tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2987153244856379057..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: HSR Lays an Egg in Caltrain's NestClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-22817645048945157022023-02-23T19:29:22.331-08:002023-02-23T19:29:22.331-08:00Yes, but...
You would need high speed crossovers ...Yes, but...<br /><br />You would need high speed crossovers available so the train would not need to reduce speed to get to the other track. You would need no opposing traffic for the time it takes the HSR to gain on, overtake, and pass clear of the stopped Caltrain, which is probably a long enough interval to restrict headways of opposing trains. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY you would need to adhere to a very tight schedule or the smooth overtake would fail, resulting in a cascade of delays. So realistically, on the Caltrain corridor, it wouldn't work.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91065511894984542522023-02-23T00:03:03.498-08:002023-02-23T00:03:03.498-08:00Is it possible to have HSR pass Caltrain on the ot...Is it possible to have HSR pass Caltrain on the other pair of tracks? NB HSR could pass a NB Caltrain on the SB tracks while Caltrain loads/unloads passengers at a station. I’m not really sure where the upper bound on capacity lies for the 2-track corridor, and how different it might be with an ideal PTC system. Would be fun to play with this on the taktulator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-14271733337928023872022-11-21T20:12:21.160-08:002022-11-21T20:12:21.160-08:00Don't forget that those are supposed to be ful...Don't forget that those are supposed to be fully automated magical flying cars, like those fully automated magical EVs we're already supposed all to be using.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75305655628629312342022-11-15T23:45:34.561-08:002022-11-15T23:45:34.561-08:00I refuse to believe that you actually just said &q...I refuse to believe that you actually just said "let's deal in reality" with a straight face in the very next sentence after talking about electric flying cars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-92220480625183211352022-11-14T13:08:51.027-08:002022-11-14T13:08:51.027-08:00Grade Xings aren’t slowing trains and won’t preven...Grade Xings aren’t slowing trains and won’t prevent HSRA (and maybe someday Caltrain) from running 110 mph through quad gate protected Xings.<br /><br />And Joby eVTOL flying cars? <b><a href="https://youtu.be/6fcWOivJ6bs" rel="nofollow">Don’t be silly!</a></b>Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-37542262246974924152022-11-13T01:21:04.899-08:002022-11-13T01:21:04.899-08:00Clem, what are you talking about with 115 mph.
Cu...Clem, what are you talking about with 115 mph.<br /><br />Currently the track speed is 79 MPH and CalMod does not change this.<br /><br />Theoretically, if we were able to eliminate all grade crossings on the route, trains would still not average 115 mph. Currently they allowed to go 79 but average 55+ at best (hence why baby bullets take about an hour).<br /><br />If the max speed were raised to 115 I would guess the average would be like 80 which is an improvement but not 115 average.<br /><br />Long before then, Joby and others will be running eVTOL aircraft from SJC to downtown SF and/or SFO and getting there in 5-10 minutes, on electric power (batteries/H2).<br /><br />Anyway let's deal in reality not what the track speed is or will be.neutrino78xhttp://neutrino78x.angelfire.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40864788082398967282022-11-13T01:03:18.924-08:002022-11-13T01:03:18.924-08:00Bryan Anderson,
No, no, another transbay tube mak...Bryan Anderson,<br /><br />No, no, another transbay tube makes far less sense than rebuilding the dumbarton rail bridge. Less expensive option first unless something makes it implausible. <br /><br />Which is another reason I proudly voted no on HSR in 2008 as a centrist Democrat....everything I thought would go wrong with it has gone wrong.<br /><br />btw 10 trains per hour per direction as Clem describes above says there would a train every six minutes. Does anyone here really think that is practical?<br /><br />and DTX....lmao never going to happen. Surprised it's not cancelled already. There is already a light rail right across the street that does pretty much exactly the same place and would take the same amount of time lmao. Severe waste of money. Just hang a wire and ferry people across on a gondola, seriously.neutrino78xhttp://neutrino78x.angelfire.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86259852997706042732022-11-13T00:57:46.444-08:002022-11-13T00:57:46.444-08:00San Jose is the biggest city in the Bay Area so of...San Jose is the biggest city in the Bay Area so of course any trains should stop in downtown San Jose. I mean really the CORRECT way to do HSR would be to start it in Tracy and run it down the median of I-5 down to Los Angeles. Then people would get to it via Capitol Corridor, BART, etc. In that case there would be trains from SF that diverted across a rebuilt Dumbarton Rail Bridge to connect to Capitol Corridor tracks.<br /><br />I know, I know, I'm making too much sense.... the route was political motivated rather than being driven by common sense and the market, so of course it goes down 99 and not I-5.<br /><br />btw the CAHSR business plan says nothing about any kind of stop in Oakland. You guys should have voted no.<br /><br />I'm very proud I voted no in 2008 as a centrist Democrat.neutrino78xhttp://neutrino78x.angelfire.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75060395583371736162022-10-26T15:56:39.095-07:002022-10-26T15:56:39.095-07:00I'm not the harsh critic of Caltrain that othe...I'm not the harsh critic of Caltrain that others are; I see it as anything on the Peninsula putting people somewhere within at least a long walk of the downtown area being better than nothing.<br /><br />Dumbarton revival (a bridge, why on earth a tunnel without any need or reason for it?) is separate from modern Altamont Pass rail crossing use. The interesting thing about SETEC and Dumbarton is that the route in question between Niles Canyon and Mission Pass, to and through Altamont Pass, to the Manteca natural wye in the Central Valley, with or without the Dumbarton extension to the west, is the farthest south any high-speed rail route should g, and coincidentally it is "sideways" or roughly perpendicular to the main direction of the oblique (not north-south) main axis of the state and travel along its main dimension. (Rotate a map to see. You'll also find yourself being kinder on Bakersfield-Palmdale, though not on Palmdale-Burbank, and Grapevine remains better. The Highway 99 route is also inferior for speed to the I-5 route for high-speed rail, but of the three major route decisions and blunders, this is the easiest understood and accepted. Understood but never accepted is the Pacheco Pass selection.)<br /><br />SF-Oakland, then south to the Altamont-Dublin Canyon route, is the better way. Note that this east-west route's extension is the highway connection, I-238 to I-380, the most important missing rung in the ladder of Bay crossings to build, could include rail or BART with it (and more). Another bridge north of that is needed, too, separately from a new rail-BART or transit crossing between Oakland or Alameda and downtown S.F. or close to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86851002408699886492022-10-24T12:55:13.992-07:002022-10-24T12:55:13.992-07:00The thing is, I’m not sure which agency in the reg...The thing is, I’m not sure which agency in the region with a mainline-oriented worldview would be better. Caltrain has shown that it still can’t conceive of modern mainline rail in any useful way (botched electrification, signaling, and rolling-stock acquisition, still no plans for level boarding, general incompetence much higher than BART’s in both operational and capital areas). BART already runs Capitol Corridor, and seems to do at least as good a job as anyone around here at running mainline rail (quite the low bar). Capitol Corridor’s vision plan shows that they mostly understand the basic elements of modern regional rail—they just don’t have any funding to implement any of it. So I think BART would do fine running regional rail, or at least no worse than anyone else around here. Of course the real solution is to hire capable people from abroad to run every aspect of Northern California transit.<br /><br />Fully agreed on the superiority of 580-Dublin over SETEC-Dumbarton, of course (and that Dumbarton should not be a tunnel under any circumstances). Clearances are annoying but we are talking about a few feet of regrading here, not blasting through a mountain range or even digging a full open trench. And SETEC would require a lengthy cut-and-cover through Fremont! It really is not close.Bryan Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48187584188572853362022-10-16T21:43:10.161-07:002022-10-16T21:43:10.161-07:00Well, there would be many who would want some othe...Well, there would be many who would want some other agency "swallowing" (subsuming) BART, with a standard-gauge-oriented main world view, typically with overhead electric power, called something like, yep, Bay Area Rail Transport (a new "BART").<br /><br />The Dublin Canyon route is superior to the Mission Pass route even with the latter combined with a new Dumbarton bridge. (There is no reason for a tunnel there, even less than there is between west Oakland or Alameda, and San Francisco.) The problem isn't so much the broad gauge and removal of third rail but overhead and other clearances.<br /><br />The Tri-Valley constitutes much of the Diablo Range crossing on that route, meaning open, flat land, plus a direct route toward Altamont Pass using the I-580 alignment.* (Contemporary warped activism, which would want trains through downtown Pleasanton and Livermore, is always distinct from and should be excluded from transportation and transportation planning.)<br /><br />The Bay Area there reaches, as always, to the mountain crest and watershed boundary, for this purpose at Altamont Pass. (There are other passes in the vicinity, too.) It's freakish as well as exemplifying the state's decline when people with an outsider mentality speak of only the Bay flats and the City as the Bay Area, actually say the interior portion isn't, or that people come to the Tri-Valley "from Fremont and the Bay Area," which I have read before. They don't know the area they're talking or writing about. I fear the same gross incompetence lies in much gov transportation and other decision-making all too often and is getting worse, if anything.<br />* The open, flat portion the Tri-Valley provides as part of crossing the Diablo Range, aided by Dublin Canyon or known ways to the south to reach it, too, is another reason, in addition to going where the people are and will be in the Central Valley for regional as well as inter-city travel by all kinds of new trains that could use the route, why Altamont Pass is so much better than Pacheco Pass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20424171128344260122022-10-11T16:35:38.351-07:002022-10-11T16:35:38.351-07:00Agreed on most points, but I’d point out that agen...Agreed on most points, but I’d point out that agency turf is not immutable. A creative solution could involve putting BART as the agency in charge of mainline regional rail in Northern California. They’re already the “managing agency” for Capitol Corridor, and Clem’s proposal for merging Caltrain with BART is sound. If the resulting regional service in the 580 corridor would “still be BART”, maybe the agency would jump at the opportunity to replace the L line (L for Livermore lololol) with the kind of mainline that we’re talking about, as it would extend the agency’s empire rather than reducing it.Bryan Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-16128669080803814082022-09-15T11:16:45.190-07:002022-09-15T11:16:45.190-07:00San Francisco is THE terminus, but most if not all...San Francisco is THE terminus, but most if not all traffic should be routed through what has always been the real transportation hub of the Bay Area, Oakland. Despite what some say, it's not San Jose.<br /><br />Re-routing the high-speed trains to San Jose -- yes, they should go through Oakland -- is just to appeal to some little South Bay egos with a complex about their main city's size and importance. That also was behind the lunacy of choosing Pacheco over Altamont, to ensure trains went through San Jose. Never mind that the trains now go away from where most of the people are, including nearly all now and in the future, too, that would be those commuters the project is now invoking to defend the project (and promote it very weakly).<br /><br />And if that's not enough, now the project isn't even trying to minimize tunneling as professed earlier, but seeking instead a 13.5 mile tunnel under Pacheco Pass. (No doubt some fools will boast of that or claim bragging rights for the Longest Tunnel in North America the shiny trains use just outside of Silicon Valley.)<br /><br />[sigh] Contractor bloat and worseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72355681915731558422022-09-15T11:10:10.359-07:002022-09-15T11:10:10.359-07:00@Bryan Anderson: Yes, in addition to Altamont Pass...@Bryan Anderson: Yes, in addition to Altamont Pass being the better route for regional and longer-distance (inter-city) trains, Dublin Canyon is the better route to use, along with the I-580 (old U.S. 50) route directly, repeat, directly across the valley, reducing the distance across the Diablo Range and minimizing the part that is rugged and challenging terrain. It's better than what would be used, something like the SETEC route that would also incorporate a revived Dumbarton bridge crossing. Ignore those who gripe about a freeway alignment or "worse," a freeway median placement; that's just activism substituting for sound direction. Nobody normal wants to detour through downtown Pleasanton and Livermore between the East Bay flats and the Central Valley and beyond. Sadly, the route is taken already (though BART has still failed to reach Livermore, near the edge of the Bay Area there, in its campaign with VTA now to compensate South Bay people with their little city complex) and the overpasses may be trouble. It's a shame, including loss of the obvious station site at Dublin, crossroads since the terrain was formed and especially since that part of the Bay Area grew after World War II. Most consider something like the SETEC route instead now, the southeastern tangential route Peninsula to Manteca wye, with a revived Dumbarton bridge crossing of the Bay to the Peninsula. A new Altamont route should be support regional service, the entire heart of Nor-Cal through Sacramento, not just high-speed inter-city service. (The same is true for Burbank-Palmdale near L.A..)<br /><br />A future Bay crossing to Oakland and having high-speed trains use that route and the old WP Subdivision (BART East Bay viaduct) route (the crossing would serve Sacramento service as well) is obvious, but out of reach currently. (Neither MTC nor local politicians can be trusted.) Note the Bay crossing doesn't have to be a tunnel or tube and this is foolish to assume as so many do; a bridge would be better and permit transit roadways to be added, plus rec trail use for added fun. Oh, well.<br /><br />As with the high-speed rail project, so with local Bay Area transportation (where is the 238-380 Bay crossing, and maybe another near Alameda, both sides for rail and transit as well?) and demented activism with multiple subjects instead of rational, sound decisions. It's another loss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-49319404557736789222022-09-14T15:16:55.258-07:002022-09-14T15:16:55.258-07:00If they felt the need (of course, they would, just...If they felt the need (of course, they would, just like the OAK connector), they could charge $5 to enter/exit AirTrain platforms at Millbrae, it would still be better than the existing options. It would also reduce BART headways at Millbrae as the former SFO trains would terminate there. Perhaps two lines, clockwise and counter-clockwise around the terminals, and two AirTrain platforms at Millbrae, one train unloads/loads while another traverses the connector. Or splurge, and build out the connector with dual trackways for reliability. I can dream...Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13554637052654741365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56706706653437757622022-09-13T23:50:12.125-07:002022-09-13T23:50:12.125-07:00@Marc: yes, many of us transit advocate/wonks, inc...@Marc: yes, many of us transit advocate/wonks, including the Dennis Sammut (San Bruno’s Artichoke Joe’s owner) funded “Coalition for a One-Stop Terminal” (COST) group, fought the Kopp-led BART/Samtrans cabal over BART into SFO vs. a single, consolidated BART/Caltrain/HSR/Samtrans transfer terminal on the existing Caltrain line conveniently served by the free-to-ride SFO AirTrain providing all transit users with a single free transfer to/from all SFO terminals, rental car center, etc.Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57235825684516671802022-09-13T18:47:40.231-07:002022-09-13T18:47:40.231-07:00surprisingly feasible too, if the airtrain rolling...surprisingly feasible too, if the airtrain rolling stock can run in the tunnel. airtrain can take over the unused eastern platform. you'd have to single track through the tunnel but for a ~1km single tracking section at the headways BART is running to milbrae that shouldn't be an issue.<br /><br />Quentin Kopp should be held liable for the capital cost. Mobert Rosesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8162960631484025322022-09-13T12:20:43.656-07:002022-09-13T12:20:43.656-07:00There is (and always has been) a sensible solution...There is (and always has been) a sensible solution for the BART/Caltrain/HSR/SamTrans connection to SFO. Abandon the BART connection and extend AirTrain all of 1.5 miles over 101 to Millbrae Station. Trip time from the last airport terminal to Millbrae about 3 minutes. The southern portion of the BART wye could be repurposed for the overcrossing. It will never happen, because politics.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13554637052654741365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-37111130895719322552022-09-13T09:28:38.157-07:002022-09-13T09:28:38.157-07:00Funding for finishing the 171 CV segment has been ...Funding for finishing the 171 CV segment has been secured (4.2bil prop funds and C&T 1-2bil; still waiting on word for the 1+ billion from Fed Infrastructure grants to electrification and buy trainsets. Will know in a few months). Contracts for engineering have been out for some time now.<br /><br />MTC has been floating 7+ billion for SJ and rail south for some time now. I can't see any other segment gathering the political attention SJ - Gilroy is. Not my first choice but the choice with most interest. <br />"Boris Lipkin, high-speed rail’s San Jose-based Northern California director, said the MTC allocation would be applied to electrify the line south from Tamien to Gilroy"leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912242928171526804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-88361627713550821492022-09-12T19:50:33.415-07:002022-09-12T19:50:33.415-07:00@les: I don't believe any funding for SJ-Gilro...@les: I don't believe any funding for SJ-Gilroy has been identified, has it? Finding it is going to take a political push led by Newsom, who has shown a preference for completing the Central Valley segment and deferring the Bay and LA segments. I have serious qualms about this strategy (opening a near-useless HSR system with no extensions under construction will probably make voters dismiss it as a boondoggle, rather than get excited to fund more of it), but a silver lining could be more time to get it right, if someone with political influence wants to push to get it right (I do not have a ton of hope).<br /><br />@Reality Check: Correct, of course. The long shadow of the botched BART-to-SFO. Nobody wants to use the Millbrae transfer to BART-to-SFO, which is all the more reason why HSR serving Millbrae is not the most important thing.Bryan Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44764650916221579732022-09-11T08:47:37.246-07:002022-09-11T08:47:37.246-07:00@Bryan: you questioned whether HSR really needs to...@Bryan: you questioned whether HSR really needs to directly serve SFO? As evidenced by the need for a transfer, Millbrae ≠ SFO.Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-12973833638646252752022-09-11T07:29:34.944-07:002022-09-11T07:29:34.944-07:00The clock is ticking. I see the Merced and Bakers...The clock is ticking. I see the Merced and Bakersville endpoints being under contract by this time next year which would imply a big push for the next focus by the end of next year, my guess electrification of Gilroy to SJ.leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912242928171526804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71974164844379230492022-09-10T23:03:54.701-07:002022-09-10T23:03:54.701-07:00Fine, forget the median and run alongside. My poin...Fine, forget the median and run alongside. My point isn’t about the median, it’s that suitable ROWs in the East Bay do in fact exist. The almost entirely straight freeway corridor through the Tri-Valley, combined with portions of the Oakland and Niles subdivisions, provides a quite direct path from the Central Valley to Oakland that doesn’t involve crayoning through a bunch of existing development or boring 30-mile tunnels.<br /><br />It’s also a corridor where we know (from all the freeway use) that there’s a lot of regional travel demand, but where that demand is currently served very inadequately by ACE and BART. A regional express service with 200 km/h top speed (running Transbay-Oakland-Bayfair-Pleasanton-Livermore-Tracy then branching to Lathrop-Stockton and Manteca-Modesto) would take a ton of cars off the road, in addition to being the fastest way to get HSR to the two city centers where people are actually trying to go (that is, not San Jose).<br /><br />Does HSR really need to serve SFO directly? HSR stations at major airports do exist internationally, but aren’t the norm even in countries with good HSR. I am skeptical that demand for HSR to SFO (which must necessarily come from smaller cities in the Central Valley, since nobody will take HSR for short distances and nobody from LA is going to take a train for multiple hours just to fly out of SFO) will hold a candle to demand in city centers. At any rate, it might be possible to through-run a couple HSR services per hour to SFO, and if not, a fast same-platform transfer to a Caltrain express is not that bad.<br /><br />Clem laid out exactly what it would take to through-run Transbay last year in this post and its comments, and while it wouldn’t be cheap, it could be done, and the supposedly show-stopping eminent domain would not be the end of the world: https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.htmlBryan Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85919234862757857072022-09-08T14:53:20.685-07:002022-09-08T14:53:20.685-07:00Following freeway ROWs is a relatively common prac...Following freeway ROWs is a relatively common practice and not bat shit insane, running in the median is. <br /><br />Richard has made compelling arguments in the past about the lack of suitable ROWs in the east bay. The penninsula ROW already exists and CAHSR needs to serve SFO. Through running transbay at this point is a tall orderMobert Rosesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18801728119648984192022-09-08T11:28:27.034-07:002022-09-08T11:28:27.034-07:00Seems like sending a third or half the HSR trains ...Seems like sending a third or half the HSR trains from San Jose up to Oakland would be worth considering. Never shoulda stuck the sole northern HSR terminus on a peninsula.Ben Peasehttps://www.peasepress.comnoreply@blogger.com