SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[ardecila]

I have taken BART, but never south of Oakland (rode BART twice to Walnut Creek).

From aerials, though, you can tell that there is 60-70 feet remaining of the 100-foot ROW. There are freight tracks there - owned by UP, apparently - but they look lightly-used. At many locations, underpasses exist of those tracks, or local crossings have been closed. South of Fremont, however, that alignment has been abandoned, and only the Capitol Corridor and ACE alignments are available.

[Gordo]

^Lightly used, sure. But still owned by UP. Basically, until there is some federal-level pressure on UP to open up use of their ROW for HSR, they're willing to sit on it in hopes of being paid billions and billions for it. The peninsula corridor is owned by the three counties that it runs through. Fortunately, BNSF has been much more open to working with the CHSRA - and it's all BNSF owned ROW that will be used in the Central Valley and LA area.

The Capitol Corridor/ACE ROW south of Fremont gets especially worrisome, as it runs through some protected wetlands with just single-track width. Trying to run HSR through that area is just asking for a 15 year EIR/CEQA process. Capitol Corridor runs all the way to SJ are extremely limited by the single track (most CC trains don't go all the way to SJ), but there's no current plan to try and double track because of the wetlands.

The Altamont Overlay project would avoid the wetlands by running across a rebuilt Dumbarton rail bridge and connecting to the main line in Menlo Park - there really is no good ROW option between SJ and Fremont.

[ardecila]

Hmm... UP's behavior is definitely irritating, especially when they've been more than willing to accommodate 3 commuter lines on their tracks in the Chicago area. A 4th commuter line is planned for yet another UP line on the South Side, and they've been cooperative.

I believe the commuter service in Utah and New Mexico also runs on UP tracks - but then again, so do many rail services in California. It seems UP is unwilling to accommodate any new tracks within their ROW that they cannot use themselves.

[Gordo]

^Bingo, but that's not quite all of it. They have been pretty good about working with Amtrak California as well over the years (as well as some other entities like ACE), but this is really a new thing. HSR would require them to sell (I suppose a lease could be possible too) at least portions of the ROW (with barricades in between their tracks and the high speed tracks), rather than just allowing/leasing use of the tracks. The concern that they've voiced publicly is around liability issues, with trains operating alongside theirs at four or five times the speed being something that they're not comfortable with.

EDIT - you nailed it with your last sentence.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Hmm... UP's behavior is definitely irritating, especially when they've been more than willing to accommodate 3 commuter lines on their tracks in the Chicago area. A 4th commuter lineis planned for yet another UP line on the South Side, and they've been cooperative.

I believe the commuter service in Utah and New Mexico also runs on UP tracks - but then again, so do many rail services in California. It seems UP is unwilling to accommodate any new tracks within their ROW that they cannot use themselves.

NMDOT's Railrunner runs on NMDOT tracks that NMDOT bought from BNSF.
UTA's Frontrunner runs on UTA tracks that UTA bought from UP.
The few differences are (1) that UP sold half the width of the corridor while BNSF sold all the corridor, and (2) BNSF can still run freight trains on the shared tracks while the UP doesn't run on shared tracks. That means UTA had to build their own tracks parallel to UP's, and that NMDOT didn't.

Neither local transit agency commuter train you listed runs on privately owned tracks. Both commuter train agencies spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying property from the railroad companies at their price.

[nequidnimis]

Here's a link to Guidelines for Developing a Successful Solution for the Peninsula Rail Corridorm a document by Robert Doty, director of the Peninsula Rail Program, a partnership of Caltrain and California High Speed Rail Authority. It discusses technical issues which must be considered in the planning of a rail corridor.

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18251

It states that the cost of aerial construction is 3.5 times the cost of at grade, and the cost of cut and cover is 4 times the cost of at grade construction. The cost of raised eartth is 2 times the cost of at grade.

[mwadswor]

Nevermind.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

Nevermind.

You have a valid point that should be considered. But, with parallel city streets to the rail corridor, it doesn't look promising when you consider the space needed for the grade changes for the streets to go under.

That's at a first look. Most laymen and planners consider changing the grade of just one (rails or streets) because it's cheaper, but there is the possibility of changing the grades of both. For example, the rails can be raised half as far, meaning the streets only needed to be lowered half as much.
A. Initial-cheaper solutions
===rail===

---street@grade----
or
~~~street~~~

===rail@grade===

B. Alternate-expensive solution
===rail===
---grade---
~~~street~~~
or
~~~street~~~
---grade---
===rail===

The main advantage of changing the grades of both is shorter grade changes.
The disadvantage is you need to spend money to change both grades, therefore spending more overall.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by electricron

Neither local transit agency commuter train you listed runs on privately owned tracks. Both commuter train agencies spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying property from the railroad companies at their price.

Ah. If UTA actually was successful at buying property from UP, that would be a first. Perhaps UTA's track comes with an easement for UP to run freight service along it? In every circumstance I've seen, UP merely grants an easement to the transit agency to build platforms and operate service, while they continue to hold ownership of the tracks.

I know in Chicago, UP is requesting a 50-foot separation between the outer edge of their tracks and a proposed CTA elevated rail line. Since the UP tracks are in the center of a 100-foot ROW, that basically means that the CTA line must be built outside of the UP ROW, which means that many homes must be taken and demolished.

[mwadswor]

I wonder if it's just a difference in managment, but BNSF does generally seem much friendlier to working with passenger rail than UP. I know UP has also been completely unreceptive to the idea of having any commuter rail on it's tracks anywhere around Phoenix while BNSF has been more cooperative.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Ah. If UTA actually was successful at buying property from UP, that would be a first. Perhaps UTA's track comes with an easement for UP to run freight service along it? In every circumstance I've seen, UP merely grants an easement to the transit agency to build platforms and operate service, while they continue to hold ownership of the tracks.

UTA did buy the right-of-way from UP that UTA's tracks uses. Here's a web link to a news story for the UTA Frontrunner - UP deal
from http://www.utahtransit.us/deal.htm
As reported in Mass Transit Magazine, September 2003, the Utah Transit Authority made the deal of the century in 2002 when it purchased 175 miles of railroad right-of-way, most of it parallel to I-15 and along side Union Pacific freight mains, from Brigham City on the north (north of Ogden) to Payson on the south (south of Provo) for a mere $185 million. Also included were two sites for intermodal hubs (Trax light rail, Frontrunner commuter rail, and bus) in SLC and Ogden, as well as some rail right-of-way through Salt Lake County for Trax expansion.

Another link with more UTA Frontrunner historic information:
http://www.utahrails.net/uta/frontrunner-north.php

April 2001:
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is reported to have reached an agreement in principle with Union Pacific to buy access to the railroad's rights-of-way between Brigham City and Payson for $103 million. The agreement would permit UTA to put commuter trains on UP tracks between Ogden and Brigham City, where freight traffic is light, and build its own commuter line in UP's more-heavily-trafficked Salt Lake City-Ogden corridor. It would also open the way for further commuter rail development and extension of UTA's Trax light rail system. UTA says it can raise $59 million of the neeeded funds if the state puts up $44 million.
May 22, 2002:
Utah Transit Authority received approval from the federal Surface Transportation Authority to purchase the following properties from Union Pacific, for use as part of a commuter rail project:
Total of 62.77 miles
Salt Lake Subdivision: milepost 754.31 in Bountiful, to milepost 778.00 in Ogden (former D&RGW mainline)
Salt Lake Subdivision: 20 to 35-foot portion of right of way from milepost 782.48 in Salt Lake City, to milepost 818.05 in Ogden (adjacent to UP mainline)
Provo Industrial Lead: milepost P-775.23 at Point of the Mountain, to milepost P-762.00 at Hardy (UP mainline)
Provo Subdivison: 20 to 35-foot portion of right of way from milepost 705.71 at Lakota Junction, to milepost 729.29 near Riverton, and from milepost 729.50 near Riverton to milepost 745.50 in Salt Lake City (adjacent to former D&RGW mainline)
Sharp Subdivision: milepost P-752.41 in Provo, to milepost P-757.25 at Lakota Junction (UP mainline)
Sharp Subdivision: 20 to 35-foot portion of right of way from milepost 745.82 in Spanish Fork, to milepost P-749.99 in Provo, and from milepost P-750.81 in Provo to milepost P-752.41 in Provo (adjacent to UP mainline)
Tintic Industrial Lead: from milepost 0.00 in Springville, to milepost 13.06 in Payson (former D&RGW Tintic Branch)
Sugar House Spur: from milepost 0.00 at Roper, to milepost 2.74 in Sugar House (former D&RGW Sugarhoue Branch)
Bingham Industrial Lead: from milepost 6.60 at Bagley, to milepost 11.81 (former D&RGW Bingham Branch)
Bingham Industrial Lead: 20 to 35-foot portion of right of way from milepost 0.00 to milepost 6.60 (former D&RGW Bingham Branch)
Consummation of sale to occur on or about May 30, 2002.
UTA is acquiring tracks for future passenger operations, and does not intend to conduct freight operations. (STB Finance Docket 34170)
September 17, 2003:
UTA and Union Pacific signed the final contracts for UTA to purchase UP's former Salt Lake City diesel shop, located at 900 North and 500 West. The building was completed in August 1955 and was closed by UP in June 1998 (more information).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

BNSF has been much more open to working with the CHSRA - and it's all BNSF owned ROW that will be used in the Central Valley and LA area.

Originally Posted by mwadswor

I wonder if it's just a difference in managment, but BNSF does generally seem much friendlier to working with passenger rail than UP. I know UP has also been completely unreceptive to the idea of having any commuter rail on it's tracks anywhere around Phoenix while BNSF has been more cooperative.

BNSF = Warren Buffet, a friend of the Administration and, presumably, of HSR. Berkshire Hathaway has been a large and influential stockholder for some time and recently bought the rest of the company.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by Gordo

In certain areas on the peninsula. Not in Palo Alto or Menlo Park because of various reasons, but mostly dealing with the fact that El Camino Real runs very close to the tracks on one side (6-8 lanes plus parking lanes) and Alma St runs right next to the tracks on the other side (4 lanes). If you had roads passing under the tracks, they'd also have to dive under both roads and the descent would start several hundred feet away on either side (and the cross streets are mostly of semi-urban development, so you'd kill off a lot with that tactic).

Somewhere on the CHSRA site you can look and see exactly what the different proposed solutions are for each mile of the peninsula section. I don't feel like looking for it now, but I know it's there

It's a good point, but there are already several streets that do cross over/under the tracks and Alma/Central - University, Page Mill, San Antonio and Shoreline just in Palo Alto and Mountan View. (I think Menlo Park and Atherton have been shortsighted for years and never planned far enough to do the same for their streets) It's not that much hassle to drive to one of those, but people are set in their ways and used to how things are done now. If HSR can get past the complaints, people should be able to get used to the new routes pretty quickly.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^Bingo, but that's not quite all of it. They have been pretty good about working with Amtrak California as well over the years (as well as some other entities like ACE), but this is really a new thing. HSR would require them to sell (I suppose a lease could be possible too) at least portions of the ROW (with barricades in between their tracks and the high speed tracks), rather than just allowing/leasing use of the tracks. The concern that they've voiced publicly is around liability issues, with trains operating alongside theirs at four or five times the speed being something that they're not comfortable with.

EDIT - you nailed it with your last sentence.

UP might be willing to sell their line in the East Bay outright, though. It's a single-track line that maybe serves a handful of industrial customers. If they were willing to sell, then the ownership would transfer to the state of CA and a double-track high speed line could be built, with a new single track to the side to continue serving those industries (operated by a private company).

Obviously, the line between SJ and Gilroy is a key part of UP's western network, and they don't want anybody to touch it. But more secondary lines in their system might be available for the right price.

[fflint]

Free parking for private automobiles on public land after 6pm and all day Sunday--meanwhile Muni, which is never free, will see 10% fewer trains and buses all day and all night. The downward spiral into autocentrism begins:

----------------------------------------

MTA: Layoffs, service cuts, rate increases
By: Will Reisman
Examiner Staff Writer
February 26, 2010
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/MTA-Layoffs-service-cuts-rate-increases-85579762.html

Sweeping service reductions, increases to monthly fares for Express routes and Cable Car service and more expensive rates for residential parking permits were approved by the Municipal Transportation Agency’s Board of Directors in a budget-balancing move today, although a controversial proposal to double the costs of Fast Pass fares for senior, youth and the disabled was shelved, at least temporarily.

[nequidnimis]

Hopefully, this will also encourage increased bicycle riding, and increased walking. I think many people do not realize how little difference there is between walking and riding the bus. I just checked a 1.7 mi trip on Google map with a direct bus line and bus stops two blocks from the departure and destination points. By bus, it take 24 minutes, walking, 33 minutes. And the bus time does not account waiting for the bus and traffic delays at rush hour.

[BTinSF]

If they just eliminated Muni it would really encourage walking and bicycle riding. Have you passed the idea along?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Hopefully, this will also encourage increased bicycle riding, and increased walking. I think many people do not realize how little difference there is between walking and riding the bus. I just checked a 1.7 mi trip on Google map with a direct bus line and bus stops two blocks from the departure and destination points. By bus, it take 24 minutes, walking, 33 minutes. And the bus time does not account waiting for the bus and traffic delays at rush hour.

I'd look at the biggest transit service cuts in San Francisco history as a boon for biking as well, except for one very ugly and inconvenient truth: NIMBY scum stopped the city (for four years and counting) from building out the necessary infrastructure to handle the coming influx of cyclists.

The drastic and sudden degradation of public transportation in San Francisco isn't just going to usher in a golden age of urban cycling upon our bronze-age streetscapes--it's also going to bring on more high-pollutin' car traffic. Our corporate sellout mayor's dogged defense of his free-parking policy for rich motorists--free parking on Sundays and after 6pm, when Muni is still full-price but also more overcrowded and late than ever--is both a carrot and a stick leading to increased car traffic throughout the city.

So that means 1) more motorists and 2) more cyclists and 3) the NIMBY scum injunction requiring the two modes share the same travel lane. It will take longer than ever to get anywhere.

Just as bad, Muni will lose its "common denominator" factor among San Franciscans, as the able-bodied sort themselves from the transit-dependent. When the working majority no longer uses Muni, Muni loses its electoral base. An apathetic public that sees Muni as a loser cruiser full of fat slobs, geriatric cases and welfare queens won't likely care to fund Muni at even current, degraded levels. The MTA board, by cravenly caving to all the wrong policies, is presiding over the destruction of its own agency, and San Francisco's transit culture, and we're all going to be worse off. Until we move, of course.

NIMBY scum + corporate sellout mayor + (MTA - balls) = bifurcated city in slo-mo death spiral. Heckuva job, douchebags.

[Yankee]

Don't mean to change the subject, but does anyone know if they're still planning on extending Caltrain across Dumbarton bridge to East Bay? What's the current status of that project?

[BTinSF]

Friday, March 12, 2010
S.F.’s Doyle Drive rebuild eyes private cash
Savings could top $150M
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

State officials might pay an investor to build and maintain a large portion of the Doyle Drive project, a move they estimate could save taxpayers nearly $150 million.

Under a proposal now being studied by the California Transportation Commission, an investor could take responsibility for constructing much of the 1.6-mile southern entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge and maintaining it for 30 years. Transportation officials estimate that would cost about $488 million — versus $635 million if it is handled as a traditional public works project by the California Department of Transportation. A private investor could get the work done more cheaply, a CalTrans study says, with the state saving extra money by spreading payments out over 30 years. The CTC is expected to decide April 7 whether to allow CalTrans to strike a deal with a private investor to bid on the project.

Discussions about privatizing parts of the Doyle Drive rebuild project gathered steam last year after California, which has under-invested in infrastructure for decades, agreed to lift caps on the number of public-private deals it could strike . . . .

A deal with a private investor would require the financier to finish Doyle Drive construction by 2013 and keep it in good repair until at least 2043. The state would agree to dole out annual payments over 30 years, provided those targets are met. The private investor could maximize profits by keeping maintenance costs low during the 30-year concession.

Construction on 73-year-old Doyle Drive began in November 2009 after local officials lined up about $1 billion in federal, state and local funding. The project is divided into eight contracts. Three have been awarded and one is being bid now.

If Doyle Drive work is overseen by an investor, private companies would take over the second half of the job, which calls for completing the 1.6-mile roadway with wider lanes, additional safety features and some stretches running underground . . . .

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2010/03/15/story3.html