Wasn't it R. Mlynarik who a while back was saying the Transbay Terminal was poorly designed? Somewhere he is crying tears of joy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA1J166LH6.DTL
Unbuilt Transbay station could soon be obsolete
San Francisco's planned high-speed rail station in the new Transbay Terminal would be obsolete within two decades, state transportation officials warn, forcing them to rethink the design.
The proposed station would not be large enough to accommodate half the passengers expected to be using the system by 2030. In addition, the current scheme poses engineering challenges for a Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal downtown, officials said.
"Three sets of engineers met and they concurred that the design for the station was inadequate and useless for high-speed rail," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority.
The problems have transportation officials scrambling to find fixes to assure that the rail projects don't miss out on federal stimulus funds.
The emergency funding bill contains an unprecedented $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects. President Obama indicated in his proposed budget last week that he would like to pump a further $1 billion annually over the next five years into such projects. The windfall provides opportunities that even the most optimistic rail supporters didn't envision.
Interested parties will have to make a case for their projects and compete for the money.
"I think we are well positioned to get these funds - unless we get in our own way," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional planning and funding agency.
California is the only state with a high-speed rail plan and funding.
Heminger has been tapped to mediate the dispute that involves the potentially competing interests of Caltrain, the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the agency overseeing construction of the new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.
The building - described by project sponsors as the Grand Central station of the West Coast, with bus and train service - is envisioned to be the San Francisco home of high-speed rail and the new Caltrain station, extending its service closer to the downtown job center than does the current terminus at Fourth and King streets 1.3 miles away.
As it stands, the first phase of the project would be built without a "train box," the skeleton of the underground train station. The idea is to build it later, when funding becomes available. But building the train box in the first phase could shave an estimated $100 million off the $490 million cost.
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority board must decide by summer whether to move up building the train box in order to keep on schedule, said Adam Alberti, spokesman for the Transbay Authority. Construction on the new terminal is expected to start in early 2010.
But even if Transbay officials put the train box on the fast track, there's still debate over whether the current design - one platform and two tracks for Caltrain and two platforms and four tracks for high-speed rail - would be sufficient.
Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, testified before the Metropolitan Transportation Commission governing board last week that it would not withstand the test of time.
"We have found out that the current design that was environmentally cleared gives us less than one-half of the capacity we'll need by 2030 to carry all the passengers," Morshed said.
The High Speed Rail Authority now believes that the station would have to be able to handle 12 trains an hour, or one every five minutes. Under that scenario, eight to 10 tracks would be required, Alberti said. He said the Transbay team only learned of that three weeks ago.
One idea being studied is whether a two-story underground train station would be feasible from engineering and funding standpoints.
Separately, Caltrain officials have raised concerns about the design pertaining to, in part, track alignment and slope.
The problems aren't insurmountable, said Michael Scanlon, executive director of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which operates Caltrain. But, he said, they require additional engineering work.
"The current alignment and design is fatally flawed," Scanlon told the Metropolitan Transportation Commission governing board last week.
Kopp said engineers from his agency and Parsons Brinckerhoff - the main consultant on the high-speed rail project - concur with Caltrain officials.
Alberti said the Transbay Authority has been working closely with Caltrain officials on preliminary design and engineering work. Until recently, he said, "at no time has Caltrain indicated that the rail design does not work for them."
Scanlon said in an interview that the worst thing to do would to be to construct a train box that wouldn't work. "I think we ought to slow down and get it right," he said.
Increasing the size or design of the train box could double the cost, but officials have yet to attach a final price tag.
Heminger said it's essential that a deal be brokered among the Transbay, Caltrain and high-speed agencies, which would require clearing funding and engineering hurdles. The goal, he said, is to apply for federal stimulus money with a unified voice. "It's critical," he said. "Even though we have a leg up, these funds are going to be competitive."
The U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to release the rules for the funding competition in about four months, which gives Bay Area and high-speed rail officials some breathing room. Heminger plans to convene another meeting with the Transbay, Caltrain and high-speed rail representatives this week.
Prev
I really hope that they can get started on this in the three to four months mentioned in the article. I guess we'll get to see how the new board of supes is going to act about proposals like this...
Linear Mode
