tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post6971799778579168068..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: All Aboard!Robert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84474356149349021112008-11-06T03:52:00.000-08:002008-11-06T03:52:00.000-08:00SJ Mercury reports that officials would consider e...<A HREF="http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10909131" REL="nofollow">SJ Mercury</A> reports that officials would consider extending BART extension only as far as East San Jose as a Phase I if Measure B does fail and defer the expensive tunnel under E. Santa Clara until funds for phase II can be found.<BR/><BR/>A partial implementation would supposedly attract 50,000 riders per day, half of the original proposal. The primary purpose of the extension is supposedly relief for rush-hour congestion on I-880.<BR/><BR/>BART <A HREF="http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/wsx/index.aspx" REL="nofollow">estimates</A> the cost of the Warm Springs portion of the extension at $890 million for 5.4 miles of new grade-separated tracks + third rail + grade separations (except Paseo Padre) + subway section under Central Park and the active portion of the SPML freight line + station building. Not sure if there would be a parking lot.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Just for reference, CHSRA estimated the construction cost of HSR tracks + overhead catenaries + signaling + grade separations from SJ Diridon to Niles via the I-880 median and WPML at $1.7 billion for roughly 11 miles. <A HREF="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/Default.aspx?ItemID=8060" REL="nofollow">Source</A> (see alternatives 4, 6 and 7).<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east" REL="nofollow">Caltrain Metro East</A> proposal would use standard gauge EMU rolling stock and overhead catenaries to connect SJ Diridon, the SJC terminals and Niles via a new aerial alignment along Trimble Road, which was also considered by CHSRA. Price tag $1.5 billion incl. at least one new station at the airport. Of course, this alignment serves the golden triangle rather than downtown SJ.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: the infrastructure costs per mile aren't all that different for the three systems, as long as most of the tracks are mostly above ground. An aerial structure over Santa Clara St. would cost a lot less than a tunnel underneath it.<BR/><BR/>The trick is keeping it from looking really ugly. You'd want to spend a little extra to make it look elegant rather than utilitarian. Santiago Calatrava is an architect and civil engineer who knows how to make concrete structures look lithe.<BR/><BR/>Between SJ Diridon and 13th St, it could be supported by columns in the median if the left turn lanes there are shortened or sacrificed. Between the columns, the median would be converted to a vegetation strip with a high concave curb. Additional protection for the lower part of the columns would be recommended.<BR/><BR/>Between 13th and 24th Streets, the median disappears and one of the traffic lanes would have to be sacrificed to make room for the columns supporting the train tracks. That would leave one lane in each direction plus one that could be used for traffic westbound in the morning and eastbound after noon. There's also an old bridge to contend with but it could probably be left alone.<BR/><BR/>If special BART rolling stock equipped with both pantographs and third rail pickups is deployed, the entire section between east SJ and Fremont Irvington could be implemented at grade with grade crossings for most cross roads. Four-quadrant gates and flashing lights would suffice to turn it into an FRA quiet zone. This would eliminate a lot of underpass projects. The trains would switch back and forth between third rail and overhead catenary on-the-fly, coasting briefly.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Alternatively, the whole thing could be turned into a Caltrain extension based on 25kV AC overhead catenaries throughout. The operational advantage would be high-capacity bi-level EMU rolling stock, so the gates on the grade crossings wouldn't have to close as often. Caltrain service would terminate at Fremont Irvington. BART would be extended only that far and passengers would transfer trains to reach downtown SJ or continue north along the peninsula.<BR/><BR/>Caltrain service south of San Jose would be replaced by an extension of Amtrak Capitol Corridor to Gilroy for selected trains.<BR/><BR/>Caltrain's computer simulations indicated crashworthiness in grade crossing accidents equal or superior to the FRA-compliant alternative and received positive feedback from FRA. That will be a moot point along the peninsula now that prop 1A has passed, but a waiver would still be needed to avoid full grade separation in the East Bay section of the solution described above.<BR/><BR/>Non-compliant EMU equipment would also be crash compatible with non-compliant HSR trains, facilitating FRA rulemaking for HSR. Operators would share the Caltrain extension tunnel to the new Transbay Terminal.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Heads up:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/06/MN3B13ULVA.DTL" REL="nofollow">CHSRA readies action plan</A> - which sounds more like "Jumping Jack Flash" than "updated business plan" to me. We'll see.<BR/><BR/>Sen. Feinstein says she will appropriate an unspecified fraction of the $1.5 billion in HSR funds in HR 2095 to the California system, since it's currently the only concrete proposal in the nation. Your tax dollars at work.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-80434146950836483822008-11-06T00:18:00.000-08:002008-11-06T00:18:00.000-08:00@ bossyman15 -SNCF deploys TGV Duplex trains on th...@ bossyman15 -<BR/><BR/><BR/>SNCF deploys <A HREF="http://www.tee-usa.com/store/media/meh699-55354.jpg" REL="nofollow">TGV Duplex</A> trains on the busy Paris-Lyon route. Note the location of the Jacobs trucks in-between the relatively short but wide cars (except power cars at either end). Alstom calls this "rame articulee" (articulated frame) and uses it for all its designs.<BR/><BR/>The feature is credited with keeping cars from jackknifing or toppling over after a freak sinkhole caused a <A HREF="http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/wrecks.html" REL="nofollow">derailment at 182mph</A> involving a single-level TGV in 1993. One person was slightly injured. That's why I prefer the French designs to the <A HREF="http://img288.imageshack.us/img288/1281/siemens250705w84rf.jpg" REL="nofollow">Siemens Velaro</A>, even though the latter is prettier and reportedly has the nicest interior on the market. Siemens does not offer a bi-level version.<BR/><BR/>A full-length TGV Duplex trainset offers up to 545 seats, about as many as an Airbus A380. Some trains feature <A HREF="http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=tgv%20duplex&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv#hl=en&q=tgv%20duplex&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&start=30" REL="nofollow">two trainsets</A>. <BR/><BR/>Top speed for the TGV Duplex is 186mph but SNCF is collaborating with Alstom on an update. Most likely, it will be a derivative of the new single-level AGV, a true EMU design rated at 100m/s (224mph) that supports a maximum of 650 seats in a 14 car configuration. If so, the duplex variant would have about 1200 because the stairwells take up some room. Still, that's equivalent to 4-5 short hop planes.<BR/><BR/>Spanish manufacturer Talgo goes one further than Alstom and makes do with a single axle in-between its cars to minimize mass. A passive steering mechanism ensures each axle always remains perpendicular to the tracks, so there's absolutely no screeching in bends. The <A HREF="http://www.tee-usa.com/store/media/ele3501.jpeg" REL="nofollow">Talgo 350</A> is certified for top speeds of 217mph and features a rather ungainly duckbill nose. Talgo doesn't offer a bilevel model.<BR/><BR/>The much heavier and slower <A HREF="http://www.khi.co.jp/sharyo/pro_final/train/jrn_700star.jpg" REL="nofollow">700 series shinkansen</A>, the faster <A HREF="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Taiwan-HighSpeedRail-700T-testrun-2006-0624.jpg" REL="nofollow">700T</A> in Taiwan and the slower bi-level <A HREF="http://www.realrailway.com/photo/1024/tc_e4maxtoki.jpg" REL="nofollow">E4MAX shinkansen</A> also feature striking nose designs.<BR/><BR/>Arguably the sexiest high speed train design is the <A HREF="http://funini.com/train/shinkansen/imgs/tec500.jpg" REL="nofollow">500 series shinkansen</A> on the right with a top speed of 186mph. Only a small number were built because the 700 on the left is cheaper.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-23189315199906391312008-11-05T22:53:00.000-08:002008-11-05T22:53:00.000-08:00oh and if the ridership gets so high like during r...oh and if the ridership gets so high like during rush hour. they could add double deck car like what japan have.<BR/>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hitch/215165717/bossyman15https://www.blogger.com/profile/04434928402545599443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-91968128519110016392008-11-05T22:48:00.000-08:002008-11-05T22:48:00.000-08:00mmm all that sounds good tho some of them may not ...mmm all that sounds good tho some of them may not be possible like getting the plane pass and bag label while in the train.<BR/><BR/>they should be careful not to go overboard and try to give so much serives and options. they should start small, not too small, like have just have wifi in the train.<BR/><BR/>later once the ridership picks up they could add more services like what you said.bossyman15https://www.blogger.com/profile/04434928402545599443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-2906293154577384042008-11-05T22:34:00.000-08:002008-11-05T22:34:00.000-08:00@ tony d -oh, I didn't know they hadn't counted al...@ tony d -<BR/><BR/>oh, I didn't know they hadn't counted all of the votes yet. I saw that 100% of precincts had reported and took that to mean the result was final. Is there a recount in progress?<BR/><BR/>If Measure B does pass, even by a whisker, plan A goes into effect: BART to San Jose plus HSR via Pacheco Pass. Not my personal favorite, but the outcome of an election is the outcome. Any word on how soon we might expect the official final tally?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28128441361905638292008-11-05T22:27:00.000-08:002008-11-05T22:27:00.000-08:00@ brandon -breaking ground can't happen until the ...@ brandon -<BR/><BR/>breaking ground can't happen until the project-level EIR/EIS for that segment is approved by the FRA, matching funds are secured, a complete project management plan is available and, the legislature actually appropriates the state's share of the funding and the bonds are actually sold.<BR/><BR/>In the immediate future, the focus will be on acquiring ROW and securing that all-important "rule of special applicability" from the FRA so the whole can be based on proven off-the-shelf products obtained in competitive tenders.<BR/><BR/>In parallel, project-level EIR/EIS processes have to be conducted. Cities and counties will want a say on each and every grade crossing, station architecture etc. many will try to tackle long-standing local issues at the same time. For example, Fresno wants to shoehorn UPRR, BNSF, HSR and Amtrak San Joaquin into the UPRR corridor, which is 100' wide.<BR/><BR/>HSR needs two dedicated tracks spaced quite far apart to avoid blowing out windows on express trains passing at relative speeds of 440mph, this is a tougher proposition than sharing the Caltrain ROW, where the speed limit will be more like 100-125mph.<BR/><BR/>That would mean UPRR would have to let both rival BNSF and Amtrak use its freight tracks - which might need to be moved - for a fee. For safety and fair competition, UPRR would have abide by ground rules on dispatch authority or hand it over to a third party (cp. Alameda corridor).<BR/><BR/>Moreover, legal liability issues related to running HSR trains at 220mph on adjacent tracks would need to be addressed. What if a freight or Amtrak train derails and fouls adjacent track(s)?<BR/><BR/>It would be an extremely rare event, but after 146 years of railroad operations, it's probably happened to UPRR before. Given that HSR trains will run at up to 220mph in the Central Valley, such an incident would have to be detected and communicated <I>immediately</I> to the HSR dispatch computers to minimize the risk of a potentially catastrophic follow-on accident.<BR/><BR/>It takes several miles of track and advanced brake technology to slow 400 metric tons of train mass from one football field per <I>second</I> to zero. In 40 years of HSR operations, this particular horror scenario has never ever happened, but a 16-car French duplex TGV has 1090 seats and SNCF achieves average occupancy rates of 75%.<BR/><BR/>More prosaically, there's still the issue of removing the debris as quickly as possible. With HSR, it doesn't take long for a queue of stopped trains to form. Would the HSR operator hold the freight operator liable for lost revenue? What about the even more reverse scenario?<BR/><BR/>Livestock or wildlife wandering onto the tracks and acts of sabotage/terrorism against them require additional safety measures such as sturdy fences and CCTV surveillance. These ghastly hypotheticals need to be thought through, especially in the context of express trains running through the downtown areas of Central Valley cities at 220mph.<BR/><BR/>Within a section of to either side of Fresno station, HSR will require at least four tracks to support a mix of express and slower semi-express and local trains. Trains need to slow down well ahead of of negotiating a wye to avoid damaging it.<BR/><BR/>The upshot is that a long section of the ROW in the built-up downtown area would either have to be widened to also accommodate the freight tracks or, the dual HSR tracks would have to be elevated well ahead of the wyes near the station. The freight tracks would then run - without elevation change - underneath the elevated station. However, they too would fan out into four tracks so freight trains can pass Amtrak passenger trains that need to stop at the station.<BR/><BR/>The simplest station configuration would be separate platforms for each direction, connected by pedestrian over- or underpasses. Note that HSR platforms need to support train lengths of up to 1320', about four football fields. Pedestrian flow capacity can be a significant issue, especially if there is a major sports or other event attracting large numbers of passengers from another city.<BR/><BR/>If full-length trains will not be used initially, the land required for future platform extension and the associated flow infrastructure still needs to be reserved from the outset.<BR/><BR/>And if all of that breaks the bank, the alternative is an also expensive freight bypass corridor around the city. However, since FRA won't let non-compliant HSR trains with compliant Amtrak San Joaquins, that precludes their use as connecting transit to the many smaller Central Valley towns where HSR trains won't stop.<BR/><BR/>Elsewhere in the Central Valley, the mostly single-track BNSF alignment to the east is supposed to remain in use and continue hosting Amtrak trains and stations at the edge of town. In other words, they already have their bypass.<BR/><BR/>So far, Fresno is the only Central Valley town pursuing a shoehorn strategy through its downtown area.<BR/><BR/>All of this is supposed to illustrate why breaking ground real soon now isn't possible. The ducks aren't in a row yet. What might be possible soon is a marketing event in which train manufacturers show off scale models and mock-up sections of their products and architects models of the proposed stations to the general public.<BR/><BR/>Now that they are on the hook for a cool $10 billion, voters will probably take greater interest in what exactly that money will buy. They will also want to educate themselves about safety, noise, construction impact and schedule and how exactly California's disparate passenger rail and bus services will work in unison.<BR/><BR/>Separately, questions on walking distances, timetables, fare structures, ticketing, bicycles, WiFi etc. need to be answered to give voters confidence that the investment will be worth it. Many probably voted based on an incomplete understanding of the project.<BR/><BR/>Planners often don't focus on the devil in the details of the customer experience, but they make a big difference in customer satisfaction and ridership. Case in point: getting from say, Palo Alto to the check-in counters at SFO currently requires getting to the Caltrain station, buying a ticket, waiting for the train, riding it to Millbrae, buying a BART ticket, waiting for the train, riding it to San Bruno, transferring to a waiting train, riding it to SFO, waiting for the courtesy AirTrain, riding that to the terminal and walking down to check-in. What a pain, especially if you have suitcases and a kid in tow.<BR/><BR/>Would that get any easier with HSR instead of Caltrain? Could you buy an electronic ticket for the flight, HSR train and the shuttle in-between?<BR/><BR/>Could you obtain your boarding pass and check your bags in Fresno and pick them up at your destination airport? How about the return trip?<BR/><BR/>Could you get on the train in Fresno, obtain your boarding pass and baggage labels while the train is moving to cut your total travel time, drop off the bags at Millbrae and proceed directly to security at the airport?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63693269638520001362008-11-05T22:18:00.000-08:002008-11-05T22:18:00.000-08:00We won! yes! now let's see those updated plan...No...We won! yes! <BR/><BR/>now let's see those updated plan...<BR/><BR/>Nov 8th right?bossyman15https://www.blogger.com/profile/04434928402545599443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-30864974472790675432008-11-05T21:58:00.000-08:002008-11-05T21:58:00.000-08:00This is not a conservative vs. progressive issue. ...This is not a conservative vs. progressive issue. After having lived overseas for several years and having had the chance to use high speed rail, it's simply the most convenient and best way to travel to nearby cities.<BR/><BR/>When the system is up and running, Californians will realize that it's just altogether cheaper and easier to take the high speed train between LA and San Francisco than to either drive or fly. <BR/><BR/>Hooray for high speed rail! Congratulations!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20179956809785299862008-11-05T21:15:00.000-08:002008-11-05T21:15:00.000-08:00WHOO!!!! We won!Thanks for all your hard work!WHOO!!!! We won!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for all your hard work!kaibabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11288667610632475776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-53962256351580909602008-11-05T20:21:00.000-08:002008-11-05T20:21:00.000-08:00Wow, thanks to Robert! and all you experts and kno...Wow, thanks to Robert! and all you experts and knowledgeable enthusiasts who helped debunk the false arguments of the last six months, and the bitter "didn't do it my way" opponents, and the legitimate worries provoked by the economic shudders of the last two months, and the explication of benefits and costs...... Absolutely essential to keeping the focus on the real issues and not letting stuff spiral out of proportion and reason....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47080029559627526542008-11-05T20:01:00.000-08:002008-11-05T20:01:00.000-08:00Rafael 5:57,No one has proclaimed Measure B/Santa ...Rafael 5:57,<BR/>No one has proclaimed Measure B/Santa Clara County as going down to defeat; 164,000 votes still needed to be tallied (as of 11/5). It aint over until it's over!! "Voters are apparently willing to open their wallets wide to invest in transit, but not at any price." I assume you were making reference to Measure B. Again, the idiocy of the 2/3 supermajority to pass special taxes, and to get a budget passed in California for that matter (you made reference to this above at 7:33)! 66.27% voting in favor of Measure B MAY NOT be enough to pass a 1/8 cent sales tax hike, but it shows extremely strong support in Santa Clara County to get BART service to SJ/SC. Silicon Valley leaders, both local and in Washington, will see this as a sign of strong support. Could the remaining $790 million for BART be part of a Democratic infrastructure stimulus package? As many have stated here, if the French TGV can subsidize local train service feeding into the main system, why not a scenario where CA HSR subsidizes BART maintenance/operations into Silicon Valley. Again, it's not over for Measure B/Santa Clara County, but our transit leaders may have to start thinking outside the box to get BART to SJ.Tony D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03392232221747908883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25142546621749676692008-11-05T20:00:00.000-08:002008-11-05T20:00:00.000-08:00Thanks for the nod. Glad this thing got passed and...Thanks for the nod. Glad this thing got passed and we get to show the country that real high speed rail can happen. <BR/><BR/>It promises to be an exciting next few years for Caltrain, which now has about 40 grade separation projects to look forward to, construction all along the line. I suspect that we'll see some sort of early action between Fresno and Bakersfield, for the "test track. I'm also very hopeful that the Federal dollars will flow for the project. LAUS run-through tracks would be a great start, along with closing the funding gap for the Caltrain extension to Transbay Terminal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-18948362260204060992008-11-05T19:33:00.000-08:002008-11-05T19:33:00.000-08:00@ anon -sounds about right, but there is nothing i...@ anon -<BR/><BR/>sounds about right, but there is nothing in AB3034 that says CHSRA can only build one segment at a time. If the necessary prep work is done and the ROW plus matching funds are secured, the legislature can choose to appropriate a fraction of the bond to chip in on multiple parallel efforts.<BR/><BR/>Appropriations from this bond are annual, so the legislature can decide how fast it wants to proceed based on the general fund's ability to take on additional debt service at the rate CHSRA proposes that year.<BR/><BR/>In practice, that could hold the project hostage to the state's notorious delays in getting a budget passed. CHSRA needs to anticipate these delays and also submit its proposal for early consideration to avoid cost escalations and opportunity costs. I'm sure there are legal ways to pass a portion of the budget early and the rest at a later date if legislators want to handle the process that way.<BR/><BR/>However, the biggest problem is that the state's constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget, which is supposed to be balanced. That means no one party is ever solely responsible for matching spending to tax revenue, so legislators aren't held to account at elections.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't help that some 80% - perhaps more - of discretionary spending is decided via ballot initiatives. Other countries manage to get HSR built without a specific referendum.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, ballot amendments to the state constitution can pass with a simple majority - which is why it happens so ofte. To get a handle on the situation, constitutional changes should require a supermajority and the budget process a simple one.<BR/><BR/>How would the state make that happen? Via the last-ever constitutional amendment initiative to require a simple majority. First, though, the legal status of same-sex couples who got married prior to Nov 4 needs to be resolved. I just hope the state doesn't declare bankruptcy first.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-34232126047314020682008-11-05T19:18:00.000-08:002008-11-05T19:18:00.000-08:00Yes, when will ground be broken? Are there any in...Yes, when will ground be broken? Are there any indications embedded in reports or comments from Kopp?<BR/><BR/>Imo, I suspect doing something ceremonial is ncessary within the next year; like a ground breaking. Maybe it would be for a maintenance building?Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25141566330943641692008-11-05T18:20:00.000-08:002008-11-05T18:20:00.000-08:00So *my* guess is that of the initial SF-SJ-Gilroy-...So *my* guess is that of the initial SF-SJ-Gilroy-Fresno-Bakersfield-Palmdale-LA-Anaheim line, the first funding will actually go to SF-SJ. CAHSR needs to coordinate closely with Caltrain, and Caltrain is in an advanced state of project development already. Plus, Caltrain's doing a lot of the heavy lifting for getting modern lightweight equipment approved by the FRA. The second pot of money will probably go to coordinate with and build Metrolink and Amtrak improvements from LA to Palmdale. Of the "feeder line" improvements ready to go, these are the ones which are *also* part of the HSR route and can share civil engineering work.<BR/><BR/>Railroad, landowner, and environmental negotiations will slow down the progress of the Central Valley portion. I expect that the first part to actually get built will be civil engineering work on the LA-Palmdale route, because the preliminary engineering has gone a long way already and the political problems in assembling the ROW are minimal.<BR/><BR/>The first train to actually *run* will probably be on the Central Valley test track (once the ROW is settled). But the first high-speed train in *revenue* service could be SF-SJ, SJ-Bakersfield, or Fresno-LA -- depending on which of the subsections progress fastest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64447052473454428272008-11-05T18:14:00.000-08:002008-11-05T18:14:00.000-08:00@ anon -CHSRA has indicated it intends to break gr...@ anon -<BR/><BR/>CHSRA has indicated it intends to break ground in 2012 and have the first trains running in the 2018-2020 timeframe. The phase II spurs would be completed before 2030. Of course, all that was before the financial crisis hit and the project took on a deficit spending role. The Authority said it would deliver an updated business plan 45 days after California passed a budget to fund that effort. That means its due on Monday. A majority of voters accepted that logic and ignored complaints that AB3034 mandated delivery well before the election.<BR/><BR/>The timeline includes a number of assumptions, notably that NIMBY lawsuits can be dealt with quickly because the Authority has executed a protracted EIR/EIS process and California voters have explicitly endorsed that.<BR/><BR/>This being California, such litigation is probably the single biggest risk wrt to the timeline and construction cost. Considering the scale and complexity of this and related rail projects, it would not be unreasonable to set up a special court for them.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28477659780009085492008-11-05T17:57:00.000-08:002008-11-05T17:57:00.000-08:00@ reluctant motorist -I can't speak for anyone els...@ reluctant motorist -<BR/><BR/>I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one consider Altamont Pass via the South Bay - pretty much the only affordable option Silicon Valley interests would even consider - strictly a contingency plan at this point. Voters endorsed not just HSR but a specific route for it. That needs to be respected, unless there is a broad consensus that it can't be implemented or, that an alternative would be better for the state and good enough for those who would lose out. That consensus does not exist today and you can't build one with lawsuits.<BR/><BR/>Measure B has very narrowly missed a 2/3 majority, which means the BART extension is currently unaffordable. The incoming administration may decide revisit an earlier decision to waive federal cost/benefit thresholds for contributions to infrastructure projects, which Mike Honda apparently finagled. HSR requires a huge federal earmark and voters did approve it. It will take a little while for SJ city officials and Measure B proponents to come to terms with this.<BR/><BR/>Between prop 1A and Measure R in LA county, local transit in the Bay Area has become actual rather than potential HSR feeder infrastructure for planning purposes. That means officials need a solution to chronic congestion I-880 and Sunol Grade that is not just effective at the local level but also preferable at the regional and state level.<BR/><BR/>They must now think well beyond their city and county boundaries and, factor in the aggregate financial impact of multiple concurrent mega-projects on the electorate. Voters are apparently willing to open their wallets wide to invest in transit, but not at any price.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62249378968549787702008-11-05T17:39:00.000-08:002008-11-05T17:39:00.000-08:00This may be an odd question to ask at this time bu...This may be an odd question to ask at this time but when will the initial SF-LA segment be operational?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-15426518062387335092008-11-05T17:18:00.000-08:002008-11-05T17:18:00.000-08:00This was a fantastic election for bay area transit...This was a fantastic election for bay area transit. 1A and Q both pass, Berkley’s KK goes down, and, perhaps most importantly, measure B went down in the south bay. As happy as I am that 1A passed, I am just as happy that Bay Area residents are one step further away from getting fleeced out of $6 billion.<BR/><BR/>On a related note, I have not made my peace with the Pacheco alignment. There have previously been calls for transit advocates and environmentalists to get behind this project so that it would be successful at the polls. Now that the prop has passed, these same people should do what they can to make sure they get the most out of their $10 billion bond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75155738729233889922008-11-05T16:40:00.000-08:002008-11-05T16:40:00.000-08:00@ luis d -afaik, any plans for a second transbay t...@ luis d -<BR/><BR/>afaik, any plans for a second transbay tube have been shelved for the time being. The most urgent bottleneck in the BART system is pedestrian flow capacity in the downtown SF stations during rush hour. Dwell times are extremely short and the BART architecture is very unforgiving if any one train suffers a delay because the platforms are overcrowded.<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem is that BART must share flow capacity with Muni Subway on the way up to the concourse level. Another is that Americans culture does not encourage orderly queueing and one-way circulation within rail cars, as is common in Japan.<BR/><BR/>It's not hard, just paint some stripes and arrows on the platform and declare the doors at the front of each car to be exits and those at the rear to be entrances by painting appropriate traffic signs on the cars.<BR/><BR/>I'd encourage a combination of these simple measures and mandatory seat reservation via SMS for California HSR as well. There's no reason not to recommend a specific spot on the platform where a passenger in car 4, seat 13B is supposed to wait for it if there's a crowd or they have bags they need to stow. Southwest already manages its boarding procedures in a similar fashion.<BR/><BR/>Trains can get going well before everyone sits down, there is no need for seat belts. However, they do get delayed if people cannot board because someone in front of them is blocking the aisle because they are stowing their stuff. If passengers board in exactly the right order, everyone keeps moving until everyone can deal with that at the same time. Not exactly rocket science, but for some reason some cultures are resistant to the idea.<BR/><BR/>Back to that second transbay tube: it would no good unless there is capacity to exploit the additional traffic at both ends. And that won't exist until the Caltrain downtown extension into the basement of the new Transbay Terminal exists.<BR/><BR/>At that point, running one over to Emeryville and up to Sacramento might be worth considering, though it would compete with freight trains out of Oakland harbor for real estate, especially between Richmond and Benicia. Those 55 million Californians in 2035 will ship and consume a lot more goods than the 37 million today.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A short tube by itself wouldn't be all that expensive, most of the cost is in what's on either end of it. This is why I think any new tube ought to veer north to Marin City. From there, new tracks along the 101 corridor to meet up with SMART in Larkspur.<BR/><BR/>There would have to be permanently anchored floating escape structures, one off Alcatraz and the other off Sausalito. These would be linked to the rail tubes via circular stairwells inside large vertical tubes leading to chambers anchored to the sea floor and accessible from the tracks. Permanent pontoon bridges would be used to reach dry land. Yes, I do see the irony of escaping <I>to</I> Alcatraz.<BR/><BR/>All of these parts would feature flexible but tight seals at either end to accommodate minor relative motions due to wave action or an earthquake. In theory, these emergency structures could even be tarted up to serve as the world's first underwater train stations - significant tourist attractions in their own right, especially if there are windows for observing the marine fauna.<BR/><BR/>Note that there are already plans to revive the old ROW between Novato and American Junction, albeit for freight traffic out of Santa Rosa and Mendocino county. Old spurs and ROWs exist to Sonoma, Napa and Vallejo. A private "wine train" operates in Napa Valley. SMART should be thought of as the foundation for standard-gauge trains connecting the North Bay counties to the Capitol Corridor, the CC freight lines to Stockton and Tracy and perhaps one day, San Francisco's new Transbay Terminal.<BR/><BR/>That would put some ferry operators out of business, but that may not be a bad thing. Trains are faster, clean and can't collide with ocean-going freighters.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>My advice to anyone living in Costra County is to accept BART for what it is. Focus on making Concord attractive enough for businesses to move e.g. back office operations out of SF so demand is reduced and existing capacity better utilized in both directions.<BR/><BR/>Already, plans are afoot to turn the inland portion of the former Naval Weapons Station into a <A HREF="http://www.concordreuseproject.org/" REL="nofollow">new transit oriented district</A> served by North Concord BART. For the sake of argument, let's call it Diablo Creek, which runs through there.<BR/><BR/>The site includes a network of rail lines connecting two types of munitions storage facilities to the port, which the Navy turned over to the Army. Inland, there's an array of structures for long-term storage and shielded rail spurs for short-term buffering. Both feature extremely thick rebar concrete, for obvious reasons. <BR/><BR/>Such structures are, by design, virtually indestructible, cp. this <A HREF="http://image64.webshots.com/64/1/32/78/2536132780094226444RhfdZn_fs.jpg" REL="nofollow">anti-aircraft tower</A> in Vienna's Augarten park, Austria courtesy of the Nazis. It's a horrible eyesore but attempts to tear it down with explosives failed. Elsewhere in the city, a similar structure was <A HREF="http://www.travelwriter.at/pic/043/wien-haus-des-meeres-vivarium-050115g.jpg" REL="nofollow">repurposed</A> to house an aquarium.<BR/><BR/>I'd recommend this second approach for Diablo Creek. Those bunkers would be a great place to store arrays of superflywheels for storing energy recuperated from BART trains or simply as a giant ride-through buffer for the state's electricity grid. Alternatively, they could be used to house university lab spaces or green tech start-ups.<BR/><BR/>West of the BART station lies Buchanan Field, which is now only used for general aviation. Those planes could be moved to Byron or Stockton. Shut that down and build a second, larger transit-oriented new district there. Let's call that Buchanan. It could be tied in by buses running between Martinez Amtrak and the North and downtown Concord BART stations. Both districts would also be close to highway 4.<BR/><BR/>BART has plans to extend service to Byron near the eastern border of CC county. For obvious reasons, it would make sense to extend that to Tracy and either of the future HSR stations in Modesto and Stockton.<BR/><BR/>However, extending the BART line east of Pittsburg/Bay Point would be expensive because the median in highway 4 disappears there. To keep the cost down, eBART would use standard-gauge clean DMU trains, similar to NCTD Breeze and now, SMART.<BR/><BR/>My guess is BART intends to leverage the existing track bed that run from right next to North Concord BART station under the freeway and join up with the main freight lines inside what is now the Army facility. Amtrak San Joaquins already run through there.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-82028114484293362962008-11-05T16:28:00.000-08:002008-11-05T16:28:00.000-08:00I've got to also add my thanks: I had been peeking...I've got to also add my thanks: I had been peeking in on the progress of the high speed train for a while, but this site is what really armed me with the numbers and the sources to allay the concerns of any of my friends (and of course to get my first letter to the editor published :)). <BR/><BR/>Thus informed, I know I swayed at least 5 people to vote for it, and informed another dozen or so about it in a positive light (most who probably would have been inclined towards it, but might have been easily scared off by the economic downturn or scare tactics of opposers).Matthew Fedderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10307000102946788574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24352979681044336702008-11-05T16:20:00.000-08:002008-11-05T16:20:00.000-08:00Unfortunately, by 2030, Disneyland tickets would b...Unfortunately, by 2030, Disneyland tickets would be around $210 for those above 5. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33952051044708417692008-11-05T16:16:00.000-08:002008-11-05T16:16:00.000-08:00timote and arcady, I am definitely going to keep t...timote and arcady, I am definitely going to keep the site open to focus on issues just like that. I started this blog primarily to advocate for the project - by the fall this site of necessity became a Yes on 1A blog, but it's not going anywhere.<BR/><BR/>I do plan to move to a unique URL and install a better software.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84065946838466340782008-11-05T16:02:00.000-08:002008-11-05T16:02:00.000-08:00Robert,Many thanks for your hard work in support o...Robert,<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for your hard work in support of 1A! I was pessimistic of 1A chances in the current economic climate, but I’m very happy that I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Now, if we could only change the Bay Area route to use Altamont pass...sergeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14138610380726907707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-45084809262149092782008-11-05T15:30:00.000-08:002008-11-05T15:30:00.000-08:00Rafael,I'm not quite ready to state a "narrow defe...Rafael,<BR/>I'm not quite ready to state a "narrow defeat" of Measure B/BART. But if it doesn't pass, it has more to do with the STUPID 2/3'rds majority requirement for a special tax: Prop. 1A (thankfully) only needed a simple majority. As for passage of Prop. 1A, along with Obama and majorities in both houses, I actually think BART to SJ is still realistic. The BART line from Fremont to SJ will in affect act as a feeder line to HSR for the East Bay (Oakland), Pelosi and company are ready to inject money into infrastructure projects for immediate jobs stimulus, and (again) the fact that an overwhelming majority (66%) wanted Measure B passed show strong support for BART in Silicon Valley. I read an article last week in the LA Times that stated the Red Line Metro would see a huge increase in passengers due to HSR at Union Station; the same could probably now be said for the BART to SJ line. Stay tuned!Tony D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03392232221747908883noreply@blogger.com