No Tunnel in San José
Along with the discussion of Gilroy at the Thursday CHSRA board meeting, another topic of conversation was the way out of San José to the south. As we’ve shown you before, this might be the most difficult part of the whole project, especially given the issues cited in Atherton v. CHSRA, requiring the Authority to find a way to get trains from Diridon Station to a usable corridor south toward Gilroy.
At the Thursday board meeting, one of those options – a tunnel – was taken off the table:
At a meeting Thursday in Sacramento, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board removed from consideration four of the six proposed routes through San Jose, leaving only two options — one along Highway 87 and another along the current Caltrain tracks.
At the meeting, director Rod Diridon said an underground station is off the table because of loose soil, a high groundwater table and the cost of digging deep enough for the tunnel to be under Highway 87 and the planned BART trains.
“It’s a really complex issue,” Diridon said. “If we were to keep the tunnel alternative in the study, it would fall out. You might be offering some very temporary hope in that alternative, but I don’t think it will ever be viable. Let’s concentrate on the ones that will work.”
The planned BART station already is at least four stories underground, project leaders and California High Speed Rail directors said.
In other words, an underground HSR station would have been DEEP under Diridon Station, too deep to be cost-effective and would run into geological problems. Of course, this is likely to raise questions as to why other underground implementations hadn’t been considered, including those that wouldn’t have been as deep. But the other key consideration on the table was cost – the Authority worried that the cost of a tunnel in San José would be significantly higher than a Caltrain or Highway 87 implementation.
Locals appear to be taking this in stride, if the Mercury News is any indication:
Some Willow Glen neighbors said they were disheartened that the underground option has been abandoned.
“It hurt, but at the same time you have to understand the big picture,” said David Dearborn, a retiree who attended the meeting in Sacramento. “High-speed rail has to come through San Jose, and it has to come through in a way that fits the design, time and financial constraints to make it successful.”
He added that the San Jose transportation department was doing its best to find a solution. “An underground station may be possible, and we may look back in 100 years and think: Why didn’t we do it?” he said….
A handful of San Jose residents, including Willow Glen activist Jean Dresden, attended the Sacramento meeting.
“The community will ask why this is so difficult when BART is already underground “… the community will think the board only wants the cheapest, and not the best, alternatives,” Dresden told the board.
Unfortunately, because the HSR funding well is not bottomless, the board has no choice but to balance cheap and best. The Authority’s job is to that completes the SF-Anaheim route by 2020 on-time and on-budget, and ideal scenarios, like a tunnel, may not be feasible given the financial constraints.
My own view is that the state and federal governments should only be willing to pay for a basic implementation of HSR, with localities that want things like trenches or tunnels paying the extra cost. That was the precedent set by BART and Berkeley in the 1960s and it seems to have worked out pretty well, BART’s other problems aside.
Still, this doesn’t mean that the remaining two options on the table – following the existing Caltrain alignment or Highway 87 – are going to be any easier:
Dave Mansen, a Parsons Corp. consultant and regional team manager with the Rail Authority, told the board that his team wants to remove the Caltrain route because it would involve too many “property takes.”
However, bullet train leaders said they are routinely meeting with Union Pacific Railroad leaders who control the right of way of the Caltrain line. Since public meetings on the rail project began several months ago, many neighbors in the Willow Glen and Greater Gardner neighborhoods objected to the Caltrain route because they fear its expansion would create more noise, vibration and eminent domain issues.
So what’s the takeaway? Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear. With a tunnel being ruled out, the two options left are both challenging in terms of ROW use and impact on surrounding homes, businesses, and existing transportation facilities.
CHSRA officials will attend a public meeting Monday night at San José City Hall, from 6 to 8:30 pm, to discuss this matter and take community feedback on the route. Should be an interesting meeting.
Why is bart so deep under Diridon?
Rafael Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Because it needs to run underneath the existing VTA light rail tracks that already pass under the heavy rail right of way.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I didn’t realize that the VTA light rail went underground there.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
What I’m wondering, is why they can’t just shift the BART station a little North, so that it is actually along Santa Clara St, and as such avoiding the VTA tunnel…
If they use 87 to get out of downtown, then where do they go?
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The tracks would be on an aerial above I-280 and SR-87 to the existing Caltrain ROW near Tamien.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Seems to me though that staying at grade on the caltrain row and using plenty of visual and sound absorbing landscaping along there, would make for zero visual impact and far less noise than elevating the train, even along the freeway as an elevated structure will spread the noise across a greater distance. Trains on dirt are much quieter than trains on elevated concrete.
Rafael Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
That’s not entirely clear to me. If they’re sticking with San Jose Diridon as the station, would that be at an angle relative to the existing heavy rail tracks and reach 87 north of 280? Or would the tracks run east of the HP Pavilion, with the HSR platforms close to 87? That would still be within walking distance of BART, VTA light rail and Caltrain, with an opportunity for TOD in the area bounded on three sides by these three services.
OTOH, if they’re going for the 280 median, why not keep going until 101 and use that to get out of Dodge? The tracks should anyhow reach the area east of 101 somewhere north of Morgan Hill.
Since its likely all trains including express, will stop at san jose, id think that the speeds of trains on the caltrain row between diridon throught the neighborhood to the south and to the point where the 87 and clatrain row meet, wil be low enough that noise won’t be much of a problem. No train would operate at 220 on this stretch. I dont know how quickly these train accelerate and decelerate but I imagine they’d be traveling at much less than 80mph on this one mile stretch through the neighborhood.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
They still haven’t decided if there will be a true express between SF and LA, the example timetables they’ve released over the past year have oscillated between showing a true express and not. I imagine they want to keep the option open. That said, even with a true express, the trains aren’t going to be running very fast through that section anyway due to the tight curves.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The project level EIR documents show no bypass tracks at San José, but then again, that’s program level.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Sorry I meant program
Rafael Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The NC3D animation of Diridon station does show more than two platform tracks. It’s perfectly possible to run an express train past a platform at considerable speed, provided waiting passengers are warned to step back and have enough room to do so. Railings at the edge of the platform might also be a good idea to reinforce the requirement to keep clear. There’s no need for dedicated bypass tracks in San Jose, since the vast majority of all trains will be stopping there in any case.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
they make those “high speed train approaching” announcements on the platform. Still I dont think you are going to run through at 220. 125 maybe. and I would maintain that trains between sjc and tamien at grade level on the existing caltrain row, would be the least noisy of the options because a train at grade on ballast with heavy landscaping and soundwall, is less noisy than any type of elevated. Then once they reach 87/tamien and beyond, they could ramp up to 220
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The NC3D animations show bypass tracks at both San José and LAUS. The EIR documents show 4-6 platform tracks at SJ and six at LAUS with no bypass tracks (just to point out that the NC3D animations are not 100% accurate). While I acknowledge that some trains could pass through even without bypass tracks, I think if they wanted to run a lot through, they would need them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Trains don’t have to stop just because there is a platform. Express trains go past platforms mere inches from loitering passengers all over the world.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I don’t know for the rest of the world, but never in France. This would be so dangerous that the FRA will never allow it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The FRA allows it now. Railfans love to go to Kingston RI and take videos of Acela blowing through at 150. YouTube is fairly lousy with them. Here’s one where he brought along the radar gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCs3OM5-ns
0r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0g2eYKSr94
PeakVT Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
The FRA strikes again – 800,000lb buff standards on a train that runs full speed by a platform that can’t be more than six feet wide under that bridge. Brilliant.
It looks like there is room for 4 tracks in Kingston.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
At least with those buff standards the train wouldn’t get dented from hitting a trespasser.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
And at peak, on Thanksgiving weekend when they add a train or two, there’s three trains an hour in each direction.
Id bet they will stop all trains at san jose. There’d likely be only a couple of peak hour express trains any way. there will be mostly local and limiteds. id bet the majority of trains will stop in san jose and frenso.
sfc-sjc-fno-lax-ana
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
They may have to keep the ability to run an express, however, if only to keep under the max SF-LA run time requirement from 1A. Even if they don’t ever run a true express, they might need to be able to.
and even if true express run through sjc, what would bet the speed 125?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The run simulations show the trains limited to 100kph through there, so 60mph. I believe those are based on retaining the caltrain alignment, complete with the chicane between tamien and diridon. It’s tight there. Part of the appeal with a tunnel alignment is they might have been able to speed that up.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
so noise won’t even be an issue. I think they should stick to that, and make up time elsewhere
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I agree. The concern is that the caltrain route, while already grade separated along most of that section, would need to be widened which, combined with the increase in number of trains, would further cut off the section of the neighborhood that is currently surrounded by two freeways and the existing tracks. From what I can gather it sounds like that impact, combined with the speed issues and the required property takes, are points in favor of finding another way through there, but as evidenced by the fact that they just dropped four other alternatives, there’s not a lot of options. I’m curious to see what the proposed alignment is for the 87 alternative.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I’m confused as to why it is (physically) cutting off anything. The tracks are a barrier, HSR or not, and any streets that aren’t currently grade-separated will get that separation once HSR comes in.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Map is available here: SJ-Merced map
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
ooh they’ll definitely have to put in La Estacion de Tren Casa de Fruta!!
bossyman15 Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
that’s a bummer. wish they could have kept ether 1C or 1D. MUCH straighter. oh well.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Yeah, but according to the doc where they describe why they skipped it, the tunnel would have needed to be four bores plus a mined station 110′ underground to avoid BART and the 280 interchange pilings.
The time savings would have been nice, but ten stories on an escalator is, what, a 3-5 minute escalator ride?
PeakVT Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Probably 3 minutes, based on the numbers from the Rosslyn Station. (And let me just say it’s a loooong 159 seconds from top to bottom. Fortunately, regular users of the know to keep to one side so the impatient can walk up or down.)
125/220
Note that an aerial option which followed roughly the same route as the tunnel was also eliminated from further consideration.
At least we’re now hearing that the CHSRA is talking/in negotiations with UPRR. A far cry from what we’ve been hearing from the NIMBY naysayers, who’ve been sticking their chests out stating that “UPRR won’t share the ROW period.”
As for a possible aerial through 280 and 87 to UPRR/Caltrain, the trains shouldn’t be travelling that fast through that section because of the S-Curve (60-80 mph?), so noise shouldn’t be any greater than the already existent auto and overhead aircraft noise.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I think UP is most concerned about liability. you know like the freight train derails and blocks the hsr tracks. This will be a problem throughout the system where they share row.
NOw, dont you think that if in place where say, two freight tracks are next to two hsr tracks, at grade, that if you were to raise the hsr tracks on an earthen berm, not all the way up, but say, just high enough up, so that ( say half the height of a typical boxcar) so that if rail cars fell over they wouldnt fall onto the the hsr tracks, but up against the earthern berm like so this would be a simple physical solution to the problem. See, I don’t think that that UP, is going to be satisfied with collision avoidance that relies on anything except full physical separation.
The use of cosmic ray beams and cameras and [ms systems or whatever they are, I think the railroads and the unions may not accept that as safe enough and that will be a sticking point.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Depending on how high the berm is, you still might have the problem of cargo (i.e. sand or gravel) spilling onto the tracks. Anyway, it’s probably a lot easier to just build a barrier wall.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
A wall makes sense, except that I think I read right here that you can’t make a wall that is strong enough to hold back a derailment. and if they use UP row extensively down the valley, you can’t build 200 miles of reinforced concrete wall. This safety issues of running at grade hsr next to at grade freight, isn’t going to go away, and while we know there is technology that can be used for safety, I just have a feeling that the railroads and the FRA won’t accept that as good enough, just like they refuse to accept lightweight rolling stock. The railroads have not changed that much in a 150 years. Things are steeped in tradition and move very slowly. Do you know that until a few years ago, we still did all our accounting manually with pencils and paper in triplicate with carbon paper. I mean in the 2000′s we were still doing it that way.
So Im skeptical about railroads suddenly embracing non FRA compliant equipment and fancy electric gadgetry when it comes to the safety of employees and passengers. I’m just very skeptical.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Yes, UP, like the other railroads, is going to fight real safety improvements tooth and nail. Believe it or not, but many of the FRA’s onerous regulations were not meant to destroy the railroads, but to get them to adopt positive train control, which was an issue even in the 1940s. The 79 mph speed limit for non-PTC trains was such a measure; the railroads just downgraded their speeds to avoid modernizing the infrastructure.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 11:39 am
sounds about right. The railroads have always been about profit at any cost. it used to be the most dangerous job in the nation. The unions made the work safe for workers, but no one has since made the system safer beyond that. Speed isn’t an issue for them I guess. UP especially seems to have the attitude that they will do what they want, when they want, how they want, and only when they feel like it and they don’t give the impression that they give much of a damn about what anyone thinks. That’s my impression. And really, who can stop them?
Was any consideration given to creating a station box large enough to accommodate both BART and HSR side-by-side on adjacent platforms? Seems like it could make for some mighty nice cross-platform connections.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
That doesn’t quite work, as the planned BART and HSR alignments are more or less perpendicular to each other.
There doesn’t seem to be a good solution in this area. If Diridon Station was ditched, then the station could be moved to somewhere near Autumn and Julian. That location still wouldn’t be all that great because it would have large aerial approaches. And it would obliterate what remains of the little neighborhood there. But trains could be run through at full speed.
morris brown Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Diridon Station ditched. Don’t give Rod a heart attack. And who carer about a little neighborhood here and there.
The amazing thing is according to the press release from the Authority, this will all be completed in 2 months, no delay expected. From my perspective, that is wonderful; sure fire victory for the next lawsuit that would be started.
Rafael has been saying for quite some time, leaving San Jose will not be easy.
One might well be looking at changes in land ownership along new alignments. Might prove to be interesting.
tony d. Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
MB,
What would be the basis for next lawsuit? Can’t wait to hear your answer to that one. Also, leaving San Jose won’t be as hard as some are portraying.
But then again, no one ever claimed building our high-speed rail system would be easy. In the end, HSR from SF to Gilroy and beyond will be well worth it.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Morris, do you have a link to that press release?
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Also, you’re assuming that they haven’t been working on a revised EIR since the lawsuit was filed, or at least until they were ruled against in the lawsuit. Two months from now means they will have been working on it for potentially over a year.
morris brown Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:53 am
http://www.kcra.com/news/21800974/detail.html
Jeffrey Barker deputy director of CHSRA says:
He said that because of the work on the environmental review and the public input period, the soonest the board will be able to address the issue again is February or March of 2010.
In October, California submitted an application for $4.7 billion in federal stimulus funds for the project. Barker said the environmental review has to be done by September 2011 to be eligible for the stimulus money.
Pushing all of this is this is the time deadline and as I posted before, they will have to deal with thie issue of being able to deliver Prop 1A bond funds as promised. See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23635316
well if the trains are on the caltrain row and only running at 60 mph then there just isnt any issue. just do it and be done with it.
Peter Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Other than possible property takes, potentially relocating a church, making a park smaller, etc. There are still issues there to be resolved, Jim.
I realize the Merc made it look like nobody cares that the underground option was elminated, but immediately after this decision those of us on various SJ city distribution lists were literally pummelled with emails from City congresspeople expressing their “disappointment” and requesting to revisit the tunnel. HSR can’t really use the Caltrain ROW, there are 2 freeways between less than 1500 feet of ROW that the train will have to ascend and descend into, at their preferred 55mph minimum speed through the area- Raging Waters anyone? If they were going to use the Caltrain ROW as it exists, HSR really needs to be aerial in through there, which is a certain CEQA violation through a residential neighborhood = no go. Even an aerial structure would not save the first, somewhat historic Orchard Supply Hardware that lies directly in the path of the Caltrain ROW coming off 280. There was a proposal on the table put forth by CHSRA where they would extend the Caltrain ROW to the south, which would have meant 8-12 million in property takings not to mention CEQA, still not saving Orchard Supply- no doubt this was the personal favorite of the train wonks, and it was soundly shut down almost immediately. HSR is screwed through this area, they are going to have to pay 10x their budget to deal with the fish hook, something they should have known going into it.
jimsf Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
well, if you can’t tunnel due to conditions , then you can’t tunnel. so its gonna have to be what it is.
just put the church in the park.
wu ming Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
put it underground, it’s all the rage these days.
OK I had a tough time getting into this new site. It mails you a password which goes directly to Google mail spam folder, I had to use 2 dead emails to finally make it work. Anyway, Cruikshank, if any of my comments are “waiting moderation”, just delete them now, I finally got it.
With regards to this area in San Jose, I know it well. The Murky news is mischaracterizing the angst in that area, not only from residents and Orchard Supply Hardware, but from San Jose city councilpeople who are email blasting everybody about the deletion of the undergrounding.
The bottom line is- they don’t have enough room with the Caltrain ROW for HSR in this area. Even if they managed to eek out some kind of deal to cooexist with the freight lines, and this is almost an impossibility here much moreso than other places on UPRRs route due to the space constraints at the fish hook, HSR would STILL have to take out an entire park, a church, and an orchard supply hardware warehouse, as well as THREE historic S&P train bridges restored to look like they did in the 1800s. And even in the rare event all of this managed to get through, you would still have a 2500 square foot area where HSR would have to climb over 87, descend onto Fuller Ave and climb again over 280 in a raging-waters-esque fashion at anything over 50mph. To avoid the Roller Ride, they could ELEVATE the thing all through the residential area…. this after taking out the church, park and orchard supply, that should be a big hit with the city and residents.
The alternative route which is along the freeways is a little more likely in that area. Yes it is 2 sharp curves but at least it is elevated the entire way and avoids all the nonsense with taking out neighborhood parks and churches.
JimSF, the church IS in the park, effectively.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I’m sorry, but unless I’m misreading my map, it looks to me like the only part of the Orchard Supply that would be “taken out” would be a small portion of its VERY large back lot, if HSR follows the current Caltrain alignment.
And were there even any bridges where 280 and 87 are in the 1800s? I didn’t know there were any freeways before the 1950s… They’re not necessarily historic if they’re only dressed up to LOOK historic.
Looks to me like it’s 75 feet fence-to-fence across the ROW by the church.
Unless I’m completely mistaken, they may only have to take a couple of feet from the church and other properties along the existing ROW.
They don’t have to “eke” out a deal with UPRR. UPRR doesn’t own the ROW through there. Their tracks can be moved a few feet south, together with Caltrain.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Peter, the 1800s bridges are for the grade separated TRAIN over Delmas street and Bird I believe and one other. Here is what I am talking about, there are 3 of these. Turn around in google maps to see it, with the train actually going by at their typical 30mph pace there.
View Larger Map
This particular stretch of the ROW has been identified by many as one of the stickiest issues the HSR has to deal with, and yet, those of you on this blog think it is “no big deal”. LOL, remember this is also the part of town identified as blighted and highly minority, CEQA anyone? Go ahead try to put an elevated through here.
Spokker Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The project is supposedly going to decimate Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Atherton, so California High Speed Rail is an equal opportunity offender. No racism here.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Except that even if Menlo Park does a Berkeley and pays for undergrounding themselves, CEQA laws stipulate that this area called Gardner gets the same underground treatment at somebody else’s expense. There was no CEQA when Berkeley undergrounded BART in the 70s but now there is. The only way this area gets a standard run of the mill above ground birm (which is still going to be a roller coaster) is if no other wealthier town does anything to mitigate the damage. Anybody undergrounds, and Gardner is underground.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Care to cite the exact CEQA regulation which mandates this?
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Oh don’t be ridiculous Joey. Environmental justice is a simple concept really, the name says it all. A project cannot environmentally impact a lower income community moreso than a higher income one. This is the thrust and objective of CEQA, basic and by the book. If somebody wanted to ssue HSR on environmental justice CEQA regulations they would need to prove that a poor community did not get the same treatment along the route vs a rich community. The issue with proving this USUALLY comes from actually proving that one community is poor/disadvantaged vs another which is surprisingly hard to do. Except in this case, where that Gardner area is already designated by the City of San Jose and blighted! They have already done studies there with figures that can be cited in any lawsuit to prove what the population is. And to top it off, the mitigations put forth by the City of San Jose to improve this poor/blighted area are going to be REMOVED by this train! The park for example was part of the redevelopment effort!
Lets be serious here. If you train wonks are going to delude yourselves that this neighborhood is not a CEQA winning lawsuit waiting to happen, then you are way too far gone. Do yourselves a favor, stop trying to convince yourselves you don’t have any issues. Figure out how to move this thing onto a freeway ASAP. Or else face lawsuit blockages at every turn.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I’m not convinced, but I’ll let it drop since chances are the mid peninsula isn’t getting a tunnel anyway.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Actually, environmental justice is just one of the aspects of CEQA. I don’t even think it’s named in CEQA. There’s a lot more to CEQA than that.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
One of the things you’d have to prove to win a CEQA lawsuit on environmental justice grounds would be that they chose the Caltrain corridor simply because it was blighted. Hence one of the reasons why CHSRA is looking at other options. If the 87/280 aerial turns out to be not technically feasible, but the Caltrain corridor is, even after some property takes, then that argument goes out the window.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Ahh, right, my apologies. I forgot about those grade separation bridges.
I’m quoting now from a treatise on CEQA: “In enacting CEQA, the Legislature further declared that it is state policy to do the following: … (4) Preserve examples of the major periods of California history.” One could argue that these policies are mandates. However, it is more likely that these policies are factors to be considered in the CEQA decision-making process. Mandates (could also be referred to as elements) must be met, factors are weighed against other factors.
Still, there’s no reason that those bridges need to stay the way they are. They could be rebuilt as a 4-track bridge with similar aesthetics, thus preserving the “examples of the major periods of California history.”
I’m not trying to state that there will be no problems with building HSR through Gardner. I’m just saying that the problems are being exaggerated. Will there be property takes if they choose either the 280/87 or existing alignment? Yes. Will they have to take entire properties? Most likely not. Most likely the takes will be a few feet of each property.
The problems are solvable.
I also think you’re exaggerating the “roller-coaster” effect. You’d have to have some VERY small vertical radii to make people sick at 60 mph. How tight are the vertical radii on freeways with speed limits of 65 mph, which people regularly drive at 75 mph and greater?
That being said, if there is a technically and politically feasible way to transition from Diridon to Tamien without going through Gardner, by all means HSR should take it.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
the reason I think there is a roller coaster is because you are looking at literally 1400 feet at ground level between 2 freeway climbs. Sure people go up and down on freeways all the time at 60mph but how often do they climb over 2 freeway overpasses with 1400 feet at ground level in between? Never, the DOT would make that stretch of road elevated all the way through, which is of course what HSR REALLY intends to do through Gardner, with either a huge wall or elevated, even though their maps claim otherwise, because an ELEVATED through a neighborhood would outrage even more people.
There is a technical and feasible option to avoid Gardner on the table, the options are 1)tunnel, 2) freeways, 3) elevated through SJ downtown. The political reasons these are not being considered really have no bearing on reality. It is obvious the CHSRA thought they were dealing with a set of naive non english speaking residents there or something, and instead they got one of the most vocal groups on the entire route. I haven’t been through Gardner in a while but I plan to drive down there this week. It looks like the area has improved quite a lot probably with the property bubble, a new group of residents perhaps. Its a charming old neighborhood at any rate.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Freight and diesel passenger trains already go through there without any problems along the same vertical profile the electric HSR trains would. There’s no roller coaster issue. The tracks are already elevated on a berm which you’ve posted numerous pictures of already.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
AndyDuncan, trains go 35mph through Gardner today. Not 60mph and dear god not 125mph. Thats the difference. They go 35mph today to navigate all the curves, through the neighborhood as well as over the freeway.
What will it take for you people to realize that Caltrain is not a high speed transport? It is like a streetcar in the area. Extremely slow and infrequent.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Yes, and at 60 mph an electric train on grade-separated continuous-welded rail is quieter than what Gardner experiences today.
Clem Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Right. There are exactly six Caltrains a day, compared to 90 north of San Jose Diridon.
By the way, the laws of train physics set a hard speed limit at 60 – 65 mph through these curves. No train will ever travel through the fish hook at any faster than that, no matter what anybody tells you!
Clem Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Oops, forgot Tamien service. Make that 40 Caltrains a day. Duh.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
And 280 and 87 are slightly below grade there, reducing the height the tracks need to rise to.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I’m confused as to why the new tracks would have to be any higher than the existing ones. Except perhaps the approach to Diridon station (where the HSR platforms are intended to be above the existing ones.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Sorry, I meant “reduce the height the tracks need to rise to above ground level“. I don’t see any reason why they need to be any higher than they are already except where as you the HSR tracks rise to the second level of the station.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
They scream 1920. Reinforced concrete was all the rage. If they were built in 1920 they are due to be replaced. It has two tracks on it now. Do they need more than two tracks south of San Jose?
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
BTW you are completely mistaken, San Jose councilpeople have blasted multiple emails that Orchard Supply warehouse would be taken out with the Caltrain alignment as well as various other amenities. But take a good hard look at the map I posted and while you are at it, follow that park right down the street. Thats the ENTIRE ROW, exactly what you see, thats it. Those roads will need to be lowered or the HSR elevated through here, the bridges gone and even then the HSR will abutt Fuller avenue right next to those houses.
And, according to the EIR, there is LOW IMPACT through this area, since it is already an existing transportation corridor! LOLOLOLOL!
When will you people realize that all of this malarky about impacts is not helping your case? anybody can see these people and this area will be blighted and have a huge impact from this train. What HSR should have done was stood up and offered everybody in the area $700K for their land and left it at that, then pummelled the area, moved the schools and churches at their expense and turned the whole mess into a junkyard. In other words calling a spade a spade, and paying for it up front. Instead they played all these stupid games about “no impacts”.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
There are only two grade crossings between Diridon and Tamien. It makes sense to lower them rather than to raise the tracks, especially since you might as well separate CalTrain and UPRR at the same time.
oh. never mind.
You know, in sf when I blog about being against change and trying to save stuff and so on, they tell me, too bad, change is coming and you can’t stop it, and indeed, I can’t, yet, in these other cities, they refuse to accept any impacts. If i have to accept impacts in my town, then you all have to accept impacts in your towns.
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Everyone is going to have to accept impacts, one way or another. Hopefully people will also see the immense benefit that will be brought.
Spokker Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Who cares about a few neighborhoods here and there? Who cares about the state’s transportation needs?
I’m content. The state developed just enough for me to enjoy a quality of life I never want to change, everyone else be damned.
From Google Map, the right of way is not narrow in the Willow Glen area. The two extra tracks for HSR can easily fit in the current ROW. The trees and the church along Fuller Ave. might not even be touched. I think what Willow Glen residents worried about was the additional train noise from the increased train traffic after HSR is built, since that’s a big unknown to them.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for CHSRA to play some video recordings with sound on locations near HSR tracks in other countries. This might help CHSRA gain a few supporters in that area.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:58 am
William I don’t know what you are looking at, from the Murky news article even PB has issues with the ROW there. The CHSRA proposed an alternative “south of row” option for this area, which might be what PB is referring to below but either way, all parties realize the existing ROW is too narrow. The south of ROW option was terminated along with the tunnel.
And at 60mph I am not hearing anything about what to do about the Roller Coaster ride.
Dave Mansen, a Parsons Corp. consultant and regional team manager with the Rail Authority, told the board that his team wants to remove the Caltrain route because it would involve too many “property takes.”
Robert wrote:
“My own view is that the state and federal governments should only be willing to pay for a basic implementation of HSR, with localities that want things like trenches or tunnels paying the extra cost. That was the precedent set by BART and Berkeley in the 1960s and it seems to have worked out pretty well, BART’s other problems aside ”
======
Now I don’t know where anyone else except you says that the Berkeley BART process sets any kind of precedent. Certainly other projects have involved extensive changes to low costs options (BART to the airport) for which the local communities did not have to fund these changes.
Your whole premise here is nonsense. Furthermore, the voters of California were told time and time again by Kopp and others, that “pass the bond measure — that is all the funds California voters will have to provide”. that, of course has proven to be one big falsehood, as now we see the Authority looking to extract funds, land and anything else from local areas.
Funding is the projects biggest obstacle on the grand scale. You don’t hear much anymore about the public/private partnerships that were to provide 1/3 of the funds. They simply aren’t going to happen. David Crane explains this at board meetings
It is truly amazing for the board, which is completely made up of politicians, just spins different tunes as we move along.
Notice that the extension to San Diego, which was to be funded by profits from the operation of the main line, now is on the stimulus application list with matching funds from the Prop 1A bonds.
Off topic.
FRA will be studying UPRR horn noise on the Peninsula in response to neighborhood complaints.
http://cbs5.com/local/federal.officials.look.2.1353179.html
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Note the misleading title of the article: “Federal Officials To Check Caltrain Horn Noise”
They’re checking the freight train horns, not Caltrain.
The ROW south of Diridon, is a 4 track row. the whole thing is a four track row. there isn’t anyplace between diridon and 87 that would require property taking.
okay where on this map does any property need to be taken. the railroad owns everything inside these red lines…. and the entire stretch is already a four track row. I don’t see any homes or churches or parks in the UP row anywhere.
You can consult the official ROW maps here
MP 47.0 to 48.0 (Diridon)
MP 48.0 to 49.0 (fish hook)
MP 49.0 to 50.0 (Tamien)
What is the exact milepost of the pinch point? Is it the 90-foot ROW at Delmas Ave? Looks to me like there is plenty of room for everybody’s tracks. Caltrain and HSR could easily share tracks through this area because train speeds are homogenized by the 60 mph curve speed limit.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Would it be possible to run three tracks through there, with Caltrain and HSR sharing two tracks?That would leave one track for freight and Amtrak. That should be suggested in public comments for the Draft Project EIR.
Clem Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
It would be tough to synchronize timetables of Caltrain and HSR through a two-track bottleneck, especially at the astronomical (and imaginary) levels of traffic that predicate the entire design of the HSR system. I could imagine them making do with three tracks (2 NB and 1 SB) to decouple the timing of HSR coming in from far away points south. Four tracks might fit, although just barely if you need to build a giant crash barrier to keep UP away. Anyway, the whole notion of a crash barrier is silly in this location: high-speed trains are going just 60 mph here, carrying 7.5% of their cruise-speed kinetic energy.
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
dont forget the amtrak trains – coast starlight, extended cccjpa, and future coast services….
Clem Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The Coast what? Whatever those are, put ‘em on the steam train track shared with UP.
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
ha. dont they use that row though? i gotta run. ill check later.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Yes, they do use that ROW.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Jim is probably referring to the likelihood of new passenger rail service from San José to points south on the Coast Line, including a possible Caltrain or Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas and the long-planned Coast Daylight train from SF to LA. I’m guessing Jim’s broader point is that some consideration must be made here for future capacity, since the corridor from SJ to Gilroy will carry other passenger rail service besides Caltrain and HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Please, it’s a few miles of tracks. NJTransit and Amtrak, not some wunderkind operator off in the mountains of Europe, manage to get 23 an hour through the tunnels into Penn Station. In some far off future where gasoline is ten bucks a gallon they would have what?… 16 trains an hour?
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
A few miles, a strip of parkland, and a couple of parking lots is hardly enough imposing such an operating constraint, given the fact that there is ample room for at least four tracks in most places.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Oops. Meant to say “hardly enough to justify imposing…”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
San Jose isn’t Jamaica, it’s not even Stamford. Some day it may be as busy as Newark, NJ. Competent operators, even not so competent – Amtrak and NJTransit for instance- manage over 20 trains an hour. When are there going to be more than 20 trains per hour in either direction on those few miles of track? Infrastructure has a limited life. If they are going to need three tracks in 2105 it doesn’t make sense to build the railroad now. The bridges/overpasses will be due for replacement by then.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Yeah but that only works if all of a sudden the HSR opposition evaporates when the tracks go from four to two, which won’t happen. The ROW is wide enough for 4 tracks, two tracking doesn’t gain you anything except scheduling and regulatory headaches.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Schedules are a lot cheaper to build and maintain than tracks. All the trains will be moving at the same speed. There are no stations. How many trains an hour an hour require more than two tracks? Is that more or less than the amount of trains Caltrain and HSR will be running in 2110?
Joey Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:14 am
For just a couple miles of track, will the capital and maintenance costs really amount to that much? When you consider the HSR approaches to Diridonplex™ level 2, the amount of track you would conceivably be dealing with shortens to as little as a mile. Sure, it’s possible to coordinate schedules, but conflicts will inevitably occur and a short section of track governing the rest of the system seems like an unnecessary operating constraint to me.
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
ugh you east coast people work my nerves. what they do back east is irrelevant in cali. californians aren’t interested in anything east of the sierra. Im going to send all your new yorker friends who came to sf to try to take over… back to you as soon I can find a big enough bus. so have the bagels and pizza ready! ;)
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
All Im saying is that the following possibilities exist — ccjpa going further south, smurfliners coming further north, the existing #14 and #11, ( the big trains) and the proposed daylight. Not a lot of trains, but those, plus non elctrified caltrain to gilroy and plus UP freight, .. now, all of that can go on two (non electricfied) tracks, while hsr can use two adjacent tracks. So its not a problem, but dont forget about it.
meanwhile, you’ll all be happy to know that in spite of inclement weather, all my steam trains did just fine today. YOu may not like them but until the cute little plastic electric eurochoochoo gets built, they’re the only game in town so ride or stay out of the way! ;-P
Joey Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I would venture to say that CalTrain will probably want to electrify at least to Tamien, considering the number of trains they run there already. Ideally you would have six tracks, two for UPRR/Amtrak, two for CalTrain, and two for HSR, but my guess is that constrains are going to limit it to five, or more likely, four.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 12:06 am
They don’t have to electrify to Tamien. HSR will be electrifying all the way to Anaheim. They can yse their new electric trains on the HSR tracks. They could if they wanted to run their trains all the way to Anaheim.
Joey Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Again, you’re not saving that much by forcing HSR and CalTrain so share trackage. HSR will be on the second level of Diridon station, so when you consider the approach structures for that, and the fact that CalTrain needs its own platform tracks at Tamien, you’re only saving maybe a mile of electrification/track. I think my original point was that CalTrain can’t share trackage with UPRR in this area.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Why wouldn’t Caltrain be able to share track with UP south of San Jose? They will be sharing track with UP north of San Jose. This isn’t a mainline freight route. How many freight trains go over it every day? They can schedule around both or all three of them.
The plans floating around for the station on Cahill street are a fantasy or imcompetent or both. The plans I’ve seen are for 14 tracks on two levels. Keeping the math simple at 28 trains per hour in each direction that’s a 30 minute dwell time. Caltrain dwells at San Jose for 30 minutes passengers who can walk fast could get to Tamien in almost the same amount of time. HSR passengers will be really really pissed if the train that is supposed to be really really fast sits at the station for much more than a few minutes. They don’t need 14 tracks on two levels in San Jose. 4 might be tight because Caltrain is going to be turning trains there. 6 would probably do. Keep in mind that the trains leaving San Jose northbound will eventually get to San Francisco where all of them will turn around and head back to San Jose – on six tracks in San Francisco.
The Long Island Rail Road runs a train every minute through Jamaica at peak. Some of them dwell for long periods, long for the LIRR anyway. They do that on 8 tracks. …. the LIRR… not some competent operator with a modern signal system. NJTransit and Amtrak run 23 an hour through Secaucus on four tracks. NJTransit and Amtrak have the advantage of more modern signal system. They don’t need 14 platforms in San Jose and they don’t need four tracks south of it.
Joey Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Let’s not forget that ACE and Capital Corridor also use the station (and both terminate there requiring longish dwell times), and as it is, HSR is still going to be using a different platform height than CalTrain. Given all that, and the fact that UPRR still needs a pass-through track, I don’t think six tracks is a reasonable estimate.
BTW, I wasn’t saying that CalTrain had to have dedicated trackage all the way down to Gilroy, just that you have issues (among them the FRA) when you try to run lightweight electric trains down to Tamien on the freight tracks. It doesn’t help that UPRR has no concept of a timetable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Ah yes, ACE Capitol Corridor and Amtrak. Together they operate what ten trains a day? Okay, buyild 7 tracks and platforms at San Jose. The freight trains, ACE, Capitol Corridor and Amtrak can all share it. There might be three trains an hour when one of them is late.
I dont even see a chruch anywhere or a park for that matter
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The church is just to the west of the intersection at Delmas and Fuller. The park is between Fuller and the Caltrain ROW along Fuller on both sides of Delmas.
I fail to see the problem. Theres ample room throughout.
ok the church is not in the way and the park is outside the row as well. so I still don’t see the problem
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
LOL you gotta love this blog.
How about RIGHT HERE?
View Larger Map
Parsons Brinkerhoff thinks the Caltrain ROW will result in too many takings, the City of San Jose councilpeople say Orchard Supply warehouse is gone but this blog being the ultimate arbiter says “nooooooooooooo problem”!
This is the orchard supply parking lot from another angle. If you look through the parking lot and to the left, you will see a whitish flat building. That is their warehouse. If you pan out from the street view here, you can see the train tracks bisecting that area pretty cleanly. The widening of these tracks impacts their property but my main concern if I were them would be the sound and vibration with an old retail outlet there. And once again, in true HSR tradition, the facility that this train threatens to take out isn’t just *any* orchard supply hardware, it is of course the first one ever constructed, very popular, see the old sign below which the city preserved recently. Just another example of how taking out properties located adjacent to old train tracks is pretty painful for all, but of course the fools at CHSRA knew that when they picked the Caltrain ROW
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
From osh.com:
“Again, business flourished and in 1946, a new store was built at 720 West San Carlos Street. The newest location featured a rail-served warehouse and 26,000 square feet of retail space.”
So it’s their third location, not the “first one ever constructed”. And it was specifically built next to freight rail. I’m guessing that a building built next to lumbering, low-track-maintenance freight and which has survived that freight, the 89 quake, and other smaller earthquakes is probably going to be fine with welded-rail trains scooting by at less than 60mph.
We need an actual list of parcels to be taken to have a rational discussion about this. The ROW maps clem posted show plenty of room, yes, even next to the small church of which you have provided us with 6 different views.
Clem Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
> How about RIGHT HERE?
The ROW is 90 feet right there. That is not just an opinion posted on a blog, it’s a fact recorded in the land owner’s map. LOL all you want, or ROTFL if you must.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Clem I don’t think we are on the same page here. I am not disputing that the formal ROW is 90 feet in that area. There is no dispute there. THe problem, like most of the Caltrain ROW is that building and various other land usages either directly afront the ROW, or are actually IN the ROW and have been there for decades. This was allowed and encouraged as in the case of Gardner by city governments. Now years later somebody wants to put a train in there, and there is this silly claim “well you built a PARK within a train right of way!!!”, yes, that park is WITHIN the train right of way for some portion, true, but so what? Years after it is built and utilized and functions as a city designated park, claiming that it should never have been allowed to be built there is hardly an excuse. The residents and city are likely to say that the PJBB *ONLY* was allowed to use that land because they were willing to share the ROW. Its not like that row is private property. This is just discussing the park and church, but leaving off the houses that are not within the row but 10 feet from it. Those people are not going to want a 16′ retaining wall with a roaring train ahead. We have been through this before and until the train supporters start to realize these basic city planning facts, the CHSRA is going to continue to be blindsided by lawsuits and obstruction.
Joey Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Why on earth would there be a 16′ retaining wall?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Enough with the “roaring” hyperbole. The trains will be quieter than the ones going by today.
mike Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
>The residents and city are likely to say that the PJBB *ONLY* was allowed to use that land because they were willing to share the ROW. Its not like that row is private property.
Unless that church was built post-1991, it sure was built on private property. Ever hear of the Southern Pacific? It was not a government agency.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant. The land currently belongs to the PCJPB. The own it. They do not need permission from a neighborhood council or even from the city to assert their own property rights. If the city wants to try to ED the land back from the multi-county agency, well, good luck.
jimsf Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 12:23 am
b a r, the railroad can do what it wants with its row whether the neighbors like it or not. suppose UP got busy and enxt thing you know there’s mile long container trains running through every 20 minutes. There wouldn’t be anything you could do about it.
Dan S. Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
First I’ve heard about an uproar about trains coming nearby this OSH property. A train on the other side of the parking lot of a retail business! Yikes. Dangerous. I’m not familiar with it — what do they sell at this “OSH” store, anyway? Antiques? China? Blown glass?
But seriously, concerns over this neighborhood are valid and I hope CHSRA does a good job of addressing them. Seems like they have gotten the short end of the stick with all the freeway projects bisecting them.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Here is one of the emails I received from SJ City
At the Thursday Dec. 3rd High Speed Rail Authority Board meeting there was discussion on alternatives through Diridon and Gardner. HSR Staff proposed to eliminate the underground tunnel alternative for the San Jose Station Approach, leaving only two alternatives: 1) Refined Program Alignment and 2) SR87/I-280 (proposed by the City of San Jose). Attached is a map detailing all the alternatives suggested so far. Alternative 1, known as “Refined Program Alignment”, would run along the current Caltrain tracks and as it heads towards the San Jose Diridon Caltrain Station would run behind the Orchard Supply Warehouse, potentially impacting its property. Alternative 2, SR 87/I-280, would run over these highways in elevated tracks, until Bird Ave. and then across into the current Orchard Supply Warehouse parking lot.
Our Department of Transportation staff will begin drafting comments on this proposal to submit to the High Speed Rail Authority. Councilmember Liccardo is concerned with the proposed elimination of the underground option and will communicate his opinions to HSR staff. He will continue to push to for an alignment that stays out of the neighborhoods.
You can find the attached map along with other agenda items here: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/Default.aspx?ItemID=4856
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
LOL you gotta love this blog.
How about RIGHT HERE?
View Larger Map
UH DUH??? that church is not in the row its next to it. and the row is wide enough for four tracks without touching the church
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
What are yousmiking — the row next to OSH is already 4 wide without touching the parking lot hellloooooooooooooo
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
link didnt work… try again…
BayAreaRes LOOK looooook seeee??
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
and here again, there is room for 5 tracks really, without taking anything lets try to stay in reality ok?
erw Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 10:49 am
euh better get your locations right — OSH is between West San Carlos and Auzerais, and your blue box was drawn North of West San Carlos.
By the way OSH = Orchard Supply Hardware. This is a hardware store. It was owned by Sears for a while, and now is independent again. Unlike a big box store they actually have a person in every aisle that knows what (s)he is talking about and gives good advice.
I’m sorry but taking 20 feet of their parking lot is not the end of the world. Electric trains are much quieter than diesel trains. I doubt you can hear the diesels inside the store now, the electric trains will barely be heard, if they are heard at all.
jimsf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
you don’t even need any of their parking lot.
I felt this is a misquote by Mercury News. From the CHSRA Dec. Meeting Agenda 13 “San Jose to Merced” staff reports, the ones that staff had concerns about taking too many properties are the “Downtown Aerial” and “South of Caltrain Tracks” options.
Also JPB owns the tracks all the way to Lick, which is south of Taimen station and just behind Communication Hill. The only contract obligation JPB needs to meet for UPRR is to provide one through track/route south of San Jose Diridon station.
William Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Sorry this is meant to be a reply to BAR’s comment at 4:51PM
Reality check please:
We’re not going to stop a statewide infrastructure project in its tracks to protect a 60-year old Orchard Supply Hardware. It’s far too young to be considered “historic” by any stretch of the imagination.
Moreover, there is absolutely no need to raze that structure.
The old tracks can be moved laterally, one after the other, before the new tracks are built next to them, on an elevated structure. Caltrain/UPRR traffic can then be switched to the new elevated tracks while the additional HSR tracks are constructed on a separate elevated structure of equal height just east of them (in Clem’s terminology, that’s track order SSFF from west to east). All of this can be accomplished within a strip just 70′ wide if necessary, but more is available.
Same goes for that church and the adjacent park. CHSRA simply needs to get creative about the construction strategy so it can avoid eminent domain takings for shoofly tracks.
PCJPB owns the right of way all the way down to Lick, roughly 1/4 mile north of where the tracks diverge from the Monterey Highway. UPRR has trackage rights from there to Santa Clara (and north to SF) that need to be respected, but in this section it does not have the right to impose an extra-wide separation and/or cargo spill/derailment barrier between the tracks it uses and those the HSR trains will run on. Further south, where UPRR owns the right of way outright, the legal situation is different.
Seems to me BAR is once again trying to create environmental problems where there are none.
That said, he does have a point regarding W San Carlos St., which is currently an overpass across the Guadeloupe river, multiple rail tracks and Dupont St. Considering the geometric requirements for the SJ Diridon station, the ideal solution would be to convert that to a deep underpass so the HSR tracks can remain roughly level south of the elevated HSR platforms at SJ Diridon. Not at all trivial, given the local hydrology and the need to close half the lanes during construction period, but well within the scope of the largest civil engineering project in state history.
A bigger concern is getting the Caltrain/UPRR tracks up to elevated level south of the station, since heavy freight is limited to a 1% gradient. Unfortunately, Clem’s Caltrain ROW maps do not include a vertical profile of grade level relative to mean sea level. Therefore, it’s not clear if the elevation transition will already be complete at the Bird Ave. intersection. All cross roads between there and SJ Diridon need to become partial or deep underpasses.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
HSR is predicting the demand for 8 trains per hour eventually. Caltrain currently runs 3 trains per hour south of San Jose. That’s 11 trains an hour. Triple the amount of Caltrain trips and that’s 9 an hour at peak, something that will probably never happen. 8+9=17. Seventeen trains an hour, throw in a Amtrak or two and a freight. You are up to 20 trains an hour. Why do they need four tracks? Two would do quite nicely, for decades if not centuries.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Two tracks assume they can get an FRA waiver for mixed traffic and get UP to roll over. Why would they want to plan a project around that kind of contingency? If they plan for a two track alignment there and the whole project has to grind to a halt because the FRA and UP won’t budge, what happens then? How much would that cost relative to one mile of track?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Why? Well, because first of all, PTC may make the FRA compliance issue moot – the FRA appears to consider PTC to provide guaranteed time separation, on the same level as having light rail during the day and freight trains during the night. Second, if UP remains intransigent, CAHSR should at least be able to credibly say, “We want to do XYZ, but UP is forcing us to take much more land,” which may force UP to pay for some of the mitigations and takings.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Good points. Though PTC “may” make the FRA compliance issue moot, it might not, that’s a risky contingency for one mile of track.
Operation flexibility: just because they can run 20 tph though there, doesn’t mean that’s a good situation, and operational flexibility isn’t just an abstract thing, it has benefits that likely outweigh the cost of 1 mile of track. Any schedule meshing means slowing trains down or having them wait at platforms, if even just for a few seconds, from their ideal run times. Those seconds cost time, Clem posted a whole article on curve radii and the resulting cost in dollars for each second wasted slowing a train down. You could design the entire schedule and trackage for the whole rest of the network around this one bottleneck, and make sure that all the trains arrive at precisely the right time to squeeze through exactly as needed. But why? To avoid having to move a small church? We’re not talking about Notre Dame here.
Tony D. Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
The SJ Redevlopment Agency alread has plans to replace the current San Carlos St. Bridge (over UPRR/Caltrain and Los Gatos Creek) with a new one. Check out their web site and Diridon proposals.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
How much is it going to cost to tear down the existing overpasses and rebuild them for 8 trains an hour? That’s what going to be running when the system opens in 2020. Wildest wet dreams of Caltrain they will be running 6 trains an hour south of San Jose. People at the far end of commuter lines all over the world would find 6 trains an hour amusing. HSR is predicting 8 trains per hour far far in the future. That’s 14 trains per hour. 15 trains per hour is four minute headways. Even Amtrak and NJTransit manage 2 and half minute headways. That’s 90 seconds of wiggle room. With two minute headways thats 120 seconds of wiggle room. Two minute headways at 60 MPH may be pushing the envelope.
Assuming the existing overpasses are structurally sound – that they have another 30 to 50 years in them all they have to do is re-lay the track, install catenary and modern signals. Much cheaper than tearing down sound bridges and building new ones.
In 2050 when the civil engineers say the bridges need to be replaced, build four tracks wide for the 18 trains per hour they are running. Install three tracks so that in 2075, when they get up to 22 trains an hour they can consider whether or not they need a fourth track. 22 trains an hour San Jose would have to look like the Loop and southern Santa Clara county would have to look like Queens.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Clem conservatively estimates the cost of one second of delay for HSR passengers at around $1m over 15 years, not counting the cost of delay for caltrain passengers. So 1 minute of delay is worth around $60m for HSR passengers alone.
But again, it would be irresponsible of the CHSRA to assume that they would be able to get both FRA waivers and UPRR concessions. Presumably they’ve at least had conversations with their friends at the FRA, and know how likely those waivers would be. We all know how accomodating UPRR has been.
Whether or not they could technically squeeze 20+tph through there is practically irrelevant. If CHSRA could get an FRA waiver, we wouldn’t even be having a conversation about this one mile of track since the entire design of the system would be different.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Then they should be building 6 tracks north of San Jose because they aren’t sure they are going to get waivers for the trains north of San Jose. There’s no operational need for four tracks south of San Jose until some time far far in the future if ever.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
With four tracks only Caltrain needs the waiver, not HSR, and if they don’t get it, they just can’t buy the trains they want, but the HSR system is unaffected.
However, with four tracks either the baby bullets have to go, the new non-compliant Caltrain rolling stock will need to be accelerate fast enough to keep out of HSR’s way, or they will need a fifth or sixth track in places.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Don’t forget that Caltrain and HSR are already going to share tracks in the vicinity of Transbay Terminal, which is a greater bottleneck.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The only caltrain trainsets that are going through the DTX are going to be the new non-compliant rolling stock, but yeah, they’re already going to have to mesh their schedules to fit through there. That makes it even more difficult for them to mesh their schedules perfectly 30 miles down the line.
Joey Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Let me just point out that three tracks total is the ABSOLUTE minimum for this area, two for passenger rail and one for UPRR. UPRR will have its own track no matter what, as you really don’t want long, slow freight trains clogging the passenger tracks, not to mention the FRA issue. Really though, it makes sense to have more. True, CalTrain and HSR *could* in theory operate on two tracks, but the cost (operational flexibility)/benefit (maybe a mile of track) ratio really doesn’t make this a desirable option.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
How many freight trains run through there now? How many will UP be running in 2030? 2050? How long are they? It’s not like there’s a coal mine in Redwood City supplying coal to a power plant in Gilroy…
@Rafael
>We’re not going to stop a statewide infrastructure project in its tracks to protect a 60-year old Orchard Supply Hardware. It’s far too young to be considered “historic” by any stretch of the imagination.
Urban legend has it that the reason the BART Wye is so tight is because a hardware store in Oakland refused to sell its land (and I guess BART didn’t want to exercise ED). Of course, said hardware store went out of business after BART was built. It might even be true.
But yes, I don’t think the location of OSH is going to be a project-halting issue.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Look, the point is, a hardware store here, a restored train bridge there, a park here, a few houses there and pretty soon you’re talking about real takings. The voters did not sign up for this, most thought they were voting for a prelim study or something far less obtrusive than this. A lot of communities are upset and now here comes this hardware store that happens to be a beloved destination for a lot of people.
Peter Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
What is this magical hardware store? Jim’s Tools and Supplies on Main Street, Somewhere in Middle of Nowhere, Idaho, where all the real men hang out after work to swap stories? Get real.
Joey Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
If any impacts were unacceptable, we wouldn’t build anything, ever. Nearly any public infrastructure project, especially transportation, will require property takes. That doesn’t mean don’t build infrastructure.
PeakVT Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
The takings are going to be minimal compared to what was done in order to build the 87/280 interchange (compare 1953 and 1980 here).
Peter Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Elections have consequences. Now’s too late to argue “We didn’t know what was happening.”
Rafael Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 8:29 am
No-one is talking about taking the entire hardware store or razing the building. At issue is a strip of the parking lot behind the building, about 20′ wide. Besides, let’s get real here: it’s a hardware store, not an ancestral burial ground.