tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post5724051019581140549..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Gavin Newsom Wants To Be the HSR GovernorRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-42873919986643028472009-03-15T17:31:00.000-07:002009-03-15T17:31:00.000-07:00@ zig -I agree that 4th & King is not an adequ...@ zig -<BR/><BR/>I agree that 4th & King is not an adequate terminus for HSR trains because it lacks BART connectivity. There isn't even direct streetcar service between 4th & King and all the ferry terminals/pier 39.<BR/><BR/>The Central Subway will make 4th & King more useful for Caltrain commuters heading deep into the financial district, but that's it. The HSR passenger profile is very different.<BR/><BR/>Fwiw, they mucked up the design of the Central Subway by making it dive underneath BART. It should have a level crossing with the SF Muni Subway lines at Market, protected with signaling. Then, some of the other lines could be reconfigured as well.<BR/><BR/>That said, the optimal solution strictly from a rail point of view is to build a new Central Station where all 5 rail services (HSR, Caltrain, BART, SF Muni subway and streetcars) would naturally converge, i.e. Market & 7th.<BR/><BR/>The neighborhood isn't exactly upscale (yet), but a central station would act as an anchor for commercial development, a new business district west of the existing one. Cp. La Defense in Paris. That would also ease pedestrian flow capacity problems at Embarcadero BART rather than exacerbate them.<BR/><BR/>Bus lines from the East Bay could easily serve both a pure bus depot at the Transbay Terminal and the Central Station.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-48646564298610173862009-03-13T18:58:00.000-07:002009-03-13T18:58:00.000-07:00I agree with Andy and want to add a bitFor the Cen...I agree with Andy and want to add a bit<BR/><BR/>For the Central Subway should note that beyond the capacity issues (which is inadequte) the need to build a deep subway under Market is going to necessitate a very slow transfer for those riders trying to get to the market street subway to continue on to the Financial District. This is documented elsewhere if anyone wants me to dig it up. Its an awkward transfer.<BR/><BR/>Further, as someone from San Francisco, I can attest to the fact that these streetcars are simply godawful, slow, crowded and unreliable. To and from baseball games to my home in Noe Valley is on crush loaded vehicles only marginally faster than walking the 2 miles. They are that bad. Honestly. Unbelievably inadequate for a dense city. <BR/><BR/>BART: Embarcadero Station to Millbrae Station is 37 minutes on BART for what is essentially about 8 miles in a straight shot. that seems discouraging to me.<BR/><BR/>Lastly 4th and King, as Andy stated is in an awkward location and this gravity of downtown moving this way (both South and West) is being overstated. In fact the real shift is South around (and of course above) the TransBay and adjacent Rincon Hill areas.<BR/><BR/>My intuition is no TransBay is a very bad ideazighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293859222112959330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-29246721999211629722009-03-13T12:17:00.000-07:002009-03-13T12:17:00.000-07:00@BruceMcF, I suppose this concept of operations im...@BruceMcF, I suppose this concept of operations implies that 1 tail track is needed for every 2 platform tracks, and that it must be accessible from at least those two tracks (and preferably more)<BR/><BR/>Would it be better to have a 3-track approach (and a well-configured station throat) to enable > 12 tph each way, thus allowing dead head moves to underground servicing tracks at 4th & Townsend?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-39196612205143680472009-03-13T11:05:00.000-07:002009-03-13T11:05:00.000-07:00First is reducing the total slack required at each...First is reducing the total slack required at each platform as exceptional cases can be vented to the trailing tracks.<BR/><BR/>Second is not requiring the trains to occupy the platform for the entire time that they are at the station ... the example given in previous posts was X minutes to unload passengers, 1 minute to go to the trailing track, X minutes to clean, restock, minor repairs, etc., 1 minute to go to the departure platform, X minutes to load, depart. So 9+1+9+1+9 is thirty minutes between arrival and departure but only occupying passenger platforms for twenty minutes, allowing 3 trains per hour per platform or 12 trains for four platforms.<BR/><BR/>Even if that is tight, 14+1+14+1+14 would allow 45 minutes between arrival and departure and only occupy platforms for 30 of those minutes, for 2 trains per hour per platform or 8 tph for four platforms.<BR/><BR/>Mind, for a mere 2 trains per hour per platform, I expect you'd leave them departing from the same platform that they arrive at, and only use the trailing tracks to avoid bottlenecking a platform for exceptional dwell time ... half an hour seems like plenty to debark, restock, and embark passengers.<BR/><BR/>In the second case, its not that the trailer tracks increase the throughput by speeding up the typical service, but rather by preventing extraordinary events from interfering with the typical service.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36598122654538271342009-03-13T10:19:00.000-07:002009-03-13T10:19:00.000-07:00@BruceMcF, how do the tail tracks improve throughp...@BruceMcF, how do the tail tracks improve throughput capacity?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-40344668251421286962009-03-13T08:55:00.000-07:002009-03-13T08:55:00.000-07:00"It is quite plausible that multiple SF stations w..."<I>It is quite plausible that multiple SF stations would help ridership on HSR, since SF is by far the most densely populated part of the Bay Area, with a population density that is similar to many large Asian cities. One concern I have, though, is that Transbay and 4th and King really are not very far apart (only about 1 mile), so it might make less sense than the Asian examples. Although Boston has similar spacing between its two Acela stations.</I>"<BR/><BR/>More to the point is the same as the issue of using the proposed airport Transport Interchange as the main terminus in San Diego with locals continuing on to Santa Fe ... the big argument against stations that close together is that it slows down all trips that are taken through that station, so for intermediate stations, the time cost imposed on through passengers does not justify two stations a mile or two apart.<BR/><BR/>For terminal stations, there are no through passengers being imposed upon when the "extra" station is an extension ... building the airport transport interchange to support some locals continuing on to Santa Fe would not impose a time penalty on anyone.<BR/><BR/>In San Francisco, with the largest transit capacity at the TBT, it would be harder to justify adding a stop at 4th and King. However, if total capacity at the TBT for all services terminating in San Francisco threatens to create a cost blowout at the TBT, providing for 4th and King as an alternate terminus for an appropriate mix of Stage 2 and 3 services could be one way to avoid that cost blowout.<BR/><BR/>As argued previously, if all four HSR platform tracks have direct or switched access to both trailing tracks, that provides substantial throughput capacity and operating flexibility ... if 12tph is possible, though perhaps with little slack, that means that 8tph certainly ought to be OK. 2 trains per hour per platform is not something that ought to cause a serious hassle, even if some are services like SF/Fresno that will need to get a thorough cleaning in SF.<BR/><BR/>So TBT, with the same general 4+2 platform footprint, but with the modifications required to connect both trailers to all four HSR platforms.<BR/><BR/>Note that this approach would also seem to bear no penalty against the 24 stations served in Stage 1 language.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70571241687260738202009-03-12T20:44:00.000-07:002009-03-12T20:44:00.000-07:00By the way check out Newsom's hot ass wife.No wond...<I>By the way check out Newsom's hot ass wife.</I><BR/><BR/>No wonder every commenter here is male.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24874449983348093452009-03-12T15:04:00.000-07:002009-03-12T15:04:00.000-07:00Although admittedly BART does meander a bit as it ...Although admittedly BART does meander a bit as it goes from Millbrae through the city, I suspect a fair number of east bay bound passengers would transfer at Millbrae anyway, in order to get a seat, rather than have to pile into already packed trains at Embarcadero.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10570027785365903956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-44200279492471602792009-03-12T13:41:00.000-07:002009-03-12T13:41:00.000-07:00"The total number of stations to be served by high..."The total number of stations to be served by high-speed trains for all of the corridors described in subdivision (b) of Section 2704.04 shall not exceed 24."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33876302300555566502009-03-12T12:47:00.000-07:002009-03-12T12:47:00.000-07:00Considering HSR stations at both 4th and King and ...Considering HSR stations at both 4th and King and Transbay makes some sense to me. At the very least, it would buy some time to raise the money for Transbay with respect to issues in the wording of Prop 1A, since 4th & King could be considered an intermediate station, with the intention that Transbay ends up as the terminus some day, as Prop 1A indicates. <BR/><BR/>Acela trains serve both Boston Back Bay Station and Boston South Station (about 1 mile apart). This makes sense, since both stations seem to draw significant ridership. Seoul and Tokyo also have multiple HSR stations within the city limits (though they are much bigger cities). Seoul has both Seoul Station and Yongsan Station for the KTX. Tokyo has Ueno, Tokyo, and Shinagawa for the shinkansen. <BR/><BR/>It is quite plausible that multiple SF stations would help ridership on HSR, since SF is by far the most densely populated part of the Bay Area, with a population density that is similar to many large Asian cities. One concern I have, though, is that Transbay and 4th and King really are not very far apart (only about 1 mile), so it might make less sense than the Asian examples. Although Boston has similar spacing between its two Acela stations. <BR/><BR/>@Rafael & Clem- any thoughts on issues or benefits of HSR stations at both SF locations in terms of turning trains? I know you have thought about this much more than I have. <BR/><BR/>One other comment on the importance of a connection to BART is that longer term Oakland will probably demand their own HSR Station either through a transbay HSR tube or via an Altamont extension up the East Bayshore. Clearly connecting from BART to HSR at Transbay (which is already marginal) would become obsolete if that scenario happens. Just something to consider.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-12848400352157661732009-03-12T12:20:00.000-07:002009-03-12T12:20:00.000-07:00"Do all the trains have to be cleaned on the north..."<I>Do all the trains have to be cleaned on the north end of the line? Do all the passengers have to be seated before the trains can move?</I>"<BR/><BR/>No, and no. Cleaning by staff is ongoing, and the full scale cleaning does not have to occur that many times a day that it has to occur at both sides of the line. And of course not all passengers have to be seated before the trains move ... debarking passengers eager to be on their way will be queuing up before the train stops at the station, and the train can leave the station once all embarking passengers are through the door.<BR/><BR/>And the recent remarks about headways ... the 5 minute headways would certainly seem to be a design constraint for the high speed sections ... but the Cityrail system in Sydney gets close to 3 minute headways even with old trains and decrepit signalling. So I'm inclined to find TomW quite credible on the claim that at those speeds, its only getting headways below 3 minutes that starts to get tricky (and lord knows that Cityrail has "wanted" to get headways down below 3 minutes for decades now, but State Government for some reason never funded the complete overhaul of the signalling system that would be required).<BR/><BR/>3 minute minimum headways in the access line and 5 minute headways in the schedule means that by speeding/slowing a train by a minute and a half, within the available slack, an open slot can be opened up.<BR/><BR/>That means that in the event of some untoward event in a trainset that would leave a pinch in trainbox capacity, a standard procedure can be in place to vent that trainset out and bring another one in to replace it.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-23046178205488745962009-03-12T11:59:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:59:00.000-07:00Andy Chow and Bianca are raising good points, whic...Andy Chow and Bianca are raising good points, which is why I'm glad I merely said "I'm willing to consider" moving the terminus to 4th and King. Even without an underground pedestrian connection TBT is <B>far</B> more walkable than 4th and King.<BR/><BR/>Yonah at the Transport Politic <A HREF="http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/12/platform-shortage-could-threaten-cahsr-into-transbay-terminal/" REL="nofollow">proposes a sensible solution</A> - use both 4th and King AND TBT as a terminus. Some trains go to TBT, others do not. Thoughts on this concept?Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-73185487634540888182009-03-12T11:51:00.001-07:002009-03-12T11:51:00.001-07:00Anon @11:44 - first, please choose a name, even if...Anon @11:44 - first, please choose a name, even if it's a pseudonym.<BR/><BR/>Second, we HSR supporters back a project, and not necessarily any individual helping implement it. I have respect for the work Kopp and Diridon have done on this, along with all the other members of the CHSRA board and staff. Sometimes I agree with their proposals and sometimes I do not. It's not about having "faith" in anything other than high speed trains.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-78632127545925391732009-03-12T11:51:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:51:00.000-07:00Andy Chow raises a really good point. The ability ...Andy Chow raises a really good point. The ability of MUNI to absorb the number of passengers disembarking from the average HSR train is something people need to think about carefully before ditching the Transbay Terminal. MUNI cars can only handle a fraction of the capacity of HSR.<BR/><BR/>One of the real selling points of HSR was that the terminus in San Francisco would be right downtown. People BARTing in from the East Bay for a baseball game might be up for smooshing into a jammed MUNI car, but business travelers? The likely outcome is that the area around 4th & King is jammed with taxis waiting to pick up arriving passengers and take them, in many cases, to the Financial District. <BR/><BR/>I don't have the numbers of how many people come into San Francisco each day from the East Bay and Marin on buses. But there is real value in bring the rail and bus terminals together. If we drop TBT as the terminus, then all those folks opposing the Peninsula route are going to argue even harder for stopping HSR at San Jose, since it will only terminate at 4th & King anyway. We need to make sure that TBT is well-designed, but I still think there is a real case for it.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51138637385265662902009-03-12T11:44:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:44:00.000-07:00"It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting t..."It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim,"<BR/><BR/>So delete SFTT and you are invalidating Measure 1A. SFTT is one of the ONLY specifics stated with point blank clarity in Measure 1A.<BR/><BR/>Seems that if they want measure 1A funds, then SFTT is no longer up for debate. The only debate is how big, and how much$.<BR/><BR/>And on the question of how big - if the size of SFTT is not enough to accomodate the grandiose ridership projections in the certified EIR/EIS, then the whole darn thing starts to unravel.<BR/><BR/>Yet if SFTT its OVER engineered, then it costs way more than in the business plan, (under ridiculous ridership projections that won't materialize to PAY for itself), then the whole darn thing starts to unravel.<BR/><BR/>Have Kopp and Diridon painted CHSRA into a corner on this one?<BR/><BR/>HSR supporters need to start thinking more seriously about exactly who they're putting their leadership faith in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-34916830876694339292009-03-12T11:28:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:28:00.000-07:00I believe it is ridiculous to think that 4th &...I believe it is ridiculous to think that 4th & King is sufficient.<BR/><BR/>Although 4th & King has the space for the trains, it doesn't have enough space nor connection to facilitate pedestrian movements. The streets around 4 & King are constrained by freeway and ballpark traffic. The Muni tracks are poorly configured.<BR/><BR/>Despite the growth in the 4th & King station area, the SF financial district still has a higher employment density. Getting HSR/Caltrain there would cut a lot of surface traffic that would otherwise have, and would free up Muni resources to better serve other parts of the city. Caltrain isn't abandoning the 4th & King station, so it is not either or.<BR/><BR/>4th & King might have been sufficient if there's a metro system that has the reliability, speed, and frequency to get people around the city. You can see that in New York, DC, and to some extent LA. Unfortunately Muni is a joke, even with the Central Subway. The Central Subway could only accommodate two car trains, and that trains would come from the Bayview. If the trains aren't full coming in from the Bayview, then the trains would be infrequent. Also, the Central subway can't serve the financial district as well because the alignment under Stockton Street is up the hill from Montgomery St.<BR/><BR/>At TBT you can access all the Metro lines and all the BART lines coming in to downtown. Not one or two that extend beyond downtown to 4th & King or Millbrae. That means less double transfer for folks that live close to BART or Muni Metro but aren't served by direct service to 4th & King/Millbrae. That applies to the buses too.<BR/><BR/>The TBT does have operational constraints, but I think the improvement in customer service (and door to door travel time) is worth the operational changes that might be needed. Do all the trains have to be cleaned on the north end of the line? Do all the passengers have to be seated before the trains can move?<BR/><BR/>The TBT project is nearly ready to go. It would be tragic to see that might not happen because of relatively petty issues.Andy Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972872641383327394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62426922691597877682009-03-12T11:22:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:22:00.000-07:00NO nimby BAR your off topic again...you wonkNO nimby BAR your off topic again...you wonkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-54630162665923833332009-03-12T11:16:00.000-07:002009-03-12T11:16:00.000-07:00He started off by saying that he wanted to tell us...<I>He started off by saying that he wanted to tell us about a project that he knew not all of us supported because it barely passed. This is a strange thing to say because 63% of Alameda County voters voted in favor of Prop 1A.</I><BR/><BR/>You guys need to get your heads out of the sand. Prop 1A is the most contentious proposition since gay marriage. Nothing pisses off the public more than Rod Diridon standing up in Palo Alto saying "thanks for your OVERWHELMING support of Prop 1A and High Speed Rail", because nobody supports this now except the train wonks like you all. Newsom is absolutely right, this project needs a public relations makeover and that is what he is trying to do, to state that he understands this thing is contentious but to him, it it still a good idea. Doesn't really matter if 1A passed, because the text of that initiative was deliberately vague. Nobody knew what they were voting for.Bay Area Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807091317788242756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-11078678244899864852009-03-12T10:45:00.000-07:002009-03-12T10:45:00.000-07:00r.motorist, the only way 4th and King works is if ...r.motorist, the only way 4th and King works is if the Central Subway is built. It may be less ideal than TBT for the reasons Rafael noted, but it is something that can possibly work. It's a subject worth exploring in some greater detail.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-76952363046585842212009-03-12T10:34:00.000-07:002009-03-12T10:34:00.000-07:00I'm kind of surprised at the number of people now ...I'm kind of surprised at the number of people now saying that TT is not a necessity. I'm thinking back to the discussion about halting HSR in San Jose. It seemed the consensus was the extra travel time and the added transfer would make travel that much less convenient and have a adverse effect on ridership.<BR/><BR/>The same can be said of keeping the HSR terminus at 4th and King. The TT is adjacent to pretty much every feeder line in the city. How many east bay riders will be lost if they have to put up with an extra transfer to Muni? I've tried many times to bridge the gap between 4th and King and Market and it's never been that convenient. I've also taken BART from Milbrae to the East Bay, and that also takes a while. If BART riders are forced to put up with either one of those I imagine ridership would suffer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-60988921378911045952009-03-12T08:43:00.000-07:002009-03-12T08:43:00.000-07:00I have to say at every Giants home game the MuniMe...I have to say at every Giants home game the MuniMetro is jammed with Eastbay people that transfer to BART at the Embarcadero station.Its the same line and the Caltrain station is only 1/3 mile away ..I would think they might do the same for HSR. The Central Subway would bring people right into the dense hotel area. 4th and king is a very up and coming area right now ..I would not mind living there.Either station would work,its just were is the money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64369511613817760522009-03-12T07:09:00.000-07:002009-03-12T07:09:00.000-07:00"Well, I know San Francisco, and there ain't going..."Well, I know San Francisco, and there ain't going to be a train that gets in and out of there in five minutes".<BR/>Well, that's just wrong. I've never seen anythign which impleis the upgraded rail network aroudn SF won't be able to handle trains every five minutes.<BR/>For the record, things only start to get tricky with main-line rail if you want trains more often than every three minutes.TomWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453251490705724225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-13106795859287193432009-03-12T06:33:00.000-07:002009-03-12T06:33:00.000-07:00I kinda thought that the TBT project was too far a...I kinda thought that the TBT project was too far along to be killed at this point. Still, I too find myself questioning its importance. To me, the clincher with the SF station is BART and Muni Metro access, which at the TBT would be tenuous at best because it would be contingent on splurging for an underground passage with moving walkways. At 4th and King, you get Muni Metro access, but not BART. As Rafael points out, East Bay passengers would get the shaft.<BR/><BR/>But I was just struck with a crazy idea that might be worth studying. How about an above-ground station adjacent to Civic Center BART/Muni? There would be a significant amount of eminent domain seizure involved, but it wouldn't be so bad because a lot of the area is blighted and of relatively lower density. It would have lots of transit connections, be pretty much within downtown SF, be a lot more easily expandable than an underground station, and the Civic Center/Mid-Market area could sure do with a revitalization.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17237464626091579237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-13815622508416128282009-03-12T03:05:00.000-07:002009-03-12T03:05:00.000-07:00@ Frank -"SF bound Commuters/Visitors from Ea...@ Frank -<BR/><BR/>"SF bound Commuters/Visitors from East Bay (BART): BART/Muni/Central Subway connections are good enough. They don't need Caltrain or HSR."<BR/><BR/>Yes, because the entire world in interested only in going to SF, the navel of the universe. <BR/><BR/>Jeez Louise, the HSR station at SF is supposed to serve Alameda and Contra Costa counties as well. Passengers from Hayward south may eventually hop on BART to catch trains at SF, but many will prefer to drive or take a bus to one of the peninsula station.<BR/><BR/>Everyone north and east of Hayward is going to need a usable - if imperfect = solution for bridging the gap between SFTT and the nearest BART station, because BART takes a long time to reach Millbrae. On any given day, only one line actually goes out there, so you have to transfer in downtown Oakland or else at SFO.<BR/><BR/>The central subway is a tram, useful for getting commuters deep into the financial district (e.g. to the Transamerica pyramid area). Each train handles 100-150 passengers max. BART trains handle 700. Transferring from BART to the central subway to get to 4th & King is a sure-fire way to keep people in short-hop planes.<BR/><BR/><I>Each</I> HSR train can have over 1000 seats, cp. 16 car TGV Duplex! Eurostar operates single-level trains with 20 cars for 766 seats per train. That's a lot of trams and buses. The highest volume of HSR feeder traffic will come from BART, plus some from regular Muni Subway lines and Caltrain (peninsula passengers will have other stations served by HSR).<BR/><BR/>Besides, Embarcadero (and perhaps Montgomery, too) BART needs improved pedestrian flow capacity even now, that's the bottleneck in the system. Not the transbay tube.<BR/><BR/>What I would like to know is how they got up to $3.2 billion for the DTX + Transbay Terminal building incl. train box. The St. Pancras remodeling/expansion in London in the context of HS1 cost GBP 866 million, i.e. about half of San Francisco's SFTT, which is quite a bit smaller.<BR/><BR/>Is the DTX tunnel still a three-track affair? If so, why? Two is enough for 24tph total because speeds will be low. At 25mph, a 2.5 minute headway translates to a mile of distance separation, which should be plenty to step on the brakes in case of emergency. Plus, it will eb a cold day in the hot place before we'll actually see 24tph into the SFTT train box anyhow.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-18977494466804212332009-03-11T23:56:00.000-07:002009-03-11T23:56:00.000-07:00This is an interesting discussion, and I suddenly ...This is an interesting discussion, and I suddenly find myself changing my mind as well. <BR/><BR/>I always assumed that the TBT was necessary, but come to think of it, what are the commuting or travel patterns that will really need this connection? <BR/><BR/>1. SF bound Commuters/Visitors from the Peninsula: They don't really need to connect to BART - they need to get into the City. This purpose can be served by BART at Millbrae, the Central Subway, or Muni. The main beef is with commuters who want a 1 seat ride into the TBT area.<BR/><BR/>2. SF bound Commuters/Visitors from East Bay (BART): BART/Muni/Central Subway connections are good enough. They don't need Caltrain or HSR. <BR/><BR/>3. SF bound Commuters/Visitors from Marin/East Bay to TBT (bus): They will have an expanded bus terminal and improved access to transit. However, they get the shaft since they aren't served by the Central Subway. However, bus service directly to 4th & King would help.<BR/><BR/>4. SF bound SF Locals: The DTX doesn't do much to help them get around town. <BR/><BR/>5. Penninsua bound SF residents/vistors: They will have various transit options to get to 4th & King(bus/Muni/Central Subway), just as people in downtown LA would need to take the train to Union Station. It would be nice to have a direct connection, but not necessary.<BR/><BR/>6. Anyone traveling N or E from SF: No need for HSR or Caltrain - would only serve a 2 minute ride from 4th & King to TBT. <BR/><BR/>7. Through commuters or travelers (ie Penninsula-Marin, East Bay-Marin, Penninsual-East Bay): This market is not that crucial. They can take BART or other options. <BR/><BR/>8. SFO/SJO air travelers: See #1<BR/><BR/>9. OAK air travelers: See #2<BR/><BR/>10. Ferries: ??? <BR/><BR/>In conclusion (using my limited analysis), the only people that really would benefit from the DTX would be commuters who work in the area around the TBT and bus patrons from EB or Marin who need to get to the 4th & King area. Overall, is this really that big a chunk fo the high speed rail market? Is this worth it? Seems to me that SF should pay for this if they want it.<BR/><BR/>I am from LA and SD so forgive me if I made any assumptions that were clearly wrong here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com