SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[k1052]

Extending BART from Millbrae would be a waste of money to duplicate service that Caltrain will soon provide.

Would be nice to have double track and electrify to Gilroy in the next couple years since money will likely be available from the Feds. That will mean dealing with UP but with a different admin they might be more agreeable. Caltrain can also then retire its remaining diesels.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

BART and Caltrain are different gauges. Back in the day, BART chose a wide gauge--wider than intercity rail (AMTRAK etc)--so BART trains couldn't run on CalTrain tracks and vice versa.

I don't know if that was the main reason. I always thought it had to do with the original plan to build the Marin line on the Golden Gate Bridge, and engineers thought the wider gauge would do better in the strong winds there. Perhaps though that would have also been a convenient reason to want to take over the Caltrain/Southern Pacific ROW as BART was obligated at the time to build a line down to Palo Alto.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

I don't know if that was the main reason. I always thought it had to do with the original plan to build the Marin line on the Golden Gate Bridge, and engineers thought the wider gauge would do better in the strong winds there. Perhaps though that would have also been a convenient reason to want to take over the Caltrain/Southern Pacific ROW as BART was obligated at the time to build a line down to Palo Alto.

^I have heard that the bridge thing is a myth.

My theory is that the wide gauge was chosen mainly to ensure that BART would remain a closed system - that there would not be a push to deliver freight to downtown San Francisco and downtown Oakland via the Market St. subway and transbay tube. Freight deliveries would have sacrificed passenger utility AND been competition to area railroads AND trucking companies, back when The Teamsters were a powerful political force.

Broad gauge streetcars weren't unusual in American cities - franchise agreements required broad gauge explicitly to prevent freight deliveries down city streets.

Probably the best-known example of a freight subway was in Rochester, where passengers were booted in the 1950s but freight deliveries to a downtown newspaper press continued until the mid-1990s. In Cincinnati, the never-finished subway included a multitrack underground freight depot, and a ballot issue appeared in the late 1940s to complete the depot and activate the subway exclusively for freight deliveries. The ballot issue passed but the city did not go through with the freight plan because highways became a much greater priority.

BART's inception was only 10 years removed from the Cincinnati vote (back when Cincinnati was still a prominent U.S. city, and that news likely made its way 2,000 miles west) and the passenger-to-freight conversion occurred in Rochester just as Bay Area voters went to the polls to give BART the thumbs up or thumbs down.

[Busy Bee]

Also consider the era BART was being proposed. The ye olde conventional train is the last thing that was considered futurist and thus something they wanted to pursue. I think at least part of the motivation for indian gauge, along with what I believe is a true story about GGB wind concerns, was just to be different, and that unconventional approach would be sold as "novel". The flat wheels were part of this thinking as well.

[TWAK]

I got this from the wiki and lol at "great stability and smoother riding qualities"

The Bay Area Rapid Transit system is the only operating railroad in the United States to use 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) broad gauge, with 120 miles (190 km) of double tracked routes. The original engineers chose the wide gauge for its "great stability and smoother riding qualities"[4] and intended to make a state-of-the-art system for other municipalities to emulate. The use of 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) broad gauge rails was one of many unconventional design elements included in its design which, in addition to its unusual gauge, also uses flat-edge rail, rather than typical rail that angles slightly inward. This has complicated maintenance of the system, as it requires custom wheelsets, brake systems, and track maintenance vehicles

All this great stuff made it incompatible with everything else and more expensive.
source

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is not correct. The original circa-2008 hope was to expand the existing two-track conventional diesel railroad to four tracks with overhead electric, with two outside tracks dedicated to HSR and two inside tracks dedicated to Caltrains. Instead, three tracks are now planned in a "blended" service that will be pretty much the same as what four tracks can do except for during maintenance periods. All trains will stop at SFO in order to enable cuing into the Transbay Terminal, which will be accessed by a 3-track tunnel.

The reason why the capacity for both the 3-track and 4-track peninsula configurations is almost the same is because the whole thing's capacity is limited by the 6 platforms at the Transbay Terminal. By default, the HSR trains will terminate their runs in this facility, and so each will need a 30-minute turnaround time for cleaning. Meanwhile, the Caltrains commuter trains will "terminate" in San Jose or Gilroy, and so cleaning will happen there, where there is plenty of room.

When a new Transbay Tube is built, the Transbay Terminal will become a thru station, meaning the turnaround cleaning of HSR trains will happen somewhere in the East Bay, where there will be much more space. This means that HSR trains will idle at the Transbay Terminal for 5 minutes instead of 30. This will profoundly improve the capacity of the entire system.

Also, it should be pointed out that Caltrains will operate at 110mph, which is somewhat faster than BART, and that some Caltrains runs will be express or limited stop, meaning even with a transfer (or two) the planned setup will be faster than any imaginable BART setup, especially if one's destination is near the Transbay Terminal.

So you're saying 3 tracks, not the present 2 and not the initially planned 4. Got a reference for that? My understanding is that they were going to make do with the electrified status quo except for some additional sidings so the faster HSR and/or express CalTrains could pass the local CalTrains.

What you are saying means adding a third set of tracks. When are you suggesting they plan to do that?

By the way, the notion of the TransBay Terminal being a "thru station" has been suggested, along with a variety of routes to and from the station in tunnels under San Francisco, but I bet it's "pie in the sky". Due to the limitation of platforms you mention in that terminal, some Caltrains will probably still end their runs at 4th & Townsend as now.

Finally, if there was any really good reason to build BART up the Peninsula between Diridon and Milbrae, they could elevate it over the CalTain/HSR tracks of course. The neighbors would hate that, and probably sue again, but a lot of the route is elevated in East Bay towns and suburbs.

[Busy Bee]

^ That's about as likely as Mark Zuckerberg apologizing for nearly wrecking humankind for ad revenue.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ That's about as likely as Mark Zuckerberg apologizing for nearly wrecking humankind for ad revenue.

Speaking of which, there was a briefly-discussed proposal to bury the Caltrains/HSR tracks through Palo Alto, a distance of 2-3 miles, at a cost of several billion dollars. There are only 6 or 7 grade crossings in Palo Alto. About 150 homes back up to the Caltrains ROW and another 100 or so sit on the other side, although buffered by Alma St.

I don't think it makes much sense to bury the line in this area for purely aesthetic purposes unless there is a commitment to build new housing - and a lot of it - directly above the tunnel, and we sure as hell know that ain't happening!

[redblock]

A seven car train set of the Stadler KISS double deck Emus for Caltrain has been moved from Stadler's Salt Lake City plant to the TTCI test facility near Pueblo, Colorado.

https://www.railwayage.com/news/caltrain-emu-under-way-to-ttci/

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So you're saying 3 tracks, not the present 2 and not the initially planned 4. Got a reference for that? My understanding is that they were going to make do with the electrified status quo except for some additional sidings so the faster HSR and/or express CalTrains could pass the local CalTrains.

I looked at it last night and didn't realize that the plan changed at some point in recent years. I recall watching animations of a 3-track ROW about 5 years ago south of the tunnels 1-4 section. From what I gleaned from a skim of the 2020 meetings it still looks like several 3-track sections, with a central track acting as a passing siding/express track, are still on the table.

Also, a citizen asked why there is no HSR station planned in Palo Alto. The engineer agreed that it made a lot of sense but responded that Palo Alto and the other cities all told HSR to take a hike about 5 years ago.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Due to the limitation of platforms you mention in that terminal, some Caltrains will probably still end their runs at 4th & Townsend as now.

The approach to Transbay is going to be a 3-track tunnel. It gets a little complicated because there is still a lot up in the air...if there is a new underground 4th/King station then it'll probably have one island and one side platform to accommodate occasions when Caltrains, for whatever reason, enters or leaves Transbay on a track that is usually HSR.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Finally, if there was any really good reason to build BART up the Peninsula between Diridon and Milbrae, they could elevate it over the CalTain/HSR tracks of course. The neighbors would hate that, and probably sue again, but a lot of the route is elevated in East Bay towns and suburbs.

I looked back at the history of the dilution of the 4-track plan to what is now under study and sort-of under construction and and the war against the 4-track plan stemmed from the fear that Caltrains was going to play second fiddle to HSR. First, there was a worry that HSR would be electrified (obviously) but not Caltrains - that's a ridiculous assertion, since Caltrains would need to be electrified in order to reach Transbay - but nevertheless it was an argument. Second, it was feared that HSR would fully grade separate itself but little to nothing would be done to improve Caltrains. For example, even if all four tracks were made to run side-by-side throughout much of the corridor, it was feared that overpasses/underpasses would only be built for HSR. There would also likely be a few spots where HSR would built directly over the grade crossings - sort of like how the highway crosses directly above the Caltrains Tracks north of Tunnel 1, which has grade crossings directly beneath the highway.

So to sum it up, the Blended System was a way to ensure that Caltrains would be improved to a premium commuter rail system, pretty much without equal in the United States, because the success of HSR depends on the character of the corridor.

The crazy thing, in looking back at all of the pre-engineering work that has been done, is that it's probably costing them just as much to engineer the blended system - if not more - as compared to simply 4-tracking the whole thing and not tolerating any grade crossings.

I mean, the amount of manpower going in to studying gate closing times is insane....part of the reason why they're taking so much time is trying to sync it so that opposing trains cross particular intersections at the same time. So in this perfect future two trains will pass during a single gate closure. The placement and length of the center and side passing tracks is largely dependent upon where they will be allowed to do them politically, so they're having to decide where to do battle with these ridiculous small but extremely wealthy cities.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, a citizen asked why there is no HSR station planned in Palo Alto. The engineer agreed that it made a lot of sense but responded that Palo Alto and the other cities all told HSR to take a hike about 5 years ago.

HSR will literally have cross-platform transfers to Caltrain so I'm not sure a mid-peninsula stop is necessary between SJ and SF. You just get off at Diridon and switch to Caltrain to reach your final destination. I've done that plenty of times in Germany and Italy. That said, I've heard talk of doing an HSR stop in Redwood City which is closer to the true midpoint (better for scheduling) and relatively growth friendly (for the Bay Area, that is). Also if rail service is ever restored on the Dumbarton bridge those trains would stop in Redwood City so an HSR stop here could provide East Bay access as well.

[jmecklenborg]

Also, regarding BART on the peninsula, if they had quadruple-tracked the line from San Jose to SF, it would have a capacity of 20+ trains per hour, per direction, assuming a 110mph top speed (and a higher top speed would be possible with total grade separation, meaning greater capacity).

Four tracks would have given them the capacity to run a Caltrains local every 10 minutes, 18 hours a day, in addition to the expresses and skip-stops already envisioned.

Also, even if HSR were limited to 110mph from Palo Alto to SF in a 4-track setup, being able to briefly push top speed in the 20 miles between San Jose and Palo Alto would mean they could put a stop there on every single run and still arrive in SF at the same time.

[Pedestrian]

Major construction on Central Subway to end by March 31
CARLY GRAF
Mar. 3, 2021 4:30 p.m.

Most of the construction on San Francisco’s long-awaited Central Subway project will be completed by March 31, a new deadline that was approved by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors on Tuesday as part of a robust set of contract re-negotiations.

As part of that process, the board also signed off on a collective $143 million to be paid to the Tutor Perini Corporation, the project’s contractor, to settle up on a wide range of claims against the agency as well as the latest round of work order modifications, also known as change orders.

The board’s actions keep the project “on track” to begin revenue service in spring 2022, nearly four years behind schedule and roughly $300 million over the original budget.

With the revised contract, Tutor Perini is obligated to complete the bulk of critical construction by March 31 so SFMTA can bring in its own people for the year-long testing process to make the decade-in-the-making railroad ready for passengers and paid service by this time next year . . . .

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/major-construction-on-central-subway-to-end-by-march-31/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I looked back at the history of the dilution of the 4-track plan to what is now under study and sort-of under construction and and the war against the 4-track plan stemmed from the fear that Caltrains was going to play second fiddle to HSR. First, there was a worry that HSR would be electrified (obviously) but not Caltrains - that's a ridiculous assertion, since Caltrains would need to be electrified in order to reach Transbay - but nevertheless it was an argument. Second, it was feared that HSR would fully grade separate itself but little to nothing would be done to improve Caltrains. For example, even if all four tracks were made to run side-by-side throughout much of the corridor, it was feared that overpasses/underpasses would only be built for HSR. There would also likely be a few spots where HSR would built directly over the grade crossings - sort of like how the highway crosses directly above the Caltrains Tracks north of Tunnel 1, which has grade crossings directly beneath the highway.

So to sum it up, the Blended System was a way to ensure that Caltrains would be improved to a premium commuter rail system, pretty much without equal in the United States, because the success of HSR depends on the character of the corridor.

The crazy thing, in looking back at all of the pre-engineering work that has been done, is that it's probably costing them just as much to engineer the blended system - if not more - as compared to simply 4-tracking the whole thing and not tolerating any grade crossings.

I mean, the amount of manpower going in to studying gate closing times is insane....part of the reason why they're taking so much time is trying to sync it so that opposing trains cross particular intersections at the same time. So in this perfect future two trains will pass during a single gate closure. The placement and length of the center and side passing tracks is largely dependent upon where they will be allowed to do them politically, so they're having to decide where to do battle with these ridiculous small but extremely wealthy cities.

Bottom line:

- The Peninsula residents got much of what they wanted when they sued

- HSR gave in because they really wanted to spend available funds building track where there is no track, not adding to track that already exists. Not 4-tracking the Peninsula saved them money they could spend in the CV and elsewhere. Some distant day, when the high speed trains are running and popular, my guess is the idea of 4-tracking the Peninsula could be resurrected.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Bottom line:

- The Peninsula residents got much of what they wanted when they sued

- HSR gave in because they really wanted to spend available funds building track where there is no track, not adding to track that already exists. Not 4-tracking the Peninsula saved them money they could spend in the CV and elsewhere. Some distant day, when the high speed trains are running and popular, my guess is the idea of 4-tracking the Peninsula could be resurrected.

Maybe, maybe not. If new Transbay Tunnels are built, maybe they will route the HSR trains via Oakland instead of via the Peninsula. The future plans can change as quickly as the wind.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by electricron

Maybe, maybe not. If new Transbay Tunnels are built, maybe they will route the HSR trains via Oakland instead of via the Peninsula. The future plans can change as quickly as the wind.

No they can’t change “as quickly as the wind”. Considerable thought was put into which route through the coastal hills to take and Pacheco Pass was chosen. Since then, lots of work on environmental reports and engineering studies has been spent. There’s no motivation or incentive to change. I haven’t even heard it mentioned.

CAHSR doesn’t have a variety of flat routes like Texas.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

No they can’t change “as quickly as the wind”. Considerable thought was put into which route through the coastal hills to take and Pacheco Pass was chosen. Since then, lots of work on environmental reports and engineering studies has been spent. There’s no motivation or incentive to change. I haven’t even heard it mentioned.

Let’s hope CAHSR makes it into the Salesforce Transit Center long before the new BART tunnel is built!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Bottom line:

- The Peninsula residents got much of what they wanted when they sued

- HSR gave in because they really wanted to spend available funds building track where there is no track, not adding to track that already exists. Not 4-tracking the Peninsula saved them money they could spend in the CV and elsewhere. Some distant day, when the high speed trains are running and popular, my guess is the idea of 4-tracking the Peninsula could be resurrected.

The entirety of the Central Valley - 150~ miles from the Pacheco Pass Tunnel to Palmdale - is costing a lot less than what it would have for the complete grade separation, electrification, and 4-tracking of HSR/Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco. The problem is that they are about to spend a ton of money on the Blended System which will work and which will be a huge upgrade for Caltrain but it's going to be vulnerable to significant service disruptions when a train has a mechanical problem, there is a health emergency, somebody jumps in front of a train, or a car gets hit at a grade crossing. Those things would be almost non-existent - maybe twice per year - in the four-track and fully grade separated scenario.

Also, quadruple-tracking the line sometime in the future, after everything is active, will be horrendously complicated and expensive as opposed to doing it now.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The entirety of the Central Valley - 150~ miles from the Pacheco Pass Tunnel to Palmdale - is costing a lot less than what it would have for the complete grade separation, electrification, and 4-tracking of HSR/Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco. The problem is that they are about to spend a ton of money on the Blended System which will work and which will be a huge upgrade for Caltrain but it's going to be vulnerable to significant service disruptions when a train has a mechanical problem, there is a health emergency, somebody jumps in front of a train, or a car gets hit at a grade crossing. Those things would be almost non-existent - maybe twice per year - in the four-track and fully grade separated scenario.

Also, quadruple-tracking the line sometime in the future, after everything is active, will be horrendously complicated and expensive as opposed to doing it now.

Since congress is gearing up to spend a bundle on infrastructure seems like the time to ask for $8B to eliminate the remaining 42 grade crossings in Caltrain territory would be now. Four tracking is just insurmountable politically so this is the best we can hope for.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The entirety of the Central Valley - 150~ miles from the Pacheco Pass Tunnel to Palmdale - is costing a lot less than what it would have for the complete grade separation, electrification, and 4-tracking of HSR/Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco.

FYI, Pacheco Pass to Palmdale is around 284 miles.