tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post8035133913967028049..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Focus on: Palo AltoClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77735927292537009582009-08-10T14:11:11.976-07:002009-08-10T14:11:11.976-07:00The forth track was never thru and would require t...The forth track was never thru and would require the station to be moved. I just mention it because when Palo Alto was pushing a rebuild many years ago they used the argument that for 4 tracks you needed a new bridge. At that time for the speeds thay were listing by moving the station and then the platforms north 2 blocks you could have made it work and save about 250.000.000$ off what they had proposed. They full plan was as stupid as what you expect from Palo Alto and I have lived hear for 52 years. For HSR you will need a new bridge.Skipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5537425137876508392009-08-09T21:23:30.057-07:002009-08-09T21:23:30.057-07:00It is indeed mentioned, although not very prominen...It is indeed mentioned, although not very prominently. I am doubtful that all 4 trackways could be used without violating minimum platform width or track spacing standards... and the unused 4th trackway is on the west side, furthest from the straight-through alignment. I wouldn't bet on it being useful.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36707227728273051302009-08-09T21:04:27.882-07:002009-08-09T21:04:27.882-07:00One point that is never mentioned is the bridge ov...One point that is never mentioned is the bridge over Unversity Av. is set up for 4 tracks. It once had a sidding for the Palo Alto car that was added to one of the passenger trains. If you go under you can see the sapports for all 4 tracks. I once saw a picture of all 4 tracks.Skipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34775346311368911922009-01-14T00:10:00.000-08:002009-01-14T00:10:00.000-08:00Encroaching on Alma is not an option? Really? Al...Encroaching on Alma is not an option? Really? Alma carries a lot of traffic, sure, but I've never seen it backed up to the point of a traffic jam, even at peak commute times. And there are a lot of parallel streets that could pick up the traffic (El Camino, Middlefield, etc.).Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472103339319567043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82596097503662312432008-12-30T14:57:00.000-08:002008-12-30T14:57:00.000-08:00An extreme case is to lump the railroad ROW and Al...An extreme case is to lump the railroad ROW and Alma easement together as a clean sheet design. Then what are the options? Make Alma a true expressway with residential frontage roads and have underground tracks? Room for park and ride? A bike path?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542258682255350426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18402810665352754732008-12-30T14:52:00.000-08:002008-12-30T14:52:00.000-08:00@ various comments:The Palo Alto ROW also includes...@ various comments:<BR/><BR/>The Palo Alto ROW also includes a natural gas pipeline. I imagine the pipeline will be easy enough to relocate.<BR/><BR/>Alma Street is already tight for space. The lanes are narrow and there is no emergency lane in the SB direction. If the tracks were sunk below grade then the Alma ROW could be widened. With below grade tracks, the underpasses at University, Embarcadero, and Oregon Expswy. would become surface intersections. Hopefully modern intersections could accommodate the traffic.<BR/><BR/>To the south, San Antonio is an overpass. Currently the tracks go under San Antonio and begin to climb a grade to the point where they cross over the Adobe Creek. I can hear the freight trains at night rev up to climb the grade.<BR/><BR/>The area around the Palo Alto station is an obstacle for cars and pedestrians. There has been talk of improving the pedestrian access between downtown, the medical center, the park, the Stanford Mall, and Stanford beyond the recent underpass near the Medical Center. Realigning Alma over University was discussed.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure but it seems logical that a creek or waterway such as San Franciscito, Matadero, or Adobe, could be made to flow under the tracks below grade if a basin were built to let the water sink down and rise on the other side and continue down the waterway.<BR/><BR/>Encroaching on Alma is not an option. Alma carries a lot of traffic as it is. The traffic seems to commute north in the AM and south in the PM but always has traffic both ways. After reading this blog I was thinking that they might be able to make Alma a one-way north in the AM and one-way south in the PM during HSR construction which would open up some room to let CalTrain continue to operate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542258682255350426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35773716868269441132008-12-27T21:49:00.000-08:002008-12-27T21:49:00.000-08:00Passenger train cars, whether high speed or not, a...Passenger train cars, whether high speed or not, are nearly always shorter than about 85 feet (26 m). The sort of curvature discussed here is not an issue.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57068181981977359072008-12-27T20:28:00.000-08:002008-12-27T20:28:00.000-08:00To say that more clearly :-), the 3.5 mile radius ...To say that more clearly :-), the 3.5 mile radius curve would be pretty much perfectly straight as far as a 100 foot train car was concerned. But for a train car which was, say, a quarter of a mile long, it would obviously be a unpleasantly large gap.<BR/><BR/>There's an interaction between the train design and the possible curvature in station tracks (and frankly in the envelope around curves on non-station tracks as well). I'm not sure how it actually works out with the standard models of HSR trains because I don't know the carlengths off the top of my head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87429133417186576892008-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:002008-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:00Platforms may not need to be straight, but they ne...Platforms may not need to be straight, but they need to be *very close to* straight in order to minimize the platform-train gap (crucial for ADA accessibility).<BR/><BR/>I suspect the curvature of 150 mph tracks may be small enough to satisfy the requirements, but I haven't actually looked -- it depends, among other things, on how long the individual train cars are. In any case, curvature at station platforms should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72063830397075066572008-12-27T16:05:00.000-08:002008-12-27T16:05:00.000-08:00Thanks to Richard M's comments, I have rewritten s...Thanks to Richard M's comments, I have rewritten some of the material concerning the Palo Alto station alignment. I had wrongly assumed the platforms needed to be straight; with curved platforms, the track geometry problem is greatly relieved and it would be straightforward to run four 150 mph tracks through the existing station property boundaries. This is now shown in the map (and renders infinitely better by downloading the KML to Google Earth). The basic conclusion is still the same, however: the Palo Alto station tracks will need to be completely realigned.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74355347035754260672008-12-24T11:32:00.000-08:002008-12-24T11:32:00.000-08:00Maybe sometime some decade somebody will get the i...Maybe sometime some decade somebody will get the idea that mixing HSR with local service for an inch further than physically necessary is <I>completely insane</I> and <I>completely without any precedent anywhere in the world</I> and that maximizing impacts on the most expensive to engineer parts of the line in the backyards of the most affluent abutters in the state was something that would only be chosen by somebody <I>utterly corrupt</I> and <I>on the take</I>.<BR/><BR/>It will take a few billion of disappearing public money (A Christmas Miracle! watch me turn cash into consultanies!) before anybody starts to cotton on.<BR/><BR/>And 200+kmh anywhere north of San Jose?<BR/>It's not going to happen, because it doesn't happen anywhere even remotely comparable. (Shinkansen fan boys note: I've ridden the same trains (or more likely, watched the same youtubes) as you, yet somehow I've gained the impression that San Bruno and Menlo Park and San Mateo and Mountain View aren't yet quite perfect Japanese mega-conurbations.)<BR/><BR/>There is simply no possibly justification for any massive, disruptive ROW engineering anywhere between Redwood City and Santa Clara; this is all pure make-work, make-profit, make-enemies craziness.<BR/><BR/>"Mistakes were made", as Judge Kopp can be overheard to say -- off the record -- of his enormous BART to Millbrae success.<BR/><BR/>Quadruple tracks at 125mph all the from SJ to 4th&Townsend (the Grand Central of Soma!) by 2015! The Big Q says it can be done!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-83575481991404341582008-12-23T00:06:00.000-08:002008-12-23T00:06:00.000-08:00In half-hearted defense of the Millbrae design:Pal...In half-hearted defense of the Millbrae design:<BR/><BR/>Palo Alto makes sense for timed transfers in the NB direction because it can collect local passengers from Santa Clara, Lawrence, Sunnyvale, Mtn View, San Antonio, and Cal Ave. In Feb 2007 these stations had 7,064 combined boardings.<BR/><BR/>Millbrae makes less sense for timed transfers in the SB direction because it can collect local passengers from only 22nd St, Bayshore, South SF, and San Bruno. In Feb 2007 these station had only 1,969 combined boardings, and almost half of these were at 22nd St (which is served by every reverse Baby Bullet and 2/3rds of reverse peak limited trains).<BR/><BR/>That said, unless it is substantially more expensive to build the island platform configuration, you might as well do it because it leaves the timed transfer option open and has no drawback vis a vis the side platforms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36074391598818046782008-12-22T19:16:00.000-08:002008-12-22T19:16:00.000-08:00@anonymous 18:07The cost of not doing it right wil...@anonymous 18:07<BR/><BR/>The cost of not doing it right will be far worse than the cost & outcry of quadruple tracking the entire peninsula. HSR and commuter rail are like oil and water; trying to mix them on the same tracks will be an unmitigated disaster for both.<BR/><BR/>That being said, Caltrain express trains can benefit from "borrowing" the HSR tracks to overtake locals... but the underlying assumption is that 4 tracks must be available to do that.<BR/><BR/>Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton are some of the most affluent areas of the railroad right of way, and that's where the NIMBY action will get hottest. However, now that all the political planets are aligned towards Pacheco Pass, I don't think those peninsula towns will have much power to stop or slow the bullet. One thing is sure: it'll be quite a show... pass the popcorn.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15225130933869272372008-12-22T18:07:00.000-08:002008-12-22T18:07:00.000-08:00Also it may end up that HSR and Caltrain share the...Also it may end up that HSR and Caltrain share the current 2-4 track layout with some added 4track sections as the cost and outcry may be too much. would 110mph segment really do that much damage to the overall schedule? it sure would save alot on the overpasesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75021327053460465712008-12-22T17:50:00.000-08:002008-12-22T17:50:00.000-08:00I read somewhere that HSR will not travel at speed...I read somewhere that HSR will not travel at speeds over 125mph on the caltrain tracks. But wont it travel slower at certain points?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34084857591278071932008-12-22T09:08:00.000-08:002008-12-22T09:08:00.000-08:00I suspect that encroaching on the Alma right-of-wa...I suspect that encroaching on the Alma right-of-way (and the ROW of the other roads directly adjacent to the rail line in various places) is probably the least worst option for track and stations in many spots along the peninsula. <BR/><BR/>There are plenty of parallel roads, folks -- and you only need one lane for local access.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24944796071072850402008-12-22T08:45:00.000-08:002008-12-22T08:45:00.000-08:00Michael J, thanks for reminding me of that; I adde...Michael J, thanks for reminding me of that; I added a short paragraph about it with a link to the PA Weekly story.<BR/><BR/>My opinion is that it's not a good idea... it boils down to a YIMBY project (Yes In My Back Yard) that has the potential to blow up HSR budgets and schedules. It violates the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).<BR/><BR/>If Palo Alto has the political and financial means to do it (which I strongly doubt) they should pay for detailed studies to get a better idea of the incremental cost.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57215612851084894252008-12-22T07:51:00.000-08:002008-12-22T07:51:00.000-08:00@ Michael J -I think putting tracks underground in...@ Michael J -<BR/><BR/>I think putting tracks underground in Palo Alto would be quite difficult, for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>(a) with so little gradient between the Caltrain ROW and the Bay, any underground alignment would have to pass underneath storm drains, San Francisquito creek etc. That almost certainly means tunneling rather than cut-and-cover.<BR/><BR/>(b) any deep alignment will also have to extend into Menlo Park, perhaps Atherton. While those cities would probably welcome such a move, the cost would be quite staggering. CHSRA has a certain amount budgeted for the SF-Gilroy section of the network, anything fancier would have to funded at the city and county level. Even given that these cities are quite wealthy, it's not clear that their residents would be willing to take on billions in debt just to put the rails underground.<BR/><BR/>After grade separation and electrification, there will be no more horn blowing nor any tailpipe emissions, so two of the most serious objections to heavy rail will be eliminated. Rail-wheel noise is reduced because electric traction permits recuperative braking, so mechanical brakes need only be applied in emergency situations.<BR/><BR/>That means the surface roughness of the wheels isn't compromised, which helps keep down rail-wheel noise. However, aerodynamic noise is proportional to the cube of velocity at high speeds, one reason HSR trains have specially shaped noses. It's not too bad at ~125mph, but still an issue early in the morning and late at night.<BR/><BR/>It might make sense for Palo Alto and other cities along the peninsula to focus on noise mitigation, preferably at source. Why not spend some money on a research grant or two for Stanford so it can develop some technical expertise in this area, then lobby CHSRA to give noise aspects high priority in trainset vendor selection.<BR/><BR/>Worst case, there are always sound walls, especially for residents whose properties are immediately adjacent to the tracks. They have to be quite high to be effective, though.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86506965783834779662008-12-22T05:35:00.000-08:002008-12-22T05:35:00.000-08:00What's your thoughts on palo alto possbily pul...What's your thoughts on palo alto possbily pulling off something like berkeley and bart back in the day - tunneling or cut & cover for the line through all or part of the length of town? <BR/><BR/>Re: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=9435Mike Fogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16486644683442406384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18546865833031633772008-12-21T16:27:00.000-08:002008-12-21T16:27:00.000-08:00Perhaps city planners and CHSRA need to remember t...Perhaps city planners and CHSRA need to remember that while HSR <I>must</I> be grade separated wherever speeds in excess of 125mph are planned, doing the same for Caltrain is optional - though highly desirable.<BR/><BR/>Worst case, it would be legal to stack HSR tracks on top of existing Caltrain tracks and retain grade crossings for the latter, preferably with <A HREF="http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318" REL="nofollow">FRA quiet zone</A> regulations met. This concept does not work where there are already overpasses and, it's not pretty. However, it would avoid having to widen the ROW in e.g. parts of Palo Alto.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying Caltrain grade crossings <I>should</I> be retained, just that it's a legal option. Might come in handy if city officials prevaricate.<BR/><BR/>As far as the University/Alma interchange is concerned, I think the appropriate solution would be to eliminate the connector loops and run Alma straight. High Street north of University should become a a one-way street northbound so motorists can drive around the block there. It may well be necessary to lower University west of High so Alma can be straightened. This would entail significant disruption to a major traffic artery, but IMHO everything else would be a cloodge. That chicane is not acceptable for HSR express service.<BR/><BR/>Note that regardless of whether Palo Alto or Redwood City is chosen for the mid-peninsula station, HSR trains can be as long as 1320', so those island platforms will need to be quite long. It's also advisable to plan for at least three pedestrian underpasses to provide access to them, though only the one in the middle would need an elevator for the disabled.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.com