DOCSLIB.ORG

4 Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4 Engineering The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 4 ENGINEERING 4.1 Engineering Components 1) General (1) Civil/Structural/Building Services It is envisaged that the scope of engineering works included construction of the basic infrastructure for the UMRT Line 2 final system as part of the civil and structural works program for the project. This will include but not limited to: (i) Civil works including site formation, road & utility diversions; (ii) Structural works including guideway viaduct, at grade track and tunnel sections including portals and ventilation requirements; (iii) Stations & walkways (elevated or underground); (iv) Depot buildings & facilities; (v) Administration building, Operations Control Centre & ancillary buildings including substations, ventilation buildings; (vi) All Building Services including fire protection, drainage & plumbing; and (vii) Architectural and builderswork finishes including landscaping. (2) Rail Systems The final project would also include all rail systems such as: (i) Rolling stock/vehicle supply, commissioning and installation; (ii) Signaling, Automatic train protection (ATP); (iii) Automatic train control (ATC), option; (iv) Communications, telecoms, CCTV; (v) Traction power including uninterrupted power supply (UPS); (vi) Standby generators; (vii) Tunnel ventilation & fire protection systems (viii) SCADA; (ix) Automatic Fare Collection (AFC); (x) Platform Screen Doors (PSD); (xi) Operations Control and monitoring system; (xii) Maintenance including depot equipment; (xiii) UMRT Line 2 System testing and commissioning; (xiv) Operations of the UMRT Line 2 system maintenance. (3) Interface Management The interface management between the rail systems and the transit infrastructure would be carried out by the selected bidder and his management team who has experience in program management for similar major rail system projects. It will be the selected bidder and his management team’s joint responsibility to identify and manage the precise interface between the civil/structural/architectural/E&M and the rail systems. B-4-1 The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 In addition, the selected bidder will be expected to coordinate his works with other major infrastructure projects along the transport corridor, details of which are outlined in this submission. The interface management must be specified in more detail with the selected bidder early in the implementation stage of the project, details of which should be included in the tender submissions of the selected bidder. (4) Civil Works The civil works advance contract will include but not limited to: (i) Site formation, land clearance, fencing and security; (ii) Utilities diversions/connections; (iii) Water/electricity/drainage (foul & storm)/telecoms; (iv) Road works (road widening, temporary diversions, re-provisioning of footbridges, u- turn slots, transport interchanges); (v) Street furniture/lighting/signage and the re-provisioning of existing traffic management schemes; and (vi) Work sites, storage areas and the establishment of the UMRT Line 2 project offices. The successful bidder will be responsible for the coordination with all major highway civil works planned along the UMRT Line 2 transit corridor. It is planned to include any special requirements for the UMRT Line 2 system in this initial phase including station and depot sites, power and telecoms, utilities facilities and associated roadways and walkways leading to the station sites. (5) Structural Works The major structural elements will also be constructed as part of the development of the UMRT Line 2 system including the viaduct, at-grade & tunnel guideway, stations, depot & stabling area, OCC and ancillary buildings such as substations required to operate the UMRT Line 2 system. The successful bidder would be expected to verify this preliminary information and incorporate/coordinate the interfaces with the respective authorities and utilities. 2) Viaduct Structures (1) Guideway Structures The elevated viaduct section is expected to be from Thai Phu to Hai Boi in the north and from Thoung Dinh to Ha Dong in the south. The viaduct guideway structure will include: (i) Foundations, columns, crosshead, viaduct; (ii) Single/ double track sections; (iii) Overrun tracks; (iv) Crossover tracks; and (v) Depot access tracks. It is envisaged that the design will generally be in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard or similar internationally accepted standard or equivalent Japanese standard. B-4-2 The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 (2) Substructure Initial soil site investigation information is included in this report. In order to minimize the effect of differential settlement and avoid significant cracking occurring in the viaduct structure, it is expected that a pile foundation will be necessary to support the viaduct construction. The foundations will therefore be either bored or driven piles depending on the most efficient piling system and will either be single large-diameter concrete piles or groups of piles with a connecting pile cap. This will largely depend on the design loadings from the rolling stock and viaduct structure. (3) Columns & Crosshead The foundation will support columns and a crosshead which will be in either concrete or steel to support the viaduct structure. The height of the column will be between eight and 19 meters above existing ground level depending on the alignment, vertical geometry and the station locations. (4) Single/Double Track Viaduct Deck Structure The guideway structure will be either single or twin track. Generally the alignment will be twin track: however, certain sections may be twin single-track viaducts as determined during the next stage of development of the UMRT Line 2 schematic plan. The viaduct structure will be a pre-stressed concrete beam, box girder, continuous beams or alternatively a lightweight steel truss framework. Typical spans of 30-35 meters will be adopted with a maximum span not to exceed 45 meters where due to site constraints such as road crossings and rolling stock loadings, the standard bridge spans cannot be used. If a bridge crossing of the Red River is proposed, special consideration will be given to long span bridge construction including loadings associated with impact from river craft (up to 600dwt). Figure 4.1.1 Typical Viaduct Sections Source: HAIDEP Study Team B-4-3 The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 Figure 4.1.2 Typical Twin Track Prestress Layout and Details Source: HAIDEP Study Team 3) At-grade Guideway Sections The sections of alignment between north tunnel portal (from Noi Bai International, the Nam Thanh Long portal) and the south tunnel portal near Thuong Dinh will be at grade. In order to avoid flooding of the track, the rail level will be located above flood levels along the route. Depending on the final track alignment, the track will therefore be on an earth-retaining structure, details of which are as shown in the typical drawings. B-4-4 The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 Figure 4.1.3 Typical At-grade Section Source: HAIDEP Study Team Note: Traction power can either be overhead catenary system or third rail system Figure 4.1.4 Section on MSDR Wall Source: HAIDEP Study Team B-4-5 The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme in Hanoi Capital City (HAIDEP) Final Report PREFEASIBILITY STUDY B: UMRT LINE 2 4) Underground Guideway Due to right-of-way constraints and environmental issues within the central district of Hanoi City within Ring Road 2.5 from Tu Liem to Thuong Dinh, this section of alignment of the guideway will be underground. The transition structures from an at-grade track to the tunnel portals and potential ventilation shafts are located on the center line of the Highway at Ha Dong, Nam Thanh Long and at Noi Bai International airport. It is expected that the transition structures, portal and ventilation structures will be constructed using cut and cover methods. The tunnels will be constructed by TBM. The UMRT Line 2 comprises an Up Line and a Down Line. Therefore, there is the option of constructing one rail line per tunnel, i.e. two tunnels required, or one larger diameter tunnel containing both rail lines. Some issues to be taken into account in deciding which is the most appropriate option for UMRT Line 2, are presented in Table 4.1.1. Table 4.1.1 Comparison of Twin TBM Tunnels versus a Single TBM Tunnel Issue Twin TBM Tunnel Single Large Tunnel Internal Diameter 5.4m 9.9m Segment Lining Thickness 350mm 400mm TBM Diameter 6.1m 10.7m Excavated Tunnel Perimeter 19.16m x2 = 38.33m 33.62m Excavated Tunnel Area 29.22sqm x 2 = 58.45sqm 89.92sqm Tunnel Spacing 6.1m NA Minimum Clear Zone 19.3m if tunnels not stacked. 11.7m Underground / Wayleave 7.1m if tunnels stacked (but need adequate horizontal (including 0.5m contingency distance to rotate tunnels to and from stacked either side) arrangement). Support Perimeter similar to one large tunnel but lining thinner. Perimeter similar to two smaller tunnels but lining thicker. Ventilation Each tunnel independent of other. Piston effect possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alberta-To-Alaska-Railway-Pre-Feasibility-Study
    Alberta to Alaska Railway Pre-Feasibility Study 2015 Table of Content Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... i Infrastructure and Operating Requirements................................................................ ii Environmental Considerations and Permitting Requirements .................................... ii Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ......................................................................... iii Business Case .............................................................................................................. iii Mineral Transportation Potential ................................................................................ iii First Nations/Tribes and Other Contacts ..................................................................... iv Conclusions .................................................................................................................. iv 1 | Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 This Assignment............................................................................................................ 1 This Report ................................................................................................................... 2 2 | Infrastructure and Operating Requirements ........................................................ 3 Route Alignment ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rtd Light Rail Design Criteria
    RTD LIGHT RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA Regional Transportation District November 2005 Prepared by the Engineering Division of the Regional Transportation District Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 303.628.9000 RTD-Denver.com November 28, 2005 The RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual has been developed as a set of general guidelines as well as providing specific criteria to be employed in the preparation and implementation of the planning, design and construction of new light rail corridors and the extension of existing corridors. This 2005 issue of the RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual was developed to remain in compliance with accepted practices with regard to safety and compatibility with RTD's existing system and the intended future systems that will be constructed by RTD. The manual reflects the most current accepted practices and applicable codes in use by the industry. The intent of this manual is to establish general criteria to be used in the planning and design process. However, deviations from these accepted criteria may be required in specific instances. Any such deviations from these accepted criteria must be approved by the RTD's Executive Safety & Security Committee. Coordination with local agencies and jurisdictions is still required for the determination and approval for fire protection, life safety, and security measures that will be implemented as part of the planning and design of the light rail system. Conflicting information or directives between the criteria set forth in this manual shall be brought to the attention of RTD and will be addressed and resolved between RTD and the local agencies andlor jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options
    ` Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options May 2003 BTR3726 28/05/2003 Babtie Group 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX Tel 0141 204 2511 Fax 0141 226 3109 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Existing Services and Constraints 3 3.0 Service Options 7 3.1 The Options 7 3.2 The Service frequency 7 4.0 Assessment of Options 11 4.1 The East West Axis 11 4.1.1 Option A: Dundee – Carnoustie 11 4.1.2 Option B: Dundee – Arbroath 14 4.1.3 Option C: Dundee – Montrose 17 4.1.4 Option D: Montrose – Brechin 21 4.1.5 Option E: Perth to Carnoustie and Arbroath 22 4.1.6 Option F: Perth – Montrose 25 4.1.7 Dundee West Service Extensions 27 4.2 The North South Axis 29 4.2.1 Option G: Arbroath – Ladybank 29 4.2.2 Option H: Perth – Dundee – Ladybank 31 4.2.3 Option I: Dundee West – Leuchars 32 4.2.4 Option J: Leuchars - St Andrews 34 5.0 Station Appraisals 36 5.1 General Discussion 36 5.2 The East West Axis Stations 37 5.2.1 Montrose 37 5.2.2 Arbroath 41 5.2.3 Carnoustie 45 5.2.4 Golf Street 48 5.2.5 Barry Links 50 5.2.6 Monifieth 52 5.2.7 Balmossie 55 5.2.8 Broughty Ferry 57 5.2.9 Dundee 59 5.2.10 Dundee West 63 5.2.11 Invergowrie 65 5.2.12 Perth 67 5.3 The North South Axis Stations 70 5.3.1 Leuchars 70 5.3.2 Cupar 73 5.3.3 Springfield 76 5.3.4 Ladybank 79 6.0 Summary of Options and Costs 82 Appendices Appendix A Option Base Timetable Appendix B Station Audit Proforma Appendix C Dundee West – Proposed Station Location \\Douglas\Work\Projects\4900s\4976\Outputs\Reports\Final\WP B (Constraints and Option Development) v5.doc Page 1 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Copyright Babtie Group Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Station and Support Facility Design Guidelines User Guide a Supplement to the Regional Transitway Guidelines
    Station and Support Facility Design Guidelines User Guide A Supplement to the Regional Transitway Guidelines Metropolitan Council February 2012 This document supplements the Station and Support Facility Design discussion in the Regional Transitway Guidelines by providing additional information for topics discussed in the Guidelines. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Existing Laws, Regulations, Standards, and Guidance ................................................................. 1 1.2. Property Acquisition and Remnant Parcel Reuse or Resale ........................................................ 3 1.3. Context Sensitive Solutions and Transit‐Oriented Development ................................................ 3 1.4. Integration with Existing Systems ................................................................................................ 4 2. STATION DESIGN ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Station Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Enclosures at Transitway Stations .............................................................................................. 10 2.3. Sizing Station Facilities ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Report 35/2007 September 2007 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2007 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Rail Accident Investigation Branch 3 Report 35/2007 www.raib.gov.uk September 2007 Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Contents Introduction 6 Summary of the report 7 Key facts about the accident 7 Immediate cause, causal and contributory factors, underlying causes 7 Recommendations 8 The Accident 9 Summary of the accident 9 Location 9 The parties involved 10 External circumstances 10 The infrastructure 10 The train 12 Events
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Transfer Chain Analysis for Reallocation of Heritage Space at Amsterdam Central Station
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Transportation Research Procedia 2 ( 2014 ) 651 – 659 TheThe ConferenceConference onin Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 20142014 (PED2014)(PED2014) Passenger transfer chain analysis for reallocation of heritage space at Amsterdam Central station Marc Starmans a,*, Lee Verhoeff b, Jeroen van den Heuvel c,d aArcadis, Piet Mondriaanlaan 26, 3812 GV Amersfoort, the Netherlands bProRail, Moreelsepark 3, 3511 EP Utrecht, the Netherlands cNS Stations, Stationshal 17, 3511 CE Utrecht, the Netherlands dDepartment of Transport & Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands Abstract Amsterdam Central Station is the second busiest station in The Netherlands. Several bottlenecks in the 125 years old monumental station exist due to present train and pedestrian volumes. Further traffic growth is expected. To understand and quantify the options for redesign, a thorough understanding of the interaction between the core traffic functionalities is required. The paper will demonstrate high-level evaluations of different train positions, train schedules and platform exits, using a tailor- made macroscopic passenger transfer chain model. This approach, the model and the outcomes helped the stakeholders involved to reach consensus regarding the choices to be made for the future. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (©http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.). Peer-review under under responsibility responsibility of Department of PED2014. of Transport & Planning Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Delft University of Technology Keywords: train station; heritage building; pedestrians; bottlenecks; macroscopic; modeling 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1
    Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1. Overview 5 6. Site 55 1.1 Background 5 6.1 Introduction 55 1.2 Introduction 5 6.2 Multi-modal Planning 56 1.3 Contents of the Guidelines 6 6.3 Context 57 1.4 Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 7 6.4 Station/Platform Confi gurations 61 1.5 Governing Principles 8 6.5 Track and Platform Planning 65 6.6 Vehicular Circulation 66 6.7 Bicycle Parking 66 2. Process 11 6.8 Parking 67 2.1 Introduction 11 6.9 Amtrak Functional Requirements 68 2.2 Stakeholder Coordination 12 6.10 Information Systems and Way Finding 69 2.3 Concept Development 13 6.11 Safety and Security 70 2.4 Funding 14 6.12 Sustainable Design 71 2.5 Real Estate Transactional Documents 14 6.13 Universal Design 72 2.6 Basis of Design 15 2.7 Construction Documents 16 2.8 Project Delivery methods 17 7. Station 73 2.9 Commissioning 18 7.1 Introduction 73 2.10 Station Opening 18 7.2 Architectural Overview 74 7.3 Information Systems and Way Finding 75 7.4 Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) 77 3. Amtrak System 19 7.5 Safety and Security 78 3.1 Introduction 19 7.6 Sustainable Design 79 3.2 Service Types 20 7.7 Accessibility 80 3.3 Equipment 23 3.4 Operations 26 8. Platform 81 8.1 Introduction 81 4. Station Categories 27 8.2 Platform Types 83 4.1 Introduction 27 8.3 Platform-Track Relationships 84 4.2 Summary of Characteristics 28 8.4 Connection to the station 85 4.3 Location and Geography 29 8.5 Platform Length 87 4.4 Category 1 Large stations 30 8.6 Platform Width 88 4.5 Category 2 Medium Stations 31 8.7 Platform Height 89 4.6 Category 3 Caretaker Stations 32 8.8 Additional Dimensions and Clearances 90 4.7 Category 4 Shelter Stations 33 8.9 Safety and Security 91 4.8 Thruway Bus Service 34 8.10 Accessibility 92 8.11 Snow Melting Systems 93 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design
    Standard Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design CE-021-ST-0012 1.01 17/03/2020 Disclaimer: This document is developed solely and specifically for use on Melbourne metropolitan tram network managed by Yarra Trams. It is not suitable for any other purpose. You must not use or adapt it or rely upon it in any way unless you are authorised in writing to do so by Yarra Trams. If this document forms part of a contract with Yarra Trams, this document constitutes a “Policy and Procedure” for the purposes of that contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed or downloaded. Users should exercise their own skill and care or seek professional advice in the use of the document. This document may not be current. Current standards are available for download internally from CDMS or from https://yarratrams.com.au/standards. Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................... 4 3 COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4 REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 General .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trespass Prevention Research Study – West Palm Beach, FL RR97A3-HMC53 6
    U.S. Department of Transportation Trespass Prevention Research Study – West Federal Railroad Palm Beach, FL Administration Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-14/19 Final Report July 2014 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the content or use of the material contained in this document. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Passenger Rail System
    Appendix 3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Introduction passenger rail system, including: The Pennsylvania Intercity Passenger and Freight Rail Plan provides a High-Speed Rail Corridors (110 mph and above) – Corridors under strategic framework for creating a 21st-century rail network. The Plan 500 miles with travel demand, population density, and congestion on visualizes the passenger and competing modes that warrant high-speed rail service. freight rail network in 2035 Regional Corridors (79 to 110 mph) – Corridors under 500 miles, with and offers strategies and frequent, reliable service competing successfully with auto and air objectives to achieve its vision. travel. The purpose of Appendix 3 is Long-Distance Service – Corridors greater than 500 miles that provide to provide background basic connectivity and a balanced national transportation system. information on existing passenger rail service in In a report to Congress, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, dated April Pennsylvania with a 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided the following concentration on existing definitions: intercity passenger rail service and performance. High-Speed Rail (HSR) and Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) HSR – Express. Frequent, express service between major population Intercity Rail Definitions centers 200 to 600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops.1 Top There are numerous interpretations of what constitutes “intercity speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated passenger rail.” In a recent publication, Achieving the Vision: Intercity rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in Passenger Rail, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged Congress to enact a National Rail Policy that should address the development of a national intercity 1 Corridor lengths are approximate; slightly shorter or longer intercity services may still help meet strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a of the Caltrain Corridor Vision Plan
    THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR VISION PLAN Appendix A Rail: Existing Conditions and Vision Plan Methodology Appendix A describes today’s Caltrain rail system and service. It also explains the assumptions and methodology used to develop the Caltrain Corridor Vision Plan recommendations for future rail service in the corridor. 1. Caltrain Today The following existing conditions form what this study assumes to the baseline conditions that the Vision Plan elements are built upon. This information and the assumptions were based on what was available in 2016. 1.1 Physical Infrastructure The Caltrain Corridor is an approximately 48-mile rail corridor between the San Francisco 4th and King Station and San Jose Diridon Station. Between San Francisco and CP (Control Point) Coast1, a short distance north of the Santa Clara station, the corridor is owned and controlled by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (i.e., Caltrain). Between CP Coast and Diridon Station, the corridor is a portion of Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) Coast Subdivision (i.e., its rail line from Oakland to San Luis Obispo). The entire right-of-way and all main tracks in this section are owned by Caltrain, with the exception of Main Track 1, which is owned and maintained by UP2. Caltrain owns all stations in the corridor, all of which it received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 19933. The corridor is primarily a two main track corridor. Major track infrastructure components and stations are shown in Figure 1. At eight locations, the corridor includes main tracks or sidings other than two main tracks, also shown in Figure 1.
    [Show full text]