 |
Re: Dumbarton History/Dumbarton Options... Alternatives Analysis
Author: HUTCH 7.62
Date: 12-21-2018 - 13:15
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard somewhere, or read somewhere that
> when Harriman built this, in 1910, as a DT
> connection to the East Bay, that he had intended
> that all long distance trains would then come
> directly, over Altamont, and into the "City" via
> the newly rebuilt Peninsula line. This would
> replace the Oakland mole. It would be interesting
> to think of what the SP would have looked like,
> today, had Harriman lived another ten years????
>
> So, given that purported history, and the obvious
> travel demand today in that I-580 corridor, Spock
> would not call the option, of saving taxpayers $20
> billion over Pacheco, by the use of the
> Dumbarton/Altamont routing, "illogical".
>
> A Dumbarton/Altamont routing option also serves
> the very real and significant rail passenger
> demand that would be generated for express and
> local services in the north SJ/SR 99 corridor
> cities into and out of the Bay Area, which we see
> everyday on the I-580 and SR 120 corridors....
>
>
> Proper Alternatives Analysis for a "Plan B"
> Dumbarton/Altamont HSR/IC passenger rail "system"
> connection, would look at all potential crossing
> options, including a tube and/or bored tunnel, in
> any proper screening process, if I was in charge
> of it.
>
> I agree that tunnel boring technology is a very
> viable and cost effective option in some cases (I
> was significantly involved in the cost benefit and
> feasibility work that developed the 710 tunnel
> option). But, a new connection would be needed,
> either a bridge with sufficient ship clearance, or
> a tunnel for any modern rail passenger connection.
> Restoring this, in it current state, is
> problematic, and of very limited use, except for
> very limited service options.
Sad that SP never used this route to it’s fullest, Maybe someone can provide more insite as to why.
Even if one was to save the current structure. The steel spans would have to be barged out at high tide. All the 1910 concrete is decaying and made of substandard concrete in todays world, and would have to be replaced.
As much as I wish the current structure to be saved. A new structure with a lift bridge or Bascule bridge would be more efficient.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard somewhere, or read somewhere that
> when Harriman built this, in 1910, as a DT
> connection to the East Bay, that he had intended
> that all long distance trains would then come
> directly, over Altamont, and into the "City" via
> the newly rebuilt Peninsula line. This would
> replace the Oakland mole. It would be interesting
> to think of what the SP would have looked like,
> today, had Harriman lived another ten years????
>
> So, given that purported history, and the obvious
> travel demand today in that I-580 corridor, Spock
> would not call the option, of saving taxpayers $20
> billion over Pacheco, by the use of the
> Dumbarton/Altamont routing, "illogical".
>
> A Dumbarton/Altamont routing option also serves
> the very real and significant rail passenger
> demand that would be generated for express and
> local services in the north SJ/SR 99 corridor
> cities into and out of the Bay Area, which we see
> everyday on the I-580 and SR 120 corridors....
>
>
> Proper Alternatives Analysis for a "Plan B"
> Dumbarton/Altamont HSR/IC passenger rail "system"
> connection, would look at all potential crossing
> options, including a tube and/or bored tunnel, in
> any proper screening process, if I was in charge
> of it.
>
> I agree that tunnel boring technology is a very
> viable and cost effective option in some cases (I
> was significantly involved in the cost benefit and
> feasibility work that developed the 710 tunnel
> option). But, a new connection would be needed,
> either a bridge with sufficient ship clearance, or
> a tunnel for any modern rail passenger connection.
> Restoring this, in it current state, is
> problematic, and of very limited use, except for
> very limited service options.
Sad that SP never used this route to it’s fullest, Maybe someone can provide more insite as to why.
Even if one was to save the current structure. The steel spans would have to be barged out at high tide. All the 1910 concrete is decaying and made of substandard concrete in todays world, and would have to be replaced.
As much as I wish the current structure to be saved. A new structure with a lift bridge or Bascule bridge would be more efficient.
