tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post406719254993592779..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Focus on: AthertonClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-12375437206213601492009-11-26T20:12:33.347-08:002009-11-26T20:12:33.347-08:00There are transfers that make sense, because low r...There are transfers that make sense, because low ridership makes it impractical to run direct service, or maybe because it is physically impossible to construct. NIMBYs are not really a valid reason to stop HSR service at San José, especially given the number of riders that will want direct access to SF.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-4492761737501363212009-11-26T16:51:34.176-08:002009-11-26T16:51:34.176-08:00DE:
SNCF (like any properly-run passenger service...DE:<br /><br /><i>SNCF (like any properly-run passenger service) has considerable schedule coordination and timed transfers.</i><br /><br />SNCF's regional services do; the TGV doesn't.<br /><br />The reason I bring up the TGV, the KTX, and the Shinkansen is that they come from completely different countries. I didn't bring up THSR because it's a one-line operation or the ICE because I'm not sure it's transfer-free, but the point is that timed transfers aren't a normal feature of HSR.<br /><br />And no, going to Altamont wouldn't save billions over Pacheco - the cost estimates are about the same. If you're talking about the billions spent on BART to SJ, then it's different, but Santa Clara County would probably find a way to build BART to San Jose no matter what.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20658443592494592702009-11-26T15:29:55.069-08:002009-11-26T15:29:55.069-08:00Happy Thanksgiving, Richard.Happy Thanksgiving, Richard.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20963309410539456602009-11-26T14:37:54.976-08:002009-11-26T14:37:54.976-08:00The TGV and KTX networks have no transfers, either...<i>The TGV and KTX networks have no transfers, either. Korail, SNCF, and JR-East prefer to upgrade legacy lines to allow HSR through-running than to make people transfer.</i><br /><br />Alon,<br />While transit agencies do prefer to offer customers one-seat rides where feasible, this is not done "at any cost". Certainly not if doing so requires billions in extra infrastructure.<br /><br />SNCF (like any properly-run passenger service) has considerable schedule coordination and timed transfers. As academic exercise, we could spend all day pulling up examples from the online schedule. But what would be the point? What possible relevance does Paris-Grenoble have on SJ-LA? Transportation planners make decisions based on the "facts on the ground", not what some planners did thousands of miles away for totally different geography.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30413782681816909482009-11-26T13:31:08.006-08:002009-11-26T13:31:08.006-08:00" ... like I said before, I'm not interes..."<i> ... like I said before, I'm not interested in re-opening the Altamont vs. Pacheco argument ..."</i><br /><br />"Bianca" says, making the usual tiresome and fallacious arguments and statements about the usual alternate universes and straw men.<br /><br />It's more accurate to just honestly say "<i>like I said before, I want the last word. La la la I'm not listending la la ha</i>" than to pretend not to be doing exactly what you manifestly are doing.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24404254266535871442009-11-26T11:38:28.070-08:002009-11-26T11:38:28.070-08:00Drunk Engineer, like I said before, I'm not in...Drunk Engineer, like I said before, I'm not interested in re-opening the Altamont vs. Pacheco argument. I didn't stake out a position back when it was an open question, and I'm certainly not interested in debating it now.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-79335221367047383252009-11-26T11:08:55.416-08:002009-11-26T11:08:55.416-08:00Bianca:
The Caltrain long-range Plan calls for Dum...Bianca:<br />The Caltrain long-range Plan calls for Dumbarton rail, regardless of whether HSR ever gets built. <br /><br />In fact, Dumbarton rail would be under construction right now, if the Measure 2 funds hadn't been stolen for BART Warm Springs cost overruns.<br /><br />Thus, for Menlo Park (and everyone else) Dumbarton alignment reduces the amount of duplicate infrastructure required, and the construction impacts.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-22750372195008243012009-11-26T08:55:01.554-08:002009-11-26T08:55:01.554-08:00Anonymous at 8:16am, nice try. I live in Menlo Pa...Anonymous at 8:16am, nice try. I live in Menlo Park, but I don't live anywhere near where the Altamont alignment would run. In fact I live about 2000 feet from the Caltrain ROW. <br /><br />I made that point because I have frequently seen arguments against the Pacheco alignment say that HSR on the Pacheco route "would destroy" Menlo Park. In the next breath the suggestion is made to build HSR on the Altamont alignment instead. The cognitive dissonance of proposing an alignment <i>that also runs through Menlo Park</i> and pretending that the same issues don't exist is breathtaking. <br /><br />Look, I never had a dog in the Altamont vs. Pacheco route. I see that both alignments have pros and cons. Now that the alignment has been chosen I think we should accept it and move forward; there are a lot of other questions to be resolved. <br /><br />And let me spell one more thing out, to be perfectly clear: it is entirely reasonable for residents near the route to have concerns. It's entirely valid for residents to work with the process to make sure that concerns about noise and aesthetics are taken into account. <br /><br />But when I hear people who don't want HSR to run through Palo Alto or Atherton <i>or their part of Menlo Park</i> claim that Pacheco would destroy towns and Altamont would not, I have to pipe up and tell people to look at a map. I don't expect folks who read this blog but don't live around here to be aware of how the squiggly lines on a map mean that <b>regardless of the alignment, High Speed Rail will run through Menlo Park</b>. Pacheco or Altamont, both will have impacts, most of which can be mitigated. Neither will destroy towns. <br /><br />Now, let's just get on with it and keep moving forward.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82928502708704915002009-11-26T08:16:11.830-08:002009-11-26T08:16:11.830-08:00Why do I suspect that Bianca is the embodiment of ...Why do I suspect that Bianca is the embodiment of the term NIMBY? A resident of east Menlo Park near the Dumbarton route that wants to make sure all rail improvements are kept to someone else's backyard on the Caltrain corridor??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5742403750545427662009-11-26T03:00:45.410-08:002009-11-26T03:00:45.410-08:00Reality Check, both common sense and the ridership...Reality Check, both common sense and the ridership models used suggest SF would be the bigger destination. It's a bigger job center; it has decent connecting transit; it's a bigger tourist destination.<br /><br />I have no evidence for this, but I suspect that Diridon Intergalactic will flop and the real Silicon Valley draw station would be PA, or maybe RWC. (Why they're trying to make the decision now instead of build both as express stations and then serve whichever more people want to go to, I have no idea.)Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54881317072174931102009-11-26T02:05:44.189-08:002009-11-26T02:05:44.189-08:00@ Bianca -- yes, as a Menlo Park native, I'm w...@ Bianca -- yes, as a Menlo Park native, I'm well acquainted with city boundaries and the vociferous Suburban Park NIMBYs along the Dumbarton line between Marsh and 101. That's why I used the word "core".<br /><br />@ Alon Levy -- we should hope and expect SJ and SF would get service in rough proportion to -- and in accordance with -- demand. Gasp!Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51428322763312947282009-11-26T01:10:16.112-08:002009-11-26T01:10:16.112-08:00For San Jose, a train network obviously provides h...<i>For San Jose, a train network obviously provides higher frequency over single line, even if some of that additional frequency requires timed cross-platform transfer in Fremont, Pleasanton, or Tracy between, say, a SJ-Sac and SF-LA train, or between SJ-Sac and Sac-LA trains.</i><br /><br />That would work if California were building a Swiss regional line. But it's not; it's building Japanese-style high-speed rail. In the entire Shinkansen network, there are no timed or cross-platform transfers - the only break in one-seat rides is at Tokyo Station, which is intended as a terminal only. The TGV and KTX networks have no transfers, either. Korail, SNCF, and JR-East prefer to upgrade legacy lines to allow HSR through-running than to make people transfer.<br /><br /><i>As mentioned by "Reality Check" Altamont also serves San Jose as mainline destination...</i><br /><br />...but with one third as many trains. And no, it won't be equal to SF - the EIR projects SJ will have one half the HSR traffic of SF. If for some reason CHSRA backtracks and picks Altamont you won't find anyone there who thinks SJ will get as many trains as SF, except maybe Diridon.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59318388492272914592009-11-25T20:03:44.152-08:002009-11-25T20:03:44.152-08:00And That's not to mention Fremont, Pleasanton,...And That's not to mention Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore NIMBYs.<br /><br />On a slightly related note, even if Altamont were chosen, it would probably still make sense to electrify, grade separate, and possibly even multi-track (to allow a more flexible express service), even south of Dumbarton. Strategic passing works fine when you only need so much capacity, but ultimately, the Baby Bullet system has its limits. Given population increases, and the fact that a modernized, fast, electrified commuter system will attract a lot more riders than CalTrains's current outdated slow diesel trains, I think we can expect large increases in ridership in the near future.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-4630301120223036182009-11-25T18:19:48.448-08:002009-11-25T18:19:48.448-08:00Reality Check said that an Altamont alignment &quo...Reality Check said that an Altamont alignment <i>"keeps HSR out of Palo-Menlo-Atherton-NIMBYville core."</i><br /><br />If you're talking about using the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, note that a chunk of that runs through Menlo Park, and in fact more Menlo Park homes abut that route than abut the Caltrain ROW. <br /><br />Whichever alignment you choose, you're going impact Menlo Park. Suggesting that an Altamont route will be free of NIMBY opposition is magical thinking.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9621864320971719572009-11-25T18:10:40.558-08:002009-11-25T18:10:40.558-08:00@ AndyDuncan
The Altamont split greatly helps ame...@ AndyDuncan<br /><br />The Altamont split greatly helps ameliorate the SF Transbay Terminal capacity crunch HSRA has been yammering about, keeps HSR out of Palo-Menlo-Atherton-NIMBYville core and cuts the number of HSR seats/trains that need to compete with Caltrain for Peninsula track slots. This means 4-tracks <b><i>may</i></b> not even be needed the whole way between SF and SJ.<br /><br />As for Capitols vs. Altamont HSR for SF-Sacramento trips, all that counts is travel time. Imagine much extra it will cost in a Pacheco HSR scenario to make SF-Sac'to via the Capitols as fast as "full fat" Altamont HSR would be for a one-seat ride?Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59730021548817413862009-11-25T14:52:31.364-08:002009-11-25T14:52:31.364-08:00The point is why would you split trains if you don...The point is why would you split trains if you don't have to? An altamont line, by serving SF an SJ as "Co-equal" destinations, means that train frequency will be halved for each.<br /><br />If you're going to tout the advantages for the altamont line you have to at least look at the disadvantages. Splitting trains or splitting service isn't the end of the world, but it's not an improvement. Putting SF and SJ on the main line where the same train can hit both is a huge advantage.<br /><br />If you want to get people from Sacramento to SJ, upgrade the capitols. That will get you a better route than altamont and it will enable Sac-SF, arguably a more important destination than Diridon.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32710649431542915842009-11-25T10:06:06.117-08:002009-11-25T10:06:06.117-08:00@ Anonymous 00:54
Unless someone gets the law cha...@ Anonymous 00:54<br /><br />Unless someone gets the law changed, a Los Baños area station is illegal. So that makes the <b>already-huge</b> people-and-cities-served Altamont advantage even bigger.Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41007299641396733002009-11-25T00:54:10.615-08:002009-11-25T00:54:10.615-08:00As mentioned by "Reality Check" Altamont...As mentioned by "Reality Check" Altamont also serves San Jose as mainline destination. So what is the purpose of comparing against Livermore?<br /><br />Let's do apples-apples comparison. For Pacheco we get:<br /><br />Los Banos: 38k<br />Gilroy: 50k<br />Hollister: 34k<br />Morgan Hill: 33k<br /><br /><br />For Altamont, we get the following cities (in <i>addition</i> to San Jose).<br /><br />Stockton: 290k<br />Modesto: 211k<br />Livermore: 70k<br />Pleasanton: 60k<br />Dublin: 46k<br />Tracy: 81k<br />Sacramento: 500k<br />Manteca: 66k<br />Fremont: 200k<br />San Ramon: 44kAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24660649490403570242009-11-24T22:39:03.695-08:002009-11-24T22:39:03.695-08:00@AndyDuncan
Should Livermore (population 70k) be ...@AndyDuncan<br /><br /><i>Should Livermore (population 70k) be on the trunk line, or San Jose (population 1m)?</i><br /><br />Happily Altamont has both SF and SJ as co-equal destinations along with Livermore (Tri-Valley area station) as part of Phase I.<br /><br />Should Gilroy be part of Phase I in lieu of Merced, Modesto, Manteca/Latrop/Stockton (area), Tracy, Livermore/Pleasanton/Danville, Fremont/Union City and all at the cost of an overall shorter/faster route network at system-buildout including Sacramento?Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6684421839630977872009-11-24T21:18:20.174-08:002009-11-24T21:18:20.174-08:00Should Livermore (population 70k) be on the trunk ...Should Livermore (population 70k) be on the trunk line, or San Jose (population 1m)?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59009723231038555662009-11-24T20:04:48.024-08:002009-11-24T20:04:48.024-08:00The problem with Altamont-with-a-split is that, in...<i>The problem with Altamont-with-a-split is that, in the name of one-seat rides to both SF and SJ, they'll reduce frequency.</i><br /><br />Train <i>networks</i> provide greater frequency than single line. As we are all world-class experts here, I don't know why this should even require debate.<br /><br />For San Jose, a train network obviously provides higher frequency over single line, even if some of that additional frequency requires timed cross-platform transfer in Fremont, Pleasanton, or Tracy between, say, a SJ-Sac and SF-LA train, or between SJ-Sac and Sac-LA trains.<br /><br />Similarly, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Atherton benefit from increased frequency and increased <i>destinations</i> possible with network model. There is, for example, tons of traffic coming into Menlo Park from the Fremont side of the Bay. Thus, the whole lawsuit business is not at all just some minor nimby issue over trees.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55413406702315141282009-11-24T19:50:42.600-08:002009-11-24T19:50:42.600-08:00In general I would appreciate if the conversation ...<i>In general I would appreciate if the conversation could stay on the topic at hand. I think the whole Altamont vs. Pacheco slugfest belongs on another blog, even if it is tangentially relevant to Atherton.</i><br /><br />Sorry.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30744385786826737922009-11-24T19:49:46.527-08:002009-11-24T19:49:46.527-08:00"Line splitting"... or creating a networ...<i>"Line splitting"... or creating a network on which you can provide a full variety of services as demand evolves.<br /><br />OMG, look at all the "line splitting" in Europe!<br />Must... have... more... redundant one-seat rides and duplicative service.</i><br /><br />This comment is self-contradictory. The problem with Altamont-with-a-split is that, in the name of one-seat rides to both SF and SJ, they'll reduce frequency. Even without one-seat rides, there won't be enough ridership to support X tph to both SF and SJ - SF will have to lose X/3 trains, and SJ 2X/3.<br /><br />The argument for Pacheco isn't that California needs one-seat rides without splits. It's that it needs no splits, period.<br /><br />Granted, the TGV does splits. That's why it can only run about 2 tph from Paris to each of two separate stations in Lyon, at its peak. The rest of the LGV Sud-Est's capacity is taken by trains that skip Lyon or branch to Lille or Dijon. Compare that to the Tokaido Shinkansen, the world's other at-capacity line, where there are 7 express trains from Tokyo to Nagoya to Osaka every hour.<br /><br />The splits in the LGV Sud-Est are a legacy issue coming from the fact that neither end of the LGV Sud-Est was built with through trains in mind. Tellingly, SNCF and SNCF-trained engineers do not do that anymore: SNCF endorsed Pacheco, and the TGV-based KTX is currently building phase 2 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HSL_South_Korea_en-semi-kr.png" rel="nofollow">with a detour</a> in order to put Ulsan and Busan on the same line. Among today's planned high-speed lines, the only one that has many splits instead of trying to put cities on the same line is Britain's High Speed 2.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-68529589256235971172009-11-24T19:38:18.647-08:002009-11-24T19:38:18.647-08:00How much longer is the moderator going to permit t...<i>How much longer is the moderator going to permit these "Cliff Clavin" postings</i><br /><br />In general I would appreciate if the conversation could stay on the topic at hand. I think the whole Altamont vs. Pacheco slugfest belongs on another blog, even if it is tangentially relevant to Atherton.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-46123771746143636212009-11-24T15:11:57.990-08:002009-11-24T15:11:57.990-08:00SJ BART and high-speed ACE will offer different le...<i> SJ BART and high-speed ACE will offer different levels of service. Those people in a hurry and willing to spend a little bit extra will take ACE. Those that don't have to go that far or can't afford the higher cost of ACE will take BART.</i><br /><br />Why not offer two different services on the same pair of San Jose-Fremont-Stockton tracks with strategic passing? This would be similar to the Caltrain/HSR proposal, and it doesn't require four-tracking all the way. Two tracks provide plenty of capacity. This simple proposal would save the $8 billion+ of the BART-San Jose extension, end the difficult and costly engineering of Pacheco, and replace the existing ACE service. <br /><br />It is easy to see why the contractors want to build as much as possible at public expense, but the foamers need to get a clue about how to make best use of very expensive capital infrastructure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com