tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2647137339322350292..comments2024-03-28T11:51:19.078-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Focus On: Mission Bay Grade SeparationsClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72818633833617181452015-02-08T01:29:29.877-08:002015-02-08T01:29:29.877-08:00And there goes the public Right of Way which was n...<a href="http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/01/planning-rules-favor-redesigned-exchange-16th.html" rel="nofollow">And there goes the public Right of Way which was need for the shoo-fly</a> while the simplest, cheapest, most direct grade separation was constructed.<br /><br />Well done, San Francisco. Well planned. The City That Knows How, indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5384081643154673362014-02-09T12:01:02.577-08:002014-02-09T12:01:02.577-08:00"... the ventilation issue is nonexistent&quo..."<i>... the ventilation issue is nonexistent</i>"<br />Not so. <i>Fire</i> and evacution, again.<br /><br />If your think "uncovered sections fairly often" is on anybody's table at Caltrain/CHSRA/TJPA/SFPlanning, you're wrong.<br /><br />If you think "19th century" life safety design (or even 1980s or 1990s requirements) are in force, you're wrong.<br /><br />Always think "project cost maximization" and you'll be heading in the right direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47426367147220455142014-02-07T20:48:17.796-08:002014-02-07T20:48:17.796-08:00Cut-and-cover isn't really so hard to do -- th...Cut-and-cover isn't really so hard to do -- the fire safety issues are real, but were solved back in the 19th century (step one: provide uncovered sections fairly often), while the ventilation issue is nonexistent if you have electrification.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74880415250359583422014-02-07T20:46:20.081-08:002014-02-07T20:46:20.081-08:00It's not clear that the PCJPB communicates wit...It's not clear that the PCJPB communicates with anyone.<br /><br />The City should just rip down the freeway ASAP and leave Caltrain with a fait accompli.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-49547506440097380182014-02-01T15:03:04.053-08:002014-02-01T15:03:04.053-08:00It seems like SF's big political powers are on...It seems like SF's big political powers are on board with the idea. It's not easy to judge opposition from blog comments, but people haven't exactly been railing against the plan publicly. I don't think it's worth writing off.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86175548382111760962014-01-30T20:59:16.604-08:002014-01-30T20:59:16.604-08:00Nice work if you can get it.
And America's Fin...Nice work if you can get it.<br />And America's Finest Transportation Planning Professionals surely get it.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15944992507821420462014-01-30T20:36:22.568-08:002014-01-30T20:36:22.568-08:00Of interest, the SF Planning Department just publi...Of interest, the SF Planning Department just published the scope of work for a proposed <a href="http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA32973.pdf" rel="nofollow">Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study</a>, to include five topic areas:<br /><br />- I-280 tear-down<br />- 4th & King rail yard relocation<br />- 4th & King redevelopment<br />- DTX redesign<br />- DTX loop track (it's baaaaaack...)<br /><br />Phase 1 = $350k for 6-9 months (~3 EP), Phase 2 $1.1 million for 12-15 months (~5 EP).Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36564063360983821442014-01-30T18:59:04.198-08:002014-01-30T18:59:04.198-08:00There is some big developer money involved... and ...There is some big developer money involved... and either way, the tracks should go in a trench to reconnect the street grid at grade. Whether that occurs under the freeway or under the sky remains to be seen.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76420568675253380752014-01-30T17:32:54.414-08:002014-01-30T17:32:54.414-08:00Anyone who thinks the 280 tear-down idea is "...Anyone who thinks the 280 tear-down idea is "likely to happen" and hasn't engendered "much opposition" doesn't read anything but streetsblog. Every MSM article on the topic is plastered with commenters opposed to the idea, and if it ever comes to a vote (and in San Francisco, it will), it'll be voted down in a heartbeat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-1682334924135836022014-01-22T20:37:45.180-08:002014-01-22T20:37:45.180-08:00Covering a trench makes it a tunnel, which invites...Covering a trench makes it a tunnel, which invites all sorts of complications with fire safety, ventilation, etc. I wouldn't really recommend that. An open trench allows the street grid to be re-formed over the tracks, which is the main point of sinking the tracks... not so much to gain a few extra slivers of an acre. In fact, the entire Mission Bay station should have been in an open trench, but this is America and a train station isn't a proper train station if it doesn't have a mezzanine level.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-587520893924918782014-01-22T13:29:16.888-08:002014-01-22T13:29:16.888-08:00The Realtors....I mean the City, is pushing for th...The Realtors....I mean the City, is pushing for the end of 280 to be cut back to before 16th Street, as you mention above. This would then transition to a surface street that would follow the current rail right-of-way and curve around to connect to King Street. (That is actually an interesting and related subject, because a grouping of apartments on Berry Street are directly in the way of the best road alignment. Sigh.) My question is this- could the trench you propose be covered later by this new road? What would be the costs and extra engineering required to make that plan workable?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04639926593565683599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76101390339371837952014-01-07T23:24:29.880-08:002014-01-07T23:24:29.880-08:00Clem, please could you link to or post a copy of t...Clem, please could you link to or post a copy of the white paper?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769996235446036041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15774339490443557982014-01-07T21:34:12.715-08:002014-01-07T21:34:12.715-08:00Some more gems from the draft study:
1) a 10-minu...Some more gems from the draft study:<br /><br />1) a 10-minute "turnover time" i.e. platform re-occupancy time is assumed from when one HSR trainset leaves the TTC until another can occupy the same platform. This is because of "<i>additional clearance time required by the 1312-foot trains to traverse the CP Second Street interlocking</i>"... self-inflicted by the TJPA and its consultants, who curiously point out elsewhere in the same study that a "<i>shorter interlocking allows trains to clear the interlocking sooner and accelerate as soon as the rear end clears the last turnout</i>". One wonders why they are still incapable after all these years of <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/transbay-update.html" rel="nofollow">shortening CP Second Street to a more efficient length</a>. What's frustrating about this is they understand the problem perfectly well but don't think it's important.<br /><br />2) "<i>Although trains using the straighter Mission Bay Tunnel Route alternative may have a<br />1.5 minutes shorter trip time than the Approved DTX Route Plus Grade Separation Tunnel, this time savings is negligible for the commuter rail and intercity rail service involved.</i>" This statement, although made in the context of discrediting an alternative that deviates from the approved and environmentally cleared DTX design, betrays a cavalier attitude about run times that is especially toxic when it comes to HSR. 1.5 minutes is a very significant difference. A minute here, a minute there, and pretty soon it isn't HSR anymore. Similarly, daily commuters do indeed care about small handfuls of minutes. If they didn't we would be talking about electrifying Caltrain. With attitudes like this, one is left wondering whether our transit industrial complex is even constitutionally capable of engineering operationally efficient solutions!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-639765665435788962014-01-07T07:36:46.536-08:002014-01-07T07:36:46.536-08:00Also agreed with the above two commenters. If the ...Also agreed with the above two commenters. If the removal of I-280 north of 16th street is likely to happen in the short-to-medium term, is the Caltrain DTX expected to be completed much before that? Probably considering them as a single project would yield significant benefits in terms of neighborhood disruption and construction phasing - the area would only have to be torn up once.Owen Enoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32518987141680376802014-01-06T23:29:26.362-08:002014-01-06T23:29:26.362-08:00Agreed. SF has the political will to remove the f...Agreed. SF has the political will to remove the freeway, and the plan doesn't seem to have encountered much opposition. Removing the freeway first would make the grade separation both easier and cheaper.<br /><br />What I see here is that the PCJPB and the city really aren't communicating on this issue.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65037663801533179032014-01-06T10:36:19.372-08:002014-01-06T10:36:19.372-08:00Excellent post, but I can't help but think tha...Excellent post, but I can't help but think that even though it might be possible to snake the trench and the shoo-fly tracks through the freeway pillars, the presence of the freeway is an unnecessary complication to the task of extending the DTX to Tunnel #1. Accelerate the removal of I-280 and issues #1 and #4 are now dramatically easier to deal with, and also introduce the option of creating a 16th St/Mission Bay Caltrain station. Given that the funding isn't in place for the DTX yet anyway, the extra SEIR time to include the freeway removal shouldn't be a show stopper, providing the agencies involved can line up behind the solution.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769996235446036041noreply@blogger.com