Trains or the Tree

The Palo Alto Daily Post, a free print-only publication than never misses a muckraking opportunity to drum up advertising dollars, is stepping up its HSR fear-mongering another notch. Just like it did one year ago, the Post headline blares: It's Trains Or the Tree. Fast rail will doom fabled redwood.

That's right, 1070-year-old El Palo Alto, California Historical Landmark No. 2, is on the chopping block again.

Palo Alto arborist Dave Dockter is quoted as saying "The best scenario for the tree would be no rail project. The second best would be to tunnel way down deep under the tree so as to not mess up its roots and the hydrology, but there couldn't be an above-ground scenario near the tree; that would be catastrophic."

The rest of the article suggests that Dockter may have been shanghaied into this sensational story. He goes on to say that if anything can be done to save the tree, it will have to spring from a determined joint effort between rail officials and tree experts. "All the nation's best arborists and engineers would have to come around that tree and be on the same side, not as an adversarial relationship, but as an engineering challenge. Engineering needs to meld with nature."

Well, duh.

Just like a year ago, the relevant facts on this issue remain the same:

• The right of way is nearly 150 feet wide at El Palo Alto
  
• The existing rail bridge over the San Francisquito Creek, built in 1904 at the base of the tree, will need replacement soon even if HSR isn't built
• The Daily Post often confuses Page One with its editorial page

This provides yet another reason for the project to hire an arborist. If Dockter had a counterpart, he might not be so inclined to let the Daily Post to stir the HSR pot. In the meantime, there can be little doubt that engineers and arborists will eventually see to it that El Palo Alto is safe.

Another Lawsuit Brewing

Update 8/11/09: The lawsuit (full text, 4.3 MB PDF) has now been filed in San Mateo County Superior Court, amid a certain degree of pageantry.

Original Post: Another lawsuit is brewing at the ground zero of legal action against high speed rail on the peninsula, the leafy town of Atherton. It isn't the first, and will surely not be the last.

Famously, the town of Atherton is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the CHSRA's program environmental certification, which settled upon a route that traverses Atherton via the Caltrain corridor. That lawsuit is scheduled to be decided later this month.

On August 5th, the Daily Post revealed in an article that Atherton Menlo Park resident Russell Peterson and his attorney Mike Brady are planning a new lawsuit to prevent any HSR construction from occurring without full compliance under the Union Pacific trackage rights agreement. In November 1991, when the peninsula rail corridor was sold by the Southern Pacific to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (the operator of Caltrain), the Southern Pacific (later merged into the Union Pacific Railroad) retained certain rights pertaining to rail operations on the peninsula corridor. See Freight on the Peninsula for an overview of UPRR's peninsula operations.

Quite aside from the unanswered questions of exactly who is going to be sued, on what grounds, and whether Peterson even has legal standing to enforce an agreement to which he is not a party, the lawsuit will seek to enlist UPRR's purported rights to slow or stop the construction of high speed rail on the peninsula and through Atherton. Peterson may be trying to provoke UPRR into a dispute with the PCJPB over the high speed rail issue, triggering the Dispute Resolution and Binding Arbitration clauses of Section 7 of the agreement.

Brady, the attorney, spoke at the April 2nd Caltrain board meeting, opposing the Memorandum of Understanding that the PCJPB entered into on that day. That MOU established a framework of cooperation between Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority, which Brady and other project opponents felt was in violation of the 1991 trackage rights agreement. The minutes of that meeting record his statement as follows:

Mike Brady, Menlo Park, said UP has written four letters to HSR over the years concerning its rights under the Trackage Rights Agreement. He is challenging the legal rights of the JPB to enter into this contract with HSR in light of the existing contract with UP. The JPB represents the citizens of San Mateo County and attention needs to be paid to the detrimental impact of HSR and steps need to be taken to alleviate it.

So what's all the fuss about anyway? HSR opponents have made much of the fact that the UPRR agreement contains a clause giving the Union Pacific the right to operate intercity passenger service, as opposed to Caltrain's commuter service. Section 2.7 of the agreement delineates the respective rights and responsibilities of the User (UPRR) and Owner (Caltrain).

2.7 Intercity Passenger Rights Agreement: Intercity Passenger Service on the Joint Facilities (except for User's Cahill/Lick Line) shall be subject to the following provisions:

(a) Owner shall permit User to allow NRPC [Amtrak] Intercity Passenger Service Trains to be operated over the Joint Facilities (except for User's Cahill/Lick Line) in accordance with the terms of the NRPC Agreement in effect as of the date of this Agreement with the understanding that any changes subsequent to the date of this Agreement in Intercity Passenger Service, including but not limited to the number or schedule of Trains, shall be subject to Owner's consent under section 2.7(b) hereof.

(b) User may amend its present or any subsequent NRPC Agreement and enter into any new agreements and amendments thereto with NRPC or with any other party for the provision of Intercity Passenger Service over the Joint Facilities (except User's Cahill/Lick Line) with the consent of Owner, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, subject to the provisions of Section 4.3 when Owner dispatches and controls the operations and provided that costs due to any such Intercity Passenger Service agreement, or amendment thereto over the Joint Facilities (except for User's Cahill/Lick Line) and costs of changes necessitated by such agreements affecting line capacity, yard capacity, or the signal system shall be borne by the User. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith with regard to any additional parties that may be engaged or User proposes to have engaged in Intercity Passenger Service.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.7(b) above, no Intercity Passenger Service Trains shall operate on Exclusive Commute Trackage without a written agreement between Owner and User.

While it will take lawyers to comb through this and other clauses, Section 8.3.c of the agreement is particularly interesting. This section was likely written to allow for a future BART takeover of the peninsula corridor, in accordance with BART's original plans, but might equally apply to the current plans for the peninsula.

8.3.(c) In the event that Owner demonstrates a reasonably certain need to commence construction on all or substantially all the length of the Joint Facilities (including User's Cahill/Lick Line) of a transportation system that is a significant change in the method of delivery of Commuter Service which would be incompatible with Freight Service on the Joint Facilities (other than User's Cahill/Lick Line), Owner may, at its sole cost and expense, file no sooner than nine months prior to the commencement of such construction for permission from the ICC to abandon the Freight Service over the portion of the Join Facilities (excluding User's Cahill/Lick Line) upon which the construction is to occur. User shall not object to or oppose such a filing; however, it shall be allowed to participate in the abandonment proceedings.

Given that Caltrain's plans for lightweight electric trains on a shared HSR corridor would potentially qualify as a "significant change" that is "incompatible" with UPRR freight trains, the PCJPB and CHSRA could conceivably kick UPRR off the peninsula corridor if they wanted to. (However, all signs so far point towards accommodation of UPRR and its freight customers.) In view of the low level of freight service and the strong nationwide push for HSR, it is unlikely that the federal government would oppose or deny such a radical move, if it ever became necessary.

With that ace in play, can Russell Peterson succeed in provoking UPRR to take a hard stance on the trackage rights agreement?

Crass NIMBYism

Last night, for the second time in a month, a 17-year-old Palo Alto Gunn High School student committed suicide by Caltrain at the Meadow Drive grade crossing.

Not even 24 hours later, Palo Alto HSR opponents are turning this tragedy into another tunnel-or-nothing rant. On the Palo Alto Online forums, one of the leaders of the Palo Alto anti-HSR group expounds:

Lets not let these two poor kids have died in vain (plus the ones last year, year before, year before that, and on and on..) I think it would be a very powerful message to Obama administration, FRA, and California legislators if the kids banded together to write letters or something asking for laws to require the trains to be undergrounded, kept out of neighborhoods. (...)

If they can't get the trains out of here all together (which they probably can't, or won't), they need to put them underground, sealed off and away from access to cars, pedestrians, bikes. Fences along the tracks are going to be useless to prevent people, especially kids, who have the intention of using trains for this purpose.

This is wrong on so many levels.

• Using this tragedy so soon to advance a long-held tunnel-or-nothing agenda is opportunistic in the extreme, and betrays a profound lack of respect for the victim and those she left behind
  
  
• Implying that trains routinely kill children and using kids in letter-writing campaigns deliberately sidesteps the root cause of these tragic events
  
  
• Downplaying the fact that the California High Speed Rail Authority has plans to grade-separate this crossing--a measure nearly as effective as tunnels for safely separating trains from pedestrians--and demanding tunnels as the only secure solution is intellectually dishonest
  
  
• On a cost-benefit basis, demanding tunnels that cost hundreds of millions more than the proposed grade separation, in an attempt to save the lives of suicidal pedestrians, is an enormous waste of money that could save many more lives if spent more wisely.
  

My apologies for the temporary deviation from more substantive blog material. May she rest in peace.

The Joy of Tunnels

There's a lot of talk among peninsula communities about the virtues of tunneling certain portions of the peninsula rail corridor that run through residential neighborhoods, in order to mitigate the potential above-ground impacts of increased traffic, faster speeds, noise, vibration, visual blight of overhead electrification and grade separations, etc.

Tunnel advocates evoke visions of tunnel boring machines silently toiling underground, leaving the land above all but untouched. These visions need to be tempered with some basic facts about tunnel engineering.

1. A four-track tunnel is too wide (~80 ft) to be excavated using a tunnel boring machine. At a minimum, two tunnel bores would be required, driving up tunnel costs.
   
   
2. Boring a tunnel in soft soil under the water table is difficult because hydrostatic pressure increases with depth, making the tunnel more vulnerable to leaks and flooding.
   
   
3. Boring a tunnel in soft soil often causes subsidence. While this settling of the soil can be predicted and mitigated to some extent, the foundation of a house can be severely damaged by very small strains, curvatures or tilts of the underlying soil.
   
   
4. Once it is decided to build a tunnel, the method of construction is up to engineers and accountants. In peninsula communities where a shallow tunnel would suffice to mitigate noise, vibration and visual impacts, it is unlikely that they would select a bored tunnel, using massive tunnel boring machines. A far more likely approach is a cheaper cut-and-cover tunnel, where a trench is excavated and a roof built over it.
   
   
5. For reasons of fire safety, and possibly to accommodate the occasional diesel train, long tunnels must have extensive forced ventilation systems with large head houses constructed above ground. These structures contain powerful fans that are anything but quiet.
   
   
6. In a fire, a tunnel becomes an oven filled with toxic smoke. A four-track tunnel would have to be divided into at least two separate hermetically sealed sections to allow for emergency evacuation of hundreds of passengers. These fire-proof partitions add width to the tunnel.
   
   
7. Tunnel evacuation walkways need to be provided, adding some width to the tunnel. These walkways need frequent access to the surface along the length of the tunnel, for passenger evacuation as well as emergency access.
   
   
8. Running trains at 125 mph in a tunnel requires ample aerodynamic clearances to prevent strong pressure waves from forming between trains and tunnel walls. Pressure waves can cause intense discomfort (ear popping) and may even threaten the stability of a train on the tracks. For 125 mph operation, a typical clearance is 12 to 15 feet between the track center line and tunnel wall.
   
   
9. Digging a cut-and-cover tunnel while Caltrain continues to operate will probably require temporary shoofly tracks around the construction site. These tracks occupy about 30 feet of right of way, in addition to the width of the tunnel construction site.
   
   
10. Cut-and-cover tunnels of the size required for Caltrain and HSR will have concrete walls about 3 feet thick, to give them the structural integrity and seismic stability that the surrounding soils lack.
    
    
11. The overall width of a four-track cut-and-cover tunnel structure (accounting for 3-foot wall thickness, 15-foot track spacing, 12-foot side clearances for aerodynamics and evacuation, and two separate tunnel sections separated by a central wall) comes to 87 feet.
    
    
12. The overall depth of a cut-and-cover tunnel structure (accounting for 4-foot base slab, 2-foot trackbed depth, 20 feet of vehicle loading gauge, 6 feet of overhead contact system high voltage clearances, a 3-foot roof slab and a 5-foot soil layer) comes to 40 feet. The soil cover might be thinner or thicker than 5 feet according to local topography; 5 feet is a realistic average.
    
    
13. Building a 40-foot deep, water-tight barrier in an area with a high water table, extensive underground aquifers and surface creeks running perpendicular to the railroad is likely to cause changes in the water table, possibly leading to localized subsidence or flooding. Continuous pumping of surrounding aquifers may be required to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup and excessive flotation (and cracking) of the sealed tunnel structure.
    
    
14. The amount of excavation for a four-track cut-and-cover tunnel is about 700,000 cubic yards per mile (330,000 cubic meters per km). A five-mile tunnel would require the removal of enough dirt to equal the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza.
    
    
15. Including shoofly tracks and additional construction easements required to build the vertical walls, the overall right of way consumed by a cut-and-cover construction site could easily exceed 120 feet.
    
    
16. Some of the dirt excavated for tunnels may be contaminated by underground toxic plumes containing chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Such dirt would have to be treated and disposed of according to state and federal environmental regulations.
    
    
17. The primary criticism of tunnels has been cost, which can be roughly extrapolated from other Bay Area tunnel projects currently being planned. The BART extension to San Jose includes a five-mile, two-track, three-station tunnel for $3 billion ($9,500 per inch). The Caltrain extension to San Francisco's Transbay Terminal includes a 1.8-mile, three-track, two-station tunnel for $2.1 billion ($18,000 per inch). Based on these estimates, we can reasonably expect construction costs to be on the order of $10,000 per inch, give or take a factor of two.

Of course, tunneling conditions will vary according to each specific location. The California High Speed Rail Authority's consultants and geotechnical experts will certainly do a more detailed job of evaluating feasible tunneling options, as their project-level environmental impact process gets underway. In the meantime, this layman's overview is intended to put tunneling back in perspective among the other configuration options for portions of the peninsula corridor.

The Palo Alto Awakening

UPDATE: Maybe they don't like attention or public scrutiny; Palo Altans Concerned About HSR have now gone members-only.

Before Proposition 1A was passed last November, the Palo Alto city council strongly supported the project, passing a unanimous resolution in favor of HSR at their October 6th meeting. That was before the impacts became generally known to residents, and especially to abutters from Southgate, one of the neighborhoods most likely to be impacted (see Focus on: Palo Alto).

Residents of Palo Alto are becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of HSR on their community. They have started a new mailing list, Palo Altans Concerned About HSR, where there is lively discussion about organizing the local opposition. The discourse is civilized and intelligent, in contrast to certain corners of the blogosphere and Palo Alto's Town Square forums.

One participant expresses the key to effective opposition:

It is SO IMPORTANT that we stick to unembellished facts. If you’re not certain about an aspect of the HSR project, either phrase it as a potential possibility or don’t mention it at all. We lose credibility if we’re accused of being alarmists, spreading false information or acting out of NIMBYism. Try to avoid any topic that leads in that direction. Remember, our own actions and reactions are potentially newsworthy. Let’s not make the news for displaying any of the above behaviors.

Opponents are trying to get their views aired by the local press, radio and TV; for this purpose, they are planning a march through downtown to City Hall prior to the next council meeting on Monday, March 2nd, when Palo Alto's comments on the scoping of the HSR EIR/EIS will be discussed. (See agenda and especially the city manager's full report with draft scoping comments.) Some Palo Alto residents are characterizing this issue as "the most critical moment and the most critical issue in a generation".

Meanwhile, the CHSRA hosted another community meeting in Palo Alto tonight (Thursday, February 26th), another in a long list of community meetings taking place up and down the peninsula. It is sure to be discussed by the Palo Altans Concerned About HSR.

Stay tuned.

Bullet train vs. El Palo Alto

Pretty catchy title, eh? That was the headline blaring from today's front page of the Daily Post (Palo Alto edition), a local free newspaper. The tag line: "New rail line threatens old tree." As you'll see, the journalistic standards are right in line with the price.

Construction of a high speed rail line alongside the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto could threaten El Palo Alto, the 1069-year-old redwood tree after which the city is named. (...) If the new rail line is built to the east of Caltrain, El Palo Alto would have to be cut down.

Hold the presses... nobody has ever envisioned running the tracks to the east of the existing bridge, as already discussed in Focus on: Palo Alto. This sensational straw man was invented by the Daily Post. And it goes on:

If the rail line went to the west, it would mean at least part of the Stanford Park Hotel would be eliminated, and the tree still might not survive.

Perhaps we can do some fact finding research for them:

• The PCJPB right of way (land owned by Caltrain) is nearly 150 feet wide at the location of the tree, with plenty of room on the west side of the existing tracks, not even close to the Stanford Park Hotel
  
• The venerable tree in question, El Palo Alto, is acknowledged in the CHSRA's regional environmental impact documents (Volume 1, section 3.9, page 16), with the two additional tracks quite logically described as going west of the existing tracks with no impact to the tree
  

The article goes on to quote Palo Alto City Arborist Dave Dockter:

Excavating for a sound wall footing or other reason close to the tree would probably result in tipping the tree's viability over the edge. Even if deep cuts were vertical without leaving the ROW, they may have catastrophic effects. (...) There simply are not roots where a typical flatland tree would have roots. Root and soil removal could result in an irreversible decline or even mortality whether by health or weakening the tree's stability or catastrophic whole tree failure in any direction.

Sounds pretty dire, but so far, nobody has suggested excavation near the tree, excepting a few Palo Alto residents who are advocating the entire railroad be buried in a tunnel. The great alarm over HSR impacts to El Palo Alto is out of proportion with the concrete piers poured in recent years near the tree for a bicycle bridge, and certainly overlooks the pressing need to replace the more than 100-year-old rail bridge over the San Francisquito Creek, regardless of HSR.

With the debate over HSR heating up in Palo Alto, the Daily Post should refrain from further inflaming passions with poorly-researched, sensational stories like this one.

Headspans and Poles, Oh My!

The High Speed Rail and Caltrain electrification projects converge on one requirement: electrification with 25 kV overhead wires. This is a standard choice around the world, easy to implement, compatible with most train types, commercial off-the-shelf, and able to handle the high power loads (many megawatts) drawn by fast trains. The photo at right is a typical sample. (credit: Vitó) Electrification is a no-brainer, so you wouldn't think it could be screwed up.

Documents from the California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain show one particular way to electrify a four-track railroad. As Richard M. pointed out in a comment in another post, it is not the only way and it is certainly not the best way for the local conditions on the peninsula. Read on to understand why. (Warning: train geek alert. Proceed with caution.)

Supporting the overhead wires (also known as catenary) on a 4-track electrified railroad can be done with poles, headspans or gantries. The three options are described below.

• Poles (a.k.a stanchions in British parlance) are placed between pairs of tracks, and have support brackets on each side to support the catenary wires. In a four-track arrangement, the poles are placed between the inside and outside pair of tracks.
  
• Headspans are networks of steel cables hung across all four tracks, rigged from a tall pole on each side of the outside tracks. Mechanically speaking, this is somewhat analogous to a suspension bridge across the tracks. The catenary wires for each track are hung from the headspan wiring.
  
• Gantries are rigid metallic portals that span across all four tracks. Brackets are hung from the horizontal member to support the catenary wires.

Each of these options has pros and cons. We'll discuss headspans first, since that is the option seemingly favored in the California High Speed Rail Authority's Bay Area EIR/EIS cross sections (Volume 2, Appendix E, Figure CC-8), as well as in the Caltrain electrification EA/Draft EIR (Chapter 2, Figure 2.3-3).

Headspans

A headspan is shown in the diagram at right. The dimensions shown reflect the narrowest practical 4-track headspan arrangement that complies with Federal Railroad Administration and California Public Utilities Commission requirements (assuming those requirements will not be waived). While their thin cables are somewhat easier on the eyes than other options, headspans also have several significant drawbacks.

1. Headspans are more complicated to maintain, since the headspan cables mechanically link the overhead contact system for all four tracks. Tweaking one cable may knock another cable out of alignment; replacing an electrical isolator on one track also affects other tracks, which may need to be taken out of service. On a busy 4-track railroad, this is not desirable.
   
   
2. Headspans are more vulnerable to pantograph failures. Rarely, pantographs (the spring-loaded metal frames on top of trains that pick up electricity from the overhead wire) fail or snag on the wiring. While there are safeguards to limit the damage from such an occurrence, the damage can be quite extensive. With a headspan configuration, a failed pantograph can damage all four tracks at once, shutting down service entirely; with a bracket support, the damage is contained on one track. This video, showing a spectacular pantograph failure, illustrates the potential problem.
   
   
   
   
3. Headspans require very tall poles located on the outside edge of the right of way. Not only is this ugly because taller poles dwarf surrounding structures and vegetation, but it requires trees to be trimmed back further from the tracks.
   
   
4. High voltage (50 kV) feeder wires, strung from the top of those poles, are required by the CPUC to have a minimum of 4 feet of radial clearance (General Order 95, Rule 35, Appendix E). This 4-foot high voltage keep-out zone is shaded in pink in the diagram above. On the peninsula, in places like Atherton, Burlingame or Palo Alto where large trees sometimes grow near the tracks, the outside poles and feeders that come with headspans might require more heritage trees to be cut down to build HSR.
   
   
5. Headspans are not easily reconfigured to add tracks. They need to be built to their full width from the get-go.
   

Given that headspans have these drawbacks, it's worth looking at the other options.

Gantries

Gantry frames are aesthetically the most upsetting, as the photo at right shows. (credit: polandeze) This photo is sure to be a hit with detractors of HSR on the peninsula. Gantries are not just uglier than poles because of their massive horizontal beams, but they are structural overkill in the benign conditions of the Bay Area. Gantries are typically used in situations were mechanical loads on the wires are high, horizontal spans are very wide, or vertical clearances are limited. This is exemplified by some areas of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA, where the relatively recent overhead electrification is overbuilt to withstand large forces from hurricane winds and the heavy buildup of ice during winter storms. Obviously, we don't need to worry about ice storms or hurricanes here on the peninsula, and we hope the HSR and Caltrain folks won't unquestioningly emulate Amtrak.

Poles

Poles located between the inner and outer pair of tracks, as shown in the diagram at right, have many advantages:

1. Poles and brackets are easier to maintain without affecting multiple tracks
   
   
2. Poles and brackets are mechanically robust to pantograph failures, containing damage to the affected track (as seen in the video above)
   
   
3. Poles are much lower than headspans (32 ft above rail versus 43 ft, according to Caltrain engineering drawings) and therefore less visually obtrusive
   
   
4. Poles keep high voltage away from the edges of the right of way, where they might interfere with surrounding objects and vegetation. The 50kV feeders are now hung above the tracks. As before, the diagram shows a pink 4-foot voltage keep-out zone, which is smaller and concentrated over the tracks, unlike headspans.
   
   
5. Poles make it easier to build two tracks first, then add another set of outside brackets (but no additional poles) to accommodate four tracks without tearing out any of the existing electrification. This would add flexibility to the construction phasing between HSR and Caltrain electrification, enabling Caltrain to future-proof anything they might build before HSR.
   

Poles do have one slight downside: the California Public Utilities Commission, which issued the existing clearance standards for rail infrastructure in California in 1948 (that's right, nineteen forty-eight!), requires 8'3" clearance (2.51 m) between a pole and the center line of the track. Including 1'6" for the tensioner assemblies that hang from certain poles, that puts the minimum track spacing at 18 feet, about 3 feet more than without the poles. Nevertheless, overall width of the right of way may not increase that much because less clearance is required along the edges, where poles are not present.

For either poles or headspans, the four-track electrified right of way running at ground level can fit within 70 feet (21.3 m), in a pinch. While the foregoing discussion is somewhat arcane, it will be quite relevant in those situations along the peninsula where the Caltrain right of way is narrowest, where HSR may cause greater community impacts and possibly eminent domain takes.

Focus on: Menlo Park

Menlo Park is the site of California's oldest passenger train depot, built in 1867. The town has a closely spaced series of four grade crossings near its center, at Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Glenwood and Encinal Avenues. Trains must blow their horn nearly continuously when they pass through the area.

Menlo Park, along with its affluent neighbor Atherton, is noted for its official opposition to HSR, despite most residents having voted for Proposition 1A. The city also joined a lawsuit to make Altamont Pass the preferred HSR entry to the Bay Area, instead of Pacheco Pass. While this would remove HSR from Menlo Park's downtown, many residents don't realize that the Altamont alternative would still pass through Menlo Park, impacting the Suburban Park and Lorelei Manor neighborhoods instead.

Right of Way Width

The existing railroad land through Menlo Park is narrower than 100 feet along most of its length. Along Stone Pine Lane, it is 75 feet wide. Between Oak Grove and Glenwood Avenues, it is just 60 feet wide, although abutting land is not residential and could be taken with only minor disruption. South of the station, the right of way is 80-100 feet wide. Maps of the existing ROW boundaries are available for mileposts 28-29 (north end of town) and 29-30 (south end of town).

Grade Separations

The existing vertical alignment of the Caltrain tracks is shown in the figure below, created from Caltrain track survey data.


Menlo Park has planned for grade-separating the four crossings since 2001. With the HSR project well underway, at least one design requirement is coming into better focus: the probable need for four tracks.  A grade separation study and presentation (developed in 2003 - 2004) consider the impact to adjacent properties, shows some renderings of a few concepts, and also feature some nice illustrations of construction staging. This study anticipated quadruple tracking, although Menlo Park's latest official position (as of 2015) is to oppose any more than two tracks.

The CHSRA's project-level environmental work on the San Francisco - San Jose HSR project in the 2009 - 2010 period resulted in preliminary design alternatives including elevated, at-grade and below-grade variations of the vertical alignment through Menlo Park.

Any changes to the vertical alignment of the tracks through Menlo Park must be coordinated with neighboring Atherton, which has two crossings just over the city line, too close to allow grade changes to a different elevation.

The figure below shows a split grade separation, with the rails raised by about 15 feet and the roads sunk by about 5 feet. Pedestrian sidewalks would remain at grade.


Alternately, the tracks could be sunk fully into a 30-foot deep trench, as shown in solid red line in the next figure. This would leave roads at grade, although it would likely result in greater construction impacts.


Train Station

The existing Menlo Park Caltrain station was rebuilt in 2000. Rebuilding it with four tracks would require demolishing the new platforms, removing heritage trees on the east side of the station, and considerably narrowing Alma St. The historic depot building (and the baggage building that houses the model railroad) would be relocated to make way for the new southbound track. The 2003 grade separation study presentation contains relevant diagrams.

Bike Tunnel

Menlo Park has long standing plans to install a pedestrian and bike tunnel under the tracks to link the Burgess recreation area with Safeway and the neighborhoods on the other side of El Camino Real. This tunnel would be located about here, under the raised berm that currently supports the two existing tracks. Before this project proceeds any further, it should take into account future quadruple tracking for HSR.

Local Opposition

A few vocal residents have vigorously opposed HSR on the grounds that it will degrade the quality of life in Menlo Park. In particular, vocal critics Martin Engel and Morris Brown, who live near the tracks, have advocated against Proposition 1A by founding Derail High Speed Rail, a group that opposes HSR on economic and geopolitical grounds... and, perhaps also, because of their back yards' proximity to the tracks. Another Menlo Park resident, Russell Peterson, has filed a lawsuit claiming that the HSR project usurps the Union Pacific Railroad's exclusive rights to operate intercity passenger trains on the peninsula.

NOTE: This post will be updated continuously, as warranted by additional information or new events relating to Menlo Park.

Quickie Stakeholder Analysis

Each stakeholder in California's HSR project has different interests in the project. Keeping those interests in mind is very important to interpret their actions. On the back of an envelope, the stakeholders are:

The Public

The public has a strong interest in the HSR project, rooted in two different roles: the role of a user who desires HSR to be convenient and fast, and the role of a taxpayer who desires HSR to be built efficiently and for the least amount of money. The public pays up front (see Proposition 1A) and is usually not very well organized to defend its collective interests, compared to the other stakeholders. This blog will scream loudly, if anybody listens, to defend those interests.

While other stakeholders may say that they want HSR to be fast and cheap, the bottom line is that they have little stake in that outcome. Read on to see why!

The Agencies and Governments

On the peninsula, the various agencies are going to defend their parochial interests. Caltrain, the Transbay Authority, SamTrans, VTA, the three counties, the High Speed Rail Authority, and the local communities are going to defend their piece of the pie, be it money or influence. One catfight to watch for in the coming years will pit Caltrain against the CHSRA. Caltrain owns the peninsula rails, but HSR will so profoundly alter every project recently undertaken or planned by Caltrain that even shared goals (fast, efficient and modern transportation) won't be enough to prevent some friction. Up in San Francisco, sparks are already starting to fly between the CHSRA and the Transbay Authority.

The agencies will be in cahoots with the construction companies. You've got to worry when on the night of the election, Quentin Kopp, the head of the CHSRA, is having martinis with the construction big wigs (HNTB, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Webcor) who will get a piece of the action.

The Construction Companies

Construction companies that will build the HSR project stand to profit handsomely. They are where the money ultimately flows. Design engineering, construction, program management, most of the slices of the HSR budget will be sent to them at some point. Their interest is to make money. They make a lot of money by engineering complex infrastructure that involves lots of earth moving and concrete pouring. The more earth moving and concrete pouring, the greater the profit. There's nothing wrong with that so far.

Unfortunately, those same companies are also in charge of designing all this infrastructure. The fox is guarding the hen house, but in proper industry lingo this is passed off as cost-saving "design-build-operate-maintain" and "turn-key solutions". The construction companies know that once HSR is far enough along, nothing will stop its completion, least of all running out of money. They have little interest in making HSR any faster or better or cheaper than absolutely necessary to maintain continued public funding of the project. The wisdom goes that among the three qualities, faster, better and cheaper, you can have any two. Locally, if the HSR design is left without strong oversight, the peninsula may get none of the three.

Look out for gold-plated solutions to simple problems, sold by throwing up a fog of expert-knows-best complexity.

The Neighbors

Many communities, groups and individuals on the peninsula will suffer negative impacts from the HSR project, either inherent in its design or arising from its construction. These groups have some of the most obvious and clear-cut interests: Not In My Back Yard! They will work hard to influence HSR plans to their own benefit, with less regard for the wider public interest. One example: the resolutions opposing Proposition 1A passed by the city councils of Menlo Park and Atherton. Yet another example is Millbrae's push to develop land needed for HSR. And that's only the beginning...

Opposite the NIMBY's, there are what you might call YIMBY's (Yes, In My Back Yard!) who would like to use HSR as an opportunity to obtain local benefits, again without regard to the wider public interest. One example is the screwball plan to tunnel the tracks underground, floated by a Palo Alto group. There will be other communities keenly interested in swinging some HSR bacon their way to achieve urban design aspirations entirely unrelated to HSR.

Let's finish on a positive note: to avoid becoming the boondoggle that proposition 1A opponents fear, the HSR project needs to be designed under the watchful eye of an independent panel of experts with local knowledge, and especially some TEETH to bite back at the agencies and contractors as required to keep them attuned to the public interest. Whether the provisions attached to Proposition 1A will provide for this remains to be seen.