tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post6752412579918633758..comments2024-03-28T11:51:19.078-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Lynn Schenk Is RightClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-53518741292908786952013-08-13T22:51:09.545-07:002013-08-13T22:51:09.545-07:00Sean McClelland says:
Your comment is awaiting mod...Sean McClelland says:<br />Your comment is awaiting moderation. <br />August 13, 2013 at 10:45 pm<br />Watch out for your property! If your property is in the way of the High Speed Rail Project, you might wan’t to take a peek at my site.<br /><br />http://www.caltranssite.com<br /><br />Below is a link for the HSR Relocation Docs<br /><br />http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresno-eir/final_EIR_MerFres_TA3_12A_ReloDocs.pdf<br /><br />(Unfortunately)I have spent the last the last 7 years of my life learning the intracacies of the URA and CRAL and Caltrans doesn’t follow either of them.<br /><br />Jeff Morales and the HSR Team is using Caltrans manual for eminent domain procedures. Problem is, the Caltrans manual violates both Federal and California laws pertaining to relocation assistance.<br /><br />Email me if you have questions. I would be glad to answer them.<br /><br />Homeless Victim of California TransportationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35134133090724380062013-04-17T00:03:40.361-07:002013-04-17T00:03:40.361-07:00I think the biggest problem we have on peninsula i...I think the biggest problem we have on peninsula is getting the grade separations in. While PA might get whine about Berlin wall effect from 4-tracks, the effect is very similar when you get the grade separations in. Caltrain's goal should be to get PAMPA grade separated first. The separations should not (and probably would not) preclude 4-tracks. <br /><br />While it's hard politically, HSR should provide 50% matching funds to any grade separations wanted by cities. Let that offer simmer for a few years, and perhaps by the time HSR actually starts rolling in 20 years, adding express tracks will be easier.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6255927825733557212013-04-14T19:56:19.497-07:002013-04-14T19:56:19.497-07:00Hence "90 minutes" and "two hours&q...Hence "90 minutes" and "two hours" an hour and half plus 30 minutes is two hours. Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48440782899240505642013-04-14T19:06:13.191-07:002013-04-14T19:06:13.191-07:00I should also note that the driving times quoted a...I should also note that the driving times quoted above are without any traffic. Anybody who has braved I-80 at rush hour knows that 30 minutes of delay is routine.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6055830192692728322013-04-14T17:37:02.875-07:002013-04-14T17:37:02.875-07:00Those early reports found HSR via Altamont would b...<em>Those early reports found HSR via Altamont would be twice as fast as driving. How much more competitive can you possibly get?</em><br /><br />It's 90 miles between San Francisco and Sacramento. An hour and half at an average speed of 60 or two hours at an average speed of 45. It's 140 miles via Altamont. To make it in 45 minutes they would have to have an average speed of 186. To make it in an hour, an average speed of 140. Hard to get average speeds of 140 when half the journey has a maximum speed of 125. Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-58178557376533168852013-04-14T17:10:18.212-07:002013-04-14T17:10:18.212-07:00It's worth noting that these are express trave...It's worth noting that these are express travel times, and the chances of a nonstop SF-Sac express actually operating are pretty low, so one could probably expect an additional 10-15 minutes for intermediate stops. But the program alignment was also really badly chosen through Fremont and Pleasanton, so one could expect a few minutes to be saved from that, particularly with SETEC.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38637617431386038862013-04-14T14:40:13.924-07:002013-04-14T14:40:13.924-07:00Firing up the way-back machine, back to 2008:
200...Firing up the way-back machine, back to 2008:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8968" rel="nofollow">2008 Bay Area / CV EIR Volume 1 Chapter 7 Network and Alignment Alternative Comparisons</a><br />Page 7-4 Altamont Base Case:<br />SF-Sac 1:06<br />SJ-Sac 0:49<br /><br />Page 7-48 Pacheco Base Case<br />SF-Sac 1:47<br />SJ-Sac 1:18<br /><br />Google driving directions:<br />SF - Sac 1:28<br />SJ - Sac 1:55Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18827027582451340992013-04-13T14:51:31.648-07:002013-04-13T14:51:31.648-07:00SF-Sacramento was found to be driving-competitive ...<i>SF-Sacramento was found to be driving-competitive only on the the Second Transbay Tube route</i><br /><br />Those early reports found HSR via Altamont would be twice as fast as driving. How much more competitive can you possibly get?<br />Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77344342012103668592013-04-13T14:17:03.866-07:002013-04-13T14:17:03.866-07:00It's worth noting that commuter traffic in the...It's worth noting that commuter traffic in the Amador valley would almost certainly be less than commuter traffic on the Peninsula.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32179427395895721852013-04-13T13:29:52.205-07:002013-04-13T13:29:52.205-07:00Blending only counts on the west side of the Bay. ...Blending only counts on the west side of the Bay. All the blending that would go on east of the bridge doesn't count. Just like building track from San Jose to Redwood City is awful but building track from San Jose to Fremont doesn't count. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8275980221278674942013-04-13T13:11:42.312-07:002013-04-13T13:11:42.312-07:00They still have a year and half to work their reve...They still have a year and half to work their reverse Dale Carnegie magic and offend even more people. For instance another round of sequester cuts takes effect soon Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57183653707078218092013-04-13T12:57:32.311-07:002013-04-13T12:57:32.311-07:00I'm interested to see this report. Is it stil...I'm interested to see this report. Is it still available anywhere?Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81288522610137386002013-04-13T12:08:13.719-07:002013-04-13T12:08:13.719-07:00This is actually the decision which irritated me m...This is actually the decision which irritated me most about the entire process. So, see, the combination of Pacheco, a second Transbay Tube, tunnel to Martinez, bridge over the bay, and next to the Capitol Corridor to Sacramento... it's *a single line* from Sacramento *via* San Francisco *via* Fresno *via* Bakersfield *via* LA to San Diego.<br /><br />Turns out the operational savings from the simple route are substantial. And despite the "dogleg" it gives excellent results for Sacramento to LA! And it relieves congestion on BART! And this is all in the initial report! And they rejected it anyway, because "it would cost a lot up front".<br /><br />Ticks me off.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34458083934956731142013-04-13T12:00:14.321-07:002013-04-13T12:00:14.321-07:00Joey: an *extremely* expensive tunnel.
Be aware t...Joey: an *extremely* expensive tunnel.<br /><br />Be aware that the proposal for a Second Transbay Tube was dropped by CHSRA and its predecessors due to sticker shock.<br /><br />That is actually the reason given in the reports. Paraphrasing, "It would have the highest cost benefit ratio, but it would cost a lot up front, so we will not consider it."<br /><br />Part of that sticker shock is due to the fact that the tunnel can't just go under the Bay, it has to go under Oakland, and then it has to smash through the mountains east of Oakland; there's really no alternative, and they figured that out early.<br /><br />It STILL had the best cost-benefit ratio. But, you know, expensive up front, so forget it. Sigh.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-90065301692031375282013-04-13T11:56:54.264-07:002013-04-13T11:56:54.264-07:00FWIW, I expect the Republicans to win big in 2014 ...FWIW, I expect the Republicans to win big in 2014 due to the idiocy of Obama and Senate Democrats. But you know what that means for 2016....Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-89114843920395522472013-04-13T11:54:37.843-07:002013-04-13T11:54:37.843-07:00Joey, there's enough room for more tracks alon...Joey, there's enough room for more tracks along roughly the Capitol Corridor route north of the bridge crossing at Martinez. And it is the correct, shortest, most direct route.... and in this section, is already faster than road traffic.<br /><br />It's from the bridge at Martinez south that the Capitol Corridor route is a problem.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40624367987628193102013-04-13T11:51:21.746-07:002013-04-13T11:51:21.746-07:00Clem, please reread the *really* early reports on ...Clem, please reread the *really* early reports on CAHSR. SF-Sacramento was found to be driving-competitive only on the the Second Transbay Tube route (everything else is stupidly out of the way). The Second Transbay Tube was then dropped due to, AFAICT, sticker shock. <br /><br />Subsequently, it was pretty clearly understood that SF-Sacramento is not part of the CAHSR program. If you want SF-Sacramento improvements, get back to advocating for the second Transbay Tube.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44892178467175267002013-04-13T11:47:28.290-07:002013-04-13T11:47:28.290-07:00Get over it, Clem. The "blending" probl...Get over it, Clem. The "blending" problem is largely north of the merge point from a putative Dumbarton tunnel anyway.<br /><br />Schenk is indeed right. But you're not. Altamont is a stupid thing to obsess about.<br /><br />If you're actually serious about SF-Sacramento (...and nobody is), you need a second Transbay Tube and a standard-gauge route paralleling BART to Concord. So that's not an argument in favor of Altamont.<br /><br />With that out of the way, the Pacheco route is significantly more appropriate for HSR than the Altamont route. You know.... it doesn't have to BLEND with COMMUTER traffic across the Altamont....Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51394051375168422742013-04-12T21:57:36.999-07:002013-04-12T21:57:36.999-07:00That's not such an easy question to answer. It...That's not such an easy question to answer. It requires track plan and profile data for the different alignments, i.e. curve radii, grades and speed limits (usually set by curvature). Having looked at the whole Tejon situation recently, I can tell you their simulations follow a consistent pattern: they are numerically correct but the assumptions are always carefully selected to highlight a desired outcome.<br /><br />If CHSRA wants private investors badly enough, those investors will perform their own independent analyses (you know, "ivestment grade" and all that) and blow the lid right off this sort of thing in a way no blogger ever could. Money talks.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6514063302778108032013-04-12T17:04:34.485-07:002013-04-12T17:04:34.485-07:00Okay, let's say hypothetically that you are ru...Okay, let's say hypothetically that you are running some trains directly to San Jose. With the program alignment, SJ-LA was 2:19. What would that be if SETEC rather than the UP route was used through Pleasanton and Livermore?Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42669014774847753202013-04-12T14:59:04.656-07:002013-04-12T14:59:04.656-07:00That depends on how fast BART can get from San Jos...That depends on how fast BART can get from San Jose to Freemont and how frequently it's running. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59904583747921169442013-04-12T11:16:16.079-07:002013-04-12T11:16:16.079-07:00The program alignment shows a 10 minute time diffe...The program alignment shows a 10 minute time difference for SJ-LA between Altamont and Pacheco. How much time would SETEC save over the program alignment? Also note that Tejon would save about 10 minutes compared to Tehachapi.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30045762485226909772013-04-11T21:14:18.890-07:002013-04-11T21:14:18.890-07:00Does it matter? Prop 1A like everything else was ...Does it matter? Prop 1A like everything else was tailored for the Pacheco selection. Notice the very aggressive trip times for SF - SJ (0h30) and SJ - LA (2h10), as well as Sac - LA (2h20) but absolutely no constraint on SF - Sac.<br /><br />Yes, SETEC Altamont with blend from RWC to SF would easily meet the Prop 1A time for SF - LA. It would fail the Prop 1A time for SF - SJ and SJ - LA. It would kick the crap out of Pacheco for SF - Sac, but as we all know that particular market doesn't matter and wasn't even mentioned in Prop 1A.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-11911602546270413252013-04-11T20:09:55.804-07:002013-04-11T20:09:55.804-07:00(please read that as said in a patient tone, not a...(please read that as said in a patient tone, not a demanding or confrontational one)kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51526260572051827112013-04-11T20:06:54.848-07:002013-04-11T20:06:54.848-07:00Clem, you did not answer my question. I can read ...Clem, you did not answer my question. I can read well. i see you assert that Pacheco-plus-"blend" does not meet the requirements of Prop 1A. So, here it is again:<br /><br />In your opinion, does the Altamont-route-plus-"Blend" (RWC to SF) meet the requirements of Prop 1A, or not?<br />kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.com