Peninsula cities and transportation officials see California's proposed high-speed rail system as both a looming threat and a golden opportunity -- a project that could both burden the area with unwanted noise, new barriers and property seizures and provide it with the funds for long-coveted transportation improvement.
Both dynamics, the fear and the hope, are in play these days as Bay Area transportation agencies and cities are trying to reach a consensus on "early investment opportunities" that the rail project could bring to the region. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrain and cities between San Francisco and San Jose are now preparing a "memorandum of understanding" that would lay out the Bay Area's priorities when it comes to projects that could benefit from rail funds in the short term. The California High Speed Rail Authority is scheduled to consider the cities' input in early April.
Marian Lee, director of the Caltrain's modernization program, wrote in a recent report that the rail authority has reached out to Caltrain and other transportation agencies.
"The early investment projects would be those needed to modernize the Caltrain system and support the blended Caltrain and high-speed rail system," Lee wrote.
Seamus Murphy, Caltrain's manager of government affairs, said up to $1 billion in high-speed rail funds would be available for "early investment" improvements. Cities and transportation agencies would need to match some of this money with funding from other sources. The projects would be required to both benefit the $98.5 billion San Francisco-to-Los Angeles high-speed-rail project, which California voters approved in 2008, and provide "independent utility" -- that is, benefits that would be experienced even if the entire system isn't built.
At the top of Caltrain's wish list is its long-standing plan to electrify its corridor -- an improvement that officials say would greatly boost the popular but cash-strapped agency's ridership and revenue figures. Caltrain currently doesn't have dedicated funding and relies heavily on contributions from the three agencies that comprise its board of directors -- the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans).
At a March 1 meeting of Palo Alto City Council's Rail Committee, Murphy called electrification "critically important" for the agency's plan to close its structural deficit. The electrification project would also have a major impact on high-speed rail, which eventually would run along the Caltrain corridor. Prior to the entire line being completed, however, high-speed-rail passengers would disembark in San Jose and then have to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco.
Murphy said Caltrain's diesel trains would not be able to support the influx of transferring riders, which he pegged at about 14,000 a day.
"Our ability to add service to support new passengers is very contained," Murphy said. "If we electrify the system, we would be able to accommodate those passengers who get off at San Jose."
Caltrain estimates the electrification of the corridor to cost about $785 million. Other priority projects on the agency's list include new electric trains ($440 million) and an advanced signal system ($231 million).
Murphy said a similar conversation about early investment opportunities is taking place in southern California, where seven transportation agencies have already signed a memorandum of understanding listing their preferences for these opportunities.
The conversation between Caltrain and the high-speed rail over early investment opportunities is taking place at a time when there are still disagreements between the two agencies over what the rail line would ultimately look like. Caltrain has embraced a proposal by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and state Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, to create a "blended system" in which Caltrain and high-speed rail share two tracks on the Peninsula.
Murphy said a recent study indicated that a blended design could work and that the shared tracks would accommodate up to 10 trains per hour (six Caltrain trains and four high-speed trains) in each direction if the system includes passing tracks or eight trains per hour (six Caltrain trains and two high-speed trains) if it does not.
But last month, the rail authority released a revised program Environmental Impact Report for the Bay Area-to-Central Valley segment of the line that focuses on the highly controversial four-track system -- a design that according to the document could require Alma Street in Palo Alto to narrow.
On Feb. 15, the rail authority released a statement saying it is still considering the blended design and that its revised 2012 business plan will highlight this approach.
Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt, who chairs the Peninsula Cities Consortium, said any agreement between cities, Caltrain and the rail authority over early-investment opportunities should include provisions explicitly calling for mitigation of project impacts (including noise, vibration and traffic) and stipulating that the rail authority's project-level Environmental Impact Report (which focuses on specific segments and includes more engineering details than the "program-level" EIR) focus on the blended option.
Comments
Shoreline West
on Mar 12, 2012 at 11:56 am
on Mar 12, 2012 at 11:56 am
People are starving. Children go to bed hungry and malnourished. The schools have to cut valuable programs. Seniors are being kicked under the bus. But these HSR clowns continue their effort to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense via a project that will never ever pay for itself, a project of absolutely no use whatsoever other than enriching a few well-connected THIEVES.
Kill this thing and recover the moneys already wasted on "consultants."
Old Mountain View
on Mar 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm
What he said above.
North Whisman
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm
This will become California's "train to nowhere".
North Whisman
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
HSR?
No!
Stop!
DON'T DO IT!
Repeat above as necessary.
Waverly Park
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Ditto to what Old Ben
Waverly Park
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Said
Monta Loma
on Mar 12, 2012 at 4:08 pm
on Mar 12, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Well said Ben!!!!!!!
The clowns in office won't let this rest.
Sylvan Park
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:18 am
on Mar 13, 2012 at 8:18 am
Clear disconnection between finding the 'government money' windfall and remembering where those dollars came from. As if it just magically appears!
another community
on Mar 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm
on Mar 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm
As for childern going hungry and going to sleep without a home, this must be addressed, a long term fix must be placed. We must look at the cause. Seniors, schools and food programs have suffered cut backs, yet costs have gone up. If we don't get HSR we will still have problems with childern going hungry, homeless, seniors being tossed under the bus, schools getting their funds cut back. So what will be done 10 years from now that shold have been done 20 years ago.
Shoreline West
on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm
on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm
The only people promoting this ridiculous open scam are the ones getting money from it, and they won't shut up about it. They aren't content with what they've gotten away with stealing: they must have MORE. We are living in the midst of the greatest convergence of stupidity and greed that the world has ever seen.
Old Mountain View
on Mar 14, 2012 at 6:57 am
on Mar 14, 2012 at 6:57 am
Old Ben nails it again. What he said.
Registered user
Willowgate
on Mar 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Registered user
on Mar 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Old Ben and everyone else. If you are so against this and see the rationale for all of this to stop, lets get a referendum on the ballot to stop Prop 1A this year. If you want to stop CalTrain, lets put a ballot initiative up there to delete their board and to give the corridor over to BART. Bart is a success where CalTrain is a killer, an asthma driven mass transit system for the few, and a failure. BART has a fabulous safety record, keeps on time, and is willing to put the train in a trench and can. The electrification of CalTrain is merely a go around to the CHSRA and its EIR requirements. Shae on those politicians who huckster this "blended system". It is nothing but the status quo of lack of safety, there will be many more deaths along the corridor as frequency goes up. BART has no deaths because it mitigates the safety very well. It is just a matter of time when a car gets into an accident and careens onto the tracks below just like what happened in Germany recently. A covered trench design mitigates that.
Slater
on May 30, 2017 at 12:03 pm
on May 30, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Old Mountain View
on Sep 26, 2017 at 11:47 am
on Sep 26, 2017 at 11:47 am
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?