02 January 2016

Special Provision SP01040

Buried deep in the fine print of Caltrain's electrification Request For Proposals, Volume 3, Part C, Paragraph 1.04, you will encounter Special Provision SP01040.  It defines where and when the electrification contractor will be allowed access to Caltrain's tracks to perform the work of re-signaling and electrifying the railroad.  These are known as "work windows" and are tabulated at right, as extracted from the RFP.

What follows is an analysis of the far-reaching cost and schedule implications of Special Provision SP01040.

Temporal Windows

Special Provision SP01040 imposes the following time restrictions:
  • No work during weekday peak hours (6 - 10 AM and 4 - 8 PM)
  • No work on Tuesdays and Wednesdays overnight, for track maintenance
  • Only one track available mid-day, evenings and weekends
  • Two tracks will only be available in the early morning hours Friday - Tuesday.
The limits defined in SP01040 do not include time for sending crews and equipment to or from the work site, known in construction jargon as "mobilization" and "demobilization".  An hour is eaten away from the beginning and end of each work window for this purpose.

If you want to analyze a typical work week on an hour-by-hour basis, you can define six different track availability states.  Each state has associated to it an availability factor, which you can think of as how many tracks are available to perform productive work (i.e. re-signaling or constructing the overhead contact system).

Availability StateAvailability Factor
No access0
Mob/Demob for 1 track0
Mob/Demob for 2 tracks0
Single track available for work0.75
Mob/Demob for 2 tracks with 1 track already available1
Both tracks available for work2

During periods of mobilization or demobilization, the work window is technically open to the contractor, but no useful work can occur since crews are busy moving equipment and materials to/from the work site.  When a single track is available for work, trains passing on the other track will occasionally interrupt the work, which is why the availability factor is 0.75 rather than 1.  This typically accounts for 2 trains passing the work site every hour, causing work to cease for 15 minutes due to worker safety protocols.  When mobilizing both tracks for the contractor, these passing trains cease and the availability factor increases to 1.  The ideal situation is when both tracks are shut down and the contractor has full control of the work site.

Geographical Windows

The corridor has been divided into geographical segments, at least some of which must remain open at all times to allow northbound and southbound trains to meet and run past each other.  Each segment has a certain length (measured in route-miles).

SegmentLength (miles)
Segment #1, MP 0.3 - 8.0 (CP 4th to CP Sierra)7.7
Segment #2, MP 8.0 - 29.1 (CP Sierra to CP Alma)21.1
Segment #3, MP 29.1 - 44.5 (CP Alma to CP De La Cruz)14.8
Segment #4a, MP 44.5 - 47.5 (CP De La Cruz - CP Alameda)3.0
Segment #4b, MP 47.5 - 51.1 (CP Alameda - Tamien)3.6
Yard Facilities (4th & King, CEMOF, San Jose)3.0

Note that various yard facilities are assigned 3 route miles (6 track miles).

During the first phase of electrification, work may only occur in segments 2 and 4, with both tracks open in segments 1 and 3 to allow trains to meet.  Then, following an adjustment to the timetable, the second phase of the work will occur in segments 1 and 3, with both tracks open in segments 2 and 4 to allow trains to meet.  This allows Caltrain to maintain hourly service in both directions during mid-day, evening and weekend periods, single-tracking as needed around electrification work sites.

Labor Costs

Let us loosely define a unit of labor to perform electrification work on one mile of track for one hour (however many people that may actually take).  One labor unit is multiplied by the number of track miles and the number of hours to calculate a burn rate, or how much the labor will cost during any given period of time, assuming the contractor makes full use of the work windows.

We will assume that when both tracks are open, efficiencies can be realized so that only 1.5 labor units (rather than 2) are required to work on 1 route-mile (2 track-miles).  We can then assign a labor cost for each track availability state defined above:

Availability StateHourly Labor Rate
(per route mile)
No access0
Mob/Demob for 1 track1
Mob/Demob for 2 tracks1.5
Single track available for work1
Mob/Demob for 2 tracks with 1 track already available1.5
Both tracks available for work1.5

The work is performed by skilled union workers, whose hourly cost is not always the same.  While weekday work can be performed in shifts at no additional hourly expense, weekend work is another matter.  Depending on the union and the trade (the RFP contains hundreds of pages of union wage rate tables), weekend work can cost up to twice the rate of weekday work.  Let us assume overtime cost factors in as follows:

Day of WeekOvertime Factor
Monday - Friday1
Efficiency Metrics

Now let's pull all these assumptions together and come up with three metrics.
  1. The first metric is average track avaibility, measured in track-miles.  It measures how much of the railroad is available for actual productive electrification work, as opposed to shuffling workers and equipment or dodging out of the way of trains.  Average track availability is inversely proportional to how long it will take to complete the work.  If you double the amount of available track, the job can be done in half the number of weeks.  There are limits to this assumption, of course, but for sequential tasks requiring direct access to track, such as re-signaling and constructing the overhead contact system, this inverse relationship is quite reasonable.

    The way to compute average track availability is to assign each hour of the week a track availability state, based on the rules set out in SP01040.  Then, we multiply the availability factor (associated to that state) by the number of route-miles in that segment to calculate how many track-miles are available for work in that particular hour in that particular segment.  We can repeat this calculation for every hour of the week (24 x 7 = 168 hours) and for every segment.  Finally, we can add it all up and divide by the total number of hours in a week to figure how many miles of track are available on average.

    But it's not quite that simple.  Since the work is divided into two geographical phases, we must first add up the availability for segments 2 and 4 (Phase 1) and then separately add up the availability for segments 1 and 3 and the yards (Phase 2).  The average track availability for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is then averaged; this average is weighted by segment lengths to serve as a proxy for duration of each phase.
  2. The second metric is burn rate, measured in labor units per week.  It measures the rate at which money is spent on all the work, including not just actual productive electrification work but also the shuffling of workers and equipment and the dodging out of the way of trains.  This metric assumes that the contractor makes full use of the available windows, and that no additional hourly expenses are incurred outside of the work windows (e.g. due to the work not filling a full 8-hour union shift).

    The way to compute burn rate is to multiply the hourly labor rate (associated to each hour's track availability state) by the number of route-miles in that segment and the overtime factor for that particular day of the week, to calculate how many labor units are expended in that particular hour in that particular segment.  Once again, we need to be careful how we add up the labor for Phases 1 and 2, using the same partial sums and weighted averages as for track availability.
  3. The third metric is installation efficiency, measured in labor units per week per available track mile.  It measures how much of the labor is expended on actual productive electrification work, as opposed to unproductive tasks such as the shuffling of workers and equipment and the dodging out of the way of trains.  It serves a rough measure of the overall cost of tasks requiring access to the track, such as building the overhead contact system and re-signaling.  It is defined simply as burn rate divided by average track availability.  A lower number is better, indicating that a given length of track can be completed using less labor.
Four Scenarios

Armed with these metrics, we can analyze and compare a variety of electrification scenarios, including the baseline scenario specified in the RFP per Special Provision SP01040, and other scenarios of our choosing.

For the detailed calculations that support each scenario, or to explore your own scenarios and change any of the assumptions, you can download this Excel spreadsheet.
  1. Baseline Scenario: Let us scrupulously apply the work window restrictions from Caltrain's RFP, per SP01040.  Phase 1 has an average track availability of 13.3 track miles, while Phase 2 comes out to 12.1 track miles.  The weighted average of the two phases yields an average track availability of 12.7 track miles.  Bearing in mind that Caltrain has over 100 track miles to be electrified, this works out to a paltry ~12% of the railroad being available, a reflection of the extremely restrictive work windows.  This does not bode well for the program schedule, since having so little of the railroad available to the contractor will draw out the duration of all activities requiring access to the tracks.

    The burn rate works out to 3934 labor units per week, much of which is spent on mobilization and demobilization, as well as on weekend overtime work.

    The installation efficiency is 309 labor units per week per track mile.  When you consider that there are only 168 hours in a week, that is a terrible score indeed.
  2. Weekend Shutdown Scenario: One way to improve the average track availability is to completely shut down the railroad on weekends.  While this concentrates the majority of labor onto weekends when overtime rates are high, it opens up a 54-hour long period of uninterrupted access to segments 1 through 4a, while segment 4b and the yards remain partially open (to support tenant railroads and Caltrain maintenance activities).  This allows weekend work to be performed simultaneously in all segments, during both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

    Not surprisingly, average track availability improves considerably, with 35.3 track miles for Phase 1, 35.6 track miles for Phase 2, and a weighted average of 35.4 track miles.  By shutting down the railroad on weekends, we effectively tripled the amount of track access afforded to the contractor.

    The burn rate goes up quite a bit, because the entire railroad is being worked on every weekend.  The total works out to 8044 labor units per week.

    The installation efficiency is 227 labor units per week per track mile, a savings of 27%.
  3. Friday + Weekend Shutdown Scenario: The next possible step is to shut down the railroad on Fridays to extend the weekend work window to three days.  This has the advantage of increasing availability during a non-overtime weekday, but it is disruptive to riders who need to commute five days a week.  Weekend access increases from 54 hours to 78 hours, again with all four segments being worked simultaneously.

    Average track availability increases to 45.4 track miles.  Burn rate increases to 9144 labor units per week.  Installation efficiency improves to 201 labor units per week per track mile, a savings of 35%.
  4. Total Shutdown Scenario: The most draconian possibility is to shut down the railroad entirely.  It would be extremely disruptive for riders.  It could very well gridlock the highway 101 corridor, and in so doing, drive home the value of Caltrain for hundreds of thousands of commuters who never use Caltrain.  It would leave freight customers high and dry.  On the plus side, it would enable a coordinated construction "blitz" to complete the work at lower cost and far faster.  Electrification could even be combined with other projects such as grade separations.  Segment 4b and the yards would remain partially open (single-tracked) for the tenant railroads that use the southern end of the corridor.

    Average track availability would shoot up to 98.2 track miles.  Burn rate increases to 15600 labor units per week.  Installation efficiency improves to just 159 labor units per week per track mile, a savings of 49% (half off!)
Here are some graphs to summarize the results of this analysis.

You might wonder about the point of this exercise.  The RFP is closed and all the bids are in, so isn't all this overcome by events?

Word has it that the bids came in much higher than Caltrain expected, with contractors blaming the restrictive work windows for the higher cost.  Caltrain is now scrambling to scrape together even more funding than the $958M they thought electrification would cost (not including new vehicles).  Recall about half of that sum was estimated for re-signaling and building the overhead contact system, tasks where cost and schedule are strongly driven by work windows.

Shut Down This Railroad!

The right answer isn't to go digging between couch cushions for another several hundred million dollars.  The right answer is to shut down this railroad, because trying to electrify without shutting it down is like trying to change a flat tire without stopping your car.  A weekend shutdown would speed the work by a factor of nearly three, and reduce cost by about $150 million.  Shut down three days, save $200 million.  Shut everything down, save nearly $300 million.  Okay, maybe don't shut everything down, but at the very least, the weekends must go.

12 December 2015

Optimizing the Midline Overtake

The most important piece of infrastructure required for "blending" HSR with Caltrain on the peninsula rail corridor is an overtake facility, basically a several-mile long stretch of up to four tracks that will enable faster trains to overtake slower trains.  Caltrain studies have shown that the best performance (measured by robustness to cascading delays) can be achieved with a midline overtake  from San Mateo all the way through Redwood City.  Preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for this infrastructure is now resuming, with the recent award of a $36 million contract by the CHSRA to engineering firm HNTB.

The baseline configuration for this overtake is described in Caltrain's blended operations analysis, and assumes rebuilt stations at Hayward Park, Hillsdale, Belmont, San Carlos and Redwood City with four tracks and outside platforms in the tried and true style of the 1930s Pennsylvania Railroad. High-speed trains would use the center pair of tracks to overtake slower trains on the outside pair of tracks, as shown below (click figure to enlarge):

For comparison, the figure also shows a better solution that ensures the highest level of punctuality for all trains using the corridor.  This optimized overtake configuration differs from the baseline configuration as follows:
  • The slow trains run in the middle, so that disruptions to local commuter service (for example, when an incident blocks a track for hours) do not disrupt high-speed service when commuter trains are re-routed around the incident location.  This track configuration is known as Fast-Slow-Slow-Fast (FSSF) as opposed to the traditional SFFS.  Real world examples of FSSF can be seen in train cab videos from Sweden and Australia.
  • All commuter stations are built with central island platforms.  This allows commuter trains to use either platform face without confusing passengers, and requires only one set of station amenities (shelters, elevators, escalators, stairs, ticket vending machines, PA systems, train arrival screens, lighting, benches, etc.) because there is only one platform.
  • A major new interchange station at Redwood City, with four platform tracks and additional train storage sidings.  This station (described below) would serve as a transfer point for HSR, Caltrain and future Dumbarton trains, as well as non-rail transportation modes.
  • A carefully planned future-proofed high-speed rail junction where the Dumbarton rail corridor meets the peninsula rail corridor, preparing for the inevitable arrival of passenger rail service across the Bay.
Here's how it would ideally play out.

Short Term: the San Mateo Grade Separation

Preliminary rendering of new
Hillsdale station with island platform
The next step in the decadal process of grade separating the peninsula rail corridor will soon begin in San Mateo.  A new $180 million grade separation project is in the final stages of planning for 25th Avenue (currently a grade crossing) as well as 28th and 31st Avenues (currently not connected).  Concurrently with this project, the busy Hillsdale station will be moved a bit north of its current location and turned into an island platform.

This project is caught in an interesting political bind.  There is on one hand a rush to complete it by 2019 before Caltrain's electrification project, to minimize disruptions to Caltrain service.  On the other hand, due to its strategic location, this project will form a key building block of the blended system with HSR, which still needs to be environmentally cleared.  It is a near certainty that this portion of the corridor will require four tracks to enable trains to overtake each other, but any attempt to design and build it as such is likely to run afoul of HSR opponents who will accuse the CHSRA of advancing their project through CEQA piece-mealing.

The southern San Mateo grade separation design will have to be very carefully considered to preserve the ability to add two additional tracks with as little disruption as possible.  Road underpass profiles and bridge abutments should be designed for four tracks, as should the elevated structure that will support the tracks.

The choice of an island platform configuration for the new Hillsdale station is either a sneaky way to build a wide four-track embankment in preparation for yet another new station with SFFS outside platforms, or is an excellent choice for FSSF because it allows future tracks to be added without rebuilding the station for a second time.  One hopes the station access (stairs, ramps, etc.) will be designed to allow the platform height to be raised easily from 8" to 50".  An intelligently designed San Mateo grade separation would atone for the terrible failures of the San Bruno grade separation, designed with great hostility towards higher speeds or additional tracks.

Medium Term: Redwood City HSR Station

Amsterdam Bijlmer (photo by tataAnne)
could just as well be the future
Redwood City train station.
While the CHSRA's plans for a mid-peninsula stop have been shrouded with ambiguity for several years, Redwood City stands out as a more optimal location for a new HSR station than Palo Alto or Mountain View, the other two locations in the running.  Unlike its neighbors to the south, Redwood City favors strong urban growth, has a large amount of railroad land available, and is reasonably well-connected to the existing road and transit network.  Redeveloping the antiquated but popular Sequoia Station shopping center would enable the construction of an elevated four-track station with plenty of capacity to support not just HSR but also Caltrain cross-platform connections and future Dumbarton service.

The station complex would feature two shared (HSR or Caltrain) 400-meter island platforms centered between Broadway and Brewster, easily accessible from both streets.  Bus connections would be conveniently located under the station. To the north of the platforms, a pocket turnback track would allow Dumbarton trains to reverse without fouling other traffic.  Similarly, to the south of the platforms, another pocket turnback track would allow southbound Caltrain locals to terminate in Redwood City before turning northwards again to serve the densely-spaced stations of San Mateo County, allowing Caltrain to serve more passengers with fewer trains and crews.  Thanks to the FSSF configuration, all this to-and-fro by commuter trains would stay well out of the way of HSR.

This would be a large train station and quite a tight fit (if you're curious about exactly how large and how tight, download this KML file into Google Earth to view the station footprint and track layout).  It would be a big change for Redwood City, but with a huge payoff: the tracks would no longer form a barrier through town, and the Sequoia Station shopping center would be merged with the station to form a gateway and a destination in its own right that is connected to downtown.  HSR service could make the city a very desirable location for business.  The new station could become the centerpiece of the ambitious revitalization strategy described in Redwood City's downtown precise plan.  But this idea is not without pitfalls, as the size of the station could be compared to plonking a couple of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers in the middle of town.  To use the tired slogan, it needs to be done right.

Medium Term: a New Fair Oaks Station

Approximate location of new Fair Oaks
station island platform, view to northeast.
Overtake would extend just beyond
platform to the right (south).

The key to reliable overtaking on a multiple-track railroad is to ensure that the average speed of the slower train being overtaken is sufficiently slower than the average speed of the faster overtaking train.  One of the ways of ensuring a good speed differential is to have the slower train make station stops that the faster train doesn't; each station stop is worth about 2.5 minutes.  Therefore, locating stations on the four-track overtake section is helpful.

This brings us to a lemon of a station immediately south of the midline overtake: Atherton.  Located in an area of very sparse population and jobs density, Atherton should be permanently closed.  This closure would come not only as a show of appreciation commensurate with the town's support of Caltrain modernization, but especially because census data shows clearly that Atherton is precisely where you would never place a train station.

To replace Atherton, a new Fair Oaks station should be built just 0.6 miles to the north, at the 5th Avenue grade separation.  The overtake section would be extended a bit southwards, just beyond the station, enabling locals to be passed while stopped at the central island platform that can be accessed from either side of 5th Avenue.  The new Fair Oaks stop would be equidistant from Redwood City and Menlo Park, and located in an area with very high population density that could support thriving ridership, in contrast to Atherton.

Longer Term: a Seamless Dumbarton Connection

Dumbarton rail has been an uncertain prospect for decades, with some political backing but insufficient funding.  While it may take another few decades for the money and the will to finally materialize, large concentrations of employment and the need for additional transbay corridor capacity make some form of passenger rail service inevitable.  The Dumbarton corridor also happens to be ideally suited for high-speed rail.

The key node is Dumbarton Junction, which should be reconfigured in such a way that trains can enter and leave the peninsula rail corridor swiftly and seamlessly.  This will likely involve a flyover track, enabling southbound trains to enter the Dumbarton corridor without crossing (and therefore blocking) any of the northbound tracks.  To minimize the altitude of the flyover, the Rte 84 / Woodside Road overpass would be turned into an underpass.  As for the Redwood City station, the fit would be quite tight with a 90-foot corridor width where the flyover track begins.

While the flyover may seem like an expensive solution to a problem we don't yet have, planning for it now (if not actually building it) will save money in the long run when passenger rail service grows.

Design Values

No matter how the midline overtake is ultimately configured, it must reflect design values that are clearly articulated.  One of these values should be compatibility between Caltrain and HSR.  It's not enough to talk about the "blended system" without actually taking the steps to make the two systems seamlessly interoperable, allowing any train to use any track to serve any platform.  This means no tracks can be dedicated to one operator at the exclusion of another.  Everything must be shared, including the platforms at the new mid-peninsula station.  This sharing contributes to another important value, robustness to service disruptions.  The fast-slow-slow-fast track layout is the key to ensuring that a commuter train delayed in Belmont won't create a statewide domino effect that eventually makes a train late in Los Angeles.  A third important value is future-proofing.  Infrastructure like the midline overtake will define what is possible (and not) for generations to come.  It would be short-sighted not to plan for a fast and seamless connection to the Dumbarton corridor, even if its future use isn't well-defined today.

The midline overtake is the key to an effective blended system.  When evaluating its design, ask yourself: is it compatible?  Is it robust?  Is it future-proof?

13 November 2015

The U-Shaped Grade Separation

While some cities and towns on the peninsula are still holding out for trenches or tunnels to bury the railroad tracks out of sight, the astronomical cost and difficulty of constructing such structures below the water table in seismically unstable soils makes it likely that above-ground solutions will ultimately prevail, anywhere rail traffic needs to be separated from road traffic.  An attractive above-ground solution is the U-shaped grade separation.

What is a U-shaped grade separation?

U-shape bridge cross section, showing the benefits of
reduced track elevation
A U-shaped grade separation is a type of railroad bridge used to elevate the tracks above road traffic with as few community impacts as possible; there are no property takes and all road turning movements are preserved.  The bridge structure consists of sections made from two pre-stressed concrete side beams, forming the two sides of a U shape, connected by a flat slab forming the bottom of the U, on which the tracks are laid.  The side beams bear the bending loads from the weight of the bridge and the trains that it carries.  This is not a typical railroad bridge design; it is a specialized configuration used to quickly and efficiently build elevated urban metros in cities where these systems are being built from scratch in a densely built environment.  The concept is further explained in a paper and a patent.

While the peninsula rail corridor is not a new metro system, these U-shaped structures could still prove useful in a major push to grade-separate the 40 grade crossings that remain, enabling higher speeds and more train traffic while relieving road congestion and improving east-west access across the tracks.

What are the advantages of U-shaped grade separations?

U-shaped grade separations combine several attractive features that make them ideally suited for developed areas along the peninsula rail corridor, and certainly much better than the massive hollow core concrete box girder bridges considered standard issue by the HSR project as shown in the graphical comparison above.
  • Lower track elevation.  The U shape minimizes the depth of the structure (measured from the underside of the bridge span to the top of the rails) to 3 feet or less.  This allows the standard 16-foot road clearance to be provided by raising the tracks just 19 feet above the road surface, about 8 feet less than the large elevated concrete box-girder viaducts that were proposed during the 2010 Analysis of Alternatives for peninsula HSR.  The rails are lowered thanks to the U shape, which places the structural support of the bridge to the sides, rather than under the trains.
  • Lower visual impacts.  When the tracks don't need to rise as much, the rail approaches to a grade separation become correspondingly shorter and less obtrusive, impacting fewer views. The structures above rail level, such as overhead electrification poles, are also lowered.  This reduces the so-called "Berlin Wall" effect of a grade separation structure.
  • Lower train noise.  The side beams function as natural sound walls, trapping rail noise before it has a chance to escape into adjacent neighborhoods.  They are especially effective because they are thick and quite close to the train.  This obviates the need to add sound walls on top of the bridge, making the finished structure less visually obtrusive.
  • Better earthquake resistance.  The lower profile of the bridge structure reduces bending moments applied to the piers and foundations, whether by earthquake forces or train braking and acceleration or wind loads.  This makes the bridge piers less massive and integrates them better into the built environment.
  • Better station integration.  Where stations must be located on an elevated section, structures are simplified thanks to the lower profile of the track, which reduces the reach of stairs, ramps, escalators or elevators, making for a more passenger-friendly environment.  The side beams of a U-shaped viaduct have their top flange at the same height as the train floor and form the actual platform interface, 50 inches above the rail and 72 inches from the track center line, allowing the U-shaped structure to continue uninterrupted through the station.
  • Better safety in case of derailment.  The side beams are close to the train.  In case of a derailment, train cars will be guided by the structure and will not topple off the bridge.  This feature is known as "derailment containment."
  • Lower construction cost.  U-shaped elements can be prefabricated off-site and assembled with minimal disruption compared to traditional cast-in-place construction methods.  Using standardized elements throughout the corridor, in dozens of locations, provides economies of scale.  The decreased profile changes for both rail and road (whether the U-shaped bridge is elevated or at-grade with the road sunk underneath) require less excavation or fill.
The U-shaped design can minimize property takes, preserve turning movements for cars and trucks, cost much less to build than below-grade solutions, and tread more lightly through built-up neighborhoods than a conventional (box beam) viaduct or split-grade separation.  U-shaped bridges are ideal for grade separation in dense areas like the peninsula.

26 August 2015

Level Boarding: It's Official

A montage of what a Caltrain EMU might
look like, before platforms are raised.
Based on a photo by Yevgeny Gromov
Caltrain just released the final Request For Proposals for their new electric train fleet.  Train manufacturers will now prepare detailed bid packages, and in early 2016 a winner will be selected to build an initial fleet of 15  electric trains that will enter into commuter service in 2021.

Several changes were made to this document after the draft RFP was circulated for industry review.  The single most remarkable change is that level boarding and platform sharing with high-speed rail is now a firm requirement, instead of an option suggested by stakeholders.  These are the words from section
CHSRA trains will run over the same alignment and stop at some of the same stations as JPB trains. The bi-level EMU must therefore have the same interface with the infrastructure as the future High Speed Rail cars, including clearance envelope, and platform boarding height.

JPB plans to raise platform heights to approximately 50.5-50.75” ATOR (to interface with a vehicle threshold height of 51” ATOR), initially at San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose stations. Other station platforms on the JPB system may ultimately be raised to the same level.
This is not only an endorsement of level boarding.  It is an endorsement of complete integration with high-speed rail including not just shared tracks but also shared stations.  It is a major step forward for riders and taxpayers, because it will increase the speed, efficiency and usability of Caltrain at the same time as it makes high-speed rail more affordable.  It will help bring to California what Europeans take for granted.

The New Platform Interface

Section 3.3.3 of the RFP details Caltrain's new high platform interface:
  • Platform height: 50.5 - 50.75 inches
  • Platform side clearance: 72 inches from track center line
  • Maximum boarding gap: < 1.5 inches horizontally, < 5/8 inches vertically
Caltrain has entirely dropped the previous plan to implement level boarding at a height of 25 inches, which would not have been compatible with high-speed rail and would have created significant complications in the station infrastructure served by both systems.

Dual Height Doors

The new EMUs will have two sets of doors, not just as an option but as a non-negotiable requirement.  The RFP describes the configuration in section 12:
Each vehicle shall have eight door openings, four on each side of the vehicle, directly across from each other. One set of four shall be located just inboard of the trucks and the other four above the trucks. The set located inboard of the trucks (the low level set) shall be compatible with JPB's existing platform height and existing mini-highs. The set located above the trucks (the high level set) shall be compatible with JPB's future high level platforms.
A large number of bikes (at an 8:1 ratio of seats to bikes) will be stored on the lower level of two cars per train.  They will access the high doors using wheel ramps built into the stairs between the lower bike level and mid level vestibule of the train.

While this is a rather unique configuration, no other train operator worldwide has had to plan for a system-wide platform height transition of more than four feet of vertical change.  For such a large height transition, it makes perfect sense to use the vehicles as a tool to enable the flexible and independent reconfiguration of each individual platform, without imposing system-wide construction schedule or funding constraints.  It is an unusual but quite logical solution to an unusual problem.

The upper set of doors, which will provide level boarding at new high platforms, will feature retractable door threshold extenders, to bridge the gap between the train and the platform.  These are described in section 12.2.12 of the RFP.

Looking Ahead to a Well-Blended System

Caltrain has come a long way on the issue of level boarding and blending with high-speed rail.  A key architectural decision has now been made that will ensure the future success of the blended system.  In the 2020s, Caltrain passengers of all abilities won't give a second thought to the seamless experience of boarding a train, and will take for granted the brevity and punctuality of station stops.  Meanwhile, a few train nerds will photograph the platform interface.

In the meantime, three cheers for compatibility!

08 August 2015

Peninsula HSR, Take Two

Environmental clearance of high-speed rail in the peninsula rail corridor was initiated right after the Proposition 1A bond passed in 2008.  The development of engineering and environmental documentation for a four-track alignment connecting San Francisco to San Jose was in full swing during the years 2009 and 2010.  The Peninsula Rail Program, as it became known, was an ambitious yet awkward collaboration between the CHSRA and Caltrain, with the engineering consulting firm HNTB doing most of the heavy lifting.  The decision to concentrate HSR resources in the Central Valley, combined with fierce community opposition on the peninsula, brought the process nearly to a halt in early 2011.  By that time, thousands of pages of documents had been drafted, hundreds of stakeholder meetings held, and $45 million spent for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance.

Then came a long pause during which two major developments took place.  First, as a result of a political compromise, the idea of a four-track high-speed railroad was dropped in favor of a "blended system" where Caltrain and HSR would share the peninsula corridor primarily on two tracks, with less impact to surrounding communities.  Second, the Caltrain electrification project came closer to being realized, passing key milestones of environmental clearance, funding, and procurement.  Throughout this pause, plans for peninsula HSR became somewhat nebulous, both in their scope and timing.  The media spotlight turned away.

Fast forward to the August 2015 meeting of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (YouTube video).  As reported by the Fresno Bee (and without a peep from the Bay Area press) we have the first hints of what lies ahead, in the form of a Request For Qualifications issued by the CHSRA to re-start the environmental clearance process for the peninsula.  This RFQ lays out a new timeline and a $36 million budget allocated over a term of three years, shared between two sections: San Francisco to San Jose, and San Jose across Pacheco Pass to the Central Valley wye.  The following schedule milestones are envisioned:
  • Consultant contract award - November 2015
  • Project scoping - March 2016
  • Preliminary design for project definition - May 2016
  • Technical reports - June 2016
  • Administrative draft EIR/EIS - August 2016
  • Draft EIR/EIS release - November 2016
  • Preliminary design of preferred alternative - April 2017
  • Final EIR/EIS certification - November/December 2017
The timeline for actual construction is not specified, but it rarely begins immediately after EIR certification, since final design and the inevitable CEQA lawsuits take time.

Highlights from the RFQ

The RFQ deliberately does not reveal the scope or exact nature of the alternatives to be studied, but it does contain some interesting nuggets:
  1. Work for restarting the peninsula HSR process has already started, as noted on PDF page 24: "Work on some of the tasks listed in Exhibit A of Attachment C has commenced and is currently being performed by Authority and Rail Delivery Partner staff."  What the blended system will look like is already being hammered out.
  2. The RFQ emphasizes that the proposed EIR is separate from Caltrain's electrification EIR, on PDF page 28: "On January 8, 2015, the JPB certified the PCEP Final EIR and is currently in the process of procuring a design/build contract to implement the project. While the PCEP will not include all infrastructure necessary to implement HSR service in the SF-CVY Corridor (such as HSR maintenance facilities, station platform improvements, track straightening, or passing tracks), the electrification infrastructure (such as overhead wire systems), along with additional infrastructure improvements, will accommodate future coordinated service and will not preclude HSR."  This point is the subject of a CEQA lawsuit against Caltrain, claiming that electrification is an inseparable component of the HSR project.
  3. Phased implementation is described on PDF page 57: "The Consultant shall develop an incremental plan as directed by the Authority to construct the project over a phased implementation schedule, dependent on funding. The Consultant shall recommend appropriate construction elements for each increment of implementation. This plan shall identify operable project segments or elements of the HSR infrastructure (such as grade separations) that could be constructed early and bring near-term project benefits to existing freight rail and conventional passenger rail services, as well as other increments of construction to build out the full set of improvements over a phased implementation plan."  The peninsula corridor is uniquely suited to a number of construction packages to be built independently from each other.
  4. San Jose is no longer an artificial boundary between two project sections.  This has been a weakness in the past, with insufficient coordination to optimize the configuration of the station and its approaches because each end was being handled by a different consultant.  With the same consultant handling both ends of San Jose, sanity may finally prevail with a shared at-grade solution.
  5. Level boarding planned for Caltrain, on PDF page 60: "Platform design for level boarding at all Caltrain stations will be required."  Even if not at the same height as selected for HSR, level boarding is a prerequisite for the blended system, to improve the average speed and punctuality of Caltrain.
  6. A temporary San Francisco terminal is planned at 4th and King.  The mere idea of it illustrates the frosty relationship between the CHSRA and San Francisco's TJPA, but also helps to satisfy the requirement for a 30-minute trip from San Francisco to San Jose, a threshold of great legal significance that is embedded in the Proposition 1A bond act.  Starting from 4th and King, rather than from the Transbay Transit Center, running at no more than 110 mph, and counting only pure run time (with no timetable margin), the 30-minute run becomes feasible.
EIR Cost Magnitudes

Environmental Impact Reports are extremely complex and voluminous documents designed to clear a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, ensuring that impacts are properly disclosed and mitigated.  It takes a large team of engineers, environmental specialists, writers and lawyers to concurrently design a project and pull together an EIR that can pass legal muster without incurring years of litigation.  To understand exactly where the process currently stands for peninsula HSR, it helps to remember that the published record for the San Francisco to San Jose project section forms only the tip of the iceberg.  The vast majority of the material assembled by HNTB in 2009 and 2010 remains unpublished, to be continued by this new contract.

How much EIR preparation did the $45 million spent so far buy?  We can establish an extremely crude metric for the cost of one EIR page by taking the ratio of the cumulative cost incurred for the preliminary design and environmental clearance of a project, as of the time of EIR certification, divided by the total number of pages in the resulting EIR.  Here are some examples:

Project Certification Cost Incurred Page Count Cost Per EIR Page
Merced - Fresno HSR May 2012 $45M 13,000 $3500
Fresno - Bakersfield HSR May 2014 $120M 20,000 $6000
Caltrain Electrification Jan 2015 $14M 5,400 $2600
Peninsula HSR SF - SJ Dec 2017 $65M* 13,000** $5000***

*cost basis $45M expended to date + $20M of the new $36M contract
**estimated based on cost per page
***estimated based on past history and biased high for scope change from full build to blended

Given that the new consultant won't be starting from scratch, it's conceivable that there will be sufficient budget in the new contract to produce a full EIR for the blended system on the compressed two-year timeline envisioned in the RFQ.

What the Blended System Might Look Like

The CHSRA and Caltrain take great pains to remind everyone that we won't know what the blended system for the 50+ mile peninsula corridor will look like, nor what the blended service plan will be, that is, until the Alternatives Analysis is released next year.  The specific discussions regarding the scope of the blended system are underway behind closed doors.  Taking into account the phased and incremental nature of the project, one can engage in some informed (wishful?) speculation, listed from north to south:
  • 4th and King shared station modifications.
  • Brisbane HSR maintenance facility.
  • Millbrae shared station modifications, hopefully with an affordable shared at-grade solution.
  • San Mateo County grade separation Phase II at Linden Ave in San Bruno, Center St in Millbrae, Broadway in Burlingame, and 25th / 28th / 31st in San Mateo.  The latter are likely to happen sooner than the other projects to enable the mid-line overtake.
  • Grade separation through highly constrained downtown San Mateo.
  • Four-track 110 mph mid-line overtake facility (from San Mateo 9th St, through Belmont and San Carlos, initially to Whipple in Redwood City).
  • Redwood City grade separation Phase IV, extending the four-track mid-line overtake through downtown, possibly with a new HSR station replacing the Sequoia Shopping Center, if the city and CHSRA agree to add this to the project scope.
  • PAMPA (Palo Alto Menlo Park Atherton) grade separations, likely to happen later than the other projects.
  • Santa Clara County grade separation Phase III at Charleston and Meadow in Palo Alto, Rengstorff and Castro in Mountain View, Mary and Sunnyvale Ave in Sunnyvale, creating a continuous 14-mile stretch of grade-separated track good for 110 mph from Palo Alto to San Jose.
  • San Jose approach realignment and a shared ground-level station.
  • A three-track at-grade alignment through San Jose's Gardiner neighborhood, along the existing right-of-way, avoiding a slow and expensive viaduct above the 87/280 interchange.
  • Curve flattening throughout the peninsula, except (unfortunately) in San Bruno
  • Level boarding across the entire Caltrain system, a key blending ingredient that ensures commuter trains can clear the shared tracks quickly and reliably in front of high-speed trains.
The next formal step in the process will be a new Notice of Preparation (NOP) to be published by the FRA in the Federal Register, an action that could come in the coming months.  Then we'll party like it's 2009.