Newhall Yard

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

One topic VTA keeps bringing up, related to BART Phase II, is their need for the Newhall Yard maintenance facility. This is on 42 acres of prime land near the Santa Clara train station, Avaya stadium, Lowes Hardware and has direct access to highway 880.

http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Newhall_fact_sheet.pdf

The Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog has an interesting article about station utilization by the Caltrain and the HSR trains. The basic question can be summed up as, “Why are we wasting space at the stations by storing trains in that location?”

San Jose Done Right

Map of VTA's BART extension

San Jose is the tenth largest city in the U.S. (by population), with more people than San Francisco; the city achieves this statistical feat by encompassing 180 square miles.  Such a large and populous city surely deserves top-notch rail transit.  BART is widely viewed as top-notch rail transit, which is why the city and VTA (Santa Clara County’s transportation authority) have made extending BART through San Jose their very top priority.

He proposes that HSR use the Newhall Yard as the place to store/maintain trains between trips, instead of tying up precious space at Diridon Station.

For a long time, I have been advocating moving the Newhall Yard to a site located near the new Berryessa BART station.  I did some rough Google map calculations. There is a light industrial area below the Berryessa Station — bounded by Maybury / King / Silver Creek / tracks — that appears to be over 100 acres.

It seems to me that land around the Newhall Yard area would be worth a lot more, being near the airport, highways and Caltrain, than the light industrial land near King and Maybury.  It is prime TOD/mixed-use land and would fit in perfectly with VTA’s pending policy on affordable housing in joint developments.

http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/pac_031016_packet.pdf(see item #11)

True, a maintenance facility at Berryessa would not be at the end-of-line. However, I would see it as more accessible to the northern regions, given that the trains going to/from the maintenance yard would not need to go through the tunnel or deal with the congestion at the Diridon Station.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zchYJUmaqUwE.kLi-Amnw2Hpc&usp=sharing

The area around the old rail road tracks — 52 acres – is labeled on my map as the Southern Section. If you look closely at the satellite images, you can still see some of the original tracks.That shows how easy it should be to connect into the new BART system.

Other thoughts;

  • Construction of a Berryessa maintenance facility could be completed and brought online long before the Phase II tunnel construction has even been started.
  • The income from the development and sale of Newhall Yard should be sufficient to help with the buy out of the needed Berryessa property and supplying relocation assistance to the current owners and tenants.
  • Removal of the maintenance facility from the BART Phase II project and applying any excess funds to it, may help ease some of the cost issues remaining on that project.
  • This would place the maintenance facility jobs near a region of the city where a large work force lives, potentially shortening commutes.

 

Now another, possibly more important use for Newhall Yard has been proposed.  Maybe this time, someone at VTA might actually look at the concept.

Comments?

 

PS — I haven’t mentioned this previously here, as BART is outside the discussion of DMU trains.  However, improving Diridon throughput could support future DMU options.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Transbay Blended Tunnel

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  
Blended Systems Concept

In my previous article, I asked if we could unify our rail systems?  Unfortunately, I used the wrong buzz word.  The term that everyone is using today to refer to a unifyed solution is “blended“.

As an example of a blended system concept, let’s look at the current proposal for a second Transbay Tube. [1] [2]  The thing I like the most about the current discussions is that they are not talking about another non-standard solution, using BART’s non-standard gauge and equipment.

“We’re not looking at anything as a stand alone project. It’s a statewide project,” added Ratna Amin. By that she means that High Speed Rail, Caltrain, Amtrak, ACE and all regional rail systems that use standard gauge tracks need to be able to use the new tube. “A new tube—it is either standard gauge or it is both.”[3]

In November 2014 BART presented SPUR with a Vision Update[4].  It included a proposal to reduce congestion along the Richmond line and the I80/580 Corridor using a high-frequency Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) service.  This service would use the existing Capitol Corridor tracks[5].BART Eastshore DMU

Recently, Roland Lebrun placed an addition proposal on the table[6], to extend that DMU solution through the new Transbay tunnel.   He suggests the creation of three new eDMU routes: Martinez to Oakland Coliseum, Oakland Coliseum to Bayshore and Martinez to Bayshore, shown in blue.proposed blended routesThe key factor here is that the final product will not be limited to use by one technology, but will be open to use by any of the competing, standard gauge rail lines.

We must also remember that the cost to build such an extension, according to BART, can be as much as 60% less[7] than an equivalent BART system.

Tunnel Type

The one other thing I would like to mention is the type of tunnel design.  I don’t have a personal bias, but I would like two different designs to be considered.

I suspect everyone is assuming the new tunnel would be a twin-bore design, such as Roland Lebrun used in his proposal.Twin Bore TunnelI would like to see a comparison made between the twin-bore design and the single-bore design that has been proposed by the VTA for the BART San Jose Phase II project.[8]

Single Bore TunnelJust for the record, I would like to see the two styles compared for compatibility, cost and safety.  After all, I have proposed BART Phase II in San Jose be built as a blended system.  It seems to me that both tunnels should share the same architecture.  This would allow those building the second one to learn from the experience of the first team.

Going Forward — 100% Blended Designs

Going forward, all new projects must be designed to support any standard gauge equipment.  We cannot continue to paint ourselves into corners where system and equipment maintenance expenses become the lead factor in budgeting.  The only real decision we need to make is, should the transbay tunnel support single or double-deck EDMUs (EMU/DMU hybrids).  As always, I would suggest support for both options.  We could start with a single deck service and then add double-deck when the demand requires it.  Flexibility is nice and, considering the savings over installing a BART system, affordable.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
  1. [1]SF Examiner: Think tank calls for second BART transbay tube↩
  2. [2]SPUR: Designing the Bay Area’s second Transbay rail crossing↩
  3. [3]StreetBlogSF: SPUR Meeting Pushes Second Transbay Tube↩
  4. [4]BART: Presentation to SPUR: BART Vision Update↩
  5. [5]CCJPA Board: Capitol Corridor 2014 Vision Plan↩
  6. [6]Roland Lebrun: Transbay Blended Tunnel↩
  7. [7]BART: BART unveils new train for upcoming service to Antioch↩
  8. [8]VTA: 6-15-16 Alum Rock CWG Presentation ↩

Can we unify our rail systems?

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by 1

modern streetcar tram train iconEveryone seems to be busy buying new train systems all around the bay area.  However, has anyone thought about unifying these systems by purchasing the same or similar trains?

Atlanta’s Next Fleet of Trains Could Double as Streetcars!

New MTA subway trains: Majority will feature open gangways

How about us?

Phase one could be simply ensuring that standard DMU like systems are able to run on all rail routes. That way we could lay the ground work for synergy between all services. If needed, Caltrain could borrow cars from the SMART train system or eBART to supplement their systems in times of need.

Some places, such as the streets of San Francisco, are not candidates for inclusion.   But others, such as the light rail system in Santa Clara County, would be easy to convert.  Again, increasing flexibility, supportability and maintainability.

Look at the maintenance costs for BART’s non-standard solution.  BART has admitted that the 10-mile eBART extension to Antioch is 60% less expensive than conventional BART.   Too bad we can’t phase out BART and replace it with a more standard, open gangway solution.

ACE: Fremont - San_Jose

Is Anyone Talking About This?

Is there anyone willing to talk openly about this heresy?

  • What would happen to the BART to San Jose project if we could reduce the cost by 60% by substituting eBART trains for the last ten mile stretch through the tunnels under San Jose?
  • What if ACE used vehicles compatible with the VTA light rail system, such that they could use the stretch along 237 to Mountain View?  Daily runs from Pleasanton to Mountain View might be useful.
  • Using that same link, Caltrain units could connect to the BART station in Milpitas, closing the rail loop around the bay.
  • Extend the Santa Clara light rail all the way up the center of Highway 85, from Santa Teresa to either the Caltrain line or the Mountain View line, and south to join the main rail line to Morgan Hill and Gilroy.

I suspect there are other places where this would work.  However, the first stage is simply talking about it and looking at alternatives.  Is there anyone looking at anything like this?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

1st Annual Transportation Forum

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

Mobility and transportation are two of the biggest issues facing our Valley (housing being the other…but we all know transportation and land use are directly connected). The goal of this 1st Annual Transportation Forum is to educate, hear from experts in the industry, and brainstorm about where we need to be focused, if we are going to be successful long term. car traffic

Please join City of San Jose District 1 Council Member Chappie Jones, California State Senator Jim Beall, and their panel to discuss transportation policy and infrastructure plans at the regional, state, and local level.

Saturday, August 20th, 2016
9:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Archbishop Mitty High School
Cafeteria
5000 Mitty Way
San Jose, CA 95129

To be discussed:
  • What transportation policies and infrastructures are being planned at the state, regional and local level for our area?
  • What can the people of District 1, District 6 & surrounding areas do to address current and future transportation issues?
  • What can be done to reduce traffic congestion, increase public transit ridership, reduce air pollution and improve safety and accessibility?

 

The panel:

Moderated by Jonathan Noble, Director of Government Relations at Microsoft
Chris Lepe, Transform
Ezra Rapport, ABAG
Laura Tolkoff, SPUR
Matt Sawchuck, Uber
Mr. Roadshow, San Jose Mercury News
San Jose Department of Transportation (DOT)
San Jose Planning Department
Shiloh Ballard, Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
VTA

There will also be a presentation on “Leveraging Technology to Improve Civic Engagement” by the founders of Owlized.

The purpose:
  1. provide education on key transportation/mobility issues
  2. bring together regional agencies, elected officials, and residents from different Districts & Cities
  3. focus forum discussions on developing long range solutions, not short term “band-aides”

 

Please RSVP for the Transportation Forum at: eventbrite.com.

Want the moderator to ask your question(s)?
Please submit them in advance to: Christina.Pressman@sanjoseca.gov
For general questions contact: Christina.Pressman@sanjoseca.gov or call (408) 535-4901

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

The Streetcar Scandal

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

The movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit? has always been one of my favorites.  One of the key aspect of the story line is a conspiracy to tear down the Red Car Line and replace it with “eight lanes of shimmering cement”.  As many of us suspected, there really was a conspiracy to get rid of the streetcar systems.

Pacific Electric 1001
The Guardian has an excellent article: Los Angeles and the ‘great American streetcar scandal’ that clearly describes what really happened.

Between 1938 and 1950, one company purchased and took over the transit systems of more than 25 American cities. Their name, National City Lines, sounded innocuous enough, but the list of their investors included General Motors, the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and other companies who stood to benefit much more from a future running on gasoline and rubber than on electricity and rails. National City Lines acquired the Los Angeles Railway in 1945, and within 20 years diesel buses – or indeed private automobiles – would carry all the yellow cars’ former passengers. Does that strike you as a coincidence?

However, government over-regulation also played a part.

All across America, writes Ladd, streetcar transit “had been expected to pay for itself, but after ridership ceased to grow in the 1920s, the private franchises that operated most transit systems were unable to make money under the regulations imposed on them by local governments.”

We need to pay attention to both aspects.  Today, we still have large corporations lobbying for benefits for automobile owners, billions of dollars for highway and the over-regulation of mass transit systems.  We need to clear the air, in more ways that one, and bring back real, efficient and healthy mass transit.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Railroad Safety Community Meeting

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

Union Pacific CrossingPlease join representatives from the Union Pacific Railroad to discuss safety along the railroad tracks in your neighborhood.

When:   Monday May 2, 2016 – 6 to 7pm
Where:  JTS Northside Community Center
466 N. 6th Street
San Jose, CA 95112

For more information, please contact David Tran at 408-535-4932 or at david.tran@sanjoseca.gov.
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

SMART Trains Roll

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

Smart-sign-533-400On April 22nd, the local NBC station presented a nice report on the status of the new SMART DMU system that is in its testing phase, running trains between Santa Rosa and San Rafael, with operations scheduled to start near the end of this year.

SMART Trains to Roll From Santa Rosa to San Rafael.

It looks like they have their work cut out for them from a safety perspective. There hasn’t been a train there since the fifties and it appears that the local drivers don’t know how to deal with the new “traffic hazard”.

“as the train approached, cars nudged past the safety lines and some even stopped perilously on the tracks as the train slowly approached.”

Here in San Jose, we are working on “rail to trail” conversions.  It appears the SMART system may be dealing with transitioning from “trail to rail”.  According to a comment in the video, there are many who are used to using the rail road tracks as a trail.  They need to learn to NOT walk on it.

The merchants at Railroad Square, which as I noted hasn’t had a Railroad since the fifties, is really looking forward to the line opening. They’ve even relocated the Sunday market to the square to take advantage of the new opportunities it will create.

For more information check out the Sonoma – Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART)  website.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Apple / Airport Station

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

We have added a new Apple/Airport Station to the route.  It has the potential to become one of the most iconic stations in the Sprinter network and will act as a visible gateway to the capital of Silicon Valley from the air and from Highway 101. The north side of the station will provide a high speed connection to the future Apple campus in north San Jose while the south side will have an Automated People Mover (APM) connection to the airport long term parking lot and the terminals.

This station is modeled after London’s Blackfriars bridge station.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Bombardier Battery Range

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  

csm_6205_XL_0e95c1a6e9

Rail technology leader Bombardier Transportation has successfully completed a 25.8 mile catenary-free test run using a Bombardier-built tram, powered entirely by its PRIMOVE battery in combination with BOMBARDIER MITRAC.  The test run was conducted in the German city of Mannheim on the Rhein-Neckar-Verkehr GmbH (RNV) network.

This opens up many of our heaviest traveled routes to support using Light Train systems, without the expense of overhead wiring or the use of diesel engines to charge the batteries.

For example, there would be no need for electrification to use Light Trains to connect 87 to 17 via the 85 corridor with zero co2 emissions.  We could then use the savings for express lanes.

Track-Pedestals-02Track-Pedestals-01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See:

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

TEX-Rail Stadler

Silicon Valley VTA Sprinter Posted on by  
Fort Worth authority signs deal for TEX Rail cars

TEX Rail StadlerOfficials working on the proposed TEX Rail commuter train project have gone from being a laughingstock to ordering rolling stock.

TEX Rail is scheduled to serve 10 stations, including two stops in downtown Fort Worth, stations in Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Grapevine and a terminus at DFW Airport’s Terminal B.  The projected average daily ridership is more than10,000 in its initial year of service.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail