Southeast SF Caltrain stations - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Can someone please turn on closed captioning?
Roland do you know where that setting is?
Are these slides posted on the city’s site?
Is CalTrain looking at level boarding as a part of this?
Have you considered inclinators as well as elevators?
Level boarding would help everyone.
Level boarding is in Caltrain’s plans separate from these projects.
Will be interested to hear what you’re hearing so far from neighborhood residents and why
Please note that every station needs passing tracks to allow up to 30 trains/hour. This precludes center-board platforms. Please also not that it is impossible to have level-boarding platforms without passing tracks for freight and high-speed traffic.
What’s going on with the Quint-Jerrold connector road? The Quint Street bridge has been closed for some 5 years now and that promised road has still not been built.
Caltrain is intended to serve longer-haul commuters and travelers and I'm concerned that adding a bunch of stations in these areas will slow down travel times for most people coming from the south bay. What ridership is anticipated, and where are the ridership studies posted? Also the downtown extension isn't even built yet, shouldn't that be a priority to get done over adding more stations?
IINM Oakdale/Palou offer several Muni routes, and proximity to CCSF.
I would imagine these stations would be skipped by most trains in the peak direction, just as 22nd Street is only served by reverse-peak Baby Bullets today.
Exactly. Especially in future scenarios with expanded service.
A good complement to Margaret’s question is about sequence, are these being considered for a later phase after the 1st phase of DTX
Caltrain platforms are 700 or 1,400-feet long. 1,000-foot platforms are not viable from an operations point of view.
@Bruce: Correct: this is why every station needs passing tracks.
Why is Bayshore missing from the study?
Looks like we've had an "accelerated plan for level boarding" since 2015, but it hasn't progressed in the last six years.
While passing tracks are undoubtedly nice and desirable, non-stopping trains can and do pass adjacent to level boarding platforms all over the world. So not a hard requirement.
Does it makes sense to spend large amounts of money on underground stations at Mariposa or 22nd, or even build surface stations at Cesar Chavez or Evans, when the station locations will be blighted by the 280 freeway?
For Williams - hasn't the freight spur on Carroll been permanently closed? Could you confirm that the freight spur still an issue?
So it sounds like the Bayview station may move towards implementation in advance of DTX? Also do we have some idea of timeline for the near-term 22nd St improvements?
Following up on Jon’s question, it feels like a large planning error to spend $2+ billion on PAX and new stations without considering tearing down 280. A lot of the issues mentioned - clearance with freeway columns, blight around the stations caused by the freeway - would be alleviated with a 280 removal. Why isn’t this being considered?
I understand that PAX is a separate project but it seems that removing the freeway would allow a much simpler design by enabling the tracks to be trenched under 16th St and Mission Bay Dr. This would of course change the context of this study. Given the above, would it not make sense to study the possible removal of 280 before moving forward with PAX or SE stations study?
I didn't quite follow, could the Oakdale station replace the Bayview one since there seems to be community preference for Oakdale location?
I think the question is about Bayshore?
@Adrian Brandt. It is impossible for a freight train to go through a track adjacent to a level-boarding platform. Every station between SFTC and Bayshore needs passing tracks for the additional 18 LINK21 trains.
yes I meant Bayshore
Would ridership studies for these new stations take into account the planned Bayshore multimodal expansion in connection with the Schlage Lock development?
Bayshore cannot be replaced due to *major* Brisbane development plans on the long vacant Bayshore rail yard property.
i.e. Muni T Third connection to Bayshore station and future Geneva Ave bus rapid transit
Bayshore needs 1,400-foot platforms and two additional tracks (total 6) to turn the LINK21 trains around.
What is the earliest date that any of these stations or extensions could be in service?
@Bruce: Correct, this is one of the many reasons why Bayshore needs to shift 1/4 mile south into San Mateo and 1,400-foot platforms to intersect with the Geneva extension.
do you have a link to the slides? i didnt get a chance to join until now
Clarence, they said they’d send me the slides
Without grade-limiting freight traffic, the whole 16th and Mission Bay Blvd grade sep could be built much cheaper using steeper grades than allowed currently by Caltrain’s freight-driven conservative maximum grade limits … steeper grades would still easily be negotiable by Caltrain & HSR EMUs. This would save billions as the existing tunnels and 22nd St. station site could still be used.
Since the Van Ness BRT EIR took 17 years, it sounds like these could take easily 20-30 years.
@Adrian, it is impossible to drive passing tracks under a freeway.
The slides will be shared by some combination of FoC and Streets for People
Anna's answer about timeline and funding for the PAX is the reason why the current way we approach megaprojects is non longer acceptable.
Do we learn much in our community surveys if the usage patterns will be very different in 20-30 years when service begins?
HSR definitely allow 3% grades
I designed the PAX 10 years ago. The grade is 2%. HSR have a 3% variance for the DTX.
I don't understand the freight grade concern: There is no freight north of the Quint Street lead track which is located two miles south of the PAX portal.
Thank you, Adina, I appreciate all your efforts!
@Roland, exactly. No freight grade concerns should apply!