<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Federal Transit Administration Unveils Capital Projects Recommended for Major Financing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted King</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27261</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27261</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Alon, I hadn&#039;t spotted that. I need to track down the platform lengths for the Forest Hills and West Portal stations to get a baseline for comparison.

The existing #30-Stockton is heavily patronized. The mis-labeling of the Union Square Stn. may reduce the ridership until word gets around about the block-long tunnel to the periphery of the Powell Street Stn.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Central Subway Overview&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/images/unionsquare.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geary - O&#039;Farrell Annex Stn. near Union Square&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Alon, I hadn&#8217;t spotted that. I need to track down the platform lengths for the Forest Hills and West Portal stations to get a baseline for comparison.</p>
<p>The existing #30-Stockton is heavily patronized. The mis-labeling of the Union Square Stn. may reduce the ridership until word gets around about the block-long tunnel to the periphery of the Powell Street Stn.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm" rel="nofollow">Central Subway Overview</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/images/unionsquare.gif" rel="nofollow">Geary &#8211; O&#8217;Farrell Annex Stn. near Union Square</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted King</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27259</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27259</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the link to Zurich&#039;s Through-Line. I used the Swiss Alpine tunnel as a worst case baseline. They can do half a klick to a klick per MONTH. Why is the CS&#039;s tunnel of two to three klicks going to take a YEAR or more ?

The documentation that I&#039;ve found on the web is paltry and underwhelming. I&#039;m afraid that the Central Subway may turn out to be San Francisco&#039;s version of New York&#039;s Second Ave. Subway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the link to Zurich&#8217;s Through-Line. I used the Swiss Alpine tunnel as a worst case baseline. They can do half a klick to a klick per MONTH. Why is the CS&#8217;s tunnel of two to three klicks going to take a YEAR or more ?</p>
<p>The documentation that I&#8217;ve found on the web is paltry and underwhelming. I&#8217;m afraid that the Central Subway may turn out to be San Francisco&#8217;s version of New York&#8217;s Second Ave. Subway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave J</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27247</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27247</guid>
		<description>The Gold Line in Denver, is not LRT as you have in your table, but EMU, same as the East Line that will go to DIA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Gold Line in Denver, is not LRT as you have in your table, but EMU, same as the East Line that will go to DIA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Byrne</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27192</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Byrne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27192</guid>
		<description>jfruh,

It appears that Maryland did not have an application in for 2010 New Starts funding for either the Red or Purple lines. MTA has been disappointingly cagey about the entire thing, save for putting up all those &quot;Red Line goes here&quot; or whatever signs. 

-m</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>jfruh,</p>
<p>It appears that Maryland did not have an application in for 2010 New Starts funding for either the Red or Purple lines. MTA has been disappointingly cagey about the entire thing, save for putting up all those &#8220;Red Line goes here&#8221; or whatever signs. </p>
<p>-m</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27189</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27189</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d add a fifth problem to the Central Subway: its stations are only built to accommodate existing Muni vehicles, which are limited in length; this restricts capacity if the line ever gets well-patronized.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d add a fifth problem to the Central Subway: its stations are only built to accommodate existing Muni vehicles, which are limited in length; this restricts capacity if the line ever gets well-patronized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max Wyss</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27187</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Wyss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27187</guid>
		<description>@Ted King: Comparing a subway construction with a very long alpine tunnel might be a little bit off. Considering that the Gotthard base tunnel will be 57 km long, and consist of more than 150 km of excavation length, to some extent in very difficult geological environment, and very deep under the surface, this project can not really be compared.

If you would look at Swiss construction sites which are more comparable to a subway, you might look at the new crosstown line in Zürich (Durchmesserlinie, http://infra.sbb.ch/durchmesserlinie (site in German language), which includes a 5 km long tunnel, with some very difficult sections under the Limmat river, a new 4-track station, and a more than 1 km long access viaduct. The whole 11 km long project has an overall construction time of 9 years, and costs CHF 2bn (which is approximately USD 2bn), of which the Canton of Zürich pays one third, and two thirds are federal funds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ted King: Comparing a subway construction with a very long alpine tunnel might be a little bit off. Considering that the Gotthard base tunnel will be 57 km long, and consist of more than 150 km of excavation length, to some extent in very difficult geological environment, and very deep under the surface, this project can not really be compared.</p>
<p>If you would look at Swiss construction sites which are more comparable to a subway, you might look at the new crosstown line in Zürich (Durchmesserlinie, <a href="http://infra.sbb.ch/durchmesserlinie" rel="nofollow">http://infra.sbb.ch/durchmesserlinie</a> (site in German language), which includes a 5 km long tunnel, with some very difficult sections under the Limmat river, a new 4-track station, and a more than 1 km long access viaduct. The whole 11 km long project has an overall construction time of 9 years, and costs CHF 2bn (which is approximately USD 2bn), of which the Canton of Zürich pays one third, and two thirds are federal funds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted King</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27169</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27169</guid>
		<description>Re : San Francisco&#039;s Central Subway

The project Has several problems -
1) The FTA wants some assurance that SFMuni can afford to operate the T-Third extension from Fourth+King to Chinatown. The line is at LEAST one to two stations short on its northern end. That shortness means that cuts in bus service may not save enough money.

2) BART is reportedly not happy about the deep tunnel under Market St.

3) The deep tunnel routing does NOT make a connection to the Market Street Subway. The closest stations (Powell + Union Square) would be a couple of blocks apart.

4) Reportedly the tunnel does not save all that much time over a prioritized, surface run (e.g. a transit mall on Stockton, rail hump on Fourth).

P.S. I&#039;ve been keeping an eye on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alptransit.ch/en/?no_cache=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Gotthard Tunnel&lt;/a&gt;. The Central Subway completion date, some say 2016 others 2018, seems way too far out when compared to what the Swiss are doing with their super-tunnel. The project managers need to lay out a time-line for the project and give us some assurance that this is not another boondoggle like the Oakland Airport Connector. The pork that I&#039;m smelling seems more putrid than barbecued.

P.P.S. I&#039;m not anti-LRT. I&#039;m anti-stupid-tunnels that are in the wrong place or are too short. Did anybody think about running a tunnel from Fort Mason to just south of Stockton + Sacramento ? It may seem crazy but with a transit mall on Stockton from the current tunnel to Market St. the new tunnel could surface in the middle of the old one. That would keep the new tunnel at or above the water table and simplify the engineering.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re : San Francisco&#8217;s Central Subway</p>
<p>The project Has several problems -<br />
1) The FTA wants some assurance that SFMuni can afford to operate the T-Third extension from Fourth+King to Chinatown. The line is at LEAST one to two stations short on its northern end. That shortness means that cuts in bus service may not save enough money.</p>
<p>2) BART is reportedly not happy about the deep tunnel under Market St.</p>
<p>3) The deep tunnel routing does NOT make a connection to the Market Street Subway. The closest stations (Powell + Union Square) would be a couple of blocks apart.</p>
<p>4) Reportedly the tunnel does not save all that much time over a prioritized, surface run (e.g. a transit mall on Stockton, rail hump on Fourth).</p>
<p>P.S. I&#8217;ve been keeping an eye on the <a href="http://www.alptransit.ch/en/?no_cache=1" rel="nofollow">St. Gotthard Tunnel</a>. The Central Subway completion date, some say 2016 others 2018, seems way too far out when compared to what the Swiss are doing with their super-tunnel. The project managers need to lay out a time-line for the project and give us some assurance that this is not another boondoggle like the Oakland Airport Connector. The pork that I&#8217;m smelling seems more putrid than barbecued.</p>
<p>P.P.S. I&#8217;m not anti-LRT. I&#8217;m anti-stupid-tunnels that are in the wrong place or are too short. Did anybody think about running a tunnel from Fort Mason to just south of Stockton + Sacramento ? It may seem crazy but with a transit mall on Stockton from the current tunnel to Market St. the new tunnel could surface in the middle of the old one. That would keep the new tunnel at or above the water table and simplify the engineering.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davsot</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27162</link>
		<dc:creator>Davsot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27162</guid>
		<description>San Juan&#039;s metro (Tren Urbano) got $80 million. Not mentioned here... :(

I thought you guys were PR-friendly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>San Juan&#8217;s metro (Tren Urbano) got $80 million. Not mentioned here&#8230; :(</p>
<p>I thought you guys were PR-friendly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norman Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27065</link>
		<dc:creator>Norman Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27065</guid>
		<description>When it says 160,000 riders for LIRR East Side Access what is that referring to?  And, where did that number come from?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it says 160,000 riders for LIRR East Side Access what is that referring to?  And, where did that number come from?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M1EK</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/02/02/federal-transit-administration-unveils-capital-projects-recommended-for-major-financing/#comment-27041</link>
		<dc:creator>M1EK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=5621#comment-27041</guid>
		<description>Austin&#039;s money is going 75% to new rolling stock (including signal-holding doodad which will be irrelevant in highest congestion area), 25% to &quot;stations&quot; (really minimal; typical example is a bench with a wavy canopy on top).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Austin&#8217;s money is going 75% to new rolling stock (including signal-holding doodad which will be irrelevant in highest congestion area), 25% to &#8220;stations&#8221; (really minimal; typical example is a bench with a wavy canopy on top).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

