From: editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ba.politics
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Summary: let's critique more poorly thought out ideas
Keywords: bart caltrain cost bull
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:14:34 GMT
Followup-To: ba.transportation
Distribution: ba
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

In article <1992Oct9.094904.14023@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>             .... It is certainly possible to build a BART line down
>the Peninsula with little extra cost for land -- by having the BART and
>CalTrain rails _share_ their ties. ....
> ....  BART's rails would be on the outside of CalTrain's rails. 5'6"
>as opposed to 4'8.5" would allow a separation of 5" between rail
>centers, which should not be too difficult to accommodate. I
>understand that some Australian rail lines have a similar system of
>accommodating different-gauge rolling stock.

This idea has been brought up before, and (I thought) pretty
well shot down.  Some major points:
  - No way BART cars will meet FRA buffing standards (i.e.,
    stand up to impact with a stalled dump truck)
  - BART cars, the current CalTrain cars, and CalTrain's
    future California Cars all require different sorts of
    platforms and clearances (i.e., CalTrain could not use
    the tracks while BART is being built, and probably not
    afterward, either). 

And, not quite show-stoppers, but good reasons to
reconsider:
  - BART cars are wider than standard cars, would require
    some new bridges, overpasses, etc.
  - BART's electric third rail would require complete grade
    separation immediately, rather than mostly-complete
    incrementally upgraded over time.
  - Five inches between rail centers isn't that much
    (remember, rails are over two inches wide -- you're
    gonna attach rail-suitable bolts and God knows what all
    else inside a space less than 3 inches across?).
  - Imagine the impact of a second pair of rails on the
    hundreds (?) of rail switches on the existing line (and
    of the existing line on the new BART switches).  What do
    you suppose it'd cost to replace every switch on the
    line with expensive custom-made dual-gauge switches?

And no doubt many more -- those just leap to mind.

>	BART stations built without big parking lots and/or garages
>would be relatively cheap, since land is the main cost of BART's
>extensions.
....

In article <1992Oct7.191940.5896@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|The Tamien CalTrain station cost about $30 million.
>	That's because it was only a parking lot, and not a big
>parking garage.

Can you support these assertions?  I have a difficult time
believing that the $100 million difference between Colma and
Tamien is all (or even half) parking.

|                                The more standard and flexible nature of
|CalTrain technology will allow for cheaper solutions over BART in almost
|any category.

>	But BART can go through smaller tunnels than CalTrain's
>rolling stock can, even if it is electrified.

So?  The CalTrain line already has many tunnels optimized
for standard rail cars -- as many as it's likely to need --
and discussion here has indicated that BART tunnel
construction estimates are much higher than similar standard
rail estimates (brought up, I believe, as part of the
discussion of a proposed second transbay rail tube).  Tunnel
size is almost surely an insignificant factor.

|             Every crossing need not be grade separated, for example.
|Take a look at how many cars cross at Oak Knoll in Menlo Park.  Not
|very many, huh?  The gates are only down for about 30 seconds per train.  
|Now if BART comes down, it will *require* complete grade separation--
|whether it makes sense from a traffic standpoint or not.

>	That would be a good idea, anyway. No point playing Russian
>roulette. And if there are a lot of trains running, then traffic will
>not be able to cross at all.

A train every minute?  Only in my wildest dreams.

|                                                           Also, the
|existing standard gauge tracks must stay for freight and future inter-
|city train access, so BART will be in *addition* to the existing tracks.  

>	Adding BART rails to the existing ties would be a _very_
>low-budget way of getting BART tracks in.

Not.  In this situation, it would complicate matters to no end.

>	And think of what an upgraded CalTrain or shared-track BART
>would do to the schedule of an LA-SF train. It would have to do 45 mph
>when it could do 125 mph (say). 1 hour instead of 20 minutes. That
>sounds like a big embarrassment. That's actually a good argument _for_
>having extra tracks, since there could be BART doing local service,
>and a superfast CalTrain or LA-SF train doing express service.

Are you proposing that this be made to work with your
bargain-basement two-tracks-in-one-right-of-way trick?  What
happens when the 125 mph intercity catches up with the 45
mph local?  It either slows down or squashes it like a bug.

>	Example: Some of the Philly commuter lines run along old Penn
>Central mainlines, which now have lots of Amtrak and Conrail traffic.
>They have _four_ tracks, two for the locals (Philly commuter trains)
>and two for the expresses (Amtrak and Conrail).

I'm all in favor of a four-track peninsula ROW -- but there
goes your bargain-basement idea.  Once you've got all four
tracks there's no reason to have dual-gauge tracks, 'cause a
four-track express/local system would run circles around
anything BART or CalTrain can provide today.  Let's talk in
terms of what we can do now, all right?

||> >* BART costs on the order of $100 to $200 million per mile to extend
||> 	Only in heavily urbanized areas.
|Right, like the peninsula.
>	Much of which looks very suburban, and some of which looks (I
>repeat, _looks_) almost rural.

>                                .... consider the costs of the
>extensions to Dublin and West Pittsburg -- $40 m/mi and $65 m/mi,
>though they only have two stations each.

Looks can be deceiving.  Peninsula real estate is not cheap,
particularly not compared to Pittsburg and Dublin -- and
some of those affluent Peninsula communities have a real
strong NIMBY reflex, which complicates big constructions
projects of all kinds.

|So being conservative, the 75-mile CalTrain system can be electrified
|for well under $200 million.  This equals the cost of about one or two
|miles of BART extension.

>	But it would be just like the existing CalTrain, but with
>electric locos. I'm not sure if that's much of an improvement. I
>suspect that 15-minute headways would only be practical with rolling
>stock that allows for shorter trains, like the Philly commuter-train
>MU cars.

Please, no more knee-jerk "suspicions" -- no matter what you
suspect, a 15-minute train interval places trains at least 6
or 7 miles apart, even with today's diesel engines.  Yeah,
that extra couple hundred feet is just gonna eat up the
track-miles -- run 'em every 5 minutes and they'll be ten
feet apart the whole way....

Sheesh.  I don't mind disagreement, but face facts.

E.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
editor@Wet.COM                {netcomsv,well,ucsfcca,hoptoad}!wet!editor
	 Why settle for the lesser evil?  Cthulu for President!
-------------------------Caution:  I Steal .sigs------------------------
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2447 ba.politics:5931