From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:29:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.190817.2161@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.094904.14023@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>I've been told--and do believe-- that BART equipment does not meet the
>FRA "buffing" standards.  That is, BART is not of appropriate construction
>to safely withstand a collision with standard US railroad freight or
>passenger equipment.  I'm quite certain that there is a slim to none
>chance of track-sharing being allowed and/or feasible in the case of BART
>equipment as we know it.

	One thing that _could_ be done: not to allow any other trains
on the track while the BART ones are running. One might physically
block off the track during BART hours, let's say.

>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.

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

>That is true.  CalTrain cars are about 16 feet tall compared to BART's
>10 feet.  For this reason, boring/building a CalTrain-sized tunnel does
>cost somewhat more per unit length.  The only tunneling issue with
>CalTrain is with the proposed downtown extension alternatives.  Lower
>height standard gauge passenger equipment exists and would allow for
>smaller, cheaper tunnels.  There are obviously some trade offs that can
>be made.  The Paris RER runs double deck, overhead wire electrified
>equipment through tunnels, so it isn't unheard of.

	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.

@ |> 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.

>Hey, if you're that anxious to avoid "Russian roulette", you might as well
>stay home.  I'm not willing to pay what it costs to avoid *all* risk, are
>you?

	But one accident will hold up a Hades of a lot of traffic.
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.

@ And if there are a lot of trains running, then traffic will not be able
@ to cross at all.                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>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?

>There's no doubt that some of the busier CalTrain crossings ought to be
>grade separated so the auto traffic doesn't get too backed up.  Motorists
>need to remember that in the time a crossing gate is down, more people
>are allowed to pass by in a train than could ever pass sitting in cars.
>Furthermore, those people are not on the road competing with the motorist
>for lane space.

	That's true, but that doesn't stop _some_ people from racing
the trains. And that doesn't stop breakdowns, either.

	And it is especially bad for trains, because they can't detour
around accidents very easily.

@ 	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.

>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 :-)

@ |> The Tamien CalTrain station cost about $30 million.

@ That's because it was only a parking lot, and not a big parking garage.

>Hmmm, last time I was there there was a pretty nice station too.  It had
>a nice long covered and well lit platform and even some ticket machines
>and an escalator and elevator.  That's about as elaborate (expensive) as
>I'd ever want to see a CalTrain station get, and yet it was only $30
>million.  As I said, I doubt you can get a barebones, no-parking-available
>BART station nowadays for that much!

	Looking at what would go into the "simplest possible" BART
station, with no additional parking, I notice about the same amount of
construction. So that's where my cost estimates come from. A large
part of BART costs are for land; getting rid of the big parking lots
would cut costs considerably. A barebones BART station would still be
the length of 10 BART cars, but its width would not be much more than
that of a typical CalTrain station.

>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.

@ 	Lower limits to costs? Simply 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.

>Aren't they both essentially using freeway rights of way that can
>already accommodate BART extensions?  I suspect there are one or two
>good reasons why these costs are lower than your average BART
>extension.  Loren, perhaps you can tell us why, because I'm not
>familiar with these projects.

	As someone who travels along the Dublin extension's
right-of-way on a regular basis, I can describe the route. It's in the
middle of I-238/I-580 between Hayward and Dublin, and the track will
be at grade. There are, however, several bridges along the route, and
they are currently under construction.

	I once followed the West Pittsburg extension's route. 

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

	And how do you calculate "average", anyway?

@ I suspect that 15-minute headways would only be practical with
@ rolling stock that allows for shorter trains

>Gong.  A two or three car train isn't short enough for ya? 

	Looking at how little off-peak usage of CalTrain there is, I'm
not sure that the CalTrain management can be easily convinced to run
its trains once every 15 minutes; they would figure that the number of
passengers per train will decline by 4 or 8. A counter factor is the
increased ridership due to the convenience of more frequent trains,
however. How much is an interesting question. Smaller trains like the
Philly commuter ones would cut down the operating losses if the
ridership does not start shooting up.

>Loren, you and George N-N are the biggest hand-wringers I've ever
>encountered.  You have so little confidence in railroading technology,
>yet you both seem somewhat like railfan types.  

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

@ 	And I don't see any sign of CalTrain's management having very
@ much vision. Their locos have an awful maintenance record (George
@ Neville-Neil is hoping to get CalTrain maintenance records to send to
@ the appropriate regulatory agencies).

>Good, we need citizen watchdog types to keep the bureaucrats honest.
>I certainly hope there aren't problems, but if there are, I'm glad
>George is going to doing something about them.

@ And consider the crudded-up "windows" of the passenger cars -- that's
@ not what I call good advertising.  It can't be that expensive to
@ replace them all.

>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.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was because the lexan
>option was cheaper. I don't know about
>you, but $864,000 isn't exactly pocket change.  

	It's about 1/30 of CalTrain's annual budget ($30m/yr, if I
remember correctly)

>I agree, the semi-opaque window problem is terrible advertising.  It
>is steadily getting better as more and more windows are replaced, and
>I've heard talk of accelerating the replacement rate...  Maybe if
>they (CalTrain/JPB) get enough complaints they'll cough up the money
>faster.

Newsgroups: ba.transportation