The Caltrain summits

A lot of attention is focusing on Caltrain given the budget situation and the possibility that most of the train service could be eliminated.

SVLG held a summit last Friday at Stanford mostly attended by representatives from businesses and governments. This Saturday, "Friends of Caltrain" will host a "grassroots" summit in San Carlos. The goals of both summit are to find solutions to the Caltrain funding problem and to the rally support.

The Caltrain situation is bring together political factions that have been at odds. SVLG, as we know, is behind the BART project and also supports high speed rail. On the other hand, cities like Palo Alto and Burlingame are lending support to preserve Caltrain service as they fight against the High Speed Rail Authority.

Regardless of their true intentions, it is clear that cities and businesses will hurt if Caltrain service were to be eliminated or curtailed significantly. The high tech businesses in the valley rely on Caltrain to bring employees that prefer to live in San Francisco. The cities up and down the Peninsula take advantage of Caltrain to promote downtowns and transit oriented developments. Employers like Stanford University depend on Caltrain to reduce traffic and cut down the parking spaces that otherwise would be required.

Some people, perhaps blinded by their pure hatred against high speed rail, think that Caltrain should be eliminated to kill any chance for high speed rail. At the same time, some high speed rail supporters suggest that high speed rail could be completed sooner if Caltrain were eliminated. But as history shows (Caltrain was closed on weekends from 2002-2004), there's no transit that can truly substitute Caltrain. There's also no room to add lanes on 101 without tearing down homes.

Given Caltrain's performance and potential, Caltrain needs and deserves a strong regional coalition in order to survive the financial crisis. If done right, Caltrain could be a catalyst for a more integrated and efficient regional transit system. If groups on both sides of the high speed rail issue can work together to save Caltrain, it is possible that they could agree on a high speed rail scenario that is integrated, achievable, and does not create unnecessary fear.

Friends of Caltrain summit

Location: SamTrans Auditorium,

1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos (near Caltrain)

Date: Saturday, January 29, 2011 Time: 8:30 am to 2:30 pm.

HSR tunnel insanity finally comes to an end

Earlier today the High Speed Rail Authority voted to put off all but one alignment option south of the San Jose Diridon Station. The current Caltrain alignment (to appease the neighbors) and all of the underground alignments will no longer pursued by the Authority. The only alternative remain on the table is an elevated alignment along Highway 87 and 280, and the station at San Jose Diridon will be elevated as well.

The freeway alignment is not perfect, but is reasonable. The underground options are simply unbuildable, and they don't need to spend all the time to figure that out.

Nutty San Jose HSR tunnel idea continues

After seeing the high cost and difficulty of putting high speed rail deep underground in the San Jose Diridon Station area, the City of San Jose has requested HSRA to study a shallow undergound option in hopes to reduce cost and improve constructability.

Under the shallow tunnel option, rail tunnels leading to and from the station would be built using tunnel boring machines. At the station area and the station approaches where the tracks join, the underground structures would be build by cut and cover. The shallow underground alternative has a similar alignment as the deep tunnel alternative, where the station would be located diagonally in front of the current train station.



The advantage of the shallow tunnel is that it costs $1.3 billion rather than $3 billion, but that's where the advantage ends. Under that alternative, the HSR station would have be dug out under the current light rail tunnel in front of the station and would have to occupy the land under the proposed baseball stadium, which is to be located south of the train station.


Deep tunnel option (upper) and shallow tunnel option (lower)

The shallow tunnel alternative would require changes to the BART project. Under that scenario, the BART tunnel would run under the proposed HSR tunnels rather than over it.

Because VTA has no funds to build BART beyond Berryessa, switching positions between the two rail lines is a feasible option. What VTA should also consider is to drop the redundent portion between San Jose Diridon and Santa Clara stations entirely. However, even if VTA is willing to address that issue, the conflict between cut and cover construction and the proposed stadium would likely kill this alternative.

Another option the city requested to study is to route HSR over the freeways rather than following the existing Caltrain corridor. Although this option has constructability concerns because of the need to maintain traffic flows on the freeway, it also presents an opportunity to build an iconic bridge for San Jose. As long as that iconic bridge does not end up to be another Bay Bridge fiasco, it might be the most reasonable option. With this option, the city would make HSR a part of the city's identity rather than to hide it.



Some of the cities further north on the peninsula are fighting HSR by pursuing another lawsuit against HSRA (HSRA already lost the first one). If San Jose is truly interested in HSR, it needs to decide how to accommodate HSR without adding more costs to the project.

End of the road for that SFO shuttle

After raising the SFO surcharge from $1.50 to $4.00 last year, SFO and BART finally came to an agreement (with lots of horse trading over ad revenue and so forth) to revert the surcharge for airport employees, and that the employee shuttle between Millbrae and SFO would be eliminated.

Rising that surcharge for employees was a terrible idea in the first place. The airport has many blue-collar jobs and most of the current round trip fares on BART exceed their hourly wages.

However, eliminating the shuttle will increase expenses for employees. Even before BART raised the surcharge, the fares at SFO have always been higher than the fare at Millbrae. For the employees who take SamTrans buses on El Camino or Caltrain, that means no more free rides.

Of course those who got impacted the most are travelers taking Caltrain to SFO. Without that shuttle, they would have to pay the $4.00 fare with a confusing transfer in San Bruno. A decade ago, BART promised a free transfer for Caltrain riders because the extension would replace a free shuttle.

Even without the employee shuttle, Caltrain riders can still boycott the ridiculous $4.00 fare just to get between Millbrae and SFO. Here's how:

- From any station between Palo Alto and Hillsdale, just skip Caltrain entirely and take the SamTrans KX. SamTrans only charges $2.00 and KX stops by (on El Camino) many of the Caltrain stations between Palo Alto and Hillsdale. The northbound bus stop at Hillsdale is located a block south on El Camino and 37th Avenue.

- From Hayward Park, San Mateo, Burlingame, and Broadway station, skip Caltrain and take the SamTrans 292. Again it charges $2.00 and the bus picks up by many of the above stations.

- From further south, you can take Caltrain to Burlingame station and transfer to SamTrans 292. The northbound bus stop is located on California Drive and Howard Avenue, a block from the Caltrain station. From the station, just walk south to Howard Avenue and turn west to California Drive.

The timings between Caltrain and 292 work out some of the time. Before Caltrain and SamTrans slashed their services last year, it was possible to take Caltrain and transfer to the KX.

A better solution (and the best boycott against BART and SFO) is to use San Jose Airport. VTA and San Jose Airport still offer a direct, frequent, and free service to connect Caltrain and the light rail to the airport. The only downside is that San Jose Airport doesn't offer as much international flights or direct flights to big cities.

You can thank Quentin Kopp (former state senator and now HSR boardmember) for the mess at SFO. Back in the 90s, he lobbied for the current BART alignment at SFO knowing that it will drive up operating costs and make transfers (BART to Caltrain, and Caltrain to SFO) inconvenient. Last year, he was at it again by trying to prevent HSR from getting to Downtown San Francisco by throwing roadblocks at the Transbay Terminal project. Two weeks ago, when HSRA staff told him that his trojan horse alternative was considered infeasible, he casted the only no vote on the HSR alternative analysis for the Peninsula corridor. He was and still is an enemy to Caltrain riders. The sooner he becomes irrelevant, the better off we are.

A very good day for high speed rail

President Obama announced that $2.34 billion will be awarded to California for high speed rail and the state-funded Amtrak system.

Although the funding is relatively small compared to the overall cost of the high speed rail project, it is a seed money that can expedite some elements of the entire program. If it is spent wisely by the High Speed Rail Authority and local agencies, it can create jobs and bring some transportation benefits before the entire high speed rail system is built.

While some supporters expressed concerns that this federal aid is too small, it is also important to note that Washington is likely to approve additional funding in future years, especially if the Democrats keep control of the Congress and the White House.

San Jose insists HSRA to study something that it can't afford

City of San Jose is a master of hypocrisy. Years ago, they insisted that trains should route through its city. Since HSRA selected an alternative that routes through San Jose. The city now demands it to go underground.

Last month, despite the fact that HSRA board voted to drop the underground alternative citing high cost and engineering risks, HSRA now has agreed to further study that concept after San Jose delusionals (Mayor Reed and the awful Councilman Sam Liccardo) sent a letter to the authority.

Underground HSR proponents think that a visible alignment through San Jose would somehow divide the city, conveniently ignoring the fact that San Jose has two ugly elevated freeways (87 and 280) separating the downtown with neighborhoods to the south and the west. Although they continue to cite the Embarcadero freeway in San Francisco as a reason for their opposition against elevated structures, they are not demanding that these two San Jose freeways be torn down.

Is the City of San Jose prepared to tax itself to put HSR underground? If San Jose does not want a HSR visible in the city and cannot afford to build it underground, shouldn't it be supporting the Altamont alternative instead. Also, by removing the ugly elevated 87 freeway (which was recently widened with support from Carl Guardino), the city would do much more to tie the rest of Downtown San Jose with the proposed HSR station and HP Pavilion than putting anything underground.

Unfortunately, HSRA's action sets a bad example and does nothing other than wasting time. On one hand, you got Rod Diridon on the HSRA agreeing to waste time to study an option that San Jose cannot afford, yet emboldens the NIMBYs further north on the Peninsula to make the same demand. On the other hand, you got Quentin Kopp (also on the HSRA) fighting San Francisco by forcing HSRA to study another unbuildable alternative HSR terminal in San Francisco that nobody (other than Kopp's friends) wants, and which is unnecessarily threatening the residents at Rincon Hill as Kopp's alternative would require removal of a 300-unit condo high rise.

It is time for reform at HSRA.

California High Speed Rail Authority drops nutty idea of deep underground trains through downtown

Last Thursday, CHSRA voted to drop the idea of putting high speed rail deep underground next to the current station in Downtown San Jose.

Revealed a few months ago during the scoping process, CHSRA considered Downtown diagonal options to straighten the corridor and to avoid the area south of 280 and west of 87. That diagonal alignment included an elevated and an underground option.

Like all other NIMBYs further up on the peninsula, neighborhoods' reaction is to prefer the underground option. What the HSR planners found is that the underground option is nearly unbuildable with high groundwater table and would cost 6 times the base cost. The proposed underground option would be more than 100 feet deep to go below a river, light rail, and a possible BART subway alignment and would have a concourse and at least 4 tracks.

HSR planners recommend to put the high speed rail station on top of the existing Caltrain station, and further review two alignments that would connect the Diridon station with Tamien station. One of which would stay on the current Caltrain alignment.

Many delusionals still believe that putting train underground is the best.

"The community will ask why this is so difficult when BART is already underground "... the community will think the board only wants the cheapest, and not the best, alternatives," Dresden told the board.

The fact is that BART is not underground. BART is in fact not anywhere near there at all. VTA does have a plan to build a BART subway there but has no funding for it, and the neighborhoods have yet to experience any impact resulting from the subway construction. Their demand for an underground high speed rail would require it to go under the BART white elephant, which without a doubt adds cost and more importantly, reduces construction feasibility. If the neighborhood folks aren't so naive, perhaps they could have demanded better alternatives for both high speed rail and BART (like Altamont HSR) before things got to where they are now.

Light rail, Altamont Pass, etc

Light Rail COA

BayRail Alliance will be hosting a meeting next week on the COA for the VTA light rail system. VTA's Kevin Connolly will be presenting. As reported here earlier, VTA is conducting a COA for the light rail to outline future system improvements and proposed operation scenarios to boost light rail ridership. Ridership on the VTA's light rail is lagging behind other similar systems in Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego.

November 19, 2009
7:00pm
City of Mountain View, Council Chambers
500 Castro Street, Mountain View (by Mercy Street)

Meal option will not be provided for this meeting.

Altamont Pass

ACE, FRA, and CHSRA are hosting a series of meeting today and next week to start the environmental planning process for the Altamont Corridor. Although Altamont did not make the cut to be the high speed corridor between Central Valley and the Bay Area, Sacramento nonetheless included Altamont as a complementary corridor in Proposition 1A.

The good part is that the corridor could be transformed into a near-HSR route with high quality passenger service. The bad part is that there's no funding available to build it, since it is secondary to the main HSR route, which is more likely to receive whatever HSR money that will be made available.

Even if there's no money associated with it for now, a parallel planning effort would make the Altamont a strong back up option if the Pacheco Pass option proves to be infeasible. As we already know, CHSRA does not have an agreement with UP, and not until the passage of Prop 1A, that the Pacheco Pass has generated local opposition in San Jose because of its alignment south of the Diridon station (and some of the proposed solutions proved to be sillier and more expensive). A well designed Altamont corridor could avoid impacts local neighborhoods and provide service in area with high TOD potential (North 1st Street).

All meeting will be held from 3:00–8:00pm in drop-in open house format:

* Tuesday: Robert Livermore Community Center, 4444 East Ave., Livermore.

* Thursday: San Joaquin Council of Governments, 555 E. Weber Ave., Stockton.

* Nov. 17: Fremont Teen Center, 39770 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont.

* Nov. 18: Le Petit Trianon Theatre, 72 N. Fifth St., San Jose.

Throwing more good money after bad

VTA has recently announced that it is spending $61 million to build an additional track and other improvements between San Jose and Morgan Hill for Caltrain.

While spending VTA money to improve Caltrain is wise in general, is it worth it to spend that money south of San Jose?

Today, Caltrain ridership on the Gilroy segment has been significantly reduced from its high back in 2000. The economy, widening on 101, fare increase, and VTA operated express buses have cut much of Caltrain's ridership base. While VTA had projected an increase in train service back in 2000, Caltrain actually cut one of the four round trips so that the equipment can be better utilized for the popular Baby Bullet service.

Based on earlier double tracking south of San Jose completed in 2002/2003, Caltrain has the ability to run 5 round trips. However it is running 3 round trips today. That $61 million might allow Caltrain to run one or two more round trips. However unless VTA has the operating funds and equipment to provide additional service, riders won't see much of the benefits from that expenditure.

One of the reasons Caltrain provides limited service south of San Jose is that the corridor is owned by Union Pacific. The company historically is hostile to passenger rail. UP sees passenger rail, may it be Caltrain, ACE, or Amtrak, as pirates somehow trying to freeload from the company. On the other hand, BNSF, a competing rail company that owns tracks elsewhere in California, sees public agencies as partners.

The other issue that make this expenditure unwise is high speed rail. Although HSRA has chosen Pacheco Pass as its preferred alignment, it still hasn't secured any specific corridor between San Jose and Gilroy. Its earlier assumption of using the UP corridor in the program-level EIR is opposed by UP (as expected) and has been rejected by a judge in a lawsuit brought on by Altamont Pass supporters.

If high speed rail is constructed on any corridor, Caltrain or other high speed rail trains would likely provide commuter service between Gilroy and San Jose on electrified high speed tracks (since Caltrain north of San Jose would've been electrified anyway). If somehow HSRA could secure any rights to use the UP right of way, the operating scenarios (separate HSR/freight tracks) proposed by HSRA would not take advantage of the new track funded by VTA.

As if we don't already know, VTA spends capital money based on the desires from its politically driven staff and consultants. VTA could've spend the money elsewhere along Caltrain and have a greater impact. For example, the Santa Clara Caltrain station is currently a safety hazard (by making people board SF bound trains between the tracks). If the station is rebuilt, ACE could once again serve the station after Caltrain kicked ACE out of that station in 2005.

Sales tax crash

Is VTA going down the same path as the transit agency in Orange County, in which it is planning one massive bus cuts after another?

At the beginning of the year, VTA said that no cuts were planned. A few months later, VTA finally told the board that it needs to raise fares and cut service. Over the summer months, worsening sales tax revenue prompted the board to move up the fare increases from July 2010 to October 2009.

Unfortunately, that may not be the end of it. The Mercury News is reporting that VTA is facing an operating deficit of $98 million over the next year. A combination of fare increases, service cuts, layoffs, reduction in employee benefits, and more are on the table.

The prospect of another bus cuts is a terrible news to those who fought against those proposals last summer. Cuts that were withdrawn by staff due to community oppositions could come back again. Furthermore, many of the routes that received improved service in January 2008 and July 2009 could very much have their frequency reduced to the original level.

It is possible to preserve the bus service by diverting additional operating funds from the 2000 Measure A. Back when that tax was approved in 2000, Measure A funds could be used for operations. In 2003, when VTA was planning a 21% service cuts, transit advocates lobbied VTA to borrow Measure A funds (the tax was supposed to begin in 2006) to preserve service. Presently, about $30 million from Measure A supports bus and light rail operation every year. The irony is that funding from Measure A was supposed to pay for bus expansion. However, since sales taxes have been hit so hard over the years, Measure A funding now supports current bus operation (way below year 2000 level) that otherwise would've been discontinued.

According to the Mercury News, Michael Burns insists that the BART project is not impacted. Guess what? Sales tax reduction for transit operation (1976 sales tax) also applies to the 2000 Measure A to the same degree. If additional Measure A funds were to be diverted for operation, there'll be even less for capital projects.

However, we probably won't be able to get a full financial picture on capital projects since Burns has informally and unilaterally adopted a policy to not talking about it. As long as he doesn't talk about it, he could keep Carl Guardino's myth alive. Even so, VTA is jealous that high speed rail is getting most of the public's attention and a strong funding momentum from the federal government. If these delusionals listened to transit advocates instead, VTA would've joined the high speed rail club with Caltrain Metro East.

Change for the worst... and more

If you are not a high priced VTA or BART contractor/consultant, today is a change for the worst as the $2 one way fare comes into effect.

The price for the regular monthly pass has gone up to $70. The new price for the express monthly pass is now $140.

However, that's not the end here, the VTA board will consider tonight on cutting bus and light rail service by 8%, which would go in effect in January.

Highway 17 Express

Interestingly, even though the fares for various operators have gone up over the years, the fares for the Highway 17 Express have remained the same. When the Highway 17 Express began weekend service in 2004 (as it merged with Amtrak Thruway bus to Santa Cruz), the fare was adjusted to $4 one way, which is still in effect today. In 1994, the Amtrak Thruway fare was $5 one way and the Highway 17 Express was $2.25. Overall, bus riders have been getting more value for the fare dollar especially considering the increasing cost of gas.

How can Highway 17 Express keeps its fares the same for so long? Highway 17 Express is operated by Santa Cruz Metro with funding from the Metro, VTA, and Amtrak. It has an independent operating budget. After the implementation of weekend service, ridership has increased steadily over the years. It enjoys a high farebox recovery of 58% in July 2009, despite a 9% drop in ridership from the same month last year. Stable weekend ridership (which many riders pay one way fares) helps bring in revenue for the line.

HSR open house for San Jose-Gilroy segment

Despite losing the lawsuit (specifically on the lack of agreement with UP for using the rail corridor between San Jose and Gilroy), HSRA nonetheless will hold meetings on that segment next week. Two of them will be held in Santa Clara County.

San Jose
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Gardner Community Center
520 W. Virginia Street

Gilroy
Monday, October 12, 2009
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn
6070 Monterey Road

While the HSRA planning process so far has captured the attention of Palo Alto and Menlo Park residents, who fear that high speed rail would either take their property or somehow cause a decline in their property value, San Jose residents who might be impacted by high speed rail does not have the same political clout as those in Palo Alto or Menlo Park. However that might change...

The HSRA is studying various alternatives for getting trains through Downtown San Jose. Although the current Caltrain alignment is the base line, the existing line south of the San Jose Diridon Station is slow and narrow. Immediately south of the station, the Caltrain line has to cross under the San Carlos Street overpass and above Los Gatos Creek.

One alternative under consideration is a diagonal station for high speed rail (last page in this PDF) right in front of the existing Caltrain station. HSRA engineers said that this alternative (under the SF-SJ segment) is driven by the planning process for the segment between San Jose and Gilroy. Alternative alignments like those could get the high speed rail trains through San Jose faster, but might not be something that San Jose Delusionals have expected.

HSRA to conduct alternative analysis open houses

Three open houses will be held to receive comments of project alternatives proposed by HSR:

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
SamTrans Auditorium
1250 San Carlos Avenue – San Carlos
6:00 – 8:00 pm

October 9, 6:00‐8:00 pm
Sunnyvale Recreation Center (Ballroom)
550 E. Remington Drive
Sunnyvale, CA

October 13, 6:00‐8:00 pm
Milton Marks Conference Center
455 Golden Gate Avenue – Lower Level
San Diego A/B/C Rooms
San Francisco, CA

HSRA unprofessionalism for all to see

Yesterday was a significant day for the HSRA. First, a judge ruled in favor of the petitioners who sued HSRA for the inadequate evaluation in the program EIR for the SF-SJ segment. Second, top HSRA staffer got grilled by Congresswoman Anno Eshoo at a Town Hall meeting held in Menlo Park.

Lawsuit

It is hard to win environmental lawsuits. Generally, judges generally give deference to government agencies that produced these documents as if they were police officers in a traffic or criminal trial. Ordinary citizens generally do not have the financial resources to hire consultants to counter the government's claim on technical basis, and generally do not have the kind of credibility, even though history shows that government agencies and consultants can literally lie to achieve their politically-predetermined results.

Essentially, HSRA lost the suit on the fact that it does not have the access to the Union Pacific owned right of way (UP clearly told the agency NO prior to the adoption of the program level EIR), which HSRA says it is necessary to travel from San Jose to Gilroy under the Pacheco option. Also, the judge found that the agency's evaluation of vibration impacts to be inadequate.

Last month, the petitioners offered a reasonable settlement that would have prevented possible delays. However, the inept boardmembers at HSRA rejected it and decided to stick with their political-predetermined position. Now the judge has agreed with the petitioners and HSRA will have to pay a higher price for their arrogence.

HSR Town Hall

Last night, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo hosted a Town Hall meeting on High Speed Rail. On the Peninsula, the high speed rail project is a contentious issue. Also like any recent town halls throughout the country, it has attracted anti-health care reform protesters. However, the Town Hall went smoothly as anti-health care reform protesters stayed outside and Eshoo refused to answer any questions on health care.

During the Town Hall meeting, Eshoo took a commanding role and read questions verbatim from her constituents. Executive directors and chief project managers from Caltrain and HSRA were on a panel answering the questions. Her constituents raised concerns about the community impact of the line, possible loss in property value, and potential need to eminent domain. Eshoo agreed with her constituents that HSRA needs to do much more in communicating with the public.

The meeting clearly showed incompetence from Mehdi Morshed, HSRA's executive director. At the meeting, Morshed was not able to anwser some of the questions directly and clearly. On a question about how HSRA came to the conclusion to support the Pacheco corridor, Morshed told Eshoo and the audience that the reasons are in the program EIR. The anwser was clearly not satisfactory. Eshoo later told the panel that she expects anwsers that are to be real anwsers.

On the other hand, Staff from Caltrain were able to provide direct answers on many of questions. Bob Doty explained the complexity of tunneling. Caltrain executive director reminded the audience about the need for an improved Caltrain system and how this project would benefit Caltrain.

The Town Hall showed the lack of confidence from Eshoo's constitutents on HSRA's ability to build this project and listen to the community's concerns, which has fueled a lot of opposition and fear mongering for the last several months.

A change in the HSRA leadership will go a long way to restore the confidence needed to take this project forward. The main question is whether there's political will to change the agency's leadership.

Rod Diridon stirring false HSR funding fears

Unfortunately this is looking like a battle between the Palo Alto/San Jose NIMBYs versus Rod Diridon. Rod Diridon is trying to get the state legistlature to remove the language from the budget bill that would require the HSRA to study alternative alignments to the Caltrain corridor in the project-level EIR for the San Jose-San Francisco segment. The NIMBYs in Palo Alto and San Jose are in favor of the language believing that alternative alignments could be chosen that avoid their neighborhoods. Diridon is opposing this claiming the delay caused by further study would force the agency to miss the deadline set by the Stimulus bill and would have to forego funding.

This political tug-of-war ignores reality. First, some of the alternative alignments are very likely to be screened out because of major flaws. Just because a particular alignment bypasses a neighborhood does not mean that it won't cause harm to the environment and stir opposition from others in the community. A proper evaluation would likely show that a Caltrain alignment would produce the least harm.

Second, Diridon's claim of missing the deadline for the Stimulus fund comes from the assumption that the HSRA would submit the entire corridor for Stimulus funding, which timing would either be too tight or impossible to fulfill regardless. This region would not miss most if any of the Stimulus funds if it prioritizes near term improvements that have been studied and received environmental clearance. The near term projects submitted by MTC for the funding costs about 20% of the total $8 billion of the stimulus funds. The projects submitted by MTC are necessary for high speed rail anyway unless HSRA gives up its current preference and repicks an alignment outside the Caltrain right of way, which this language won't do.

Similar to the current events in Iran, the HSRA can only lose trust in the communities by its rush to judgement and its ignorance to their concerns. While the motive of the legislator who placed the language is suspicious, removing this language from the bill will only foster further distrust by those who have the power to cause further delays for the project.

Restoring the trust will likely require some kind of "regime change" at the High Speed Rail Authority currently dominated by Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon, who both have a history of supporting wasteful transit projects and pick fights against transit advocates to score cheap political points. High speed rail could be way better off with other more competent and less politically divisive boardmembers.

HSR Authority signs pact on Altamont

Last Thursday HSRA sign an agreement with the ACE Board (San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission) on the Altamont Corridor and the segment between Merced and Sacramento. According to the agreement, HSRA and ACE will plan for a joint-use (HSR and regional rail) infrastructure on the Altamont corridor. The planning work involved will also include a project-level EIR.

Even though both parties agree on the development of the corridor, like the agreement with Caltrain, did not specify the funding responsibilities. However, unlike the Caltrain corridor, HSR considers the Altamont Corridor to be the secondary corridor and there are does not have the priority for the Prop 1A and the stimulus funds. However, a complete plan and environmental clearance for the corridor could help make Altamont Corridor eligible for other transportation funds in the future.

Caltrain/HSRA agreement and Palo Alto

On the agenda for tomorrow's Caltrain board meeting (which would be held in the County Building in San Jose, where the VTA board meets) is an agreement between Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority on sharing the right of way between San Francisco and San Jose.

That agreement outlines how these agencies will cooperate on building the high speed rail in phases. The agreement is clear that:

• - Caltrain will maintain ownership
• - Infrastructure for HSR will be built alongside while Caltrain continues operation
• - Caltrain and HSR will share tracks on a 4 track mainline
• - HSRA will support Caltrain's effort to electrify and improve the signal system so as to prepare the rail corridor for eventual HSR construction and operation.
  

Some of the issues like funding and liability are not addressed in this agreement, however it does recognized these issues. Under the agreement, a program director would be appointed jointly to oversee engineering and design consultants for the corridor. The program director would report to Caltrain's and CAHSRA's executive director.

What caused concerns for Palo Alto is the vision for a 4 track right of way. Fearing that HSR would "divide" their community, Palo Alto is pursuing options such as putting HSR on a different alignment, putting HSR underground, and ending HSR in San Jose.

Regardless of what their fears are, the agreement is essential for Caltrain and High Speed Rail, and would allow both agencies to take advantage of new funding opportunities through Prop 1A and the Stimulus package. Despite the vision of a 4 tracks right of way, the agreement would be beneficial to Palo Alto and other cities because these cities would have to work with a single program director, rather than a local and a state agency.

The 4 track statement in the MOU is a vision. It is not something that can or will be done in the next few years even if there are no funding constraints. Because Caltrain operation would also have to continue, that would have a greater constraints on alignment, profile choices, and construction timings. Even with the agreement, there will be many more questions on how will HSR be built on an active passenger railroad.

More high speed rail brouhaha

Rod Diridon got a taste of his own medicine when the Palo Alto City Council got scared about the prospect of full high speed rail in the city.

However, despite the poor alignment decision made by the High Speed Rail Authority, the NIMBYs in Palo Alto and elsewhere are not our friend. NIMBYs generally act out because of their lack of knowledge. NIMBYs' value only go as far as their acronym states: Not in my backyard. They cannot be counted on to fight for a better HSR system, and they cannot be trusted to counter the other NIMBYs that live along the other alignments.

Even so, Robert Cruickshank's comments about Palo Alto isn't level-headed either. Think about it, the council members in Palo Alto and elsewhere are accountable to their constituents. How could they react other than to amplify the NIMBYs concerns, whether these concerns legitimate or not? Remember, that agrument about "Little Saigon" has resulted in a recall election of a councilmember in San Jose.

Here's some reality check:

- High speed rail won't end in San Jose. High speed trains are technically compatible with Caltrain. They may not go as fast along the Peninsula without all the fancy upgrades and track additions, but the system doesn't have to force people to transfer, unlike BART and light rail.

- The upgrades should be more incremental. That has to be given the shortage of funds. It is more productive to built first in the Central Valley where it is the easiest to construct. The Peninsula section is the most difficult because of existing Caltrain service and the communities built around the corridor. It is better to give residents on the Peninsula a taste of the benefits of high speed rail (even if it is slower and less frequent), rather than to scare them with all these impacts upfront.

- Undergrounding the tracks is nonsense. What is more elitist than wealthy folks asking a higher share of public subsidy for their own benefit? These NIMBYs don't care if the train were to run above ground in Redwood City or in the Bayview. Also, putting trains in tunnels aren't necessarily out of sight and out of mind. The folks in Millbrae aren't complaining about high speed rail (and are actually appreciating the effort to reach out early in the process) after experiencing years of underground BART construction.

What's more problematic is the ongoing drama between the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Caltrain, and the HSRA. HSRA and Caltrain are opposed to TJPA's effort to obtain stimulus funds for the train box project because they contend the proposed train box wouldn't be sufficient for both high speed rail and Caltrain. Inter-agency conflicts are typically addressed in the staff level, but for some reason it grown out of proportion. This would have far more serious impacts for Caltrain and high speed rail than whatever it is going on with the NIMBYs down in Palo Alto.

NIMBYs popping up

You will hear it everywhere. The NIMBYs are now coming out of the woods since the High Speed Rail Authority began the environmental process for the San Francisco-San Jose segment a month ago.

Of course, there are legitimate issues and concerns, such as noise, construction impacts, and whether private properties are needed for the train right of way. Unfortunately there's no answer to many of these questions. Remember, this is just the beginning of the design and engineering process. Also adding to the uncertainty, the High Speed Rail Authority has yet to hammer out an agreement with Caltrain to share the corridor.

However, some of the comments raised by NIMBYs are simply outlandish:

"We just had a stupid meeting in San Jose discussing this BS train which they intend to run through every quaint peninsula town- that would be starting with WILLOW GLEN in San Jose, through Santa Clara quaint downtown, Sunnyvale, Mountain View (nice downtown there), Palo Alto, Atherton where this POS train goes through Larry Ellison's BACKYARD, Menlo Park, Burlingame downtown where this POS will ruin every 4 star restaurant there and up to SF.

"If they don't build this crap project UNDERGROUND this project will be sued repeatedly until all hell breaks loose by the richest people in the country. What a bunch of losers."

And more...

"I hope that with this news, some avid HSR enthusiasts begin to grow a conscience and see that air travel between SF and LA has very very little to do with the Peninsula, and HSR trains may be a reduction in air emissions, but will be a huge net increase to carbon emissions in the Peninsula - because of the auto traffic that will be drawn directly and deeply into Peninsula towns which do not host major airports."

After filtering these comments, the only consistency you'll find is that they don't know much about HSR, that HSR is not good only in where they live, and that HSR ought to be invisible. Also, many of those who commented tend to come from wealthy neighborhoods, and therefore have a stronger sense of entitlement.

Is their fear substantiated? You don't have to travel across the ocean to see that isn't. For instance, there's a 4 track electrified railroad passing through the suburbs of Philadelphia. As you can see, many of these stations have a stronger small-town, suburban-feel than those on the Peninsula.

In addition, there's a false perception that putting the trains underground will solve all problems. The reality is that not only putting trains underground increases construction costs multiple times, it tend to cause more construction impacts onto the community (imagine lines of concrete trucks coming in). With underground construction, the crews would sometimes accidentally cut off electrical or water lines, or cause adjacent buildings to subside.

The dialogue between the community and the High Speed Rail Authority is important, so is the education about high speed rail. Realistically, system requirements would be better defined and somewhat scaled down (value engineering) to reduce cost over time.

Reality hits VTA

At this Friday's VTA workshop, the board will discuss the agency's budget outlook. Given the economic condition, VTA is predicting budget deficits for the next two fiscal years. (VTA has a two-year budget cycle).

VTA is expecting declines in sales tax: a 6.75% reduction from this fiscal year (FY 09) to last fiscal year (FY 08), an additional 5% reduction in FY10 from FY 09, and a 3% reduction in FY 11 from FY10.

On top of that, VTA will lose transit funding from the state because of the state budget situation.

Currently, VTA has an operating reserve of more than $50 million. According to VTA's projection, that reserve will disappear by next year. In the next two years, VTA is projecting a combined operating deficit of $78 million.

Stimulus funds

Contrary to a report by Gary Richards published earlier today, MTC has recommended not to use any of the regional funds for the Transbay Terminal train box project, largely because of the extra $8 billion funding for High Speed Rail pushed by President Obama. MTC's recommendation, however, would provide stimulus funds for a BART connector to Oakland Airport.

While funding to transit agencies have increased, some transit advocates want all the money to go to transit agencies and expressed opposition to the airport connector project.

Surprise stimulus gift to High Speed Rail

Earlier today, the House and Senate settled on a stimulus package that's worth just less than $800 million. On the transit side, the final stimulus package will mirror the version approved by the Senate: $8.4 billion will be distributed to transit agencies based on established formulas and with an additional $5.5 billion to be spent on transit and highway projects selected by the Department of Transportation.

Some expressed disappointments that funding for New Starts projects is not included in the final bill (which was actually included at $750 million, a reduced amount from the house version). Some also thought the stimulus package should include direct operating funds to backfill loss state and local funding.

The biggest surprise is funding for High Speed Rail programs. HSR program was not specifically included in the House version of the bill. Later the Senate added $2 billion. During the conference negotiations, the committee agreed to increase HSR funding to $8 billion. According to reports, the increase was urged personally by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The sudden increase in HSR funding can certainly help to accelerate projects. Earlier this week, MTC released a plan on how to spend the stimulus funds. Under MTC's plan, projects that are almost ready to go but lack funding received priority, which included the people mover connection to Oakland Airport and the underground train box at the Downtown San Francisco Transbay Terminal. VTA would also receive stimulus funds on a formula basis to replace aging buses with hybrids.

Some delusionals were quite disappointed that the BART project was not included in the stimulus package. However, that project was not in a position to benefit from the package anyhow. Under the best case scenario, construction would not be ready for another 3-4 years in the minimum, which runs counter to the intent of the stimulus bill: to create jobs soon as a way to recover from the economic slump. Also, the BART system is not compatible with High Speed Rail. Carl Guardino and other VTA boneheads insisted that regional trains and long distance trains cannot share infrastructure, and they actively advocated against sensible proposals like Caltrain Metro East, which would have certainly benefited from the Prop 1A as well as the stimulus package.