SF Chronicle Gets Lost on the Peninsula
I think the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board is confused:
Californians have embraced the idea of high-speed rail tying together our state but, like many dreams, it has lost some of its glow in the harsh light of reality. This is especially true on the Peninsula, where a majority favors the high-speed train but community after community has opposed plans to build it.
The Chronicle is missing a rather obvious point here. If a majority there favors high speed rail – as the polls prove – then “community after community” can’t actually oppose the plans to build it. The majority IS the community. Therefore, the community does NOT oppose plans to build it. The community supports the plans.
Unfortunately, the Chronicle’s editorial goes on in this confused and contradictory vein for some time:
Opposition has so hardened as the California High Speed Rail Authority fleshes out the scope of its plans for the San Jose-to-San Francisco segment that a trio of legislative leaders – Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Los Altos – on Monday urged the rail authority to shrink the project’s size and complexity yet ensure that high-speed trains will run seamlessly from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Whose opposition?
Shared track addresses community concerns. At the same time, Caltrain needs to secure separate long-term funding.
Which community?
The authority risks derailing the project unless it prioritizes community values in shaping the scope and size.
Whose values?
The Chronicle believes, quite wrongly, that the NIMBYs speak for everybody. They don’t. The Chronicle acknowledged at the outset that a majority of Peninsula residents want high speed rail. Has the Chronicle sought out their voices? Has the Chronicle asked Peninsula elected officials whether their policies reflect what their constituents actually want – or are they just a reflection of a few loud voices?
As I’ve said all week, the “blended” HSR/Caltrain proposal is worth considering seriously. But not because it’s the only way the “community” will accept high speed rail. It’s not. The ideas floated by Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon have some merit and should be part of the overall conversation in the spirit of finding the best solution to bring the trains to the Peninsula and to San Francisco.
Sometimes I wonder which is more frustrating – HSR opponents or uninformed editorials in the pages of major newspapers. It’s enough to drive me to drinking…
>Which community?
Palo Alto for the most part, although there has been spotty opposition from certain cities in SoCal (Alhambra and Corona come to mind…)
synonymouse Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Eventually the Peninsula burgs are going to collectively recognize there is a on-going transit vacuum causing their problems and that they will have to fill it with BART.
In the CHSRA and Prop 1A Greater PAMPA had hoped to find a better suitor than BART but discovered it was an even worse cad. The CHSRAIt wanted to have its way with the Peninsula just like BART: usurp the SP ROW – for nothing, of course- and then proceed to deploy the wretchedest of a lo-ball, retrograde, primitive excuse for infrastucture PB could devise, aka the most recent devolution of Brutalism.
Here’s how I vistualize how things will play out:
PAMPA is seated at table with BART and points to Berkeley seated at an adjoining table and says: “We’ll have what they ordered.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
aka the most recent devolution of Brutalism.
Brutalism wasn’t called Brutalism when they were building Brutalist buildings. It was called fashionable. The architects and engineers, when asked by their clients to design something fashionable, did. Nobody builds brutalist buildings anymore, not even in North Korea.
“We’ll have what they ordered.”
As long as PAMPA is willing to pick up the check like Berkeley was willing to do.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
What adirondacker12800 said … “We’ll have what they ordered.” “They paid for what they ordered. Are you willing to?“
joe Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:38 pm
In 2008 HSR Prop 1A won 60%-40% (or 61%-39%) in Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
60% voted for the HSR Bond, not the simple question, Yes or No for HSR.
We voted Yes AND we want to pay for it.
Justin N Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Note: Not Corona. Norco. Corona has been pretty supportive of HSR, although their version of a station is a greenfield wasteland next to a car-dependent super-sized shopping mall in the middle of nowhere.
Norco, a city immediately north of Corona, is the place where opposition is growing, and growing loudly. Of course, Norco is the kind of place where a “complete street” means a road and a horse trail.
cph Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
That’s assuming this alternate route through Corona/Norco gets built anyway. My money is on Ontario, then Riverside, then south through Temecula to Sn Diego….
Respectfully Robert,
Who cares what the Chron editorial states. As I mentioned in the previous thread, even
Rod Diridon agrees with the proposal put forth by Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon.
If the papers want to portray the proposal as some victory for NIMBY-ism, so be it.
I just want to see the damn thing built by 2020, whether its quad-track or integrated with Caltrain.
YESonHSR Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I dont think it was that bad..its was more of an olive brach type of thing..Im with you I just want to get the trains into SF by opening day and it seems the Chron thinks like wise and is kinda nuging VanArk and the authority to not mess this up..BTW Simitian has publicy stated he will withhold funding if he has to in regard to this issue..and he can as chair ..so I think thats what the Chron is worried about
The proposal by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Los Altos mirrors the initial operating project of the California High-Speed Rail Authority Phased Implemenation Factsheet.
Track sharing is what the authority is planning for early levels of service. Where the legislators differ is in calling for no planning for further upgrades from initial levels of high speed rail service in the environmental statements and no posibility of aerial structures on the peninsula. The Authority Deputy Director Jeff Barker responded state law requires study of full build out.
The position of the legislators pleases some of their constituents but is unlikely to affect the completeness of the EIR.
I don’t know if you saw this, Robert but now Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon’s comments make more sense:
CalTrain votes on preliminary budget plan for FY 2012.
So CalTrain is going to shut down right before the 2012 election. And it’s going to be felt most keenly in where else, Palo Alto. Only question is…do the aforementioned people realize that CAHSR won’t be able to save CalTrain from itself in time?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Seems like they’re planning on a November 2012 ballot measure for Caltrain funding. Which would be a pretty smart idea.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Well that’s just it:
Are they trying to make it so that CalTrain fails and then they ride to rescue on the ballot, or do they just want something to latch onto politically and if HSR destroys CalTrain then there’s no hope of that either?
Either way, I’m beginning to think that BART indeed makes it to Diridon Intergalatic then there’s no point. Ring the Bay, and be done with it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Congratulations. You got it, finally.
Number One promoter of BART to San José, Capital of Silicon Valley? Why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, of course.
Number One defunder of Santa Clara County voter-approved Caltrain capital projects? Why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, of course.
Number One promoter of high speed rail to Los Banos? Why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, of course.
Number One defunder of Santa Clara County voter-approved fully-funded non-BART Fremont-San José rail? Why the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, of course.
Remind me again who is “saving” Caltrain by the amazing expedient of defunding capital projects and frittering cash away on FRA/Amtrak dino-train expenses for just one more year? Carl Guano to the rescue!
Thanks for staying On Message. Indeed, clearly, all rail except that that directly and exclusively controlled by PBQD and allied mafioso must fail and does fail to be funded every single time. Ringing The Bay is the only solution. Clearly. So obvious. Get with the program!
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/comicbookguy.gif
Reality Check Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
@Risen: Caltrain has (and always has had) an operating funding problem (among some other ones) in that it has never had a stable/dedicated/predictable/sufficient source of funding. Unlike BART, the Caltrain JPB is not a district and has no taxing authority or capability. Apart from costing obscene shitloads of cash nobody has, replacing Caltrain with BART’s weirdo-unique trains does nothing to solve the fundamental problem that there ever since SP sold the line and service to the public, there has never been a proper funding source for commuter or transit rail along the Caltrain corridor. Mindless or knee-jerk calls to “just bring in BART and that will fix everything” reflect a complete failure to understand the basic problem that exists now and will continue to exist even if someone could snap their fingers and magically make BART appear in Caltrain’s place.
Spokker Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
He’s not advocating BART ring the bay, he’s simply predicting it.
thatbruce Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Personally, I think that BART ringing the bay at Dumbarton would be worthwhile, but BART ringing the bay at San Jose would be rather expensively pointless (for the public purse that is, contractors are another matter as RM is fond of pointing out).
While we’re at it, have VTA also ring the south end of the Bay using Dumbarton, Caltrain inscribe a giant ‘U’ around the Bay between SF and Oakland Airport via SJ, and power the whole thing using fairy dust.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:28 pm
As I understand it, the VTA is responsible for building the BART extension in Santa Clara County. Now, it would seem awful convenient that as they promise to do, money for CalTrain dries up. But that is not what I was saying.
It’s that when I checked out the Santa Clara BART extension, it would effectively link Cal Train and BART (and HSR) at Diridon InterGalatic. Now, given that BART and Milbrae dead-ends inches from Cal Train…it would seem sort of obvious that one way to avoid quadtracking is to give it to HSR and to grant BART a ROW underground to connect intermediate stations. Now, true it would cost a ton of money….
What I think Eshoo, Simitan, and Gordon fear in part is that the 2012 will propose something different…a measure to have Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties join BART and pitch in. Because let’s face it, BART has shown much more savvy in regard to self-preservation than the other agencies.
What I would advocate though, is a merger of BART-Metrolink-and CAHSR’s operator, not necessarily as a state agency.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
What I would advocate though, is a merger of BART-Metrolink-and CAHSR’s
Whatever for?
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Because it allows the state to set intercity transportation policy from the top down, not the bottom up.
It allows BART-Metrolink-and CAHSR to coordinate schedules, operations, etc…but still give local jurisdictions the chance to have their say on the area surrounding the stations.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
BART is a subway. In the core no one bothers to look at a schedule because the next train is coming “soon” Get it to coordinate with one Market Street bus it ceases to coordinate with another Mergket street bus. Get the line from Fremont to coordinate with the Caltrain local it then doesn’t coordinate with the Caltrain Express. That screws over the people from Richmond. It’s never going to interoperate with anything else because it has it’s own very special track gauge, platform height and operating voltage. So you are creating a state agency to throw up it’s hands in disbelief. A very cost effective measure. I’m sure the secretary for whoever is in charge of BART coordination will love her job.
HSR and the operator of any track it shares have no choice but to coordinate, cooperate, have one big happy orgy of mutual love. If they don’t their trains are going go crashing into each other.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Ah but there you go. BART and HSR have a stated need to transport people based on regional needs. They are not local transportation agencies. The system we have now is so parochial nothing gets done. If you like how things are now, keep it up. We might get HSR in 50 years after every politician this side of the Colorado River beats the horse to death 1,000 times.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:25 pm
You would have loved Robert Moses.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:00 am
Hey now. I’m not advocating Moses-like annihilation. I’m saying BART’s job is to make sure a person who lives in Fremont can work in SF without taking the bridge. HSR’s job is to make sure a person who lives in LA can visit SF without taking a plane. MUNI’s job is to ensure mobility within the city’s urban planning boundary….note the difference.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:40 am
Why does the logo on the side of the vehicles need to be the same to achieve that end?
VBobier Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
I could see Caltrain + Metrolink as these 2 are similar in operation, Albeit at different ends of the state, But BART + Metrolink +CAHSR? Nope. BART is a subway, Caltrain + Metrolink are I guess light rail / commuter rail, CAHSR is HSR and is more closely related to Amtraks Acela, Only faster.
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:22 pm
BART tries to be both a subway and a commuter system, but fails at both. Caltrain and Metrolink are commuter rail, and are most certainly not light. And comparisons with the Acela will never go anyplace good.
But anyway, what’s needed is coordination between agencies in terms of fares and schedules. That’s why this was proposed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 pm
You don’t need to subsume them into one all knowing all seeing bureaucracy to do that.
Howard Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 pm
There should be coordination separately of northern and southern California rail agencies. In northern California the BayDelta group would coordinate Caltrain, ACE, Capitols and San Joaquin’s schedules and tickets with each other and CHSR. There should be a similar group in southern California (including DesertXpress).
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 12:07 am
And who coordinates between HSR and local agencies?
tony d. Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:43 am
If BART’s 320k daily riders is “failing,” then let’s hope all of our local systems “fail” as well.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:23 am
Here’s what everyone is missing. Over the next forty years, HSR is going to have impacts which reorder other priorities as far as planning and economics go. HSR is going to eliminate the need for the San Joaquins to serve the Bay Area, and the Surfliner to serve San Diego. The Capitol Corridor also will be transformed into a HSR line which could end in Reno.
Now, Amtrak service will continue for local traffic (and long distance trains) in the less dense parts of the state. (That way, some poor guy in Wasco can still make a connection). Once you get into metropolitan areas, it’s the systems that serve commuter like distances are going to become pivotal. Not because there’s anything awesome about them per se, but because they traverse county lines. BART is completely independent: Metrolink is a contractor for LACMTA.
Point being: inside a county, their transportation board, district, etc. should call the shots. Between counties, the state or state special district should, and merging BART, Metrolink, and HSR would be a good way to expedite that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 am
That way, some poor guy in Wasco can still make a connection
There isn’t going to be any Amtrak-style conventional rail service in the Central Valley. People who have cars are going to drive the few miles to an HSR station. People who don’t want to drive to an HSR station are going to get on the low capacity, high frequency airport style shuttle and go to the HSR station.
Jeff Carter Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:08 am
Here’s what you get with BART replacing Caltrain:
NO monthly passes.
NO express/Baby Bullet service.
90 minutes to get from San Jose to San Francisco FOREVER.
NO service to Pac Bell Park.
No service in the bayshore corridor—4th & King, 22nd, Bayshore/Brisbane, South San Francisco/Oyster Point.
Crowded, standing room only trains.
NO bicycles during peak commute hours.
Additional wear and tear on the aging BART system.
Astronomical cost to build. 10-15 BILLION!!!
Strong possibility that some cities such as Burlingame, (Oh….. Millbrae is close enough) will have no stations, which will lead to remaining stations having huge parking lots. For example, consolidate San Mateo/Hillsdale into a BART station at Hayward Park which has easy freeway access and room for a huge parking garage. Consolidate Belmont/San Carlos, etc.
NO thanks…. I will take Caltrain any day over BART.
On the other hand, BART will provide service every 15 minutes (or less) and has stations in downtown SF. Because of this; if BART were to magically replace Caltrain, making all the current station stops, the ridership would be 2 or 3 times the current Caltrain ridership.
Still, given the proper funding and proper design, Caltrain could run every 15 minutes and also provide express service, it could definately outperform BART.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 9:32 am
Okay wait a minute. If there’s no HSR, and Cal Train had to electrify itself, I would bet that would pricey too. 10 -15 billion is pretty extreme given that there’s already a ROW and HSR to potentially help build infrastructure.
Your comment about parking lots is a good one, but that’s really a local planning decision. Keep in mind, SMCTA still spends a lot of money shuttling Cal Train passengers to work sites in the County. Is it a coincidence that they don’t have money to fund a train that takes jobs to San Francisco????
Jeff Carter Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
Well, for the $1.5 billion, they spent to extend BART to Millbrae; we could have electrified Caltrain to Gilroy and then some. It will cost over $6 billion to extend BART 16 miles to San Jose… or is it 10 miles to Berryessa?
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 am
BART to SFO killed the Caltrain tunnel, a terrible mistake.
Reality Check Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
A mistake, yes — but not an accident. Thanks Quentin Kopp, thanks Michael Nevin, thanks Gerald Haugh and thanks to the rubber- stamp SamTrans and Caltrain boards.
Paging Synonymouse: the upcoming Operations Committee meeting features this fascinating item:
3. Central Valley – Los Angeles Basin Mountain Crossing
Staff will recommend the re-introduction of possible alignment alternative into the environmental analysis.
Responsible Party – Roelof van Ark
VBobier Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Is this what You’re talking about Clem?
I found this at the following link: HSR Route SELECTION CRITERIA
synonymouse Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
I hate to be such a crepe hanger but I can’t get my hopes up. The Quantm proposal has the fatal flaw of being way too logical for PB. There is something bizarro and quasi-perverse about PB’s tastes. Consider BART’s “eccentritech”.
The problem with Tejon is that it might result in cutting out Palmdale(perish the thought) and it might be cheaper than Tehachapi.
But if the State budget implodes the heretofore unthinkable might be thrown back onto the table.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:40 am
Everything we have seen suggests that they will look at sharing / upgrading the metrolink ROW from Palmdale. The two current alternatives include long very high aerials, long tunnels (under Disney’s Ranch!) and whiz through Acton, a small town unhappy with the prospect. They both also cost a zillion dollars more than the current budget.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Rolling the AA’s backward:
Last alignments carried forward March this year between Palmdale and Sylmar were SR14 East and SR14 West, last stations carried forward at Palmdale were Palmdale Transport Center and Palmdale West
Prior AA July 8 last year withdrew Soledad Canyon and SR14 South, both of which were Palmdale Transport Center alignments.
If they want to consider an upgraded Antelope Valley as a preliminary service alignment to LA-US, they’d bring the Bakersfield / Palmdale HSR corridor into the Metrolink station, leaving only one alternative in their alternatives analysis. Restoring one of the two withdrawn Palmdale Transport Center alignments would therefore not be surprising.
For those wondering what happened at the meeting that Van Ark was at in San Mateo, here’s a more info, including a report from Palo Alto on what happened:
http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/san-mateo-county-rail-corridor-partnership-meeting/
Jon Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
The presentation is interesting. Note matching HSR platform height with Caltrain platform height is mentioned for first time.
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-20-Presentation-Peninsula-Rail-Corridor-Meeting-FINAL.pdf
Joey Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 8:20 pm
I wouldn’t go that far. They mention it as being an issue with respect to sharing infrastructure without much of an indication of desire to fix the issue.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
The first step is acceptance…
Doty comments on the Eshoo/Simitian/Gordon announcement:
“Doty said that — assuming Caltrain is electrified — running all three lines on two tracks would be feasible, though coordinating train traffic would be difficult.
Service would be greatly diminished, however. Instead of running 10 trains an hour between San Jose and San Francisco, which was the original plan, Doty estimated there would be room on the tracks for only about two high-speed trains per hour.
“It would not be a typical high-speed rail service,” he said.
As for Doty, he remains in the Bay Area working for engineering firm HNTB. He was supposed to head to Florida to work on that state’s high-speed rail plan, but the trip was called off after Gov. Rick Scott rejected federal funding for the project.
“The governor there seems to have lost track of what he was doing,” Doty deadpanned.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_17911704
Joey Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 am
“It would not be a typical high-speed rail service,” he said.
Apparently he has never seen a typical high-speed rail service then.
And apparently he has never heard of a timetable either.
MGimbel Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Only 2 HSTs an hour? According to the latest executive report for LA-Anaheim, up to 3 HSTs an hour could run on shared tracks with non-electrified Metrolink / Amtrak trains. I should think that with an upgraded and electrified Caltrain system, as many as 4-5 HSTs an hour would be able to run between SF and SJ.
jim Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
No. If an HST is going to pass a local at a station the slot behind it has to be empty so the local can fit into it. You can fill up a timetable if there’s only the two stopping patterns. But Caltrain has three and HSR is going to have at least two (SJ to SF non stop and SJ-midPeninsula-SF). So gaps are going to have to be left in the timetable.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
To make more room for high-speed trains they may need to offer only the high-speed express trains to San Francisco and leave the limited stop and valley runs ending in San Jose. Once electrification is completed and high-speed rail is run between San Jose and Francisco the baby Bullets may no longer be needed with the faster electrified CalTrain equipment so that would eliminate one of the service patterns
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
And the people who use the “local” to get to San Jose are going to hitchhike to San Francisco?
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
What are you talking about…Caltrain or high-speed rail? They’ll be plenty of CalTrain’s running up the peninsula just like today.. Valley high speed rail passengers can transfer at San Jose to high-speed express for the nonstop trip to San Francisco.. or select limited stop trains in the Valley can come all the way to the city without a change in certain time slots.. even the authorities proposed timetable has only two or three nonstops LA- SanFrancisco in the morning and evening peak hours so it won’t be that big of a problem
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
The whole point of running express trains is that you have enough demand to fill them up, or almost fill them up. So the people from the locals are going to stand in the aisle for a half hour when theye transfer to the express from LA? Or the people on the Caltrain local stand all the way because three quarters of the seats filled up with people getting off the HSR local in San Jose?
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Of course they’re not going to stand in the aisles.. they will simply purchase whatever open seats are available from all the Socal passengers that had gotten off in San Jose.. Re: CalTrain of course this is why high-speed rail has to come all the way to San Francisco, because trying to take a train load of high-speed rail passengers on a commuter rail will never work.. I’m just saying the stark reality is we may have a two track system for a long time and some kind of priority will be needed to please as many people as possible.. and that may be limiting only expresses to San Francisco in peak periods with limiteds in other timeslots… unless somebody come with $ billions and convince all these people down the peninsula of a four track ROW by the year 2020 which at this point seems awful hard since the environmental impact report is now delayed until 2013
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
HSR is going to have two stopping patterns when finished ~ the preliminary can have a single stopping pattern if it makes it work better.
With electrification, a normal Electric Express is roughly equivalent to a Baby Bullet, though without a mid-Peninsula Express overtake the interference with locals would still be there. So Caltrain could simplify to two stopping patterns, a tick tock local schedule with regular Expresses.
With a 15 minutes local tick tock schedule (not necessarily every local slot occupied offpeak), with three minute headways, there are four empty slots after each local. With half hour expresses overtaking as designed overtakes, that means that there is an empty slot between each local where an Express is not chasing the local. Two HSR services could fit in there, but they’d be locked to the time available via the Express/Local overtake unless there is an HSR/Express/Local overtake ~ Express overtakes local after local platform, HSR overtakes Express after Express platform.
That’s 6tph for HST locked to regular Caltrain Express transit (there’s one slot trailing the Express, two alternating with the Express) or 4tph with an HSR/Express/Local overtake, though the HST could have a shorter schedule than the Express on that plan.
The Gordian Knot solution would be to place the HST station at Redwood, and go ahead and fix the grade separated but not designed for quad tracking section through to Hillsdale as a quad track system. That gives the Mid-Peninsula Caltrain Express overtake that would allow Expresses to chase and pass two locals per run.
That would of course still leave Millbrae as a headache to sort out.
jim Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
That won’t work. For the HSR to overtake the express at the express platform, the HSR must be immediately following the express. That means that both of them overtook the local at the local platform, which meant the local sat at the platform for three headways (less deceleration and acceleration time): one headway back to the express, then a headway between the express and the HSR, then a headway behind the HSR. The passengers on the local aren’t going to stand for it sitting in the station while two expresses pass it.
Timetabling is not easy, at least not by hand.
One should add that a local experiences a time penalty every time it’s passed by a faster train. Even if it’s passed by only one train it will experience two headways’ delay, which will be considerably greater than the time it would otherwise lose to deceleration, dwell and acceleration. So one should not plan to have too many expresses (either Caltrain or HSR) pass a Caltrain local. The tracks are owned by Caltrain, after all. Their agreement is necessary for HSR to share their tracks, and they are unlikely to agree to a situation in which their locals perform worse than they do today.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The timetable I am looking at is Clem’s tick-tock schedule, I don’t have an electric all-express, all-local at hand.
First, you are going to have to give me a reference that a platform switch off the main local line onto the express bypass line needs an entire empty slot to allow the express trailing a local to switch onto the express. I’d think the local sparkie will be clear of the switch, the express sparkie shown a platform red, the switch tripped over, and the express sparkie shown a platform green onto the express line in time to leave without additional delay. So there’s one slot trailing, rather than two. And in the three local platforms that the express passes on the bypass track, the express will be ahead of the local by the time a tight scheduled local could be leaving the the last off-express local station.
Sure, if its three rather than two minute headways, the local may need to be stretched a minute or two over that run, but compared to the cost of 40 minute timetable gaps at the local platforms on the current schedule, giving the local two minutes shy of the maximum improvement from electrification is not the impact that you are describing.
Are you perhaps looking at passing a local stopped at a single platform with platform bypass?
From there, obviously:
… Local Express Local HST Local Express Local HST …
… works for any express overtake for which:
… Local Express Local [] Local Express Local [] …
works, with is Diridon’s 2HST per hour.
Setting the HST return to the main corridor past the northern Express Caltrain platform so that two HST can pass one local stopping at four platforms ~ there’s a point where it works, which is the point where (order passing start of express track northbound):
… Local Express Local HST HST Local Express Local HST HST …
… works.
I don’t know that the double overtake works shy of connecting Redwood to Millbrae. At that point you have 6HST/hr, but as I’m not sure where the 5th and 6th train comes from in a franchise operation until the Altamont commuter corridor is done ~ except similar Rapid Rail projects such as Santa Cruz / Salinas. What would be more immediately critical from that would be unlocking the HST from the speed of the regional Peninsula Express.
thatbruce Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
@BruceMcF:
First, you are going to have to give me a reference that a platform switch off the main local line onto the express bypass line needs an entire empty slot to allow the express trailing a local to switch onto the express.
Before you can change a switch/turnout/point, you need to be sure that the train that last passed over it is truly clear of it, that is, the block that the switch is in is no longer occupied. That’s one block at a minimum.
You also need to work on the assumption that attempting to change the switch will fail in some manner unknown. Hence, the express approaching a switch that has changed between it and the previous (local) train needs to have sufficient headway to stop before the switch. That’s another block or more.
This leaves us with at least a 2 block separation between the local train and the following express train, at the point where a switch is to be changed.
If the local is performing some of its de-acceleration on the main line, you need additional blocks or have the express slow down as well (its an express; its not meant to be slowing down). If you’ve got lots of ‘platform’ track which the local uses to de-accelerate in, you just have the 2 or more blocks surrounding the switch.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Looks like CARRD needs to start hosting bake-sales to pay for the tunnel they want. Doty’s basically saying you can’t expect ridership that way to allow the rest of the project to finish.
2 tracks should be ok for at least 10 15-years FROM 2020..trains from SFTBT could be the one stop expresses and trains that begin in SJ could be more of the local types or have a cross platform transfer in Fresno
J. Wong Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 am
The future will be here sooner than you realize, and the initial plan can and will include 4 track where feasible today, for example, SF border (Bayshore) to San Mateo. But yes, I imagine that Caltrain and HSR will share the 2 track ROW into SF for a very long time with no problems.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Very true.. for the long-term future but to get system opened by 2020 there is only enough money to probably grade separate a few of the busy crossings and electrify with possibly one more 4 track section than what is currently in the infrastructure down the peninsula. The core of the money needs to build a high-speed spine between San Jose and Sylmar .. we are not China.. the system will take a long time to build out but it can be opened by 2020.. hopefully the politicians in Washington have a real spine instead of being wimps and care about the United States infrastructure.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Redwood south is already Grade separated, but not designed for quad track.
Once the service is operating there will be funds to finish ~ once there are revenues, there can be revenue bonding.
Link to my comments on the Simitian/Eshoo/Gordon plan and vanArk’s response.
http://www.almanacnews.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=5825
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
More fear mongering and gloom and doom… the sky is falling the sky is falling!!
VBobier Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm
I think that’s all He has, pitiful really.
Well, if Morris is going to link his comments, I might as well do so as well with mine upon ridership and revenue for LA-SF Express trains.
Jerry Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Paulus Mangus. A very good analysis of the non-stop market between the Bay Area and LA Area. Add valley ridership and revenue numbers and you have profits for sure.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Very good analysis.. San Francisco and Los Angeles are twice as far apart as New York City and DC so even a three-hour plus timeslot would be more than competitive to the airlines in this day and far less stressful and comfortable. LAX is too far away from downtown and Mid-Wilshire compared to Union Station in Los Angeles with a high-speed train and with far greater transit choices and lower cab fares and of course the new TranBayterminal will drop high-speed rail travelers right in the center of San Francisco no airline will beat that.
Why can’t building HSR be easy as China?