From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:06:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.222952.19310@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.190817.2161@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >Supposing a shared track scheme were to be used, the right of way would
|> >still require complete fencing due to the lethal ground-level third rail.
|> >All crossings would have to be grade separated immediately, whether they
|> >really justify it or not from a traffic standpoint.  
|> 
|> 	Sounds like rather desperate penny-pinching. If there is to be
|> TGV-speed intercity service along the Peninsula route, then _all_ the
|> grade crossings will have to go. And that means no 15-minute-headway
|> locals, whether CalTrain or BART, on the route.

The high-speed project's cost estimate includes money for grade-separating.
If, and when, that project goes forward, whatever crossings remain at that
time will either be separated or eliminated.  The high-speed project study
suggests they would add at least one high-speed-trains-only track down the
peninsula.  Of course, the ultimate details are TBD... as always.


[regarding CalTrain tunnels]
|> 	I agree that this would not be a problem with appropriate
|> rolling stock, but that means that the current rolling stock will have
|> to go, or else be restricted to open-country duty.

Or, they make a tunnel to fit full-height railroad cars, like on the
Paris RER, or like the already-existing CalTrain tunnels 1, 2, 3 and 4.


|> When is there the most traffic on the roads? At commute time. When is
|> there the most traffic on the rails? At commute time. One accident,
|> and you get a Tartarus of a lot of pissed-off commuters.

Oh, you mean like on 101 the other day?  Hey, no doubt about it: fully
grade-separated is nicer/better, but it isn't a *requirement* with
CalTrain-type equipment like it is with BART. 


[on traffic not being able to cross at all with frequent train service]
|> >Bullshit.  I'd consider a train every 10 minutes lots of trains.  So for
|> >most crossings, they'd be blocked for 30 to 45 seconds twice every ten
|> >minutes.  Compare that to how much an ordinary busy intersection is
|> >blocked by a red traffic light.  Gee, I guess traffic will be able to 
|> >cross after all.
|> 
|> 	10 minutes -- off-peak. What about peak times?

Reread what I wrote.  I didn't say anything about off-peak.  I meant
10-minute headways during peak--which is higher frequency than the
BART Fremont-SF line runs.  CalTrain off-peak would probably be fine
at 20-minute frequencies, as far as I'm concerned.


|> >Yes, the SF-LA high-speed train study is talking about at least one
|> >extra track down the peninsula.  The assumption/expectation is 100mph
|> >max speed between SF and SJ.  As part of that project, all crossings
|> >would be either eliminated or grade separated.  (Yes, some crossings
|> >really aren't needed, and it may make more sense to eliminate them
|> >entirely.)
|> 
|> 	Just like what BART would probably need :-)

Yes, and the high-speed project would be an independent and separately
funded project.  It's construction would not take funds from, or delay,
any CalTrain projects in the way that BART would.  Its an important
difference you don't seem to recognize.


|> >SP and now Amtrak have run trains on the Peninsula using the essentially
|> >the current station configuration for over 120 years.  Sure, if train
|> >frequencies go up dramatically, some changes might be in order, but it's
|> >nothing to get all trembly and scared about.
|> 
|> So you concede that a lot of over- and underpasses would have to be built.

No.  The Sunnyvale station was recently converted from "inside" boarding,
to "outside" boarding.  Passengers still cross tracks at-grade at two
"official" crossing points.  These will have crossing protection.  Another
example of this is the Chynoweth light rail station in San Jose.  It's
a simpler, low-cost way to do things.  If people want to fling themselves
in front of trains, there's not much that can be done about that--even
on BART.


|> Overrun potential? So far, the Dublin extension has been running _under_
|> budget.

I read an interesting article in the SF Chron some time ago about how due
to the economic slump, construction firms and contractors are quite hungry.
Frequently nowadays, bids for all kinds of construction work are coming in
much lower than expected/projected.  I'm glad BART (the public) is saving
money; we might be able to apply it toward BART to SFO cost-overruns.



|> 	Looking at how little off-peak usage of CalTrain there is, I'm

I don't ride them much, but when I do, the midday CalTrains look pretty
full to me.  That's what those who ride them frequently tell me too.


|> Adrian, you seem happy to create BART II without quite realizing what
|> it would involve.

Why don't you spell it out for me Loren, and tell me what it would involve?

Electrification, frequency, downtown extension, and continuation of an
ongoing program of grade separations on an as-needed and on an as-funds
are available basis.  Remeber that SFO's people mover is planned to
connect the airport with CalTrain around 1996/97 as part of a massive
airport expansion plan.

Then spell out for me what getting BART down the peninsula to San Jose
would involve.  Talk about funding and cut-over procedures.  Tell me how
you're going to get BART from Menlo Park into Palo Alto when Santa Clara
County isn't interested in BART.  Oh, and don't forget construction and
funding timeframes.  Oh, and don't forget that with every passing day
more and more city councils, business leaders and chambers of commerce
in San Mateo County are rejecting BART south of the airport.

I'm just all confused, Loren, won't you please help me?


|> >The problem is that CalTrans ordered the cars with lexan instead of
|> >heavy-duty glazed railroad window glass.  They say it was because of
|> >rock-throwing.
|> 
|> 	In that case, use the same kind of glass used on car
|> windshields, a glass-plastic laminate that doesn't spread glass shards.

The difference is that with lexan, you get a scratch/gouge and the rock
stays outside, and with windshield glass you get a spider web of cracks
and the rock *may* come inside--oh, and it's "new window time" with glass.  

That said, I still prefer glass panes... and an upgraded CalTrain over
BART down the Peninsula.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation