jimsf Reply:
August 21st, 2011 at 8:10 pm

the problem is pricing. The only cheap flights were on southwest and only into LAX. Otherwise I usually fly jet blue into long beach. The point however was that at my end I walk a few steps get on bart at sfo and it drops me off around the corner from my apartment at civic center. But in lax, they did not bring the green line into the airport one, and two, even if they had, I still have to go to some scary place in la and take the blue line to long beach. Its over by all the bad street names that I only know from the news.

On another note, the cheap airfares that hsr deniers harp about… are mostly gone unless you book way in advance.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2011 at 8:22 pm

Ya get what you pay for.

jimsf Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm

@matt-no thank you. I like my direct front door to front door service on bart. As for LAX because they chose not to go into the terminal, I will continue to ask my gas guzzling convertable driving friend clog the freeways to come pick me up.

@joey it was probably put underground so as not to disturb the neighbors ( in colma, so as not to wake the dead)

Here is what is going to happen:

High Speed Rail will start with the two track caltrain share option. Meanwhile bart will complete livermore and san jose. Then once livermore and san jose are up and running, and hsr is running. the next step will be, as hsr needs more capacity, to phase caltrain out of the row altogether to be replaced by bart filling the final gap with a lot of the bart put underground under the el camino in the more sensitive areas. The end result in approx 230 years from now will be bart around the bay, no caltrain, and hsr only on the old sp row. Once that is completed, bart and hsr will work inconjuction around 2040/2050 an a new four bore transbay tube.

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:31 pm

I used to believe that BART’s plan was to ring around the bay, but after seeing plans for BART to SJ, I no longer believe that. The tail tracks north of Santa Clara curve sharply along the UPRR ROW toward Great America rather than continuing northward either above or below the freight tracks. It was probably still being planned when BART to SFO was build, as the tail tracks south of Millbrae have a design speed of 80 mph, standard for BART.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:45 am

I’ll be happy to bash the Foothills Extension instead, if the blog’s focus shifts to SoCal.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:53 am

That’s some immense bravery on your part, Alon. You might want to read up on the Alameda Corridor East and the LA to SD EIR before you charge valiantly into battle on that one. Does your research indicate perhaps AC Transit should get into the light rail business, then, to deal with the more numerous East Bay commuters?

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Um, what? My problems with the Foothills Extension (and those of other transit activists) have nothing to do with HSR.

Risenmessiah Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:59 pm

Oh I understand that the genesis of your activism isn’t rooted in HSR. What I was saying is that you ought to consider those issues before articulating your position. I’m no big fan of the Extension either, but that’s nothing compared to what’s going to happen if ACE and the EIR has its way…..

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:10 am

Well, I don’t think anyone’s saying that expansion should be stopped (at least not all expansion. But given political, financial, and technical realities, it should come after other, more pressing priorities. If BART were smart they would focus on getting a new fleet rather than focusing on SJ.

joe Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:25 am

Yes people are here are advocating BART expansion should stop.

Waiting until more important projects are finished (figure that one out) and until we have the right political climate are also back-door ways of stopping BART.

That perfect moment never comes.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:54 am

No, people here are advocating BART expansions to the outer suburbs should stop. If I’m not mistaken, the only person here who opposes both the outer extensions (i.e. San Jose, Livermore) and a Geary subway is Synonymouse.

Saying that BART to SFO is okay because it’s more cost-effective than the war on Iraq is like saying that the US is doing okay in Iraq because it’s killing fewer civilians than Hitler.

Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 am

Monetary cost-effectiveness and war is a fairly absurd notion anyhow. Killing Nazis, fascists, and Japanese couldn’t exactly be done on the cheap after all.

synonymouse Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:51 am

I favor light rail on Geary, but not broad gauge. Too bad the subway bond issue of 1937 failed and too bad they did urban removal on the B line in December of 1956. At the very minimum trolley coaches should be deployed on Geary straightaway. That was the plan a few years ago but it was put on hold in the hope the jump to rail could be made. But that has stalled.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Synon, take it up with the merchants. If you ask me it should be a standard-gauge subway feeding into a second tube, shared with lightweight commuter trains. The style should be the same as on most Tokyo subway lines, which are interlined with commuter rail. In other words, it should be a second BART, but standard-gauge and more useful for local travel in the East Bay.

Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 12:01 am

S.F. Chronicle reporter Michael Cabotuan (not sure of the spelling) wrote a remarkably good (for a newspaper) article series about the SFO extension.

Ridership at the SFO station itself met the forecast.

Ridership at the others fell far below projection – and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. For political reasons, BART simply priced itself out of the market. Check, for example, the fares between adjacent stations – and compare with same on the rest of the system. Fares were set at “transbay” levels rather than those charged in the East Bay (where freeway “competition” is similar).

The interchange traffic – or lack thereof – at the “CalTrain Connection” is to some extent a failure of marketing. This “should” have been heavily promoted, with discount or even free fares during the first week or two to get people to try it.

Joey Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 7:05 am

BART to SFO permanently borked the CalTrain transfer with the operationally ridiculous wye. Even if you assume direct BART service which existed for a while but was eliminated for the most part, it forces people to transfer to AirTrain then to BART then to CalTrain, not a good strategy if you want ridership. Arguably there was better CalTrain-SFO service before BART, as you could take a shuttle directly to your terminal.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 8:17 am

Joey and Alon, Railfans are utterly immune to logic and to numerical reasoning. (And even seeking out inconvenient numbers.) Steel wheels good! Choo choo fun! Go, choo choo, go! Leave them be. You’re wasting your time.

Matt Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:45 pm

You are probably talking about the 105-110 interchange as that is really the only that seems to match your description since the 105 is a relatively new freeway (completed in the early 90′s). This interchange also has the green line and the Silver Line (bus) through there as well. Certainly expensive, although I believe the entire 105 freeway including interchanges was built for far less than the cost of the new Bay Bridge.

bixnix Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:56 pm

Since the 105 was built, I don’t believe any new freeways have been built in L.A. County, and, other than the 710 gap, I don’t see anything new even on the drawing board, just widening freeways and lots of trains. That interchange is dang big, even for Socal, though.

Ben Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:20 am

The 210 extension between the 57 and the 215 was started in 98 or 99 with alot of it in LA county

Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 11:48 pm

You can count me as one of the people opposed, in principle, to “outer-suburban” BART extensions (… although you probably won’t).

I reiterate my conclusion – admittedly a judgement call – that, absent the extensions, the BART board would have come under heavy political pressure to increase the supply of parking along the “core” system. I believe that, absent the extensions, there might have been much more parking at the “old” outer terminals today. Not a “positive” development.

In brief: I believe that the BART system “should” have been extended “only” to the nearest interchange with suburban and regional rail services (as was developed at Richmond), existing or potential. Any further extensions would be contingent on local governments adopting meaningful land-use policies to encourage “all-day” ridership.

However, they didn’t ask me, and I doubt that the scheme above would be politically viable.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 12:55 am

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that BART traffic increased more than in a period of national rail stagnation, and then tell me to find a method of derivation? No. You find a method of derivation – one that’s actually rigorous, and wouldn’t end up suggesting that NYCT got more riders because it stopped building new extensions. I’m not your intern; it’s not my job to disprove you every time you confuse correlation with causation on flimsy evidence.

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:03 am

In the near to medium term, BART can increase its capacity by buying new rolling stock and performing signaling upgrades.

When we do need another Transbay Tube, we should figure out how to make it so we only need two tracks rather than four. Though such a tube would never be able to reach the basement of the TBT – there are simply too many buildings in the way.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 12:11 pm

That’s a little incongruous. BART may need a tunnel upgrade, and hence an opening to get it funded through HSR construction but…wouldn’t a bridge for HSR make more sense?

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Questions for 1:1 scale model train set designers:

Where does the BART line go in San Francisco?

Where does the HSR Bridge go in San Francisco?

Thanks for playing.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm

As I recall, there is going to be a set of orphan tracks heading past the TTC underground going south for a block or two.

Beyond that, I would argue that all you need is a way to walk from Embarcadero to TransBay underground until/if demands requires a new tube or bridge.

jimsf Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:25 pm

a second bart line would run either under mission or folsom ( folsom is already in the transit corridor planning stage) hsr would continue out of townsend. and converge for the second (southern) crossing into alameda/west oakland. ( in lieu of the long planned and never realized “southern crossing 280xt bridge)

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 pm

Tom: Those tail tracks have recently been removed from the design. The platforms feeding them never would have been able to accommodate 400m long trains anyway.

As far as bridges vs tunnels go, the bay is deep enough between SF and Oakland that a new bridge probably doesn’t make sense. Tunneling has gotten to the point where it’s cheaper than doing that. There was a plan at one point to put two tracks on the underside of the Bay Bridge, which probably would have worked and despite the modifications that would have had to been made to the bridge, probably would have been cheaper than either a new bridge or a new tunnel. It was killed though, of course.

As it is, I think the best solution, for regional trains only (any hope of running intercity trains under the bay died long ago unless you want to run the bulk of HSR up the East Bay to SF) is to build a new tube to Mission Street and then curving under 7th. You’d be limited to two tracks including in stations, meaning that long-dwelling intercity trains would not be allowed.

If you wanted to run HSR up the East Bay (which, at least under Altamont, would register some time savings to SF), you could justify building a new terminal at the “Beale Street Terminal” location that was once considered as an option for trains coming up the Peninsula. That site is a lot easier to approach from the east than from the south.

Risenmessiah Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 pm

At this point I think it’s academic whether you build a tube for HSR. It’s probably not necessary because the only other viable addition to Transbay would be some long distance train that runs on diesel and not an option for a tunnel. Otherwise I think the issue is how do we expand BART if needed….

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:02 am

would be some long distance train that runs on diesel and not an option for a tunnel.

Electrify the line it runs on or hitch it to a dual mode locomotive.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:25 am

Great. More obese FRA equipment on our lightweight tracks.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:38 am

The Zephyr can’t be electrified. The Starlight/Daylight won’t need the tunnel. Otherwise, I agree.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 1:04 am

You don’t need an O&D matrix to look at stations’ ridership. You’re asking for data which isn’t really relevant.

Ditto passenger-km. Go argue with Cox and O’Toole about that. They like passenger-km a lot, too; they make suburban transportation, i.e. cars, look so much more important than urban transportation. I for one prefer to follow metrics used by profitable metros. SMRT and SBS report passengers, Tokyo Metro reports passengers, the MTR reports passengers. We’re not discussing an intercity railroad here; urban transit doesn’t use the same metrics to measure itself.

Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 9:26 am

Yawn. The data readily exists. I’ve seen BART’s O-D data from a few years ago, but BART considers it proprietary and doesn’t want it made public. Plenty of other ridership data is easily available. Your piss-poor analytical and reasoning skills are not my problem.

Yeah, I find it amusing how Leroy is obsessed with the passenger-km metric, as if that offers some special insight or something. It’s a metric that actually makes super-commuters traveling obscene distances on a daily basis look somehow important and worthy of subsidy.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 9:59 am

BART O-D counts? I believe all you have to do is ask. They don’t publish on their sad web site, for unknowable reasons, but it’s not been hard to get in the past. No FOIA involved or anything. (Fun sad BART web site fact: they “can’t” publish any of the supporting documents or presentations for any board meeting — ie put a PDF up on the web — without an extensive “web site redesign” and a million or two bucks to make that happen.)

Regardless, quarterly average weekday exit counts are published, and those are more than enough for the ostensible purpose of determining that the extensions are huge fiscal black holes. Not that fanboys care for data.

Talking to anybody at BART operations or service planning (not capital projects or executive pinheads) will tell you the same thing: they’re stuck with a fucked setup, that keeps getting worse and harder to sustain operationally and financially the more far-flung the tracks get.

Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 10:10 pm

First:

“I’ve seen BART’s O-D data from a few years ago, but BART considers it proprietary and doesn’t want it made public.”

I’m glad you expect me to believe that, “2010.”

“I believe all you have to do is ask [BART for O&D matrices].”

Yes, “Mlynarik,” this was true at least as recently as ca. 2002.

Next:

“Regardless, quarterly average weekday exit counts are published, and those are more than enough for the ostensible purpose of determining that the extensions are huge fiscal black holes.”

No, “Mlynarik,” they are not (… but if that’s your agenda, you might as well give it a shot …)

I made clear that, over a 13-year interval, the percentage increase in passengers (“riders”) and travel (“pass-km”) exceeded the percentage increase in system length.

I also made clear that – although I find this interesting – it cannot possibly be the “whole story.” I acknowledge that I should have emphasized this point by referencing the quarterly station exit statistics.

The needed “context” is the amount of ridership growth that would have occurred – on the “core system” – if BART had not been expanded.

I noted that, from FY 1982 to FY 1995 – an interval during which BART’s system length remained static – passenger traffic (“annual riders”) grew at a rate of roughly 2.5 percent (compounded) per year. Travel (“pass-km”) grew at a lower rate, roughly 1.5 percent (compounded) per year. These I accept, and presented, as “lower bound” figures … but I shouldn’t have to emphasize that.

During 1995-2008, passenger traffic (“annual riders”) grew at a rate of roughly 3 percent (compounded) per year. Travel (“pass-km”) grew at a rate of roughly 3.5 percent (compounded) per year.

Alon Levy spewed a good deal of pique and spleen – and was also too arrogant (and lazy) to admit the obvious. The 1995-2008 rates described above also represent the “upper bound” for the “core system” (with the caveat that the extensions added … “nothing”).

Thus, the range of “background” growth rate for the “core” system, 1995-2008, is roughly:

Annual passenger traffic (riders): 2.5 – 3 percent.

Annual passenger travel (pass-km): 1.5 – 3.5 percent.

I emphasize that, unlike the “lower bound,” the “upper bound” as described above is an absolute limit – absent some plausible scenario for how the “core system” – as it exists today – might have attracted higher ridership than the entire system does today. (Just in case youse were ditching algebra class that day, Levy and “2010.”)

“Talking to anybody at BART operations or service planning (not capital projects or executive pinheads) will tell you the same thing: they’re stuck with a fucked setup, that keeps getting worse and harder to sustain operationally and financially the more far-flung the tracks get.”

If this assertion is true, “Mlynarik,” then demonstration of same would be straightforward. How have the following indicators changed from, say, 1990:

a. “Inflation-adjusted annual operating and maintenance cost per passenger-km.”

b. “Inflation-adjusted fare paid per passenger-km.”

c. “Inflation-adjusted annual passenger revenue per unit of system length.”

d. The difference “a-b,” which might be titled “inflation-adjusted annual subsidy per passenger-km.”

The problem, “Mlynarik,” is that doing this would involve something other than hurtling digs and barbs. I labor under no illusion that you would ever consider taking this up (… much less messrs. “2010″ and Levy).

Finally:

The fact that “2010″ and other Amerikanskiys do not understand passenger traffic density (that’s “passenger traffic density,” not “the passenger-km metric”) is of no concern of mine. The Japanese and Koreans do, the American engineers of the past did, and so forth.

And:

“It’s a metric that actually makes super-commuters traveling obscene distances on a daily basis look somehow important and worthy of subsidy.”

It takes a special kind of a__h___ to write something like this. I work with people who are forced to drive 15-40 miles to work … each way … for a job that pays roughly $10 / hr … because there are no job openings closer to home, and because public transportation is wholly inadequate.

Hearing one person describe a drive of about 1/4 mile, work to home, I asked “why on earth …”

The response: “I know that nothing ever happens around here, but I get off at 2 a.m., and I’m not willing to take the risk of walking, alone, at that hour.”

I quickly saw her point.

Leroy W. Demery, Jr Reply:
August 25th, 2011 at 10:21 pm

“I for one prefer to follow metrics used by profitable metros. SMRT and SBS report passengers, Tokyo Metro reports passengers, the MTR reports passengers.”

Oh, Alon, so you ignore the other “metrics” reported by these operators.

In Japanese statistical tables, annual passenger traffic density (not “passenger-km”) is about the third item reported, after operator title, system length, and annual passenger traffic. (I do not know what they publish in other languages – and do not care.)

Korean railway statistics (including metros) on passenger traffic and travel are exquisitely detailed. The annual compilation is bilingual, and can even be downloaded (sometimes) from the Korail website.

Chinese statistics also address traffic density – passenger and freight.

The fact that you, “2010″ and various Amerikanskiys do not understand / do not like this “metric” is irrelevant and immaterial.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm

The highest density is not in Richmond, but along inner Geary, peaking around Little Osaka.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 pm

YMMV because City-Data is run for real estate professionals.
“Japantown” is the closest thing I can find to Little Osaka. Lower then “Richmond” at 10,501.

go to town
http://www.city-data.com/nbmaps/neigh-San-Francisco-California.html

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:31 pm

I think they just picked a commercial block or something.

Here is the master file in question. And here are the SF census tract maps, in all their unreadable glory.

joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:44 am

Sat though plenty of SFCTA Geary workshops and all of the late 1990s MTC Bay Bridge Design Task Force public meetings, saw this stuff at first hand. I must have lost 50 IQ points in the process.

What a joy it must have been to have you there complaining about your dropping IQ.

IMHO Geary BRT is exactly intended to be a figleaf to make train enthusiasts shut up and go away.

It worked apparently.

synonymouse Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:01 pm

That’s exactly what they said 10 years as a reason for putting off the trolley bus wiring. There are good reasons for moving ahead with the T.C. scheme right away.

There have been many calls for restoring the B line over the years but nothing has even come of it.

BruceMcF Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:24 pm

If they lay out the BRT corridors so that the dimensions are pre-adapted for streetcars, they can put in the streetcar track later. If the time comes, a trolleybus has a lane’s leeway, so they could lay the streetcar track in sections and run the trolleybuses in the traffic lane for that section.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Bruce: They can, but they won’t. They never do.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:45 pm

This time for sure!

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 am

The point is that “rail readiness” is an excuse to build it cheaply and then never actually convert it to rail.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:54 am

Well, except for the “cheap” part.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:06 am

Point.

BruceMcF Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Will there still be a traffic lane next to the dedicated transit lane? You can run the trolleybuses there while the LRT track itself is being laid, shifting it back when that street segment has been finished.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 1:04 am

And take more traffic lanes? Did Jesus come back to Earth and rapture all the NIMBYs?

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 10:46 am

Trolley buses don’t need a dedicated lane in the construction zone.

synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 10:53 am

There is the question of where to place the support poles – on the sidewalks or in whatever median that might be carved out. Neither span wires nor bracket arms are particularly attractive but a choice will have to be made. The length of the trolley poles are going to limit movement to two lanes. My instinct is to go traditional and locate the wire on the right and keep the existing bus stops to placate the irascible merchants.

The thrust is to get the wire up ASAP and take advantage of online vehicle storage.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Crazy?

HSR is going to be operated by a third party who will likely have to cover operating costs without a subsidy. Hence, it’s not so crazy to think that fares are going to be much higher than what BART and CCJPA charge because there’s no tax dollars offsetting the fares. So if you are rational as a customer, you would try and take the subsidized route as far as you can before taking the unsubsidized one.

From SF of course, connecting to HSR in Livermore takes almost as long as getting to Pittsburg without connecting. So for someone who lives north of 10th Street in Oakland, there’s a gradually increasing incentive if it is possible to stick with BART to Stockton and get on the HSR there for a quick hop to Sac. (Walnut Creek to Pleasanton is 63 minutes on BART. Even if Livermore to Stockton is 20 minutes….will it take 83 minutes on BART to go from Walnut Creek to Stockton directly?)

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Dear Tom, I don’t think you understand how “train tracks” work.

Perhaps an analogy will help you. Consider: the Valley Transportation Agency (headqiarters: San José, The Capital Of Silicon Valley) built some “freeway lanes” on Highway 101. Yet it’s hard not to observe that not all of the vehicles travelling on these lanes north of Gilroy are owned and operated by VTA. How can that be?

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:18 pm

I’m not sure what you mean. What I want to know is: How much do you think a ticket from Livermore to Sacramento would cost? How long would the journey take? Because it is already 85 minutes on BART from Walnut Creek to Dublin/Pleasanton. Add HSR trip time to Stockton. Or… extend BART to Stockton and calculate time and cost from Walnut Creek. Tell me what you come up with.

As for Capitol Corridor…why would the State continue to subsidize its operation if people are willing to pay top dollar on HSR?

Justin H Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Tom, kudos for staying calm in the face of your interlocutor’s offensive and childish sarcasm. Readers can recognize who has the rational mind here.

Beta Magellan Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:09 pm

@Tom—isn’t the Capitol Corridor essentially a commuter route? Why would a good high-speed SF-Sac connection mean the state would stop funding it, especially if the SF-Sac route is self-sufficient and therefore not competing for operating funds?

jimsf Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:18 pm

ccjpa is a commuter route and they are adding additional stops along the route including
hercules and yolo/solono county.

joe Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:29 pm

As for Capitol Corridor…why would the State continue to subsidize its operation if people are willing to pay top dollar on HSR?

Good point.

HSR service is mandated full-cost recovery for operations so CC would undercut HSR in cost price for a modest time penalty. Worse, Amtrack CC would be pressured to shutdown and stop stealing full-cost-recovery riders from HSR’s premium service.

Beta Magellan Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Psst…on the East Coast they’ve figured out that you can have commuter and intercity services—Acela and Empire South haven’t managed to kill Metro-North. The fact that CC and CAHSR (even in fast-Altamont-SF-Sac/SJ-Sac form) would serve fairly different markets has nothing makes it even more likely that one won’t happen at the expense of the other.

Andrew Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Sac-SF hsr along capitol corridor would certainly get heavy ridership from north bay commuters. But it would also be invaluable for interregional trips — not just Sac-SF, but also North Bay-South Bay (currently a nightmare), North Bay-Sac, and North Bay-SoCal, etc. Would serve all four North Bay counties, as well as many East Bay residents. Must go Carquinez-central Vallejo to enable rail connections to Napa Co. and SMART. See map

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 pm

extend BART to Stockton
Stockton is as far away from San Francisco as Philadelphia is from New York. Rational people don’t build 90 mile long subway lines.

joe Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:20 pm

BETA Magellan

Psst on the East coast …. a flyover for ACELA.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Rail-Upgrades-Could-Put-Trains-on-Faster-Track-128206248.html

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the funding on Monday. About $450 million will be used to upgrade electrical systems and tracks between Trenton, N.J., and New York City. The upgrade means Acela Express trains will be able to get up to a top speed of 160 mph between Trenton and New Brunswick, N.J.

About $295 million will be used to construct a flyover at the Harold Interlocking rail junction in Queens. It will separate Amtrak from Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North commuter trains, easing congestion.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:10 pm

Joe, you misunderstand the $295 million flyover. It’s a rail/rail grade separation, allowing Amtrak to have a conflict-free path into the southern pair of the East River Tunnels. There’s already a more-or-less conflict-free path into the northern pair, but under the ruling concrete-before-organization paradigm, the northernmost tracks are considered LIRR turf.

For more details:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/new-yorks-awful-grade-separation/

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Andrew: your chosen alignment includes far too many sharp curves to approach anything resembling “HSR”

Andrew Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 pm

@Joey – It’s a rough sketch, but yes, the trains would run slowly around these curves. The only true high speed section would be Fairfield-Sac. Still, the SF-Sac trip could be done in about 45 minutes, with three stops.

Btw, your tube alignment to Mission and turning south at 7th is interesting, ie, the HSR tube could also allow a BART relief line for the Mission corridor. The map shows the tube connecting to Townsend, assuming HSR goes only to the current Caltrain terminal.

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:37 pm

And Alon: I’m still not 100% convinced about that particular flyover – routing Amtrak through the northern tunnels would eliminate the conflicts at Harold Interlocking, but it would create conflicts between Amtrak trains using the North River Tunnels and LIRR movements in and out of the Hudson Yards.

Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:51 pm

Andrew: 45 minutes? I’m not convinced – that requires an average speed of 120mph, meaning that the top speed must be a lot higher than that and reachable for much of the distance, which seems impossible for what you have shown. For reference, a curve capable of supporting 125mph requires a radius of almost one mile, by some old calculations of mine.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:07 am

Joey: the conflict is only with LIRR tunnels using the southern tunnels to reach the yards. It shouldn’t be hard to schedule LIRR trains using the southern tunnels to reverse direction and serve at least Jamaica, and have only northern tunnel trains use the yards. Most trains should not be parking in Manhattan anyway. If New York wants $300 million just so that the LIRR can keep trains sitting parked and depreciating, it’s even worse than I thought.

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:46 am

The HSR system max speed is reachable Fairfield-Sac (about 40 of the total 93 miles), probably depending on a short bypass section at Davis. Averaging 180 mph, the train would take 13:20 for that section. Allowing one minute each for three station stops, a 45-minute trip time would leave 28:40 for Fairfield-SF, requiring an avg speed of 112 mph. With the long Eastshore straightaway and the custom-built transbay tube, I think 45 minutes Sac-SF is reasonably close to the mark. For reference, the chsr authority’s site shows 43 minutes for City of Industry-Palmdale, which is 84 miles, has the same number of stops as SF-Sac, has at least as many speed constraints (curves, gradients, dense urban areas), but no long section of open prairie comparable to Fairfield-Sac.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 am

Industry-LA has a few mediocre curves, but it’s nothing compared to the winding route you have outlined for Fairfield-Richmond. I don’t see how you plan to average above 80 on that section. And you’re going to have to factor in a lot more than one minute for stops, particularly for higher speeds.

Google maps has a measuring tool, and it’s fairly simple to approximate the center of a curve. 80mph requires a 0.4 mile radius and 100mph requires a 0.6 mile radius. Try working with that and see if your estimate still holds.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:14 am

Oh, and I think I mentioned before that all of this is going to be quite expensive one way or another. By comparison, just choosing Altamont from the beginning gives you fast service to Sacramento from most of the Bay Area at no additional cost once you’ve built Phase 2. I can believe that your plan might be able to compete with Altamont for SF-Sac, but for SJ-Sac, Altamont seems to win in nearly every scenario. The Authority itself calculated that an express service could make the run in well under an hour, so most trains would probably end up doing it in about an hour.

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:48 am

Joey, Thanks for the information about hsr curve speeds. Drawn right, there isn’t anywhere on the route under 100 mph according to your specs, other than the southern approach to Carquinez.

Btw, I picked INdustry-Palmdale for reference for the curviness of the route as a whole, not that of the Industry-LA section. And the stop speed time is for time at full stop, not for the braking and accelerating. Otherwise the avg speed estimate would be much faster.

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:44 am

Regarding SF-Sac via Altamont, something people overlook is that this route loops clear around the back of Sacramento, whereas the capitol corridor route goes thru Sacramento’s front door. Trains thru Altamont would also have to compete for Stockton-Sac track time with trains from LA. The capitol corridor would be a considerably faster route to Sacramento for everyone except those in the South Bay, and even for them it would be comparable to hsr-ized Altamont. Those actually living near the ACE route could use the non-hsr ACE and connect at Stockton.

What’s more, the capitol corridor route would connect the entire North Bay to HSR.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:13 am

You’re limited to 70 mph from Richmond Parkway to Hercules, and maybe 80 over the bridge. The Jameson canyon route (between American Canyon and Fairfield) is also limited to 70 as you have drawn it though straightening to allow 100 would not be terribly difficult (if you’re sinking $10 billion into this anyway, what’s the difference?). There’s also a 70mph curve near Fairfield, and the curve through Davis doesn’t look like it could support more than 80.

Regarding trains “competing,” this is only the case if (a) there is a capacity constraint and (b) Planners can’t figure out what a decent timetable is, or the operator can’t figure out how to adhere to it. In the real world we would be unlikely to reach Altamont’s theoretical limit of 12 trains per hour per direction any time in the foreseeable future.

And yes, you loose service to the North Bay (really only the Northeast Bay), but Altamont still serves the lower 3/4 of the Bay Area quite well, and at no additional cost compared to Phase 2 Pacheco (you would actually save some money, since there are 75 fewer miles of track to build in the CV).

Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:02 am

If you want to compute curve radii, go to Google Earth, not Google Maps. Both tools let you measure line segment length, but Google Earth also lets you measure bearing. For most curves, the radius is approximately ((length of line segment connecting the ends of the curve)/(change in bearing in degrees))*180/pi. It’s a very good approximation for small changes in bearing.

BruceMcF Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:00 am

“You’re limited to 70 mph from Richmond Parkway to Hercules, and maybe 80 over the bridge. The Jameson canyon route (between American Canyon and Fairfield) is also limited to 70 as you have drawn it though straightening to allow 100 would not be terribly difficult (if you’re sinking $10 billion into this anyway, what’s the difference?). There’s also a 70mph curve near Fairfield, and the curve through Davis doesn’t look like it could support more than 80.”

All of which suggests a 110mph to 125mph corridor. There’s no pressing transport need for a complementary Regional HSR rail corridor from Sacramento to Oakland through the North Bay to complete the trip in 0:45 ~ 1:15 to 1:30 would be fine.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:25 pm

1:15 to 1:30 would be fine.

And would still cost billions more than routing trains via Altamont.

BruceMcF Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:49 pm

What $$$ figure are you using for a 110mph~125mph route for trains to serve the East Bay to Sacramento junctioning with the Express HSR corridor at Stockton … and I presume SF over some Dumbarton connection and what $$$ figure are you using for a 110mph incremental upgrade of the capital corridor?

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:25 pm

LIRR can keep trains sitting parked and depreciating

They depreciate faster and have associated labor and energy costs when they run around empty.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Bruce: I’m not sure what you’re asking exactly. The figure I’m using is that full buildout Altamont (SJ and SF via Dumbarton) will cost less than full buildout Pacheco, according to the Authority’s own figures. Any upgrades to the Capitol Corridor or ACE corridor, incremental or otherwise, will cost a nontrivial amount of money. I can’t give an exact estimate, but given that UP would probably require dedicated tracks if you want to run faster or more frequently, you’re looking on the order of billions of dollars to get 110-125.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm

They depreciate faster and have associated labor and energy costs when they run around empty.

Wasn’t my decision to staff each train with 5 conductors. But we digress.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm

They don’t put 5 conductors on empty trains. And the cost of electricity doesn’t become free if the train is empty.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:04 pm

Or if Altamont is built that trains will never ever never be upgraded along the Capitol Corridor. Or if the Dumbarton crossing is built there will never ever never be the need for another Bay crossing.

joe Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:23 pm

From Fresno, San Jose is about as far as Livermore so I’d argue the Pacheco alignment would get HSR to San Jose based on political will to finish that leg and blend into UP/Caltrain.

It’s open space into and out of Gilroy and into the underdeveloped and beautiful Coyote Valley area of San Jose. Real fleas and ticks.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:04 pm

Joe, what you’re missing is that getting to Livermore is easier than getting to San Jose: there’s less urban construction to the south of SJ, and Altamont Pass itself is much easier to get through than Pacheco Pass. Under Phase 0, Altamont is much better.

Altamont’s difficult urban construction is west of Livermore, especially in Fremont. The issue is what happens in Phase 0.5: Pacheco would get to SJ and Altamont to RWC, but this would be easier under Pacheco. This is where Pacheco starts to redeem itself. (In phase 1, they’re about even; in phase 2, Altamont becomes better again because of SF-Sac.)

joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:03 am

Alon;

What your missing is that no one voted to get to Livermore. It’s a BLOG certified objective.

CA did vote to bring HSR to San Jose and once in SJ this partial build fits the NIMBY ideal of blendng with Caltrain to SF. There’s no opposition to that build – they’d try to stop HSR in SJ.

So the Pacheco partial build to San Jose meets a major project milestone and gets you to SF via the proposed ROW.

It costs more – the Pacheco tunnel – So What? It’s a major goal for HSR and the amount of money for phase X or any part of HSR is exactly what CA decides it will be.

Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:04 am

California voted to bring HSR from LA to SF and SJ. Altamont does that; so does Pacheco. The question is how to do it if not all the money that’s required to complete Phase 1 is available.

And blending with Caltrain is not a NIMBY idea. It’s NIMBY-friendly in the sense that it involves less four-tracking and no new grade separations, but the main reason for it is that it’s cheaper than full four-tracking, barely impacts trip time, and only constrains capacity years after the system opens.

BruceMcF Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:33 am

“and only constrains capacity years after the system opens.” … at which point the NIMBY opposition will no longer be in a position to generate any serious opposition to four-tracking the corridor.

joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 am

HSR to Livermore is a laughable partial build proposition for a CA resident – it is fail. A political non-starter that turns the bay area “location-location-location” on it’s head.

Getting HSR to Gliroy and then building to SJ is going to attract voters support, attract funding and it will be built. There is no law of nature that limits the HSR project funding to some figure that stops perfectly in Livermore or Gilroy. It’s Altamont-East Bay transit proponents gaming the argument to their favor.

Getting HSR to SJ from Gilroy will allow a blended approach to SF. It protects regional interests which are NOT and will not be centered on the bedroom communities of the Tri-Valley region in the East Bay.

Blending HSR with Caltrain is a NIMBY approved talking point I can live with because it’s beatable.

Speaking for NIMBY’s, US Rep Ann Eschoo stood at Menlo Park’s Caltrain this year and described stopping HSR in San Jose and boarding Caltrain as “Blended”. SF’s Pelosi made her walk that back within a day but that’s NIMBY a Blended approach.

HSR supporters want rela blended because it allows HSR and Caltrain to share ROW but we also want an EIR that includes anticipated 2035 capacity. NIMBYs will fight that EIR.

Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm

You need to get out more.

In any metropolitan area with intercity/HSR service, there will always be overlapping commuter service. On the NEC, Acela overlaps with a whole range of commuter services. And on the Peninsula, HSR will “compete” with subsidized Caltrain (quelle horreur!).

I am not even sure what Tom’s point is anymore, but the mere threat that a Stockton (Stockton!!) BART extension might one day compete with an Altamont HSR is just fucking ridiculous.

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:23 pm

@Drunk Engineer – “You need to get out more…just fucking ridiculous”
Please please please cut out the juvenile sarcasm and badmouthing. You’re not sure what Tom’s point is because you missed it. REad his comments thru this whole post, and the comments he’s replying to. Please please please grow up or just stick to your own blog and leave the grownups in peace.

Risenmessiah Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:03 pm

I’m not sure how to respond to Drunk Engineer:

The Northeast service is subsidized. Acela itself may not be but a crucial component in Northeast service is non-Acela trains. Also, given that most traffic goes between NY and DC, there’s a jurisdictional issue….You can’t take NJ Transit through Maryland, and you can’t take MTA through New Jersey. But you can (in theory) thread your way almost all the way from Penn Station to Union Station without ever getting in a car or on Amtrak….

BART doesn’t have that problem. Also, because there’s already a desire to expand the service further east in CoCo County, it’s highly likely that Stockton would WANT BART because it would allow it to be more attractive to workers and residents. But again, it is what it is….

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Take a look at a map. The distance from Oakland to Livermore is comparable to the distance between Livermore and Stockton. I think the people in Stockton are smart enough to realize that this wouldn’t happen, even if they wanted it to.

joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:36 pm

@drunk –

In any metropolitan area with intercity/HSR service, there will always be overlapping commuter service. On the NEC, Acela overlaps with a whole range of commuter services. And on the Peninsula, HSR will “compete” with subsidized Caltrain (quelle horreur!).

A key feature of (some say purpose) of Altamont is to connect the Bay Area to Sacramento.

CA’s HSR mandate for full cost recovery of the operation expenses would make it a competitor toCC and put it on an uneven playing field. CC takes business away from the HSR – it’s gubberment subsidized vs full cost recovery HSR run by a private operator.

As for BART to Stockton being nuts, what if they used a larger rubber band and wound it more? Would the trains make it that far? Mister Mxyzptlk’s conspiracy theories surrounding BART and PB tell me there is ample incentive for the project.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:57 pm

So what? Cheapos will take the CC and people who value travel time, reliability, frequency, and convenience will take HSR. If anything, the playing field is uneven in HSR’s favor. The CC’s ridership is practically rounding error in the corridor’s total demand, so is there really any reason to be worried.

Mister Mxyzptlk’s conspiracy theories surrounding BART and PB tell me there is ample incentive for the project.

Think about it. BART has to at least act like they’re building something useful, and they’ve got plenty of quarry in the Bay Area to keep them pouring concrete for decades to come. The fact that you see BART to Stockton as a bad idea indicates that no one else would have trouble seeing it either. Err, no offense intended, but you do seem to indiscriminately cheerlead for BART projects.

Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:31 pm

Obviously the existence of Coaster and Metrolink has prevented any increase in the number of Surfliner riders since their inception.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 pm

You can’t take NJ Transit through Maryland, and you can’t take MTA through New Jersey. But you can (in theory) thread your way almost all the way from Penn Station to Union Station without ever getting in a car or on Amtrak….

Mostly because if you ask people in New Jersey to subsidize trips between Philadelphia and Wilmington or Baltimore and DC they are bound to ask questions. Longest trip you can make on the NEC, without getting on Amtrak is New London CT to Newark Del. There’s a really long walk between the trains in Manhattan or a two seat subway ride or a one seat bus ride. That may change if SLE decides to go to Providence or the MBTA decides to go to New London. DelDot and MARC are in toying with the idea of connecting too.

..but on certain days of the year you can have a one seat ride on NJTransit equipment from New Haven to Trenton. Amtrak “extra” trains that run around Thanksgiving or Christmas are very often NJTransit, MARC or SEPTA equipment.

joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:58 pm

I would welcome the opportunity to clean a clock:
I operate a lower cost train service with an operating subsidy.
You operate HSR on an indirect route and perform full cost recovery using fares.

Heads I win; tails you lose.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:35 pm

Directness is irrelevant when compared to trip time.

Let’s try that again:

The CC operates an inexpensive, slow (but direct) route, with a minimum headway of 40 minutes but much longer at various points in the day. Trains may be subject to delays because of freight.

HSR via Altamont is more expensive but much faster route with trains leaving predictably every half hour for the bulk of the day. It is also more likely to arrive on time.

I would like to reiterate that Altamont offers better trip times to Sacramento for the entire lower 3/4 of the Bay Area. For SF, this is a difference of 1.5 hours. For SJ, this is a difference of more than 2.5 hours. What kind of budget do you have to be on to make that attractive?

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm

This is why we need HSR on the Capitol Corridor

As Tom or Peter or someone has been saying, we need HSR to connect all the major nodes in a line, so we can get from any one major place to any other major place. Altamont is perpendicular to the geographically natural line and just connects a few big places, leaving other areas (such as Monterey Bay and the entire North Bay) off the network altogether.

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 pm

No no no Andrew. Someone in Fairfield who wants to go to Berkeley is going to drive to Sacramento, get on an HSR train to San Francisco, get off in Fremont take BART to Berkeley. Or go all the way to San Francisco and get on AC Transit.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 pm

As opposed to leaving the East Bay, which is likely to generate more ridership than the North Bay and Monterey Bay areas combined? And sure, if you consider 3/4 of the Bay Area to be just “a few big places” then your assessment of Altamont is correct.

(as a side note, by your definition of what’s “on the network,” the Monterey Bay wouldn’t be, as there’s no way to make the existing rail route from Gilroy to Monterey even competitive with driving, or buses for that matter.

Oh, and do you have $10 billion handy? Because I sure don’t. Actually when you include additional track (Chowchilla-Manteca) in Phase 2 and the planned Altamont “Overlay” it’s well over $20 billion in additional money.

And you don’t have to link that map of yours in every post. We’ve seen it – we get it.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:12 pm

No no no Andrew. Someone in Fairfield who wants to go to Berkeley is going to drive to Sacramento, get on an HSR train to San Francisco, get off in Fremont take BART to Berkeley. Or go all the way to San Francisco and get on AC Transit.

Haven’t we been through this before? If, without the SF-Sac market, there isn’t enough ridership to sustain the CC then we’re doing good by moving the bulk of the demand to a faster and more reliable route and closing down a subsidy cow. We can get all the people who would miss it into one room to hear their complaints. If, without the SF-Sac market, there is still enough demand for the CC, then clearly providing passengers with a faster route to take for that trip (and all other trips originating south of SF and Oakland) with a faster way to get there will not cut into the CC’s ridership, nor will the CC provide a major source of competition for these services. Both routes can exist, and everyone can be happy.

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:24 pm

@adirondacker12800 ;)

Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 12:47 am

Something the Amtrak foamers might want to think about: Making Sacramento a useful HSR station vastly increases the viability of the CC. CC can then serve as a feeder to HSR, giving riders faster access to many more destinations.

For example:
Davis-SF via the CC today is a 2 hours
whereas Davis-SF via HSR connection in Sac (though Altamont!) is 1:20 (assuming 5 min transfer penalty)

For example:
Fairfield-Redwood City via CC+Caltrain today is 2:40
whereas Fairfied-Redwood City via HSR connection @Sac is more like 1:45

adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 10:44 am

Yes once the grand and glorious Altamont routing is completed the heavens will open and He will come down to bring us everlasting peace, harmony and uncongested roadways. No one will ever never ever need to upgrade anything ever again.

Tom McNamara Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 12:02 pm

An HSR operator may not demand a non-compete clause, but if it does, it will almost certainly apply to BART and freeways.

You’re missing the forest for the trees here. The operator doesn’t want a non-compete clause that strong. It doesn’t want to have all its seat bought up by formerly Cal Train and Metrolink passengers who no longer have any way to get to work. Long range passengers are more valuable because the longer you are on the train, the more you buy food, newspapers, etc…

Commuter service and HSR will coexist–they have separate missions, intercity versus regional travel. But people aren’t dumb. Just as someone will fly out of Oakland, Long Beach, Ontario, San Jose for cheaper fares. Some guy in Antioch will take BART to Stockton to get on HSR there if it’s cheaper, or Palmdale, or San Jose, or _________ .

Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Alon, I believe that tolling concession was bought out by OCTA unless you are thinking of a different one than SR 91.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:38 am

So you’re really willing to sacrifice service to downtown SF in order to do a loop up to Sacramento which would unlikely to demand more than 2tph for the foreseeable future?

Andrew Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Joey, Try reading my comment again. Try reading my all my comments again. I did not say I would kill downtown SF for service to Sacramento; I said I was working under the assumption that service to transbay terminal was not doable. Same problem with reading comprehension/selective attention elsewhere, several times. Eg, you keep making this straw man in which the only possible benefit from the capitol corridor is reduced SF-Sac time, ignoring everything I wrote about North Bay access to HSR (no, it’s not just Northeast Bay access). Mysteriously, your argument also slipped mid-thread from transbay tube to Dumbarton. Ie we have to start the whole debate over again from zero. This attempt at engaging in constructive discussion has been an exercise in futility.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Sorry, I misread your comment, but I don’t see the Transbay Terminal being impossible under any circumstances. They managed to screw it up for decades but it’s part of the plans now so a 60 story tower isn’t going to magically appear in the DTX’s path.

As for North Bay access, I again apologize if I didn’t see correctly, but it wasn’t readily apparent that you intended that particular line for transfer purposes rather than intraregional purposes (the assumption being that people transferring in Vallejo would create enough traffic for a small train only every hour or so if you’re lucky. Not the the North Bay, with a relatively (compared to other regions of the bay) small and very spread out population. I brought up Altamont because it would eliminate nearly all of the need to spend additional money along the I-80 corridor. Sorry if you think I’m being overcritical, but I just don’t think your plan would ever work.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:38 am

The loop tracks never could have accommodated full length trains anyway.

William Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:31 am

@Joey

The loop tracks are much longer than the Transbay Platforms at 1200′ ~ 1400′, don’t know why you would think full trains cannot use them.

Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:45 am

The TJPA’s Chief Engineer told me, in person, that the Locally Preferred Alternative was a “huge mistake”, that there was no way that the loop business could ever work, and that “I wish somebody has listened to you” re the Second-to-Mission alignment rejected-out-of-hand “alternative”.

Oh, and this was in October 2005.

They knew RIGHT AWAY they were fucked on rail capacity, everybody knew the rail loop business was crazy lines-on-a-map that couldn’t work in practice and wouldn’t be built, but nobody lifted a finger any time in the following six years to address any of the obvious-at-the-time capacity problems. (Undoing 301 Mission is impossible; doing 20 times better than their idiot scheme was straightforward, perfectly feasible, and negative cost.

This is the quality of professional transportation engineering that we’re dealing with here in the USA.

William Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:15 am

I guess the only good news was that the Downtown Extension has not bee designed or built yet.

In my view, the Central Subway made the Downtown Extension much less important. The current 4th&King Terminal has enough space to support both Caltrain and HSR, and is lined up perfectly for a second transbay tunnel.

Since the Central Subway is going to be moved to 4th Street, would it be possible to move the downtown tunnel further South-East to Third Street?

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Third street is theoretically possible. You would have to design it carefully to avoid the MOMA and a few high-rises, and a few mid-rises would have to be leveled.

Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:52 pm

William: regarding full length trains, the distance between 2nd and Main Streets is 600m. Ideally, curves have a 200m radius but if you’re really constrained 150 appears in some design options. That leaves you with 200-300m of platform in between the curves (about 660-1000 feet for reference). I don’t know where you’re getting this 1200′-1400′ figure from.

William Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 1:00 am

@Joey

The Transbay LPA document said 1300′ curved platform:
http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/10/LPA_Rev3-21-03.pdf

Joey Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 2:29 am

I stand corrected. Still, that alternative requires 150m curves (absolute minimum for European equipment, not doable with Shinkansens) and platforms which continue along those sharp curves, which would result in a large gap between the train and the platform. This alternative was somehow chosen, but naturally the curves were widened and the tail tracks were eliminated. It’s simply not desirable to do it that way.

Andrew Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 2:29 am

It’s really counterproductive when people use language that conveys the impression that they have authoritative information, when they are just making stuff up. Thank you William for cleaning up after someone else’s mess here.

People, please please please make it clear when you’re speculating. When you’re not, provide your source. Administrator, please block people who don’t understand the concepts of honesty and transparency.

Joey Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 3:52 am

I was wrong that such a design existed. I was right that such a design would be impossible in the real world, and those design elements were predictably removed.

But your hostile tone indicates something else, and I think I owe you a personal apology. I’ve seen so many proposals similar to yours on this blog that my automatic reaction is to just shoot them down mercilessly. Clearly you took personal offense to that. Admittedly, I once had my own Capitol Corridor HSR proposal, and while I might have paid a little more attention to curve radii etc than you did, the concept of what it was trying to accomplish was similar. As you can probably guess, did I eventually conclude that Altamont made it mostly useless, but that’s beside the point. You are clearly enthusiastic to propose new ideas, and my confrontational arguing style was the wrong response to that. I’m not saying that you will eventually come to agree with me (though having once been a Pacheco supporter, I do believe that I am in the right camp). So just keep proposing, keep editing, keep discussing. I’ll try to be more civil next time, even if I disagree with you. So again, I’m sorry.

And no, I’m not just doing this to avoid the wrath of the mods. No one moderates anything around here.

Andrew Reply:
August 24th, 2011 at 5:06 am

Joey, no personal apology necessary. We’re all in this for a good cause. We’ve got to build this barn together.