SAN FRANCISCO — Bay Area Rapid Transit and Amtrak are joining forces to study the possibility of a second San Francisco Bay rail crossing, creating the possibility of one-seat Amtrak rides between Sacramento and downtown San Francisco. The San ...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/02/07-bart-amtrak-exploring-possible-joint-transbay-crossing
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Smart move from a marketing and boosting ridership perspective both.
Brian Schmidt the possibility of one-seat Amtrak rides between Sacramento and downtown San Francisco.
I have a hard time accepting that a national carrier should subsidize BARTs new bridge, when the sole benefit to the national carrier is to serve their Sacremento-San Franciso business.
And $50 miilion just for a feasibility study to evaluate a business model promising only 750,000 trips per year? Where do I sign up to get on the bidding list? LOL
This has got to be a smoke screen for a way to get more federal dollars just to build a new trans bay crossing.
Why not just extend BART to Sacremento?
Convicted OneI have a hard time accepting that a national carrier should subsidize BARTs new bridge, when the sole benefit to the national carrier is to serve their Sacremento-San Franciso business. And $50 miilion just for a feasibility study to evaluate a business model promising only 750,000 trips per year? Where do I sign up to get on the bidding list? LOL
Actually, it goes far beyond just evaluating a business model. I believe this feasibility study looks at engineering aspects as well. The $50 million which I read is being paid for entirely by a recent BART bond issue, Amtrak is only asking for a seat at the table and indicating it is interested. The $50 million is going in include some engineering tests to see which option is better and thats probably going to involve drilling for core samples at the projected tunnel site.
It's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone so $50 million is not a lot compared to total project costs. Also, another prospective partner would be the California HSR system so that is a third partner to split the costs. If they include additional freeway or road capacity......fourth partner.
CMStPnPIt's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone
I guess that my sarcasm was a bit too subtle?
Amtrak: Sacramento to San Fran 750,000 trips per year
Even if all the proceeds from those trips was funneled dirctly toward ammortizing Amtrak's share of the cost of the bridge/tunnel, how long will it be to reach breakeven? Would the useful lifespan of the structure be sufficiently long to reach breakeven?
So this is not a feasible project....Thankyou very much I'll take my $50 million now
My point really is that this is a public works project, let California pay for it, they deserve it.
Would the useful lifespan of the structure be sufficiently long to reach breakeven?
The article specifies that BART and Amtrak would each have one track dedicated to their operations, so preliminarily that would suggest a 50-50 split on cost.
$5 billion each.
Now If Amtraks ridership forecast is 750K patrons/year, and just pulling a fare of $100 per trip out of thin air, that's going to be an annual revnue stream of $75 million.
How many years would it take to break even on an investment of $5 billion (that's 5 thousand million) with a payback of $75 million per year....forget about the cost of money just to keep it simple.
I really don't think it makes sense. I was joking in my first post when I proposed extending BART to Sacremento, but I actually believe now that it would make more sense .
It's going to be hard to measure the Economic impact to be sure the more players there are but I think with BART, Amtrak and HSR all using the structure the improvement in quality of life of them all terminating in SFO vs Oakland is probably worth the $10 Billion. If they add more roadway access, even more so. I would favor a bridge over a tunnel though as it is probably less expensive than the $10 billion quoted.
Also, I think extending BART to Sacremento would wear out those subway cars a whole lot faster than now with adding that kind of mileage. Sacremento is still a 2 hour trip from SFO........isn't it? Also, thought the top speed of BART was only 70-80 mph tops so it would not be the most efficient means to travel that distance.
CMStPnPAlso, I think extending BART to Sacremento would wear out those subway cars a whole lot faster than now with adding that kind of mileage
I think that two round trips per day could satisfy need, plus think of all the grass roots support they would get from the communities served in between.
I'm not here to fight, so I'll just leave it at that. But I do think this entire consideration is just a ruse by BART trying to find a way to spread their costs over a wider base.
It'll be interesting to see how an Amtrak that believes that serving decent food is an unaffordable extravagance, will justify spending $5 billion to serve 750,000 trips per year
Sacremento to San Fran is a short corridor anyway, isn't it? Let the state support that even if Amtrak is involved!!
CMStPnP I would favor a bridge over a tunnel though as it is probably less expensive than the $10 billion quoted.
Just for discussion, where would you build such a bridge? Equadistant from the Bay bridge and San Mateo bridge? Perhaps an extension of the 238? Somewhere else?
Convicted One CMStPnP I would favor a bridge over a tunnel though as it is probably less expensive than the $10 billion quoted. Just for discussion, where would you build such a bridge? Equadistant from the Bay bridge and San Mateo bridge? Perhaps an extension of the 238? Somewhere else?
Would the bridge be over channels that Navy vessels use to access the Pacific Ocean?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWould the bridge be over channels that Navy vessels use to access the Pacific Ocean?
Good question! it's been ages since I lived there. I think most of the bases have been closed now, particularly south of the Bay Bridge. Might be a coast guard station down there. Might be something significant still left up above the Carquinez straight, but I'd be surprised if they bridged the bay from that direction.
I remember walking across the Golden Gate though, and seeing submarines passing directly below.....makes me wonder if all that netting they are putting in is really geared toward "public safety"
Convicted One BaltACD Would the bridge be over channels that Navy vessels use to access the Pacific Ocean? Good question! it's been ages since I lived there. I think most of the bases have been closed now, particularly south of the Bay Bridge. Might be a coast guard station down there. Might be something significant still left up above the Carquinez straight, but I'd be surprised if they bridged the bay from that direction. I remember walking across the Golden Gate though, and seeing submarines passing directly below.....makes me wonder if all that netting they are putting in is really geared toward "public safety"
BaltACD Would the bridge be over channels that Navy vessels use to access the Pacific Ocean?
The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel in the Norfolk area has it's tunnels because the US Navy did not want the fleet to be captive in base account of a bridge being downed blocking the exit to the Atlantic Ocean.
BaltACD bridge being downed blocking the exit
Makes good sense.
Since your earlier post I've done some research, and yeah, other than a couple coast guard stations and the ordnance depot North of Concord, theres not much left around San Francisco. Just a few scattered air bases and that's about it.
Convicted OneJust for discussion, where would you build such a bridge? Equadistant from the Bay bridge and San Mateo bridge? Perhaps an extension of the 238? Somewhere else?
I have no clue, have to see what they propose after they do the feasibility study.
Convicted OneIt'll be interesting to see how an Amtrak that believes that serving decent food is an unaffordable extravagance, will justify spending $5 billion to serve 750,000 trips per year
Your kidding right? When has California charged Amtrak full cost for anything? Why do you think the equipment says "Amtrak California" on it? Amtrak paid for very, very little in California. California foots the bill and uses the Amtrak brand and Amtrak crews. California will foot the bill. Amtrak might get charged maybe a few million or token amount. Hence why I indicated it's a good move on Amtraks part in the first post. California will of course be Amtrak's Sugar Daddy on the project as in the past. So of course I am for it, California taxpayers foot almost the entire bill......why not? Complete net benefit for Amtrak and the Amtrak brand at minimal cost.
CMStPnPhave to see what they propose
Well, it could be quite a chore corraling railroad, transit, and highway onto one bridge, complete with safe approaches on both sides of the bay for all. Quite a bit of dirt is going to have to be repurposed. You might get away with calling it "urban renewal" on the east side of the bay, but on the west side I'd expect significant opposition.
Well. Let me consider:
You could get off at Emeryville and catch an Uber over the Bay Bridge. Or you could stay on the train, take longer and pay more.
Gee. It's a tough decision.
Thank God someone built a super cool new bridge to give us all such an option.
Ed
CMStPnPAlso, another prospective partner would be the California HSR system so that is a third partner to split the costs.
You might want to review your sources on that. Even if the California HSR connection to San Francisco is eventually built, it is slated to be built up through Gilroy, San Jose, Milbrae, and into San Francisco from the south side.
Not really comptible with a direct route to Sacramento
Convicted One CMStPnP It's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone I guess that my sarcasm was a bit too subtle? Amtrak: Sacramento to San Fran 750,000 trips per year Even if all the proceeds from those trips was funneled dirctly toward ammortizing Amtrak's share of the cost of the bridge/tunnel, how long will it be to reach breakeven? Would the useful lifespan of the structure be sufficiently long to reach breakeven? So this is not a feasible project....Thankyou very much I'll take my $50 million now My point really is that this is a public works project, let California pay for it, they deserve it.
CMStPnP It's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR$10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Well,.... at least we agree about that.
The obvious question is how many more passengers would travel by AMTRAK to SFO since they would not transfer to BART. Persons who would need to go to other locations not in the SFO downtown could still change to BART. That also the small percentage of passengers who would no longer need to drive!
Hard question to answer is "what is the potential number of new Amtrak passengers"?
blue streak 1 Persons who would need to go to other locations not in the SFO downtown could still change to BART.
Never really thought about it that way, but you are absolutely right. Passengers destined to other locations throughout the peninsula (destinations other than the central business district) would be highly unlikely to pay Amtrak even an additional $10 to cross the bay, if they are going to have to board BART anyway to conclude their journey.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRYou do realize that 750,000 a year that currently ride Amtrak between Sacramento and San Francisco is a miniscule amount compared to the number of people that drive between the two cities don't you? I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Nice math but completely irrelevant to the article....
Read the attached article again, this time, don't read like a railfan, read like your interested in the articles content. Don't read with what you think the authors conclusions should be, read what the author wrote in print.
BART wants the crossing built, BART is paying for the study, extra participants which if you read carefully is expected to be way more than Amtrak and it's 750,000 riders. I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. I let that go figuring that poster had an eyesight issue. Where has any cost of this study been assessed to Amtrak in the article? It hasn't.
So tell me again, why is this a terrible idea that Amtrak raised it's hand and expressed an interest in the project? An act that has incurred the company very little if any expense beyond possibly a few phone calls? So far all positive PR for Amtrak.
If Amtrak ceases to exist, likely the project will still go ahead if BART finds it feasible.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Re: 150K vehicles, etc:
A lot of that traffic passes through Sacramento going east.
Most of that traffic passes into the Bay Area but does not stop in San Francisco.
A lot of that traffic is commercial vehicles.
A lot of that traffic is people who want to/need to bring their car with them, even to Sacramento.
So using the term "just" might better be replaced with "must".
It might be interesting if one could interview the current drivers and ask if they could/would take a train (Sacramento to San Francisco) instead of driving--not in theory, but for the very trip they are taking during the interview.
CMStPnP I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. I let that go figuring that poster had an eyesight issue
AHEM!!! 2:49 pm February 10
CMStPnPIt's going to be hard to measure the Economic impact to be sure the more players there are but I think with BART, Amtrak and HSR all using the structure the improvement in quality of life of them all terminating in SFO vs Oakland is probably worth the $10 Billion.
Eyesight?
Convicted OneEyesight?
.......And he does it yet again...
Now read the last two sentences in the above linked article....it is really sad I have to step you through this....
"The new connection might also be able to accommodate California’s high speed rail project, and could make possible direct rail connections to Caltrain locations between San Francisco and San Jose."
What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR, And I was just responding to that claim by pointing to the post where you clearly did say that. (By asserting that it's inclusion along with the others would justify the $10billion expenditure) The word "and" is inclusive.
Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote, but you clearly did write it .
Convicted One What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR,
What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR,
And the part you quoted above says.......
I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. "
Meaning I sourced it from the article. So your reading for what you want to appear on a page and responding to that. Next time read the original article then the comments responding to it and the responses to the article will make more sense to you and be in context. Otherwise your just half assed posting. The first post you quoted was responding to assertions you were making which made it clear you missed parts of the original article or did not read the original article carefully.
CMStPnP Otherwise you're just half assed posting.
Not worth starting a fight over, I'll just have to remember that you have a convenient memory.
There seems to be an important element missing from the discussion, referencing the multiple users of the track by BART and AMTRAK. No idea as to the gauge that California is/was building their HSR lines at.
Amtrak, is of course on the National gauge of 4'8.5".
BART uses a track gauge of 5'6" . see linked site @
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/question/why-does-bart-use-wider-non-standard-guage-rails
So it seems that multiple use of the tracks is a moot point. Such a use would require a far more expensive set of track work options?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.