CHSRA to Peninsula: Pay For Your Own Tunnel (Or Trench)
UPDATE: The complete text of the letter Roelof van Ark sent to Burlingame is below. Original post begins here:
Mike Rosenberg reports that CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark has told Burlingame officials that if they want below-grade tracks, they’ll have to pay for it:
“This letter that we got from (California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark) basically says in bold words that, if we want a trench, we’re going to have to pay for it,” Burlingame Vice Mayor Jerry Deal said.
Van Ark sent the city the letter Dec. 28, after Mayor Terry Nagel asked him to clarify comments he reportedly made in the Gilroy area saying the state could not afford to build the tracks underground.
Van Ark said in his letter that the state has “an obligation to deliver to California citizens” a project that includes “careful considerations of the cost of each section in light of the entire system.” The $43 billion project is already facing a funding shortfall of $30 billion, even before adding in potential extra costs of underground tracks on the Peninsula.
“The authority encourages these municipalities (that want below-ground tracks) to explore alternate means of funding the cost difference of placing the alignment below-grade,” he wrote.
I quibble with Rosenberg’s choice of phrase here – “facing a funding shortfall of $30 billion?” Huh? I know Rosenberg understands how transportation funding works, and that a project is proposed and then funded – and often funded in parts. A “shortfall” only emerges when the funding cannot be found or has been exhausted to build the project as planned. That’s not the case right now, and I don’t know why Rosenberg is using the framing of HSR opponents on this.
In any case, the story is pretty clear: van Ark understands that his obligation is to the taxpayers of California, to build the project they expected at a reasonable budget. Not every city can get gold-plated infrastructure – in case Burlingame hasn’t noticed, Congress isn’t going to be giving out much new HSR funding for the next 2 years, and the state of California isn’t likely to do so either.
So instead of telling Burlingame “no trench for you” van Ark is saying “I’m more than happy to build you a trench, but you need to fund it.” I don’t see anything illegitimate or unfair about that. If Burlingame believes their property values will rise because of a trench, then it makes sense for them to fund that on their own.
They instead expect the rest of the state to essentially subsidize their property values. I cannot emphasize enough how absurd and out-of-touch that view is. At a time when property values have crashed hard in other parts of the state, why on earth would anyone in Riverside or Stockton or San Diego or East LA believe that Burlingame property owners deserve state aid to maintain their land values?
Burlingame leaders are threatening to throw a big temper tantrum over this:
The Burlingame City Council plans to consider a stronger stance against the project at its next meeting Jan. 18. The council has retained an outside attorney and may consider joining other Peninsula cities in a lawsuit against the state. It could also adopt a resolution opposing the project or take some other action.
“I think we need to return to common sense here and re-evaluate this whole project,” Nagel said….
“I think there are an increasing number of very clear signals that the authority has no intention of putting it underground,” Councilman Michael Brownrigg said. “I just don’t believe them anymore, that they’re really taking this seriously.”
Guess what, Michael? They’re not. And they shouldn’t. Burlingame has no reason at all to expect the rest of the state to pay for their gold-plated infrastructure, especially when Burlingame refuses to bring some of their own money to the table. Again, if Burlingame were to agree to find local funding, then I’d be all in favor of finding some way to cut a deal on this matter. But Burlingame has no justification, none at all, for demanding everyone else in California fund their trench – especially when funding for schools and health care services are in serious jeopardy of being cut.
Of course, this is all much ado about nothing. Burlingame’s fears about what would happen if an above-grade alignment were chosen are not based in reality. Across the bay, the small town of Albany has maintained high property values nearly 40 years after the construction of the BART aerial through the middle of town. And Rockridge has become one of the most prosperous and desirable neighborhoods in not just Oakland, but the entire East Bay even with a massive freeway viaduct running through it. Albany and Rockridge have adapted well. Surely Burlingame can do so as well, and with easier traffic flows and no more loud horns, property values in the city will rise, even near the aerial structure.
High speed rail in California is going to happen – and it will include the Peninsula as a way to access San Francisco. Burlingame is going about this entirely the wrong way – they can’t stop HSR, as much as they might delude themselves into thinking they can. And they’re never, ever going to convince the rest of the state to pay for their desired structures. If the Burlingame city council were to have taken a less adversarial approach, building public support for both the project in order to build support for funding a trench or tunnel, then they’d be in a better position to actually receive that desired infrastructure.
That path is still open to them. If not, Burlingame will get an aerial viaduct. There will be screaming and hollering, predictions of the apocalypse, and then a few years after it’s built…people will stop noticing it’s even there, as they instead notice the increase in their property values. And as even Burlingame residents ride the bullet trains around California, they’ll wonder what all the fuss was ever about.
And here’s the letter (click here to download):
Berkeley paid to put BART underground through Berkeley. The NIMBYs in Burlingame can do the same.
YESONHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
NO they want everyone else to pay for tunneling that railroad they all moved next to..
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Well the PCC and Burlingame aren’t going to get a tunnel or a trench paid for by the state of California, It would have to come from local funding and since they haven’t shown any interest in doing so, They get no tunnel or trench, They can just go away as they’ll just lose in Court. And in a few years after It’s built, The Nimbys will be forgotten by most, Just as they should be.
Sensationalism at its finest! That’s why Rosenburg mentioned the shortfall crap, because we all know that negativity sells newspapers.
So if some old guy wants to build freeways through your neighborhood, the rallying against that “progress” represents legitimate concerns; but if it’s a high speed rail viaduct then the rules are a bit different.
How much would an uncovered trench cost? Surely that would use much less concrete than either a viaduct, a bored tunnel or a cut-and-cover solution (because you skip the “cover” part). And it would have the advantage that it can be covered later.
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
You have to dig out a lot of earth though. Plus there are some hydrology issues…
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Plus one has to stress for earthquakes and such, That’s a lot of rebar and concrete and It’s in a flattened U shape, Like the one in Alhambra CA.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:07 am
There are several creeks crossing under the Caltrain ROW in Burlingame. The creek at Oak Grove goes quite deep, making an open trench that much deeper and costlier. At high tide, the bay waters also will intrude the creeks up to the Caltrain ROW.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Basically, moving dirt and rock is one the expensive things a good engineer will try to minimize on a project like this, subject to other things like minimum curve radius for a desired speed level. If you have water problems, such as crossing streams, or even moving buried utilities such as pipes and telephone lines, the cost goes up even more.
I don’t have the quotation in front of me, but I seem to recall seeing recently that an elevated right-of-way costs about double that of a line built on the ground–and a line built in a tunnel, without a lot of complicating factors like moving utility lines or working around an earthquake fault, is double the initial cost of an elevated line. Other items of note are that rock typically costs three times as much to excavate and move as plain dirt, yet for a bored tunnel, rock is the prefered material to bore through, because it can be self-supporting, rather than caving in easily as a tunnel in soft soil will do.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
There’s a fundamental difference between freeway construction and what is proposed in Burlingame.
The Highway 24 freeway I mentioned in Rockridge came with a significant amount of community displacement and neighborhood destruction. Whole city blocks were leveled to build it between 880 and the Caldecott Tunnel. That was done 45 years ago, so we can only look now at what has come from it, how the communities have adapted. There’s no chance that could have been built today. And while the freeway has a lot of “ridership,” as do the three BART lines that use the corridor, it’s still a good question whether that was worth the disruption to north Oakland.
The situation in Burlingame could not possibly be more different. The rail corridor is already there. The rails were there well before the city, and the city grew up around it. Further, the proposed aerial structure would certainly have a visual impact, but that’s about it. Most of Burlingame has enough ROW to accommodate the structure without any changes to the surrounding property, and while there may be parts of the city where eminent domain is required, it’s nibbling around the edges. Nothing at all like the wholesale destruction done for Highway 24 in north Oakland, or the notorious destruction done in south central LA for the Century Freeway.
I could understand the Burlingame city council’s reaction if the CHSRA was saying “we have to mow down an entire neighborhood” for this. But they’re not. Methinks the council doth protest too much.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:15 am
Problem here is that the anti-HSR folks believe and make claims that it will mow down the neighborhood and that it will mow down all the trees in Burlingame.
ant6n Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:25 am
This comment probably would’ve made for a better article than the above ‘suck it up, we ain’t paying for your gold-plate infrastructure’. Because that does not address the issue whether Burlingame has legitimate concerns.
Fun Fact: Terry Nagel is running for Supervisor this year!
as a native and former resident, it was really a sad sight to see the sheer amount of false propaganda being perpetuated, often at taxpayer expense, down there. I’m not surprised ,but Burlingame and the Peninsula need to get back to reality, and stop smoking whatever it is they smoke that fuels their self-entitled ways.
Then again, this is after all, the town that both bet its future on chain stores downtown (FAIL) AND found a way to f*ck up the building of a new Safeway downtown that makes San Francisco look like a model of efficiency and responsiveness to business concerns.
Jim Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Really? They messed up the Safeway? I wish them as much success with changing the way HSR is built through town.
Get your facts straight – they are building a brand new Safeway center w/o most of the negatives that stopped the original design. Why? Because people stepped up and said no way. And guess what? After that they compromised. What a concept.
Like I said – i wish them as much success with the HSR talks.
njudah Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
There’s an easy way to build the tunnel – pay for it. Done. Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties are some of the wealthiest in the state, so I don’t see what the problem is.
And yes, they did fuck up Safeway’s development, dragging out the process and talking around it and screwing with Safeway, worse than any NIMBY crowd in SF (And that’s saying a lot given how many loud mouths we have up here), and delayed it for years. Burlingame’s irrational fear of housing and anything on rails makes it as big of a joke as SF.
Dan S. Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Huh, who knew my favorite Muni line was also a sarcastic blogger! Strange world.
I admit I haven’t been to downtown Burlingame in a couple years, but it was really thriving when I was down there. Are you just quibbling with the “mall-like” atmosphere of that shopping district? True, it doesn’t exactly create a leafy, rural downtown feeling, but I thought it was really nice, and it was always packed with shoppers and parking was tough to come by whenever I did pay a visit. Why do think it’s a failure?
njudah Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
If you haven’t been there in while then you missed all the chain stores that closed once the recession hit. By betting the farm on one type of business, they messed up. I don’t think it’s like a mall at all, please don’t put words in my mouth. I go there often as most of my family lives nearby and grew up there too.
njudah Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
oh and that’s award winning blogger, thank you very much. Quoted in the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, and so on.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:51 am
And the people’s #1 choice to become the next SF mayor, let’s not forget.
YESONHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
She needs to remember that 64 percent voted YES for prop1A in SanMateo CO..instead of her demanding opinions about HSR
Can anyone say this is a surprise? A Reason Foundation “study” concluded that the Florida project could cost $3 billion more than expected. They really seem to enjoy doubling cost estimates, don’t they?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tampa-to-orlando-high-speed-rail-could-cost-3-billion-more-than-expected-113029859.html
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Peninsula cities have every right to try to kill this project if they cannot find the money for trenches. PB refuses to consider the 101 alternative and will no doubt try to put every obstacle in the way of trenching, considered inadequately Brutalist in the PB corporate culture.
Meantime there are rumors afloat that Jerry is out to get redevelopment:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17020904?source=most_viewed
It would be wonderful if an icepick were jabbed into Urban Removal’s corpulent neck, but it is simply too good to be true.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
PB builds what the client wants. When BART wanted the brightest shiniest super duperish late 60s stuff they designed it for them. Today that style is called Brutalist. PB build all sorts of non-Brutalist stuff all over all the time. You have to get out more.
101 was considered. It has fatal flaws that the Caltrain corridor doesn’t have.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Nah nah nah nah… he can’t here you.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I hate to break it to you synnn .. but if you notice today’s styling of construction and design is all steel and glass and concrete again.. we are not doing cutesy brick buildings or silly suburban English Tudor homes .I’ts a big metropolitan area and the Peninsula is a part of it .. they don’t live in Greenwich Connecticut or Darien.. they live in what was formerly blue collar towns and in very blue collar looking homes that certainly don’t equal any beautiful 1920s Eastern seaboard home.. so actually a concrete 1950s freeway structure fits the architectural style of these towns perfectly As this is just what these people wanted when they moved to the suburbs decades ago.. drive on the freeway and drive up the driveway!! All on asphalt and concrete that today’s yuppies or whatever they are down there seem to have forgotten.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Oh, come now, we are talking about idyllic sylvan prospects like this one. Its hard to even estimate the value of losing this visual amenity.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
They absolutely do not have the right to try and kill the project because of their selfish NIMBY arrogance.. 65% San Mateo County voted yes on prop 1A . If raised structures can run through beautiful European cities then they sure in the hell can run through some fake Mayberry towns with $800,000 stucco and cheap built Pinewood homes. A nice brick design can be done and enhance these towns which would look much better than a cut trench.. and NO the taxpayers are not paying for these people to have a Park where an active century old railroad now functions.. they can pay the difference between the CAHSR budget and what they want.
Missiondweller Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
You make a good point in that these elevated structures do not need to look like elevated concrete freeways. I half wonder if the resistance is more a failure of imagination in design. Brick is certainly one way to make a structure more attractive but could also include patterns stamps and colored stains for the structure. Redwood City and local communities did an excellent job in making Calitrain crossings much more attractive.
Perhaps some design competitions would be more constructive than threats and lawsuits.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
They will have to be massive to address seismic worries(ever-present on this site), in particular with 4 tracks and higher speed operation than California has ever seen.
See BART in Daly City and multiply by a factor of 2.
Bechtel don’t do pretty.
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
“See BART in Daly City”
Opened in 1973, when Brutalist was THE way to go.
“Bechtel don’t do pretty.”
Again, any proof other than unsubstantiated claims based on designs from 40 years ago?
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Daly City to SFO was perpetrated in the early ’90′s.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:32 am
If THIS, and THIS is what you think is Brutalist, then I guess anything built with concrete is Brutalist. Just so you know, architecturally speaking, this is not Brutalist.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
one of the salient features of Daly City to SFO BART is lots and lots of unnecessary tunneling. How does a tunnel have any architechtural details – on the surface anyway – at all?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
I concur with Missiondweller’s comments about this being a failure of imagination; it seems the people of these towns think this is going to be just like a freeway, just as ugly, just as noisy, just as polluting. It won’t be like a freeway, it need not look as ugly, and it very likely won’t be as noisy if my observations of Amtrak trains on the NEC are any indication. On top of that the noise will be different in quality, a different and less intrusive “timbre” to use a musical term. I don’t live in California, I live in West Virginia, but I have lived near railroads almost all my life, and currently live about a block from one now, and they are nothing to get excited about. An electric railroad can fit right in, as Adirondacker and others have pointed out with examples along Amtrak’s eastern lines. Unfortunately, some people have this ugly-noisy idea stuck in their heads, and you couldn’t change it with dynamite.
There might be other options to consider. One would be to start with upgrading the ground-level right-of-way mostly as it is, taking out the worst curves where you can (Clem has pointed out some of these), going with 4-way gates where you need a grade crossing, and (this will be controversial) closing as many crossings as you can, just dead-ending the streets that approach them.
This will save money in a whole lot of ways, including reducing the liability insurance payments a railroad makes on crossings. Those insurance payments are actually greater than those on a railroad station, as a friend of mine in Shepherdstown, W.Va. found out in the course of restoring the station there. He was able to use that factor to preserve the station on-site, while the railroad got to close a crossing in the same town, saving it more money than it would by demolishing the station, truly a win-win.
In this case, the advantages will not be quite that of a fully grade-seperated right-of-way, but from reading on here and in Clem’s blog, even an improved alignment wouldn’t really allow full speed operation at 200+ mph anyway, so this may be good enough, at least for now. Although it would cost more later, one could then rebuild this line on an elevated alignment at some time in the future, when the NIMBYs would either come around or be gone for one reason or another. This also gives the advantage of having more money available for the new construction you do need, such as the new work that is starting in the Central Valley and electrification in general.
Any takers for this?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
It doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of money building almost good enough and then coming back in 20 or 30 years and doing it right.
They aren’t aiming for 200 MPH in the suburbs on the Peninsula, they are aiming for a maximum speed of 125 north of San Jose. Slower than the NEC. Somewhere I have the link to the YouTube video of a GPS on the Trenton Local. goes up to 103 MPH if I remember correctly. …. on the local track…. by that world class operator NJTransit…
Another surprise out of China: China’s development of stealth fighter takes U.S. by surprise
Missiondweller Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Its a mock up. China doesn’t design anything, they make copies. They’ll have considerably more problems copying our latest generation of stealth fighter than they did HSR trains.
mike Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Funny how all of these “OMG China is turning into a military superpower!!!” reports are leaking out right before the administration proposes significant cuts in DoD funding. Does anyone remember the “missile gap” in the 1970s and subsequent calls for increased Pentagon funding? “Team B”? Anyone? Bueller?
It’s not only Burlingame; it’s also Belmont, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto that are out of touch with reality. The tunnel demands by Belmont are especially disturbing, being that Caltrain is already on a elevated berm, as is San Carlos, where voters actually approved the elevated grade separation some years ago. Have Belmont and San Carlos been devastated by the aerial berm?
If one puts out enough lies and misinformation, the average rational person is going to believe the fear mongering. There appears to be no efforts to expose the fraudulent lies/misinformation put out by the anti-HSR folks. The bike shop across the way, which is separated by two wide streets and the Caltrain tracks; from my building has placed a ‘Here comes high speed rail—There goes my business’ sign in their window. Yet there is no tangible evidence that the bike shop (I bought my bike there), or any other business along California Drive will be negatively impacted by HSR. They also have a picture/flyer in the window depicting HSR as a huge, wide, ugly freeway structure. These flyers have appeared in many businesses here in Burlingame, as have the stupid “Here comes high speed rail—There goes the neighborhood,’ or ‘There goes $$$ for schools,’ appearing on lawns all over Burlingame and elsewhere. What is being done to expose these illusory flyers and lawn signs for the rubbish that they are?
The Caltrain tracks/ROW is private property, off limits to the public, and fenced off in many places. Does this NOT separate the community already?
The anti-HSR folks and the clueless city councils refuse to answer this question. So once again, does the Caltrain ROW NOT separate the community already?
I have been to a number of Burlingame City Council meetings over the years and it is usually the same people complaining about the topic of the time, be it a new Safeway store, the rebuilding of the Burlingame Caltrain station boarding platforms, Caltrain service reductions, weekday closure of Broadway station, or PG&E power problems in Burlingame. The City Council pays attention to the regular community activists. I am also well known at the Burlingame City Council, yet my opinion on (pro) HSR does not matter because I am a “renter” as labeled a few times by the anti-HSR folks. Never mind the fact that my family owned a home/property in Burlingame for over 45 years that had to be sold due to circumstances beyond my control. Ironically now that same property is generating a good deal more property taxes for the city/county since it no longer falls under the rules of Proposition 13.
The anti-HSR folks constantly cite that the “prestigious” UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies has discredited the HSR ridership projections. Is this UC Berkeley report accurate, do the pro-HSR organizations scrutinize this report?
Likewise the anti-HSR folks cite the State Auditors Report, The Legislative Annalists Report, TRANSDEF, California Rail Foundation, and so on, as all criticizing the HSRA, the EIR, the Business Plan, etc. Where are the rebuttals to these criticisms?
Even if Burlingame were to come up with the money to put the train underground, we need to consider the effects on Caltrain operations and the riders of both HSR and Caltrain. As a daily Caltrain rider, I am dead set against riding in a trench or tunnel, as do the vast majority of Caltrain riders. The beautiful scenery here on the peninsula makes riding Caltrain a pleasurable experience.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
“Here comes high speed rail—There goes the neighborhood,’
Acela isn’t high speed but it’s what we have… it’s just devastated Princeton or Stamford or …..
YesonHSR Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
These people act as if anybody living near any modern transportation structure has had their life ruined.. they live right now against an active railroad that isn’t very pretty and everything along it is also not very pretty much to their rose-colored glasses.. a very beautiful architecturally designed brick structure can be built in its place with grade free road ways.. really this is much better than an open trench and absolutely under no circumstances will this railroad be in tunnel along the peninsula outside a few sections that matter ..Regardless of their demands .. so it’s time to start being proactive in getting quality architectural design for their individual towns Instead of resorting to sensationalism
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
If the Peninsula towns are paying for the hsr they have the right to get their own engineers to design the trenches and get overpriced big dig Bechtel the hell outta here.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
In Berkeley’s case, the city actually did hire its own engineers to basically design trenches; i.e. compute costs for a subway. Their cost estimates were far, far lower than what BART’s “experts” had stated. BART’s response was to stonewall and obfuscate. It was very contentious, with the city contemplating lawsuits.
Originally, BART predicted costs for a subway through Berkeley at more than $50 million. When bids for the subway finally came in, the cost was less than half. Berkeley had been vindicated.
In the case of the Peninsula, it could very well be that a trench is not feasible. But if the experience in Berkeley is any guide, then it is unlikely we will ever get a plausible cost analysis from PB/CHSRA.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:28 am
How come they overstated the costs then but are understating the costs now? Or did Berkeley also make sure to design the subway itself to reduce costs?
Nadia Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
CARRD has been asking for the updated Technical Memos for exactly the reasons you discussing – to be able to have a real discussion about real possibilities with real numbers and measurements. It has been since June – still – we can’t get the updates. This is all part of the problem.
bleh Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 2:24 am
While it would be nice if the authority was a more orderly place the basic fact remains:
The project will provide the cheapest solution that is legally possible because they’re CAHSR, not the Remove the Caltrain ROW for the Greater Glory of the People Who Own Land Right Next to It Association.
The peninsula wants a tunnel? Then hire some engineers and have them come up with a cost estimate and then decide if you wanna build it.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Um, what? There’s no talk of removing the ROW, just putting it underground. It’s perfectly normal to consider a tunneled option for grade-separation. I personally don’t believe it’s economic, but the HSRA owes it to the the taxpayers and the local residents to propose the least-cost, highest-value tunnel and berm option so that they can make an informed decision about paying to bury the tracks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Decide. Announce. Defend.
A bunch of fifth-rate politicised civil engineers come up with a scheme in order to ram through a particular project of profit to a particular subset of promoters. (Note: not to solve any particular identifiable public realm problem.) Anything else — better or worse, and there’s nothing that says that theirs isn’t, by same fluke, the best alternative — to their scheme is, by definition, over-priced, under-performing, higher-impact, and Does Not Meet The Program Requirements.
Works pretty much every time, in every field.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:53 am
It’s worth keeping in mind that the Berkeley BART tunnels were cut-and-cover, and they did involve some neighborhood displacement – a row of houses several blocks long on the north side of Hearst Avenue was taken to dig the tunnel and cover it with what became a park. So it wasn’t exactly the same as a bored tunnel, which has been floated by some of the cities – and it did involve some neighborhood disruption and loss of homes.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
It’s worth keeping in mind that BART (eventually, though still debatably) brought benefits to Berkeley in the form of local and regional transportation service. (Could it have been done more effectively or more cost effectively? Certainly.)
HSR, as promoted by PB and our dear dear friends at or revolving-dooring from the Peninsula Rail Program, brings nothing but costs and downsides, with zero or, for all politically purposes, close to zero local benefit. Why on earth should any local community or not-on-the-take local politician support or even condone such a scheme? (Could a rail transportation corridor upgrade that massively benefits local communities while providing HS access to the upper SF peninsula have been designed to be more useful and more cost effective? Certainly. Is such a thing even on the table? You must be joking!)
Walter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 10:36 am
“BART brought benefits to Berkeley in the form of local and regional transportation service. HSR…brings nothing but costs and downsides, with zero…or close to zero local benefit.”
So providing “local and regional transportation” is a benefit, but HSR doesn’t do that? Seriously, man, if you hate HSR so much, move to Ohio or Wisconsin. I heard it might be awhile before they have it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
No. Not as conceived by PB and fronted by CHSRA. Are you living under a rock or something?
Does SFIA provide local and regional transportation benefit? If so, how? (How do you enjoy your personal gyropcopter commuter anyway?) If not, how will a Flight Level Zero Airline surrogate be any different?
Unlike sad foamer shills, I’ve actually seen and ridden and lived with high speed rail that is of benefit to anybody other than the contractors who are paid to build the system, and it doesn’t look anything like what is proposed on the SF Peninsula or elsewhere in California.
jimsf Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
so what, this isnt the rest of the world, this is california. Not japan, not europe. And unlike you I have lived here for 45 years and watched how things are done and how growth happens and this plan for hsr puts it exaclty where it should be. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.
jimsf Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Did the other countries get tired of you and throw you out?
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“so what, this isnt the rest of the world, this is california. Not japan, not europe.”
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that since Japan and Europe have hsr tht California can’t do without it. But that means that we can use their actual operating
installation and modus operandi as a bully club against PB-Palmdale’s quasi-religious conviction that anything in this life and world can be made better if it is put on hollow-core concrete stilts.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Now that Clem has linked iTM 2.3.3 (I had forgotten it was there), I can say once and for all that your “hollow-core concrete stilts” shtick is complete baloney.
The last page describes how the columns are to be built: “The substructure, including piles, pile caps, spread footings, columns and column caps, will be constructed by traditional cast-in-place concrete means.”
The best description I could find on what “cast-in-place” means: “Cast-in-place concrete piles may be used when conditions are favorable. They are made by pouring concrete into a tapered hole or cylindrical form previously driven into the ground or into a hole in the ground from which a driven mandrel has been withdrawn.”
In other words, the columns are planned to be of a solid concrete design. NOT hollow-core.
mike Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I have no problem with below grade options if the local communities wish to pay for them (and any contingency risk associated with these options). But the claim of many tunneling proponents that every cost estimate in the system is understated except for tunneling estimates – which are overstated – seems rather absurd. If anything it is the tunneling estimates which are most likely to be understated since they entail the most geotechnical risk.
njudah Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
well said, dude. Burlingame politics are very insular, and driven by direct mail. I should know – I used to produce it (but not for anyone on the council now and not for a while).
So Doty’s gone, this is why van Ark is so busy in Gilroy and the Peninsula
No chance for tunnels with Doty gone…
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Doty is gone? Where to?
Reality Check Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Caltrain’s HSR expert Bob Doty takes higher-paying VP job at HNTB
Clem Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
No doubt a much bigger development than Diridon not being reappointed to the CHSRA Board.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
CBOSS-NG++, FRA freight and at least three different incompatible platform heights for Florida.
What a legacy he leaves us.
I wonder how van Ark would like to see this project designed and built, if he could be completely honest. If he didn’t like freight on the Peninsula I imagine he wouldn’t say so outright.
Maybe he would even support the I-5 racetrack and a 101 alignment.
This might be of interest here, even if much of the article seems to be a copy of PB’s PR stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_Brinckerhoff
http://www.pbworld.com/
http://www.pbasia.com/en/
To be continued:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Recent projects or lines with PB involvement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)
I’m not going to say I like PB (from what I’ve seen, they may overcharge a bit–and I like to understate things), but it does seem they are willing to build other than “Brutalist” style:
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/project_detail.asp?pid=193
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/project_detail.asp?pid=176
These last two links are from PB’s project list site; I’ll let others research these and others to get a better idea of what the firm has actually done in recent years.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:38 am
The full projects list, for your perusal:
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/directory.asp
A research library link, with some published papers, including some you can download–nothing on rail projects, though:
http://www.pbworld.com/library/default.asp
One of the papers includes something of interest to Syn on “Siesmic Design of Tunnels:”
http://www.pbworld.com/library/fellowship/
Hope some of this would be useful.
Just a couple more, and then to bed:
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/project_detail.asp?pid=188
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/project_detail.asp?pid=42
http://www.pbworld.com/projects/project_detail.asp?pid=71
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:24 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_Sentral_railway_station
Of course, I think the older station is nicer, but I’m a steam man, what do I know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_Railway_Station
http://linasbackyard.blogspot.com/2010/12/appreciating-architecure-at-railway.html
wu ming Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 11:35 am
gthe old KL train station is *much* nicer, and a lot easier to navigate. it is, unfortunately, far too small to service KL’s rail needs.
if there’s a city with a more poorly-designed mass transit system in the world than KL, i haven’t seen it. apparently they contracted out each individual subway line to a different well-connected construction interest, and then made sure that none of them connect at the station for cross-platform transfers. you have to exit one station, walk a couple hundred feet, buy a new ticket, and then re-enter the next station. all built with incompatible rails and such.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Stumbled across this–magnificent scene! And not just the train and the station, but check out the semaphore signals, and the mechanical pipeline interlocking to operate them running along the tracks! A classic! (At least for me!)
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=186807&nseq=14
I actually had the chance to operate one of these mechanical interlockers under the watchful eye of the towerman in a tower with such a machine, before the place was modernized and the tower taken out of service in December of 2000. Amazing that 1870s technology was still in use that late and later (the very last mechanical interlocker was only taken out of service here about a year ago)–and equally amazing that 1870s engineers invented this in the first place. We stand on the shoulders of giants. . .
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=154237&nseq=17
All good things must end. . .but we survive with change as well:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=36683&nseq=28
PB will be loath to upstage its pet, BART, by creating a prettier hsr. And clearly this is a company that has a concrete fetish. Bitch about seismic at Tejon and then erect aerials in the Tehachapis. PAMPA will have to hire their own people to beat down Bechtel’s objections to trenches.
Let them bring an overseas construction company and undercut Wunderman’s union muscle guys.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
If those people to beat down Bechtel’s objections to trenches have deep enough pockets to pay for them, they’ll get the trenches.
At the risk of going crazily off subject, I came across this site for a company that imports Chinese rail equipment to the US! It was originally set up to bring in Chinese steam engines for tourist operations, but apparently they and their Chinese partners are hoping to get something of the rail freight market, with freight cars and diesel locomotives, both standard and narrow gauge. Specs for all this (in metric units) are included on appropriate pages in the site:
http://www.multipowerinternational.com/
Hope the railfans here have a bit of fun.
Proud 1894 Historical center piece of the City of Burlingame meet your replacement…for the entire length of the town.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iXqk0lETuro/TOQlNW0AGYI/AAAAAAAACw4/FYx-vo8EzqQ/s1600/HSR_PHOTO-STITCH_2010_11-01-10%2BTed%2Bcopy.jpg
Before anyone tells me this is an exaggeration, it’s not. This rendering is 100% accurate, based on the HSRA’s own technical documents, exception it lacks sound walls. At 126′ wide, clearly a lot bigger than the 30′ wide and then 60′ wide station mockups the HSRA has tried to placate us with. It’s even bigger than the DRRU rendering everyone thought was so exaggerated. Of course, you all believed the renderings the HSRA provided us, didn’t you?
I do realize most of you, like Jeff Carter, hope to see this running through the middle of Burlingame and every other town on the Peninsula, but I personally don’t. I would hope Robert would not like to see this running through the middle of Carmel or downtown Monterey, but I could be wrong. Yes, some towns can handle the scale, but I remain dumbfounded with how insensitive most of you seem to be to the character of individual towns. CEQA was supposed to prevent this.
Now that Caltrain is starting to figure out that HSR may not be its only salvation, perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the alternative routes should have been considered a lot more closely. An elevated HSR structure down the middle of 101 or along the Bay have their challenges, but are they any worse than building a trench through various cities? Isn’t one of the design goals of HSR speed? It would seem building the shortest, straightest routes would have some cost benefits. We forget that HSR primarily competes with air, and not local commuter traffic, and so the route should be approached with that in mind. The crooked (pun intended) path proposed for the CV compared to the existing highways is laughable.
political_incorrectness Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The 101 has been dragged to the grave already.
1) NOT ENOUGH ROW
2) NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR CURVES!
And with the CV, it follows the rails into DOWNTOWN!
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
At the risk of attack, personally, I’d favor running it from SF down to Millbrae (should tie in SFO and the Hotels) and then out to the Bay on an elevated structure and south into SJ (assumes Pacheco) or across Dumbarton (assumes Altamont and RWC station). I know the environmentalists will have a fit (do they really support HSR or not in their backyard?), but I do believe the marshes (could be offshore a bit, too) would recover in good time, the scale is much more befitting the surroundings, the route is shorter and straighter and the view as a rider couldn’t be better. Not only that, but some much overdue rebuilding of the levies could be incorporated into the design. I am a sailor on the Bay, and I still feel this way. I understand the alluvial soil challenges, but if we can build the bridges, we can handle this. Just trying to think outside the box now that Caltrain more than real analysis isn’t driving the route decision.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The clearance seems low for todays trucks and not enough masts and not strong enough to support 4 contact wire catenary. Round poles bend easily under stress.
They go apoplectic about seismic issues at Tejon but when it comes to aerials – hey, what me worry? What’s Cypress?
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
@Syn, What can I say? This is as spec’d. Clearance is a standard 16′, but looks small due to the scale of the structure.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t the aerials on Daly City to SFO BART line higher than this?
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Yes, but not for clearance reasons. At 101 the aerial is at the same height as the SFO station and in Daly City it’s the same. (They don’t call it “Top of the Hill” for nothing, and yes, I know it’s not exactly at the “Top of the Hill”, but is relevant to the 280 freeway.)
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Except they’ll dip the road so it won’t need to be as high as you’ve tried to imply.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
And we worry about hydrological issues with trenching but dips under aerials are exempt? Basically PB just makes up the party line as they go along and the foamers follow it, contradictions and all, as gospel.
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
A dip is much much shallower than a trench. How can you possibly equate them?
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
http://www.cement.org/transit/tr_cs_alameda.asp
If I read this right the trench depth is around 24′. Your dip will presumably be around 10′.
It is interesting that the Alameda corridor project planned for electrification. LA is obviously not as stupid as it sometimes appears. Now if they could just get a handle on those devious selfish Palmdale developers.
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Also, the roadway dips perpendicular to the ROW while a trench follows the ROW. There are many more issues in the latter case as you might expect if you thought about it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Dips under the structure would presumably be for roads. There aren’t many roads in the creeks along the ROW.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
They are not likely to dip much (1-2′) if at all in tight places like Burlingame or San Mateo’s downtowns. As the Transit Authority’s study showed, the impacts can be pretty severe. I think they studied a dip of 10′ and it affected the surrounding streets a good block and a half in all directions. When you are right up against the business district, that is disasterous. Even at 1-2′ you start to loose the driveways to the parking lots for the train.
Joey Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 3:43 am
Elevation changes approaching 5 feet can be accommodated by altering the driveway itself in not-so-terrible ways in most cases.
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Why should we trust that fantastical mock-up when we have a real aerial to compare it to?
Ralston CalTrain ROW Overpass
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Oops:
Ralston CalTrain ROW Overpass
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
not 4 track, slow speed, current seismic standards? and most importantly, designed by Bechtel?
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
4 track will be wider, but there is no difference for the speed (HSR will only run 50% faster), and it is up to current seismic standards. They’re not going to tear down and rebuild the existing aerials. Construction of the San Bruno aerial for Caltrain is happening now!
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Bechtel has committed to this?
Joey Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Add 30′ for two additional tracks.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
If you don’t trust it, then I guess you don’t trust the HSRA. This is derived from their own engineering drawings.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
While you are correct that the elevation is correct based on the preliminary engineering drawings (without “splitting” the grade by dropping the road partly in order to build a lower aerial), I would like to point out that preliminary engineering drawings are just that: preliminary.
Also, those drawings don’t show how big the supporting columns or how “thick” the aerial structures are going to be. That is completely made up in your photo montage, and especially the columns seem to be very much on the fat side.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Yes they do.
Stop making things up.
So sad when data disagree with your fantasy life, isn’t it?
The rendering isn’t making anything up. I’ve wased my time on such things, and I recognisee an inch-accurate quality job using real data when I see it.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Where is the diameter of the supporting columns shown, oh Richard, King of CAD? Stop being a smug prick and let us know where the sources are?
Clem Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Ten by six feet, according to TM 2.3.3. The Burlingame rendering appears to show ten foot diameter round columns… Too beefy indeed, but not by a lot.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Thank you. That’s all I was looking for.
Clem Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
By the way, the thickness of the box beam (the hollow viaduct structure) is 10 feet because they assume 100-foot spacing of the support columns. TM 2.3.3 explains that the ratio of depth to span is about 10 for HSR applications, so if the columns are spaced more closely the viaduct can be thinner (up to a point… probably about 4 feet @ 40 foot span)
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
TM 2.3.3 only states that longer spans would mean “significantly stouter foundations.”
That implies that shorter spans, which means lighter spans, would also mean less substantial support columns… Maybe in areas such as around stations or areas more sensitive to visual impacts, it might make sense to utilize shorter spans and smaller support columns. It would probably also make sense to consider implementing aerials with the U-shaped cross-sections.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
That drawing is for two tracks. What’s a reasonable support column dimension for supporting 4 tracks?
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
It wouldn’t be a single support column for four tracks. Remember, they have to phase construction so that they can maintain Caltrain operations. So they would only construct one two-track aerial at a time, transfer train operations onto the newly built aerial, and then construct the second aerial next to it. That would mean two support columns next to each other.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Hey, Dank Hole looks positively spacious and well lit compared to some stations on the NEC. Even that epitome of train travel, Grand Central. ( The platforms aren’t the high point of Grand Central’s grandness )
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
And that real life overpass is FRA and freight compliant, and will likely be able to handle anything you run on it.
Sounds like we need to fire PB and get some “olde tyme” railroad civil engineers in their place, or at least get some “olde tyme” engineers on the Board of Directors as a counterweight to PB. . .heck, I proposed a long viaduct of black-painted steel for the Peninsula a joke in one place, but it still looks better than what PB came up with!
mrcawfee Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
the height may be correct, however this image is distorted and intended to show extreme fear.
a) those columns are huge, i don’t think this is going to be holding up godzilla
b) that bridge is huge, using the guy in there as a reference it is 15 feet thick
So no, the distance from the top of the viaduct to the ground is not an exaggeration, however everything else is, which is designed to provoke fear in the people looking at it.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XbahXM_YRqg/S1Ke7p9BKhI/AAAAAAAAAVM/Wq_RL2ImMkE/s1600-h/burlingame_after.jpg is the rendering from the HSRA, looks better doesn’t it, because it isn’t a lie.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I suspect that in Japan you could find an example of a 4 track aerial structure supporting a high speed railway in high risk earthquake country. And I’ll bet it is massive as hell.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
The only 4-track that I am aware of is the four track into Berlin made up of a commuter rail (Berlin Stadtbahn1) and a high speed rail (ICE). You can see images online. It is a lot better looking in that it is designed with bricked arches, but the scale is still significant. Caution: Looking at birdseye view images is not the same as viewing images from human eye level.
Joey Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
That’s what Street View is for.
Peter Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
And we all know who’s responsible for the elimination of berms as an alternative for the Peninsula. Berms in at least some locations would have permitted the use of the area beneath the tracks for businesses like the arches in Berlin.
Having grown up in Berlin, and having just stayed in a hotel with our room facing the Stadtbahn, I can say from experience that modern electric trains are very quiet and will not disturb the “idyllic” towns on the Peninsula.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I can say from experience that modern electric trains are very quiet and will not disturb the “idyllic” towns on the Peninsula.”–Peter
I can second this, as can Adirondacker, Yes On, and others. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Well, it depends on how the berm is designed. People who live in or have been to the relevant parts of Queens can contrast the 7 el on Queens Boulevard, in Sunnyside, and the el on Roosevelt Avenue, in Woodside and beyond. (In Sunnyside there are arch viaducts and little street disruption; in Woodside, the el is a rudimentary steel structure, the street is not much wider than the el, and the noise interrupts conversations.)
James Fujita Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
I’m not sure what qualifies as massive. For some people, anything larger than their own driveway is massive.
I’ve been using Google Street Views to sightsee around Omiya, outside of Tokyo. Four track HSR (actually, two tracks HSR, two tracks of commuter rail) in a suburban neighborhood.
Japanese architecture isn’t everyone’s cup of ocha, but these are NOT poor neighborhoods.
pocket park next to the elevated train tracks in a residential neighborhood.
trees and flowers planted next to the train tracks, with various commercial buildings and apartments across the street.
bike path follows the elevated tracks. People walk next to the tracks. Bicycle in the little pocket parks.
Under the tracks is mostly parking. Room for stores under there as well.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
No no no, the scary ‘lectric trains are going to turn Menlo Park into Short Hills and Palo Alto into Scarsdale…
James Fujita Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
hmmm. looks like the links don’t always work…. oh well.
Alex2000 Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
To link to a street view pic, you need to clip on the “link” button when in street view.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“To provoke fear in the people looking at it” is the hallmark of Brutalism.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
@mrcawfee, I see you like to drink the HSRA PR Koolaid. Yes, the rendering you have linked to is from the HSRA, but it is indeed a lie. The Donut Shop is just 27′ wide, putting that structure at about 30′ wide. You need to take a look at the AA. Here is a link to the earlier tech drawing from the HSRA. You look at this and tell me this is what you see represented in the rendering you link to.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iXqk0lETuro/S9ShV1jE-8I/AAAAAAAACpc/C-JR_8rCN8A/s1600/HSR+Four+Track+Caltrain+Only+Raised+Station+Outboard+Platform
J. Wong Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Yes :-). It says typical. The configuration for Burlingame will be different by necessity since they don’t have as much room. (The ROW at the existing station is pretty narrow; they’ll have to extend out over the roadway on the other side.)
Joey Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
The CHSRA is incredibly good at overbuilding things like stations. A station with 4 tracks and two platforms should, under normal circumstances should require about 90 or so feet of width, maybe 100 if you need a buffer between the station and its surroundings. Outside of the station it should be closer to 70 feet. I firmly believe that an above ground solution which is reasonable for the communities it passes through (keeping width and bulk to a minimum, architectural integration, etc), but the Authority positively fails at designing anything like that.
As for 101, directness matters a lot less than things like curve radii (i.e. allowing trains to maintain a decently high speed, rather than slowing down for every curve, which costs a lot of time. The CalTrain corridor is a lot better than 101 in this respect.
Clem Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Right. We don’t need 32 foot side side platforms. We don’t need 10 feet of extra clearance to place poles between the tracks. We don’t need an extra 6 feet for “walkways” when there is already a stinking platform. The cross section that Ted posted is outrageously generous (about 40 feet wider than it actually needs to be). Pick your choice of explanations:
1) they’re deliberately trying to depict a worst-case for environmental impact analysis
2) they’re deliberately scaring us, so they can come back later and “relieve” us with a more appropriate design (bad cop / good cop approach)
3) they want to pour as much concrete as humanly possible
4) they are incompetent and tone-deaf
The insistence on box viaduct structures is also disturbing; these are typically 10 to 12 feet deep. Compare to the depth of the grade separation structures used in San Carlos and Belmont, 5 feet from the bottom of the bridge deck to the top of the rails.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
5) Job security. They get to design it all over again when the informed public pushes back or the money doesn’t stretch that wide and thick and high.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I vote all of the above.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
It does appear that the CAHSRA and PB have no concept of cost containment, other than telling the cities to pay for the tunnels they want. Is the HSR project going to be a useful, customer friendly, ridership inducing, system that provides benefits to the people of the state and the peninsula/Caltrain? Or is this project is becoming a gold plated, over built, over engineered, cousin to BART?
The current Caltrain ROW is plenty wide to accommodate 4 tracks through most of Burlingame and northward to San Francisco, at grade level. At the south end of Burlingame the ROW does start to narrow. Grade separations can be handled by lowering the roads as at Hillcrest/Hemlock in Millbrae or by closing other grade crossings. Additionally the tracks can be elevated to reduce the depth of the roads as was done in Belmont/San Carlos or at Laurie Meadows in San Mateo. Why so much emphasis on aerial viaducts?
The above mentioned grade separations have been built without disrupting the homes businesses or disrupting access to those homes/businesses for blocks and blocks abound, as the anti-HSR folks claim. While there will be impacts during construction of this type of grade separation, there will be mitigation measures to deal with the construction impacts. The end result has not caused the peninsula to implode into oblivion.
The Hillcrest/Hemlock grade separation, which is supposed to be wide enough for four tracks, can be seen here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=600+hemlock+Millbrae+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.553578,57.744141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=600+Hemlock+Ave,+Millbrae,+San+Mateo,+California+94030&ll=37.602767,-122.391057&spn=0,0.000881&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.602901,-122.390885&panoid=CNOYwaEU6MjF-daz3IBw_Q&cbp=12,29.56,,0,5
J. Wong Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The elevated ROW through Belmont/San Carlos is considered “aerial” by the anti-HSR folks. That’s right, most of the aerial will be no higher than one was constructed in Belmont/San Carlos. The one exception will be downtown San Mateo where it will have to be a true aerial given the narrowness of the ROW and the closeness of the business district.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
One might think so, but you haven’t been paying the slightest attention to what the world’s finest transportation planning professionals at HNTB, CHSRA, Caltrain and the Peninsula Rail Program are actually up to.
That cast of clowns is proposing elevate its shiny new set of extra HSR-only tracks above the existing aerial level of tracks. Seriously.
jimsf Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
there’s no reason to do that. the way they have it now it looks nice as is it. just add two additional tracks.
Joey Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Tell that to the California High Speed “They’re doing everything just the way they should be” Authority.
jimsf Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
we’ll see what actually gets done.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Why, why, WHY!! !!!!!
Makes absolutely no sense!!!!!!
I have been told that Belmont public works has drawn up some “plans” that shows that they have to widen the aerial by 50 feet to accommodate HSR, which makes the clearance underneath the aerial too low. Therefore they have to raise the tracks another 10, or is it 20 feet, take your pick.
Are the inmates running the asylum?
The above referenced Hillcrest grade separation railroad bed is 72-73 feet wide, the height/depth of the RR bed is 5 foot 4 inches high, the street below the RR bed is 17 feet 4 inches from the bottom of the RR bed. This can accommodate 4 tracks, i. e. Caltrain and freight trains and future HSR, simple as that.
Clem Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Look again. They’re sending ONE track through a 2.5 mile tunnel UNDER Hillcrest (yes, double-under, for probably more than half a billion!) to avoid either taking a handful of residential properties on the west, or better yet, spending $50 million to take one platform track away from BART. This tunnel, complete with underground HSR station, will require the entire western half of the existing station to be de
Clem Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
…molished and rebuilt. There is simply no limit to the design stupidity when Other People’s Money is being spent with absolutely zero value engineering.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Look Again… Look where?
My observations are based on real world realities and what we were told when Hillcrest was built.
I did hear that HSR plans to run one track in a tunnel at the Millbrae Station during one of the Bob Doty presentations to accommodate the current Caltrain/BART station configuration. I don’t recall the length or depth of the tunnel.
However, like Clem, I believe they should take away one track from BART and/or reconfigure the station to handle four HSR/Caltrain tracks/platforms. A *real* professional engineer *should* be able to do this redesign.
This wouldn’t be such a problem if the bastard running Samtrans/Caltrain at the time told BART that Caltrain need room for four tracks when BART asked how much room does Caltrain need back when they were designing the Millbrae Caltrain/BART station.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Maybe with Diridon gone they can now take the BART track at Millbrae. With only Kopp remaining to champion Peninsula BART, that might actually now be possible.
jimsf Reply:
January 9th, 2011 at 8:47 am
just for references.
heres holly street. looks fine as is don’t a prob with adding two more tracks right?
Heres harbor looks fine, no prob to add two tracks. no real impact here either right?
heres ralston
heres 42nd
hillsdale
tilton
poplar
they all pretty much look the same.
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:27 am
In some of these cases, Holly, Ralston, 42nd, etc. El Camino Real was depressed along with the cross streets.
Does everyone notice that driveway access has been cut off for one or two blocks in each direction?
Does everyone notice that all those businesses have gone under?
I think NOT!!!!!!!!
San Mateo Electronics, a small business, is still on 42nd, The Iron Gate restaurant is still at Harbor and so on…
J. Wong Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:20 am
@Jim
Adding two tracks may be an issue since the road rise/fall may no longer have sufficient clearance with the wider ROW especially because they’d probably want to put both on the west side of the existing tracks to minimize “takings”.
@Jeff Carter
Which specific businesses? For example, at Ralston I believe no businesses have closed.
thatbruce Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:58 am
4 tracks fit at surface level across the Hillcrest Grade separation, yay. How are you dealing with the future required grade separation of Center St just to the north(ish) of Hillcrest?
Jeff Carter Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:32 am
Center would presumably be handled just like Hillcrest. They must account for the BART subway which is under the east side of Caltrain tracks at Center as they are at Hillcrest.
jimsf Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
i think that wherever possible they should “split the difference” between raising the tracks and lowering the roads. half and half.
Clem Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
That’s known as a ‘berm’ a.k.a. Berlin Wall here on the peninsula. As a gracious concession to peninsula towns (and the concrete lobby, no doubt), that option has been taken off the table.
J. Wong Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Interesting that Caltrain is “berming” the San Bruno grade separation.
jimsf Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
The thing about that pic is that it fits right in. The entire bay area looks exactly like that.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Not all of it.
Dan S. Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Frankly, I think the rendering looks nice. Not sure why everyone is using it as an example of what to fear.
Ted Crocker Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
You must like hanging out under highway overpasses. I don’t. It’s subjective. I’ll give you that.
Just because the Reason Foundation has a pro-oil agenda doesn’t necessarily mean that they have adjusted their agenda to thank the oil companies; often times it works the other way around.
jimsf Reply:
January 8th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
what they have is an elitist anti working class agenda trying to masquerade as “being reasonable” with a goal of diffusing dissent among the people whom they screw. Thats what they have.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:07 am
A small government libertarian organization that calls for massive federal spending on highways and no investment on rail systems that have demonstratably paid for themselves, the complete opposite of their supposed ideology, and you don’t think it is a result of who is funding them? Boy have I got one heck of a bridge to sell you.