Report: HSR Stimulus Includes $400 Million for Transbay Terminal
So says John Upton at the SF Examiner:
The U.S. Department of Transportation on Thursday announced that $400 million will be provided from the federal stimulus program to allow construction of a high-speed rail station in San Francisco.
The federal government announced $8 billion in high-speed rail allocations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including $2.25 billion for the $42 billion Anaheim – San Francisco project.
But the $2.25 billion is listed in public documents as a single line item, which does not specify which individual projects or regions will share in the funds.
Department spokeswoman Maureen Knightly said the $2.25 billion includes a reservation of $400 million for construction of an underground train station at the Transbay Transit Center.
“US DOT will work with California authorities to get the (the underground train station) project underway as soon as all the proper approvals are final,” Knightly said in an email Thursday. “(Secretary Ray) LaHood has reserved $400 million to be available.”
Very interesting, isn’t it? That would mean only $1.85 billion is left over for other HSR corridors, meaning the CHSRA and Governor Schwarzenegger will have to make some interesting decisions on where to put that funding.
What’s also unclear is what is meant by “proper approvals.” EIR? Is this the federal government trying to bring to a quick end the dispute over the Transbay Terminal between the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the California High Speed Rail Authority? That’s certainly my take on it. Offer yours in the comments, and I’ll update this post as I get new information.
I think this is great news. Generally federal funding commitment is allocated over a number of years (if they say $700 million, then $100 million will be given out each year). However this time, the ARRA money is literally cash and that the fed would prefer that the money be spent ASAP (to create jobs, which has been Obama’s priority after last week’s election). If that’s the intent, any near term constructions will meet that goal nicely.
The only barrier for more jobs out of this package is that most projects aren’t that shovel ready and can’t be built all at once. Even though that means there will be less ARRA money for the rest, we have to remember that the rest is not shovel ready. If Obama and the Democratic Congress stays, there will be more HSR money in future years that can be better used.
What else is reserved? I note that the SF-SJ and the Fresno-Bakersfield applications added up to approximately $1.8B. Add a little contribution to NEPA/CEQA and we’re there.
HSRA is still conducting a project level analysis which include the Beale Street alternative. HSRA insists that they must do it to avoid lawsuit (from whom, Quentin Kopp’s friends?). As soon as HSRA rejects Beale Street then the project is ready to go.
I’d love to read it from one more source before opening up the champagne, but I’m giddy with excitement for San Francisco …. thousands of jobs sooner rather than later, savings of $100 million for the taxpayers, and a single point for multi-modal transit options in downtown San Francisco (with the potential of a tunnel to BART). Yahoo!!!
Robert,
Please let us know if you find out anything about whether any other portion of the $1.85 billion is reserved for any specific segment(s). I would hope that the CHSRA, if they are indeed the ones who get to decide, make some quick decisions as to where that remaining money will be spent. If the Governor gets involved I foresee endless bickering, not to even mention the possibility that these funds might find their way to being an “emergency loan” to the state general fund like all the other transit funds did…
RT
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
As soon as I learn anything to that effect, I’ll let you all know.
What great thinking, spend $400 million on a hole in the ground that won’t be usable until the full system is done to save $100 million. Of course when the turns out not to be able to support capacity it will cost us way more to fix the problem.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I predict:
1: The hole will be dug with stimulus money
2: It will be determined that the hole is not going to work for HSR+Caltrain
3: The beale/main alternative will be built
4: The TTC basement will be reserved for a future BART station and a MUNI loop connector
5: The currently frothing San Franciscans who are complaining about evil Kopp will completely forget why they cared that the HSR platforms are a block away
6: HSR opponents will (rightly) claim that this is a typical example of poor planning and cost escalation
7: The contractors will take a nice vacation in Fiji
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
that definitely seems quite likely, although I think it’s equally likely that even though it’s discovered that the hole doesn’t support trains a politician will say it has to go there because they don’t want to bear the heat of an angry public.
Evan Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Not true! This can be usable with Caltrain, regardless of HSR.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
That PTG, PCJPB TJPA “designed” Transbay underground station and Downtown Extension is not usable by Caltrain or by HSR, in any meaningful sense.
It is the lowest capacity, most expensive, lowest utility, lowest train throughput, lowest passenger throughput, largest footprint, lowest speed, least flexible, most architecturally dismal disaster it was physically possible to construct at the site, that is all.
It works for absolutely nobody except those who create the “designs” and those who dig the holes and pour the concrete.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Dear Richard,
As always you are here with showing nothing but contempt for the professionals on staff and contract at the various agencies. Please do inform us though, what HSR/rail projects you have designed. That way we can show proper respect to you as the credentialed and experienced transportation engineer that you undoubtedly are. As of now I just don’t know the level of your professional expertise.
I for instance am an urban planner (AICP) and have some experience work in transportation policy, but not the engineering side. How about you?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Dear Brian,
I’m exactly as likely to be offered a job in track alignment and service planning in Switzerland or Japen or Sweden as is the CHSRA director of Operations and Maintenance, the TJPA Chief Engineer, or the Caltrain director of service planning.
The difference is that I’ve heard of those places.
Transbay rail is a completely avoidable disaster, freely undertaken. You’ll find nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Now just why might that be, do you think? Is it because the people who designed Millbrae BART and Transbay are smarter than those building Zürich Löwenstrasse?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
You don’t really need a degree or a certification to see that it doesn’t work. All you need is Google and the drawings that are online. Curve radii that are tighter than the specs published by the car manufacturers for example.
You’re an urban planner. Where would you put all the people coming in from the east when the new tunnel is built? They can’t get on BART in Oakland for a lot of reasons but mostly because there’s no capacity on BART during peak. … someday the people in Sacramento are going to be asking why it takes longer to get to San Francisco, only 90 miles away, than it does to get to Los Angeles… Besides being about as bad as they could make it and still sucessfully get a train to the platform it doesn’t have the capacity it will need in 2030 or so.
… they can wedge it under the bus station or they could use the parking lots across the street…
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:16 am
So now you want to put the terminal in Oakland? Really?
I live in Oakland I would love it if they ran HSR up to Oakland too, but look at the ridership #s. SF is a lot more important than Oakland.
Calling to defund TBT because you want Altamont to Oakland is fighting a long dead fight.
And no they can’t ever build Main to Beale unless the authority wants to pay the TJPA the cost of putting three city blocks of land out of commission. That land and its tax increment is dedicated to fund the new terminal building. It would cost billions extra to refund the city and TJPA for taking that land out of commission.
Joey Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:25 am
I don’t think that was his intention. He was merely acknowledging the possibility of terminating in Oakland, but then saying that it wouldn’t work.
And like I’ve said in the past, study Beale. If it proves to be impractical, that’s fine, but we can’t just *assume* that one is better than the other before that is done.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I live in Oakland I would love it if they ran HSR up to Oakland too, but look at the ridership #s. SF is a lot more important than Oakland.
Which is why they are going to build a tunnel from Oakland to San Francisco someday. Not only do people want to get from San Francisco from Los Angeles they want to get to San Francisco from Sacramento… and Cloverdale and Calistoga and Fairfield and Stockton and …. Of course if there is no place to put a station in San Francisco building a tunnel would be pointless.
They can build tall buildings on the land between Main and Beale or they can build a train station and then build tall buildings over the station. I’m sure someplace in you urban planning courses they mentioned that Grand Central was financed that way. Or that the reason the original Penn Station was torn down was to make way for Madison Square Garden and tall office buildings or took you for a virtual tour of the train stations in Tokyo that have malls and office complexes over them or …..
Joey Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Actually, what he said is true, at least in theory. If only CalTrain was in the trainbox, it would allow the curve radii to be widened (at the expense of long platforms which are not necessary for CalTrain).
Benjamin Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
There are a number of ancillary benefits you’re neglecting. While the HSR train box will obviously be unused until there’s an HSR train, Muni, BART, Golden Gate Transit, and Caltrain will be able to use the Transbay Transit Center. Building a functional transit hub there and detangling the mess of abandoned overpasses is critical to revitalizing that neighborhood.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
But the transit center can be built with or without the train-box and be fully functional for the uses you stated. In fact, the only reason they even considered doing the box now was because the $8 billion for HSR became available. They planned to build the center first and then the train box when funds became available at a time that there was rail that could use it.
I am not as excited. $2.3b is a lot of money but not nearly what is needed, and certainly doesn’t come come close to the $10b we put up. How much of their own money did Florida put up? Furthermore, it seems increasingly likely to me that the Peninsula NIMBYs will succeed in dragging their section into court for at least the next 10 years making the TBT a CalTrain only destination. I would not be surprised to see Sacramento and San Diego connected before SF. That means $400m of HSR money will be spent on a train station that HSR cannot reach and that won’t meet it’s needs once it can. On a brighter note, I am excited that the rest of the system really looks like it is on the fast track with huge momentum and influence behind it.
This is wonderful news for San Francisco, the greater Bay Area, and all of California!
I would urge all decision makers involved to quickly resolve any issues so demolition of the old terminal and construction of the new Transbay Transit Center can start in a few weeks.
@lyqwyd You may not be aware of it, but the CA HSR Authority dropped their objections to the TBT design over 6 months ago. The capacity issues were made up and abandoned within a 6 month period. The Authority supported the TJPA Terminal design BOTH before January 2009 and after June 2009. If there is a problem (as Clem and other claim) it is with the tunnel design. But the tunnel is not funded so that design can continue to be changed for years to come. Only the train station “box” will be set in concrete, not the tunnel or its track layout.
Brian Stanke
Californians for High Speed Rail
http://www.ca4hsr.org
The biggest question about the $400 million is who actually gets to control the money. This is very important since if CAHSR and Caltrain get control over, then they call the shots on design. The TJPA in this case would not be able to dictate the terms of design, which seems to be the crux of the problems relating to the Downtown Extension/Rail Link project. I guess in this case, he who controls the purse strings is all powerful. My prediction: expect an interesting turf fight between CAHSR and TJPA.
The other issue at hand: how much money will the MTC give toward the upgrading of the Caltrain line to support both Caltrain and HSR? If they can give a sizable sum to the project, then that will demonstrate commitment to this segment, which in turn could lead to the SJ/SF segment getting started sooner with the help of State and Federal funds. If they don’t, well I guess there will sections upgraded at a time, not the entire line at once.
I’m aware they dropped some of their objections. To me it seems like politics.
I haven’t dropped my objections as I haven’t seen a credible explanation on how it’s better today than it was then.
I don’t see how 4 platform tracks for HSR & 2 for caltrain is going to support sufficient growth. Since the Caltrain platform is not currently long enough for a full length HSR train, and the platform heights are unlikely to be the same, there is no way the trains can share.
I also haven’t heard that the curve radii have been significantly improved. Tight radii will lead to higher maintenance costs, which we’ll be saddled with forever.
I also don’t see why it makes more sense to spend $400 million on hole that won’t be used for at least a decade is better than spending that money on rails & grade separations that will benefit us as soon as they are complete.
I don’t even know why the terminal is going to cost almost $4 billion, Berlin Hauptbahnhof is probably the worlds most expensive station to date, 1,800 trains call at the station per day and the daily number of passengers is estimated to be at 350,000 and cost 700 million euros ($892 million) to build in 2006. I understand a good part is going towards the DTX, but still!
Joey Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The terminal, train box, and associated tunnels cost $4b. The building itself is closer to $1.2b (though that’s still a hefty pricetag).
JT Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Wait what…Is there not an existing SF train station similar to Union station like LA?
Joseph E Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 4:23 am
No, there is only a simple street-level terminal station for Caltrain down by the ballpark at 4th and King, a long way from Downtown San Francisco, not nearly as big or impressive as LA Union Station. Of course, Union Station isn’t exactly in the center of Los Angeles, but it has very good connections to Metrolink regional trains and Metro subway and light rail, while the King street station for Caltrain only connects to Caltrain and two Muni light rail lines and a few bus lines across the street.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Well the turn radii are better than the CA HSR Authority asked for in 2000, so I fail to see how it is a problem. Of course I am not a HSR design engineer, so I am relying on the professional for their representations.
Please inform us though, what HSR projects you designed, or Clem, or Richard M. designed for that matter. That way we can show proper respect to the credentialed and experienced HSR transportation engineers on this board. As of now I just don’t know the level of your professional expertise.
Clem Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Brian, questioning credentials is what people do when they run out of substantive arguments. I’m sure you can rise above that.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Well I am sick of all the Richard Mlynarik’s running around tearing down every single person and project without any answers, attempts to fix anything, or often a whole lot of wrong facts.
The Authority wanted 495 foot radii or better. They got ~600 foot radii. If anyone thinks it is a problem then yes I expect them to bring some credentials or well sourced facts. If you are not an engineer then how do you know the sky is falling over some design number? But no, it’s just vitriol and more calls to derail or defund the TBT, Central subway, any and every transit project.
Another example, people at Rescue Muni spent years engaging the authorities to improve the Central Subway project. They got rid of the crazy Z and other bad ideas. It will actually be a great project if it goes all the to North Beach and beyond. Instead, it was cut off one station short and the stations “value engineered” to severely restrict capacity. Did Bay Area activists fight for more funding to get to North Beach and allow four car trains? No they attack the project and Rescue Muni instead. They complain that the people of Chinatown don’t know what’s good for them and should stay on the bus.
So bring up complaint, but bring supporting facts and solutions. Do fall into the local fad for all vitriol and opposition, all the time.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Agreed.
matt Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Doubled
lyqwyd Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 12:33 am
I did point out specific problems, but here they are again:
turn radii (still) too tight
no room for expansion
not enough capacity in current design
limited operational flexibility
I also asked why it’s better to spend the money on something that cannot be used for a decade, rather on improvements that will have immediate benefits.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Bring your evidence lqwyd. You are claiming ALL the authorities (CHSRA, TJPA, PJPA) engineers are wrong. Where is your proof? Provide some documentation of your claims. The Caltrain tail tracks can extend to a loop making the Caltrain trains all run through. Want to help campaign for the additional funds for that?
Second question answer, because it is better to build a basement before, not after, you build a building maybe?
lyqwyd Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
So what you are saying is you can’t contradict what I’ve written.
To second one, I didn’t ask why to build now rather than later, I asked why to spend the money on something that can’t be used for a decade (and has been poorly thought out) rather than improvements that will provide benefits as soon as they are complete (like grade separations).
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 10:47 am
lqwyd I have address all the concerns in the CA4HSR letter I linked to earlier. It at: http://www.ca4hsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/09.14.09-LTR-FRA-regaring-Transbay-Terminal.pdf
you can also find our letter pushing back against the Main-Beale stalking horse at: http://www.ca4hsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/09.15.09-LTR-Feinstein-Transbay-letter.pdf
These letter cite specifically the official CAHSRA and TJPA EIS/EIR documents.
Where is your evidence? Can you cite anything to contradict those EIRs? I am genuinely interested.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
@Brian: if the design problems with the TTC have been solved, and the CHSRA has approved them, that’s fantastic. Can you provide links to those revised diagrams and the signoff from CHSRA? All we have to go on are the original EIRs you mention. I can’t find anything on the TTC site with the revisions you say they’ve made.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
@Brian
I didn’t see anything of interest in the letters you provided, but they did refer to the transbay EIR, so I checked the sections that were referred to, the most interesting parts to me were:
section 2.3.1.2:
“February 1999, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution repealing its prior
endorsement of the Main/Beale site for a new terminal”…
“AC Transit supported this action noting that the Main/Beale site would
not provide the level of transit service that could be provided at the current terminal”…
“Withdrawal of the Main/Beal site was also consistent with the provisions of Proposition H,
which calls for a multi-modal facility at the current Transbay Terminal site.”
so basically nothing technical there, just politics and a bus operator.
I’ll also note that while prop H requires transbay to be constructed at the same site, it does not say the train station has to be in the basement.
It also states “yield the highest possible transit use by residents and commuters”, which is being ignored in a number of ways (no concern for passenger flow, no concern for operational flexibility, no concern for tunnel approach constraints, tight curves causing slower train speeds)
section 2.3.2.3:
“The alignments along Beale Street leading from The Embarcadero would pass near the Bay
Bridge anchorage, raising issues regarding the effects of cut-and-cover construction on this
major structure.”…
“The Caltrain terminal at Market and Beale Streets was ultimately withdrawn from further
consideration because of the narrow right-of-way available on Beale Street, requiring
construction of a multi-level train station between two historic structures.”
So “raising issues”. Exactly why further study is needed, I saw nothing saying these issues were determined to be insurmountable. There’s lots of space between main and Beale where the tunnel could run, but they only considered the option that puts it directly next to the Bay Bridge anchorage.
The second section says a multi-level train station would be required, but that’s only true if you only allow the trains to be completely under Beale street. There’s plenty of open space between Beale & Main that could allow for a wide & shallow train station.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Brian Stanke… Can you cite your source…. When, when did CHSRA agree to the TBT? I heard nearly the exact oposite.
synonymouse Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
The Central Subway was screwed the moment Rose Pak was allowed to relocate it from 3rd & Kearny to 4th & Stockton.
Blame Willie B. & Gavin – those two hacks make every one on this site look like engineering geniuses.
Joey Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Does that include yourself?
john Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
second.
mrcawfee Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I totally agree with you. Unfortunately with all things political all you have to do is shout out numbers or problems that may or not be true and eventually you will get someone to believe them.
Eric M Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I agree that Richard may seem to go off the deep end at times, but if you follow a lot of posts on Clems blog, he and Clem analyze things correctly. I used to think it would be awesome for the trains to be connected to the TBT, but the more I understand the problems, the more I realize IT IS A BAD IDEA to terminate in the TBT BASEMENT. I think Bealse is much better and the $4 billion dollar bus station is a joke.
Yeah, yeah, Richard does go on sometimes, but I can see how frustrating the decisions being made can be. Put the $400 million to better use.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Clem’s right.
And, fwiw, can you site your sources?
I would like to know where/when and context of CHSRA referencing a 495-foot radiuus curve. Or, for endorsing the TBT design for track alignment and station. I try to follow this stuff pretty closely and have never landed on such information.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
That was to be addressed to Brian Stanke.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Check the TJPA 2004 EIR/EIS section 2.2.3.4 “Accommodation of High-Speed Rail” on pages 2-42 – 2-43.
CAHSR Authority’s 2008 EIR/EIS contains both conceptual plans consistent with the TJPA plans and reference the MTC design concept. The current CAHSRA project EIS/EIR is tiered off the 2008 program EIS/EIR. So there own 2008 EIR endorsed the TJPA’s work.
All of this is addressed in CA4HSR’s letter to the FRA found on our website: http://www.ca4hsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/09.14.09-LTR-FRA-regaring-Transbay-Terminal.pdf
Where are Clem’s back up for his assertions? I would love to debate facts. I am worried about the three authorities messing things up too. But we need to figure out what the real problems are and how to work with the agencies to solve them. Calling the agencies THE PROBLEM and a recipe for doing nothing and opposing everything.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 9:05 am
I’ll review. Thanks
Clem Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Brian:
http://www.sonic.net/~mly/
If you even knew how much time, effort and resources Richard sank into the TTC project over the years you might understand why he became so bitter. To accuse him of not bringing up solutions is uncharitable, to say the least. The well-reasoned solutions were offered. They were ignored.
Another word about engineering: track geometry and terminal layout is actually not a very advanced science. It follows straight out of basic physics, and it’s really not that hard to do it better. I assure you that no Ph.D. is required to master this particular art.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I’ve had that page bookmarked for a while.
I am not a fan of RM’s delivery of message, but I certainly can not knock him on his work.
mike Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Was Richard on the CAC or something? I feel as if this has been alluded to before (perhaps in his own posts), but I may just be reading too much into things.
Caelestor Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 10:35 am
What does Mlynarik do outside his studies on TTC? He has very good ideas and he’s right in criticizing the ineptness of the current design. He really should join the design team.
Could someone give me more background on him? All of his posts seem to be filled with sarcasm and vitriol…and that’s not particularly healthy.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:49 am
See his own site for a memo from the CHSRA: http://www.sonic.net/~mly/2000-10-CHSRA-minimal-radii-memo.pdf
Dan Leavitt followed up saying 495, not 493 ft, as a minimum. I don’t know if the tightest HSR curve is now 650 ft or not but it is very close. That is WAY more than minimum the European HSR builders were discussing. Something like 656 to 620 (if it is that small) would not seem to be a deal breaker like 375 ft would. If Richard was partially responsible for getting the radii up to 600 and something feet THANK YOU Richard. Now lets try and resolve the remaining issues. curve radii are done, fixed, good enough.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I’m not mlynarik and I don’t agree with his tactics. Sometimes I agree with his points, sometimes I don’t. I pointed out clear flaws in the TTC, and asked why people think it’s a good thing. I still haven’t heard an answer to that question.
Spokker Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“I pointed out clear flaws in the TTC, and asked why people think it’s a good thing. I still haven’t heard an answer to that question.”
Perhaps you should act like a fucking dick all the time and more people would listen to you.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 12:04 am
hehehe, that does seem to be the way things work these days…
Dan S. Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Speaking of outrage, has anyone linked to this article here yet:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/01/29/notes012910.DTL
That one had me chuckling good. And for the record, it directly mentions HSR as one of the topics that people get out of control about.
(RM — way too much outrage, it completely obscures your legitimate points. Love the modelling, though, h/t!)
timote Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
“Well I am sick of all the Richard Mlynarik’s running around tearing down every single person and project without any answers, attempts to fix anything, or often a whole lot of wrong facts.”
As tired as I am of Richard’s hyperbole, this is plainly not a factual argument. Take a look at his website and substantive data included in Clem’s posts and he has clearly put a lot of thought into positive solutions to these issues. To say he has no answers or attempts to fix anything is just plain wrong. Debate the substance of his objections and the substance of his recommendations, if you please.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 1:59 am
Brian, you’re trying to come off as reasonable and constructive, but you’re not. For example:
The German standards for minimum curve radius specify 180 meters. The Japanese train vendors said that their equipment could not handle anything less than 250 (though now they seem to have accepted 180). This was brought up multiple times during the debate over TBT; I learned this from Rafael months before I even knew Richard Mlynarik’s name.
I wish I could get worked up about Richard’s language, but I’ve followed similar projects in New York and I feel exactly the same way (what’s more, so does pretty much every local transit activist and commenter I’ve read, except for Adirondacker12800). For institutional reasons, US transit planners build expensive crap, often with solutions so transparently bad that nearly everyone who follows the debate realizes it’s bad, except the people pulling the strings.
Brian Stanke Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:51 am
But we now have over 180 m curves, problem solved.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 9:59 am
That problem is solved, yes. But it does offer an insight as to what the Authority knows about modern train standards.
And the other problem of TBT, the conflict-maximizing station throat, is not solved at all. It’s okay to have slow curves near the station, but not when the station throat requires each train to leave on the same track it came through. Instead of having 2 tracks, one per direction, fanning out to 6 as is common both within and outside the US, the DTX tunnel has 3 bidirectional tracks, each permanently paired with 2 station tracks. In that case not only are trains naturally going to conflict with one another frequently, but also the slow speed of the approach limits capacity by increasing the amount of time a train clogs a bidirectional track.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 9:51 am
… And, the train conflict in the throat, and at switches, make it impossible to design and build a system enabling trains operating as close to 5 minutes apart? That is a question.
I am pretty certain it is accurate; however, with so many folks here apparently knowledgable of such things and have likely already examined such… I’d be interested to learn what they see before I crunch some numbers.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Bottomline…. how frequently can the throat process trains in each direction…. given 1315-foot trains, the limited speed of the curves, 3 tracks, trains in each direction occupying switches, heading into a terminal without any tail tracks? And anything else I’ve left out?
A CHSRA responsibility is to design a system enabling 5-minute separation of trains. I don’t see it yet.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
The problem is not solved by 600 foot radii, it’s just slightly less bad. This is because the problem was not simply having greater than 180m radius. The problem is tight curves resulting in lower performance and higher maintenance. 180m is the minimum, not the recommended preference.
Does anybody know why the Japanese changed the number from 250 meters (820 feet) to 180?
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
The radii have been slightly improved. That does not make them good.
But that’s only 1 of the many problems with transbay. The number of curves is the same, the platform layout is, if anything, worse. It started with all platform-tracks being long enough for HSR, now only 4 of the 6 will be.
Beale alternative has fewer curves, shallower radii curves, a shorter tunnel, room for future growth, and would probably not need to be dug as deep. Lots and lots of savings available there.
And again, I point out that the $400 million would be better spent on rail & grade crossings, which would be valuable as soon as they are completed.
synonymouse Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Beale is a political dead end. And no train box at the TBT, no train station ever. It is that simple – no matter how crappy the station turns out to be. Maybe Muni could figure out some use for it.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Why is Beale a political dead end?
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I understand that Beale is extremely unlikely, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop discussing it when I see clear advantages. To date I’ve seen nobody put a real reason why the current TTC location is superior other than a variant of “that’s what has been chosen”
Joey Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Study it. If Beale proves to be impractical because of cost, property takings, or other factors, then it will be eliminated. However, we don’t know until it has REALLY been studied.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 12:05 am
exactly!
Spokker Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Richard Mylniarriak is just another kook on the Internet like the rest of us.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
With spittle.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Did the 700 million Euros for Berlin Hauptbahnhof include the costs for the extensive tunnels needed for the north-south underground tracks?
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
The 700 million Euro contract was made in 1997 for the construction of the station. In the end the costs were around 1.533 billion Euro. This includes the costs of installing the additional supports for the roof (which were discovered to be vulnerable to the wind storms Berlin is frequently hit with). There will likely also be additional construction to the station (at additional cost) because DB changed the plans without the architect’s permission.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
hmm… now I have no idea what the price was, I see some sites saying 700 million, and now I’ve found some saying 4 billion euro. But even at that price it’s serving an order of magnitude more people, and several orders more trains than transbay.
Where is your source for the costs?
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I was referring to the German wikipedia. Won’t be of use to you unless you understand German…
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Don’t know, but considering the building + trainbox is about $1.6 B, we’re still about twice as expensive, even if the price didn’t include the tunnels. And the transbay is probably going to have a fraction of the traffic.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Berlin also did not have to build with the prospect of earthquakes.
mrcawfee Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
1 EUR = 1.4 USD (a few years ago it was 1.6 USD)
also if they are correct in saying that this was in 1997, the costs are closer then you are saying.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
As I said in an earlier post 700 million euros was at the time equivalent to $892 million. After further research I’ve seen numbers all over the place, as much as 4 billion euros. But even at $4 billion euro it’s much more cost effective, as it handles 10 times the number of people, and 100 times the number of trains as the transbay is projected to handle.
I’m still not clear on why anybody thinks this news is particularly good news.
If CA HSR was being fully funded, I could understand, but since that’s not the case, why is it better to spend the $400 million on the train-box that will be unusable for many years, versus build-out of the actual rail network?
Evan Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
That might not have been an actual choice. HSR might have gotten $1.8 billion regardless, and then they decided to give $400 million to Transbay (especially considering the shovel-readiness factor).
It’s unlikely it was a totally independent choice, but if they hadn’t funded a dime it’s unlikely that $400 million would have been completely redirected to the HSR line.
Peter Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Well, given how the administration has labelled the $8 billion HSR grants as a jobs bill, it is important for them to create jobs NOW!
Donk Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I am not too high on spending these funds on a box either. But at least none of that $4B is coming out of the CAHSR bond money. I was worried that they were going to try to squeeze some funds out of that pie to bay for the TBT. So does this mean that the TBT is now fully funded? What about the tracks from Pac Bell Park to TBT – is that already funded?
Now that this box is funded, I don’t understand what the point of that DiFi loan from a few days ago is.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
It’s possible that the money wouldn’t have come to California, but it would definitely have gone to HSR somewhere. Personally I think it still would have come to us, since we are the only state with any real money on the table, and it would have been hard to justify giving any other project more, or even near as much as we are getting.
I just find it unfortunate that the only portion that seems to be earmarked is for the lowest priority portion of the network, and in my opinion, the least well planned.
I re-iterate, what good is the train box without a way for trains to get to it?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I am not convinced the report is accurate. A spokesperson at FRA could have mis-interpretted the language. Or, the writer for the paper did.
One noteworthy thing… nothing of any substance is on the TJPA site; only a link to the article.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
The$100 million it saves is still a lot of money and it will put people to work.
I’m guessing you and everyone you know is still employed. Many of us are not and are thrilled to see some construction start in the hope it really does work as a stimulus.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
$400 million spent on grade separations would put just as many people to work, and would also speed tens of thousands of peoples commutes every day. Spending it on rail would put as many people to work and open up commuting options to tens of thousands of workers.
The $100 million saved will quickly be lost in the higher operations & maintenance costs, and when the terminal falls short of handling the needed capacity.
mike Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I suspect one line of reasoning is that it’s substantially cheaper to build the train box now than later, and that the $400 million grant allows us to build it now (rather than later). If it were a good design, then celebrations would be in order. But since it’s a questionable design, it’s not so clear that excavating the train box now is such a great thing.
lyqwyd Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 12:14 am
That’s a lot of my reasoning. If the train box plan made sense I would be a lot less bothered as to whether the money was spent on it now or later. I would probably slightly prefer grade separations that can have immediate benefits, but only slightly.
I actually like the overall vision of the terminal, and if the train portion was even halfway decent I would have no issues.
Easy solution:
Move 4th and King station. Since 4th and King can now mostly be a run-through station, it doesn’t need as much space and will be inexpensive to build. Cap the end of Mission Creek, and demolish some of the buildings on Berry St. if more space is needed. Then you can dig a tunnel with a more generous radius.
Build another Muni station at the end of the N line for people who live in Mission Bay or people going to the ball park. The current tracks almost reach there already. The end stub is currently used to store trains, but the new eastside Muni yard can take them since they have room, and expand easily if needed.
Since the station will have reduced traffic, the T station will be less important for Caltrain.
The existing tracks at 4th and King can still be used to store the trains. If capacity at transbay is exceeded someday, the existing station can be used again (preferably with the Beale St. tunnel added at a later date so the trains can still terminate at Transbay).
SFHope Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Secondary commend didn’t post (and the diagram I drew didn’t work). Some clarifications:
The new 7th and King station would be parallel to 7th, roughly where the end of Berry St. is now. The vacant lots would become high-density TOD. This TOD would be served by the new N station on one side, and the existing T station on the other (residents would be able to choose which was most convenient for them).
Trains bound for the Transbay Terminal would then dive into the tunnel at 7th and Townsend, taking a much wider radius to reach the terminal. HSR trains may or may not stop at the 7th and King station. Maybe just special HSR trains from San Jose on gamedays to supplement Caltrain.
Again this station would be cheap to build since it would be small and it’s mostly clear already, and has GREAT TOD potential.
Clem Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 8:39 am
The tunnel is already planned to start at 7th and Townsend. You could bury the entire Mission Bay station under Townsend, but since TTC has such dismal capacity as designed, you still need a separate terminal to turn around the overflow. There’s no sense in doing that underground.
If TTC had been properly configured, you could (just barely) turn around all the traffic there. Then what you propose (a 100% through-station at Mission Bay with residential redevelopment of the existing 4th & King site) would actually work.
It would be a GREAT solution.
However, with the way they designed the TTC throat and with incompatible, segregated platforms, the TTC just can’t handle the heat.
SFHope Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You misunderstand the tunnel configuration I meant.
The tunnel in the HSR design plans turns RIGHT at 7th and Townsend in a tight curve, and go to 4th and King ANYWAY in an underground tunnel.
In my idea, the station stops at 7th and King, and the TTC-bound bore does not make an abrupt right turn at Townsend, and instead gradually turns right onto Mission. It would run deep at this point to avoid building foundations. Once at Mission it would shallow out. This would run it close to the deep-bore Central Subway, but it should be possible to clear it considering the CS dives even deeper than BART at this point.
A gentle veer slightly to the right (and building replacement at this point so we don’t have to worry about deep foundations) would bring it in line with the new train box.
This gets rid of all the tight turns. The ONLY reason there are tight turns is because the current design insists on a 4th and King stop.
If we just keep 4th and King as a rail yard, we can turn it back into an overflow Caltrain station at some point. Once all the trains are electric, we can even *cap* the rail yard to turn it into TOD, with ground level businesses where the old terminal is now.
SFHope Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
(continued)
The point being that we can have our cake and eat it to. 7th and King is a through station that both Caltrain and HSR can stop at (though just Caltrain would be fine, no real need for HSR to stop there). 4th and King is a temporary Caltrain-only terminus station when Transbay capacity is exceeded, until someday far down the road, afuture Beale St station is built, at which point 4th and King becomes a through station.
If you look at it on the map there are TONS of vacant lots by 7th and King. I’m not talking about the Caltrain rail yard. These can be immediately turned into TOD.
In short, the flaw in the current Transbay HSR train box/tunnel plan is not inherent in the terminal itself, it’s in the 4th and King stop forcing HSR to make a crazy S curve. Take 4th and King out of the picture and you get rid of the need for the S curve.
I do think 4th and Townsend would be more than fine…The thought and enegry of the CITY says TBT..I think its ugly and a new 1963 Penn Station NYC.. For the greater good of Cali..it will the station of SF