is a leading contender to receive funds, and if it does, the TJPA would advance the construction of the rail levels of the Transit Center into the initial phase of construction. It was initially anticipated that the FRA might make its decision about the stimulus funds in October 2009, but a decision is now expected to be made sometime between December 2009 and March 2010.
Because the inclusion of the train box will affect the first elements of construction and it is not necessary to activate the Temporary Terminal until we are ready to begin construction of the Transit Center, the schedule for opening the Temporary Terminal has been extended pending the FRA’s stimulus funding decision. Once the decisions are made and Transit Center construction plans can be firmed up, TJPA will be able to set a move-in date for the Temporary Terminal. In the meantime, please continue to check back for updates to our project schedule.
Does anyone else think that CAHSRA may need to find an additional funding source? To me, it seems like they could place a tax on things such as containers that pass through the state’s ports. Or maybe a tax on truck companies that serve the ports. Tax the things that cause the most pollution basically.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Taxing the trucks hurts jobs and causes an increase in the cost of basic goods that middle class folks need. Personally I think that hsr should be incorporated into the department of transportation and its budgets. Then they can re prioritize spending and projects, freeways, hsr, and so forth.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Although I will so I have long been an advocate of making the golden state freeway from border to border, a toll road at 5 cents a mile.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
California HSR is expected to operate without subsidies. The prop 1A(2008) bonds will be serviced out of the general fund. A state tax hike of any sort would only be required if the state cannot or chooses not to cut services any further to balance the budget or, if CHSRA breaks its promise to voters and asks for state funding over-and-above prop 1A(2008) after all. The former is a general issue unrelated to HSR as such. The latter is a complete non-starter at this point in time.
I meant “note” the last two paragraphs also watch the vid in the link I love how the reporter is so excited about how “cool” it would be to have hsr to la.
Why are people asserting that the Transbay Terminal station is not going to get Caltrain? Andy? What did I miss? (Weird, and why can’t I use the arrow keys while I’m editing my comments!)
Also, Rafael, your original post says the meeting isn’t until July. I believe you meant to say December.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Date is fixed, thanks.
The TTC train box would be shared between HSR and Caltrain, though for various technical and regulatory reasons the current plan is to use different platform heights. Clem argues this would be a mistake. CHSRA wants at least four platform tracks, though, so it can implement sufficiently long dwell times for cleaning/provisioning. That means Caltrain, which will serve as many if not more passengers, would be limited to just two platforms.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Caltrain should be ok with two platforms and tail tracks. especially is they use shorter emus
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
The issues aren’t limited to platform heights, while we’re linking clem, here’s his article on the Issues with the TBT.
Since that article was written, the TBJPA has slightly adjusted their plans, including the addition of tail tracks to the caltrain line, and slightly longer curve radii for the HSR tracks, but most of the limitations still remain. It’s also worth noting that there is no space available for HSR tail or runthrough tracks.
Personally I think they should put the station in across the street between Beale and Main and leave the basement of the TBT for a future BART/Muni station. You could still redevelop the area and get all that filthy lucre from property developers, there would just be a train station in the basement, like there are in lots of places around the world.
Britain is planning a high-speed rail system that will reach speeds of 250 mph. If they can reach those speeds, why can’t we?
Spokker Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
They haven’t reached those speeds yet.
HSRforCali Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
What I’m saying is since their’s will be built at about the same time as our system and they’re saying they can go 250 mph, why can’t we make those types of predictions? And if Britain is planning for this speed, is there a possibility our system can reach those speeds? That could cut the LA-SF travel time by quite a bit.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Thats too fast. People won’t like it.
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Okay, so there will still obviously be some rail yard/storage at 4th right? and how many caltrains will arrive and depart per hour onto two platforms say there is an arrival and departure every fifteen minutes. a catrain arrives at 730am on the arrival , passengers off board, the trainset pulls up the the switchback on the tail track- wait, theres three platforms and 6 tracks right?
ok so, all you do is give one platform, the innermost, and its two tracks, plus tails, to caltrain and caltrain brings its trains in on the inside track, pulls into the tail, switches over to the outbound track and pulls up to depart from the opposite side of the same platform. this is exactly what muni metro does and they have far more than one departure every fifteen minutes. if each caltrain trainset needs 30 minutes, then there is room to pull onto the tail, and dwell trains two at a time – arriving and departing on the :15 but each set dwelling for 30 right?
Then that leaves two platforms, four tracks for HSR.
So four trains at a time can be in, arriving, or departing. 1,2,3,4 one every 10 minutes. as each one leaves, or the set of four leaves, then 4 replacement trains are arriving every ten minutes on one of the four tracks. with 4 tracks and 10 minute intervals each train could dwell for 30 minutes before it was there turn to go.
yeah that works. theres no problem.
I don’t think chsra knows what they are doing you know that? I mean Im sure they do politically, but I dont think they know how to run a railroad.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Agreed, neither CHSRA nor TJPA appear to have anyone with significant HSR operations experience. Caltrain’s Robert Doty is pretty much the one-eyed man in the land of the blind on that score. I’d love for them to bring in consultants from SNCF or JR. At the very least, they should start using throughput analysis software, e.g. ETH Zurich’s OpenTrack.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:04 am
hell, an amtrak conductor to could come up with a better way to organize the throughput.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
People were terrified of riding on a train going 20 mph when the first locomotives were designed.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
First, it won’t cut the travel time by a lot – there’s still the issue of lower speed limits in the LA Basin and the Bay Area, slow zones, acceleration and deceleration times, and station dwells.
And second, Britain is unlikely to reach 250 mph speeds. It’s unlikely to ever get beyond Phase I of HSR if it builds it as currently planned – the design minimizes frequency and maximizes cost.
Rafael Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Where did this 250mph figure come from? Last I heard, the target top speed for HS2 was more like 180-200mph. Mind you, that might refer to the initial generation of trains rather than the capabilities of the new infrastructure.
Energy consumption is proportional to the square of velocity, so going from 200 to 250mph cruise speed implies 56% more electricity is consumed. Rated power requirements are proportional to the cube of velocity, so those effectively double. There are limits to the power that can be drawn by a single pantograph. The extra vehicle weight might be a problem for maintenance overheads (much less so if slab track is used, but that’s more expensive to construct).
Unless overall vehicle weight can be reduced further, acceleration performance would suffer, as motor designs have to trade off maximum speed against maximum torque (unless even better rare earth permanent magnet materials become available). That would reduce the scope for mixing express and non-express service classes once traffic volume reaches a certain level, unless there are bypass tracks at all secondary stations (difficult in the SF peninsula and south of Palmdale.
Another major issue is safety. High speed lines are designed for a specific capacity, which depends on the emergency braking distance of the trains. There are limits to what mechanical braking systems and materials an achieve. Also, at high speeds, the airflow pattern over the nose of the train actually generates a surprising amount of lift. Bombardier recently teamed up with DLR (Germany’s aerospace agency) to look into the possibility of adding spoilers to generate dynamic downforce on the front bogie to improve sway stability.
High speed trains generate bow waves that lead to lateral sway and significant dynamic pressure on the side windows when they pass each other. There are also aerodynamic interactions with tunnel walls. Higher speeds imply even tighter tolerances on track and bogie geometry.
Bottom line: pushing the speed envelope is expensive and represents technology risk. It may make more sense to study door-to-door travel time scenarios and identify savings elsewhere in the chain. Efficient ticketing (e.g. printing at home) avoids point of sale delays. Security concepts appropriate for trains (as opposed to planes) avoid boarding delays. Punctual operations of both HSR and its feeder systems reduce the buffer time passengers have to budget for transfers. Shorter distances between platforms reduce transfer times. If need be, mandatory seat reservations and requiring passengers queue up on platforms can be implemented to reduce dwell times. Straightening sharp curves and/or active tilt technology allows trains to achieve higher average speeds. Etc.
Joey Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:39 am
I think you’re just jealous.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Don’t worry about capacity. High Speed 2 is a line on a map – it doesn’t serve any city, except with spurs. In Italy it’s caused costs to explode. In Britain the method will be even worse – they’re studying building the line with four tracks south of Birmingham, because all of those nonstop trains that can’t serve more than one city pair are going to clog the tracks.
So don’t count on this line ever getting north of Birmingham, or on capacity ever being a problem.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Yeah, what’s with all the short spurs? Maybe they’ll do some of that train splitting we keep hearing from the Altamont people.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
They’re afraid of slow zones near major cities. The idea of HS2 is to minimize travel time on each city pair. In reality, going through major cities is no big deal, and might reduce average speed from 240 km/h to 230. They also think there’s so much demand on each city pair that nonstop trains serving only one city pair each could run 2-4 tph each.
It’s basically a worse-thought out version of the TGV, which also has a penchant for excessive splitting, but at least avoids construction in urban areas to keep costs down.
Ummm… because Caltrain says they’re going to terminate most of their services out in Siberia, at an over-the-top, out-of-control 8 platform surface train parking lot. Check out their 2025 plan.
Because the ceriminally incompetent cretins at TJPA (and their finest US Professional Railroading Engineering Consultants, PTG) are casting in concrete a quite literally insane scheme to dedicate four out of six platform tracks to HS trains alone, and only allowing Caltrain to use two, shorter platform tracks, accessible only via a section of single track.
Because the World Class High Speed Rail Professionals at CHSRA and consultancies decree that trains need to park, idle, in CBD-located, underground platforms that cost several hundreds each to excavate and fit out, for 40 minutes at the end of each and every run. (This is also a very nice way to increase the fleet size and crew size as well — the gift that keeps on giving!)
Because Caltrain passengers will always be 75% or more (I guarantee it) of corridor ridership, of course it makes sense to maximize their inconvenience and travel time in favour of flight level zero airline passengers.
Because the Caltrain Downtown Extension was explicitly promised as such and approved by the voters as such, and because there’s no way that anything so necessary and so hard-fought and so obviously doable would ever be allowed to proceed by the imbecile sub-humans who “design” our local transportation system.
Because it is a relatively simple engineering matter (anybody with a model train set could probably work it out) to organize an urban terminal at a constricted site with limited capacity in order to maximize that capacity … and that’s why TJPA/PTG/Caltrain are setting in concrete a station with mimimized capacity and minimized operating flexibility and minimized throughput. (Single track bottlenecks, tightest possible curvatures, minimum platform allocation flexibility, maximum route conflicts, minimum parallel routes. Scandalously, criminally, unecessarily incompetent.)
Because that’s the way we always do things around here.
wait let me see.. okay so, two platforms and 4 tracks… pardon me while I think out loud… and hsr arriving and dep. at say 10 minute intervals -or even at 12tph thats every 5 minutes….
ok lets see
700am train arrives on track 1
705am train arrives on track 2
710am train arrives on track 3
715am train arrives on track 4 first arriving train departs track 1 (it had a 15 minute dwell)
720am train arrives on track 1 second arriving train departs from track 2 (it had a 15 minute dwell)
725am train arrives on track 2 third arriving train departs from track 3 etc….
in food service they call it fifo (first in first out)
So if you have 5 minute headways you get 15 minute dwells with 2 platforms and 4 tracks
and if you have 10 minute headways you get 30 minute dwells with 2 platform and 4 tracks.
and 5 minute headways are a long way off, and even ten minute headways will only being during peak hours… I don’t think there is any problem except a political one where kopp tries to keep the money for socal by trashing the tjpa’s plans. uh huh.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 6:12 am
The whole “it’ll be a long time before …” argument is problematic in the sense that whatever number of tracks is built now will have to do for many decades, perhaps for a century. AB3034 requires feasible headways of no more than 5 minutes on the network. CHSRA has chosen to interpret that as all components of the network, which may be nonsensical. Chowchilla-Redondo Junction will see more trains per hour than SF-Chowchilla.
Once HSR becomes popular enough to warrant running more than 6 trains per hour, it’s possible North and East Bay residents will demand a spur from San Jose up to Richmond. However, securing a ROW for that would be extremely difficult.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:10 am
well, they could also solve the problem by adding two additional tracks (one additional platform.)
or they could build a four track approach instead of a 3 track approach with the tighter inside curves reserved for caltrain.
or they could build the tail tracks wider or longer.
but really a two track through track looping back, even with tight curves, back towsend would see the best solution.
or
they could extend the tail tracks to the pier as a starting point for barts future 4 bore tb tube.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
(a) three platforms + 2 platform tracks is the maximum possible at that location without exercising eminent domain on properties north of Minna and south of Natoma streets.
(b) tail tracks are incredibly expensive parking lots unless they’re built in anticipation of a future standard gauge fixed link to the East Bay.
(c) a one-way loop track could be single track. All trains would enter the TTC from the east and leave heading west. It would be possible to anticipate a future standard gauge transbay tube by adding one turnout from 2nd southbound to Townsend eastbound plus a “T” at e.g. Folsom, with a one-way track northbound under Main and turnouts to two track stubs pointing east.
Those stubs could then later be extended at a 3.5% grade down to the portal of the bored tunnel. In that case, northbound trains would stop at the TTC, loop around and head across to the East Bay. Southbound trains would just run through.
In practical terms, a dual track bored tunnel for standard gauge rails could cross under the existing immersed BART tube near Yerba Buena Island and emerge here in the East Bay to connect to the UPRR right of way here.
The problem is that there’s no obvious way to reach downtown Oakland nor anywhere to put dedicated passenger tracks north toward Sacramento. UPRR won’t sell any slice of its ROW nor allow track stacking (cp. eBART, SJ-Gilroy). There’s no point in even considering an expensive new fixed link for standard gauge rail unless there’s some way to run a lot more trains in the Capitol Corridor, at higher speeds and on time.
A second BART tube is a different kettle of fish, though the immediate throughput bottleneck is really not the existing tube but pedestrian flow capacity at the downtown SF stations. There are cheaper ways to address that than building a new fixed link.
as for the three track tunnel thats easy too
arriving trains, both ct and hsr, arrive single file on the center track and switch off to their platforms.
caltrains go to the arriving track on the caltrain platform, it would be the 2nd track not the one next to the wall,, proceed to tails then switchback to the departing track, which would be the single outbound oustide caltrain departure track for the duration of the tunnel.
meanwhile the hsr’ arriving on the single file center arriving track get switched off in order to each of the 4 hsr tracks for their assigned platform dwell., then they depart on a single outside hsr only departure track through the duration of the tunnel. of course the location of the crossovers in the approaching curve will be critical as will precise automated switching that will have to organize and distribute the trains to the proper in and out bound locations in fairly rapid succession.
did I get that right? sounds like the plan to me.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 5:52 am
As I understand it, each track in the three track section basically support traffic to and from a specific pair of platform tracks. Unless regulatory hurdles can be overcome, the platforms would have different heights, so the southernmost two platform tracks at the TTC would be dedicated to Caltrain and the other four to HSR.
Both the inbound and the outbound tracks of the main line are connected to all three tracks via switches. For maximum throughput capacity, the section between platform tracks and the main line should be as short and as straight as possible. The current DTX design fails on both counts, partly because of the tight curves imposed by tunnel alignment and partly because all of the switches feature one straight path instead of two curved ones (cp. Bogenweiche or “bow switch”).
A one-way loop through the station would offer even higher throughput capacity, though platform count and dwell times may limit throughput anyhow.
as designed, the approaching tracks need to be re arranged. so they are like this ( sorry for the sloppy drawing but I don’t have the patience to learn this dooshy free draw program I have) but you see what Im going for..
other news townspeople balk
and new alliance
and ptc pricetag
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Here’s a stimulus idea: fund the PTC implementation entirely using taxpayer funds in return for rights to implement selected emerging HSR corridors (90-110mph top speed, FRA-compliant equipment), possibly including commitments to bring existing track to a corresponding state of good repair as a quid pro quo. That way, FRA could pick a single, off-the-shelf technology (e.g. ERTMS) as a national standard – obviously after consulting with the affected railroads. No futzing around with homegrown solutions, no plugfests, minimum possible disruption to freight rail operations, earliest possible upgrade to railroad safety. Just get ‘er done.
Yes, it’ll cost $10 billion. Some of the equipment could be manufactured under license by US companies, which would also subcontract on the implementation and testing. Foreign vendors would end up with perhaps a third of the total sum. So what, PTC is a sound investment in public safety and expands capacity for the most fuel-efficient mode of hauling freight and passengers.
Funding? Simply suspend inflation adjustment for the DoD budget for just a single year and you’ll have an extra $10-15 billion left over for emerging HSR implementations.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Why do you need FRA compliance when there’s PTC?
and since we all love maps here is their western master plan
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Oh, God. They want a 225 mph dedicated line from Phoenix to Las Vegas? And another from Reno to SLC?
Can I pretend for at least a little while that the good rail transit movement in the US is going to produce good rail transit, and not a trillion-dollar Interstate boondoggle?
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:13 am
well at least people are excited about high speed rail. I think what we have to remember is the formation of such alliances and “idea” groups is a long way from actually building anything. I always think of bart, which was conceived as a sort of pipe dream way back in the 50s but didn’t actually run until the 70s, and even hsr in cali was being considered, in the 80s, which much to my dismay every time I look in the mirror, was 30 years ago, ( god that hurts) so 30 years from original pipe dream discussion, to an actual vote. and still another 10 years or more before actual trains run on actual tracks. so its conceivable that den-phx-slc can talk about it now and in 40 years, actually build it. 40 years ago the IE was nowhere’s ville too and so were sac and roseville.
So let them go ahead and talk and plan. after all, the sunbelt will always be popular when we are in periods of economic growth.
geez this blog keeps me from getting my chores done.
but its still fun to say “boondoggle” hehe, look at this pile of laundry. its a socialist boondoggle I tell you!!
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Why are they not connecting Reno to CA’s system, while we’re dreaming?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Nobody wants to eat Dönner Kebab in the cafe car.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Only if you’re from Germany.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Because they’re based in the interior west, and barely acknowledge that California exists. They’re building prestige lines, not rail networks.
It’s like those rail planning zones in LA, which lead to proposals for light rail in Pasadena and light rail in the Valley, but nothing connecting Pasadena to Burbank.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Even in 40 years, Vegas-Phoenix will be a boondoggle. They could ban the car and the plane, and it would still be a boondoggle when compared to running trains through the Inland Empire and Cajon Pass.
The problem with this excitement is that it’s like the good roads movement with its anti-urban emphasis, only with even more pizzazz and less service. None of those new coalitions is proposing ways of getting around within urban areas – at most, they propose light rail to the exurbs. The idea of building good local rail transit is boring to them, especially when the alternative is long commuter lines hosting 6 trains a day and HSR to nowhere.
A better good-transit movement would focus mainly on intra-urban transportation. The amount of money it’d take to build even a 10,000 mile HSR system is an order of magnitude less than what’s needed to build subways in every US cities on a par with even mid-tier European cities like Hamburg. So it makes sense to focus on the most demanding and most screwup-prone part of transportation, even if it’s old technology that US cities just didn’t bother building.
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
LA-Phoenix express HSR via the I-10 corridor? Only if California commits to growing Blythe into a transit-oriented city with at least 500,000 inhabitants by the middle of the century. It’s currently an agricultural community based on water drawn from the Colorado river.
Phoenix-Las Vegas express HSR? Fuggedaboudit.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Not all trains have to stop at Blythe. Besides, I-10 is more direct than I-8.
and in unrelated but still interesting news this just in BART chooses steam train era techvideo
seems they have posted the vid with details of the new oak connector/people mover. instead of using standard airtrain tech, these doofs are building some kind of rinky dink mechanical cable driven thing that looks like the dumbest thing Ive ever seen. It has big cable wheels just like the cable cars in sf, ( are they steam powered?) Was this suppose to save money or something? why on gods green earth would they choose this system over basic airtrain tech thats used everywhere else?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am
If they wanted a cable pulled system they should have just built a gondola.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
well if you read the company website, these doppermeyer people, they say this is cheaper and more reliable and has lower maintenance and operating costs. but still its seems a little cheesy to me. I do like the use of the truss guideway as oppose the usual california concrete style which is getting a little old.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Actually I’ve ridden one of their trams before, the one in Vegas at the Mandalay bay. I didn’t realize it was cable driven, so I guess my snark may have been premature.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
both the mgm and the mandalay are are using this, what I dont get is why each casino is building these little systems rather than using and expanding the existing monorail system. everything there is done piecemeal with no comprehensive plan. I refrain from saying anything snarky about Nevada….
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Simple, they’re building trams between Casinos they own. Why send your customers to other people’s casinos?
Rafael Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
SF still has cable cars. Sure, they’re tourist traps but they do actually work.
Also, BART won’t be alone. Doppelmayr is building a similar system in Caracas.
Sometimes reliable low tech is preferable to fancy high tech.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Here’s the company that they contracted with for the system:
Doppelmayr Cable Car
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I couldn’t find how fast these cable cars go. Does anyone know?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
They say it will run the 3.2 mile route in 15 minutes, so about 13-14mph average with I believe one stop in the middle.
Peter Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Look at Toronto Pearson airport. Their airtrain is by Doppelmayr. Same with Birmingham, which replaced their (admittedly ancient) MAGLEV system with Doppelmayr cable cars. Why not use cable car technology, if it’s efficient and cheaper to build, operate and maintain?
well if we are gonna use a low tech deal then I vote for this.