Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘transit’ Category

Following up on yesterday’s posting on the VTA single-bore proposal, I thought it is useful to share BART’s opinions on the idea. Several of their staff testified at a VTA Board meeting in September (the relevant video section is embedded below).

Needless to say, the BART senior staff were not amused with the proposal. They have decades of experience with underground heavy metro, whereas VTA has no never done such a project. You can sense their exasperation as they go over the blunders in the VTA design. It is not encouraging that VTA Board members asked so many dumb questions.

Their entire testimony is worth watching, but the flaws that really stand out were the following:

  1. The single-bore design carries $440 million to $1.8 billion of additional risk.  There several reasons for this, but the main culprit is market risk. Very few firms are qualified to do such a design, whereas there are many local firms qualified to bid on a conventional twin-bore project. Another risk is that the VTA single-bore design has not progressed beyond the “cocktail-napkin” engineering stage.
  2. The deep bore stations as spec’ed out by VTA do not conform with California fire code. It is unclear how to work around that constraint. VTA tried to hand-wave around the issue by claiming the standard twin-core stations are also non-compliant (BART staff vehemently disagreed).
  3. The stacked platforms are too narrow to handle large “event” crowds that are to be expected, such as a concert or Sharks game.

It is clear that if the VTA were to go ahead with their design, it will take longer to complete, have higher cost, and result in a tunnel with serious safety, access, and operational problems. And for what — to shave some months off a road closure!? Geez, what a train-wreck this is turning into.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

One bore or two?

Answer: two bores

For the past year, the VTA has been selling the idea of doing its BART tunnel in a single bore instead of twin bores. BART staff has been very opposed. If you don’t know what this all means, here is a diagram to show the difference:

bores

The twin bore on the right is the usual BART configuration. The single bore on the left is what VTA is proposing to build.

The VTA describes the single-bore concept as a new and revolutionary approach to reduce costs and construction impacts. In fact, the idea has been around forever, and is really only useful in situations of limited ROW or for other technical issues. The single-bore design has a number of downsides, which are obvious just by studying the above diagram.

The first problem is that platforms are deeper underground. Passengers would have to descend several additional levels to reach the trains. The station would also have fewer entry points on the surface. This layout would be especially bad if it were used at Diridon station and the CHSRA persists in building its HSR tracks on an aerial. Transferring from BART to HSR would entail a trip from 85′ underground to some 60-80′ up in the air. If you enjoyed playing Chutes-and-Ladders as a kid that might be fun, but not so enjoyable for people with luggage or wheelchairs.

quote2The second problem with the single-bore is that the stacked design does not allow for track crossovers. Crossovers give BART the operational flexibility to move around a disabled train. The stacked design eliminates a planned crossover near the downtown station.

The single bore station also brings higher operational costs. Running all those additional elevators and escalators to the lower depths adds $1.5 million in annual costs. The VTA staff report concedes that the construction costs are comparable for single vs. twin bore. Thus taking into account the higher operational expenses, the single bore has higher life-cycle cost.

So why even consider the single bore design? It has higher cost, worse passenger access, and operational problems. Well, there is the reduced construction impact, right? The VTA says the single-bore requires less cut-cover construction. But the VTA has been greatly exaggerating that benefit. The single-bore design would ideally reduce street closure time by all of 10 months. And those closures would occur in 2-block chunks. Inconvenient for drivers perhaps, but hardly a good reason for screwing up a major rail infrastructure project.

Further reading: http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/bod_092217_wrksp_packet.pdf.

deepbore

 

Read Full Post »

SMART’s modern 21st century railcars

It is a clean-sheet railcar design, and yet it never occurred to the designers that passengers might want to move between cars? *Facepalm*

While the standard pairs allow passengers to travel directly between each car, riders on the three-car trains cannot leave the extra car until the train is stopped. The third car has a restroom but no snack bar, since the cars are designed to include only one of those.

“Anybody that wants to buy a cup of coffee and is in that car that doesn’t allow them to walk all the way through is going to have to leave the car at one station and race over to the other one,” said Steve Birdlebough of the group Friends of SMART. “It’s kind of a nuisance.”

Read Full Post »

Caltrain had a celebratory groundbreaking for its new South San Francisco station:

Years of planning and coordinating culminated with a few public acknowledgments lasting just a little longer than the time Caltrain doors stay open during a stop at the South San Francisco station. But following state, regional and city officials digging their ceremonial shovels into loose dirt during a groundbreaking, Monday, Nov. 6, construction on the new South City station is now on track.

According to the project plans, the existing station will be replaced with a new center boarding platform leading to a pedestrian underpass connecting travelers to downtown South San Francisco, at Grand Avenue and Poletti Drive. The improvements will also make the station fully compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards.

In fact, the station will not be ADA compliant. The “new” station continues Caltrain practice of building low platforms that do not provide level-platform boarding. Wheelchair users, and others with mobility issues, will have to use a wayside lift.

FRA regulations require level platform boarding at newly built stations. It is curious that the FRA rejected plans for new stations at places such as Roanoke and Milwaukee due to platform interface issues, but apparently signed off on this deficient design at SSF.

Level platform boarding benefits not just wheelchair users but all train passengers. Trains get seriously delayed when conductors must hoist wheelchair riders onto trains. Level boarding also speeds up loading of bicycles, rolling suitcases, etc. Level boarding is a key part of the Caltrain Modernization Project. Caltrain even ordered specially built trains with doors at two levels for this purpose, the but SSF platforms won’t line up with either of the door levels.

caltrain steps

 

Read Full Post »

Capitol Corridor Money Pit

Caltrans has put out a draft version of its statewide rail plan. At first glance, it looks brilliant. They use ideas borrowed from the Swiss, such as pulse scheduling and integrated ticketing. Perhaps someday even 125mph electrified trains running on frequent schedules.

But dig deeper into the actual projects in the 20-year pipeline and it is disappointing. They will mostly throw money at existing Amtrak corridors that have to share track with freight. It is a huge waste of money — for example:

phase2

So after spending $324 million, we get a whopping 2 additional round-trips added to the schedule — in a corridor that will soon have faster and cheaper BART service.

Read Full Post »

Nippon Sharyo loses railcar contract

As reported earlier, Nippon Sharyo has been struggling to complete the contract for new FRA-compliant bi-level trains for California. The project was becoming a fiasco, years late and in danger of being canceled altogether.

To salvage the project, it appears that Caltrans is now going with Plan B; i.e. purchase single-level railcars from Siemens instead:

The Midwest bi-level passenger railcar procurement (Contract No. 75A0362) of 130 bi-level passenger railcars is led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in joint agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), which represents the Midwest Coalition.

In order to satisfy its obligations under the Contract, Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA), proposed to (1) substitute Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens) in place of Nippon Sharyo as SCOA’s prime subcontractor and railcar manufacturer, pursuant to Section SP7.2 of the Contract and (2) manufacture 130 single-level railcars in place of 130 bi-level railcars.

Caltrans/IDOT are reviewing SCOA’s proposal. By moving from bi-level to single level railcars, Caltrans/IDOT will reduce the delivery frame for the railcars from approximately 24-34 months for a single level railcar as opposed to 5 years for a bi-level railcar. In order to proceed, Caltrans/IDOT and SCOA will execute an amendment to the Contract which will accommodate the substitution of Siemens as the manufacturer of 130 single level railcars.

One complication is that the Siemens single-level cars are not low-floor vehicles, and California Amtrak routes have just 8″ platforms. So passengers will have to climb stairs to board, which can be difficult for those with limited mobility, heavy luggage, or bicycles.

 

Read Full Post »

BART has kicked-off its transit-village project at Walnut Creek. And as usual, it has a huge amount of parking. Might as well call it a parking-oriented village:

The first preliminary work begins Saturday in the “south permit lot,” where the new 900-stall BART parking garage will be built. It will stand next to the existing multilevel garage, which will remain in service. Ron Heckmann, a spokesman for the project, said the new structure will more than compensate for the loss of the south and north permit lots and the permit lot east of the station to residential and retail development, the net gain being about 100 stalls.

The new garage building is expected to open in late 2018, said Arthur, adding he hopes all the 596 apartments and ground-floor retail spaces will be finished in about five years. Parking for apartment residents and retail patrons will be provided in underground garages below those future buildings.

775 underground parking garage spaces will be built (at great expense) for the 596 apartments — in addition to the 900-stall parking garage.

wc_garage

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »