A neat little Constructions Method Booklet (2.8 MB PDF) authored by Peninsula Rail Program director Bob Doty was recently distributed at a community meeting. This booklet is currently undergoing an update, which will be posted under the Resources section as soon as it's available. In the meantime, the booklet provides some good general background for making sense of the draft Analysis of Alternatives document that will be published within the next couple of months. The draft AA will be the first time that peninsula residents are given specific design information resulting from the preliminary engineering work that has been underway since the summer.
As the caveat clearly states: This information is provided for discussion purposes only and includes data and assumptions representative of similar programs. The actual requirements for the Peninsula Rail Corridor have not been established.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is useful and welcome official information regarding the trends in technical and cost trade-offs. Mr. Doty didn't include any split grade separation options, though.
ReplyDeleteAlso, does the at-grade baseline already include the construction of deep underpasses or tall overpasses at intersections that are not yet grade separated?
In both split-grade and at-grade scenarios, there are significant impacts on traffic flows, especially at intersections between an existing grade crossing and a frontage road. To what extent would the HSR/Caltrain grade separation project be on the hook for optimizing those flows?
"A one percent grade change ... to accommodate freight trains.
ReplyDelete...
The corridor will continue to be used by freight trains that must access industries along the corridor."
Garbage in, garbage out.
@ anon @ 16:17 -
ReplyDeleteit's not up to Caltrain or CHSRA to decide to shut down freight rail service in the SF peninsula. They also can't unilaterally change the corridor's designation as part of STRACNET.
However, I do agree that there ought to be some public discussion about whether or not maintaining the status quo for freight and STRACNET is something the owners of the PCJPB corridor - i.e. county taxpayers - even want. UPRR, its customers, FRA and DoD will all have something to say about that, as well, though. The transfer of ownership included various easements.
One way to do this would be for PCJPB to organize a narrowly focused public outreach meeting lasting a full day, with agency input in the morning and input from the general public in the afternoon/evening. This particular decision isn't about HSR, that project is just the trigger for the discussion.
The outcome may well be that the external constraints will not be modified, but at the very least the general public will gain a better understanding of why that should be.
Peninsula Rail Program has made a commitment to use Context Sensitive Solutions for the corridor. That means all these decisions should be decided through this process.
ReplyDelete@ CSS for JPB and HSR -
ReplyDeleteI agree that CSS is at this point the only way PRP can hope to secure public buy-in on the solution that is eventually decided.
My argument was simply that the decision on whether or not freight and STRACNET should be reconsidered is above the pay scales of PRP staff. It's a strategic decision beyond the scope of the CEQA process. For now, PRP is proceeding on the assumption that it must accommodate the status quo on this as an externally imposed constraint, which is exactly how it should perceive it.
It's up to others to decide if those constraints should be relaxed or eliminated before PRP goes much further.
Have you seen the pay scales of PRP staff?!? They had better be worth their pay grade, but Bay Area transit planning precedent warns us to be ready for bitter disappointment.
ReplyDelete@ anon @ 19:38 -
ReplyDeleteit was a figure of speech. The future of freight and STRACNET ought to be a decision above the PRP level, even if it will be they who would need to articulate the impact either way on the grade separation project.
It's not a part of STRACNET.
ReplyDeleteThe FRA has a great GIS system. One of the filters you can use on the maps is for STRACNET and railroads connected to STRACTNET. The Peninsula is one of those railroads. But then most freight lines that serve ports are connected to STRACNET.
STRACNET exists so the military can quickly, efficiently and cheaply move supplies from depots to ports. There is a hierarchy of methods they use to maintain the railroads they use. First choice is to have the railroad continue to maintain the road. Second is for the shippers along the road maintain it. Last choice, because it's so expensive for the DoD, is to have the DoD maintain it. I can't find out if railroads connected to STRACNET get considered for any funding as opposed to ones that are part of STRACNET.
The only map I can find of STRACNET is small and doesn't show much detail. There are two lines coming into the Bay Area from the East. They both head towards Oakland and come together before being covered by the big dot designating San Francisco. It's not the itty bitty out of the way branch line on the Peninsula. I would hazard a guess that it's showing the routes UP and BNSF use to get to Martinez so things can get to Oakland.
Once someone tells the DoD that the line will be changing they will do an exhaustive study. There are no depots on the Peninsula. There is a large modern port with excellent rail and road connections a few miles across the Bay. Give them a bill for $1.98 in annual costs and they will very very probably abandon any STRACNET concerns for the Peninsula.
Railroad like to have grades of 0.8% or less and can work with grades of 1%. There aren't any trains going through the Peninsula. The chances of having to reroute, via the Peninsula, the mile long coal trains from mines to power plants while the primary route is reestablished, is very very very low. I'd say it would be more likely Vogons arrive to help with the construction of HSR before the Peninsula sees mile long trains of anything. When they make up the train that is going to serve the obscure low volume branch that is the Peninsula, the one with grades greater than 1%, they can attach two electric locomotives to it and overcome any problems the mighty grades of the Palo Alto cause.
And there's a former military airfield called Moffet in Mountain View which is still used in emergencies (like Katrina).
ReplyDeleteClem said it was (Stracnet), I'll wait for Clem to tell us otherwise.
Clem said: March 8, 2009 "Freight on the Peninsula" "as it turns out, the peninsula corridor is part of stracnet, or at least it was according to the 1998 update (see california map on page 30)..."
ReplyDeleteAnon, confect whatever fantasy you want from this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.almc.army.mil/ALOG/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm
Your link took me to a list of links, which have zero meaning to me. If you have a point, make it. Or don't. Whatever. But as I said, I'll wait for Clem to weigh in.
ReplyDeleteIf you provide a working link still not terribly useful - there's slim to zero chance I'm going to find whatever needle it is you think you've found in whatever haystack you're pointing to. Do clem a favor and be a little more specific.
This Constructions Methods Booklet is only interesting in that it provides zero actual useful information. It even says so in the Disclaimer.
ReplyDeleteThis is generally how CSS-type dog-and-pony shows work: shower the public with reams of content-free documents (chock full of Bubble Charts) so as to give the illusion of a public process. This serves the dual purpose of distracting troublemakers and legitimizing pre-ordained alignment decisions.
@ anon @ 22:19 -
ReplyDeleteCheck out the FRA GIS. Under the heading "FRA_GIS_Main" on the left, limit the detail to "STRACNET & Connectors" and "Counties", then zoom in on the SF Bay Area.
Since the SF peninsula branch doesn't connect to anything, your suggestion that it is classified as a mere "connector" makes no sense.
This is also borne out by the STRACNET map, which shows the SF peninsula line in red (part of STRACNET) rather than black (connector).
DoD might well be prepared to drop the STRACNET designation and associated loading gauge requirements, but PCJPB would need to request that.
@Rafael, thanks for that FRA GIS link; it looks like the peninsula is still part of STRACNET. The real source would be the Army, but their web site is behind a security veil.
ReplyDelete@Drunk Engineer, I always enjoy your cynical take on things, but give the man a little credit for trying. It's not such a bad intro for complete novices.
@anon re: pay scales--again, the figures that were recently published were fully burdened with benefits and overhead, i.e. they were about triple the take-home pay.
To all, happy holidays and a bloggy new year. 2010 should be even more interesting than 2009.
Since the SF peninsula branch doesn't connect to anything, your suggestion that it is classified as a mere "connector" makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteThen why spend billions of dollars to upgrade it for HSR? The point of HSR is to make the connections between places better/faster. The point of STRACNET is to connect military storage depots to ports.
I'm going to find whatever needle it is you think you've found in whatever haystack you're pointing to. Do clem a favor and be a little more specific.
The link points to a document, singular, titled "Preserving Strategic Rail Mobility" It's about 2000 words long. It explains STRACTNET's mission - to move large heavy objects like tanks and containerized freight - from military depots to ports. There are no depots on the Peninsula. The Port of San Francisco specializes in break bulk cargo. Break bulk cargo is things that aren't containized or moved using pipes or conveyor belts like oil, coal, grain.
The document is old. Here's a link to it Preserving Strategic Rail Mobility by Robert S. Korpanty. If you Google Mr. Korpanty many references come up for him. Most of them having to do with strategic rail.
In the document there is a map. The map is small and doesn't have much detail. The obscure low use frieght line that toddles up the Peninsula is not on it.
Check out the FRA GIS.
ReplyDeleteI did. Which is why I said "The FRA has a great GIS system. One of the filters you can use on the maps is for STRACNET and railroads connected to STRACTNET."
Apparently the tracks all the way into San Jose station are a part of STRACNET or it's connecting railroads. What's the strategic importance of being able to drag M1 Abrams tanks to the platforms there? They aren't going to be dragging containized freight there because containized frieght can't be handled at the San Jose station. . . unless they are expecting an armed insurrection to break out in Atherton when Starbucks in Palo Alto stops serving lemonade chai. Dragging tanks to San Bruno may then be of strategic importance.
This is also borne out by the STRACNET map, which shows the SF peninsula line in red (part of STRACNET) rather than black (connector).
The legend on that map depicts connector lines as striped. It has something common with the map on almc.army.mil.
If black lines depict connecting railroads then Puget Sound, Lake Champlain, the Intracostal Waterway between South Carolina and Florida and the Mississippi River south of Memphis are railroads. . . at least I think it's the Intracoastal. It could be I-95 or US 1 or all three. It could be the Seaboard Air Line, they could ship things from Myrtle Beach to Deltona during Spring Break! Shipping orange juice by rail for screwdrivers and Harvey wallbangers is very efficient. It's not of strategic importance.
DoD might well be prepared to drop the STRACNET designation and associated loading gauge requirements, but PCJPB would need to request that.
If the PCJCB proposes making major changes to the obscure branch that would affect the ability of the military to use the obsolete Port of San Francisco they are required to notify whoever it is in the military who is responsible for maintaning strategic rail mobility. It's not an option. Even if those major changes result in the military still being able to use the obscure branch line to get tanks to a port that can't load them onto ships. The military cannot force the PCJCB to maintain those abilities. Nor is the military going to pay for the PCJCB to maintain them because there are no depots on the Penisula, the port at it's northern end is obsolete. To get rail cars to the obsolete port they have to travel past the modern, efficient, busy, well maintained, high capacity Port of Oakland, travel all the way down to San Jose and then all the way up to San Francisco. That's not cheap or efficient. Cheap and efficient is one of the major goals of STRACNET. When the PCJCB files the required paperwork the answer from the military, is going to be "We don't need it, thank you for your concern"
I'm expecting someone to splutter "Then why does UP maintain it's inclusion from Oakland to San Jose" Consider the ramifications before you splutter that.
"Cheap and efficient is one of the major goals of STRACNET"
ReplyDeleteFunny, I thought the major goals of DOD were security related. As in, natural disaster, need a way to transport stuff through the Peninsula, ie: via rail line of which - I don't know - are there many running north to south on the Peninsula?
I don't know what the hell you're blathering on about, but the point is, SFtoSJ is stracnet and there will be width implications.
Agree or disagree?
@ adirondacker12800 -
ReplyDeleteMy point was simply to clarify the status quo. As far as I can tell, the SF peninsula main line is currently part of STRACNET.
That's arguably an anachronism, but somehow I doubt railroads can kick DoD off their tracks whenever they like. I'm sure you've heard of the curious juxtaposition of the words "military" and "intelligence".
That's arguably an anachronism, but somehow I doubt railroads can kick DoD off their tracks whenever they like.
ReplyDeleteThere will no doubt be paperwork to be filed. The DoD will carefully consider it. They will probably make a valiant effort to stop the giggling while they study the proposed abandonment. They will agree to it. The choice of planters at the mid Peninsula station is probably going to be more complex than the problems with STRACNET.
Sure because everyone knows that the Peninsula (located on a PENINSULA aka surrounded by water on all but one side - in other words NOT reachable by land/rail from the Oakland port side of the bay unless the freeways/bridges are up and working or if bridges down then land route all the way down to San Jose, and all the way back up the Peninsula), and of course Peninsula has hardly any natural disaster potential which would make bridges unavailable, and plenty of alternative ways to get cargo, equipment and military supplies up and down the peninsula by rail, OTHER than via the Caltrain row. And of course the Peninsula has hardly any economic value so why worry about continegency plans anyway. Which makes DOD giggle and giggle and giggle all day long.
ReplyDeleteAdiron why don't you go back over to Robert and Rafael's blog where you can be warmly enveloped by foamers who all spend hours every day agreeing whole heartedly with each other, about how valuable HSR is and which neighborhoods along the ROW are worthless and should be ripped off the face of the earth to make way for the trains, without so much as a peep from deniers and nimbys to kill the buzz.
Sure because everyone knows that the Peninsula .....
ReplyDeletePlanning for natural disasters, domestic uprisings, terrorist attacks and acts of war committed within the United States is a civilian responsibility. The DoD doesn't plan for them. The DoD would tell you your concerns are important and refer you to the State of California and the Department of Homeland Security. The State of California along with the Department of Homeland Security plan for those events. In other words STRACNET's criteria don't take natural disaster, terrorist acts, and armed uprisings of Palo Altans over the menu at Chevy's into consideration. If you are worried about how they are going to ship Evian and Perrier to San Francisco after the Big One STRACNET is the wrong place to be looking.
@ anon @ 19:39 -
ReplyDeletefeel free to try and kill the buzz over on the CAHSR Blog. We've always allowed opponents to voice their opinions even if we don't agree with them.
@ adirondacker12800 -
that's consistent with my understanding of the purpose of STRACNET: moving tanks and other heavy military equipment to bases and shipyards on the coast in the event of a foreign war or domestic upheaval. No more, no less.
With Hunter's Point long since closed, the only remaining military presence in the SF peninsula is Moffett Field, which isn't even on the main line.
HSR must adhere to STRACNET so that someday one of these can be rolled up the Peninsula to stave off the Chinese invasion.
ReplyDelete"Sure because everyone knows that the Peninsula (located on a PENINSULA aka surrounded by water on all but one side - in other words NOT reachable by land/rail from the Oakland port side of the bay unless the freeways/bridges are up and working or if bridges down then land route all the way down to San Jose, and all the way back up the Peninsula), and of course Peninsula has hardly any natural disaster potential which would make bridges unavailable, and plenty of alternative ways to get cargo, equipment and military supplies up and down the peninsula by rail, OTHER than via the Caltrain row. And of course the Peninsula has hardly any economic value so why worry about continegency plans anyway. Which makes DOD giggle and giggle and giggle all day long."
ReplyDeleteHaving fun with your two crappy old locomotives and single dirt hauling contract are you there, 100% unsubsidized, free market champion San Francisco Bay Railroad, are you?
Happy to have us pay hundreds of millions of extra dollars so you can play trains?
You people are just as bad as the scammers and extortionists at the Water EMERGENCY Transit Authority. (Legitimate businessmen all!)
Give us blank checks! Give us all your money! Because when the earthquake comes, everybody can ride on ferries and on freight trains on flat cars! Woo hoo! All the bay bridges will fall down, but nothing will touch the Caltrain line! You can trust us! For sure!
So pay up or we'll drown these puppies! And by the way, we're NOT foamers! No way! We're HARD-NOSED BUSINESSMEN! Just ask our free-market, un-subsidized, rolling in profits partners at the Port of San Francisco!
Plate H! Autoracks! Banana imports! Copra! 1% grades! No pansy Euro-trains with their overhead extension cords ... diesel is for he-men! The sky's the limit!!!!!!!!!
water emergency transit authority - never heard of them, and the link didn't work. But its an interesting idea... Something like protecting the thorny horned field mouse (or whatever). Honeslty, I don't care how it gets done, whatever works. If they want to claim rights there, and that keeps hsr out - all the better. The more rights claimers, the better, the more lawsuits the better.
ReplyDelete