What To Do In Willow Glen?

UPDATE: Note that in fact the tracks from Diridon Station to a point called "Lick" 3 miles south, about where the tracks reach Monterey Highway, are owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), as Rafael pointed out in the comments. I've updated the post to reflect that info.

This weekend Peninsula residents are gathering at the Palo Alto Sheraton to discuss possible designs for the Caltrain/HSR project through Menlo Park, Atherton, and Palo Alto. I'm going to have to miss this event, but it's worth noting their task is significantly easier than the much more complicated and difficult question of HSR implementation just a few miles down the tracks in San José.

The Willow Glen and Gardner neighborhoods, located in the heart of the Silicon Valley, are wrestling with the question of how to implement HSR through their communities. Like their neighbors on the Peninsula, they too have an existing railroad running through their community, which as on the Peninsula predated the homes.

But unlike the Peninsula, Willow Glen and Gardner in particular have other major transportation systems impacting and dividing their neighborhoods. I-280 and the CA-87 freeways have already cut through significant portions of both areas. These neighborhoods also lie in the flight path of Mineta San Jose Airport, whose runways are located about 2 miles or so to the north, meaning there is significant aircraft noise in this neighborhood.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the existing tracks south of Diridon Station a point 3 miles south of Diridon called "Lick" (thanks to Rafael for the clairification), currently used by a few Caltrains to/from Gilroy and the twice-daily Coast Starlight, are owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. The ROW through the Gardner neighborhood appears to be wide enough to accommodate four tracks, including the existing two that comprise the northern end of the UPRR Coast Line. Of course, as we know, UPRR is not in a mood to actually share that ROW. And that causes a significant problem for both HSR planners and the surrounding neighborhood. (Again, noting the correction above, the segment through the Gardner neighborhood is indeed owned by PCJPB.)


View Willow Glen/Gardner in a larger map

That's why the CHSRA is hosting a community meeting at the Gardner Community Center Tuesday, October 6 from 6 to 8pm to discuss the issue. As the Mercury News explains it, the popular proposal in Gardner and Willow Glen is to move the tracks to Highway 87:

Residents of Willow Glen and the Greater Gardner area including David Dearborn, Jean Dresden, Michelle Harris and Harvey Darnell submitted pages of questions for the "scoping" document that will set the parameters of the draft environmental impact report.

Dresden and Dearborn — who has worked in technical fields for 30 years — drafted a plan called "Thread The Needle," which describes in detail how the rail line could trace Highway 87 through the Interstate 280 interchange. It would run underground in the Delmas Park area to the Diridon train station.

Rail leaders say perhaps a compatible option would be to replace the Valley Transportation Authority's light-rail line along Highway 87 with a high-speed line, although it is unclear if the VTA would allow it.

I'd love to see this plan, which I could not find online, because I'm quite curious about how this would work in practice. Moreover, I'm also quite curious about how the hell VTA would continue light rail service on the Santa Teresa and Almaden lines if their median tracks in Highway 87 are taken, even if just for the few miles between Curtner Ave and the 280 interchange. VTA light rail is a "struggling" system, but as Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic noted, better land use policy in the Silicon Valley would help make the system much more effective. The "Thread the Needle" plan seems to suggest abandoning light rail along the Highway 87 corridor almost entirely (which is one reason I want to see the actual plan). You can't actually widen the Highway 87 to accommodate both HSR and light rail tracks, since to do so you'd have to encroach on the same UPRR ROW tracks that is causing issues for HSR planners even if they leave light rail where it is.

Neighborhood residents say they support the HSR project, even though they exhibit the same errant thinking about the place of rails in communities as some folks on the Peninsula:

Michelle Harris, a 48-year-old Cisco engineer who lives on Fuller Avenue, said many people in the Gardner area want the route moved to Highway 87.

"In older neighborhoods, the Caltrain tracks go through quaint parts of town. Putting a 200 mph train through it is kind of like putting a freeway through it," Harris said.

Harris, the secretary of the North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association, also said that many neighbors support the rail project and voted for Proposition 1A in 2008. They want to be close to a train station that would take them to other cities, she said.

As you can tell, the problem here is that Harris has it backwards - the neighborhood "goes through" the rail corridor, which was there before the houses. But what about the "200 mph train" - is that actually what would be implemented in the neighborhood (and even if it were, wouldn't the noise be FAR less than that of the two existing freeways and certainly less than the existing Caltrains)?

Rail leaders have said in public meetings that trains would travel about 60 mph if they negotiated the curves of the Caltrain line through the Gardner area, but they did not deny that noise and vibration would be issues unless soundwalls or tunnels were built.

Notice, of course, that saying noise and vibration would be "issues" isn't the same as saying they'd impact the neighborhood the same way as a freeway would.

In the end, the real issue here is UPRR. Running HSR trains through Gardner at 60 mph on the existing tracks (it's just beyond Diridon Station, so you have to assume trains were never going to be running a whole lot faster than that) would be a perfectly sensible solution that would cause the minimum impact on the community. But since UPRR refuses to allow that their ROW (south of Lick) to be used, something else is going to have to be done explored - hence CHSRA's willingness to explore the "Thread the Needle" idea, as problematic as that is.

Here again I renew my call for California's federal representatives to get involved. As the only body with the ability to actually push UPRR to be more willing to share its ROW. As a creation of the US government, with much of its land and ROW given to it freely by the government, UPRR should be more willing to find a reasonable accommodation with the HSR project.

SJ, SF Mayors Push Transbay, Diridon, Caltrain Upgrades

Yesterday, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issued a joint press release announcing the Bay Area region's preference for stimulus and other HSR spending the Bay Area to be directed towards upgrades to the Caltrain corridor, the expansion of SJ Diridon Station, and the establishment of the new SF Transbay Terminal as the SF terminus.

Newsom had already come out in support of Transbay. Enhancing Diridon was a foregone conclusion. But the announcement apparently portends a broader regional agreement.

We should learn more about this announcement of regional aspirations at this morning's meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is brokering the agreement. More details from the Chronicle:

The proposal would turn the Diridon Station in downtown San Jose and the planned new Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco into major regional transit hubs.

In addition, the Caltrain Station at Fourth and King streets in San Francisco's South of Market would be expanded to accommodate high-speed rail.

The proposed package also seeks funding to electrify Caltrain and to equip its rail cars with automated train-control equipment that senses impending danger on the tracks. The train tracks in San Bruno would be separated from truck and auto traffic.

Together the projects would cost $3.4 billion, said Randy Rentschler, government affairs manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The region will ask for $1.6 billion in new federal stimulus money to help pay for the improvements. Additional funds would come from the nearly $10 billion funding pot backed by California voters for high-speed rail.

The Bay Area will seek additional funding later to pay for other projects.

One could argue that the explicit advocacy of Caltrain upgrades is a rebuke to NIMBY calls for taking HSR off the Caltrain corridor altogether, but I'm not sure the powers that be would bother to dignify such fringe proposals. This could turn out to merely be formalizing exactly which upgrade projects should come first. (Incidentally, Caltrain was awarded $9 million in stimulus funding for unrelated projects this week.)

It's encouraging to see a regional consensus emerging around Transbay, which should hopefully end the public political squabbles. What do you think? Will this announcement put an end to the issue, or merely galvanize opposing forces and bring the funding and technical challenges of Transbay further into the fore?

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm headed to Portugal for two weeks this coming Thursday and am spending the day getting my preparations done. Our trip will take us all over the country, from Porto to Coimbra to Lisboa to Faro and the Algarve (where I'm hoping it won't yet be totally overwhelmed with British tourists). Not only will it be representative of the various regions of Portugal, but it's a trip that can be done via high speed rail. Comboios de Portugal operates the Alfa Pendular, a tilting train of the pendolino family. The trains have a top speed of 220 km/h (136 mph) which isn't exactly TGV or AVE speed, but certainly qualifies as a kind of HSR. It connects Porto to Lisboa (the nation's two largest cities) in about 2 hours. So I'll get to see the Portuguese HSR system in action, although before the planned upgrades of the Porto-Lisboa line to 300 km/h (to be completed by 2015) and before the HSR link from Lisboa to Madrid is completed (due in 2013).

Anyhow, enough about me. Two brief HSR items for this Sunday afternoon:

• The FRA presentations from the Sacramento meeting have been posted online (h/t to Matt Melzer). Haven't yet had a chance to look these over, but if you do, be sure to offer your thoughts in the comments.



• The Bay Area Council Economic Institute has proposed $7 billion in infrastructure stimulus for the region, including HSR-related projects such as upgrading Diridon Station.

Union Pacific Speaks

Never let it be said that I don't give HSR deniers credit where it is due. Morris Brown has obtained a copy of a letter from Union Pacific to the California High Speed Rail Authority laying out their stance on HSR implementation between San Francisco and Gilroy. Their overall attitude is one of "we own the corridor, either through easements or outright ownership, and you're going to implement HSR according to our guidelines."

The SF-Gilroy corridor is broken up into three pieces:

1. SF to Santa Clara, owned outright by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCBJPB - set up in 1991 to run Caltrain) but where UP has an easement to run freight

2. Santa Clara to Lick, "a point approximately three miles south of Diridon Station" - UP "owns and has primary operating rights on Main Track Number 1".

3. Lick to Gilroy (and ultimately to Moorpark in Ventura County), owned wholly by the Union Pacific Railroad.

UP's stance as laid out in the letter is, in essence and going in reverse order:

3: No way in hell will HSR trains use the UP ROW between Lick and Gilroy. Their specific language is:

Union Pacific has no intention of allowing or permitting the Authority to build or operate the HSR within Union Pacific's right of way southward of Lick. The Authority should take this into account as part of the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco — San Jose segment.

2: Depending on how freight trains are mitigated, UP is fine with HSR between Santa Clara and Lick - but UP will be the final arbiter of what this means. Their specific language is:

The Authority must not undertake any action that interferes with Union Pacific's ownership and operation of Main Track No. I without prior approval from Union Pacific and the commuter agencies identified above. All adverse impacts must be mitigated to Union Pacific's satisfaction.

1: UP expects to not only maintain, but potentially increase, freight service along the Caltrain corridor, insists that its easement be respected, and that HSR be built to not adversely affect freight operations in any possible form.

Specifically, UP demands the following, which is most directly applicable to the Caltrain corridor:

(i) Slow speed freight trains and high-speed trains are incompatible on the same
tracks at any time, including cross-overs. Union Pacific requires overhead clearance of 23 feet 6 inches, which is higher than the Authority contemplates for its electrical system. The Authority must provide grade-separated cross-overs for freight trains at necessary locations. The Authority must not contemplate operation of freight trains on any HSR trackage at any time (and vice-versa). If necessary, completely separate freight trackage must be provided. HSR must comply with all applicable FRA regulations.

As far as I can tell what UP is saying is that at least one track has to be set up for freight trains, and if that requires a totally separate track, so be it - CHSRA and PCJPB are UP's bitch when it comes to making changes on the Caltrain corridor.

What does this mean for the battle over HSR implementation on the Peninsula? Brandon in San Diego lays it out like this:

any proposal to retain freight's ability with any necessary tunneling having the intent to accomodate HSR + Caltrain at the expense of an above ground alignment accomodating freight...
...will mean:
1) more costly tunneling efforts (bigger/higher, longer due to softer grade changes, and/or... ventilation) or
2) the tunneling to accomodate Caltrain + freight cannot happen at all.

If so on #2, that means Caltrain may remain above ground and possibly at-grade where they already are... and our friendly peninsula bergs are SOL.

I think that's a pretty good summation. Ultimately I think this deals a pretty significant blow to the tunnel concept as being floated by the Peninsula cities, who have floated a concept of a two-track tunnel. Unless the tunnel has four tracks and is large enough to accommodate UP freight, it's not going to meet UP's standards. Another option is to build a two-track tunnel and let UP continue operating freight trains on the surface above the tunnel, which is an absurd solution and also makes it impossible for cities to sell "air rights" to develop land above the tunnel to pay for the tunnel's costs, as some have proposed.

The only other option for Peninsula cities would be to pursue federal law that would limit UP's negotiating power. UP notes that their freight operations in this region are regulated by the federal Surface Transportation Board. Congress and the White House could, if they wanted to, pursue new laws and regulations pushing or even forcing freight railroads to accommodate HSR and other passenger rail even if they're reluctant to do so.

I am not sure we should expect that to happen. President Obama has shown hardly any desire to piss off large corporations like UP, and Congress has shown little interest in modernizing railroad law. If the federal government is serious about implementing HSR, they're going to need to attend to both, and the dispute over the Caltrain corridor may be a good place to start. But I am not confident it will actually happen.

California HSR Stimulus Project List

On January 28 Quentin Kopp sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein's office listing potential HSR construction projects that "can currently be commenced". Included grade crossings in the La Mirada area of Southern California that Metrolink has planned and that HSR would use, although as Kopp notes, "a certain amount of additional engineering will be required to accommodate our project." Also listed is work at San Bruno, ROW acquisition and site prep in the Central Valley, and Caltrain electrification. You can read the letter here (PDF), and the list of proposed projects is below:

LA-Anaheim grade separations:

Passons Blvd/Serapis St: $43.4 million
Pioneer Blvd: $45 million
Norwalk Blvd: $150 million
Lakeland Rd: $40 million
Rosecrans Ave: $150 million
Valley View Ave: $72 million

San Bruno projects: $250-$300 million
Includes separations at San Bruno Ave, San Mateo Ave, and Angus Street; Pedestrian crossings at Euclid and Sylvan Avenues, and an elevated station

Also included:

By September 2011 the Authority will have underway the right-of-way purchase and construction grading of a heavy maintenance facility in the Central Valley and two storage "layover" facilities, one in the Bay Area and one in the Los Angeles Basin at an estimated cost of $200 million.

Additionally, the Caltrain Electrification Project is scheduled to commence by fall 2011. That includes design and procurement for the electrification of the system from San Jose to San Francisco, train controls, and commuter vehicles at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.

Others in comments on recent posts have noted that San Jose Diridon Station is in line for some of the HSR stimulus funds, but that wasn't specifically included in this one letter.

It's worth noting that this letter was written before it was known that the final stimulus figure for HSR would be $8 billion, or that the deadline on spending that money would actually be September 2012. That may change things somewhat, but at least the letter gives us an idea of what we might see the stimulus pay for in terms of California high speed rail.

Slow Orders

Should California cater to a small number of Peninsula NIMBYs and truncate the HSR line from LA to SF at San José? That's a question that has popped up during some of the Peninsula scoping sessions, as some residents think "well let's just drop everyone off at Diridon Station and put them on the Caltrain Baby Bullets! Isn't that good enough?"

As Clem points out at the Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog, however, not all "bullet" trains are alike:

Baby Bullets look sleek, and they impress when they blast by, horn blaring. However, they are nowhere near as fast on average as the proposed high speed trains. Timings from San Jose to San Francisco:

* Caltrain local: 96 minutes - max speed 79 mph - average speed 29 mph
* Caltrain Baby Bullet: 57 minutes - max speed 79 mph - average speed 49 mph
* HSR: 30 minutes - max speed 125 mph (a.k.a "half speed") - average speed 94 mph

HSR at "half speed" is still nearly twice as fast as the Baby Bullet.

Clem also points out that it's impractical to have "half speed HSR" trains run on just the two existing tracks - you can't mix speeds quite like that, especially given the heavy usage already on those tracks. The overall impact on a trip from LA to SF - the entire point of HSR, let's remember - would be significant:

Accounting for transfer time in San Jose, the effective speed of the Baby Bullet ride would approach three times slower than a single-seat HSR peninsula ride. The overall trip from LA to SF would increase from 2:38 to 3:15, an increase of about one quarter. If we compromise that much on the peninsula, why even bother with 220 mph in the central valley? Indeed why bother with high speed rail at all?

Which is is of course the entire point of the NIMBY objections from the usual suspects on the Peninsula. Folks like Martin Engel never accepted the public verdict - or even that of their own communities - which voted strongly for Proposition 1A, knowing full well that it involved sending HSR trains along new tracks up the Peninsula. Others on the Peninsula are grasping at straws by suggesting that HSR be held up just for their own personal interests - basically trying to impose a slow order on the entire system.

In an email, Alon Levy wonders if there's a strategic way to deal with this objection:

Anthony Perl's book New Departures (http://books.google.com/books?id=-B5NgROwk9wC - look for page 26) writes that the TGV had many detractors in the French government who thought it was an "unaffordable boondoggle." In response, the SNCF met them halfway: it only built the first LGV two thirds of the way from Paris to Lyon, and routed the line on the traditional line at lower speed for the remaining third. On the one hand initial costs were kept down, but on the other travelers could see for themselves the difference between full high-speed operation and rapid rail. As the SNCF had predicted, this created political pressure to finish the full LGV to Lyon, and then to extend it to other cities.

I wonder whether this solution is applicable to California, if cost concerns and pressure from Peninsula NIMBYs is too much. The high-speed track would initially run only from LA to SJ, with the trains sharing tracks with Caltrain to SF. It would reduce speed remarkably and make HSR less competitive initially, but not critically; it would at the same time showcase the difference between baby bullets and real bullets. It would require FRA waivers, but as far as I can tell so will the ultimate goal of running HSR in the same ROW as Caltrain.

Do you think it'd be an acceptable compromise if political or financial realities started to sour?

In this case Levy is suggesting calling the NIMBY bluff, using the slower speeds on the Peninsula segment as leverage public outrage at the situation to mobilize the political will to push through HSR all the way to San Francisco at a later date, especially if cost issues necessitate some sort of less-than-complete solution.

It's an interesting concept but I am not convinced it can work. California's record at filling in gaps in the transportation network is not promising. Although I oppose this project, the 710 freeway gap in Southern California has been a missing link in the system for nearly 40 years. NIMBYs in South Pasadena have had a great deal of success blocking its completion (they also helped influence the design of the Metro Gold Line in a less than ideal way, slowing the trains through that city's portion of the route). The cost of the Peninsula route isn't likely to drop anytime soon, and once NIMBY attitudes spread, they have a tendency to get entrenched - the same homeowners stay in their same locations, dominating local politics on the issues. Nobody wants to piss off such a united bloc, so the infrastructure project gets a lower priority.

Another concern is that a non-HSR solution along the Peninsula could sap public confidence in the system itself. It's already too easy for folks to blithely dismiss any government project as inherently doomed to failure, and to cast trains as terminally slow and inefficient. If, after having promised the public a true high speed train from LA to SF - not from LA to SJ - and we can't deliver it, then that may cause a loss of political support, not an increase.

It seems to me the best move is to build on the momentum of November 2008 and rally the public against the small-minded NIMBY interests on the Peninsula who want to block the high speed rail project. HSR, even on the Peninsula, provides jobs, sustainable transportation, a cleaner environment, and less carbon emissions. Californians are not going to allow a small group of people to block that effort. Certainly those who live near the tracks need to be treated fairly, but they do not and should not have the power to compromise this project.

They're STILL Trying to Kill HSR

Back during the campaign the Media News Group were among the most die-hard HSR deniers. Their editorials were usually full of misinformation but that didn't stop them from crusading against a badly needed piece of 21st century infrastructure.

So it comes as no surprise that they're still trying to kill high speed rail, Prop 1A's passage be damned, as seen in Monday's editorial. And as usual they're not above lying to make their case.

California's high-speed rail boondoggle is a case in point. True, voters did back a $9.95 billion bond measure to provide seed money for the $44 billion project. But there is no good reason for the federal government to toss in more money for a highly flawed adventure.

There is no real business plan for the rail system. There are no realistic estimates of ridership, operating costs, capital outlays or total financing.

No business plan?! The new business plan has been available for weeks, including the voluminous source documentation. It includes ridership estimates, operating costs, and financing estimates. But hey, what are a few facts when you have some lies to tell your readers?

We suspect that there is no accurate estimate of the total cost of the rail system. If it is like other big state construction projects, the cost could be way higher than the current $44 billion estimate.

What "other big state construction projects" are these? Of course the editorial doesn't name them, because facts just get in the way - inconvenient truths don't make for good attacks on rail, I guess.

The real motivation for the editorial is to try and deny HSR any federal stimulus money, or any federal money at all:

Perhaps the board is beginning to understand that private investment in a project with no business plan or chance of turning a profit is not likely anytime soon. So why not get in line for a chunk of stimulus money?

Let's hope those handing out tens of billions of dollars of federal taxpayer funds have more common sense than supporters of the high-speed rail system.

California could use stimulus funds in the form of public works financing. But there are other far more worthy projects, such as the BART extension to Santa Clara County.

Private investors remain interested but we must be realistic - the financial and credit crisis is crippling ALL investment activity across the economy no matter what the project, so an increased level of federal support is now necessary. That crisis isn't going to last forever and when it eases high speed rail will be one of the most attractive investments in the country, ensuring long-term returns while providing economic growth through sustainable mass transit.

Media News Group would like to pit HSR and BART against each other but they work best in concert - what better way to ensure high ridership on the San José extension than to have BART meet the HSR line at Diridon Station, ensuring that East Bay travelers have the best possible connection to the HSR line and the rest of the state (short of having an actual HSR route themselves, of course)?

This editorial, for all its misinformation, is a good reminder that we will have to work hard in 2009 to ensure that we get our federal funding. HSR deniers may still be casting about for ways to stay relevant but I can assure that before long, they'll have their sights firmly fixed on Congress.

Weekend Open Thread

On the Coast Starlight #14 yesterday one of the old California Zephyr Dome Cars from the 1950s was attached at the back of the consist. On board were a bunch of Cal alumni headed up to the Bay Area for the 111th Big Game this afternoon. (Go Bears!) There are a bunch of Cal alums living down in Southern California, many of whom like to travel up to watch the annual Big Game whether it's in Berkeley or Palo Alto.

In addition, there are plenty of sports fans that often travel between north and south following their teams - Dodgers fans going to SF for a game, Raider fans going to San Diego, Trojan and Bruin fans going to the Bay Area, Kings and Ducks fans going to the Shark Tank, and of course the intense rivalry between the Lakers and Sacramento Kings (and I'm sure Warriors fans travel too).

Those trips are all made much, much easier with high speed rail. Most of the stadiums for these teams are very easily reached by transit, and many are close to proposed HSR stations. The Shark Tank is literally across the street from Diridon Station. Just as BART gets heavy ridership on game days, I am sure that California sports fans will find HSR to be a godsend. Leave work an hour early in LA and be in SF to watch the Giants and Dodgers that night. How awesome will that be?

Anyhow, this is an open thread. A few items that might be of interest:

• Campus Progress published a much better HSR article, by Eliza Krigman of the Center for Responsive Politics' blog Capital Eye. Unfortunately the American Prospect's TAPPED blog linked approvingly to that moronic Ben Adler piece. Dana Goldstein of TAPPED mislabeled HSR as "California's Light Rail line." The blind leading the blind...



• BART to San José looks to have passed for good - will that make Diridon Station the Grand Central Station of the West? Or does the Transbay Terminal deserve that accolade? Let's not forget LA Union Station, which on the four times I used it over the last few days was packed to the rafters as usual. Still, with the ACE trains, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, VTA, BART, and HSR, Diridon Station is poised to become one of the great nodes of passenger rail travel on the West Coast, if not the nation.

And did I mention, Go Bears?!

To BART Or Not To BART

That is the question posed by rafael in the post below which explores the impact of Measure B's narrow failure (based on the most recent results) on BART, Caltrain and our high speed rail project. Take it away, rafael!

***

The final tally is not in yet, but it is looking increasingly likely that measure B in Santa Clara very narrowly missed the 66.67% required to pass. It called for a 1/8th of a percent sales tax increase for 30 years that would have supplemented measure A(2000) funds for constructing a BART extension between Fremont and Santa Clara via downtown San Jose. A separate people mover to the SJC terminals is also planned. However, if measure B does fail, the county will not be eligible for $760 million in federal matching funds that it was counting on.

Check here for the latest update on the result.

Since the defeat was so narrow, city officials are now advocating limiting the scope of phase 1 to the section between Fremont and somewhere between Milpitas Capitol Ave and Alum Rock Ave. The whole purpose of the extension is to relieve chronic rush hour congestion on I-880 south of Fremont, so reaching the VTA light rail stop is a hard requirement. Ridership projections for this phase 1 are 50,000 a day, which may be wildly optimistic.

The idea is that the supplemental sales tax hike would be requested again at the next opportunity to enable phase 2, the tunnels underneath Santa Clara Street to San Jose Diridon. Ridership projections for the complete BART extension are 98,000 a day. Feel free chime in on this by leaving a comment in the San Jose Mercury News forum.

There is an alternative to extending BART all the way to Santa Clara that would be both cheaper and functionally superior -
see this map.

Essentially, it involves extending BART to Fremont Irvington only (Paseo Padre Pkwy). There, passengers would transfer to Caltrain's new electric multiple unit (EMU) rolling stock, e.g. Siemens Desiro. Caltrain has already demonstrated their crash safety at grade crossings to FRA in an interim report on mixed traffic in the context of its Caltrain 2025 program.

Interim Report on Mixed Traffic (March 2008)

Caltrain 2025

Construction would begin by laying standard gauge tracks and 25kV AC overhead catenaries south from Fremont Irvington. With no third rail to worry about, secondary cross roads could remain grade crossings, saving hundreds of millions. FRA permits grade crossings for speeds up to 110mph, which is more than adequate in the narrow county-owned Western Pacific Milpitas Line (WPML) right of way.

The agency permits quiet zones in which warning bells and train horns need not be used, provided that specified measures (e.g. four quadrant gates) are implemented.

The tracks underneath Santa Clara Street would be constructed using the cut-and-cover method instead of the more expensive tunneling (except underneath VTA light rail tracks downtown). Road vehicles would be limited to a single lane each way near the construction site, so detours would be a fact of life for the construction period. Besides reducing cost, cut-and-cover also makes it much easier to support high capacity bi-level rolling stock that BART will never be able to use.

A pedestrian walkway would connect the north-south platforms at San Jose Diridon with the new underground east-west platform. The new line would connect to existing standard gauge tracks after emerging just north of the station, enabling service between Fremont Irvington and San Francisco without transfers.

Instead of spending $284 million on a people mover, a pedestrian overpass with elevators would permit passengers alighting at Santa Clara station to reach a shuttle bus stop at the dead end of Brokaw Road. Buses would use the private road between SJC long term parking and the terminals to avoid traffic.

So far, we have discussed two advantages of extending electrified Caltrain east rather than BART south: reduced cost thanks to grade crossings and cheaper rolling stock plus, higher capacity thanks to bi-level cars. There are, however, other advantages:

- Santa Clara county would not be required to fund any BART operations at all, ever.

- BART could focus on increasing pedestrian flow capacity in its downtown San Francisco stations.

- Partially offset the cost of the overhead catenary between Fremont Irvington and San Jose Diridon, Caltrain service south of San Jose Diridon could be canceled. Instead, diesel-powered Capitol Corridor trains would run down to Morgan Hill and Gilroy, perhaps even Hollister, at appropriate times of day. In the future, the corridor definition could theoretically be extended to Monterey, though that would require many miles of new or upgraded track. [Robert here: the Transportation Agency of Monterey County is working on implementing light rail on the Monterey Branch Line, and bringing the Caltrain to Salinas.]

- Having decided on Pacheco Pass, CHSRA is now "considering" an HST/commuter overlay through Altamont Pass. This is outside the scope of Prop 1A, which voters approved on Nov. 4. The basis for discussion is the $6 billion gold-plated HSR alignment developed early on in the project. It calls for full grade separation, extensive tunneling and an aerial structure along 7th Street to West Oakland BART. The latter feature would create the option of adding a second transbay tube to the new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco at some point in the distant future.

Between Fremont Irvington and Milpitas, this alignment relies on the aforementioned WPML. The resulting conflict with the BART extension project may well have have been a major factor in settling on Pacheco Pass for HSR. However, extending BART south of Fremont Irvington would effectively preclude any chance of ever getting anything resembling an HST/commuter overlay built.

By keeping the WPML ROW at standard gauge, Caltrain could host Capitol Corridor and ACE trains pulled by two-mode locomotives (diesel genset plus pantograph), provided that FRA permits this mixed traffic scenario. These guest operators could choose to loop back to Niles via Santa Clara/SJC, Great America and Fremont Centerville. Alternatively, they could run trains up to 4th & King in San Francisco.

To reduce the construction cost of the overlay, the old SP track on the north side of Niles Canyon could be refurbished and straightened out with one short tunnel. A second track would be laid through Pleasanton, Livermore and Tracy and shared with UPRR freight trains via mutual trackage agreements. Everything would be at grade, with quiet zones and grade crossings except where traffic volume justifies grade separation. Maximum speed would be 110 mph or less.

If desired, additional ACE trains could also serve Modesto as well as express service between Union City and Oakland/Richmond, with bus connections to the new SMART station in San Rafael. Instead of an aerial alignment to West Oakland, a covered trench down Nelson Mandela Pkwy should be considered.

-rafael

The Airline Crisis Comes to San José

Today's Mercury News provides an in-depth look at Mineta San José Airport expansion and asks whether it will be a "waste" as the price of oil leads to dramatic cuts in flights and services:

With the airline industry in disarray amid the startling rise in oil prices, new questions are emerging about the impact on San Jose's lofty $1.3 billion airport expansion.

Even as airport officials promise a state-of-art new terminal will open by 2010, they are also grappling with some disturbing trends that might eventually lead to fewer flights here. Increased traffic is key to paying off the expansion - and while airport officials are reluctant to speculate about long-term trends, nobody can say whether the short-term belt-tightening now under way will be enough to weather a protracted downturn.

SJC officials are in a tight spot - to keep airlines there, they have to have low fees. But to repay the $1.3 billion in bonds that were sold to finance the project, they need income. If flights are cut and the number of passengers drops SJC would have to get more money in fees from the airlines - which would cause the airlines to cut back service further.

THAT is what true financial risk looks like. SJC gambled that air travel would remain a viable form of transportation well into the future - and that oil prices would remain low. They may lose that bet.

The fear that fuel prices may rise even higher looms over San Jose's Aviation Director Bill Sherry. He recently showed the city council data from industry analysts who estimate that if oil goes to $150 a barrel, national passenger levels could fall by 23 percent. At $200 a barrel, they could plunge by 35 percent.

The airport's original $100 million budget for the fiscal year that began this month projected a passenger growth rate of 1 percent. If traffic instead decreases by 10 percent, officials say revenues for the airport - which is self-supporting and receives no money from the city's general fund - would fall as much as $9 million.

The price of a barrel of oil is going to fluctuate for some time. $150 is certainly possible within the next few weeks, just as $99 is possible within the next few months. But the long-term trend is upward, there can be no mistaking it. The result, as I have consistently argued on the blog, is reduced service:

Delta Airlines spokesman Anthony Black said the rising cost of oil means one simple solution: "Fewer flights and fewer markets." The company has already cut back flights nationwide by 13 percent since December and now operates nine daily flights into San Jose.

I don't welcome this - SJC is my primary airport, given how expensive it is to fly out of Monterey. This means my own travel options are going to be reduced and made more expensive.

What is to be done?

"The airport is the dance hall, and the airlines are the pretty girls," quips Forrester Research travel-industry analyst Henry Harteveldt. "You have to have the pretty girls to get the guys to show up - and the guys are the passengers."

Of course, SJC isn't the only dance hall in town. The other SJC - Diridon Station - is poised to become one of the Bay Area's key transportation nodes. HSR would complement Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, and VTA light rail, all of which currently serve San José Diridon. Theoretically BART will be added into the mix, and even though I do not expect that to actually happen, Diridon Station will still be well positioned to use its "girls" - modern, high speed trains - to attract the "guys" - passengers - for travel purposes. HSR can move travelers quickly to SFO, and the Capitol Corridor can take passengers to OAK (where the Amtrak California line already has a station). Of course, HSR will also connect passengers to other points in California, notably in Southern California.

Whether we want to continue the tortured dance hall metaphor or not, it is clear that passenger rail is showing rates of growth that the airline industry cannot match. HSR won't replace the mid or long-range flights, but it would help passengers in the Santa Clara Valley have affordable and sustainable travel options, which they clearly are going to need in the future.

The real "financial risk" in this case is that the Silicon Valley places all its eggs in Mineta-SJC's basket, relying solely on airlines and an airport that both might face serious financial problems in the near future. Wouldn't it make sense to hedge against the risk by building a transportation system that has proved to be a global success, and that maximizes the ongoing passenger rail trend?