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.
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 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?
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"
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWould the bridge be over channels that Navy vessels use to access the Pacific Ocean?
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?
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?
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!!
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
Smart move from a marketing and boosting ridership perspective both.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.