tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post6578063031757374505..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Millbrae, Half a Billion CheaperClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35188806507117142512011-12-03T21:18:03.977-08:002011-12-03T21:18:03.977-08:00Andrew slams it.
Just to be pedantic and nitpicky...Andrew slams it.<br /><br />Just to be pedantic and nitpicky, PATH is actually legally an FRA-compliant railroad, albeit with a crapton of waivers.<br /><br />All the other examples are spot on. When I was looking at some commuter rail stuff in Houston, UP was telling all the consultants they required a 25' separation between tracks, based on the need to drive a truck between any two adjacent rail tracks.<br /><br />It's very difficult to get this stuff out of the plans, once someone inserts it. As another posted stated on another thread, consultants don't really have the authority to get this stuff out, and at any rate are often too timid to propose changes.Abramhttp://abramv.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62391641772096243352011-05-03T19:40:38.781-07:002011-05-03T19:40:38.781-07:00I did the final design of the tracks at the BART/C...I did the final design of the tracks at the BART/Caltrain station on the Airport project.<br /><br />You don't need any crash barrier between BART and the Caltrain/HSR tracks. This is just a made up requirement serving no real purpose, and that is not followed anywhere else in the US where this very type of situation exists.<br /><br />Look at how WMATA is built down either side of CSX up to Silver Spring, how the MBTA Orange Line runs next to the Northeast Corridor in SW Boston and the B&M in Chelsea, or the MBTA Red Line through Quincy next to the MBTA commuter rail, or how the CTA Orange line runs right next to multiple freight roads on the way to Midway Airport, or how PATCO operates right next to New Jersey Transit from Haddonfield to Lindenwold, or how PATH operates 13 ft. from the Amtrak Northeast Corridor through Harrison, NJ. No crash barriers anywhere.<br /><br />Anyone who tells you you need crash barriers is just blowing smoke up your ass to pick your pocket. ITS NOT DONE ANYWHERE ELSE.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-84528290541340724342011-04-12T14:17:45.931-07:002011-04-12T14:17:45.931-07:00One of the original ideas for BART to SFO was to h...One of the original ideas for BART to SFO was to have BART go to San Bruno Caltrain instead of Tanforan. AirTrain would have gone to San Bruno BART/Caltrain. It would have been trivial to extend AirTrain to where the new San Bruno Caltrain station will be, and the new station could have been planned to accomodate HSR.<br /><br />Instead we're stuck spending way too much money to accomodate HSR at Millbrae because no one thought of doing so earlier. The mere fact that Millbrae could be torn down and rebuilt for cheaper shows how ridiculous the current thinking is.corntrollionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40509211793454190782011-03-29T14:09:01.243-07:002011-03-29T14:09:01.243-07:00No idea, but we're talking about a 1.5 mile ex...No idea, but we're talking about a 1.5 mile extension to a 6 mile system that cost $430m in 2002/3. Call it $500m in 2011 dollars. Cost of the extension would be in new track, new Millbrae platforms, and new rolling stock to keep frequency at the same levels.<br /><br />Maybe around $100-$150m for the extension? You could probably leverage the 'connecting transit' funds in prop 1A to help pay for it.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769996235446036041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65897841231602829432011-03-29T09:45:55.766-07:002011-03-29T09:45:55.766-07:00Then the question is, how much does it cost to ext...Then the question is, how much does it cost to extend AirTrain to Millbrae?Eric Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-33913953097153124872011-03-28T23:00:06.147-07:002011-03-28T23:00:06.147-07:00Tearing down/abandoning infrastructure you built j...<em>Tearing down/abandoning infrastructure you built just a decade or so earlier doesn't look very smart.</em><br /><br />Spending a half billion dollars to save a 50 million dollar station isn't very smart either.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5743587255456861462011-03-28T22:19:58.930-07:002011-03-28T22:19:58.930-07:00No need to build another BART station. Jon's s...No need to build another BART station. Jon's solution seems the most feasible when everything is weighed.Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13679020456289856342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-11245227659434121532011-03-28T15:18:30.403-07:002011-03-28T15:18:30.403-07:00Abandon BART to the airport too. Build a station o...<em>Abandon BART to the airport too. Build a station outside of the airport. Where you can transfer between all three.</em><br /><br />If taking one platform at away from BART at one station isn't politically feasible, this certainly isn't going to happen. Tearing down/abandoning infrastructure you built just a decade or so earlier doesn't look very smart.<br /><br />Best (realistic) solution: Millbrae is built as per Clem's plan. Airtrain is extended out to Millbrae following 101 and terminates at elevated platforms in the middle of the bus loop, at right angles to the other platforms, with a walkway into the station at mezzanine level. Caltrain and HSR passengers get a free transfer direct to their terminal, BART keeps (almost) all of it's existing infrastructure, and the bank isn't broken.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769996235446036041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42652305786289266762011-03-28T14:25:03.007-07:002011-03-28T14:25:03.007-07:00The right solution is still to completely abandon ...<em>The right solution is still to completely abandon BART south of SFIA and to extend the airport people mover (fare free!) to Millbrae to provide that connection. Better service, lower costs for all operators, better connections, a win on every front.</em><br /><br />It's a much better solution. But probably one they won't think of. Passengers would lose the Caltrain or HSR to BART connection, Well they culd get on the people mover. <br />Thinkng outside of the box ( and no they won't think of this either ) Abandon BART to the airport too. Build a station outside of the airport. Where you can transfer between all three. Someplace in there build a really nice bus stop. All the buses that now circulate in the the airport would be outside of the airport. Means you could take the airport shuttle bus to the HSR station..... nah, won't happen...Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-11089507065854968732011-03-28T12:59:25.139-07:002011-03-28T12:59:25.139-07:00So to be try to be brief(!) and on-topic, Clem'...So to be try to be brief(!) and on-topic, Clem's scheme is deficient and perhaps unbuildable (less so than Doty's tunnelled track unlimited lunacy, but still infeasaible).<br /><br />* Doesn't fix curve radii. Significant parts of the BART train parking lot (aka "tail tracks", in reality explicitly laid out as the camel's nose of southward extension) <i>have</i> to be lost, and perhaps replaced elsewhere or otherwise, for any of this to make the slightest sense.<br /><br />* Doesn't allow any train on any platform. What's proposed is just about the same as the crazy CHSRA "shared track" LA-Anaheim nonsense, in which separate but unequal stations are laid out side by side. Different platform lengths, different platform heights almost certainly to go along with it.<br /><br />Operationally it is a big deal at through stations at which a majority of trains stop and at which non-trivial dwells can be expected -- all of which are likely to hold at Millbrae -- that following trains are able to "overlap" at stations by being assigned flexibly to either side of an island platform depending on what's available. You want a following train to be have the option to enter while the leader is departing because otherwise dwell irregularities propagate all the way back up the congested line.<br /><br />Not building the higher passenger volume, least expressed-through, most dwell-variable stations as fully flexible facilities with universal track-to-platform crossovers is not just crazy, but also contrary to universal rail engineering practice.<br /><br />* SFFS should be a non-starter. Just FYI Doty and his HNTB buddies were outright <b>lying</b> about additional ROW takes required for laying out the peninsula corridor and stations in an operationally rational way. (Except in the most trivial cases, in locations where there's no way to build <i>anything</i> without easements much larger than trivial extra track edge to track edge size.) I have the geometrical data and Clem's seen it, but I don't have the expository skills or the blog audience to get it out there. But rest assured, they're lying. I mean, look at their record: on the basis of past outcomes the odds are just about perfect that they'll lie every single time!<br /><br />* The right solution is still to completely abandon BART south of SFIA and to extend the airport people mover (fare free!) to Millbrae to provide that connection. Better service, lower costs for all operators, better connections, a win on every front.<br /><br />* The UIC/BART crash wall thing doesn't really work space-wise, and since platforms and tracks are going to have to be moved about anyway, might as well just go crazy and knock stuff down and do it right. It's doing <i>anything</i> to an operating rail facility that costs ... how much you do can disappear in that overhead!<br /><br />* If BART stays at Millbrae -- uneconomically, irrationally, unhelpfully, unproductively -- I fairly strongly believe that putting it underground (a very short extension of the existing crazy cut and cover tunnel that surfaces right before the station) to a pair of tracks (BART won't accept fewer, though service levels will only ever require one) around an island platform, with some trenched ($$$) storage yard tracks to the south, partly under a curve eased Caltrain/HSR alignment. Crazy, but a few hundred of million less crazy than their scheme, while being much more workable and flexible for Caltrain/HSR than what Clem shows.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87081545523221646602011-03-28T10:51:20.331-07:002011-03-28T10:51:20.331-07:00I doubt PB really cares how gold plated the Millbr...I doubt PB really cares how gold plated the Millbrae station is. Their engineering group gets paid about the same no matter what the final plan is.<br /><br />Having worked with these types of consultants before, however, I'm absolutely sure that if you tell them to come up with a plan without parameters they'll come up with the politically safest, structurally overbuilt thing possible. They don't want to (and can't) be the ones making the call to have BART give up platform space. That has to come from project leadership. They design given the constraints that exist today, not with all the options politically possible.<br /><br />The problem is that no one in the project leadership seems to have previously been willing to realize where these cost bottlenecks are and start finding solutions to them. At least van Ark is showing some signs that this may change in the Valley.Dr. Andrew W. MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839898146131925045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-52872148090238337832011-03-28T00:56:21.729-07:002011-03-28T00:56:21.729-07:00@John Bacon --
"It appears this EIR is a thr...@John Bacon --<br /><br />"It appears this EIR is a through compilation of data any competent engineer or interested citizen worth his salt must consider in order to find solutions needed to develop an intelligent design."<br /><br />Err in part, never said that the professional engineers couldn't create a quality solution. But will they? What you point out is irrelevant to Clem - unless Clem can find environmental issues to raise.<br /><br />Keep in mind that these are solutions to raised environmental issues. Unless Clem can raise environmental issues wrt the Millbrae tunnel, the engineers don't have to alter their design. Maybe there is an engineer jones-in for building a tunnel, you are assuming that the engineers would prefer a non-tunnel solution. <br /><br />As a side note this is why DBOM contracts have much to recommend with a project that really needs excellent ridership numbers.<br /><br />@Richard -<br /><br />True but we both know that PB will not address any issues mentioned in the B2SFO document unless forced to. Also just because that firm wrote the B2SFO document doesn't mean that the individuals within PB are working on this project. Memory can be so ... forgetful sometimes. And who wouldn't want to forget Bart2SFO :)Pat the "NIMBY" who wants HSR built righthttp://sworddance.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50238355396189797302011-03-27T21:01:35.324-07:002011-03-27T21:01:35.324-07:00Pat the "NIMBY" who wants HSR built righ...Pat the "NIMBY" who wants HSR built right ... over the Altamont. said...<br />“The EIR/EIS process is not intended to find ‘solutions’. EIR/EIS is a process intended to discover unintended consequences or issues that have not been considered. It is not a process to find engineering alternatives!”<br />The April 2004 Caltrain Electrification Program EIR document presumably a response to EIR Report Laws in addition to containing a detailed description of the project’s effect on air pollution, noise, etc but also discusses performance, schedules, rolling stock alternatives and costs. It appears this EIR is a through compilation of data any competent engineer or interested citizen worth his salt must consider in order to find solutions needed to develop an intelligent design.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77677206448592926072011-03-27T16:27:12.671-07:002011-03-27T16:27:12.671-07:00I will agree with Richard on some points, but I th...I will agree with Richard on some points, but I think ridership will drastically increase with gas prices going up, BART and the like. Sadly, high gas prices are the only way for most Americans to see alternatives to driving in a different and positive light and I think that is a good thing about gas being more expensive.Eric Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-16040213423003687132011-03-27T13:38:54.524-07:002011-03-27T13:38:54.524-07:00"Almost certainly, the consultants for the CH..."<i>Almost certainly, the consultants for the CHSRA have not even looked at the EIR/EIS for the BART-to-SFO project.</i>"<br /><br />Errrrrr, non.<br /><br />Almost certainly those criminals responsible for BART to Millbrae are up to their eyeballs in controlling the CHSRA process, that is, in maximizing their private profit and designing the most expensive and least useful system.<br /><br /><br />"Not even looked at" the EIR/EIS? Try "wrote it"!<br /><br />What was the four-letter name of the firm that did the ridership studies (off by a factor of 3) and rigged the alternatives analysis (costs off by a factor of more than 2) for that BART extension again? If I recall, it seemed to have started with a "PB" and ended very badly indeed. It sounds familiar somehow, but it's hard to place. Besides, they ought to be out of business by now, their repuation in tatters, sued into the ground, and unable to win any contracts, no?<br /><br />Sadly however nothing succeeds like failure around here. Nothing. The bigger the faiure the better. And BART to Millbrae was about the biggest we've seen ... at least until HSR to Los Banos and BART to Santa Clara and eclipse it by a factor of 10 ($20 billion to a piddling little trial effort $2 billion.)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24943713667544983802011-03-27T12:15:57.176-07:002011-03-27T12:15:57.176-07:00An expensive tunnel in Millbrae is bad, but its ev...<em>An expensive tunnel in Millbrae is bad, but its even worse to have even more expensive tunnels in the Pacheco Pass.</em><br /><br />As if a Bay crossing is going to magically appear and using Altamont can be done without tunnelsAdirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7228344633788726642011-03-27T08:47:38.416-07:002011-03-27T08:47:38.416-07:00....or, if you are in Sacramento sometime, stop by.......or, if you are in Sacramento sometime, stop by the authority's office and talk to someone. Drop by a small packet with info you posted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48706943007034605502011-03-26T23:35:49.651-07:002011-03-26T23:35:49.651-07:00@Clem --
You don't "rant" anywhere....@Clem --<br /><br />You don't "rant" anywhere. Just like yelling at a kid, spouse, or employee it will not work.<br /><br />What you do is: <br /><br />1. reverse engineer the $500 million dollar cost. <br />2. focus on the impacts to the surrounding community.<br />3. look up the EIR/EIS for the BART-to-SFO project.<br /><br />Every issue that showed up in that project that would make the tunnel worse/impossible/difficult make sure you ask the same questions of the CHSRA. Obviously we don't want to try to kill HSR entirely, so you want to be selective.<br /><br />Almost certainly, the consultants for the CHSRA have not even looked at the EIR/EIS for the BART-to-SFO project. Surprising maybe but very likely. Since the BART-to-SFO was certified and built, the CHSRA people cannot just deny the conclusions they are bound by those conclusions.<br /><br />Look for things like did BART-to-SFO make any promised mitigations, trails, pedestrian accesses, etc. For example, did BART-to-SFO commit to any ped tunnel or access over the tracks?<br /><br />EIR/EIS promise all sort of "mitigations" that usually never happen because the law is weak when it comes to enforcing that the promised mitigations get built in a timely manner (its always "next year").<br /><br />But it doesn't matter, if a mitigation is promised then CHSRA has a more difficult time building a project that makes a promised B2SFO mitigation impossible.<br /><br />So don't rant but do understand that the purpose of the <i>Environmental</i> Impact Statement/Report laws is Environmental.<br /><br /><i>Oh and no, I am not a plaintiff - you really should not assume such things. Poor assumptions make the assumer look... ridiculous.</i><br /><br />Robert C. is loose with the NIMBY label. I am "NIMBY" in the same sense you are. I want a cost-effective project with maximum utility, minimal environment impacts and maximum environmental benefit. In my case I want HSR to go over the Dumbarton Bridge and serve the communities of Livermore, Pleasanton with a mainline junction at Fremont to serve San Jose and Gilroy.<br /><br />An expensive tunnel in Millbrae is bad, but its even worse to have even more expensive tunnels in the Pacheco Pass. <br /><br />Its up to you if you want to listen to me, but I am telling you what I know about the law. Rants are not effective legally. Fun emotionally perhaps. I guess it is up to you if you want to vent or if you want to influence.<br /><br />Sometimes NIMBY's aren't.<br /><br />If you really want to impact the way the project is built, you have to build coalitions with your "enemies".Pat the "NIMBY" who wants HSR built righthttp://sworddance.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19975764983250958632011-03-26T22:01:10.036-07:002011-03-26T22:01:10.036-07:00Glad that the plaintiffs are People Who Understand...Glad that the plaintiffs are People Who Understand The Law, then... not my forte.<br /><br />To whom shall I direct my rant?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81548818295529322522011-03-26T18:27:26.510-07:002011-03-26T18:27:26.510-07:00@Clem --
I love this - great work! Looks very doa...@Clem --<br /><br />I love this - great work! Looks very doable. Hopefully it can be built this way.<br /><br />However....<br /><br />"Jon, as far as submitting this idea for consideration, it won't work. I already put it into scoping comments and it was unsurprisingly ignored."<br /><br />Clem, you were ignored because you are not aware of how the law works. The <b>Environmental</b> Impact Statement and <b>Environmental</b> Impact Report laws are not <i>Financial</i> Impact Statements, nor <i>Engineering</i> Impact Statements. Every comment must be focused on <b>Environmental</b> Impacts.<br /><br />The EIR/EIS process is not intended to find "solutions". <b>EIR/EIS is a process intended to discover unintended consequences or issues that have not been considered. It is not a process to find engineering alternatives!</b><br /><br />Money very specifically is not considered. Otherwise, the "cheapest" solution to be built. And "cheapest" invariably is the most destructive to the community ( see Robert Moses's work in NYC)<br /><br />You can rant all you want about "government" but it would be helpful if you understood the law.<br /><br />Clem, you need to think in terms of "jeopardy". You have to pose things as a question.<br /><br /><b>Do not include the answer you want.</b> Any agency is allowed to ignore answers in EIR/EIS comments. Everyone has their own answers. <br /><br />Instead, submit comments that are questions. Pose a set of questions with data to back it up. For example, <br /><br /><i>The CHSRA when proposing to underground a track at the Millbrae station has not considered these facts: .....</i><br /><br />Then list facts, ie. earthquake faults, subsidence, global warming and rising sea levels. Anything you can find that makes the tunnel a bad idea.<br /><br />But telling the CHSRA in the EIR/EIS that there is a "cheaper" way of doing something ignores the purpose of the EIR/EIS laws.<br /><br />EIR/EIS laws came about to stop another Robert Moses from destroying cities to build the "cheapest solution" to congestion which was freeways.<br /><br />Next time, understand the law before falling into the easy and lazy "gubernant is stoopid" rant.Pat the "NIMBY" who wants HSR built right ... over the Altamont.http://sworddance.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38540094427516511782011-03-24T07:46:56.345-07:002011-03-24T07:46:56.345-07:00Adirondacker12800,
The state is a creature of BAR...Adirondacker12800,<br /><br />The state is a creature of BART's contractors.<br /><br />They've had a number of full and frank discussions of views, and the state has assumed the position, its ankles grasped firmly in its hands and its wallet obediently surrendered.<br /><br />This is how it has worked for 40 years and this is how it works today. It's a good system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-58109040004762596522011-03-23T22:06:57.205-07:002011-03-23T22:06:57.205-07:00BART is a creature of the state. The state can hav...BART is a creature of the state. The state can have a little chat with BART.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72245974217253742362011-03-23T21:35:49.446-07:002011-03-23T21:35:49.446-07:00Since the SF-SJ EIR is on hold, perhaps we still h...Since the SF-SJ EIR is on hold, perhaps we still have a chance to convince CAHSRA and Caltrain to study Clem's solution.<br /><br />What if it is BART that stands in the way of adapting Clem's solution, not CAHSRA or Caltrain? The current station structure is owned by BART, which I doubt is a bargaining right that BART is willing to give up so easily.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34099046697669493132011-03-23T10:27:40.753-07:002011-03-23T10:27:40.753-07:00Anon,
Option 3: Caltrain is disbanded. Ergo, no ne...Anon,<br />Option 3: Caltrain is disbanded. Ergo, no need for the 4th track trench.<br /><br />See, they do have a <i>plan</i>.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74417144012684013402011-03-23T10:25:47.996-07:002011-03-23T10:25:47.996-07:00Another way to have Caltrain/HSR be at-grade is to...Another way to have Caltrain/HSR be at-grade is to put BART completely below-grade, that is, extend the tunnel into Millbrae station and essentially lowering the eastern island platform, with the BART trackwork the same as other terminus stations.thatbrucenoreply@blogger.com