tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post3419871206216325106..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Risk and Opportunity in Redwood CityClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27228747447689857462020-07-06T17:51:18.839-07:002020-07-06T17:51:18.839-07:00Updated again.
* Transition spirals added to all c...Updated again.<br />* Transition spirals added to all curves. (To German RiL800.0110 standards, and with conservative values.)<br />* More painstaking workarounds for the San Carlos TOD catastrophe. (Again, death is too kind a fate for everybody at SamTrans and SMCTA and Caltrain and the consultant sleaze involved with this in even the remotest fashion.)<br />* Gave up on unworkable concept of reusing existing Belmont platform and instead avoided property impacts on parcels to the east.<br />* Wider spacing (9m where feasible) to additional track pair Hillsdale-San Carlos to allow reuse of some existing bridges.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.pdf" rel="nofollow"><br />https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.pdf</a><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.kmz" rel="nofollow"><br />https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.kmz</a><br /><br />I'll invoice at the usual rate.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-925983078128588392019-12-05T19:45:34.384-08:002019-12-05T19:45:34.384-08:00Sweet.Sweet.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-10769140343673844352019-12-05T18:05:49.456-08:002019-12-05T18:05:49.456-08:00Updated a few days ago, for probably the last time...Updated a few days ago, for probably the last time.<br />Considerably reduced property impacts/takes between RWC station and RW Junction.<br />Rationalized layout and turnout count, saving millions.<br />Faster (ridiculously over-spec UIC 1200m radius 1:18.5 100kmh diverge but hey, there's room, and it's not as if the added million or so would even be a rounding error in Caltrain's catastrophic over-spends and over-runs) crossovers in several useful places.<br />100+kmh routes right into the platforms, hey!<br />Space for transition spirals checked for and adjusted (but not shown -- too much trouble with cheesy graphics workflow I used.)<br /><br />You're welcome.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.pdf</a><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.kmz" rel="nofollow">https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.kmz</a><br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66521211964152929902019-11-27T11:54:57.008-08:002019-11-27T11:54:57.008-08:00@Clem: 50-foot viaducts aren't high enough:
ht...@Clem: 50-foot viaducts aren't high enough:<br />https://kmph.com/news/local/truck-with-dump-bed-raised-crashes-into-high-speed-rail-overcross-on-highway-99Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75242022909773870022019-11-27T11:52:08.659-08:002019-11-27T11:52:08.659-08:00https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/11/2...https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/11/26/bart-san-jose-timeline-2020.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30198529615929114152019-11-27T11:49:17.545-08:002019-11-27T11:49:17.545-08:00DISConnected
"Both the Partner Agencies and t...DISConnected<br />"Both the Partner Agencies and the public indicated that a short, direct, and intuitive connection to and from BART was a top priority for the spatial layout. As such, the Concept Layout proposes a direct, at grade connection to the BART station from the primary station hall. The Partner Agencies recognize the potential phasing challenges<br />between the two projects, as BART is projected to be in operation before the station and intermodal hub are constructed. GIVEN THAT THE TWO PROJECTS WOULD BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED, it is assumed there will be no phasing issues." <br />https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c38bcfdcc8fedd5ba4ecc1d/t/5dca005526a1a305753ce5f0/1573519485585/2019.11.08_DISC_Layout+Development+Report_FINAL.pdf (page 52)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78403374076105078512019-11-20T11:58:36.959-08:002019-11-20T11:58:36.959-08:00"Remind me again why it makes more sense to c..."<i>Remind me again why it makes more sense to connect Dumbarton to the outer tracks instead of the inner tracks?</i>"<br /><br />To avoid conflicts with turnbacks. Also, pretty much any Dumbarton (HSR or otherwise) would have to be limited north of RWC just to avoid 15-minute Caltrain locals, so why not start where you need to finish?<br /><br />"<i>A single track flyover would be cheaper than a double track flyover, to be sure</i>"<br /><br />Less than you think, sadly or surprisingly enough. At a zeroth-order estimate, bridge costs are proportional to surface area. Yeah, foundations count, but...<br /><br />Anyway, I'm pretty sure this can be done with a single single-track Woodside Road flyover, with the WB Dumbarton track sneaking under the road overpass, and compromises passing too-low above grade at Chestnut. In a way, it's the simplest part of the entire Hillsdale-Atherton exercise to pencil in, given the what-should-have-been evident solution.<br /><br />"<i>Besides, if any trains were extended to run through from SF onto Dumbarton, they would be the locals</i>"<br /><br />Possibly a subset of Caltrain locals but there's always going to be more demand SF-RWC than RWC-Fremont.<br /><br />Running the local shuttle past RWC is basically a move to avoid congestion and route conflicts.<br />But a correctly-configured RWC main station can easily cope with at-platform turnbacks at 10 minute headway anyway, with no conflicts with SF-SJ or SF-Dumbarton trains, so why go there?<br /><br /><br />Anyway, this is all crayon. (Notice no transition curves? Big big omission! Doesn't meaningfully affect Redwood Junction, with its wide curves and low superelevations, but my sketches are super-sketchy north of there.)<br /><br />Anyway, crayon or not, the unforgivable and deliberately estructive "TOD" sabotage the assholes of Caltrain/SMCTA have committed in San Carlos -- and that is happening in San Jose as we speak, for that matter -- means no remotely reasonable train service for anybody around here, ever. Death really is far too kind a fate.<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-67949626965257434092019-11-20T11:11:54.654-08:002019-11-20T11:11:54.654-08:00Remind me again why it makes more sense to connect...Remind me again why it makes more sense to connect Dumbarton to the outer tracks instead of the inner tracks? A single track flyover would be cheaper than a double track flyover, to be sure, but this seems like it would be a rounding error in the scope of the overall project. Besides, if any trains were extended to run through from SF onto Dumbarton, they would be the locals - per Clem's service plan. And in a FSSF world, that would put them on the inner tracks. That also allows the Caltrain through tracks to stay at ground level, on the outside, basically straight, and allows an easy connection to Port of RWC including however long of a lead track as they want, without fouling any of the passenger tracks.Owen Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15934578266643759835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48185824058499610862019-11-19T05:27:58.848-08:002019-11-19T05:27:58.848-08:00OK, thanks for 'splainin that ... and that'...OK, thanks for 'splainin that ... and that's perfectly fine. I guess after reading the intro text, I just thought maybe either you or I made some sort of mistake when I fired up Earth using the link and couldn't see any track flying high over Woodside Road. I'm all too happy to engage my powers of imagination ... especially if it avoids you wasting (probably, sadly) any time on 3d-ifying the .kml file. Although, I'm guessing you'd likely do it if there was a remotely decent chance of inspiring someone to cause the "right thing" to occur in the real world someday in our lifetimes.Reality Checkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974156676436895262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65056693884227146552019-11-18T21:06:56.105-08:002019-11-18T21:06:56.105-08:00A person who actually does this stuff for a (non-U...A person who actually does this stuff for a (non-USA) living pointed out to me that shallower turnouts actually result is more favourable geometry. Yay!<br /><br />So, drawings updated with Port of Redwood City connection updated again, this time with turnouts based on bending 1:14 (rather than 1:9) UIC turnout base. Nice!<br /><br />@Reality Check: The Google Earth link is just to a <b>2D</b> sketch, painstakingly geolocated. It's not a <b>3D</b> model.<br />I could make one (for you!), but, really ... why?<br /><br />God only knows I've made many -- so many! -- Google Earth-able 3D models in the past 15 years, and God only knows how utterly fucking appallingly stupidly the appallingly rancidly incompetent sleazebags of TJPA/PCJPB/SMCTA/SMCTA/SFCTA/VTA/Arup/PTG/HNTB/PBQD/WSP/etc have destroyed the public interest using better CAD tools and tens of hundreds of millions of public dollars regardless. So, yeah, 3D, 2D, whatever. The lunatics control the asylum ... and <b>you pay</b> them for the privilege, please and thank you.<br /><br />Anyway, picture -- if you will, in your mind! using the high-infinite power of human imagination! -- the eastbound (western-most) Dumbarton track flying high over both Woodside Road (aka State Highway 84) and all the other rail tracks, which at this point are at grade and run under the overpass, as today.<br /><br />Picture it <i>in your mind</i>. For in this, the Stupidest of All Timelines, you will never encounter it what you call ... "reality".Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36862947736338673492019-11-18T15:30:34.744-08:002019-11-18T15:30:34.744-08:00Gelber Beton:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...Gelber Beton:<br />https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/11/18/have-a-look-at-the-latest-concept-plans-for-the.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23642764993412127722019-11-18T14:42:07.357-08:002019-11-18T14:42:07.357-08:00Richard, beautiful track design. I'm curious t...Richard, beautiful track design. I'm curious though we may see state regulations within the next few months that make apartment construction dramatically easier near Caltrain. If we see a significant population increase that supports off peak Caltrain service every 10 or even every 5 minutes, what needs to be built?Nilo Cobaunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44415654166619099462019-11-18T08:35:34.150-08:002019-11-18T08:35:34.150-08:00Shocking News!!!!
https://www.bizjournals.com/san...Shocking News!!!! <br />https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/11/18/bart-service-to-santa-clara-county-isnt-going-to.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-22549902003160195692019-11-17T22:28:45.578-08:002019-11-17T22:28:45.578-08:00@Richard, I may not be doing something right (bein...@Richard, I may not be doing something right (being a Google Earth neophyte), but I can't seem to get the "Google Earth update" link you posted show any tracks going over Woodside Road. Is the link pointing to the right version, or am I just doing something wrong (entirely possible!)?Reality Checkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974156676436895262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41152753221158878752019-11-17T15:50:05.879-08:002019-11-17T15:50:05.879-08:00Updated PDF
Google Earth update
Updated with east...<a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.pdf" rel="nofollow">Updated PDF</a><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/RWC2019.kmz" rel="nofollow">Google Earth update</a><br /><br />Updated with eastbound Dumbarton track flying high <i>over</i>Woodside Road, the westbound Dumbarton at grade passing under Woodside Road as discussed above.<br /><br />Also -- mirabile dictu! -- a Port of Redwood City lead track is wedged in using the miracle of a couple curved turnouts. (The being completely acceptable and widely deployed as needed everywhere in the world except for on US freight railroads, and hence US commuter railroads, and hence know-nothing US transportation consultants and agencies.) (All my turnouts in all these sketches are utterly standard UIC/DBAG geometries, the two tricky cases here being standard "300-1:9" simple turnouts bent with the main route at 1600m radius to match existing Dumbarton ROW.) The downside is that Chestnut Street needs to be lowered (hideous anti-urban anti-human "split" grade crossing) a bit to get under the tracks, which can't climb quite steeply enough on their own.<br /><br />All tracks at or above grade, as God (outside of San Francisco) intended.<br /><br />As an aside I believe it's even possible at 2.5%-ish for the Dumbarton line to dive to pass under Middlefield Road, running trenched and cut/cover all the way to the the bay and the Dumbarton tunnel. Up-up-up-down-down-down. The obvious of the tracks going above Middlefield and eventually diving some place further east also works, of course.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/RWC2019/Flatter-Redwood-Junction-snapshot.jpg" rel="nofollow">Here's a fuzzy screenshot</a> -- sorry about the low resolution, but I run into all sorts of Google Earth limits, as well as limits to my patience. Zoom in the PDF file to see details.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-1371787785383150322019-11-15T11:09:37.076-08:002019-11-15T11:09:37.076-08:00RE the final note: Having Dumbarton join Caltrain ...RE the final note: Having Dumbarton join Caltrain as the inner track pair. That effectiveley solves the Port of RWC issue, doesn't it? The Caltrain tracks to SJ would be on the outside and remain at ground level. You do have to thread the lead around the viaduct supports, but you already have to thread it around the Caltrain track, so it can't be much worse, can it?<br /><br />It does increase the right-of-way sligtly though, since you need to leave space for a retaining wall on *both* sides of the Dumbarton tracks, rather than just the far side.<br /><br />caltrain-(embankment wall)-dumbarton-dumbarton-(embankment wall)-caltrain<br />rather than<br />dumbarton-caltrain-caltrain-(embankment wall)-dumbarton<br /><br />How much extra space is needed, and is there enough?Owen Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15934578266643759835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87007003384239123282019-11-14T15:12:34.436-08:002019-11-14T15:12:34.436-08:00Beton vor Elektronik vor Organisation: http://sant...Beton vor Elektronik vor Organisation: http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Communication.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=3005&MediaPosition=&ID=1133&CssClass=Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-31118676919943200292019-11-13T13:29:00.090-08:002019-11-13T13:29:00.090-08:00"Comment 3: I also agree with Clem that the &..."<i>Comment 3: I also agree with Clem that the "scenario 1" that leaves Woodside as-is and handles the Dumbarton connection with a flyover seems like the winner to me. ...</i>"<br /><br />Agreed!<br /><br />"<i>Comment 4: The Only other idea I have is to have the local tracks cross over to the bay side before RWC</i>"<br /><br />I see only negatives.<br /><br />The whole point is same-direction cross-platform transfer and low-conflict (block two tracks, not four, you idiots!) turnbacks, so pairing tracks the easiest and most obvious (southbound fast / southbound slow / northbound slow / northbound fast) is the best setup from <i>every</i> perspective.<br /><br />One final note: the Dumbarton tracks <i>could</i> be made to join the Caltrain line as the inner track pair. Could make sense if some SF-Redwood shuttle trains run through and continued east some distance in the future, rather than turning back at the Redwood City platforms. Surprisingly few downsides, but there are some.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-49903963225998926262019-11-13T13:17:45.860-08:002019-11-13T13:17:45.860-08:00"Comment 2: How about just connecting the Por..."<i>Comment 2: How about just connecting the Port of RWC lead track to the Dumbarton track rather than to the Caltrain main? ...</i>"<br /><br />There are both horizontal (turnout placement, probably doable) and vertical problems with this.<br /><br />Recall that all the mainline tracks (Dumbarton and Caltrian SJ) tracks need to be climbing as steeply as possible as early as possible passing under Woodside Road in order to clear Chestnut Street -- roughly only 250m separation. A bit of fudging with lowering Holly under the big four-track train bridge(s) might help, but any turnout (aboutlying roughly 150m from Holly) is going to be on that incline, which means that the freight connection would being going up, diverging, then down again on a very tight curve in order to run down the middle of Holly. Seems completely infeasible to me.<br /><br />If you place the turnout on the Caltrain main with a diamond crossing the Dumbarton track the problem is barely improved.<br /><br />If you try to place the turnout further south (would be on the sweeping curve, but there is ZERO technical problem with curved turnouts, at least any place in the world aside from the USA USA USA) then you run out of space for the extra track under the Woodside Road overpass.<br /><br /><br /><br />It's a ridiculous mess!<br /><br />Now if <i>both</i> Dumbarton tracks flew over Woodside Road finding the space through the underpass is no problem, just as it is not if both tracks were underground there. The cost is another 700m of so of sky-high viaduct. Also, threading the lead through the big-ass columns and bents holding up the viaducts is another challenge and more civil expense. (All of which, as Clem points out, is a big <b>bonus</b> for our Caltrain mafia overlords. So, yay?)<br /><br />(I'm likely to waste some more days of my life updating my sketches more in line with above-ground flyover not below-ground duckunder Dumbarton junction, now that my mind has been changed. Will tighten required widths up a little, resulting in very slightly smaller impacts/takings between Maple and the junction. Might help with Port freight lead, might not.)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82341064681680787692019-11-13T12:55:05.147-08:002019-11-13T12:55:05.147-08:00"Comment 1: Am I reading it correctly that yo..."<i>Comment 1: Am I reading it correctly that you propose bulldozing the San Carlos TOD roughly east of Holly Street?</i>"<br /><br />There are <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/01/development-oriented-transit.html" rel="nofollow">lots of things that can be said</a> about this "Transit Oriented Development" but for my part I will stick with "death is too kind a fate for anybody in any way involved". The rank corruption and unprofessionalism of the Caltrain/SamTrans/SMCTA triple-salary-sucking executive staff is disgusting. The incompetence, stupidity, ineptitude and unprofessionalism of Caltrain's staff and consultants is mind-boggling.<br /><br />I don't see how major impacts to the penny-ante new construction right up against the ROW can be avoided, particularly on the south-west of Holly, where approving construction was simply criminal. Shaving a foot or two of the edge of damnable sold-off parcels to the north-west might also be needed, depending. (Note that my hand-registered overlay of tracks and property boundaries was done using lots of time-wasting manual data scraping -- I am not using a real GIS or real CAD system, though I'm pretty confident of metre-level accuracy.)<br /><br />You didn't mention the Historic San Carlos Depot building. The answer is that it is moved westward out of the way. This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvNb4XGoq6M" rel="nofollow">sort of thing</a> is done <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/22/danish-lighthouse-put-on-wheels-to-move-it-away-from-eroding-sea" rel="nofollow">all the time</a>. Chump change.<br /><br />Note also that even if some <b>utter idiots</b> were to seek to totally sabotage all Caltrain service forever by building "SFFS" (Pennsylvania Rail Road! New Jersey Transit! SEPTA! OMFG!) track configuration through Belmont/San Carlos, there are still problems because building a new two-track rail bridge adjacent to the existing Holly Street overpass will not allow even 4.5m (the generous inter-track spacing I use uniformly, 14.76 feet) close track spacing, so there's going to be some flaring out of the track centrelines right where the ROW has sufferered the worst self-inflicted sabotage.<br /><br />It's bad. Really really really bad. It's obvious who is to blame.<br /><br />The "good" news is that we're talking a multi-hundred-million dollar project (grade separating all of Redwood City and quadrupling Belmont, San Carlos and Redwood City stations) so on the order of ten million to buy out a couple of woefully misplaced stick buildings isn't the end of the earth. It would almost be lost in the noise of just the agency project "overhead" skimming payola, for example.<br /><br />(The bad news is that it would have just pennies to <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/09/san-bruno-done-wrong.html" rel="nofollow">do the rational thing at San Bruno</a>, but we live on The Stupidest Timeline, and those responsible for this sort of disaster are still at it.)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81655554092973945432019-11-13T08:29:12.236-08:002019-11-13T08:29:12.236-08:00Excellent coverage of the HSR Oversight hearing ye...Excellent coverage of the HSR Oversight hearing yesterday (11-12-2019) from Fresno Bee:<br /><br />https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article237303364.html<br />Video of the hearing can be seen at (about 2 hours total)<br /><br />part 1<br />https://youtu.be/Q4WgM2cQ090<br /><br />part 2<br />https://youtu.be/A50cnOCgNug<br /><br />part 3<br />https://youtu.be/lcSvIB8GxwY<br /><br />part4<br />https://youtu.be/VFQx7rTfEAk<br /><br />Morris Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15773991484957733792019-11-11T18:21:27.692-08:002019-11-11T18:21:27.692-08:00“OK boomer”“OK boomer”Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-2845389757298711332019-11-11T15:14:08.864-08:002019-11-11T15:14:08.864-08:00Santa Clara is next: https://www.svvoice.com/caltr...Santa Clara is next: https://www.svvoice.com/caltrain-park-ride-lot-to-be-developed-for-mixed-uses/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7800015571243900912019-11-11T10:04:36.818-08:002019-11-11T10:04:36.818-08:00Yeah, Richard you have clearly thought this throug...Yeah, Richard you have clearly thought this through.<br /><br />Comment 1: Am I reading it correctly that you propose bulldozing the San Carlos TOD roughly east of Holly Street?<br /><br />Comment 2: How about just connecting the Port of RWC lead track to the Dumbarton track rather than to the Caltrain main? No need for crazy flyovers. Yes trains would have to access the port switchback-style by running up towards RWC station, then backing onto the Dumbarton track, and then going forward back up the port lead, and this is indeed trickier than the present situation, but then again, such things are perfectly run-of-the-mill in the annals of freight switching on industrial leads like this. How many times does a train servicing the customers out by the port change directions today? What's twice more? Certainly it's not enough difference to cause freight crews' shifts to run long enough that they run afoul of union agreements or labor regulations?<br /><br />Comment 3: I also agree with Clem that the "scenario 1" that leaves Woodside as-is and handles the Dumbarton connection with a flyover seems like the winner to me. I get that Bay Area people are NIMBY-snowflakes, but the mostly industrial context by Woodside makes me just shrug. Will anybody actually care if there is a flyover running between the Costco and the Stor-All?<br /><br />Comment 4: The Only other idea I have is to have the local tracks cross over to the bay side before RWC: up, over, and back down to ground level again in the space between Howard and Brewster. Of course this would preclude cross platform transfers at RWC - not ideal, of course, as the majority of transfers here would be "same direction" transfers.<br /><br />Some time ago I noted that the various tracks of the Chuo/Sobu lines do an interesting dance around each other between Yotsuya, Ochanomizu, and the split to Akihabara/Tokyo. I am not sure I entirely understand what is going on with this railroad do-see-do, but I have a suspicion it has something to do with solving a similar problem as this.oevans82noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63632618923430352342019-11-10T19:45:24.266-08:002019-11-10T19:45:24.266-08:00Hey they even get to build the first 400m to start...Hey they even get to build the first 400m to start on the honking tall viaduct while calling it a "turnback track" -- just as America's Finest Transportation Planning Professionals demand. (See: BART "tail track" scams at the end of every line -- built as headstarts on even further and even worse extensions.)<br /><br />It's all such a win-win $$$$$$ynergy!<br /><br />(Now, how about a $1 billion flyover for the Port of Redwood City -- with maximum 1% grades, of course. A billion not enough? How about two?)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.com