SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[Busy Bee]

There isn't sufficient "catchment" nor population density to justify an I-280 extension alignment. Best just to use bus transit to feed into an extension along the Caltrain r.o.w. — or if money was absolutely no object and we could bore a subway in this country for less than a trillion dollars — under El Camino Real.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

There isn't sufficient "catchment" nor population density to justify an I-280 extension alignment. Best just to use bus transit to feed into an extension along the Caltrain r.o.w. — or if money was absolutely no object and we could bore a subway in this country for less than a trillion dollars — under El Camino Real.

Cost is of no concern for me , but if that's the case eBART can reduce it, or blue could be deleted to help push forward a BART loop.
What y'all think about the coastal alignment?

[homebucket]

CEQA Approval For San Francisco Transbay Downtown Rail Extension



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON OCTOBER 27, 2023

The California Transportation Commission has approved the CEQA environmental review of the 2.2-mile extension of The Portal, San Francisco’s Downtown Rail Extension. The Portal will connect the city’s existing 4th Street Train Station to the Salesforce Transit Center. Once complete, the connection will accommodate Caltrain and future high-speed rail.

The notice of determination for the extension has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that a mitigation measures and reporting plan were adopted to minimize its impact. The report was sent from the California Transportation Commission to the State’s Office of Planning and Research.

The Portal will include a new underground station at Fourth and Townsend. A tunnel will connect with the Transbay Transit Center underground station, which opened in 2018. the Transbay Joint Powers Authority writes that “the already built two-level trainbox will serve as the Lower Concourse, and Train Platform levels when The Portal is complete.”

San Francisco is one of three cities with HSR stops in the Bay Area. HSR, which will transverse around 422 miles from Downtown Los Angeles, will stop at Millbrae’s BART-Caltrain connection hub and San Jose’s Diridon Station.

Earlier this year, the public learned about a newly projected $6.7 billion price tag for the 1.3-mile underground connection from the current station to Downtown. Completion is expected as early as 2032. However, the Bay Area has seen its fair share of infrastructure projects with ballooning price tags, missed deadlines, and reduced scale. Most recently, in Santa Clara County, the six-mile BART extension has seen its initial $4.7 billion expansion that would open in 2026 be slowly pushed back a full decade, now projected to open in 2036 at a cost of roughly $12.2 billion.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/10/ceqa-app...extension.html

[homebucket]

And the renderings:







https://sfyimby.com/2023/10/ceqa-app...extension.html

[deanstirrat]

I know the Transbay Authority is responsible for funding/construction of this. Have they even started lobbying the state/DC for the money?

[TWAK]

"Future rail crossing" is another tube in addition to the possible BART one?

[Busy Bee]

I still think a 7th and Mission routing would have been the better approach but they seemed hellbent on not seriously exploring it. It would have relegated 4th/King to primary just being a Caltrain yard, or having it be a minor scheduled terminal station as well as alleviate Transbay during peak, especially when CHSR comes online. It seems that would have been a better plan, but what do I know? I do know they better have track grease machines at Transbay because that hairpin turn is going to be deafening.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by TWAK

"Future rail crossing" is another tube in addition to the possible BART one?

Remember a stacked (2 over 2 or 4 abreast) BART and Caltrain (or less likely shared) tube is one of the options being explored.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Remember a stacked (2 over 2 or 4 abreast) BART and Caltrain (or less likely shared) tube is one of the options being explored.

I wonder if a 2 over 4 or 4 over 2 or 6 abreast option could be considered, as a CAHSR, BART, and Caltrain combined tube into Oakland.

Although I guess a HSR station in Oakland isn't as crucial, since one could just get off at Diridon in SJ and transfer onto BART and take that up to Oakland via the Orange and Green lines.

On the flip side, it could lay the groundwork for a future SF-Oakland-Davis-Sacramento HSR line, going up along Interstate 80. Basically an express Capitol Corridor, but allowing for a one seat ride from SF-Sac.

[mattropolis]

Interesting that the image of the platform with people on it shows a mix of high and low platforms, but the cross section rendering shows only high platforms.

For flexibility it would be better if CalTrain could have the same high platform height as CAHSR. Isn't that why the new EMU's were ordered with dual height doors?

[Busy Bee]

The thinking with a 4 trackway tube (so 4 individual tubes in a single "immersed tube" structure) has always been 2 tubes for BART and 2 tubes for Caltrain through running to Oakland as well as a possibility of HSR running through to Oakland (*). I don't see a shared Caltrain and BART tube ever being agreed to even if they might give it lip service. Even the use of gauntlet track does nothing to avoid the operational conflicts and capacity limits bound to happen. And when you consider that a 2 tube option has most of the the "sunk" costs of a dedicated 4 tube option, there is little benefit to saving a few bucks upfront with longterm headaches with a 2 tube option.


* and who knows maybe someday a connection back to north/south HSR via Tracy which would allow SF loop service through running... so HSR could enter the East Bay north of Modesto and thus not every SF bound train would need to use the Peninsula shared tracks which would reduce congestion significantly and make robust Caltrain service operate for efficiently. Also a SF bound train could enter via SJ & Peninsula and exit via East Bay. It would also save SF-Sacramento quite a bit of time by eliminating running down the entire Peninsula, SJ and through the Chowchilla wye.

[homebucket]

^ Ah yes, that's right. There would be no need for a 6 tube Second Transbay Tube since HSR can share tracks with Caltrain, so 4 should be sufficient.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Interesting that the image of the platform with people on it shows a mix of high and low platforms, but the cross section rendering shows only high platforms.

For flexibility it would be better if CalTrain could have the same high platform height as CAHSR. Isn't that why the new EMU's were ordered with dual height doors?

Yes, I believe that is still the plan. Not sure why one rendering shows a mix of high and low platforms, but I think in the end, the Transbay Terminal station should feature all high platform heights.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yes, I believe that is still the plan. Not sure why one rendering shows a mix of high and low platforms, but I think in the end, the Transbay Terminal station should feature all high platform heights.

It will. I have know idea who's idea it was to depict seperate platform heights like that but that will never happen. For one, to ensure maximum station capacity, Caltrain trains need the option to alight on HSR platforms and vice versa even if most of the time each have normal dedicated platforms. Having Caltrain platforms be lower means HSR trains obviously could not alight on them. Simply put that's absolutely no way to build a railroad. Not to mention the obvious question of why the KISS EMUs were painstakingly engineered and futureproofed for high platforms.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I wonder if a 2 over 4 or 4 over 2 or 6 abreast option could be considered, as a CAHSR, BART, and Caltrain combined tube into Oakland.

Although I guess a HSR station in Oakland isn't as crucial, since one could just get off at Diridon in SJ and transfer onto BART and take that up to Oakland via the Orange and Green lines.

On the flip side, it could lay the groundwork for a future SF-Oakland-Davis-Sacramento HSR line, going up along Interstate 80. Basically an express Capitol Corridor, but allowing for a one seat ride from SF-Sac.

What does this mean? Is that like the number of tracks?
HSR can share with electrified Caltrain, BART has its own tracks, and then there's MUNI...would that need its own track as well? Cap Corridor for sure should be electrified, or do you mean full on HSR (which I'm cool with too lol)?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by TWAK

What does this mean? Is that like the number of tracks?
HSR can share with electrified Caltrain, BART has its own tracks, and then there's MUNI...would that need its own track as well? Cap Corridor for sure should be electrified, or do you mean full on HSR (which I'm cool with too lol)?

I corrected myself above. No need for a 6 track plan since as you mentioned HSR can share with Caltrain. I don't think Muni needs to extend to Oakland as it's more of a SF localized light rail/metro service.

As for future extension of HSR in the East Bay and connections up to Sacramento, a more direct route would be preferred I think, than having to go down to Gilroy, then under Pacheco Pass, then up through Merced. That's a very circuitous route. My thinking is it could run alongside or share tracks with Capitol Corridor (after its electrified), which would basically serve as a faster/express alternative to Capitol Corridor. If the demand suits, we could be talking about a one seat, nonstop ride from SF to Sacramento.

[TowerDude]

They've gotta take that "Salesforce" name off of that complex. These "naming rights" things need to die.

[ardecila]

Given realistic costs, I think a 2-track mainline tunnel under the Bay is probably the most likely outcome, with no BART.

A BART trackway is proposed both to relieve the current Transbay tunnel, and to provide future capacity for a new BART branch down Geary to the Sunset. But if the 2nd Transbay is only mainline rail, potentially the Geary branch could be built as a Caltrain line, or the peninsula Caltrain service could be extended to Oakland to relieve BART in a different way. The Santa Clara BART extension and Dumbarton rail would also relieve the Transbay BART tube, by allowing redundant routes from the East Bay towns into SF.

[Nouvellecosse]

Wasn't there originally tracks on the Bay Bridge? Seems like the most logical option would be to run BART on that as its second crossing. It would slightly reduce the number of road vehicles entering the city (a good thing) while substantially increasing the total bridge capacity (excellent thing). So it would be a win-win.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

They've gotta take that "Salesforce" name off of that complex. These "naming rights" things need to die.

Preach brother. I understand why they do it and it does generate a little bit of revenue, but it feels degrading and whorish to me. Sports stadiums are one thing, public infrastructure and facilities are another. Mostly indifferent at this point abput the former - seriously grossed out by the latter.

Transbay Forever.