tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post3371794289196718835..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: The Vexed DTX TunnelRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-17356257885350578332009-04-21T05:45:00.000-07:002009-04-21T05:45:00.000-07:00Do you think those engineering drawings are public...<EM>Do you think those engineering drawings are publicly accessible? </EM> Yes. The filings all these government agencies have to make to other government agencies are public documents. Lots of them are a click... well a few clicks away.Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41716963764994956552009-04-21T00:42:00.000-07:002009-04-21T00:42:00.000-07:00@lyquyd - thanks for summing up the points Ive b...@lyquyd - thanks for summing up the points Ive been trying to make about 4th . Itll be more useful, more flexible and more appealing to many people and has a lot of potential. There is no reason whatsoever that every train has to term at tbt other then the fact that some folks just have their mind set on it no matter what. As for the tbt itself - its not really up to outsiders. No one is going to be moving it or redesigning it or anything else. It was a major production to even get it through city hall and approved by the people of san francisco.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47528704678528426932009-04-20T22:09:00.000-07:002009-04-20T22:09:00.000-07:00@ Adirondacker...
Do you think those engineering ...@ Adirondacker...<br /><br />Do you think those engineering drawings are publicly accessible? Or that he made originals?<br /><br />I have doubts that one of those is the case.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58669831691269000852009-04-20T14:23:00.000-07:002009-04-20T14:23:00.000-07:00I agree with jim regarding the 4th and King statio...I agree with jim regarding the 4th and King station, I believe it will be much more popular than most think.<br /><br />UCSF is in the process of building out a 55+ acre campus focused on biomedical research that is planned to have over 9,000 employees by 2020. I'm sure there will also be numerous business that serve that population and do related biomedical business.<br /><br />SOMA is probably the fastest growing neighborhood in SF, with a little development going on even in the current economic conditions, and I expect it to pick back up quickly once the real estate market recovers. I wouldn't be surprised if 10,000 or more residences are built in the surrounding area over the course of the next decade or 2.<br /><br />Once the Central Subway is build the 4th & King station will connect directly with Union Square, a huge tourist draw with lots of hotels. It will also connect with Chinatown, the most densely populated neighborhood in SF.<br /><br />If the Central Subway connects with North Beach then the station will connect directly with the possibly second densest neighborhood in SF.<br /><br />If the CS connects with Fisherman's Wharf 4th & King will directly connect with SF's biggest tourist area.<br /><br />Once the CS is complete I think 4th & King will more convenient for many San Franciscan's leaving from home for HSR travel as every Muni Metro line (SF's light rail system) will be at most 1 transfer from 4th & King with at most a very short walk to the train station.lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46227173375242888232009-04-20T13:16:00.000-07:002009-04-20T13:16:00.000-07:00If the trainbox is funded and built immediately wh...If the trainbox is funded and built immediately what sort of impact does that have on the alignment/design of the DTX? I would hope there is no direct impact on the DTX just because the trainbox is built. Of course I could be wrong about that. Is it that the EIR/EIS includes the DTX and could not be changed once funded? I would think a new EIR/EIS could be created even after the trainbox is built. Again I could be wrong.<br /><br />If the DTX could be redesigned then I don't think it matters if the trainbox is built now. From what I've read there are no major operational problems with the trainbox itself (especially if no platforms/tracks would be built until actual service begins). If the TBT is operated as a through station it seems there should be no problem accomodating 5 minute headways.<br /><br />In that case it seems that the DTX is the real issue, but one that can reasonably be redesigned, so I'm not sure why we are assuming we have to live with the existing design. Why not run run it up Townsend to Embarcadero, and then up Main or Beale? That will completely solve the curve radius issue. It will probaly be more difficult to engineer since it's so close to the water, but I can't believe it would be that much more difficult or expensive that it's worth choosing an operationally worse alternative.<br /><br />Why can't we just have 2 tracks that allow a crossover and can have any train run in any direction? I imagine one would operate most of the time in 1 direction, but it could be used either way if necessary. Why do we need to dedicate 1 track to 1 type of train (Caltrain vs. HSR)?<br /><br />It seems that headway in the DTX could be much lower than 5 min, since the trains will have to be going much lower than their highest possible speeds. If headways are 2.5 min the two tracks could support 24 tph in each direction (that would be for all combined traffic of course, Caltrain + HSR). IIRC BART operates at about 2 minute headways through the transbay tube at peek going about 60-70 mph<br /><br />My assumptions could certainly be wrong, but can anybody put some concrete examples of why this wouldn't work?lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-56927440542461027022009-04-20T10:51:00.000-07:002009-04-20T10:51:00.000-07:00His info is so detailed I suspect he is crazy or h...<EM>His info is so detailed I suspect he is crazy or he is prevy to information first-hand.</EM>He hasn't said anything that needs "inside" information. The existing and proposed right of way is public information. Calculating curves, platform lengths etc. is a matter of looking up the right formula in the manuals railroad designers use.Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84563029181725102042009-04-20T06:13:00.000-07:002009-04-20T06:13:00.000-07:00^^^ Yes, I know. Another angle... if he's prevy to...^^^ Yes, I know. Another angle... if he's prevy to information, he is risking that connection... which could possibly be his job. Unless financially well-off, that is short-sighted / crazy.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31050931849516906852009-04-20T01:03:00.000-07:002009-04-20T01:03:00.000-07:00His info is so detailed I suspect he is crazy or h...<I>His info is so detailed I suspect he is crazy or he is prevy to information first-hand.</I>Having dealt with a few engineering types with his particular style of communication, I assure you, while they can fool you for a considerable time into thinking that the latter situation is true, trust me, in the end, it is <I>always</I> the former.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10570027785365903956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-16515190858644517682009-04-20T00:22:00.000-07:002009-04-20T00:22:00.000-07:00It's been a long, but great weekend. And I am fin...It's been a long, but great weekend. And I am finally catching up now. This post was another long one, but I finally read to teh end... whereas before I gave up. <br /><br />That said, I agree with the first post by anon. I'd like to add that the idea has numerous downstream implications... and ask for a train ballet to occur for many. It does not work. Also, it's not rider friendly.<br /><br />The objective for rail planning is to design a system up front with great flexibility. A system should not be built witha specific operating plan in mind... for fear of capping the ability of the system or creating undue constriants during speciual events or unusual/unplanned operating conditions. <br /><br />In my opinion, I feel CHSRA should stop at 4th and King Street until a point in time when the TBT can accommodate the needs of the planned HSR system. That seems like a difficult thing to achieve right now... and I would not object to the TBT project being abandoned entirely in favor of a new HSR terminal serving the core of downtown AND connected to BART.<br /><br />Question.. is Richard Mlynarik visiting and posting on this blog? Or on the other one? I hope he is... as he seems to be well informed on the constraints. His info is so detailed I suspect he is crazy or he is prevy to information first-hand.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36118465392251343722009-04-18T18:04:00.000-07:002009-04-18T18:04:00.000-07:00@ Rafeal: "ok, I see what you mean now. AB3034 spe...@ Rafeal: "<I>ok, I see what you mean now. AB3034 specifies a minimum headway that must be supported by the signaling and train control system. It does not say that headway has to be used.</I>"<br /><br />This plan does not <I>offer</I> that assured headway. You are talking about bi-directional track, and the ruling headway with a single bi-directional track is the length of time between one train going one direction, then the traffic the reverse direction clearing the line, so that the next successive train can proceed.<br /><br />Just deciding that the point where your plan blows the legal requirement completely out of the water, requiring double or triple or quadruple the legal maximum operating headway, by deciding to not call it "headway" when you reach the point that the trainbox is full and no more inbound trains can arrive on the single line until one or more outbound trains are cleared is playing a game with the semantics of the terms, but it does not change the actual throughput capacity.<br /><br />And, fortunately, AB3034 is clear that it is talking about operating headways, so there is no ambiguity in the legislation to permit that semantic game.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-50700273035625803052009-04-18T17:25:00.000-07:002009-04-18T17:25:00.000-07:00No, I specifically meant the number of people who ...No, I specifically meant the number of people who live in SM and SC but work in SF. As of 2000, there are 80,000 such people, compared with 114,000 who live in the Metro-North counties and work in Manhattan, and 136,000 who live in Long Island and work in Manhattan. If Caltrain ever gets the same modal share to the central city as the LIRR or MNRR, it'll need about 24 tph in the peak direction, if we scale it to the LIRR, which also runs trains to destinations other than Manhattan. If we scale it to the MNRR, make it 35 tph instead.<br /><br />So yes. It's going to need four tracks.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-7679753528354238422009-04-18T15:43:00.000-07:002009-04-18T15:43:00.000-07:00@ BruceMcF -
ok, I see what you mean now. AB3034 ...@ BruceMcF -<br /><br />ok, I see what you mean now. AB3034 specifies a minimum headway that must be supported by the signaling and train control system. It does not say that headway has to be used.<br /><br />It would be perfectly possible to fill the gaps in the schedule with trains terminating either at Millbrae (to park them in the Brisbane yard) or else at 4th & King. I know AB 3034 sets a limit on HSR stations, but by the time this would become an issue, we'll be in phase II of the HSR project anyhow, long after the AB3034 funds were used up.<br /><br />Besides, the two single-track tunnels would anyhow have a crossover X section underneath 2nd Street, as close as possible to the fan tracks, for emergency and maintenance purposes. It wouldn't normally be used in the operations regime I described, but it could be once the political dust has settled and FRA drops any objections it may have to HSR and non-HSR trains running on the same tracks. In effect, that would give you a regular throat.<br /><br />Whether or not it has higher aggregate throughput capacity depends on the speeds the trains can achieve in the curved sections. Both services could operate a smoother timetable, but only after integrating their separate ones.<br /><br />@ Alon Levy -<br /><br />not everyone who lives in SM and SC county works in SF, the situation is comparable to New York. Silicon Valley actually employs a lot more people than SF does. Most of them live in the East Bay, which is why I-880, the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges and 237 are every bit as packed as I-80 and the Bay Bridge every morning. That's the reason Caltrain will provide limited commuter services across the Dumbarton rail bridge once that is restored.<br /><br />Plenty of Silicon Valley worker bees also live in SF and commute down. 101 southbound is very congested in the morning.<br /><br />Ergo, Caltrain attracts a slice of the north-south commuter market in both directions, but the transit connections within SF to 4th & King and within Silicon Valley are fairly limited. Some of the larger employers offer corporate courtesy shuttles for employees who enroll in commute alternatives programs.<br /><br />It's entirely possible more people will start using Caltrain after electrification, especially if electric folding bicycles become more mainstream. During the summer months at least, that combination would make for a nicer commute than sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4774146875669493982009-04-18T13:10:00.000-07:002009-04-18T13:10:00.000-07:00Bruce: Jamaica is a secondary downtown in New York...Bruce: Jamaica is a secondary downtown in New York, and not even the largest. If I remember correctly it's third, after Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City - and of course these are already far smaller than Manhattan's job centers.<br /><br />Rafael: the San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to SF commuter market is a lot larger than you think. It's about two thirds the size of the market served by Metro-North, which runs 50 tph, and a little more than half the Long Island to Manhattan market, where the LIRR runs 41 tph.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-82456725670024158322009-04-18T13:00:00.000-07:002009-04-18T13:00:00.000-07:00Eric said...
4th and king is going to be a central...Eric said...<br />4th and king is going to be a central location for the majority of residential growth in San Francisco for the next 20 years. how many times must a say it before it sinks in?Jim, I hear you. Everyone is perfectly happy with LA Union Station as the main LA terminus. Guess what? Union Station is sandwiched between the freeway, Chinatown, and the county jail, a good long walk from the main downtown financial district"<br /><br />Exactly my point. What is the obsession with redesigning the TBT. First of all, it is going to be at least three decades before all that capaicty is needed at which time a transbay crossing can be considered. Not to mention the transbay crossing would be easier to line up with 4th and king that the tbt. It so happens that where the 280 extension lands at king st - that 280x was going to continue up king to the bay to become the southern crossing ( 2nd bay bridge ) Also access to 4th WIll be easier for a large portion of SFers because Muni also has plans to develope a transit corridor down 16th street, likely to connect with the n judah terminus at king which adds more downtown capacity outside the market street subway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-71240783503332949842009-04-18T10:50:00.000-07:002009-04-18T10:50:00.000-07:00@ Rafeal: "@ BruceMcF -
by definition, headway ref...@ Rafeal: "<I>@ BruceMcF -<br />by definition, headway refers to trains traveling in the same direction to ensure there is adequate distance for an emergency brake maneuver. The concept is not applicable when trains are anyhow moving away from one another.</I>"<br /><br />The thing is, AB3034 does not support your semantic game of treating the 10 minute, 15 minute or 20 minute long headway between a fourth inbound train <B><I>and the next inbound train</I></B> as "it doesn't count because I decided not to count it". You are pushing <I>up</I> the average HSR headway, by blowing out one in four of the HSR headways.<br /><br />Which makes sense ... obviously a pair of bidirectional tracks have less capacity that a two way pair of track, so while you are "fixing" one bottleneck, you are imposing a bottleneck with even lower capacity.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47447738909987008462009-04-18T10:14:00.000-07:002009-04-18T10:14:00.000-07:00@ adirondacker -
Caltrain will run three trains a...@ adirondacker -<br /><br />Caltrain will run three trains a day each way across the Dumbarton rail bridge to Union City once that is finally restored. That's the sum total of their expansion plans into the East Bay, which is already served by Amtrak CC, BART and ACE. Perhaps ACE will run some trains of its own up to 4th & King some day, but the passenger numbers won't be huge.<br /><br />Marin would love to have either BART or Caltrain service but there's no way to run trains across the Golden Gate or the Richmond-San Rafael bridges.<br /><br />Monterey county is trying to persuade Caltrain to run a handful of trains per day out to Salinas, but the number of commuters that will add to Caltrain's total is also small.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-7299368606979868842009-04-18T08:59:00.000-07:002009-04-18T08:59:00.000-07:00In short, the turn radii issue isn't that big of a...<I>In short, the turn radii issue isn't that big of a deal, even if it not ideal.</I>These curves are a HUGE deal, precisely because they would be so EASY to straighten before any concrete is poured. The turn from 7th to Townsend is <I>entirely on railroad land</I> and the turn from Townsend to 2nd would result in <I>fewer</I> property impacts if flattened a bit.<br /><br />If we start excusing every sub-optimal feature of the TJPA design, we're going to end up with one turd of a station.<br /><br /><I>they desperately want to pretend their project is shovel-ready</I>This is a big problem. Putting on an appearance of shovel readiness is becoming more important than doing proper engineering... they want to build, build, build, whatever the hell it is, so as not to miss the funding opportunity. Watch for the same nonsense to happen in San Bruno, where HSR will be forever stuck with a 60 mph curve courtesy of Caltrain.<br /><br />Schaufelbereitschaft ueber alles!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31029719520666661742009-04-18T07:28:00.000-07:002009-04-18T07:28:00.000-07:00where they would get the passengers to support dou...<EM>where they would get the passengers to support doubling that volume yet again.</EM>East Bay and North Bay commuter services, rapid rail to Sacramento and Stockton?Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86652434715231855982009-04-18T05:59:00.000-07:002009-04-18T05:59:00.000-07:00@ mike, Clem, BruceMcF -
I would be quite happy i...@ mike, Clem, BruceMcF -<br /><br />I would be quite happy if TJPA were open to the sensible improvements put forward by Richard Mlynarik. I'm not claiming that convoy operations are optimal, but virtually anything is better than the current DTX design. To my mind, "DTX" includes the throat and the 4th & Townsend station, which I consider superfluous.<br /><br />It's just that so far, TJPA's position appears to be that the only question left to be decided is if the trainbox should be built right away or later.<br /><br />They haven't even acknowledged that the current design of the DTX tunnel is a fundamental problem because they desperately want to pretend their project is shovel-ready.<br /><br />CHSRA isn't helping matters by suddenly asking for additional platform tracks that aren't needed.<br /><br />@ BruceMcF -<br /><br />by definition, headway refers to trains traveling in the <I>same</I> direction to ensure there is adequate distance for an emergency brake maneuver. The concept is not applicable when trains are anyhow moving away from one another.<br /><br />Once the <I>tail</I> of the last train of an outbound group has vacated the tunnel track, there is no reason why the first train of an inbound group should not be given a green light right away.<br /><br />@ Alon Levy -<br /><br />20tph for Caltrain would mean 20 trains per hour <I>in each direction</I>. They are currently at 5 tph peak and hope to increase that to 10tph by 2025, using 8-car bi-level trains. Together, these measures would support 3x the current ridership.<br /><br />Given that Caltrain only operates on the SF peninsula and down to Gilroy, it's not clear to me where they would get the passengers to support doubling that volume yet again.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-11830964077276669492009-04-18T04:27:00.000-07:002009-04-18T04:27:00.000-07:00Quoth I: "If only Caltrain locals go to the TBT .....Quoth I: "<I>If only Caltrain locals go to the TBT ... and they of course all stop at 4th and Townsend, underneath 4th and King ... and all Express and Semi-Express services terminate at 4th and King ... clearly 4th and King would be the main Caltrain terminal.</I>"<br /><br />Quoth Adirondacker: "<I>Every LIRR train, except for the ones on the Port Washington branch, stop at Jamaica. Many of them terminate at Jamaica. Does that mean Jamaica is the LIRR's main station or does that mean that Penn. Station is the LIRR's main station?</I>"<br /><br />That would depend on destinations to Jamaica versus Penn Station. Having been to Jamaica (if not by train), I doubt that the destinations to Jamaica make it a dominant station.<br /><br />No services terminate at Cityrail's Town Hall station at all, and all services that stop at Town Hall stop at Central, while all interurban services terminate at Central, and the Light Rail connects to Central (doesn't the existing light rail connect to 4th and King?) ... but Town Hall is co-equal as the main Sydney destination station.<br /><br />Its the destinations in the immediate environs of the two that will determine which is the dominate mass transit terminal. The catchment of an HSR station is much wider than the catchment of a mass transit station, so the intermodal connections are more important for the HSR.<br /><br />jim poses the argument that the 4th and King will be the more important of the two as a Caltrain destination, in which case what seems to be Caltrain's agreement to run only locals into the 4th and Townsend / TBT system, with all Express or Semi-Express services terminating at 4th and King, would make more sense.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-37313738448113184182009-04-17T23:59:00.000-07:002009-04-17T23:59:00.000-07:004th and king is going to be a central location for...<I>4th and king is going to be a central location for the majority of residential growth in San Francisco for the next 20 years. how many times must a say it before it sinks in?</I>Jim, I hear you. Everyone is perfectly happy with LA Union Station as the main LA terminus. Guess what? Union Station is sandwiched between the freeway, Chinatown, and the county jail, a good long walk from the main downtown financial district. Yet everyone seems to recognize that the shuttle bus, metro red line, or a stroll over the freeway is a workable compromise instead of spending billions to tunnel under Bunker Hill. Whereas Central subway is going to be a nice fast run from 4th and King to downtown SF.<br /><br />If anything, 4th and King is a much more promising neighborhood than where LA Union Station is located, and would only come up faster if that was the main HSR terminal. There's this fanciful idea that Transbay is needed for connections to East Bay traffic. Guess what, it's still going to be more convenient for East Bay travellers to fly out of Oakland, whether HSR terminates at 4th and King or at Transbay. If they really want to take the train, they can take BART and catch HSR at Millbrae. <br /><br />Maybe after peak oil hits flying out of OAK will become uneconomical, but surely by then there will be either a new transbay tube and/or a HSR spur from the South Bay to Oakland.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10570027785365903956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-77205297970244050702009-04-17T23:44:00.000-07:002009-04-17T23:44:00.000-07:00A third bore will increase neither reliability nor...A third bore will increase neither reliability nor capacity. HSR mainlines all over the world have two tracks; they experience so few breakdowns that it's not worth it to add a third track. CAHSR is planned to have two tracks for most of the system's length, as well; why three-track only a few kilometers at one end?<br /><br />As for capacity, the only way to squeeze extra capacity out of a three-track tunnel is to run trains 2/1. This turns out side of the tunnel into either a massive source of trains, or a massive sink. This requires a very large number of station tracks to house all these extra trains. The Metro-North gets away with running trains 3/1 in Manhattan because Grand Central has 67 tracks; TBT won't have this privilege.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-37867263060187730562009-04-17T23:30:00.000-07:002009-04-17T23:30:00.000-07:00The idea proposed here is called "convoying". It i...The idea proposed here is called "<A HREF="http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/15156.pdf" REL="nofollow">convoying</A>". It is used in BRT systems in Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre. It might just work, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. (Still, it's great to see new ideas explored).<br /><br />So, why is convoying a bad idea in the DTX? <br /><br />1.) This proposal would inundate the TBT with passengers, rather than spread them out. The result would be packed escalators, elevators, ticket booths, taxi pick up lanes etc... The TBT is overbuilt, but it's not built for four or more trains arriving or leaving at once.<br /><br />2.) Having only one tube available would be too risky. If a train broke down there it would clog the whole system all the way to San Diego.<br /><br />3.) Under this idea the trains would have to run so close together it would require extensive IT. This is done with BRT buses when they are convoying in Brazil: the driver of the first bus has electronic control of the buses that follow it. So, it could be done... but I don't think it's appropriate here.<br /><br />4.) For all of the trains to run as one train in a convoy they would have to be staged. This would take time, extra trackage and complicated logistics - you'd have to build more than just the tunnels.<br /><br />5.) Also, the third bore is necessary for reliability and capacity. <br /><br />Reducing turn radii is good; the sharp turns of the DTX aren't great. But are squeaky trains going to deter riders? Is there really going to be that much extra wear and tear from just two turns? Do we even want the Japanese trains that can’t make the corners? In short, the turn radii issue isn't that big of a deal, even if it not ideal.<br /><br />A <A HREF="http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/13/why-the-transbay-terminal-two-station-solution-is-flawed/" REL="nofollow">new Transbay Tube</A> is the right way forward to increase capacity at the TBT, <I>when increased capacity becomes necessary</I>.Brian Tylerhttp://switchingmodes.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-61463205695103096512009-04-17T22:45:00.000-07:002009-04-17T22:45:00.000-07:00If only Caltrain locals go to the TBT ... and they...<EM>If only Caltrain locals go to the TBT ... and they of course all stop at 4th and Townsend, underneath 4th and King ... and all Express and Semi-Express services terminate at 4th and King ... clearly 4th and King would be the main Caltrain terminal.</EM> <br /><br /><br />Every LIRR train, except for the ones on the Port Washington branch, stop at Jamaica. Many of them terminate at Jamaica. Does that mean Jamaica is the LIRR's main station or does that mean that Penn. Station is the LIRR's main station? It's going to be even worse one they start running to Grand Central also. Hmmmm. <br /><br />Most SEPTA trains stop at 30th Street Station, Suburban and Market East. Which one is the "Main" station?Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-2939400164677608332009-04-17T22:24:00.000-07:002009-04-17T22:24:00.000-07:00@ Adirondacker
The plan you propose, where: "[The ...@ Adirondacker<br />The plan you propose, where: "[The tracks] could run parallel to Main and Beale" does not align the terminal for Transbay Tunnel. That is why that plan was not chosen, although that was the original plan. How a <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">new Transbay</A> would solve the capacity issue is discussed on the <A HREF="http://switchingmodes.com/" REL="nofollow">Switching Modes</A> site.Brian Tylerhttp://switchingmodes.com/noreply@blogger.com