Note that this is not precisely true, at least as reported at the hearing last week. CHSRA did not have the money to do a ridership model, and when TJPA hired Cambridge Systematics, they agreed to do both.

So CHRSA is using the Cambridge Systematics ridership model for lack of an alternative.

Rafeal points out that 12tph with 30 minutes at station … or, it should be added, 8tph with 40 minutes at station as the CAHSRA request … can be done by using one island as the arrival platform, one island as the departure island, and a stop at the tail tracks for cleaning and restocking in between.

Except that this is not possible with the TBT design, because the platforms long enough for the HSR are not all connected to the tail tracks. The Caltrain island is the inner island, fully connected to the tail, and the HSR is the middle island, fully connected to the tail, and the outer island, which is not full connected.

Fix that, and the design could be made workable.

Also, the cheaper double deck train box option is likely to be an island and two side platforms on each level, since there would be only one row of main support column running through the box … the outer two rows of support columns would be at the edges of that box. For that, a trail track at the first level and a tail track at the second level would be required. When it comes time to start filling the box, put in the bottom level platforms, and the tracks on ground level, and then when it comes time to expand capacity, put in the upper level of platforms … it being cheaper and less trouble to build up then to dig down.

That also eases the tightest turns on the approach.

It would cost more than the six track box, but if headways could be brought down to 2 1/2 minutes (as in some East Coast tunnels), 8tph access to four HSR platforms, 12 tph access to four platforms for Caltrain and other regional rail services likely to be developed when gas prices hit their next two or three oil price shocks, and 4 open slots per hour for contingencies, seems like it could be a liveable compromise.

There is more to building a complete, dense City than just upzoning and hoping for the best and actively subverting community based planning processes.

-marc

What happened to this idea? I assume the construction of the tail tracks would be cheaper/easier than a double-deck train box.

In conjunction, they should develop the air rights of the Caltrain yard, as in the SPUR proposal.

I doubt we’ll ever reach the ridership necessary to have trains leaving every 5 minutes, however if capacity becomes an issue there are a few options:
- Bi-level HSR carriages (currently in use in Japan and France)
- Longer trains (if the platforms are long enough)
- Combine trains to multiple destinations, then split them later on where the route diverges… this practice is used extensively in the northern Japan HSR system.
- Shorter turn around times must be possible.
- Don’t use the platform as train idle space… unload and get out.

Again, I don’t know the exact situation of HSR in California, but this is one of the first projects of the such in America. And for everyone’s sake, this NEEDS to work. No room for bickering, we need unity!

The state parcels have yet to be transferred and sold to developers, and the project requires the sale of a mix of high rise housing and office space for funding.

The talk is about $150m in stimulus dollars right now, but the real estate hole in the project comes in just short of $1b.

That said, if you’re going to build out a piece of infrastructure, whether its HSR or the Central Subway, either build it to last well into the future or at least build it so that it is easily extensible.

Again, with Emilio Cruz on the job, didn’t he bounce from Muni to URS (Richard Blum as in Feinstein’s husband’s engineering operation) before coming back to the City family at the Transbay?

This is the sound of dollars not even identified being funneled back to their politically proper place.

Are there examples of HSR that run heavier, less aerodynamic 2 level cars?

-marc

In practice, operators will switch to full-length bi-level trains long before they reach this high level of traffic. For reference, such trains offer 1100-1600 seats each, the equivalent of 3-4 jumbo jets. If and when HSR becomes that popular, terminating some northbound trains in San Jose or else in Millbrae/SFO would be another option for keeping the Transbay Terminal from becoming a bottleneck. The choice would depend on where CHSRA will secure a yard – Santa Clara or Brisbane. On top of that, there may be a spur up to West Oakland/Mandela Pkwy long before capacity at the Transbay Terminal becomes an issue for HSR. The concept of having all trains stop in both SF and San Jose is only needed to build ridership. Once it’s high enough, operators will have other options.

Bottom line: the current design of the Transbay Terminal could support 12tph if it had to, but it won’t ever come to that. CHSRA is blowing smoke on this one because the bill they are being presented with is far larger than they bargained for.

Frankly, I’d be more concerned about Caltrain. With only two platform tracks at the Transbay Terminal, they’d need to turn train around in just 12 minutes or else terminate some at 4th & King to support the 10tph they are predicting for rush hour traffic in 2025 – double the current frequency. They are also (optimistically?) predicting three times the current ridership, which implies longer trains, e.g. 300m (~1000ft) like th Long Island Railroad. With bi-level cars, those would support ~750 passengers each.

Also, traffic to and from all six platform tracks will have to share the DTX tunnel, currently planned as a three-track structure. Most railroads shy away from running headways of less than 3 minutes, i.e. 20tph, per track. It’s not immediately clear what the third track would be used for, perhaps emergencies.

This seems like a pretty clear play by CAHSRA to not pay for the last mile. It also makes me think the whole thing will likely be a memory by 2011. If we could move the cash into local transit infrastructure I’d do it in a heartbeat. buses included.

The biggest danger here is that CA screws up the process so significantly that we sour the overall Federal Funding climate for rail for another 50 years. If that prospect becomes a real possibility (increasingly likely) than CA HSR needs to go away for the greater good.

Thinking way out, a second level within the station box could accommodate a new BART extension from the East Bay. If this new transbay tube is constructed, it would likely have tracks for conventional rail. This possibility expands operational opportunities from the East Bay and could bring Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains into the city.

Although the projections don’t exist for CAHSR exclusively, the Transbay Terminal has the potential to become a well connected terminus for other regional rail service. With all of this potential, the station designers should be thinking beyond just Caltrain and High Speed Rail

Does anyone think that these people on “our side” are in their positions purely based on merit? Like Treasure Island, Brown had his people strategically planted at every nexus where a few hundred million dollars might flow. And contrary to everyone’s expectations, it looks like manna is going to rain down from heaven and this politicized monstrosity might get built in real time.

One reason why at Western SoMa I did not try to push an acceptance plan for Townsend that would chart a path towards bringing Townsend up to code was that I learned of this shitstorm and have no patience for it given the provincialism of the Planning Department and MTA planning that presents enough obstacles.

-marc

Between 6 and 7 am tomorrow morning, for instance, 10 TGVs will depart Paris’ Gare du Lyon, two of those going to Lyon, the rest elsewhere, but all using the Southeast high-speed corridor, which is the direct comparison to CAHSR. So, 12 trains an hour at peak times on CAHSR doesn’t seem that unrealistic.

It is also true that Paris has three TGV stations – but the other two carry trains on different lines, and they’re equally crowded.

Did I mention that all of Paris’ terminals have more than 10 tracks available for TGVs?

Bollocks. Nobody believes the CHSRA manufactured numbers. The California project will not be carrying 5-10x the passenger load of Europe’s most successful HSR line.

That being said, there are some severe capacity problems, given the incompetent way SFMTA has planned the terminal. In short:

1. We wouldn’t be in this mess had the Altamont alternative been selected (i.e. some of the peak-hour trains would be terminating in San Jose).

2. By completely segregating Caltrain and HSR tracks, it severely limits operational throughput of the terminal.

Personally, I have little confidence the problems will be resolved in a way that doesn’t screw over taxpayers.

I’m not a civil engineer, but I don’t see why the Transbay Terminal, can’t be made this way. Don’t build the two-level box, but build the one-level box in a way that we could slide a second level underneath one day with minimal fuss, or at least adjacent to it, or even at another station nearby (4th and King?).

I grew up in Sydney, and a lot of subway stations skip platform numbers for this reason (e.g. it goes from 3 to 5 at Wynyard and 23 to 26 at Central). I’m sure it’s common practice globally. Why should San Francisco be different? Except for the fact that our can-do engineering attitude seems to apply only to road projects, that is?