25 comments

1. I would love to get updates on this issue.

2. There is a major flaw in priorities and lack of engineering imagination. The people who did the study said the Dumbarton Corridor on land is 3 feet too narrow to have two directions each of rain and busway right-of-way, and still have room for bicycle and pedestrian paths, so they deleted the bicycle and pedestrian paths entirely!
   I guess they never heard of ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way.’ They certainly did not apply any engineering inventiveness to the problem! Or even any pressure to bend the conventions for right-of-way width.
   We should ask them what the widths are, and for easy access to the detailed citations and court and other interpretations of the regulations, and for the chain of command and who in it has the power to waive the brittleness of this decision.
   Consider how wide the elevated sections of BART are. They are able to get equipment in to trains that break down on those sections, so there is no excuse based on access. Besides, a solid barrier between a narrowed rail right-of-way and a busway right-of-way, and / or between the busway and the pedestrian and bicycle and pedestrian paths, could have sections that can be opened up to allow access for equipment if truly necessary.
   Another alternative is to dispense with busways, and use bidirectional elevated monorails, originally designed for San Diego, which afford close headways and very high passenger volumes. They can be built above a freeway barrier strip, as on Highway 101, so we could have both north-south and east-west connections. Since they are elevated, they need no more right-of-way than the support columns. They can be very inexpensive, with advanced structural design and materials. The tooling for the vehicles is sitting in a warehouse in Los Angeles; a 30-foot car holds 30 people, and with running gear, seats, windows and everything else needed, weighs only 10,000 pounds. A quarter-scale working model was built, and it would cost less to build today than it would have then (in constant dollars). It can also jump-start two new industries in the Bay Area, in advanced structures and vehicles.
   The study’s leaders should answer all the questions, and agree to publish a plan for getting any truly necessary waivers of regulations, in order to get the change in society (turning away from the exclusive prioritization of conventional motor vehicles) that we want.

3. The second sentence should read “two directions each of train and busway right-of-way,” instead of ‘rain’.

4. Congratulations on scheduling the East PA meeting on the same day and at the same time as the Caltrain CAC.
   Way to go SamTrans!!!

5. The balkanized landscape of Bay Area rail transit makes a riddle out of this orphan line’s future, and probably contributed to the project’s abandonment nearly a decade ago. Who wants to run trains on it?

   I’d imagine Samtrans is imagining something that operates in both directions all day (double track and designed to bring employees from Caltrain AND East Bay to EPA). That sounds more like Caltrain than ACE, but I could imagine ACE wanting better Silicon Valley access, maybe even to San Francisco, but I don’t see them running enough trains for their needs to be a priority. It would be a shame to raise all of Caltrain’s platforms, build an incompatible Dumbarton line, and force transfers at RWC. Is there even enough room for a transfer terminal there? Also, are we sure we won’t eventually need a four-track line from SF to SJ?

   I lean toward building the Dumbarton Line to be compatible with Caltrain/HSR’s 50” platforms, but what makes most sense? Retain additional low-level platforms on the Peninsula to allow future ACE & CC interlining to SJ & SF? Find room for a transfer terminal and have ACE trains turn back at RWC, while precluding Caltrain service to the East Bay?

   I’m a big fan of single seat trips, and I wish there was an easy way to have the line served by everyone, but if the Caltrain line is going to be off-limits for low and slow ACE & CC trains, then I’d say the forced transfer should be pushed further out to Centerville and Union City. Eventually, Caltrain and HSR-compatible EMUs could expand into an integrated regional network that could include whatever ACE and CC evolve into.

   • Thanks for the detail!
     I requested additional time to speak at the San Mateo meeting, during the discussion of the letter of support for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Bridge. I wish to introduce and discuss alternative design concepts, and structural and vehicle technologies, which can restore bicycle and pedestrian paths which the study committee eliminated from the design brief. I also wish to suggest simpler alternatives, such as an approach to design that should result in getting a waiver to the asserted right-of-way width requirements for rail and busways.
     The reason is that the study committee claims that the 120-foot Dumbarton Corridor right-of-way is 3 feet too narrow to have two-way rail and bus, and still have bicycle and pedestrian paths, and therefore discarded the bicycle and pedestrian amenity entirely.
     This looks too much like a social identity preference, rather than service to the active transportation community and its needs and desires, and to the transportation policy goals of the state, region, county and city.
     In addition, as part of a battery technology start-up company, I see a need for additional bicycle right-of-way designated and designed for higher speeds of electric bicycles and trained athlete riders. A successful bicycle shop owner told me recently that he currently sells only one or two percent electric bicycles, but in Europe it is 50%! That’s a large opportunity.
     Reaching that degree of penetration is an appropriate goal, at least among bicyclists commuting fairly long distances. Bicycle guideways, especially ones that are elevated and do not require stops at intersections, can be a ‘strong attractor’ for such use. With solar panels overhead providing power for transit, and shelter from rain and hot sun, they can be even more attractive. I propose an elevated bicycle guideway above the train, and either above or out to the side of an elevated bidirectional monorail guideway (also above the train) on the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, and there is no real reason why that could not be continued in the Dumbarton Corridor on land, at least where it crosses roadways. The cost would be quite low, compared to conventional construction costs for elevated bikeways.
     [$60 million for 4 bridges is conventional construction costs — absurd; the Bosch Captive Column would be far less. We could probably do the whole length, and the bidirectional monorail guideway as well for that cost. It’s a manufactured structure. We might spend half the money on soil engineering and designing spot foundations for stability of the upright columns.]

6. 1) Whatever is left of the rail trestle should be good enough for the first transbay bike trail.

   2) There is $130M in RM3 for the ACE/CC/BART station @Shinn (who needs Union City???)

   3) The Peninsula transfers will occur in RWJ (not RWC): http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A038-00057/3/A038-00057_Aerial_View_of_Ebbsfleet_International_Station_opened_on_29_Jan_2008_The_aerial_view_shows_some_of_t.jpg

   4) RWJ->Shinn video: https://youtu.be/-IB1ZXFZjmg. Elon will be done building this approximately 10 years before SamTrans completes environmental clearance of the Transbay bike trail in 1): http://hawthorne-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=470 (FFW 07:50).

   • To do a proper job of rehabilitating the pilings and beams of the rail bridge for any use (e.g. bike trail only) would cost almost as much as to rebuild it with the capacity to carry 2 lines of passenger rail, a bi-directional monorail, and bicycle and pedestrian ‘trails’. The technology exists to do it all for less money than to do only passenger rail with conventional construction methods. We should do it all.

   • As a side note, there is already a bike path over the Dumbarton road bridge, and none of the discussion, including by bike advocacy organizations, is about adding a bike path over a restored rail bridge. That conversation is focusing on the land right of way.

   • Hello alevin,
     There should be discussion of that. Electric bicycles are showing up that have 50 mile range and can go 30 mph or more. That is a viable commuting machine, across the Dunbarton bridge and up the land corridor. Someone who owns bicycle shops in Mountain View and San Mateo told me that he sells just 1 or 2 electric bicycles in every one hundred, but in Europe it’s 50%! At the San Jose roundtable on protected bikeways, I saw a huge online index of pictures of similar work going on nationwide. This is an idea whose time has come — especially since my company can double the performance-to-weight ratio (including range), at a lower cost than manufacturers pay for lithium batteries. We are trying to be in volume production within 18 to 24 months.
     With the Bosch Captive Column, we can build bikeways at a fraction of the cost of conventional steel or concrete construction.
     Regards,
     Mark

   • I should have phrased that “elevated bikeways” — and they can function as bridges over cross-streets for a small fraction of $15 million per intersection, which is the estimate the study used ($60 million for 4).
     Also, regarding “there is already a bike path over the Dumbarton road bridge, and none of the discussion, including by bike advocacy organizations, is about adding a bike path over a restored rail bridge. That conversation is focusing on the land right of way,” at the bike group meeting someone said going up the rise on a bicycle is like climbing a mountain. That might be fine for an electric bike rider with a strong battery and regenerative braking, but a level track, close to the water, would be far nicer and, for some people, far less frightening. I think if I had the time to go on foot, the climb would be rewarded by the fantastic view, but I wouldn’t relish that climb on a bicycle with knees that were injured long ago. So even though the bike coalition apparently did not think of it, it’s still worth considering, and it’s technically feasible with advanced structural designs and materials.

7. Good luck getting the environmental clearance!!!!
   Oh and BTW could you remind me again of the maximum speed through a couple of swing bridges?

   • EIR for the rail bridge should be relatively easy, because it’s an existing use, the work can be done without dumping chemicals into the bay, and the vehicles can be electrified and run off solar power from overhead, so zero emissions.
     Good question re speed over the swing bridges, but it should not be a major hindrance, because it is near shore, which is probably already a speed transition, and with bi-directional monorail, the best choice for flexible volume passenger capacity at low cost, the strings can be short — they’re a form of modular powered unit — so there would not be much delay from slowing down to 5 to 15 mph while on the swing bridges.

8. Did you watch The Boring RWJ->Shinn video: https://youtu.be/-IB1ZXFZjmg including the bit around the 2:30 mark?

9. @R Ruiz

   With regards to “Caltrain/HSR’s 50” platforms”, this February 7th letter from the Peer Review Group to the Legislature may add sanity to the conversation:

   “We have recommended in past letters that the Authority consider adopting bi-Ievel trains from the outset because the loading platform level would be consistent with the lower level used by Caltrain and Metrolink (and ACE if there are joint operations in future). In our discussions, the Authority indicated that they will consider inputs from the new system operator (discussed below). We recommend that this issue be addressed carefully before HSRA commits itself to a rolling stock fleet design.”
   http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/PRG-letter-of-7-Feb-2017-Reduced.pdf (page 3)

10. 1) The ROW in the east bay is 150 feet wide (plenty of room for a service road serving as a bike/ped trail).
    2) “Immersed tube and bridge options at the same location are rejected on environmental and legal grounds.” https://www.tunneltalk.com/UK-28Jan2016-TBM-preferred-for-Lower-Thames-highway-crossing.php.
    So, now that this is settled, what are the plans for the derelict old rail bridge?

11. “At about 3 a.m. on September 22, 1993, an Amtrak train hit a dislodged track on a swing bridge over the Big Bayou Canot near Mobile, Alabama, at 70 miles per hour and derailed. The derailment caused the bridge to collapse and the lead locomotive to crash into a mud bank and explode. The locomotive crash caused a fuel spill, which sparked a massive fire, while several other cars ended up in the water.”
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/83037-the-deadliest-amtrak-crash-in-history-left-nearly-50-people-dead-in-alabama-more-than-20

12. “The 140M [pounds sterling] Thames Tunnels project carries the CTRL beneath the river Thames. It was awarded to a JV between Hochtief and J Murphy on the 19 January 2001 and comprises twin 2.5km long 7.15m i.d. bored tunnels and approaches on both sides of the Thames. Each approach comprises 300m long cut and cover structures followed by 150m of retained cut. On the south side, there is an additional 300m open cut section constructed through chalk.”
    https://business.highbeam.com/4544/article-1G1-109664555/c320tunnelling-under-thames-contract-320-thames-tunnels

13. Documentary: https://youtu.be/1JkQ7eU4n28?t=1477

14. @Alevin,
    According to section 3.2 (Right-of-Way Fencing) on page 3-27 of the Caltrain Engineering Standards http://www.caltrain.com/assets/_engineering/engineering-standards-2/criteria/CHAPTER3.pdf, “The fencing outside of the station area shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the nearest track center (more on curved tracks)”.
    On this basis, the minimum distance between fences is:
    – 15 + (2 x 10) = 35 feet for two tracks
    – (3 x 15) + (2 x 10) = 65 feet for four tracks

15. Hello alevin, regarding “On this basis, the minimum distance between fences is: – 15 + (2 x 10) = 35 feet for two tracks.”
    OK, let’s see what we can do with the math. 120-35 = 85 feet. Two busways at 12 feet wide each = 24 feet. 85 – 24 = 61 feet. Add 1 foot for 3 fences at 4 inches each = 60 feet.
    120-65 = 55 feet, – a foot for fencing = 54 feet; – 24 feet for busways = 30 feet, – a foot for more fencing = 29 feet, which is AMPLE for both electrical / high-speed AND average speed bikeways plus pedestrian.
    Don’t they think we can do basic arithmetic? Or did they do what I did the first time I started to do these numbers, and add where I was supposed to subtract?
    Next, assuming someone wants to claim they need yet more right-of-way for something, we can stack the bicycle and pedestrian trails, as we might on the rail bridge, in order to ‘grade separate’ the trains from the vulnerable people. And if someone wants to resist event that, we can also dig below grade and recess the bike trails, under an at-grade or somewhat above-grade pedestrian trail.
    Given the costs that would be offset by allowing those who want to to ride bicycles from Fremont to Redwood city or points between, and the ego-value that many Facebook and other high-tech employees might place on doing that 3 or more days a week, and the very low cost of building with the structural geometries and materials we propose, this would not be too expensive.
    If there is continued resistance from consultant or staff, I’d bet that there is a hidden, emotional / identity objection — they don’t like the lifestyle of active transportation. Someone should loan them an electric bike — it shares something with the Tesla grin.
    Or, anywhere they need 4 tracks, let them pay for more land at that location only.

16. Sorry, that last line is an alternative to stacking the bicycle and pedestrian trails.

17. Given that both ACE and Capitol Corridor connects at Fremont/Centerville, would like to see whether it is really too costly for the near term to start from Fremont/Centerville rather than Newark, because that would make connection from those trains much easier.

18. @Lala: You ask about whether initial transbay Dumbarton rail service could initially reach beyond the end of the SamTrans-owned right of way in Newark and go 3 miles further along Union Pacific-owned and controlled tracks to the ACE/Capitol Corridor station in the Centerville district of Fremont.

    Of course, it would be technically possible to do so, however it would require Union Pacific permission. They are *notoriously* difficult (if not hostile) to passenger rail, and will almost certainly demand significant track and signal improvements.

    That’s not to say it shouldn’t be pursued … just wanted to highlight that issue.

19. Thanks @Adrian for the explanation.

Comments are closed.