Lynn Schenk, vice chair of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, caused a stir today when her refusal to vote for the latest Caltrain / HSR memorandum of understanding left plans for the "blended" system stuck in neutral--at least until she is outvoted at the next board meeting.
She contends that the blended system isn't high-speed rail and shouldn't be paid for using HSR bond funds. And she's right: nowhere else in the world does anyone seriously propose "blending" a new high-speed rail system with commuter rail over such a long distance as the 50 miles between San Francisco and San Jose. That's a recipe for limited speeds, bunched commuter trains, and cascading delays. It could rightly be considered a diversion of HSR funds from their intended purpose.
If you want SF to LA in 2 hours and 40 minutes, the simple truth is that blending should be kept to a strict minimum, like this:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Aww come on Clem, this is a silly for many reasons, including:
ReplyDelete1. This route is farther in miles to LA
2. Prop 1A requires 30 min SF-SJ
3. This moves the largest city in N. CA and the strongest economic region in the state off the mainline
4. The E. Bay communities are small. There would not be 5 stops as your map shows.
5. The E. Bay communities are even less supportive of the line than the Peninsula cities
6. The Bay Crossing through the sensitive preserved wetlands
1) How much farther? The program alignment via Livermore and Pleasanton was already 2 minutes faster than Pacheco. This would likely offer significant time savings on SF-LA.
Delete2) No one has ever interpreted that as legally requiring that HSR be built between SF and SJ. The segment trip times are "if it's built via this route."
3) San Jose is only large because it covers a huge amount of physical area. And the jobs are quite spread out as well which means that almost everyone is driving to or from HSR. Altamont would require sending some trains to SF and some to SJ, but with this alignment, LA-SJ would probably only loose a few minutes with this alignment.
4) Which immediately tells me that you didn't look in any detail at the map. Those are annotations, not stops. Stops would likely be Redwood City, Fremont (hopefully with a BART transfer), and somewhere outside of Livermore.
5) I know Pleasanton complained, but Pleasanton is bypassed in this alignment anyway. Who else said anything?
6) And Pacheco goes through Central Valley Wetlands. If all else fails, geological data from the recently drilled water tunnels would likely make tunneling under the bay much cheaper.
Pleasanton's complaints (indeed irrelevant to this particular alignment, since it entirely bypasses Pleasanton) were largely trumped up by the selective outreach performed by CHSRA as the Bay Area Central Valley Program EIR was being reviewed. The timing and location of community outreach meetings is a matter of fact and record, available on CARRD's website, and clearly revealing over-outreach in Pleasanton and the East Bay vs. under-outreach on the peninsula. The rest is history.
DeletePacheco apologists are often caught off-guard by the quicker SF-LA travel time via Altamont, but the CHSRA's own sand-bagged analyses show this to be true.
And that is without going into the whole SF-Sacramento issue... anybody claiming that the Capitols are good enough for that market hasn't seen the trip time differences. But I digress... on my own blog, so there.
Altamont would require sending some trains to SF and some to SJ
DeleteNo it wouldn't. All of them would go to SF and people in SJ could take BART to the station in Fremont.
Oh, cool, so SF riders gets to save one or two minutes to LA and SJ riders get to add 30+? Sounds like a great deal. Why didn't we do this to begin with?
Delete30+ sounds a bit melodramatic.
DeleteWhat of your total disregard for Sacramento passengers?
How long is BART supposed to take from Diridon to Fremont? Including the transfer from BART to HSR?
DeleteGood question-how does the proposed BART to Diridon compare to the 181 in off peak traffic?
DeleteFrom the 2009 BART-SJ EIR, Table 3-21, "South Fremont" to "Downtown San Jose" is 23 min, while "Union City" to "Downtown San Jose " is 35 min. I don't know if these are BART stations or model nodes.
DeleteThe 181 schedule, from the VTA website, shows a 7:00am NB bus from Diridon reaching Fremont BART at 7:39. (39 min) and a 4:58pm NB reaching BART by 5:54 (56 min).
You will also have to discount the 15+ miles that HSR would have to run to San Jose Diridon, if SJ were served directly. That isn't instantaneous, nor would it be at very high speeds. Give it at least 10 minutes. Then you would have to transfer to light rail or BART to reach downtown... Remember Diridon station sits on the periphery, like a southern 4th and King.
DeleteClem: Of course Diridon should not be San Jose’s main station because of its negative attributes you described. A combined four-track Caltrain/CHSR/BART transfer station under Cesar Chavez Park connected to a two track Market Street Subway could accommodate all future rail traffic for those lines now contemplated. Incompatible rail gauges will work on the same track-way with concentric dual gauge tracks built with standard switch check-rail plus running rail combination hardware. Equal floor width and height rail cars (BART cars are 10’6” wide.) using either track gauge could use the same platform. If only one stop was involved adjusting station platform height by 6 inches for different floor height trains might be tolerable. (When relying on adhesion braking while conforming to transit industry safety margin norms it is not possible to reduce close-up periods below 23 seconds.)
DeleteReducing the CHSR 23;5 foot overhead-clearance-standard is essential for economical below grade urban railroad construction. Going to third-rail electrification can reduce an overhead clearance requirement by 4.5 feet if 25 KVAC overhead-electrification is the alternative. As I have demonstrated in previous comments third-rail electrification raw material and construction costs are less than half of 25 KVAC rail electrification expenses. Third-rail shock risks to the public can be reduced by de-activating sections near road crossings until seconds before a train passes. Low cost proximity sensors and video cameras combined with high band-width communications can alert train operators and dispatchers who are in positions with the ability to mitigate dangerous situations. The cost of implementing such power-switching and communication solutions have fallen sharply within the last generation.
In general we live in an era when drawing up an ideal wish-list and making it practical with a great variety of readily available solutions is often the quickest way to converging on an optimal design. This practical design flexibility is certainly true for large scale electronic systems but is increasingly true for macro systems more precisely controlled by electronic systems. For example we should be able to assume that train separation control systems will have continuous train position awareness and immediate consequent control action in the foreseeable future. Under these conditions track capacity will certainly rise well above most block system controlled track in use today. (The Vancouver BC Skyway automatically driven linear induction motor track-brake 265 foot long commuter trains reported in 1991 they could operate with 60 second headways but not consistently. They settled for 75 second headways.)
John,
Deletewhich part of "third-rail low-voldate DC electrification is incompatible with high speed" do you have a problem understanding?
From an article: ‘Under the Hood of a TGV:
Delete“The TGV Atlantique 24000 series power car……does not contain any particularly exotic components, and in principle shares many of its features with most modern electric (and even diesel-electric) locomotives.
Main transformer: takes 25kV 50Hz single phase overhead power and converts this to 1500V 50Hz. For information on how transformers work, pick up any college physics textbook. The transformer is one of the heaviest components in the unit, weighing about 8 tonnes.
Thyristor controlled-rectifier bridge: as the name implies, rectifies the ouput of the main transformer to make 1500V DC.”
TGVweb is maintained by Clem Tillier with Yann Nottara.`
Liquid-cooled transformer scaling properties: Weight gm = Kgm*L^3
Transformer power: The product of current-carrying cross-section area is (Kc*L^2) and Iron magnetic core cross-section which is (Ki*L^2). Power is: P = (Kc*L^2)* (Ki*L^2) = Kc*Ki*L^4
If we double any linear dimension of a transformer, diameter for example, we would have 2^4 = 16 times its baseline power. The effect on weight, as is true for any three-dimension object, we would have 2^3 = 8 times its baseline weight. Therefore if you substitute one line-side transformer for one transformer on each of 16 on-board EMU cars the total transformer weight of the railway electrification system, which is proportional to transformer cost, is one-half if one line-side transformer is used instead of the many more system voltage reduction transformers required in order to place one aboard of 16 EMU cars. (Permanently connecting four EMU cars together with one transformer for the set will reduce total transformer weight by 29% or 1% for the 4 car set at the considerable cost of having minimum regional minimum train capacity 4 times greater than required. (This would be a particularly inefficient method for providing late evening service when there are few potential passengers, but being away from home, they are especially sensitive to service frequency.)
When taking into account the dis-economy of scale for lower power transformers and the 60 Hz US grid frequency a 600 hp 60,000 Lb BART car would have drawing from a 25 KVAC line would require a 2,647 pound transformer adding 4.4% to its 60,000 pound empty weight.
(50/60)*(8*2205)*{(600*0.746)/4,400}^.75 = 2647 pounds
Today for new third-rail railroad electrification projects virtually all conductive material is aluminum; overhead contact wire (OCW) remains copper. Here is a rail electrification power-line distribution conductive material cost comparison between 25 KVAC OCW and 1,500 VDC third-rail:
1) Aluminum’s conductivity per unit volume is lower compared to copper: 168/282 = 0.596.
2) Aluminum’s lower density advantage over copper is 8.98/2.70 = 3.33.
3) The price per pound advantage of aluminum over copper is 3.4818/0.8878 = 3.9219.
Therefore aluminum’s cost advantage over copper is:
(168/282)*(8.98/2.70)*(3.4818/0.8878) = 7.771
4) From Bernard de Fontgalland’s ‘The World Railway System electric traction section “The cross-section size of contact wires of ‘copper equivalent’ changes from 400 square mm for 1,500 VDC to 150 square mm for single phase AC" or 150/400 = 0.375. Third-rail’s much greater conductive material cost advantage (7.771 over a 25 KVAC overhead copper wire installation is attenuated by de Fontgalland’s 150/400 copper equivalent ratio: 7.771*(150/400) = 2.914. Therefore the railroad electrification power distribution line wholesale material cost comparison is: aluminum third rail 1,500 VDC conductive material costs (1/2.914)*(100%) = 34% of 25 KVAC overhead copper wire costs.
The CHSR 23.5 foot overhead-clearance-requirement prevents a reasonable cost tunnel to the Trans-bay Terminal and a Market Street subway through downtown San Jose. Open-cut grade-separation and tunnel costs can be reduced at least 50 % with the help of third-rail-electrification with a 8 foot reduction in the present CHSR track-way overhead clearance requirement.
What part of volts times amps equals watts is hard to understand? Thousands of electrical engineers have looked this kind of problem for well over a century and come up with 25,000 volts is the best compromise.
DeleteIf you want to carry a megawatt of power at 25,000 volts you need 40 amps. You can buy 40 amp conductors at big box stores. I think it's No. 8 but I'm not going to go check charts. The wire the goes to a normal household electric range is 50 amp.
If you want to carry a megawatt of power at 1.500 volts you need 666 and two thirds amps. Thst's a much larger conductor.
Go look up voltage drop calculations. The lower the voltage the less distance you can send the power. Which mean on busy third rail supplied systems there's a substation with a nice high voltage AC feed coming into it every mile. Thousand thousands of electrical and civil engineers have looked over this problem for over a century ( the New Haven Railroad was the first large user of AC electrification in 1907. It was cheaper then and it's cheaper now. )
I agree. 25 kV AC is the de-facto world standard where high power output is required, and John Bacon's continued praise of third-rail electrification fails to recognize that simple fact. If you want third rail with low profile trains, go advocate for those over on the Peninsula BART Blog.
DeleteNeil, the notes are just to make mention of why the alignment is chosen. Most of this is within currently held ROW and Pacheco crosses through the same areas too.
ReplyDelete1. Time is more important than miles (but I think not uncompromisable to other factors improving convenience and hence ridership).
ReplyDelete2. Prop 1A is a constraint we placed on ourselves. It could be changed if political will developed. But I do think that if we said "OK Forget 1A, let's start all over", it would be another 30 years before we got started again.
3. Couldn't agree more. IMHO that's the dealbreaker for this route.
4. Those aren't stops, those are route notes. Click on them to see the notes.
5. Citation?
6. Looks like he's saying to tunnel under wetlands.
Thank you Clem.
ReplyDeleteOf course Ms. Schenk is right. And she is right on other reasons as well. Looking at diverting $500 million down south is absolutely nothing but taking HSR funds and using them for projects that really have nothing to do with HSR. The $600 million being diverted up here and being used to partially fund CBOSS and EMUs, both of which are really CalTrain needs, and not of use to HSR, tells the same tale.
My only issue with the SETEC alignment is that it actually bypasses Livermore. Wasn't serving Livermore and the East Bay the entire purpose of the "follow-the-lights" crowd?
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate, but in the end faster travel time to SF is probably more important than a central station in Livermore.
DeleteUne gare des betteraves, une!
DeleteIt's a great point that we move the mainline away from 2-3m folks on the lower Peninsula and Santa Clara County, but then don't serve East Bay residents other than Fremont. Pleasanton and Livermore are both on record opposing an alignment in their cities, and unlike Caltrain we don't have a longstanding, well used rail corridor to leverage.
DeleteMeanwhile BART does not alter its stations just to make connections with other services -- look at SFO Airport where the Caltrain connections are terrible in both directions, and the poor connections to Capitols or San Joaquins in E. Bay.
There is no positive benefit that justifies removing service to Santa Clara county.
Also, Gilroy serves as a gateway to Monterey and Santa Cruz counties which have a lot of tourism and deserve access. Meanwhile the East Bay will be served by enhanced No. Calif Unified connecting service including enhanced ACE and San Joaquin trains -- at the lower speeds and service levels that Pleasanton and Livermore will tolerate.
DeleteThe city of San Jose, not to mention south Santa Clara County, is most certainly not the engine of Silicon Valley. That'd be news to Sand Hill Road, Oracle, Facebook, Stanford, Google, etc. All of which are closer to the Redwood City stop under an Altamont alignment. Anyways, Silicon Valley is way too dispersed to call San Jose the capital of anything. Its like none of you actually know the economic geography of the area.
DeleteHi Amanda,
DeleteAs you know, the Dumbarton rail alignment bypasses ALL of Santa Clara County which contains the vast majority of Silicon Valley including almost all the companies that you do or could list including Cisco and Adobe (in San Jose), Intel in Santa Clara, Stanford, Google, HP, Intuit, Symantec, Microsoft Mtn View, etc.
And as you know, a Redwood City station has not been selected while one in Mtn View or Palo Alto still could be built eventually.
I didn't refer to San Jose as the capital of anything, but there is clearly some kind of jealousy among many here to try to route the train away from the county with more residents and jobs than any other in No. Calif. -- as the 49ers team concluded.
Does Silicon Valley need HSR service? Yes.
DeleteDoes absolutely every train need to go there? No. Branching will work just fine.
My point was that there's nothing inherently special about downtown SJ that warrants using Pachecho-the business examples I gave being just as easy to get to via a Redwood City cutoff over Dumbarton than stopping in downtown SJ. I agree that having HSR in downtown SJ would be nice, but as a branch under Altamont.
DeleteOne benefit I can think of is for East Bay. If you want to serve Oakland at some point in the future, you can then branch in SJ. If you're already branching for SF and SJ, making a 3rd branch for Oakland is just too much branching.
Delete@Peter - the line is following the existing ROWs over the Altamont.
ReplyDeleteI know. My point is that the legitimate "follow-the-lights" argument has been twisted to continue to promote Altamont, even though this alignment doesn't serve the "lights" any longer. At best they could build a station in Fremont with no interface with any existing or planned rail service.
DeleteNo rail service other than BART or the Capitols (depending on the exact details of how you run through Fremont. Plus on this line you would likely build a couple of parking lot stations for ACE.
DeleteUmm, "no rail service" means NO rail service. It may cross the Capitols and BART, but there won't be a station for either. The magical alignment that Clem is referring to through Fremont is clearly defined and crosses BART just south of Fremont Central Park. There will be BART stations north (Fremont) and south (Warm Springs, and possibly Irvington) of there but there will be nothing where the alignments cross. And there's no way that Fremont would allow an HSR/ACE "parking lot station" at the southern end of that park.
DeleteYou can't possibly be suggesting that BART's plans wouldn't be altered by such an alignment. How silly. Of course there would be a transfer station!
DeleteClem, you're assuming that anything about Bay Area transportation makes sense. I have yet to see any proof of it. Including on the issue of whether an Altamont alignment for HSR makes sense.
DeleteIn my view, Altamont has exactly one truly legitimate benefit over Pacheo: it allows for reasonable service between SF and Sacramento. It comes at the cost of reduced service in San Jose. In my opinion, and that of most people here, the better link with Sacramento probably outweighs the benefit of increased service to San Jose.
ReplyDeleteThe Altamont "high speed overlay" is patently ridiculous and will never be built. All people in Sacramento can more reasonably hope for under a Pacheo scenario would be some realignments on the Capitol Corridor and a speed boost to 125mph. Clearly, Altamont is much better.
All the arguments based on hypothetical cost, avoiding PAMPA, environmental concerns in Los Banos, "following the lights," marginal trip time difference etc seem (to me) to be little more than red herrings. IMO The more you focus on the real issue at hand, the more persuasive you will be.
90 miles at an average speed of 90 MPH takes an hour to cover
Delete150 miles at an average speed of 150 MPH takes an hour to cover.
90 mph average speed? Maybe if it's a mostly straight, passenger-primary alignment built to high standards.
Delete... people in Sacramento....the Capitol Corridor and a speed boost to 125mph.
DeleteAverage speeds of 90 on a 125 MPH alignment could be expected. It's not going to be 220 MPH alignment from San Francisco to Stockton. An hour either way you go.
Every few months, someone brings up the "Second Transbay Tube" idea. Could we hook that tube up to Transbay Terminal? Perhaps build a few platforms under Mission street near existing transbay to provide better Sacramento service? As long as it's not BART, it could be made compatible.
Delete125 mph top is only 90 mph average if your line is built to East/West Coast Main Line standards. This is not the situation with UP ownership, sharp curves in the Bay Area, and slow approaches.
DeleteAnd the Transbay Terminal is incapable of connecting to the East Bay. An alignment under Mission that would've allowed for this was possible until a few years ago, when a skyscraper was built at 301 Mission. The Second to Mission alternative now requires demolishing a brand new skyscraper; it will not happen.
yeah well such is life. I suspect San Franciscans will be stuck with what they will be getting for the next few centuries.
DeleteA 7th to Mission alignment is still possible (in addition to the terminal), but you're limited to 2 platform tracks, unless you want to stack, which is expensive. In any case, it would probably only allow regional trains.
DeleteThe Second Transbay Tube, if extended along roughly the BART Pittsburg route to Concord, and then onward towards Martinez, connecting to the Capitol Corridor ROW from there onward, would provide the fastest route from Sacramento to San Francisco. FWIW.
DeleteThe Second Transbay Tube would now have to go somehwere other than the Transbay Terminal in SF. The new Transbay Terminal design is a pile of crap, so that's OK.
And just what ROW do you propose to use in Oakland and Contra Costa County?
DeleteJoey: an *extremely* expensive tunnel.
DeleteBe aware that the proposal for a Second Transbay Tube was dropped by CHSRA and its predecessors due to sticker shock.
That is actually the reason given in the reports. Paraphrasing, "It would have the highest cost benefit ratio, but it would cost a lot up front, so we will not consider it."
Part of that sticker shock is due to the fact that the tunnel can't just go under the Bay, it has to go under Oakland, and then it has to smash through the mountains east of Oakland; there's really no alternative, and they figured that out early.
It STILL had the best cost-benefit ratio. But, you know, expensive up front, so forget it. Sigh.
This is actually the decision which irritated me most about the entire process. So, see, the combination of Pacheco, a second Transbay Tube, tunnel to Martinez, bridge over the bay, and next to the Capitol Corridor to Sacramento... it's *a single line* from Sacramento *via* San Francisco *via* Fresno *via* Bakersfield *via* LA to San Diego.
DeleteTurns out the operational savings from the simple route are substantial. And despite the "dogleg" it gives excellent results for Sacramento to LA! And it relieves congestion on BART! And this is all in the initial report! And they rejected it anyway, because "it would cost a lot up front".
Ticks me off.
I'm interested to see this report. Is it still available anywhere?
DeleteAltamont isn't happening. Get over it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteSadly, in truth nothing is happening if you mean "building HSR into the Bay Area". Get over that!
The coming Republican coup in Washington (2014) will mean that California will end up with a "train to nowhere" from north of Bakersfield to Merced. Yes, it will significantly speed up the San Joaquins (assuming Cal can continue to fund them by itself). Maybe the section over Tehachapi and down to Palmdale will be built, but the entries to LA and San Francisco will never be completed.
CAHSR doesn't need any more money from 2014 to 2016. The Republicans have precisely 0% chance of winning the Presidency in 2016, and will probably be trounced spectacularly in the Congress.
DeleteThe route to Los Angeles will then get built. There is both the political will and the money in the LA area (and in California).
The San Francisco extension? That's so far off in the future that it's very likely it will be cancelled in favor of San Diego and Sacramento.
If the Obama austerity plan has the effect such plans always have in liquidity traps, Christie could run on the economy and win. Never say never.
DeleteIf Christie runs as a Democrat. He is far too .... contaminated... to appeal to the stereotypical Republican primary voter.
DeleteFWIW, I expect the Republicans to win big in 2014 due to the idiocy of Obama and Senate Democrats. But you know what that means for 2016....
DeleteThey still have a year and half to work their reverse Dale Carnegie magic and offend even more people. For instance another round of sequester cuts takes effect soon
DeleteThat's not the "strict minimum" of shared ROW, Clem. Altamont route is a BAD JOKE and you should stop making it.
ReplyDeleteThe Strict Minimum Shared ROW is the Second Transbay Tunnel route, tunnelling east from there.
Tunneling east to where? Another shared ROW? The crazy twisted capitol route? That's nonsense. We need to use the HSR infrastructure that will be built from Merced up to Sacramento, and the quickest and most direct way to get there from SF, Oakland and SJ is what you see in the map. SF - Sac trip times would drop from 3 hours today to about 80 minutes, to say nothing of SJ - Sac trips which are a non-competitive disaster via Pacheco.
DeleteBTW I added the big earthquake faults to the map, all 3 crossed perpendicular and at grade, as they should be.
Yes, the broad flat plains of Atlamont will be much easier to cross than the insurmountable mountains east of Oakland.
DeleteLet me help you with that. Open the KML File in Google Earth, then right-click on the SETEC alignment, and select Elevation Profile. Now try the same thing for a line (any line!) drawn through the mountains between Oakland and Martinez. Report back to us with your findings on Northern California topography.
DeleteThe SETEC alignment is no joke, it is the work of professionals.
Google Earth on a P4 with half a gig of ram is a very very slow thing when it runs at all. Send me a new computer. One with a stable OS on it, not something from Microsoft. 4 or 6 core and 8 gigs of RAM please> I'd like to see what HD looks like on my monitor. Before it's cathode burns out and I have to find someone who recycles CRTs. Include the SETEC KML file of the Ferry Building in San Francisco to Sacramento via Oakland Berkeley etc. so I can compare. Since I can't do that at the moment I just have to depend on clicking on the terrain option in Google Maps. There's some serious hills between Oakland and Benicia. There are between Fremont and Tracy too. Yes I understand that bringing the train to Livermore will end world hunger and bring universal peace. But if hunger has been eradicated and world peace is the norm we'd have more than enough money to build a tunnel heading northeasterly from Market and Embarcadero until it gets to someplace flat.
DeleteSo you make a claim and then complain that you don't have the tools to back up that claim?
DeleteOkay. I'll borrow some time on a computer that can run Google Earth. I'll look over the lovely SETEC alignment. What am I going to compare it to? It's better than.....what exactly?
DeleteOookay... sarcasm, excuses, obfuscation; surely you must have more arrows left in your quiver of persuasion.
Delete"Tunneling east to where? Another shared ROW? The crazy twisted capitol route? That's nonsense.". covers most of them. Just following your lead.
DeleteIt's been asserted that Altamont is better. Better than what?
Clem, if you're serious about Sacramento-SF travel, push to improve the Capitol Corridor by building a bypass from Martinez to San Francisco. In tunnel pretty much all the way. That's the fast route. Heck, that would also get *all* the trains on the route actually *into* San Francisco. With some sanity involved (which seems unlikely in the Bay Area), the tunnel could pop out and turn into Caltrain at the San Francisco end, and all the trains could run through like BART. Only with standard gauge and overhead electrification, obviously.
ReplyDeleteIf you're serious about the Capitol Corridor then you have to bypass the entire Capitol Corridor. UP will not allow higher speeds, more trains, or FRA independence on the current route.
DeleteUP has a tunnel under Oakland?
DeleteJoey, there's enough room for more tracks along roughly the Capitol Corridor route north of the bridge crossing at Martinez. And it is the correct, shortest, most direct route.... and in this section, is already faster than road traffic.
DeleteIt's from the bridge at Martinez south that the Capitol Corridor route is a problem.
So the new MOU approved by HSR yesterday is for the blended system with only two tracks in the Caltrain corridor. Will it even be possible for high speed rail between SJ and SF with this configuration?
ReplyDeleteThat's a misreading of the MOU. It differentiates between "Early Investment Projects" and the "Blended Project". The former do not include or require additional passing tracks (won't be used for HSR for at least another decade), while the latter does. It also allocates the responsibilities for the JPB and CHSRA for planning the "Blended Project". See page 9 of the MOU.
DeleteCould you provide a link to the MOU? I am reading various things from media and CHSR so am not as informed as I'd like to be.
DeleteIs the long term plan for two tracks with some passing tracks or for a full four track systems along the entire corridor?
I guess if it's two tracks with passing tracks there will be some hope for the systems adopting the same platform heights, etc.?
Here are some sources that mention two tracks but are not totally clear to me:
From http://www.cahsrblog.com/2013/03/chsra-board-approves-blended-plan-bond-sales/#comments
SAMCEDA CEO Rosanne Foust: “The new MOU between Caltrain and the CHSRA can move both projects forward by providing funding and clear principles for implementation. The MOU also addresses key concerns expressed by Peninsula communities about the blended system, including assurances that it will be primarily two tracks substantially within the current JPB right-of-way. It Is also important to us that the MOU expresses respect for the interests of local stakeholders, and that Caltrain will mutually agree with CHSRA on final project design and construction plans for the blended system.”
"primarily two tracks..."
And from http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1765109&title=California%20High-Speed%20Rail%20Authority%20sued%20again
"The state has already committed $750 million to modernize just the Caltrain corridor to electrify the tracks that high-speed trains are expected to share mostly on a two-track system."
Thanks for more info!
The link to the MOU is in the first sentence of this blog post.
DeleteThe operative phrase is "primarily two tracks substantially within the current JPB right-of-way", leaving considerable latitude for adding tracks at the CHSRA's future discretion. Few people know just how wide the corridor actually is: along most of its length, enough space exists for four tracks without taking any properties (contrary to years of fear-mongering by certain NIMBY-aligned elements of the local press).
There aren't too many ways for this cookie to crumble, as has been previously analyzed in these pages.
Thank you for pointing me at the link (how embarrassing to have missed that!) and the additional info.
DeleteThe aren't going to use altamont. they are going to use pacheco. altamont will be part of the unified rail plan being pushed by ACE.
ReplyDeleteThe blended plan along the caltrain corridor is an interim step and does not preclude full 125 operation as grade separations progress.
Clem,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you have a bee in your bonnet about the Altamont route.
However.. what does your blog-entry actually mean? Are you saying that Lynn Schenk is right about the "blended" plan-of-record, but that she would *not* be right, for a (coutner-factual) plan to route HSR through Altamont, across or under the Bay, and then "blended" from RWC to SF TBT? That the former doesn't count aas real HSR, but the latter does?
(You recognize the slippery slope here just as well as i do).
My only point, stated clearly in my post, is that blending should be kept to a strict minimum. The project as planned is not really practical, and will meet neither HSR's needs nor Caltrain's. It's the wrong compromise, especially when better solutions (with 50% less blending) are staring us in the face.
DeleteClem, you did not answer my question. I can read well. i see you assert that Pacheco-plus-"blend" does not meet the requirements of Prop 1A. So, here it is again:
DeleteIn your opinion, does the Altamont-route-plus-"Blend" (RWC to SF) meet the requirements of Prop 1A, or not?
(please read that as said in a patient tone, not a demanding or confrontational one)
DeleteDoes it matter? Prop 1A like everything else was tailored for the Pacheco selection. Notice the very aggressive trip times for SF - SJ (0h30) and SJ - LA (2h10), as well as Sac - LA (2h20) but absolutely no constraint on SF - Sac.
DeleteYes, SETEC Altamont with blend from RWC to SF would easily meet the Prop 1A time for SF - LA. It would fail the Prop 1A time for SF - SJ and SJ - LA. It would kick the crap out of Pacheco for SF - Sac, but as we all know that particular market doesn't matter and wasn't even mentioned in Prop 1A.
The program alignment shows a 10 minute time difference for SJ-LA between Altamont and Pacheco. How much time would SETEC save over the program alignment? Also note that Tejon would save about 10 minutes compared to Tehachapi.
DeleteThat depends on how fast BART can get from San Jose to Freemont and how frequently it's running.
DeleteOkay, let's say hypothetically that you are running some trains directly to San Jose. With the program alignment, SJ-LA was 2:19. What would that be if SETEC rather than the UP route was used through Pleasanton and Livermore?
DeleteThat's not such an easy question to answer. It requires track plan and profile data for the different alignments, i.e. curve radii, grades and speed limits (usually set by curvature). Having looked at the whole Tejon situation recently, I can tell you their simulations follow a consistent pattern: they are numerically correct but the assumptions are always carefully selected to highlight a desired outcome.
DeleteIf CHSRA wants private investors badly enough, those investors will perform their own independent analyses (you know, "ivestment grade" and all that) and blow the lid right off this sort of thing in a way no blogger ever could. Money talks.
Clem, please reread the *really* early reports on CAHSR. SF-Sacramento was found to be driving-competitive only on the the Second Transbay Tube route (everything else is stupidly out of the way). The Second Transbay Tube was then dropped due to, AFAICT, sticker shock.
DeleteSubsequently, it was pretty clearly understood that SF-Sacramento is not part of the CAHSR program. If you want SF-Sacramento improvements, get back to advocating for the second Transbay Tube.
SF-Sacramento was found to be driving-competitive only on the the Second Transbay Tube route
DeleteThose early reports found HSR via Altamont would be twice as fast as driving. How much more competitive can you possibly get?
Firing up the way-back machine, back to 2008:
Delete2008 Bay Area / CV EIR Volume 1 Chapter 7 Network and Alignment Alternative Comparisons
Page 7-4 Altamont Base Case:
SF-Sac 1:06
SJ-Sac 0:49
Page 7-48 Pacheco Base Case
SF-Sac 1:47
SJ-Sac 1:18
Google driving directions:
SF - Sac 1:28
SJ - Sac 1:55
It's worth noting that these are express travel times, and the chances of a nonstop SF-Sac express actually operating are pretty low, so one could probably expect an additional 10-15 minutes for intermediate stops. But the program alignment was also really badly chosen through Fremont and Pleasanton, so one could expect a few minutes to be saved from that, particularly with SETEC.
DeleteThose early reports found HSR via Altamont would be twice as fast as driving. How much more competitive can you possibly get?
DeleteIt's 90 miles between San Francisco and Sacramento. An hour and half at an average speed of 60 or two hours at an average speed of 45. It's 140 miles via Altamont. To make it in 45 minutes they would have to have an average speed of 186. To make it in an hour, an average speed of 140. Hard to get average speeds of 140 when half the journey has a maximum speed of 125.
I should also note that the driving times quoted above are without any traffic. Anybody who has braved I-80 at rush hour knows that 30 minutes of delay is routine.
DeleteHence "90 minutes" and "two hours" an hour and half plus 30 minutes is two hours.
DeleteGet over it, Clem. The "blending" problem is largely north of the merge point from a putative Dumbarton tunnel anyway.
ReplyDeleteSchenk is indeed right. But you're not. Altamont is a stupid thing to obsess about.
If you're actually serious about SF-Sacramento (...and nobody is), you need a second Transbay Tube and a standard-gauge route paralleling BART to Concord. So that's not an argument in favor of Altamont.
With that out of the way, the Pacheco route is significantly more appropriate for HSR than the Altamont route. You know.... it doesn't have to BLEND with COMMUTER traffic across the Altamont....
Blending only counts on the west side of the Bay. All the blending that would go on east of the bridge doesn't count. Just like building track from San Jose to Redwood City is awful but building track from San Jose to Fremont doesn't count.
DeleteIt's worth noting that commuter traffic in the Amador valley would almost certainly be less than commuter traffic on the Peninsula.
DeleteI think the biggest problem we have on peninsula is getting the grade separations in. While PA might get whine about Berlin wall effect from 4-tracks, the effect is very similar when you get the grade separations in. Caltrain's goal should be to get PAMPA grade separated first. The separations should not (and probably would not) preclude 4-tracks.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's hard politically, HSR should provide 50% matching funds to any grade separations wanted by cities. Let that offer simmer for a few years, and perhaps by the time HSR actually starts rolling in 20 years, adding express tracks will be easier.
Sean McClelland says:
ReplyDeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
August 13, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Watch out for your property! If your property is in the way of the High Speed Rail Project, you might wan’t to take a peek at my site.
http://www.caltranssite.com
Below is a link for the HSR Relocation Docs
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresno-eir/final_EIR_MerFres_TA3_12A_ReloDocs.pdf
(Unfortunately)I have spent the last the last 7 years of my life learning the intracacies of the URA and CRAL and Caltrans doesn’t follow either of them.
Jeff Morales and the HSR Team is using Caltrans manual for eminent domain procedures. Problem is, the Caltrans manual violates both Federal and California laws pertaining to relocation assistance.
Email me if you have questions. I would be glad to answer them.
Homeless Victim of California Transportation