CHSRA Exploring a “Shallow Tunnel” At San José Diridon
Just a few months after Rod Diridon dismissed the idea of tunneling an HSR station at his namesake station in San José, not only is the idea alive, but getting some (possible) legs. As the San Jose Mercury News explains, a “shallow” tunnel has emerged as an option for Diridon Station:
From Highway 87 to Diridon station, the route could either follow the Caltrain tracks, follow Highway 87 with aerial stands to Diridon, follow Highway 87 with a deep tunnel to Diridon, or build a shallow tunnel north of the Caltrain tracks in the Gardner neighborhood.
San Jose transportation officials had requested further study of the shallow tunnel option, which would be 80 feet deep rather than 140 feet deep, and it could potentially save time and money in construction. A deep tunnel and underground station at Diridon would cost roughly $3 billion, and a shallow tunnel and station would cost roughly $1.3 billion and would require BART to change the depth of its planned station at Diridon. Officials have said similar tunnels have been built without demolishing homes above ground.
You can see more on this at the CHSRA website, where detailed maps of the SJ-Merced alignments have been posted, including the Diridon Station area. Here’s what the maps show at the station:
Legend: d is Deep Tunnel, g is Shallow Tunnel, b is Highway 280/87 alignment, a is Caltrain alignment.
More from the Mercury News article:
Residents at the Gardner center on May 5 had mixed reactions to the four routes, which were displayed on easels and along the walls. Several dozen people looked at the maps, asked leaders questions and submitted written comments.
“Once this station is built it’s really going to be a hub for the Bay Area,” said Willow Glen resident Richard Tretten. “But I think an aerial route would divide San Jose. People would ask, ‘What side of the tracks do you live on?’” Tretten said.
While I can understand that, it’s also to me just not a significant consideration. Why? Because San Jose is already divided by any number of freeways, rail lines, rivers, and other features. In fact, most cities in California are divided that way. If Willow Glen has survived being pushed up against the I-280/CA-87 interchange and with the UPRR Coast Line, dating to 1904, on the other side of it, then an aerial structure that follows and existing ROW would not really make much difference to the community’s integration and/or access to the rest of the city. In fact, none of these options really change the situation on the ground for Willow Glen, at least in terms of ROW.
Gardner resident John Francis said the Caltrain option should be eliminated because his neighborhood is already has noise and vibration from the Caltrain line, Interstate 280, Highway 87, and the flight path of Mineta San Jose International Airport.
“We put in our dues,” Francis said. “We want the line to go right through Los Gatos and Saratoga and Los Altos, and when they’re impacted they’ll understand,” Francis said.
As someone who lives under the flight path for the Monterey Peninsula Airport I can empathize. But the HSR trains won’t make much difference – they’ll be quieter than the planes, but could potentially reduce the number of flights. Overall it’s unlikely to make the situation worse.
Of course, Francis should be pleased to know that HSR crosses the class divides – Los Gatos, Saratoga and Los Altos aren’t on the route, but Atherton and Menlo Park are. Nobody’s getting off the hook here, as Californians ask neighbors of a diverse range of backgrounds to see the benefits of building high speed rail in their communities.
The CHSRA also has some more maps on the other parts of the SJ-Merced route, including the Monterey Highway corridor, Morgan Hill to Gilroy, over the Pacheco Pass, and across the San Joaquin Valley floor. We’ll have more discussion on those parts soon.
Which side of 280 or 87 you live on?
Wow – 80 feet is a “shallow tunnel”. This is no cut and cover trench. It’s as deep as the LA Subway.
Wasn’t the elevated station around 300 million? If an elevated station is built, I would literally live in its shadow, but would prefer that to spending that extra billion just so I could drop down into an 80 foot deep cave every time I took the train. Even with a 40 foot high platform, a well designed station and the tracks leading to it would fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods. There are so many different things going on in this area already. I think the HSR station might help bring it together, not split it apart.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Comment of the night.
Have you been making your voice heard in San José council meetings and HSR planning meetings?
OT but may be of interest to the group:
You are invited to attend a public hearing to provide input on the 2000 Measure A Program:
Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
County of Santa Clara Government Center, Board of Supervisors’ Chambers
70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110
(This location is served by VTA Light Rail and Bus Lines 61, 62, 66 and 181.
Sign language services will be provided and as will additional interpreter services as requested.)
Measure A, approved in November 2000, is a 30-year half cent sales tax devoted to improvement projects for the area’s public transit network, including extending BART to Silicon Valley. The measure created an oversight committee, comprised of citizens from throughout the county, to review Measure A expenditures, ensuring funds are being spent in accordance with the intent of the ballot. This Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) is responsible for conducting an annual audit and for informing the community on its findings. Macias Gini & O’Connell, LLP, independent certified public accountants, conducted this year’s compliance audit and issued an unqualified or “clean” opinion, meaning that in their professional opinion VTA complied, in all material respects, with the requirements applicable to the 2000 Measure A Program.
Additional information on the Measure A Program, the CWC, as well as the results of the independent compliance audit, is available at http://www.vta.org. If you are unable to attend the upcoming hearing, written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on May 12 by email to: board.secretary@vta.org or by mail to: Office of the Board Secretary, 3331 North First Street, Building B-1, San José, CA 95134-1927.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Thanks for this!
I can’t attend, but perhaps someone can deliver a message for me?
“Build it.”
Thanks!
Andy Chow Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 2:07 am
The CWC is more or less a lap dog committee for VTA on the Measure A expenditure. So do not expect any discussion about policies. This meeting is not worth going to.
Let me guess: John Francis of the Gardner neighborhood is 1) over 60 years of age and 2) has absolutely no understanding of high-speed rail vs. freight trains/current Caltrain system. How many times must it be stated that high-speed trains travelling through Gardner (at 60 mph) will be a lot quieter than diesel/freight?! Also, this 80 ft. “shallow” tunnel aint happening folks! It’s not worth it just to appease some old folk who want to keep SJ in the 1950′s. But study the tunnel if you must SJ/CHSRA.
Clem Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
You hit the nail right on the head: 60 mph is the problem they’re trying to solve here.
rafael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 3:21 am
Actually, it’s more like the problem CHSRA is trying to create. True, AB3034 mandates that SF-LA must have a line haul time of 2h 40m. However, it says nothing about how frequently this time would have to be achieved in regular commercial service. Indeed, you could argue that the requirement would be satisfied under the letter of the law if it were only ever achieved during initial acceptance testing.
Given a choice between commercial line haul times of 2h 42m using an affordable elevated alignment plus speed limits through Gardner and shaving off two minutes by spending an extra billion (or more) of your (grand)children’s money, I’d say look for a fudge on the line haul time. In the real world, any HSR service that reliably gets you from SF to LA in under three hours even will be a huge success, especially if connecting transportation is planned and executed properly. At the end of the day, the metric customers will base their travel choice on is door-to-door line haul time.
Focus on minimizing the time lost transferring between the platforms of various rail services. For example, get anal retentive about walking distances and pedestrian throughput capacity. Install moving sidewalks if need be. Create integrated online sales kiosks for all of the public transportation tickets required to complete the trip, relying on single-use 2D bar codes and (handheld) optical scanners rather than magnetic strips that customers cannot print at home or at the office. That means you, BART.
Also note that simply writing the 1000 homeowners that would be most affected by an aerial alignment in south San Jose a whopping $100k each in compensation would still cost just 10% of the delta for a “shallow tunnel”. I’m not even including the incremental cost of changing the BART alignment to dive under HSR in this scenario. Parsons Brinkerhoff et al. must be loving these NIMBYs for insisting on tunnels where none are needed.
rafael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:45 am
Btw: I’m ***NOT*** advocating that we start paying off property owners unless eminent domain is actually exercised against them or they win a court case claiming reverse condemnation. My objective was simply to illustrate the fiscal lunacy of constructing super-expensive bored tunnels and underground stations anywhere except the mountain crossings and downtown SF, where there’s nowhere to build a large terminus station at or above grade. San Jose is a run-through station for HSR, it simply doesn’t need a large number of platforms.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Well, actually, nobody seems to have seriously considered an above-grade rail station in downtown SF. Hey, we could call it the “Transbay Terminal”, and then send the trains out on a giant bridge across the Bay to Oakland. What, you say they did that 100 years ago? No way!
rafael Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 7:31 am
Any downtown SF station needs to have approach tracks as well and, neither 101/I-80 nor the Embarcadero corridors are available for HSR at or above grade. The propulsion of HSR trains is optimized for extended cruising at high speed (i.e. high power), not for climbing short steep inclines at low speed (i.e. high torque). Therefore, an elevation transition in the downtown area is not feasible and the whole system needs to be underground east of 4th & King.
Btw, the original design for the new east span of the Bay Bridge actually included the option of one day supporting rail once again. However, while adding cantilevered tracks to either side of the lower deck of the old west span was deemed technically feasible, it would cost over $3 billion once you include the cost of additional tunnels through Yerba Buena island and the approaches on the SF side. The planner in charge, one Quentin Kopp, nixed the idea as too expensive. Then East Bay politicians insisted on a pretty but functionally irrelevant self-supporting suspension section that jacked up costs even more and forced engineers to abandon all hope of ever supporting any type of rail vehicle. Instead, there will now be a super-expensive bicycle path between the East Bay and Yerba Buena only.
Of course, no-one ever seriously considered reducing the number of lanes available to general motor vehicles from 10 to 6 in order to reinstate rail service on the lower and gain two bus lanes on the upper deck.
Gory planning details here:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bay_bridge/rail_study
http://www.oaklandbridge.com/critique%20railstudy.html
Note that in bridge design, the critical load metric isn’t axle load but mass per unit length. For reference, the Alstom AGV comes in at just under 1400 lbs/ft, same as light rail. The Talgo AVRIL will reportedly be even lighter than BART at 287 metric tonnes for a 200m train, i.e less than 1000 lbs/ft..
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bay_bridge/rail_study/chap3.htm
http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/news/hot_events/agv/tecnology/_files/file_34557_83035.pdf
http://www.forotrenes.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8472
Remember, it’s not about shooting yourself in the foot. It’s about how fast you reload.
Speaking of San Jose- Gilroy, UP has again said no way: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15057451
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I’m really skeptical that they can prevent use of the property that is not on their ROW. They may be able to dredge up some arcane legal principle, though.
Joey Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Really though, it seems like, similar to NIMBYs, they’re just trying to make noise in any way possible. Strictly speaking, their jurisdiction ends where their right-of-way ends.
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
It’s interesting that they have problems with running freight trains on the Peninsula within the same ROW as Caltrain and HSR, but suddenly parallel to their ROW they have problems?
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
*that they have no problems*
Proofreading helps.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
They don’t own the Peninsula corridor.
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Well, yes, I know, but if they’re worried about liability from a derailment, what is the difference between being on the same ROW, or on a separate, parallel ROW? Why does the second expose them to greater risk?
Clem Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Because Caltrain operates a fleet that is made of, for all practical purposes, slow freight trains. UP’s issue is with speedy, lightweight, modern rolling stock that isn’t explicitly designed to derail. For UP, derailments are a cost of doing business, and that cost can’t be allowed to increase, as it might if a 200 mph train plowed into a big pile of derailed boxcars.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Jim Beall’s comments are worth including:
Ultimately this will require the federal government to get involved, perhaps by crafting an exemption to the broad immunity from state law currently enjoyed by federally-chartered railroads so that states can do things like build HSR in adjacent ROW. Especially since UP is a creation of the federal government.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Some one has to remind UP that Prop 13 only affects their property taxes in California. And when they start grumbling about how much their ROW is worth send chatty little letters to all the property tax assessors in states that don’t have Prop 13 reminding them how much UP thinks it’s property is worth.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Aren’t property taxes based on sale value of comparable properties?
Elizabeth Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
You have definitely given yourself away as non-native. In California (and only California), you pay property taxes based upon what you paid.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Alon is theoretically correct, and Elizabeth is technically correct. One reason why Prop 13 needs to be done away with, whether it’s phased out or tossed in one fell swoop.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Or in the case of corporations what they were assessed when Prop 13 came into effect. Which stays that way until the corporation is dissolved. So in 2219 UP’s property tax assessment will be based on it’s assessment in 1975, the base year for Prop 13. Or the corporation that owns the strip mall, they never actually sell the real estate, they buy and sell the corporation that owns the real estate.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 1:59 am
No, what I mean is, for UP’s holdings outside California, wouldn’t the local taxes be based on the sale value of comparable rail lines?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
UP almost certainly pays 1978-level taxes on their California property, and maybe even not that, since I’m not sure if federally-chartered railroads are exempt from state-level taxation (they might well be).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 7:09 am
Property taxes are levied locally.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if HSR is running parallel to UP’s right of way but not encroaching on it, there isn’t much UP can legally do? Further, if HSR is going to run on state-owned lands i.e. the Monterey Highway and portions alongside SR-99, then the same rules apply; ultimately, UP’s comments and objections will be noted.
Also, I agree with Robert, this issue will have to be dealt with at the Federal level. UP has gained so much money for upgrading its business operations from public money that it’s time they give back for the common good. They keep up these strong armed tactics in comparison to BNSF and they’ll find themselves at a loss courtesy of Congress.
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
They will be crossing over their ROW with flyovers at a number of locations…
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
But what is the difference to HSR crossing over the UP ROW with a flyover compared to a highway overpass? I would think that crossing overhead wouldn’t be an issue compared with sharing track with lightweight HSR trains. Also, is HSR planning on having crash barriers/walls to protect its track and trains when running at grade?
Victor Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Whats the difference? Oh that’s easy, highways seldom go parallel to train tracks when they cross over a railroad and so they don’t restrict a railroads ability to add a spur or a branch to a new industry like HSR is seen as doing, As their feeling like HSR will hem them in. Basically the Railroads were given ultimate power of eminent domain to lay their tracks and were almost a rival for the Government that some delusional people really love to hate. Most have never heard an HSR train and I think they assume It’ll be even more noisier than the Diesel stuff as they think Electric anything is slow and limited, Where as Diesel is powerful and Noisy, So HSR to them must use some sort of High Speed Diesel locomotive and they want nothing to do with that. We have a rail classification yard in Barstow CA and You can hear the cars as their moved and shifted about, You can hear the wheels screech and the cars couple with a Boom sound. So some of this may also be part of what drives the Nimbys. Do I know what a full scale Electric locomotive sounds like? No, I only know that their scale equivalents are pretty danged quiet, Even when they have their weight adjusted to be correct, Instead of being too light, One place down in Alhambra CA had a scale model of the TGV streak around the former Bowling Alley at full speed, possibly beyond what the real prototype TGV could do I was told. It was quite a sight to see, You couldn’t hear It, But everyone watched It, as It moved at High Speed on those N scale(1/160 of an inch) Rails and went from tunnel to tunnel, never slowing down once on those long fairly straight tracks, even in a curved section.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“highways seldom go parallel to train tracks when they cross over a railroad”
Well, actually they often do; look at the actual alignments of the road/rail lines in California! I guess the difference is that the railroads can build spur lines right across the highway at grade, but wouldn’t be allowed to do this with HSR.
flowmotion Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
The issue is that CHSRA has take the position that HSR should parallel existing rail routes wherever possible. While this is true of some highways in some places, it certainly isn’t a modern Caltrans design goal.
(And without access to the UP ROWs themselves, I have never understood CHSRA’s logic with this decision. Maybe they think it would be more politically palatable, but keeping UP happy is going involve pouring a lot of extra concrete.)
Samsonian Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The issue is that CHSRA has take the position that HSR should parallel existing rail routes wherever possible.
This is a good thing.
California’s development largely follows rail lines laid down 100-150 years ago. Leveraging those existing corridors allows HSR to serve cities’ CBD along the line, while minimizing impacts to said communities.
Re Roads paralleling rail lines:
It is pretty common actually. Just look at Google Maps. A lot of older roads were built parallel to the existing rail lines.
rafael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 3:38 am
UPRR can still raise a red flag with FRA even if CHSRA purchases land immediately adjacent to the UPRR ROW. In the event of a serious derailment or cargo spill, debris could easily cross the boundary between the two. FRA is de facto beholden to the freight rail industry yet also needs to approve the EIS for HSR. Similarly, UPRR could raise a red flag against the EIR, a state-level document on which the California Public Utilities Commission has a lot of say. Its standing order 26-D from 1948 is preventing passenger railroads from erecting high platforms to facilitate level entry on tracks that are also used by freight trains. In other words, the CPUC is even more hidebound and beholden to freight rail operators than the FRA.
As for Congress, don’t assume there would be a 60-seat supermajority for a specific HSR alignment over safety objections – however questionable – raised by UPRR, one of only two companies that can ship heavy goods between the west coast harbors and the nation’s vast interior on rails rather than roads.
Spokker Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 4:09 am
Sounds like UP has the Authority by the balls no matter what.
rafael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:52 am
… which is why it had better work on improving its strained relationship with UP. Fully 50% of the total network as currently planned relies on constructing new HSR tracks immediately adjacent to existing UP tracks. Note that UP could credibly claim a safety concern even if the new tracks were elevated above grade: a derailed freight train or major cargo spill could damage one or more of the supports for the HSR tracks. Even if that did not lead to a catastrophic follow-on accident, there’s still the question of who would be liable for the interruption to HSR service, which could take days, weeks or even months. UP wants to be absolved of liability a priori rather than having to invest in maintenance and technology to minimize the risk of such a scenario ever occuring.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Then perhaps the lines should simply be taken from UP by eminent domain. Amtrak has the legal right to do this with STB approval. A different, better-behaved freight operator could be licensed to replace UP’s service.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Amtrak only has the right exercise eminent domain under certain circumstances. There must already be Amtrak service along the line, and the freight owner must be not maintaining the line in a manner that makes continued passenger service infeasible.
While Amtrak operates trains on the line already (Caltrain and Coast Starlight), I don’t think UPRR maintains its tracks so poorly that Amtrak has to slow down insanely. An example where eminent domain was permitted was when Amtrak had to travel at 10 mph on the freight operator’s tracks. This definitely does not rise to that level.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Nope. I checked the leading (possibly only) case on the topic. It was over a *new* route (no existing Amtrak service).
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Which case was that?
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
You’re right about the “in a manner that makes continued passenger service infeasible” provision, of course. But couldn’t one argue that UP’s insane claims about having to keep passenger trains 50 feet away from its precious rail lines constitute that? It would certainly be worth a try. The STB would have the final say.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
No, since the question is whether the trains using the freight operator’s specific tracks are impacted by the insufficient upkeep of the tracks.
I wish it would work, but the law doesn’t look favorable.
I think that a better argument would be to argue that UP is being disingenuous about its fears of accident. It has no problem running freight trains past houses abutting its ROW by less than 50 feet, for example.
synonymouse Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:18 am
From the very beginning the CHSRA should followed the dictum of impinging upon the UP the very least possible and should have communicated that policy to UP management in a very sincere way. That means I-5 and Tejon. I am certain that the UP would have accomodated the CHSRA in the few places where there was absolutely no other way to proceed than to straddle UP property.
Look at the damning concession that the SP was able to impose upon BART: Indian broad gauge. BART’s wind resistance on bridges cover story is just bs.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Troll.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
It’s time for the people, not just the government, to pressure Union Pacific into allowing high-speed trains to run next to their tracks. For goodness sakes, this is a public-works project! It’s not like we’re looking to put UP out of business.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Have you seen their website? Their slogan is “Building America.” Seems sort of ironic when they won’t even let us build a high-speed rail line.
80 feet deep, 140 feet deep…forgive my ignorance, but what’s wrong with keeping the station above ground, within the same footprint? A quick look a Google maps shows that the current station has 5 platform tracks with room for 3-4 more and a bypass track. So you could easily have 2 tracks for HSR (which is all that’s needed at an all-stop through station) and 6 to allocate to the other services as needed.
Peter Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The “problem” is that doing so requires either routing the trains along the Caltrain ROW, have them cross the 280/87 interchange, a very technically difficult endeavor. The locals, as expected, don’t want either option.
Andrew Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 8:46 am
The Caltrain ROW looks dandy to me, it’s already grade-separated from all of that. Rather curvy, but that could be mitigated with some banking.
As usual, it just comes down to NIMBYism.
I guess that by the standards of the Oedo Line or the Jubilee line extension, 80 feet is shallow. But by the standards of the first tunnel in a city, it’s horrendously deep. Oh well – it’s probably going to still cost more per-km than the Oedo and Jubilee projects (themselves in the top 5, excluding projects in New York).
AndyDuncan Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 8:58 am
I wondered the same thing when the plans came up for the “deep” tunnel option, I didn’t realize the VTA light rail goes underground there, so the shallowest it can be is level -2.
One thing that hasn’t been brought up would be sharing a train box with BART. BART should be able to turn tight enough to line up with an incoming HSR line, and that would keep them both at level -2 instead of forcing one down to L-3.
Of course, anything underground is silly since there’s already a wide enough ROW to drag the lines through, and it seems unlikely that there will be a reason to have a true SF-LA express that skips SJ, meaning the speed issues of the curve are less important.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 1:56 am
Level -2 justifies going 40 feet underground, not 80.
Honestly i don’t know what the problem with the freeway route is here, all trains are slowing down for the station anyways…
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I agree, the solution may lie in the line hugging 280 and 87 in an elevated configuration.
Clem Reply:
May 10th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
On a 45 mph curve that kills run times for the entire system… I’ve been going on and on about San Bruno, but man, this would be in another league entirely! Especially if somebody tries to turn it into something “iconic”.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:38 am
You do have a point for express trains. I wonder how many trains will actually blow through San Jose? My bet is very few will. For trains that will be stopping in SJ, I would image the curve has much less impact. Also, if the time can be made elsewhere in the system, tight curves should be considered in situations where they save billions of dollars &/or resolve thorny political problems that could threaten the project. If the time can’t be made up and trains can’t meet the mandated time from SF to LA, then then maybe allowing curves may not be a viable strategy.
I also prefer that there are no tight curves in the system. The point is, dense urban areas are messy and some design compromise will inevitibly be necessary, as was the case at Transbay. Yes people are unhappy but it will do sufficiently, allowing millions of convenient connections. San Bruno is a bit of different story as trains aren’t immediately approaching a station as they would in SJ and really could be a large impact for ALL trains. I keep hearing it is designed for 90mph but I understand you think this is not the case. I definitely want to chat with you about your thoughts on this.
Andrew Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:16 am
“I wonder how many trains will actually blow through San Jose?”
Zero. All Sanyo shinkansen trains stop at Okayama (a city of 700,000 people), there’s no reason why all CAHSR trains shouldn’t stop at San Jose. Which is also why Diridon only needs two HSR tracks and doesn’t need to be the 14-platform “Pan-Galactic” that some have been deriding it as.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
That’s a little bit of FUD.
HSR won’t have 14 platform tracks. The preliminary plans I’ve seen all have HSR with 4 platform tracks, sometimes 5, I believe. Five tracks shared between Caltrain, Amtrak, ACE, and UPRR. Finally, two tracks for light rail, and two tracks for BART.
THAT’S where the 14 tracks comes from.
John Burrows Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
The CAHSR 2009 Business Report Has something called “Peak Schematic Pattern”. It anticipates that at peak times, (morning and afternoon commutes), that 57 trains would arrive at San Francisco, and 57 trains would depart San Francisco during a 6 hour period. Of these 57 trains, 51 would stop at Diridon and 6 would blow by. If it ended up that 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon fell into the “Peak Schematic Pattern, then we would have 12 trains blowing through Diridon during the commute hours, but the total could be more than 12 because the “Peak Pattern might be more than 6 hours per day and a few non-peak trains might also blow through.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The CHSRA proposed levels of service and proposed timetables are of course pure, unadulterated rent seeking crack smoking outright fraud. Recall that the exact same cast of PBQD and MTC criminals “predicted” 33,000
passengers per day at their Millbrae BART Intergalactic edifice, versus reality of 9,070 — a shortfall of 73%!!!!.
Aside form which, I agree that all revenue trains between Los Banos to San Francisco (at the real world outside maximum at very most four of them per direction per hour at peak) will stop in San Jose.
Which implies and requires 5 to 6 shared Caltrain/HSR platform tracks.
Which all fit on a single level.
(If you don’t have PB pulling the strings to systematically maximize construction costs.)
As I’ve mentioned before, the irony is that San Jose Intergalactic Supermegamodal would require a significantly larger facility under the rational Altamont route, as HS trains would terminate and reverse there, requiring more platform space and fancier approach tracks than that needed for 2 minute dweels by through running trains. Poor Rod, his edifice has all shrivelled up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Just because it’s the last revenue stop for a train doesn’t mean it has to change ends at the station. Not very user friendly either, having trains people will be transferring to on different platforms.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 2:04 am
HSR/legacy rail transfers don’t need to be cross-platform. In fact, standard Shinkansen practice is that they’re not. Weaves involving cross-platform transfers are just too expensive for HSR. The TGV doesn’t have those transfers, either, if only because its stops are either termini or beet field stations.
Does the ICE have cross-platform transfers with the local feeder lines?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Only a tens of thousands every day.
People really owe it to themselves to visit, or at least read about Switzerland, Germany or the Netherlands, as the most advanced exemplars of integrated clock-face scheduling.
Entire countries are built around providing the closest and fastest transfers between trains, buses, trams, ships, funiculars, mountain cable cars, etc. If the connecting train or bus doesn’t pull into a stop right across the platform from the train you’re on, it’s because it was either physically impractical to do that, or because some other vehicle on another route is there instead. New stations (of which there are very few) and station reconstructions are all about making trips to and from platforms (and hence transfers) as fast and direct as possible for people as well as for trains. (Contrast with the SF Transbay catastrophe…)
Beware that most ICE (and EC and other major intercity class trains) stops are at large stations, and large stations have many platforms and many bus bays, so “cross platform transfer with a local feeder line” is more likely to be a cross platform transfer with another ICE or regional fast train than it is to be with the a local village bus.
Stations with 4 platforms and just one connecting local service are a rarity.
Go to German station arrival/departure schedule or Switzerland’s, select any random medium sized town you can think of, and then look at the results.
It’s completely unlike anything that people in this country, or with experience only of more chaotic parts of the European transportation system seem to be capable of imagining. (Stupidly, even people who see timed cross-platform transfers happen happen ever single time intra-BART at 12th/19th/Macarthur stations in Oakland fail to get that there’s a powerful and generalizable principle at work.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 11:05 am
In fact, standard Shinkansen practice is that they’re not.
Shinkansen use standard gauge, totally new system built separate from the existing narrow gauge Japanese system.
Weaves involving cross-platform transfers are just too expensive for HSR.
Why would they be weaving? HSR and Caltrain expresses on the express tracks and Caltrain locals on the local tracks off peak. Peak, some of the Caltrain expresses will be in the local track.
Same way it works on the NYC subway or the NEC at most Amtrak stations.
Stupidly, even people who see timed cross-platform transfers happen happen ever single time intra-BART at 12th/19th/Macarthur stations in Oakland fail to get that there’s a powerful and generalizable principle at work.
But BART sprang full blown from the the loins of the railroad gods! There can’t be other places in the world where things are easy and convenient…….Anyway if you let HSR and Caltrain share paltforms the blue and gold trains might get red and white train cooties and for that reason the BART trains have to be kept totally segregated underground where they won’t even have to be within sight of those awful conventional-ish trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Why does the Shinkansen’s gauge matter? Incompatible train systems can have cross-platform transfers.
The reason you’d need a weave is that the only service pattern that lets you do everything at grade is FSSF with the trains all coming from the same direction. Altamont means crossovers, especially if you intend on building tail tracks. It’s not a big deal, but it’s there.
The real question is, why would you build tail tracks? Japanese best practice is to have very short tail tracks, just enough so that trains can enter the station at reasonable speed. I know that in cities where cost is no object, rail projects are built with 500-meter tail tracks. Sometimes the cost of a cross-platform transfer isn’t worth it. If DIG were built according to Japanese specs it would probably have a cross-platform BART/Caltrain transfer with HSR on a different level.
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:44 am
The subway option, if chosen with the purpose of avoiding people and curves, is likely to significantly reduce development around the station because the tracks and station box will cut right through where SJ is planning development . It is critical that the HSR stations maximize development. (note, if U.S. planning was more sophisticated, TOD could theoretically be done at the same time as the station box and tracks, allowing for a lot more density, but good luck getting that level of communication and coordination).
The problem is if we jettison the curves, then our only options are an extremely costly subway that also kills off 1/2 the TOD, or we go through the neighgborhoods, a politically difficult proposition.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:46 am
“but good luck getting that level of communication and coordination”
Not to mention funding…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Things can be built on top of tracks, it’s done all over the world. They build skyscrapers over the the tracks in places like New York, Tokyo, Chicago…
Daniel Krause Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Agreed. Development built on top of a subway box can be done, but only if it can be properly coordinated. However, transit agencies are generally dominated by engineers whose main concern is the transit facility and any complications to their designs by incorporating building foundations creates more work for them. Also, the uncertainities of the economy make it even more complicated in terms of timing. Are the developers ready to go with their buildings when the transit facility (the subway box) is being built? It requires an ongoing effort of political vision and leadership to create a whole “place” at the same time the transit is being built. If this type of political leadership is not aggressively push the creation of a well integrated place, best bet is to pursue another alternative that at least reserves land for transit-oriented development in the future.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Subways tend to make TOD easier, not harder: they reduce noise and visual impacts.
I don’t understand, how can be 20m deep bored tunnel cheaper than 50m deep tunnel. Such shallow depth in river sediments prevents natural arch forming, making more expensive sinkhole prevention and tunnel-settlement mitigation.
Cheap shallow tunnel is cover-and-cut along some street with tunnel floor 15 m / 40 ft under the surface. Surface portion (underground walls and tunnel ceiling) can be finished within 1/2 – 3/4 of year with maintaining full access to all affected houses.
rafael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:07 am
VTA light rail currently passes under Caltrain/UP at SJ Diridon station. That would have to be converted to an overpass in order to make room for a subway tunnel. Doable, but not cheap. A bigger problem is that the north and south approaches to an underground HSR station close to grade level would need to run through residential areas. Quite a few properties would need to be acquired, e.g. via eminent domain, to facilitate cut-and-cover construction. Add to that the Guadeloupe river crossing and the concept quickly becomes less than appealing IMHO.
The deep tunnel concept was rejected primarily because of the construction cost and risk inherent in busy passenger platforms located deep underground in area prone to occasional earthquakes and floods. Add to that the small but nonzero risks of electrical fire, terrorist attack etc. Don’t go underground unless you absolutely have to.
“The company (UP) said such an arrangement would increase the risk of a derailed freight train slamming into a passenger-filled bullet train, which ‘could result in one of the worst rail accidents in American history, with dozens or even hundreds of fatalities.” Does UP realize that there ROW currently abuts human-occupied homes and a busy roadway? Heck, maybe planes shouldn’t fly over San Jose for risk of falling out of the sky, which would constitute “one of the worst aviation accidents in American history, with dozens or even hundreds of fatalities.” Don’t think for a second that UP cares about the people; with them it’s all about the bottom line.
As has been stated before, the UP freight line between SJ and Gilroy is lightly used and will probably never have to be expanded for freight services (unless of course the ports of Alviso or Monterey are built out). Second, for them to come out EVEN AGAINST a Monterey Hwy. alignment and demanding HSR tracks be “50 to 100 feet from its property” is just plain stupid! UP isn’t God, and the will of the people, and perhaps the Obama Admin., will win this battle.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Maybe we can get LaHood to force UP to play nice with the CAHSRA like he did with the airlines when he told them don’t hate high-speed rail.
By the way Robert,
I know he’s regarded as one of the better HSR reporters, but Rosenberg’s piece was pretty sensational if you ask me. Even quoted Elizabeth Alexis for an even more negative bent to the article.
Good morning Tony.
CARRD’s position on this would be:
1) If the CHSRA gets a letter like this, they should make it public, rather than wait for reporters to ferret it out. If there is a more positive spin, then they can make it proactively.
2) Go read the source materials and figure out if the article is sensational. We have posted as much as we can find at http://www.calhsr.com/resources/union-pacific-letter/ You can read the actual letter, listen to Tony Daniels discuss this etc. We’ve even posted the Caltrans maps for the Monterey Highway under http://www.calhsr.com/resources/monterey-highway-row-maps/
3) The most important part of this story is that it increasingly makes the Monterey Highway alignment look like a strawman, with a route 101 and a Leavesley Rd station being the more likely outcome. With the way the program EIR was structured, the environmentalists and residents of that area will not have really had their “day in court”. This guarantees the project level review will be a nightmare.
HSRforCali Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 7:19 am
So are you guys against UP’s rediculous statements? If they have it their way, UP will cause a ton of impact to the surrounding area by forcing the HSR tracks out into the Monterery Highway.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:37 am
“increasingly makes the Monterey Highway alignment look like a strawman” and “With the way the program EIR was structured, the environmentalists and residents of that area will not have really had their ‘day in court’”
*Shrug*
Things change in environmental reviews. While it is true that people didn’t have an opportunity to litigate that alignment at the program level, like you said, they can still get their day in court, if required, for the project level review.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Who says they weren’t going to make it public? They HAVE to make it public, as it was part of the comments submitted for the Supplemental EIR.
Alleging that someone wasn’t going to respond to something that the have not responded to yet when they have to do so by law, but haven’t had the opportunity to do so yet defies logic.
UP’s position still makes no sense. They repeatedly raise safety concerns of an accident occurring on their owned ROW, but do not raise similar concerns about shared-use ROW.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
They seem to be working with the MidwestHSR and I think that is a much busier line than that 3-4 trains a day branch line south of San Jose. Really must be holding out for lots of money..
Clem Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
It’s a matter of speed, I think. Shared-use ROW at 100 mph to 125 mph is one thing. 220 mph, no matter how many layers of safety systems you might have (positive train control with intrusion detection, etc.), is still a shitload of kinetic energy. Those trains don’t stop on a dime when they’re bearing down on the latest “oops I derailed again” pile of boxcars… and UP is freaking out because it’s already happened to them before on a smaller scale.
The basic point is true enough though: they’re being a royal pain.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Well yes, there is a lot more kinetic energy involved. But I’d argue that running into a freight car at 100 mph is just as unsurvivable as it is at 220 mph…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
You’re neglecting emergency braking (automatic, based on intrusion detection) before impact.
That is the usual case: ooops, UP did it again all by itself somewhere up ahead; it’s not like the freight trains trip over their shoe laces and jump sidewards just as they’re about to be passed.
Initial velocity v. Braking a. Distance to obstruction d. System reaction time for automatic brake application r.
Time to impact i = (v – sqrt (v^2 – 2 a (d – v r))) / a.
Velocity at impact f = v – a (i – r)
Kinetic energy at impact = m f ^2 / 2
For argument let a = 0.8 ms-2,. d = 1000 m, r = 5 s.
Compare energy at impact for v = 41.7 ms-1 (150kmh) and 97 ms-1 (350kmh).
I get less than 1/16th the energy at impact.
Brakes work, given time.
Emergency braking from very high speed is pretty much a homeopathic undertaking.
To echo Clem: regardless of primary school arithmetic, UP is of course seeking to maximize its government handouts.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
What this shows is that UP is acting like asses. They’ll back down, largely because they basically just want money. If they’re really intransigent, CHSRA can invite Amtrak to use its eminent domain powers to seize the entire line, and I’m pretty sure Amtrak will be happy to do so.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
You have a problem.
You invoke Amtrak.
Now you have two problems.
Peter Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:55 am
According the Authority’s FAQs for the San Jose to Merced section, they are still in communications with UPRR regarding even use of UP’s ROW. If UPRR wasn’t interested in dealing, they wouldn’t be talking at all.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100510094151_San%20Jose%20to%20Merced%20FAQs_May2010.pdf
Interestingly, I think that a tunnel option for San Jose, while unnecessary, is nonetheless more likely to be completed than connecting BART to Santa Clara by tunnel. So I do not see a problem with dropping BART into a deeper tunnel, especially if BART is never going to be built, or at least not until a long, long time from now…
flowmotion Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Curious what makes you believe that SJ BART is less likely to be built than HSR
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Show me the money (3 billion, if I recall correctly) for extending it to Santa Clara and I’ll believe it…
synonymouse Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 9:38 am
BART to San Jose is a done deal. If you can’t grasp that you need a refresher course in Bay Area machine politics.
The real question is whether BART can pull off Ring the Bay. My guess is yes.
An even bigger question is how the CHSRA is going to drum up support for its current dumbed down route scheme and if it is ever “completed” decades from now where they will secure the government subsidies required to offset the operating deficits and to keep up a modicum of maintenance.
corntrollio Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Whether BART can pull off Ring the Bay is certainly a legitimate question. Most of the BART plans have been set in stone since 1957: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4080507945/in/set-72157622518181915/.
We have done a few different things so far: the exact path to and through San Jose is different, but that’s largely because San Jose was a sleepy little town then; Colma station is not on the 1961 map; and the SFO wyes weren’t on the original plan.
But several of the current proposals are offshoots of the 1957 plan: eBart from West Pittsburg (aka Pittsburg/Baypoint) to Brentwood/Discovery Bay (even if it’s only being built to East Pittsburg, aka Pittsburg/Railroad Ave, and Antioch in the first iteration), wBART from Richmond towards Vallejo and on to Fairfield), tBART to Livemore, the 680 line from Dublin to Walnut Creek, as well as a second Transbay line (in 1957, they thought they could use the Bay Bridge + a Tube).
It hilarious that BART’s current “50-year plan” is to have a second Transbay Tube, finally build BART down Post/Geary, and to build the 680 parallel line, because that’s been in the plans for the LAST 50 years!
corntrollio Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I might add that originally, the early 1961 BART plans included only one station in the Mission (18th St.), one station between the Mission and Daly City (Ocean), and Montgomery as the first station in SF. Luckily, we built Embarcadero, two stations for the Mission (on the later 1961 map), and both Glen Park and Balboa Park (also on the later 1961 map and called Bosworth and Ocean), so that we had better metro service within SF.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Unhuh, set in stone… when are they building the second line from San Rafael?
Peter Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Or to Napa and Fairfield…
Mark F. Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
A Fremont to Santa Clara BART extension will cost at least $7 billion dollars.
Its been interesting to see people’s preference for tunnels over aerials. I, myself was against aerials until recently when I needed to get out and around the Bay Area where much of BART is in aerial form rather than the subways I’m used to in my home city of SF. Though many have described the aerials as “visual blight” its interesting to see actual aerials are quite unobtrusive especially when compared to the many overpasses & elevated freeways that are the norm around the Bay Area.
Now I would ask Palo Alto NIMBY’s just which aerials around the Bay Area offend them. Aerials, I understand, would be built much cheaper and quicker than an extended tunnel under SJ.
Andy Chow Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Today’s aerials are better than the BART aerials of the 60s. In Daly City and southern SF where BART is elevated, you can hear a very distinctive noise from BART trains. These days, there are better structure design to cut down that noise.
I don’t get it. I see no problem in San Jose. Run HSR at grade along the Caltrain ROW and be done with it. As mentioned, there is no case for spending zillions more for a tunnel or convoluted highway-following alignments when we’re talking about HSR moving at maybe 60 mph or so through the Gardner neighborhood. All this SJ route hand-wringing is just such a waste of time and money. All that’s required is a reasonable effort at outreach and noise mitigation and maybe a sprinkling of eminent domain, where and if necessary, the Gardner area will be just fine with at-grade HSR.
Of course, my preferred solution for SJ’s Gardner, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and to the Transbay capacity problem is dump the politically-mandated Pacheco route and go back to the superior and formerly preferred Altamont Pass route with a branch serving SF via Dumbarton and SJ via Alviso or Milpitas. If Pleasanton and Livermore raise a huge stink about not wanting HSR, then use the TRANSDEF/CRF/PCL route in the Setec Altamont report.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I see no problem in San Jose.
But that’s no fun. No one can speculate on where the heliport is going to be. Or where the dirigibles are going to moor.
Peter Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
You forgot to include the refueling station for the spaceships.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Dilithium is very energy dense yet extraordinarily light. All they need is a cart this size of the things flight attendants shove up and down the aisle. They can store the carts next to the coal and water towers.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
“I see no problem in San Jose. Run HSR at grade along the Caltrain ROW and be done with it.”
There’s a narrowing of the ROW in this area, and it’s not clear that three tracks will fit in parallel with sufficient spacing. (Two for passengers, one for freight.)
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
FYI, the Altamont route is a non-starter because it’s impossible to make the needed upgrades on the Dumbarton bridge (protected park/wildlife refuge) and the SF-San Jose-back NORTH on the East Bay route is impossibly indirect and therefore slow.
Nathanael Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I will say that the blatantly best route for purposes of sheer passenger satsifaction, last time I checked, is in fact straight up the Central Valley and then west via Oakland and a new Transbay Tube to San Francisco, and then onward to San Jose — but nobody wants to spend the cost of the new tube.
synonymouse Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
There may be a second tube in time but the Dunbarton Bridge will suffice for now. It will be interesting to see if Bechtel tries to press ahead with the present scheme – extremely unlikely to live up to expectations – or propose modifications. Maybe the new ceo will see the writing on the wall that is invisible to the current pack of insiders.
Joey Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
So I take it you’ve abandoned your Livermore terminus idea then…
synonymouse Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 12:33 am
Not at all. Either is an option.
Clem Reply:
May 11th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Interestingly, that circuitous SF-San Jose-back NORTH is exactly what some very astute people believe might max out the ridership model. *If* the name of the game is to choose the routing with the greatest ridership from the model, that is…