tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post4168106756854200258..comments2024-03-28T11:51:19.078-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: The Exploding Cost of Grade SeparationsClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82082220549822294912021-07-15T13:20:27.342-07:002021-07-15T13:20:27.342-07:00"Columns are not that hard to move. The hard ..."<i>Columns are not that hard to move. The hard part is inter-agency coordination, ..."</i><br />The columns supporting (appalling) elevated Highway 280 above the Caltrain tracks in SF are a pain, a real inconvenience, but <b>not an obstacle</b>.<br /><br />The freshly-erected columns supporting the shit-tastic elevated bus station and park in the sky at the Transbay Terminal, on the other hand, are totally catastrophic, having been placed by the America's Finest Experts at Parsons Transportation Group, the TJPA and Caltrain <b>exactly where they will most obstruct train and passenger movement</b>.<br /><br />280 one could manage to overcome. Transbay, ugh. Death is too kind a fate for anybody in any way involved.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mlynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47435615914749450472021-07-01T19:52:29.672-07:002021-07-01T19:52:29.672-07:00Columns are not that hard to move. The hard part i...Columns are not that hard to move. The hard part is inter-agency coordination, which every agency abhors.<br /><br />Ironically, not wanting to move columns is one of the reasons why PAX was proposed in the first place, so if true this would be quite the circular reasoning.<br /><br />I guess circular reasoning is perfectly OK when preparing to set on fire more than a billion dollars for a basic grade separation.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75120046880687713972021-06-29T19:55:28.758-07:002021-06-29T19:55:28.758-07:00Has anyone seen the latest concept for PAX? I thin...Has anyone seen the latest concept for PAX? I think I saw that the first tunnel is going to start by boring through Tunnel #1 to get to Penn St. The other bore is going to start at the unused Tunnel #2 bore and go straight into the 280 freeway columns before turning on to Penn.??? The image I saw was pretty high level so I'm not sure, but if it does require the columns to be moved, you can bet another billion dollars to the price tag.LameDudeSFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74069837970168444942021-06-29T14:23:55.617-07:002021-06-29T14:23:55.617-07:00"Isn't 16th part of or the reasoning for ..."<i>Isn't 16th part of or the reasoning for the Pennsylvania Street tunnel ...</i>"<br /><br />"safety"<br />"harrowing crossing"<br />"workforce"<br />"cyclists, pedestrians"<br />"high school students"<br />"San Francisco International Airport"<br />"emergency response times"<br />"sustainable"<br />"wisely anchoring growth and density"<br />"new housing units"<br />"However, costs increase over time."<br />"extraordinary benefits"<br />"congressional delegation"<br />"our crusade requires broad national support"Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66941977248001192532021-06-29T08:25:52.413-07:002021-06-29T08:25:52.413-07:00Isn't 16th part of or the reasoning for the Pe...Isn't 16th part of or the reasoning for the Pennsylvania Street tunnel proposal which diverts from the existing ROW south of 23rd St station?<br />This also includes the relocation of the station to Caesar Chavez or another inconvenient location. <br /> Jeff Carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25047730695763188052021-06-28T20:31:58.726-07:002021-06-28T20:31:58.726-07:00Wait till you see the cost to grade separate 16th ...Wait till you see the cost to grade separate 16th street in San Francisco! Well north of a billion, and being contemplated with perfectly straight faces.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75393398057027687782021-06-28T19:57:46.579-07:002021-06-28T19:57:46.579-07:00I don't think there is anyone that thinks that...I don't think there is anyone that thinks that Broadway isn't needed. It's just that $300+ million is just bonkers when San Mateo 25th Ave is just over $200 million and San Bruno is just over $150 million (These two projects are already quite expensive). $300+ million dollars for a non-quad track grade separation that doesn't even go through the entire city of Burlingame when the rest of road crossings are in such close proximity; I'm sorry but it just seems like a fishy cash grab.<br /><br />You are right that it is needed. In fact in terms of safety, this project should've been built before San Mateo 25th Ave. LameDudeSFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-26855154035988111592021-06-28T14:12:08.219-07:002021-06-28T14:12:08.219-07:00There is no problem with the Broadway Burlingame g...There is no problem with the Broadway Burlingame grade separation at all!<br /><br />The only problem is that the federal government is not funding it sufficiently.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/guest_perspectives/peninsula-needs-federal-funding-for-rail-safety/article_181cbfc4-d7e1-11eb-a718-a7e7fe187f60.html" rel="nofollow">"Guest perspective": Peninsula needs federal funding for rail safety by By Emily Beach and Ellen Kamei"</a><br /><b>Burlingame Councilmember</b> Emily Beach is chair of San Mateo County Transportation Authority.<br />Mountain View Mayor Ellen Kamei serves on <b>Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority</b>’s Policy Advisory Committee.<br /><br />"safety"<br />"harrowing crossing"<br />"workforce"<br />"cyclists, pedestrians"<br />"high school students"<br />"San Francisco International Airport"<br />"emergency response times"<br />"sustainable"<br />"wisely anchoring growth and density"<br />"new housing units"<br />"However, costs increase over time."<br />"extraordinary benefits"<br />"congressional delegation"<br />"our crusade requires broad national support"<br /><br />There can be only one solution: $300 million of federal funds and a lot of roadwork.<br />Lots and lots and lots and lots of roadwork, lots of road excavation, lots of road rebuilding.<br /><br />Do it for the harrowed high-school students!.<br /><br />Do it with the federal earmarks.<br /><br />Excavate Now For Future Safety.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71588409121098208572021-06-25T20:56:47.808-07:002021-06-25T20:56:47.808-07:00Thank you for coming to my TED TalkThank you for coming to my TED TalkRichard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mlynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65485337134857332252021-06-24T02:05:50.388-07:002021-06-24T02:05:50.388-07:00I so enjoy our little talks, Richard. I so enjoy our little talks, Richard. Robert Mosesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-80553780494942520892021-06-23T23:39:23.993-07:002021-06-23T23:39:23.993-07:00After having considerable dealings with their PW s...After having considerable dealings with their PW staff, I came to realize that Mathilda was this one guy's lifes work. His whole purpose in life is to turn Mathilda into an full-on expressway, funneling cars into "downtown" Sunnyvale from Highways 101 and 237 to the north and 280 from the south. I hear there is another Mathilda project going on now at 101/237 interchange.Drunk Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818695817782985523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72937862416880974342021-06-23T23:32:51.946-07:002021-06-23T23:32:51.946-07:00JFC...don't even get me started on Sunnyvale. ...JFC...don't even get me started on Sunnyvale. Two decades ago, the City took over $100 million and lit it on fire building some new and bigger (sorry "improving") onramps for the Mathilda interchange. And there was also the new Caltrain station and parking garage (I forget the exact amount, but in the tens of millions). <br /><br />At the time all this construction was scheduled to be done, Caltrain would be shutting the line down anyway, for one of their endless SOGR projects.<br /><br />I pointed out to Council that given the amount of money being spent, and the fact that a new station was being built anyway, and that grant monies were available for the asking -- that they may as well demolish the interchange and elevate the line. Normally, such a project would be disruptive, but since Caltrain was doing one of their shutdowns, the timing would have been ideal. Drunk Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818695817782985523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85834685070048742402021-06-23T00:40:19.119-07:002021-06-23T00:40:19.119-07:00• San-Jose.svg
Now this is just crayon. There...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/San-Jose.svg" rel="nofollow">San-Jose.svg</a><br /><br />Now <b>this</b> is just crayon. There's many hundreds of hours of wasted effect in the rest of this stuff, but not here!<br /><br />Everything connected with San Jose, Capital of Silicon Valley, just fills me -- as it should fill you -- with a mixture of loathing, despair and deep depression. It's a mistake to even look at aerial imagery.<br /><br />I only crayoned this much up in response to <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html?showComment=1621796001076#c7098111374243233659" rel="nofollow">some questions from "jpk122s" above</a>, and because I can't help myself.<br /><br />You can be sure of one thing: whatever the worst thing you can imagine, San Jose will find something even worse, and do it, at unimaginable cost, and bill you for it, while blathering about "tenth largest city".<br /><br />It could be so damned nice if this weren't so, but it is.<br /><br />Anyway, the problem for Caltrain in San Jose is the City of San Jose. That and rail freight, particularly the completely vestigial completely irrelevant "Warm Springs Division" freight rail line. But mostly the City of San Jose. Close to 100% of the problems are the City of San Jose.<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57948187083773946452021-06-23T00:26:46.495-07:002021-06-23T00:26:46.495-07:00• Sunnyvale.svg
Now I almost like this! Well, I ...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Sunnyvale.svg" rel="nofollow">Sunnyvale.svg</a><br /><br />Now I almost like this! Well, I like the solution because we're "forced" into doing the right thing!<br /><br />Basically we need to grade separate Mary Avenue (at milepost 37.82), which is less than a mile north of the suburban-hell-expressway Mathilda Avenue overcrossing (MP 38.50), which is right next to and impeding access to Sunnyvale Station (MP 38.6), which is north of the Sunnyvale Avenue grade crossing (MP 38.79), which is followed by expressway-hell overpasses by Fair Oaks Avenue (MP 39.27, and yes, we've killed or are killing all the fair oaks) and Wolfe Road (MP 39.66.)<br /><br />Now Mary Avenue alone could -- but shouldn't! -- be done as a stand-alone Caltrain up-and-over-and-back-down separation of that one road crossing.<br /><br />But instead consider in the context of the equally-needed Sunnyvale Avenue grade separation and ... a much more cohesive and attractive project <i>forces</i> itself upon us!<br /><br />Fundamentally it is infeasible to meaningfully change the elevation of <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3777845,-122.0285315,3a,75y,47.39h,67.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZVxaBBXxnS5w9orOIr62rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192" rel="nofollow">Sunnyvale Avenue as it crosses the tracks</a>.<br /><br />But ... it is geometrically impossible to get Caltrain to rise <i>over</i> Sunnyvale while having passed <i>under</i> <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@37.379418,-122.0338601,3a,75y,71.45h,68.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIc04dtlsV4pjob1eDjnaEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192" rel="nofollow">hellish Mathilda</a> just ~0.3 miles ~460m to the north.<br /><br />Something has to give!<br /><br />The thing that should give is elevated Mathilda Avenue, and the appalling morass of elevated ramps and concrete and more concrete that make Sunnyvale the Special Place it is today.<br /><br />Tear it down!<br /><br />Caltrain goes <i>over</i> Mary Avenue (nothing controversial here), then back down a bit and up <b>OVER</b> freshly de-hellscaped Mathilda, level through a nice new elevated Sunnyvale Station accessible from both sides of the tracks, <i>over</i> Sunnyvale Avenue, and, diving at <b>1.30%</b> (little more than the recent 1.25% grades of the San Bruno grade separation, and well below what was Caltrain's 2% freight-dictated limit) barely clear under Fair Oaks Avenue, and in fact undercutting the existing track elevation (less than a foot at most) for a little south of Fair Oaks before matching grade and continuing further south through the automobile badlands of Santa Clara County.<br /><br />Anyway, I like this. It rights a few wrongs -- the cut-off Sunnyvale station, the hugely wrong Mathilda Avenue expressway and ramps -- while actively making things better -- Mary and Sunnyvale Avenues free of rail crossings, Sunnyvale rail station and parking lot blown up and redone better. Can't fix and won't touch Fair Oaks and Wolfe to the south or 237 etc to the north, but at least there is something that can be salvaged here, in Sunnyvale of all places.<br /><br />Tear it down! Built it up!<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86131996203729035972021-06-22T23:38:41.018-07:002021-06-22T23:38:41.018-07:00• Mountain-View.svg
The only existing at-grade ro...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Mountain-View.svg" rel="nofollow">Mountain-View.svg</a><br /><br />The only existing at-grade road crossings are at Rengstorff and Castro. This is appallingly few in so many miles, and actively hostile to human beings and human travel and anything except mandatory automobility, but we're moving deeper into Santa Clara County urban-freeway war-on-humans hellhole territory, and basically nobody <i>should</i> be allowed to do anything but drive long distances, on hugely wide "expressways", to strip malls.<br /><br />Yes, there are quasi-freeway we-hate-humans road-over-rail crossings at multi-lane freeway-wanna-be San Antonio. Shoreline and Whsman as well, but really. Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh.<br /><br />Anyway, Rengstorff could be done as a standalone, single-road up-and-over-and-down Caltrain project. To get <i>under</i> elevated San Antonio road and at grade through the existing San Antonio Station means climbing up over Rengstorff at 1.25% or more, violating the Sacred Caltrain Steam-Hauled Freight Design Criterion, but whatever. Relocating San Antonio Station a little north, further under the hellish freeway-like overpass, might improve the geometry a bit.<br /><br />If I had any say in any of this, the fundamental mistake of San Antonio Road would be repaired, the street brought back to ground level, a normal urban signalled four-way intersection created with the "Central Expressway", and the Caltrain tracks and station elevated over both San Antonio and on over Rengstorff.<br /><br />But good luck with that.<br /><br />Nuke the site from orbit.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85168317767521080212021-06-22T23:03:57.310-07:002021-06-22T23:03:57.310-07:00• Palo-Alto.svg
This one is easy, because nobody ...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Palo-Alto.svg" rel="nofollow">Palo-Alto.svg</a><br /><br />This one is easy, because nobody in Palo Alto has any strong opinions or any misinformed opinions about anything. So we're all set!<br /><br />For our grade-separating purposes Palo Alto can sort-of (but not entirely cleanly or independently) be broken into three sections:<br /><br />◦ San Francisquito Creek/El Palo Alto/Alma Avenue/University Avenue<br /><br />◦ Embarcadero/Churchill (and the numerous severed roads that do <i>not</i> continue across the tracks throughout Palo Alto)<br /><br />◦ East Meadow/Charleston<br /><br />Turns out Palo Alto has <a href="https://connectingpaloalto.com/presentations-and-reports/" rel="nofollow">recently pissed away millions of dollars on years of consultants and Visioning Exercises and Community Involvement Stakeholder Outreach Workshops</a> Meanwhile, they could instead have had all the <i>indubitably correct answers</i>, for <i>free</i> from me, right here, in obscure comments on somebody-else's blog!<br /><br />Anyway ...<br /><br />◦ Alma: Not only is it undesirable from human-centric urban-design principles to depress this or other roads beneath the tracks, but Alma is cheek-by-jowl by regularly-flooding San Francisquito Creek. So no deep roadway excavation here for that reason either, phew.<br /><br />Long story short: even with the combination of <i>both</i> depressing Alma slightly (~1m) below existing road grade <i>and</i> going with "exceptional" rail grade of 1.5% and "exceptional" vertical radius of 13270m (limiting always-irrelevant but always-dominating-all-requirements freight trains to 45mph) it's still not possible to get over Alma and back down to existing Palo Alto station tracks' grade in the space available. But that's OK, because the existing University Avenue grade separation is a 1940s cloverleaf abomination, and the Palo Alto station would be far nicer with the tracks elevated ~13 feet above present, and with hugely improved pedestrian access to and through this second-most-important of all Caltrain stations.<br /><br />Not cheap, no doubt! But nothing in Palo Alto is cheap!<br /><br />Basic deal is that clearing Alma, even pulling out the stops on rail gradients, means elevating the Palo Alto station a fair bit. Unavoidable.<br />Just Do It. Elevate, quadruple-track, construct two 420m-long island platforms with level boarding. Done.<br />Palo Alto deserves no less.<br /><br />◦ Churchill. The Palo Alto Visioning Exercise was all about Berlin Walls and keeping One Side of the Tracks on the other side of the Other Side of the Tracks. (Personally having lived a bit and worked a lot around Palo Alto, I found the tracks an unpleasant and unnecessary barrier to travel and wanted <i>more</i> connections across the tracks, never fewer.) Anyway ... with a 1% upgrade on the north and an 1.15% downgrade to the south it is possible to up-and-over Churchill, and Churchill alone, even with 50mph freight curves, and barely make it back to grade before today's California Avenue station.<br /><br />But ... in conjunction with an Alma grade separation and requisite elevation of the downtown Palo Alto station tracks and platforms, Churchill and 1940s "road subway" Embarcadero come into scope of something like a single grand project. See the elevation profile crayon.<br /><br />Basically, Do It, say I.<br /><br />(Indeed, Do More! say I. So many more connections should exist across the track barrier throughout Palo Alto!<br />And California Avenue station is a hostile hole of pedestrian inaccessibility.<br />And the Page Mill / Oregon Expressway / Alma hairball road underpass morass is a 1960s crime against humanity and should be blown up.<br />But yeah, let's just stick with Alma and Churchill and not get too excited at 11pm, shall we?)<br /><br />◦ East Meadow and Charleston.<br /><br />Pretty straightforward. Almost stand-alone (though with some potential extremal interactions with grade separations in Mountain View.) Nothing much to say here. Just Do It, in the obvious rails-over-road manner.<br /><br /><br /><br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35596490629645488802021-06-22T21:52:24.543-07:002021-06-22T21:52:24.543-07:00[ • Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg updated with an inter...[ • <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg" rel="nofollow">Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg</a> updated with an interesting alternative with 1.5% grades on both ends of San Mateo, because it seems I can't stop.]<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Redwood-City.svg" rel="nofollow">Redwood-City.svg</a>: <b>narrative deferred</b><br /><br />• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Menlo-Park.svg" rel="nofollow">Menlo-Park.svg</a><br /><br />So this has got to be pretty simple, right? Just four existing grade crossings to clear (Encinal, Glenwood, Oak Grove, Ravenswood), and the existing grade kind-of flattish through northern half of Menlo.<br /><br />But no! A rising grade from Atherton into Menlo Park means we have to climb steeper to gain the requisite road clearance, and, well, anything that touches Atherton turns toxic.<br /><br />As nearly everywhere, the correct solution is rails raised 6.7m above existing grade (4.8m 15.75ft of road clearance plus ugly obese American 1.9m depth of rail bridge civil and track) with 300m long station platform nicely placed over cross-streets for good connecting transit and good pedestrian accessibility. That's easy! (Oak Grove—Ravenswood road spacing is even close to 300m, just for us!)<br /><br />But getting 6.7m of elevation is made harder at the northern, Atherton end by a +0.27% rising grade, and ... by the objective fact that the Town of Atherton is ruled by sociopaths.<br /><br />My self-imposed constraint is to not do any construction in Atherton (as much as elevated tracks would be <i>quieter</i> and <i>less dangerous</i> and less <b>CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG HONK HONK HONK</b>) meaning leave Watkins Avenue in Atherton – little more than 500m north of Encinal Avenue in Menlo Park – as a CLANG CLANG CLANG HONK HONK SMASH SMASH grade crossing while Encinal is grade separated.<br /><br />But +6.7m rise in 500m run, all handicapped by 0.27% against, is ... not favourable.<br /><br />Even with a +2.00% grade (again, something <i>allowed by Caltrain's one-time design standards, even in tracks shared freight</i>) we can't quite do it, and Encinal Avenue needs to be lowered by about 1m to get under the tracks. That's unfortunate, but it's not much, and it's one road, and in a <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4592469,-122.1890984,293m/data=!3m1!1e3" rel="nofollow">fairly isolated and super-suburban milieu</a> without a ton of dense surrounding properties to be affected by the modest degree of road regrading.<br /><br />In the end, I'm cool with this, you should be cool with this, the City of Menlo Park should be cool with this, the world should be cool with this, all right-thinking individuals are cool with this. Well, OK!<br /><br />At the southern, Palo Alto, end it's pretty simple to match to the rising topography peaking (surprisingly, to me, when I first embarked upon this pointless project) at the bridge over San Francisquito Creek, El Palo Alto, and the Alma Avenue grade crossing.<br /><br />To get <i>over</i> Alma, however, is another story ...<br /><br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35318385330178599472021-06-22T15:47:24.147-07:002021-06-22T15:47:24.147-07:00• Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg continued.
◦ It's ...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg" rel="nofollow">Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg</a> continued.<br /><br />◦ It's <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/07/focus-on-san-mateo.html" rel="nofollow">obvious</a> what <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/07/threading-san-mateo-narrows.html" rel="nofollow">to do</a> <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/San-Mateo-plan.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, though constructibility is bear given restricted ROW north of Ninth Avenue. A fairly extended total interruption of rail service is unavoidable. But so worth it.<br /><br /><br />In principle though, not a hard engineering project, and one that would have a really nice outcome for Caltrain and for San Mateo.<br /><br />But yeah, dream on.<br /><br />Matching grade at the southern end is simple. The northern, Burlingame end less so, and the interactions with downtown Burlingame separation aren't horribly complicated but they aren't trivial, particularly around project phasing.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54765974609184379252021-06-22T15:32:02.463-07:002021-06-22T15:32:02.463-07:00• Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg
A bunch of stuff here,...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg" rel="nofollow">Burlingame-San-Mateo.svg</a><br /><br />A bunch of stuff here, because all potential quasi-independent sub-projects for different subsets of roads interact, mostly quite strongly.<br /><br />◦ Broadway Burlingame (one street, alone) is shown per Caltrain's bat-shit-insane, actively harmful out-to-bid-before-you-known-it <b>$300+ million for a single road grade separation scam</b>.<br /><br />◦ Broadway Burlingame (one street, alone) also with the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html?showComment=1621461694047#c6574930748558169312" rel="nofollow">minimal and perfectly feasible change</a> of fully elevating the tracks and avoiding <i>all road excavation</i>, even while addring to batshit Caltrain design "standards". (Also show with 50mph freight curves, just to show how that tightens things up. 45mph freight and 1.25% 1.5% and 2% grades even better.<br /><br />◦ Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame is <b>blindingly obviously</b> part of any "Broadway" project, but of course Caltrain prefers to do everything at least twice, and terribly every time.<br /><br />Once you're up and over Broadway it's just a small extra bump to keep going and deliver two grade separations for the same amount of staging cost and time and service interruption.<br /><br />Caltrain's actual Broadway project is not just oblivious of Oak Grove, but actively incompatible with it. As it is with quadruplication of any sort. Of course. Of course.<br /><br />I've included both 50mph and 45mph freight profiles, just to show how the more elephantine curves of the former lead to a violation of a 1% grade "design requirement" (to a scandalous 1.060%) if the tracks are to descend and match grade before North Lane and the existing Burlingame station. Obviously 45mph and 1.25% or 1.5% or 2.0% would be even better.<br /><br />◦ Downtown Burlingame (North Lane, Howard, Bayswater, Peninsula, Villa Terrace, Bellevue Avenue<br /><br />Should all be done of a piece with Broadway plus Oak Grove, and as you can see the bump-up-and-over-then-down-again profile of the Oak Grove bridge done separately from downtown is slightly incompatible (more elevated than, going up an extra 6 plus feet and going up earlier in order to make it possible to go down quickly enough) a more integrated Burlingame-wide program.<br /><br />Insane penny-ante local government politics aside, the logistics and constructibility (plenty of ROW for shooflies and staging) of going elegantly over downtown Burlingame are pretty simple. Or would be in a first world industrialised functional democracy with rudimentary engineering competence.<br /><br />Taken as a separate project from further grade separations through San Mateo, there are trade-offs in getting down to match grade at the southern end, and how that touch-down point impacts onward grade separation.<br /><br />◦ To minimally touch San Mateo, matching grade around Santa Inez Avenue, the descending grade cannot clear Bellevue Avenue and so Bellevue would be closed to motor vehicle traffic, with a very easy direct pedestrian underpass.<br />Tighter curves and steeper grades don't make much of a difference here.<br /><br />◦ To clear Bellevue moves the return-to-existing-grade match point south to near Tilton Avenue, and involves another total do-over (a desirable do-over, achieving full 16 foot road traffic vertical clearance of these sub-standard crossings) of the Poplar, Santa Inez and Monte Diablo road under crossings. And this impacts any further southward grade separation of downtown San Mateo.<br /><br />And speaking of grades in San Mateo, not that Caltrain's just-completed bridge raising project here comes with <b>43mph freight curves</b> (three of them under 12700m radius!) So much for 60mph freight "requirements", huh. Crazy stuff. Crazy crazy stuff.<br /><br />...<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-64670415693409970492021-06-22T15:00:13.150-07:002021-06-22T15:00:13.150-07:00• DTX.svg
The End of the Line in SF including the...• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/DTX.svg" rel="nofollow">DTX.svg</a><br /><br />The End of the Line in SF including the downtown extension as "designed" criminally incompetently by our special friends at Parsons Transportation Group and their "public sector" abetters at the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.<br /><br />Also shown is an extension profile that actually, you know, <i>grade separates</i> 16th and Common Streets in SF, and connects to an <i>operationally useable</i> and accessible trenched-but-not-buried Mission Bay station partially occupying the existing Fourth and Townsend site. (Berry Street and Fifth Street would be new/restored road overcrossings of the Caltrain trench, but aren't depicted for simplicity.)<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/San-Bruno.svg" rel="nofollow">San-Bruno.svg</a><br /><br />◦ Linden Avenue (incomprehensibly and inexcusably removed from Caltrain's San Bruno project scope, because doing things really really badly, twice or more, and at mind-melting expense, is Caltrain's <i>entire</i> raison d'être).<br /><br />The Linden vertical profile matches up nicely with the 50mph (note 50mph, not 60 here of Caltrain's own recent project!) 16620m radius AREMA freight curve of the toady's line climbing under the Highway 280 overpass to 1.25% (note 1.25%, not "limited" to 1% even on Caltrain's own recent project) up to the <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/09/san-bruno-done-wrong.html" rel="nofollow">disastrously-wrongly</a> <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/search/label/San%20Bruno" rel="nofollow">San Bruno</a> station.<br /><br />◦ It is simply infeasible to grade separate Scott Street due to the adjacent Highway 380 overpass and so it must close. Sorry.<br /><br />◦ Center Street in Millbrae, for whose presence and pain we must every day give thanks to our BART extension lunatics and abetters, including MTC and now SFMTA's Very Special Guy, Steve "$5 billion Bay Bridge budget blowout" Heminger, the Highway Contractor's Eternal Friend. Believe it or not BART goes <i>under</i> Center in an insane cost-exploding cut-and-covered tunnel, while Caltrain's grade was raised along with the road to make this happen. Anyway, Caltrain needs to go even higher to clear now. Thanks, Steve! Thanks, Quentin ! Thanks, Takis! Thanks PBQD/Bechtel! Thanks Tutor-Saliba!<br /><br />As mentioned earlier, I've just gone with big-ass 16383m radius vertical curves and 1% grades here and elsewhere: tighter and steeper would be better and cheaper.<br /><br />And note that these and the majority of all other sketched separations would be ridiculously in easible if Caltrain's newly ass-extracted "no vertical curves on a bridge" thing were a thing anybody should believe in any way. These little up-and-over-and-down isolated single-road separations in particular would blow out crazily otherwise. Purest rent-seeking graft, grift and lunacy.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47999574473027772021-06-22T14:22:16.204-07:002021-06-22T14:22:16.204-07:00I've updated my far-better-than-crayon vertica... I've updated my far-better-than-crayon vertical profiles of grade separations for the Caltrain line.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/</a><br /><br />These are all uncompressed "SVG" files and can be viewed in any current-ish web browser.<br /><br />The browsers' UI for viewing large-dimension SVG files (pan, zoom, scroll) is sad, but my attempts to be wrap them in Javascript UI were life-deadening and pointless, so unadorned SVG is what you get. Learn to love it.<br />Firefox's SVG arc-rendering code is sad and buggy and displays jagged segments in place of many curves. Somebody should file a bug report and somebody should fix this, but it won't be I.<br />I don't have or use Chrome so no ideas what you'll see there.<br /><br />I've not provided PDF files because I'm lazy and the mechanisms available to me are unsatisfactory, besides anybody who really wants this can just do it themselves. Also there's more info in the SVGs.<br /><br />The internal scale is 1 SVG unit ("pixel") per metre horizontal and 1 per 100m vertical (100x vertical exaggeration) should you wish to manipulate.<br />The background grid is dashed at 200m horizontal and 2 feet (feet! Like an animal! in 2021!) vertical.<br /><br />For browser display I've added width and height attributes that display at 10% (for the full line 8470 x 794 browser "pixels" for 85km x 80m) and at 20% for the subsections.<br /><br />Each segment of track is adorned with HTML/SVG "title" attributes that display crazy amounts of dimensional detail in "tooltips" if you hover a mouse over them in a web browser.<br />The profiles are all generated by one horror morass of Javascript code in which I take no pride and you'd have to be a lunatic to try to use. It's in the directory though.<br />(Javascript because my initial plan was to have an in-browser WYSWYG UI to roll-your-own grade separations. Hah hah hah.)<br /><br />Much of my painfully screen-scraped data on Caltrain's alignment is of low quality (eg horizontal rounded hundredths of a mile, ie ±7.5m, from Caltrain's operations-oriented "track chart", and the numbers often very dodgy at that) but in select locations I do have real precise Caltrain survey data from construction projects, again laboriously hand-transcribed.<br /><br />For the non-survey-data parts of the existing line my code just blindly assumes and generates 16383m radius vertical curves to piece together adjoining grades.<br />This is "good" for 50mph AREMA freight, recalling that is Caltrain's <i>line wide</i> maximum freight speed, and for 200kmh operation in advanced functional democracies elsewhere in the industrialised world.<br /><br />For my new grade separations crayoning, I go with this excessive 50mph freight and 1% limiting grade thing with few exceptions, not because sub-45mph and 1.5 to 2% aren't the right thing (they are, in every way), but just to show outer limits of what can and should be tighter this cheaper and less disruptive projects.<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/vertical-profiles/Caltrain-vertical-profile.svg" rel="nofollow">Caltrain-vertical-profile.svg</a> is the entire line from SF to the end of PCJPB ownership at "CP Lick" north of Blossom Hill in SJ. <b>All</b> grade separations, SF TTT extension aside, involve tracks going <b>fully over</b> roads which <i>remain at grade, where humans use them</i>, with unavoidable exceptions at of ~1m deep road lowering at Encinal Avenue in Menlo Park (<i>purely</i> to avoid any grade separation in Atherton) and Alma Avenue in Palo Alto. Tracks and stations elevated clear over existing roads is only right and proper from <i>every</i> perspective: urban design, accessibility, rail operations, budget, constructibility, you name it.<br /><br />I'm at the 4096 character blogspot.com comment limit, so remarks on various snippets of sub-sections of the line will follow separately.<br /><br />...Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57505922188791526572021-06-15T13:10:28.849-07:002021-06-15T13:10:28.849-07:00Owen, I don't think you understand the extent ...Owen, I don't think you understand the extent to which "Alternatives Analysis" and "Project Study Reports" and "design guidelines" are <b>actively weaponized</b> by consultants and staff to pre-determine the very worst and very most expensive outcomes.<br /><br />These aren't innocent mistakes by inexperienced underpaid rubes. This isn't "defensive design". This isn't "unforeseen changed circumstances".<br /><br />It's outright self-serving rent-seeking vendor-captured <b>fraud</b> actively abetted and encouraged by "public" sector corruption.<br /><br /><a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html?showComment=1621461694047#c6574930748558169312" rel="nofollow">All it takes to see</a> that the secret-until-it's-years-too-late Burlingame Public Study Report is <b>deliberately and laughably fraudulent</b> are about a half-dozen approximate survey numbers (rough x/y coordinates of project limits, grades at limits), a half-dozen geometric parameters (and these are to a very large extent <i>freely chosen</i> potentially-self-sabotaging parameters: maximum grade, vertical curve radius, platform length, maximum platform grade, minimum road-to-rail clearance, etc) and some primary school second grade level linear algebra (multiply, add, subtract, really, that's it.)<br /><br />It's the same every single time. The Transbay Terminal. BART to anywhere. Every Caltrain grade separation project. Every Caltrain station plan. Every Caltrain "modernisation". The fix is in and every remotely rational or remotely cost-effective notion has been drowned in the bathtub long before you even heard that they were even considering having already spent a few million on "preliminary studies" by "on-call" consultants and "in house experts".Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-2103588857911127262021-06-14T12:33:50.957-07:002021-06-14T12:33:50.957-07:00I have heard engineers say "Well, this isn...I have heard engineers say "Well, this isn't the final design, we're trying to estimate worst-case scenario impacts; things will get tightened up as we get closer to 100% design"<br /><br />In my very small-n observation, this approach is maybe common in design-build contracting. Very rudimentary preliminary engineering before handing it over to the design-build contractors, who then bid based on that plan. The winner inherits a design with *plenty* of room to "trim the fat" thereby adding to their margins (but not reducing the cost to the public *at all*)Owen Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15934578266643759835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-1651634452264249032021-06-11T16:54:42.457-07:002021-06-11T16:54:42.457-07:00So a quick summary of Clem's points:
* Utilit...So a quick summary of Clem's points:<br /><br />* <b>Utility relocation</b>: Caltrain and Caltrain's perma-temp consultants will and can and do and are outright <i>lie</i> to elimiminate "alternatives" that do not involve extensive local roadworks, extensive local street excavation, and huge amounts of utility work. We know this for a <b>fact</b> from the Hillsdale grade separation disaster and we are seeing this as a <b>fact</b> in their catastrophic Broadway Burlingame plans.<br /><br />Again: the facts are unambiguous: Caltrain's perma-temp consultants and Caltrain's "public" staff <a href="https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html?showComment=1621461694047#c6574930748558169312" rel="nofollow">are simply outright lying</a> when they claim that low-utility low-roadwork alternatives are infeasible.<br /><br />* <b>Vertical curves made for freight trains</b>: Caltrain and Caltrain's perma-temp consultants will and can do anything to explode the cost of grade separations. The <b>fact</b> is that the freight speed limit everywhere on the Peninsula is 50mph and the <b>facts</b> are that recent Caltrain projects in San Bruno, downtown San Mateo and Hillsdale <i>all</i> feature AREMA 50mph freight (not 60mph) vertical curves, and it <i>unarguable</i> that freight should be entirely kicked off the line, not pandered to, and certainly not drive hundreds of millions of wasted public expenditure. Designing vertical curves to pander to even AREMA 45mph freight (recall 13270m radius, good for 180kmh passenger <i>and</i> freight in the civilized world) isn't sane, but at least it isn't insane. Caltrain's freshly ass-extracted 60mph "requirement" can only be seen a pure, unadulterated rent-seeking by engineering consultant and construction scum. There is no possible justification, and there is no chance that 50+mph freight can run anywhere else on the line. There is zero possible explanation aside from fraud.<br /><br />* <b>Vertical curves that can't overlap bridge spans.</b> Once again, not only is there zero engineering reason for this ass-extracted angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin "requirement", but Caltrain's own San Bruno and Hillsdale grade separations feature vertical curves continuing through road overbridges. They're not even trying to lie believably: this is all just a big "fuck you we can get away with saying anything and doing anything just watch us. Also we demand more funding."<br /><br />* <b>Paint-by-Numbers Structure Depth</b>. Caltrain's structure depths are only getting "deeper" with time. Oh no! We need to excavate several acres of roads because oh how oh how could be ev very get under this big bad old choo choo concrete wankfest? Oh please don't make us excavate all those roads! Don't make us siphon creeks! Oh no,.<br /><br />* You unexpectedly didn't explicitly call out <b>Vertical grade limits made for freight trains</b> but you should have. Caltrain and Caltrain's perma-temp consultants seem to love imposing an absolute limit of 1% at the time of alternatives "analysis" in order to kill off anything reasonable or cost-effective. Note that a 1% limit is what you'd expect on a heavy haul diesel coal line. It's completely unreasonable in the Caltrain suburban environment and Caltrain operating environment, where 1.5% or 2% grades ought to be routine.<br />Oh, and Caltrain's San Bruno grade separation is 1.25% on the north end climbing from under Highway 380. So much for requirements. But hey, strangling cheaper alternatives in the crib is the name of the consultant budget-busting game, and these people sure play the game.<br /><br />(PS Hey, anybody seen that $300 million of public money that Caltrain's exact same staff and Caltrain's exact same perma-temp consultants were directly responsible for incinerating on CBOSS? Anybody? Hellooooooo... )<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-46930318585332621712021-06-04T11:07:44.871-07:002021-06-04T11:07:44.871-07:00This is by far the biggest "OOOF" moment...This is by far the biggest "OOOF" moment I have ever seen. How did it get this far? We have known for ages that AC electrification requires signals to be converted from DC to AC. We are already more than half way through construction and they are NOW contemplating on whether or not BBY should be doing the signaling even though they were contractually obligated to. I smell a lawsuit coming similar to CBOSS. This has been going on for quite a while now but they are finally making it public. The funny thing about dual speed check is that it's supposed to be temporary system until they have "Wireless gate signaling". So are they telling us that they paid BBY all that money for them to implement a signaling system that will be made redundant later on?? WHATT?? This is disgusting mismanagement and complete lack of foresight. Maybe Siemens or Hitachi can step up to fix the mess that BBY and Caltrain is making. LameDudeSFnoreply@blogger.com