Millbrae HSR Tracks To Be “Buried”?
Last night the League of Women Voters held an HSR discussion in Millbrae, with Bethany Williams of HNTB (consultant to the CHSRA), Terry Nagel of the Burlingame City Council, and Nadia Naik of CARRD serving as panelists. The meeting generated some interesting news, as reported by the San Mateo Daily Journal:
Since high-speed train tracks will likely be buried in Millbrae, it is logical the tracks will also likely be buried in Burlingame and the northern part of San Mateo, said Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan last night….
“You can’t have a roller coaster going from Millbrae to Burlingame,” Papan said.
Draft alternatives from the rail authority indicate the tracks will have to buried at the Millbrae Caltrain station due to constraints of the surrounding properties, Papan said. The rail authority, however, has not officially released its Draft Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco-to-San Jose stretch of track. That document is due to be released April 8.
The Millbrae Avenue overpass and BART station will prevent an elevated track and plans are drawn up for a huge underground high-speed rail station that Millbrae will one day host. The land around the current Caltrain station has been set aside by the city for major redevelopment.
Papan’s statement came in response to what she called a “fear-mongering” flier that claimed elevated tracks would be a “Berlingame Wall” (get it? these NIMBYs are so funny!). As Clem pointed out earlier this month, however, there is a lot of dispute about what an elevated structure would look like in Burlingame – and the Authority’s depiction looks quite elegant.
Papan also had another great line that evening, when she explained why Millbrae didn’t join the Peninsula Cities Coalition:
Papan said Millbrae did not join the PCC because it considered it to be a litigious group.
Anyhow, back to the Millbrae/Burlingame tracks. I’m sure that news Millbrae may be slated for “buried” tracks will be music to the ears of Menlo Park/Atherton/Palo Alto supporters of undergrounding the tracks through their community as well. I’ve always been open to the possibility, but there are some key details that have to be answered first:
1. How to pay for the cost of a tunnel/burial. While underground supporters on the Peninsula would prefer that the CHSRA pay for it – which in fact means you, me, and the rest of California’s taxpayers – it doesn’t make sense for the whole state to pay the extra cost of meeting the aesthetic preferences of a few local residents. Realistically speaking, some form of local financial contribution is going to be necessary to get anything other than an elevated structure. Some interesting ideas have been floated, including reclaiming the land above buried tracks for development and using the sale/fees to repay construction costs. However, that runs into problems described next:
2. How to deal with the serious logistical challenges of underground tracks. Underground tracks don’t really work for freight rail, and the Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group has made it pretty clear they have no desire to let freight rail service come to an end. So that would still leave an at-grade railroad operating above the buried/tunneled tracks, which would still be a danger to the community and create significant amounts of noise and diesel pollution. It strikes me as fairly pointless to not fully grade-separate the Peninsula rail corridor when you have the opportunity to do so.
The draft Alternatives Analysis is now planned to be released on April 8, at a CHSRA board meeting in San José. We’ll have a lot more to say once that happens.
Of course this is what they want, but how they intend to pay for it ? I’ll bet they want the state to pay for it but I cannot imagine this will happen. Otherwise every city along the route will want the same.
Hopefully over time they’ll come to terms with the project and make real decisions of whether to deal with the elevated tracks or pay for the tunneling.
As a future rider I do not want to be stuck in a tunnel. What of my rights for a good view along the way?
In all honestly though the locals, if they really want a tunnel , should pay for the price that is above and beyond the cheapest build options.
Actually it’s completely plausible that the HSR tracks could descend briefly underground at Millbrae, while being at-grade or elevated in the surrounding areas. There is more than a mile of track between Millbrae station and the nearest crossing of any sort (on the south side), plenty of space for the necessary elevation changes to take place. North of Millbrae is more of a question, in fact, as there are closer crossings, at about 0.4 and 0.7 miles from the end of the platforms (presumably). The tunnel would also have to be deep enough to travel under Hillcrest BLVD, which crosses under the tracks little more than a quarter of a mile north of the station. Oh, and there’s also the BART subway to worry about…
Clem Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Correct… a track elevation change of 30 feet can be achieved in 3000 to 4000 feet of run length (depending on whose constraints you use… surprise surprise, freight trains require longer vertical curves than HSR or Caltrain.)
Will have more on this on my blog. When I find time to stop commenting on other blogs.
I’ll say what I said on Clem’s blog: this is just Kopp and Diridon upping the ante on Pringle. If they let the biggest bucks go to Orange County, then Pringle will eclipse them as a provider of high-cost megaprojects.
According to Clem’s map, the Caltrain ROW (i.e. JPB + TA property) ranges from 100′ to 170′ through pretty much the entire city of Millbrae (in particular the areas near Millbrae station). Why again would we tunnel here?
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Because the station itself is apparently too constrained to add 2 (4?) additional tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
4 tracks = 70′. With two platforms, you don’t even need 100′ if the ROW is really constrained.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Each platform adds roughly 25 feet, so you’re looking at closer to 120 feet minimum. Not that this isn’t possible at Millbrae, but I guess the BART people want to keep 300% of the capacity they actually use…
Alon Levy Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Platforms can be 15 feet if it’s that big a deal.
And don’t forget – 4 tracks at a station consume less space than 4 tracks in the open. In the open, you need some spacing between the trains. At a station, the platform accounts for the spacing. I believe you gain about 3 feet of platform this way.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Side platforms can be 15 feet. Island platforms not so much. Not that any of this matters particularly for Millbrae, since the layout is limited more by the current configuration than by space constraints. With a few property takes you could theoretically add two additional tracks and another side platform on the west side of the station, but that doesn’t seem to be on anybody’s mind right now (besides it makes a lot more sense to just take one of the BART tracks).
Peter Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Place BART underground if you don’t have enough room otherwise. Cut-and-cover tunneling for BART would have to be cheaper than boring a deep tunnel for HSR. You wouldn’t have to dive underneath anything (i.e. BART tunnel to the north), the station to be excavated would be a lot smaller, and you wouldn’t have to worry about the transition to the tunnel station: you could just connect the underground BART section to the north of Millbrae with the new tunnel…
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 10:32 am
If you have to put anything underground (and I’m not convinced you do) BART makes the most sense as it’s already (god knows why, probably the same eminent domain phobia) underground north of the Milbrae station.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 11:28 am
BART doesn’t need to and shouldn’t run to Quentin Kopp Memorial Two Billion Dollar Millbrae Parking Fortress. (The airport people mover could be extended instead at a fraction of the cost, terminate above the Caltrain+HSR tracks at the Quentin Kopp Memorial Two Billion Dollar Millbrae Mezzanine Level, and free up a ton of wasted space used to park out of service BART trains that were empty when they arrived and depart empty as well.)
That of course would be in an alternate universe in which any single person involved anywhere in the process gave a damn about ANYTHING other than maximizing construction cost, or in which anybody gave a damn about effective public transportation.
Fortunately we don’t live in such an unprofitable world, and everything is going according to plan.
The last time this exact same class of legitimate businessmen screwed around with Millbrae they only wasted two billion public tax dollars and set back transportation in the SF Bay Area by 25 years. This time they’re going for gold, with $20 billion of waste (add up PBQD’s very very very very special BART Fremont-SJ line, 10 % unnecessary HSR Santa Clara-Redwood City, Dumbarton, ACE “overlay”, Capitol Corridor “improvements” and the total’s going to rocket past that) and completely screw rail in the whole Northern half of California for a good 50 years. Success breeds success!
Peter Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I would be cool with replacing the SFO-Millbrae BART link with Airtrain. However, we’ve already extended BART to Millbrae. Is there a good reason why it should be abandoned? The money may have been a waste, but is there a reason to let what we’ve wasted go to even more waste by abandoning it?
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am
@RM at this point they should just go balls out and double down on milbrae. Bring ACE and the capitols over dunbarton and have it terminate there, I’m sure Amtrak could be convinced to stop a couple resurrected Daylates there as well. Maybe a monorail from the westin.
Barring that, and even within the planned SSFF/FFSS pattern with two HSR bypass tracks and two HSR platform tracks, it seems like you could keep bart service on the two easternmost tracks, and add the requisite tracks. You’d have, as clem pointed out, a couple dozen million dollars worth of ED to sort out, and if they went SSFF, they might need to tear down and rebuild large portions of the milbrae station, but there’s simply no way that would be as expensive as a (mined?) underground station and four tunnels.
mike Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I would be cool with replacing the SFO-Millbrae BART link with Airtrain. However, we’ve already extended BART to Millbrae. Is there a good reason why it should be abandoned?
Yes, because it’s an operational disaster. BART can’t even figure out what to do with that crazy wye, hence their constant rejiggering of which line terminates in Millbrae at what time and which line terminates in SFIA at what time. I’m a daily BART rider and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about public transit, but even I can’t keep up with the exact SFIA/Millbrae service patterns.
Peter Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Ok, so what would make more operational sense: Replacing the SFO-Millbrae link with Airtrai and (a) leaving BART to SFO intact, or (b) leaving BART to Millbrae intact.
Just instinctively, I would argue that leaving BART to SFO intact while abandoning the Millbrae extension would make more sense. I would expect more passengers to want to ride BART to SFO than to Millbrae. The only problem would be that Caltrain riders would have to take Airtrain to SFO to get on BART.
Joey Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
BART to Millbrae was probably not a good idea to begin with, but we have it now, so there’s little benefit in eliminating it.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Millbrae is the first station out of SF. What reason on Earth is there to build it with four HSR tracks? If you have the space and the money for six tracks, it’s much more logical to build Caltrain with four tracks and provide a cross-platform local/express transfer.
The option that doesn’t force Caltrain riders into a three-seat ride makes more sense than the option that does. (Airport travelers by and large already have to transfer to the Airtrain, since BART only serves one terminal.)
What all these towns are going to probally end up with is HSR ONLY in these tunnels and Caltrain and UP
on the same old Row/ grade crossings and all ..Electified but no grade safety improvments ..its too damm expensive for what they want and thats to bad for Caltrain but these towns/groups will probally force this outcome for the sections were these people think all tracks will be underground
Why on earth would they go underground in Millbrae? Most, if not all of the tunnel would be below sea level and with a generous width for the tracks, why go to such an expense? I think Clem’s blog and post on Millbrae is spot on with the best options available for running through the station. In fact, if space is concern, eliminate BART’s otherwise useless western track in the station which will help free up room for Caltrain/HSR, as seen in option D on Clem’s blog. The same goes for Burlingame, tunneling is not needed because of very generous right of ways and not to mention, a “berlingame wall” is unlikely to happen.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Logical decisions seem to escape those who are in a position to make decisions. A tunnel through Burlingame seems unlikely though, even given an tunnel at Millbrae.
Clem Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
The logic is that BART is strictly off-limits, and residential property takes are strictly off-limits. So, sparing a $25 million station building and about $5 million of residential property (and some land TOD developers are salivating over) will likely result in a $250 million underground station.
Nice.
Clem Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Oh, just looked on Zillow, more like $10 million of residential property.
The CHSRA should adopt a policy to pay THREE TIMES market value for residential property acquired for the project. That would save taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, since the savings from not building tunnels / other contorted infrastructure would far outweigh the cost of giving displaced residents a golden parachute.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 7:36 am
It’s the “French way” you’re advocating here. Silencing the opposition by overcompensating owners.
Note that, in France, paying property over the market price has adverse effects: the real-estate index (indice immobilier) is based on recent transactions in a given area. When the index rises, so do do rents and taxes for all neighbouring properties. That’s why operations are generally split up: properties are paid at market price and owners receive compensation for “damages”. The amount they get for damages doesn’t have to be disclosed and is not taxable. So, everybody is happy except, maybe, the tax collector.
jimsf Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
those french are smarties.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
RFF (railtrack owner) considers logical to separate property value from the inconvenience and trauma caused by dispossession. Of course, evaluating non-material damages is not an exact science.
Judging from figures leaked to the media (but not confirmed by RFF), some owners must have been badly traumatized.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
how far away from the Millbrae station do you have to get before you hit residential properties? looks like it’s surrounded by acres of parking lot and garage.
Joey Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
The issue is on the west side where adding more than one more track will require property takes, not only for the station but for the approaching tracks as well.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
What’s the deep historic and cultural significance of the parking lots and ramps on the west side of the station?
Joey Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Like I (sorta) said, the problem isn’t at the station itself. More tracks could easily be put west of the station, but residential property would have to be taken (not that that it necessarily rules this out) as the tracks approach north of the station.
Joey Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
More than a single additional track, at least.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 12:18 am
BART should not be considered off-limits. Rather, by eliminating the western track as you have in option D in your Focus on Millbrae that would probably make the most sense for the Millbrae station. Granted, the ease of transferring from northbound Caltrain to BART would not be lost, but that can be overcome by escalators. Nevertheless, BART, like most transit agencies is facing significant revenue shortages and by selling some real estate i.e. the western track, this could be advantageous for all parties. BART would streamline its platform operations and Millbrae becomes an even better inter-modal station. The mere fact that BART is considered the sacred cow in this case is absolutely ridiculous.
Mmmmm….. profits….
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
And the Peninsula is more than happy to give them the justification for digging.
“Well, they told us to!”
“You can’t have a roller coaster going from Millbrae to Burlingame,”
What a NIMBY, they don’t know what a roller coaster is until they’ve dealt with a state budget
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
3% grades are not even noticeable. Heck, I ride over more than 5% on BART most days and I can’t really tell even if I’m looking for it.
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Freight trains don’t run on BART tracks.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
All the more reason why it WON’T be a “rollercoaster.” But there could very well be 3% grades at Millbrae of the CalTrain tracks are kept at grade (which they will be).
Spokker Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
It should be a roller coaster. Freight trains have no business on the Peninsula.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Light, electric freight trains could probably climb those grades with not issues.
dejv Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 6:12 am
Light electric trains climb 6 % grades without issues. Of course, diesels can climb these inclines as well.
Exactly Joey but with UP not willing to negotiate, I say invoke the nuclear option.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Unfortunately, it seems all but likely that the PRP will cave to UPRR’s demands.
This has probably been answered before, and I suspect the answer is because that’s what the construction companies suggested, AKA that’s how they make the most money, but why not just keep the whole peninsula rail line at grade? It already has freight, so obviously that wouldn’t be a problem for freight trains, and since what I’ve read is that HSR can tolerate higher grade changes, it shouldn’t be a problem for HSR. Elevate or submerge the roads as necessary, but leave the rail line at the existing elevation.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
The issue is that elevating/dipping roads will incur significant property impacts. Depending on the height of the over/underpass, roads will require a few to several hundred feet on each side to change elevation, and access to any properties in that space will likely be cut off entirely. But mind you, the entire peninsula won’t be on a berm. Only those sections with a large number of grade crossings which must be separated.
If tunneling is expensive and elevated structures are a visual impact, then the last form of grade-separating would be to trench the rail line. Like the tunnels and elevated structures, rail trenches are expensive.
This is off topic, but worth a post. The New York Times featured an article about Spain’s high speed rail and how they are surpassing airplanes as the preferred mode of travel around Spain. As has been discussed before, Spain’s high speed rail model is probably the best system to compare with the high speed rail system we will have in California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/earth/16train.html?hpw
Rod Diridon talks about CA High Speed Rail TODAY at 11am (PDT) on the the Ronn Owens show on KGO radio AM 810. You can also listen live online at http://www.kgoam810.com/
I listened to ron owen’s show. It was pretty good. Lots of suppport and of course the usual handful of naysayers and peninsula nimby’s. What amazes me is how people can have such a lack of understand of how and why things are done though. I don’t know how this state functions at all with an illiterate population.
Reality Check Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Today’s 11 a.m. Ronn Owens show with Diridon on HSR is available as a podcast here.