Thinking Big in Redwood City

The architecture of Amsterdam Bijlmer
(photo by tataAnne) could represent
the future Redwood City station.

In a seamless transportation network that runs on a regular clockface schedule with timed, well-coordinated transfers, connecting nodes play a key role. Redwood City has natural potential as a connecting node, being located approximately at the midpoint of the peninsula rail corridor, serving as a logical transfer point between local and express trains, serving as the entry point to the peninsula from the future Dumbarton rail corridor, and being in of itself a significant destination with extensive connecting bus service and a willingness to grow.

With Redwood City currently renewing its interest in grade separations, it's important to think big and to re-imagine the station as a key node in the Bay Area's transportation network.

Start with a good timetable

Using our handy service pattern generator, let's see what we could do if we organized a blended system that made Redwood City a key transfer node. When you make a business plan, the first thing to be crystal clear about is: what is your product? In Caltrain's case, the timetable is the product, and all these stations and tracks should only be built as long as they contribute directly to delivering a quantifiably better timetable for the ordinary rider. Building a major new station in Redwood City isn't about trite superlatives like "Grand Central of the West," but simply about efficient and seamless coordination of timely and reliable ways to get from point A to point B.

Let's set some ground rules for our timetable:

• Caltrain expresses will operate every 10 minutes on a regular clockface schedule. A base 'takt' of 10 minutes reduces gracefully to 20 minutes or 30 minutes in the off-peak.
• In Silicon Valley, there will be no skip-stop service because the population and jobs are evenly sprawled. Every station in Silicon Valley needs to be served frequently, doing away with the ridership distortions induced by the Baby Bullet effect.
• In San Mateo county, where stop spacing is closer, slower local trains will operate every 20 minutes. These local trains will meet the express at Redwood City, before turning back north.
• Dumbarton service will operate every 20 minutes, meeting the express at Redwood City with little or no wait to transfer to trains on the peninsula corridor, before turning back towards the East Bay.
• Because the overall pattern repeats every 20 minutes, HSR will operate 3 trains per hour rather than the planned 4. Otherwise, there is a harmonic mismatch between the HSR frequency and the Caltrain frequency. 4 HSR trains per hour in a clockface timetable forces the base 'takt' to increase to 15 minutes, which is not desired.
• If we're going to make Redwood City a major node, it certainly rates HSR service, so we will create a new mid-peninsula stop for HSR.

This is the resulting timetable (see also additional data on service pattern), shown here for one hour in the southbound direction only (the northbound side is symmetrical). Colors denote the 10-minute Caltrain express, the San Mateo local, Dumbarton service, and HSR.

Notice the express arriving at Redwood City at 7:43 meets the Dumbarton train departing at 7:44, and the local arriving at Redwood City at 7:52 meets the next express at 7:53. Every ten minutes there is a cross-platform transfer, alternating between express-to-Dumbarton and local-to-express. Counting both directions, a cross-platform transfer occurs at Redwood City every five minutes!

Implicit in this timetable are a number of other capital improvements besides a new Redwood City station, such as overtake tracks in various locations along the corridor (highlighted in yellow in this view of the timetable... and while we're here, look how much less yellow is needed if HSR uses the Dumbarton corridor via Altamont Pass). It's important to remember that there is no formulation of the blended system that avoids the need for overtake tracks, unless one is willing to push slower trains into station sidings to sit for at least five minutes while a faster train catches up and pulls ahead. If you are a Caltrain rider, you should be wary of the cheapskates at the HSR authority who want to do this to your commute.

Deriving the functional requirements for the Redwood City node

To enable this timetable, we need the Redwood City station to have the following attributes:

1. Four platform tracks serving two 400-meter long island platforms to facilitate both northbound and southbound cross-platform transfers of very long, high-capacity trains.
    
2. Platforms centered on the best cross-town corridor, namely Broadway, for convenient access to and from local destinations on foot, by bike or scooter, by bus, or using the planned Broadway Streetcar.
    
3. A turnback track that enables certain Dumbarton corridor trains to originate and terminate in Redwood City, without fouling other train traffic, long enough for an EMU-8 train.
    
4. A turnback track that enables the San Mateo local to turn back in Redwood City, without fouling other train traffic, long enough for an EMU-8 train.
    
5. Elevated grade separation of all downtown Redwood City crossings, enabling free flow of pedestrians, bikes and vehicles under the rail corridor and including the re-connection of streets currently cut off by the existing configuration (e.g. Hopkins and James).
    
6. Bus facilities placed directly under the train platforms for seamless connections without the need for an umbrella. Same for an eventual Broadway Streetcar.
    
7. No mezzanine level. Mezzanines needlessly drive up the size and cost of stations, and impede and complicate vertical circulation. Street level can fulfill all the functions of a mezzanine, including ticket sales, wayfinding, waiting, retail, and dining.
    
8. The shortest and fastest possible vertical circulation (stairs, escalators, ramps, and elevators) using a U-shape viaduct cross section to avoid deep and vertical-space-wasting bridge structure. This helps with transferring quickly between the two island platforms, as would be needed for example to continue from the Dumbarton corridor south to Silicon Valley.

The footprint of such a station is not small. However, Redwood City has plentiful available railroad and transit district land, and the street level interface of such a station can be integrated into the city's street grid, opening up cross-corridor access and avoiding a wall effect. The aging Sequoia Station shopping center, with its wasteful surface parking, can be demolished and redeveloped to make room for an expanded station. Station parking can be moved underneath the approach structures, protected from the elements.

One possible station layout

An optimal station layout has four tracks, with the outer tracks for HSR and express commuter trains. The middle tracks are for commuter trains, and allow both northbound (Dumbarton) trains and southbound (San Mateo local) trains the opportunity to turn at Redwood City without impeding the flow of express traffic. The width of the structure is about 130 feet, as shown in the cross section below:

The northbound express track (Track 3) is tangent. The northbound island platform is 400 x 10 m. The center commuter tracks (Tracks 1 and 2) have curves that are not laid out in detail; this detail does not matter since any train that uses these tracks would slow and stop at Redwood City, using standard trackwork and turnouts. The southbound express track (Track 4) is the tricky one: it wows around the station, passing the southbound island platform on a 7500 m radius curve with approximately 1.5 inches of superelevation (not enough to matter for platform lateral tolerances). This track consists of a double reverse curve with six spiral transitions (tangent, spiral, curve, spiral, tangent, spiral, platform curve, spiral, tangent, spiral, curve, spiral, tangent). The curve is necessary to fit a pair of 400-meter island platforms (long enough to berth a double-length high-speed train) without bulldozing too much real estate.

Here is how this all fits (admittedly just barely) in downtown Redwood City:

The sacrificial victim is the Sequoia Station shopping center and associated surface parking crater, which can be redeveloped as part of the station complex with direct access from El Camino Real. Access for high-rise fire apparatus around the viaduct structure might also be a concern for the new condo buildings to the south, although this can be mitigated.

The station includes two pocket sidings to turn commuter trains. The siding south of the station can turn Caltrain locals at Redwood City, while the siding north of the station can turn Dumbarton service. Each siding is sized to store an eight-car EMU. Track center spacing is 15 feet throughout, and platform setback is 6 feet from track center. All viaducts are made from low-profile U-shaped sections that minimize the required height of the tracks and also double as sound walls, reducing the noise of up to 30 trains that would serve the station every peak hour.

Redwood City's slogan, "climate best by government test" would also become "transfer best" with timed, well-coordinated transfers to a variety of destinations. The impending start of designs for grade separations in Redwood City needs to factor in this future, and the city ought to think big.

Will BART Bust a Move?

The unfortunate reality of Bay Area transit politics is that twenty-eight agencies compete for funding and ridership with very limited coordination.   At the top of this pile is BART, the biggest of them all.  Not so much BART the transit operator, but BART the expansion-thirsty transit-industrial complex (functioning somewhat like the military-industrial complex), as facilitated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).  (photo at right by cplbasilisk, modified with permission)

With recent developments in the peninsula high-speed rail story, it's worth taking a step back and imagining BART / MTC's next moves in this slow-motion game of political chess, assuming for a moment the following motivations:

• Expand as much as possible, constructing the most new infrastructure in the most corridors using the most consultant engineering and "craft hours" of construction labor
• Soak up as much federal, state and local funding as possible
• Take over high-ridership corridors, even at the expense of other agencies
• Ring the San Francisco Bay with BART, as initially planned in the 1950s

The resulting exercise can either be viewed as a crackpot conspiracy theory, or as a simple thought experiment rooted in recent history.  Where MTC and BART have successfully assembled billions of dollars for the Millbrae/SFO and San Jose/Santa Clara extensions, Caltrain has repeatedly floundered: no downtown extension, no electrification, no Dumbarton rail, and the list goes on and on...  Supposing this historical pattern were to be sustained, what specifically would be BART's logical next moves?

Move #1: Drop Support For Pacheco HSR.

The long-running Pacheco-Altamont controversy over the Bay Area HSR alignment, still simmering in the courts, is driven on one hand by not-in-my-backyard sentiment in communities impacted by the Pacheco alignment (notably Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton) and on the other hand by transit activists who argue that the Altamont alignment makes far more technical sense to serve the immediate transportation needs of the Bay Area in a coordinated and sustainable way.

BART and MTC were firmly in the Pacheco camp because of the need to preserve for BART a key piece of rail right of way between Fremont and San Jose (the former Western Pacific line, purchased by VTA in 2002).  This right of way would almost certainly have been claimed by HSR under any reasonable Altamont scenario.  Worse, a blended HSR/commuter rail project could have undermined the very purpose and need for BART in that corridor.

Today, this concern has been overcome by events, and the BART extension to San Jose is a done deal.  Pacheco HSR no longer plays a role in defending this important BART turf, and thus may no longer garner the same level of support from BART and MTC as it once did.



Move #2: Promote Altamont HSR with a BART Connection at Livermore.

The BART board recently approved a more detailed study of a future extension to Livermore, along I-580.  While this extension is a waste of money on its own merits (as are most BART extensions), and is still far from becoming reality, it could be sold as a key enabler for a phased implementation of HSR, especially under a budget-constrained environment.

Livermore as a BART-HSR transfer point has been considered before, if only discreetly, as part of the half-hearted "Altamont overlay" that the CHSRA has been studying in addition to the baseline Pacheco Pass alignment--always with the insistent disclaimer that the Altamont corridor serves a completely different "purpose and need" than the high-speed rail project.  Meanwhile, MTC suggested as recently as 2007 that HSR terminate at Livermore BART, absorbing all HSR ridership into BART (see comment L017-8).

As an interim phasing opportunity, Livermore BART would actually work quite well:

• Earlier and quicker HSR service to downtown San Francisco and the greater Bay Area
• Earlier and quicker HSR service to Sacramento (quicker than the Amtrak Capitols)
• Cheaper construction with less tunneling to achieve "Bay-to-Basin" connectivity

The Livermore BART extension would be routed south along Vasco Rd. or Greenville Rd., past the Laboratory, to terminate just south of Livermore at a new BART/HSR interchange station on the outskirts of town.  This station would be located on an Altamont HSR alignment proposed by outside groups but studiously ignored by the CHSRA.  This Altamont HSR route is known as the SETEC alignment, after the French HSR consulting firm that performed the preliminary engineering.  The SETEC alignment is noteworthy in that it avoids major residential property impacts to Livermore and Pleasanton, one of the main arguments used by the CHSRA to select Pacheco in the environmental study process.

Here is a rough point-by-point comparison of Altamont/Livermore and Pacheco/Gilroy interim scenarios:

	Altamont HSR to Livermore	Pacheco HSR to Gilroy
HSR Trip Time, from Fresno	0:48 Fresno - Livermore	0:39 Fresno - Gilroy
Continuing Trip to San Francisco	0:57 on BART Livermore to Embarcadero	1:45 on Caltrain Gilroy to SF (electrified)
Fresno - San Francisco CBD	~ 2:00 (40 minutes quicker) including transfers	~ 2:40 including transfers
Fresno - Oakland	~ 1:50 (50 minutes quicker)	~ 2:40
Fresno - San Jose	~ 1:50 (10 minutes slower) assumes BART to SJ	~ 1:40
HSR Track Length	140 miles (25 miles more)	115 miles
Phase 2 HSR to Reach Sacramento	60 miles (50 miles less)	110 miles
HSR Tunnel Length (interim)	about 4 miles (6 miles less)	about 10 miles

Using the money saved by tunneling only 4 miles to Livermore instead of 10 miles to Gilroy, the additional 25 miles of track to reach Livermore are easily paid for-- and then some, since 50 miles of track will already have been built to reach Sacramento, as opposed to zero for Pacheco.

Move #3: Dangle the Carrot of a PAMPA Subway.

The Palo Alto Weekly recently published an article headlined "Four-track design back on the table for high-speed rail," apparently implying that it was once off the table.  That seems to be the crux of a major disconnect between the city and the high-speed rail Authority.  The blended Caltrain / HSR plan, as proposed in recent months by Simitian-Eshoo-Gordon and currently being analyzed by Caltrain, was always viewed by the CHSRA as an intermediate phase, a stepping stone to the immutable objective of a four-track high-speed railroad through PAMPA (Palo Alto - Menlo Park - Atherton).  This viewpoint is borne out in the 2012 draft business plan.  Palo Alto, on the other hand, views the blended plan as a final state of the peninsula rail corridor for the foreseeable future, and believes that the four-track plan should no longer even appear in the program EIR.

BART's best move here is again to promote Altamont HSR.  For PAMPA, the advantages are thus:

• No four-track HSR grade separations, ever
• No additional right of way (a.k.a. eminent domain) needed, ever
• No HSR traffic on top of commuter rail traffic (only 6 trains per hour per direction)
• Future opportunity for a two-track BART subway, considerably cheaper to construct than a four-track high-speed corridor.  A two-track BART tunnel box is four to five times smaller, in cross-sectional area, than a four-track HSR tunnel box.  This makes it remotely feasible to have the cities participate in the financing of a subway, much as was done in Berkeley in the 1960s, to further enhance property values.

For BART itself, the main advantage of Altamont is of course to preserve the future possibility of ringing the bay by connecting Santa Clara BART to Millbrae BART.  The argument that BART can make in pleading this case is that all existing infrastructure north of Millbrae (i.e. fresh grade separations in San Bruno, and existing tunnels to San Francisco) would be dedicated exclusively to HSR, thus mitigating the astronomical cost of accommodating Caltrain detailed in the 2012 business plan.

As billions of dollars slowly coalesce for a possible blended HSR / Caltrain plan on the peninsula, time will become pressing for BART to bust a move.  If the motives that underlie the above narrative are remotely true, then any attempt to electrify the peninsula corridor shall be thwarted, just the same as it has been in past decades.

Why They Chose the Caltrain Corridor

A lot of peninsula residents now becoming aware of the California High Speed Rail Authority's plans are concerned that HSR will require extensive eminent domain takings along the Caltrain corridor, and suggest that HSR be routed instead via the existing (pre-blighted) corridors of highways 101 or 280. Those options were studied and formally eliminated in the CHSRA's Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIR/EIS, certified in July 2008. It's worthwhile to examine why the CHSRA chose the Caltrain corridor.

The simple answer: there's a lot more room in the Caltrain corridor than most people realize.

Right of Way Statistics

Average width: 112 ft (34 m)
Percentage 75 ft or wider: 94%
Percentage 80 ft or wider: 88%
Percentage 85 ft or wider: 80%
Percentage 90 ft or wider: 77%
Percentage 95 ft or wider: 70%
Percentage 100 ft or wider: 68%

The chart at right shows a graph of the width of the railroad right of way (in feet) versus milepost, constructed from official Caltrain right of way maps.

CHSRA documents indicate that the minimum width required for four tracks is about 75 feet; this is shown by a dotted red line in the chart. A comfortable width (allowing access roads and landscaping) is about 100 feet. The results:

• Along the two thirds (68%) of the peninsula rail corridor that are wider than 100 feet, HSR is an easy fit within the existing right of way.
• For another quarter (27%) of the corridor that is between 75 feet and 100 feet wide, HSR is a tighter fit, but possible without eminent domain
• For the remaining 5% of the corridor that is narrower than 75 feet, some eminent domain is necessary to achieve a minimum width of 75 feet.

How Much Eminent Domain?

One can calculate the area of land required to bring the entire corridor to 75 ft minimum width. Again some corridor length statistics, straight from the chart above:

50 (minimum) to 55 feet wide: 0.38 miles (needs 25 feet extra)
55 to 60 feet wide: 0.09 miles (needs 20 feet)
60 to 65 feet wide: 0.59 miles (needs 15 feet)
65 to 70 feet wide: 0.06 miles (needs 10 feet)
70 to 75 feet wide: 1.75 miles (needs 5 feet)

Adding up the series of strips with the dimensions above, the grand total amount of land required to widen the entire peninsula corridor to a minimum of 75 feet is less than four acres.

To put that figure into proper perspective:

• the entire corridor is about 700 acres, so the required land is about half a percent more.
• the CHSRA has a budget of $4.2 billion for the San Francisco to San Jose segment. At Atherton prices ($4 million per acre), the required land is worth about a third of a percent of that budget.

(Disclaimer: this analysis is based on Caltrain corridor maps, which are not official survey documents. Your mileage may vary; discrepancies of several feet have already been noted in some 100+ year old property lines. Also, temporary construction easements are not included.)

At the turn of the 20th century, the Southern Pacific secured enough land to expand the railroad to four tracks, precisely what is now envisioned for high speed rail. Is it any wonder that the California High Speed Rail Authority considers the Caltrain corridor a slam-dunk?

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.

Caltrain Right Of Way Maps

The table below contains maps of the Caltrain right of way, with key dimensions like ROW widths and the approximate boundaries of property owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), the Union Pacific Railroad, local transit agencies, and others. This information will be useful in discussing the impact of HSR on peninsula communities.

The maps date mostly from March 2007. This public information was provided by Caltrain upon request; thanks to Brian Fitzpatrick (Manager Real Estate & Development) as well as Martha Martinez (PCJPB Secretary). The files are provided as-is; I decided against consolidating a large PDF to spare server bandwidth and allow linking to individual areas of concern along the line.

Milepost	City	Station	PDF Map
0 to 1	San Francisco	4th & King	00-TCCM-200-B.pdf
1 to 2	San Francisco	22nd Street	01-TCCM-200-B.pdf
2 to 3	San Francisco		02-TCCM-200-B.pdf
3 to 4	San Francisco		03-TCCM-200-B.pdf
4 to 5	San Francisco		04-TCCM-200-B.pdf
5 to 6	San Francisco / Brisbane	Bayshore	05-TCCM-200-B.pdf
6 to 7	Brisbane		06-TCCM-200-B.pdf
7 to 8	Brisbane / South San Francisco		07-TCCM-200-B.pdf
8 to 9	South San Francisco		08-TCCM-200-B.pdf
9 to 10	South San Francisco	South San Francisco	09-TCCM-200-B.pdf
10 to 11	South San Francisco / San Bruno		10-TCCM-200-B.pdf
11 to 12	San Bruno	San Bruno	11-TCCM-200-B.pdf
12 to 13	San Bruno / Millbrae		12-TCCM-200-B.pdf
13 to 14	Millbrae / Burlingame	Millbrae	13-TCCM-200-B.pdf
14 to 15	Burlingame		14-TCCM-200-B.pdf
15 to 16	Burlingame	Broadway	15-TCCM-200-B.pdf
16 to 17	Burlingame / San Mateo	Burlingame	16-TCCM-200-B.pdf
17 to 18	San Mateo	San Mateo	17-TCCM-200-B.pdf
18 to 19	San Mateo		18-TCCM-200-B.pdf
19 to 20	San Mateo	Hayward Park	19-TCCM-200-B.pdf
20 to 21	San Mateo	Hillsdale	20-TCCM-200-B.pdf
21 to 22	San Mateo / Belmont	Belmont	21-TCCM-200-B.pdf
22 to 23	Belmont / San Carlos		22-TCCM-200-B.pdf
23 to 24	San Carlos	San Carlos	23-TCCM-200-B.pdf
24 to 25	San Carlos / Redwood City		24-TCCM-200-B.pdf
25 to 26	Redwood City	Redwood City	25-TCCM-200-B.pdf
26 to 27	Redwood City / Unincorporated		26-TCCM-200-B.pdf
27 to 28	Unincorporated / Atherton	Atherton	27-TCCM-200-B.pdf
28 to 29	Atherton / Menlo Park	Menlo Park	28-TCCM-200-B.pdf
29 to 30	Menlo Park / Palo Alto		29-TCCM-200-B.pdf
30 to 31	Palo Alto	Palo Alto	30-TCCM-200-B.pdf
31 to 32	Palo Alto	California Ave.	31-TCCM-200-B.pdf
32 to 33	Palo Alto		32-TCCM-200-B.pdf
33 to 34	Palo Alto / Mountain View		33-TCCM-200-B.pdf
34 to 35	Mountain View	San Antonio	34-TCCM-200-B.pdf
35 to 36	Mountain View		35-TCCM-200-B.pdf
36 to 37	Mountain View	Mountain View	36-TCCM-200-B.pdf
37 to 38	Mountain View / Sunnyvale		37-TCCM-200-B.pdf
38 to 39	Sunnyvale	Sunnyvale	38-TCCM-200-B.pdf
39 to 40	Sunnyvale		39-TCCM-200-B.pdf
40 to 41	Sunnyvale	Lawrence	40-TCCM-200-B.pdf
41 to 42	Sunnyvale / Santa Clara		41-TCCM-200-B.pdf
42 to 43	Santa Clara		42-TCCM-200-B.pdf
43 to 44	Santa Clara		43-TCCM-200-B.pdf
44 to 45	Santa Clara		44-TCCM-200-B.pdf
45 to 46	Santa Clara / San Jose	Santa Clara	45-TCCM-200-B.pdf
46 to 47	San Jose		46-TCCM-200-B.pdf
47 to 48	San Jose	San Jose Diridon	47-TCCM-200-B.pdf
48 to 49	San Jose		48-TCCM-200-B.pdf
49 to 50	San Jose	Tamien	49-TCCM-200-B.pdf
50 to 51	San Jose		50-TCCM-200-B.pdf
51 to 52	San Jose		51-TCCM-200-B.pdf
77 to 78	Gilroy	Gilroy	77-TCCM-200-B.pdf
78 to 79	Gilroy		78-TCCM-200-B.pdf

Focus on: Palo Alto

Palo Alto was founded in 1887, several decades after the railroad tracks were first laid between San Francisco and San Jose. The town grew and filled in around the railroad tracks, and now has one of the busiest stations on the Caltrain line (shown at right; credit cdent), second only to San Francisco. Palo Alto today handles nearly 50% more riders than San Jose's Diridon Station, vaunted as tomorrow's "Grand Central of the West." Palo Alto is also a major stopping and transfer point for Caltrain's Baby Bullet express trains. That is why Palo Alto, along with Redwood City, is under consideration by the CHSRA as the possible location for a mid-peninsula high speed rail station.

Whether or not this new station is located in Palo Alto, the CHSRA's choice of the Pacheco Pass alignment via San Jose means that high speed trains will run through the town along the Caltrain right of way, which will be widened to four tracks and electrified.

The following sections of this article consider HSR impacts to Palo Alto roughly from north to south. With no further introduction, let us scroll southwards:

San Francisquito Creek

The CHSRA's environmental impact documents describes the tracks crossing into Palo Alto at grade over the San Francisquito Creek, with two tracks on the existing historic (relic?) truss bridge, and two new tracks added to the west. The famous El Palo Alto tree, California Historical Landmark Number 2 and the landmark for which the town is named, is thus spared any direct impact. Perhaps an even better idea would be a new 4-track deck bridge, to get rid of the truss that crowds out the historic tree. (By the way, the San Francisquito creek area was also where ground was broken for the peninsula railroad on May 1st, 1861.)

The Palo Alto Ave. (a.k.a. Alma) crossing right after the bridge would become an underpass, and perhaps not an easy one to build considering the proximity of the San Francisquito aquifer.

The right of way is 100 to 120 ft wide in the area of the creek crossing (see ROW map), leaving plenty of room for four tracks.

Palo Alto Station Area

The existing Palo Alto depot, with its distinctive "Streamline Moderne" style, was opened in 1941. It is the third depot building that has existed at this location. The station once had three tracks running through it; today, the middle track has been dismantled, leaving a wide space between the two platforms. The platforms and pedestrian underpass were recently renovated by Caltrain, as part of a $35 million improvement project.

The impact of high speed rail on the Palo Alto station area will depend on whether or not the town becomes the mid-peninsula HSR stop. However, regardless of this outcome, the station area will require some reconfiguration to accommodate high speed trains passing through the station at speeds of 125 mph (200 km/h), as planned by the CHSRA.

The Palo Alto Chicane

The existing 1940s station, along with the underpass for the town's main street, University Avenue, were built alongside the tracks that previously existed there, presumably to allow uninterrupted service during construction. As a result, the entire station is offset laterally to the west of the straight alignment of the peninsula tracks; the northbound track is offset by 60 feet, and the southbound track by 85 feet (shown in the photo at right by ibison4). While this arrangement is fine for the speeds practiced today, it will look like a chicane to an approaching high speed train. At speeds of 125 to 150 mph (200 to 240 km/h), curves must have radii of at least 1 to 1.5 miles (1800 to 2300 m), with adequate spiral easements entering and leaving each curve. While there is enough room to run such curves through the present footprint of the Palo Alto station (see map below for approximate property limits), it will require a total reconfiguration of the tracks through the station.

At 150 mph, the maximum lateral track offset comfortably achievable within a run of 1500 ft (about the room available on each end of the existing station) is about 20 ft. At 125 mph, it is about 30 ft. Both of these values are much lower than the present lateral offset of 85 ft (on the southbound track), which would require a train to slow to about 85 mph (135 km/h). It may seem easy to slow down a bit through Palo Alto, but it would cost about a minute (over half a percent) on the overall SF - LA run times. If every trouble spot from San Francisco to Los Angeles cost a minute, HSR would never be possible; therefore, just like San Bruno's sharp curve, today's Palo Alto station alignment should be considered a serious obstacle to HSR on the peninsula.

To reconfigure the station for higher speeds, it is possible to (a) straighten the station by shifting the tracks closer to their ancestral straight-through alignment, as depicted in an effortless hand sketch in the CHSRA's "station fact sheet", or (b) make the tracks bow out westward on a smooth and continuous curve, which requires building gently curved platforms. Due to the overall width required for four tracks and two platforms, parking will need to be moved elsewhere from the east side of the station, and the Alma St. overpass that runs parallel to the tracks will need to be completely reconfigured. (This overpass, as it exists today, is built on railroad land.) The existing northbound platform would have to be demolished; however, the money recently spent to rebuild it is but a drop in the HSR bucket.

With the track alignment issue taken into consideration, there are basically two scenarios for the Palo Alto station area, where railroad land is abundant (see ROW map).

HSR Station Scenario

If Palo Alto chooses to become the mid-peninsula stop for high speed rail, the impact to the station area will obviously be greater. However, an expanded station would also create opportunities for more frequent and efficient Caltrain service, in addition to long-distance HSR service. It would become possible to operate timed, cross-platform connections between Caltrain local and express trains.

The CHSRA shows in its station fact sheet that Palo Alto would be rebuilt with two island platforms located between the inner and outer pair of tracks, a configuration that is favorable to cross-platform transfers. One is left to wonder why this configuration was not chosen for Millbrae as well. The basic cross-sectional dimensions from this station fact sheet are reproduced in the map below, with curved tracks bowing out such that the curve apex coincides with today's southbound track. The two island platforms are curved as well, but their radius of 3.5 miles (yes, miles!) might as well be straight for purposes of platform boarding and alighting. A more accurate version of this map is also available by downloading the original KML file into Google Earth. Note that if the existing depot building were demolished or moved, it would in principle be possible to shift the curve apex a further 15 meters (50 feet) west of the existing southbound track, possibly relieving some of the design constraints on the Alma / University road overpass.


View Larger Map

The station would require a new parking garage, with easy access from El Camino Real. The nearby El Camino Park would not be affected.

No HSR Station Scenario

If the mid-peninsula HSR station is built in Redwood City instead of Palo Alto, the station would be expanded to four tracks flanked by two outside platforms, with no platforms on the center high-speed tracks. Since there is only enough room for three tracks through the existing station, the northbound platform would most likely be moved (i.e. demolished and rebuilt), providing room to straighten the center express tracks and add the fourth track.

One design consideration, among many, is whether or not to preserve the existing three track alignments over the University Ave. underpass, only two of which are currently in use (as shown in map above). Shifting these track alignments may have impacts on the load-bearing structure of the underpass. (Update: there are actually four track ways across the overpass... one of them sits under the southbound platform, and it's unclear if it was ever used.)

No matter what happens at the Palo Alto station, expect a big rearrangement on the east side of the station, with serious impact to the Alma St / University Ave overpass. Given that major reconstruction will be required either way, Palo Alto ought to give serious consideration to "biting the bullet" and building the HSR station.

Bike Path

An existing bike path along the west side of the tracks, from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to the Churchill Ave. crossing, is partially built on a revocable easement of Caltrain land (see ROW map). Widening to four tracks will require the bike path to be removed from this location. The existing bike tunnel would also have to be reconfigured. From approximately this location until California Avenue, the Caltrain right of way is narrower than 100 feet. From the station to Churchill Ave, the ROW is 85 feet wide.

Churchill Ave Grade Separation

The CHSRA plans a split grade separation for the existing Churchill Ave grade crossing, located behind Palo Alto High School. Refer to Volume 2, Appendix D, page 5 of the Bay Area EIR/EIS. The preliminary concept for this split grade separation would raise the tracks by 15 feet (4.6 m) on a retained embankment (i.e. an embankment with vertical walls) to pass over Churchill Ave, with the latter lowered by about 6 feet (1.8 m). It is difficult to lower Churchill further due to the proximity of the intersection with Alma St.; the impact of lowering the intersection must be traded off with the impact of the retained embankment.

Due to constraints on the vertical curvature of the tracks for planned operation at 100-150 mph, the approaches for a 15-foot raised embankment would necessarily be long, on the order of 400 m (1/4 mile) on each side of the overpass. Shorter approaches would make passengers feel uncomfortable as the train crested over the top. This is why the area behind Palo Alto High School as well as a good portion of Southgate would be affected by the long Churchill grade separation embankment described in the CHSRA's documents (although the 3% ramps described in Volume 2 Appendix D are not feasible).

Architect and local resident Jim McFall has produced video renderings of what this grade separation might look like, although he modeled it a full 21 feet higher, rather than the 15 feet assumed in CHSRA documents. It is likely that Churchill could be depressed ~6 feet from the current track level.

Southgate

Southgate is a neighborhood that abuts the western edge of the tracks, just south of the Churchill Ave crossing. This area is one the narrowest portions of the railroad right of way owned by Caltrain (see ROW map). The overhead view at right, superimposed with a scale ruler, shows about 75 feet of horizontal clearance between the back fences of houses on Mariposa Street and the Alma Street curb on the other side of the tracks. Eminent domain takings, even for as little as 10 feet into these properties, might be necessary to build four tracks through the area without constraining Alma St. This would be in addition to the impact of the raised embankment used to cross Churchill Ave.

As was described in a post about electrification, it would in principle be possible to squeeze the four-track right of way into an overall width of 75 feet, where no additional clearance exists. Whatever happens, it's a tight fit.

Peers Park

The railroad right of way is a mere 60 feet wide alongside Peers Park. Four tracks will likely require an encroachment of at least 15 - 20 feet into Peers Park, and the removal of all the mature trees along the railroad edge of the park. Immediately after the park, the railroad right of way returns to a more generous width of 95 feet.

California Avenue Station

The HSR tracks are expected to pass the California Ave. area at grade level. The station was recently rebuilt by Caltrain, under the $35 million Palo Alto stations project. The platforms and underpass would have to be partially demolished and rebuilt to make room for four tracks.

South of California Avenue, the right of way has a width around 100 feet or more. For details, see ROW maps for mileposts 31-32, 32-33, and 33-34.

Meadow and Charleston Grade Separations

While Palo Alto has just four grade crossings that are not yet grade separated, two of them, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, are located just 1/3 of a mile (500 m) apart at the south end of town. (see also ROW map). The CHSRA documents describe a 7 foot (2.1 m) retained embankment at this location. This would require lowering each road by 14 feet, with the consequence that the nearby intersections with Alma St. would be lowered as well. Ramps for a 7-foot embankment would need to be about 1000 feet (300 m) long on each end for operation at 125 - 150 mph.

The tracks would return to grade level before San Antonio Ave.

Vertical Track Profile

The vertical track profile is the level of the tracks (raised above grade, at grade, or below grade). Working from Caltrain track survey data, here is the profile of Palo Alto, with the vertical scale greatly exaggerated: (click to expand)


HSR will significantly modify this profile. A detailed discussion of the vertical profile options for Palo Alto, including what can and can't be done with the tracks, is written up in the Shape of Palo Alto.

The Tunnel Idea

Some members of the Palo Alto community have suggested putting the tracks underground through most or all of Palo Alto, removing the barrier formed by the existing tracks and opening up the former railroad land to development of housing and parks. This idea was the subject of a cover story by the Palo Alto Weekly. The proponents of the idea suggest that HSR funding might be used to build such a tunnel. However, since the benefits of the tunnel would be solely to local residents (and not to users of HSR) it is probable that Palo Alto would need to foot most of the bill for a project that promises to cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars--especially if Alma St. traffic and Caltrain continue to operate during construction.

In conclusion, it will be interesting to watch Palo Alto's reaction to HSR impacts. The majority of residents voted for Proposition 1, and the city council supports HSR in principle, but the impact on affluent neighborhoods and the famed "Palo Alto Process" should make this an interesting show to watch.

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

The Big Picture

To people who live on the San Francisco peninsula, High Speed Rail will be defined by four principal characteristics:

• 4 tracks all the way, from San Jose to San Francisco
  
• Full grade separation, i.e. no grade crossings
• 125 - 150 mph top speed (far lower than the 220 mph capability of HSR)
• Electrification with a 25,000 volt overhead contact system

According to Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority, the peninsula line could be operational in 2015.

What will that look like where you live?

We can try to draw the big picture from the CHSRA's Environmental Impact (EIR/EIS) documents for the Bay Area, published in May 2008. There's lots of detail in the report and appendices.

A map of the peninsula from a 2004 EIR/EIS document (at right) summarizes where the peninsula tracks are planned to run at-grade, in tunnels, or in elevated or sunken sections. The CHSRA also provides a more recent, interactive Google Map. These maps are clearly preliminary, as anyone with detailed local knowledge will attest; they will be fleshed out in the next few years during the detailed engineering phase.

HSR plans call for building most of the new peninsula tracks at ground level, or in elevated / sunken sections as labeled in the above map. Cross sections of these configurations are provided, with the most common shown below.

Ground level 4-track section. Caltrain already has these (minus the overhead wires) in Brisbane, Redwood City and Sunnyvale, to enable Baby Bullet service. The ROW width is about 100 feet, including service access roads used mostly for trimming vegetation. This configuration is labeled A.38 in the map above.

Elevated 4-track section. Where space is available, this can be built on a wide berm. Where space is not available, retaining walls are used as shown in the figure, keeping ROW width to within 75 feet (with external access presumed). Labeled A.39 in the map above.

Sunken 4-track section. The ROW width is within 75 feet (with external access presumed). Labeled A.39 in the map above.

Caltrain has some additional dimensioned cross section drawings in Chapter 2 of their electrification EA/DEIR (see in particular Figure 2.3-3).

At any location, the choice of configuration will depend on a variety of factors:

• Grade separations, where the height of the tracks is constrained by the presence of an under- or overpass
• Available right-of-way width: some configurations consume more space than others, with possible eminent domain impact
  
• Noise and aesthetics (sunken is preferable on both counts)
• Expense: anything involving lots of earth moving and pouring of concrete will automatically cost lots of money. That is certainly bad for the taxpayer, although the large construction firms that design these projects sure don't seem to mind.
  

How will the arrival of HSR alter existing Caltrain tracks, stations and crossings? In future posts, this blog will focus on some unique situations at various locations on the peninsula.