Risk and Opportunity in Redwood City

Lowe, a major real estate development firm, is preparing to redevelop Redwood City's Sequoia Station, an outdated strip mall adjacent to the Caltrain station, into a 12-acre mixed-use project with towers up to 17 stories tall.  If that is eye-opening to residents of Redwood City, consider that few people yet know that a greatly expanded Redwood City station is the keystone transfer node to enable the growth envisioned in Caltrain's business plan service vision. This new station will require slightly more land than the railroad already owns, and can only be located in Redwood City, the sweet spot that lies halfway between San Francisco and San Jose at the connection point to the Dumbarton rail corridor.

This creates a risk: if a commercial development project is allowed to proceed without respect to the future real estate needs of the railroad, then Caltrain will be constricted and unable to build the optimal infrastructure to support future growth.

Additional Land Needed For Caltrain

Caltrain and Samtrans have extensive land holdings at the Redwood City transit center. Still, just a bit more is needed to build a high-functioning piece of infrastructure, and be could traded for other parcels. Click to expand the map:

Land needed for future expanded station in Redwood City (shaded green)

Design Principles

The absolute worst way to build it.
Existence of this city rendering is
reason enough to be concerned.

To ensure that the Sequoia Station project becomes an exemplar transit-oriented development, rather than relegating Caltrain to the role of development-oriented transit, the rail agency and the developer should agree on some broad design principles.

• Think Big. Redwood City is one of the few stops on the peninsula rail corridor not surrounded by a sea of low-density single-family housing. Intensive land use and transportation must fit together to achieve a dynamic yet sustainable low-carbon future.
   
• Form follows function. No amount of architectural flourish or amenity can make up for a poor station design. Optimize for convenient access, easy transfers between trains and buses, short walks, direct and intuitive routes.
   
• Put the station at the center of the action, right over Broadway. Don't shove it to the north, out of the way of the development. The city rendering at right shows precisely what NOT to do.
   
• Configure the station as two island platforms to facilitate cross-platform transfers, without time-consuming vertical circulation or platform changes. The Caltrain business plan's staff-recommended service vision relies entirely on these Redwood City cross-platform transfers; every single train that pulls into Redwood City will make a timed transfer to another same-direction train docked at the opposite edge of the same platform. Denoting express tracks as 'F' for Fast and local tracks as 'S' for Slow, the optimal layout is FSSF with two islands, resulting in F-platform-SS-platform-F. Again, the city rendering shows precisely what NOT to do: passengers would not only have to change platforms, but also cross the tracks at grade.
   
• Elevate the train station to reconnect the street grid and make the railroad permeable to pedestrians, bikes, and other traffic. A busy four-track station is fundamentally incompatible with at-grade railroad crossings, and the only reasonable way to grade separate at this location is by elevating the entire station. Obstacles to pedestrian circulation such as the Jefferson Avenue underpass would be removed. Once again, the at-grade city rendering shows what NOT to do.
   
• Use four-track approaches from the north and the south. Cross-platform transfers are most efficient if trains do not have to arrive and depart sequentially using the same track, which adds about 3 minutes of delay. The best transfer is one where the two same-direction trains can arrive and depart simultaneously on their own separate tracks. Temporal separation is efficiently established by having the local train stop one station away from Redwood City (southbound at San Carlos or northbound at a new Fair Oaks station at Fifth Avenue) at each end of a new four-track segment that will ultimately measure four miles. In this arrangement, the express trains naturally gain on the local trains without a single passenger being delayed at Redwood City.
   
• Include turn-back tracks. Preserve room in the right of way north and south of the station for turn back pocket sidings, between the central slow tracks. Dumbarton rail corridor trains may not necessarily "interline" or continue on the peninsula rail corridor, so it's important to give them a convenient place to transfer and turn around without fouling other train traffic on the express tracks (hence FSSF arrangement). Same thing for a possible San Mateo local, which could serve the more densely spaced stops north of Redwood City.
   
• Don't be constrained by discrete city blocks. It could make sense to build structures or connect them over and across the tracks, more tightly knitting the station complex into surrounding mixed-use neighborhoods. This has some surmountable safety and liability implications, but buildings on top of busy stations are a common feature of successful cities around the world.
   
• Plan for long 400-meter platforms, not Caltrain's standard 700-foot platform length (again as seen in the city rendering of what NOT to do). While statewide high-speed rail plans currently do not include a stop in Redwood City, it is becoming enough of a destination and a regional transportation node that it makes sense to build a station large enough to future-proof it for service by long high-speed trains, regardless of what the California High-Speed Rail Authority might have to say about it.
   
• Think ahead about construction sequencing. Redwood City should be grade separated in one project from Whipple to Route 84, including the elevated station, taking advantage of Caltrain's land holdings to minimize the use of temporary tracks. A shoo-fly track would have to be built on Pennsylvania Avenue (within the railroad right of way) to make room for construction of the western two-track viaduct. Trains would begin using the elevated station while a second eastern two-track viaduct is constructed. Pennsylvania Avenue could re-open later, under the new four-track viaduct. Construction sequencing may drive how much extra land is needed for the railroad, so it's important to think it through up front.

If these design principles are respected, the re-development of Sequoia Station will present not a risk but an amazing opportunity to enhance Redwood City by realizing its full potential as the fulcrum of the Caltrain corridor and of a new regional express network reaching across the Dumbarton bridge and beyond.

2013 Q2 Corridor Roundup

original photo by afagen

There's been no shortage of developments in recent months on the peninsula rail corridor.

The Caltrain/HSR Blended Service Plan/Operations Considerations Analysis was published on the Caltrain website.  This document aims to flesh out the 2012 Caltrain/HSR Blended Operations Analysis with more detail requested by stakeholders.  While the comment period for this document is now closed, it has a number of weaknesses that should be addressed.

1. Strange assumptions about service to San Francisco's Transbay Transit Center.  For some obscure reason (agency turf?) all of Caltrain's simulations (see string charts in appendix, starting at page 29) send just two out of six trains per hour into Transbay, where essentially all the ridership will be.  Most Caltrain traffic is assumed to terminate outside the financial district, at 4th and King.  The string charts do not show any conflicts that would prevent sending at least four (if not all six) trains per hour to Transbay, making full use of the triple tracks in the downtown extension tunnels.
   
   If you accept that Caltrain isn't trying to spite its customers or diminish its own fare revenue, it's hard to imagine why any train would still terminate at 4th and King when it doesn't absolutely have to.
    
2. Strange assumptions about Caltrain station dwell times.  While the station dwell times of today's Caltrain service have been studied in excruciating detail, the way the dwell time statistics were incorporated into the simulation model may leave something to be desired.  Dwell times are the only randomized input to the model, and the specific random distribution used to calculate them can have enormous impact on the results.
   
   Because of Caltrain's 8-inch platforms and inefficient passenger flows, dwell times can occasionally exceed two minutes, for example if a wheelchair user needs to board a train.  The resulting dwell time random distribution has a long tail that reflects the "Russian Roulette" nature of today's operations.  These occasional outliers can easily ruin a tight timetable by setting off a domino effect of delays to other trains, resulting in poor on-time performance.  This is especially important because on-time performance (measured in minutes of delay), the figure of merit used to evaluate different operating scenarios, becomes sensitively dependent on the choice of dwell time random distribution.
   
   Consider level boarding, an improvement that Caltrain hasn't yet discovered how badly it needs.  The lack of steps and abundance of doors makes dwell times shorter and, more importantly, far more predictable.  The dwell time random distribution for level boarding does not have the long tail used in Caltrain's simulations, and we can finally stop playing Russian Roulette.  Look no further than BART to get representative dwell time data.
   
   What is the effect of the long tail in the dwell time random distribution?  Would level boarding be a better investment than building more passing tracks?  We'll never know, unless the model is re-run with a different dwell distribution that simulates level boarding.
    
3. Strange assumptions about the "hold out" rule.  This operational rule mandates that when a train stops at an old, narrow center-boarding platform, no other train may enter the station until the first train has departed (otherwise bad things can happen).  The practical effect of this rule is that trains operating on separate tracks can delay each other.  The hold-out rule is slowly turning into an exception as stations are modernized, and today applies at only three stations: South San Francisco, Broadway in Burlingame, and Atherton.
   
   In a cute computational flourish, the hold-out rule was accounted for in all operational simulations in the Caltrain report, but nobody bothered to ask if it would make any sense to invest billions (with a 'B') in the peninsula corridor to build HSR passing tracks, all the while not spending a few million (with an 'M') to rebuild the three remaining platforms to retire the hold-out rule forever.  Worse, Caltrain's analysis made no attempt to tease out the effect of the hold-out rule on minutes of delay, to quantify its effect relative to other sources of delay.
   
   This shortcoming could easily be remedied by re-running the model with and without the hold-out rule.

Finally, the document reveals a stunning discovery in its analysis of Dumbarton service:

It is important to note that the feasibility of operating Dumbarton Rail Corridor service on the Caltrain corridor in addition to the Caltrain and HSR blended system does not equate to having the capacity to add another Caltrain or HSR train during the peak hour. DRC service fits because it uses only portions of the corridor and does not require an end-to-end corridor operating slot.

This is the exact same reason why all HSR service should enter the corridor at Redwood City from Altamont Pass, rather than gumming up the entire length of the peninsula corridor.  The blended system would be easier to plan, cheaper to build, and provide far better service to passengers.

The Caltrain/HSR Blended Grade Crossing Traffic Analysis was published on the Caltrain website and concluded the following:

Additional analysis is necessary. However, before doing so, speculation should be minimized. A better understanding of the schedule and decision on passing tracks should be advanced before further traffic analysis is conducted.

That's a fancy way of saying that grade crossing conditions will depend heavily on what the eventual timetable will be, so that a timetable needs to be developed first.  Perhaps Caltrain will some day see that everything revolves around timetable planning.  The timetable is where it starts from, to determine infrastructure needs and grade crossing impacts, and also where it all ends up, to quantify service quality improvements for each community along the peninsula corridor.  Timetable planning is precisely where Caltrain is not spending a lot of effort, because they think they already know the answer, in the form of a general class of "peak period skip stop zone express" timetables described in the 2012 Caltrain/HSR Blended Operations Analysis (see page 34).  There's a lot of work left to be done in this area, starting with undoing Caltrain's mistaken fixation on "peak period skip stop zone express" timetables.  As far as this grade crossing traffic analysis is concerned, Caltrain put the cart before the horse.

The CBOSS train control project chugged along, with a couple of recent puff pieces in the local newspapers. This project is where the lion's share of Caltrain's capital budget is going these days:

Design work is about 50 percent complete, said Karen Antion, who is essentially the boss of CBOSS and a highly-experienced and highly-paid consultant. [...] The design of CBOSS should be complete by September, Antion said.

Is this the same design work that leads up to the Critical Design Reviews that were supposed to have been completed last March?  If so, CBOSS is now a year behind the original plan, and that's before the really hard task of integrating and testing a system that is so proudly proclaimed to be "unique to Caltrain."  It sure is comforting to hear that we've got such a wide spectrum of on-call consultants to get us out of any trouble.

Meanwhile, staff has already softened up the board for the impending Option 2 (Phase 3) contract, to be rubber-stamped at the August board meeting.  The status of key milestones in the scope of Option 1 (Phase 2) is artfully avoided.  This $86.5 million contract is the "final" increment of funding for CBOSS, before the need for an Option 3 (Phase 4) makes itself known, most likely in late 2014.

Remember SuperVia, of Rio de Janeiro?  They are already well into testing.  Their consultants must be absolutely stellar.

The San Carlos Transit Village project is inexorably nearing approval later this month despite strong (and legitimate) NIMBY opposition.  Apparently piqued by claims that SamTrans is sabotaging the modernization of the peninsula rail corridor by selling off land that will be needed for new passing tracks, both SamTrans and Caltrain have issued letters disavowing any ill effect to the rail corridor or to the adjacent Old County Road, essentially by claiming that nothing has been decided yet:

The blended system is undefined at this time and we cannot predict its impact

This is a strange claim to make, given that all the analysis reports commissioned by Caltrain in the last couple of years point towards additional passing tracks (the "midline overtake") being built right through San Carlos and the new Transit Village.

The San Bruno grade separation opened to train traffic, even if the project is far from complete.  Trains now use the tracks built atop a mechanically stabilized earth embankment (basically walls held together by the weight of the dirt fill in between) that could be representative of future grade separations elsewhere on the corridor.

Development Oriented Transit, Again

Protecting the peninsula rail corridor right of way from crowding or outright encroachment, whether by private developers or other agencies, has evidently not been a high priority for Caltrain.  Examples abound: a movie theater built right next to the tracks in San Mateo, a "Transit Village" planned right next to the corridor in San Carlos, a Millbrae station that constricts the number of tracks.  All of these examples complicate the task of outfitting the corridor for high-speed rail service, and may add tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of doing so.

Here we go again!

Depot Circle, a large residential/commercial development authorized by Redwood City's recently updated Downtown Precise Plan, threatens to encroach on a vital piece of station real estate in Redwood City.  The city recently released a Request for Qualifications that outlines the project and describes its role as a future focal point for Redwood City's downtown.

Here's the problem: the railroad right of way is only 60 feet wide in this area, but the station is nearly certain to be expanded to four tracks with two island platforms to accommodate the following likely operational scenarios:

• the mid-peninsula high-speed rail stop, since neither Palo Alto nor Mountain View seem likely to welcome a station, and also because Redwood City has the best freeway access of all three corridor locations under consideration;
• Dumbarton commuter service, long planned but unlikely to be left with sufficient track capacity to continue beyond Redwood City under a constrained "blended" Caltrain + HSR plan--thus forcing passengers to transfer at Redwood City, hopefully across a common platform;
• a mid-line overtake location, where Caltrain express trains could exchange passengers with Caltrain local trains, across a common platform.  One of the most promising mid-line overtake scenarios now being considered under Caltrain's corridor capacity analysis assumes that four tracks would be built right through the Redwood City station.

The Depot Circle RFQ asks prospective developers to address the rail corridor issue only tangentially, without offering specific design constraints: "Describe your strategy for dealing with the potential widening of the Caltrain railroad to accommodate High Speed Rail. In particular, explain how far, if at all, would you set the project structures from the current railroad, and any other site design strategies that might be employed to minimize effects of a potential future widening of the railroad."  What are developers supposed to know about railroads?

Here are some specific constraints, which are based on detailed HSR technical requirements and Caltrain engineering standards:

• A four-track elevated station with two island platforms will be at least 125 feet wide (if built as narrow as possible), more than 200 feet wide (if built to the CHSRA's elephantine station design standards), and over a quarter mile long.
• A four-track underground station, however unlikely to be built because of the astronomical price tag, would need even more space to accommodate temporary shoo-fly tracks during construction (30 feet), space outboard of the trench walls for construction equipment movement (15-20 feet each side), as well as clearance for trench wall tie-backs that can't interfere with nearby building foundations.
• Even if the station were moved north or south from its current location, away from Depot Circle, the tracks would still need to spread apart gradually (in conformance with the track alignment standards) and would occupy a wide swath well before and after the station itself.

The upshot of all this: including reasonable building setback clearances, a prospective developer should make an allowance of at least 150 feet for the future expansion of the rail corridor.  A 150-foot corridor is shown overlaid on the Depot Circle parcel map in the graphic at left (see also overlay on original map, 1.1 MB PDF), and takes a significant bite out of the parcels now offered for development--including the project's namesake traffic circle.

If Redwood City wants to become what Palo Alto could have been, it's time for the city, Caltrain, and developers to make the station itself the focus of downtown, provide it with enough land, and build it to be as architecturally striking as the elevated Amsterdam Bijlmer Arena station.  If there isn't enough vision to do that, please just avoid hemming in the rail corridor.

Development Oriented Transit

In San Carlos, plans are afoot to build a so-called "Transit Village" on a strip of vacant land adjacent to the train station. The land, owned by Caltrain and SamTrans, the county transit agency, was acquired for construction of the grade-separated berm (see Focus on San Carlos).

The Draft EIR for the Transit Village project is currently open for public comment.

The plans are remarkable for their amazing lack of coordination with the high-speed rail project. The Transit Village FAQ dismisses the issue in one fell swoop:

How will the project affect the proposed high speed rail service?
The project will not affect the proposed high speed rail service because the project site design already incorporates the necessary space for the future high speed rail service.

A recent article in the San Mateo Daily Journal, highlighting concerns about the project, failed to mention the high-speed rail issue even once.

Meanwhile, HNTB, the engineering firm in charge of the peninsula rail corridor, is actively considering several design alternatives that would widen the corridor to well over 100 feet at the San Carlos station. One of these alternatives is to run a pair of HSR tracks west of the existing station, right where the Transit Village buildings are planned. Perhaps this is a game of who gets there first, but no matter which way you slice it, four tracks plus platforms are going to exceed 100 feet in width.

The project EIR includes several site sections, an example of which is reproduced above superimposed with one of the HSR configurations currently under consideration. (Click for the complete diagram, drawn to scale, without any utility easements--i.e. as narrow as possible). If the railroad right of way is not expanded eastward into Old County Road and the adjoining East San Carlos neighborhood, then the required rail corridor will quite literally overlap with the planned buildings as shown in the figure. Short of an actual overlap, even close proximity would be unacceptable from an interior noise standpoint, and would preclude emergency vehicle access to the rear of the buildings. The inescapable conclusion:

The project will very much be affected by HSR, quite possibly up to eminent domain and demolition.

Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a Transit Village. Who will pay for this egregious lack of foresight? Probably the suckers who buy the residential units, and the suckers who pay taxes to fund needlessly expensive right-of-way acquisition. Remember, this little soap opera will take place on land that is currently owned by Caltrain and SamTrans!

Why pull another San Mateo? Have Caltrain and SamTrans learned nothing about sacrificing valuable railroad right-of-way on the altar of cities' pet projects? Is somebody in Sacramento going to wake up and knock some heads together? Or is it on us to foot the bill after the mess is made?

Focus on: Brisbane

Only 2.7 miles of the peninsula rail corridor fall within the city limits of Brisbane (population 3597), of which the majority was widened to four tracks in the early 2000s to enable overtaking for Caltrain's Baby Bullet express service. The four tracks already in place might at first suggest that the impact of high speed rail on Brisbane would be relatively minor, especially since Brisbane does not have a single grade crossing and will therefore not require any controversial grade separations. Unfortunately for Brisbane, HSR is likely to be much more than just tracks passing through town.

The Brisbane Baylands

The existing alignment of the Caltrain tracks was established by the Southern Pacific railroad's Bayshore Cutoff, a series of trestles and tunnels built at the turn of the 20th century to provide direct rail access to San Francisco (shown under construction in the 1905 photo at right, looking south). The marshes between the tracks and the original shoreline were filled in with rubble from the 1906 earthquake, and became known as the Baylands (see overview map, as well as track maps for mileposts 5 and 6). In its heyday, this area served as a massive railroad yard, complete with engine roundhouse. The tracks were shut down in 1982, and all that remains of the yard is a vast expanse of soil contaminated with lead and oil, forming the western portion of the 650-acre site now known as the Brisbane Baylands.

The cleanup and restoration of the Brisbane Baylands is to be followed by redevelopment, by a city eager to grow its tax base. The Brisbane Baylands Community Advisory Group maintains a nice library of documents relating to the site, including a 2008 overview of the planned development. The Brisbane Baylands project is well into its CEQA environmental review process, and all the alternatives that have been defined for detailed study in the EIR involve a nearly total redevelopment of the former railroad yard.

Most of the stakeholders in this process seem oblivious to the possible implications of the high speed rail project for Brisbane. The HSR scoping comments submitted by the City of Brisbane never even mention two very important words: maintenance facility.

The San Francisco Maintenance Facility

The high speed rail system requires train maintenance and storage facilities in the vicinity of its major terminals. This topic came to light during the California High Speed Rail Authority's August 2009 meeting, when the board chairman noted that the requirements for such HSR maintenance facilities were not generally understood by the public, and asked for memoranda describing these facilities to be released.

On the peninsula corridor, a train maintenance and storage facility must be placed as close as possible to the San Francisco terminal to minimize the amount of non-revenue train movements between the facility and the passenger terminal. The CHSRA's technical memorandum 5.1 on heavy maintenance facilities describes the following characteristics for the facility to be located near San Francisco:

• 84 acres
• 1081 ft wide
  
• 27 storage tracks, 8 shop tracks, 2 cleaning tracks, 4 "other" tracks

Including other items such as parking and access roads described in technical memorandum 5.3, the overall size of the San Francisco facility balloons to 90 to 108 acres. The conceptual plans for this facility are found in the technical memorandum 5.1 directive drawings.

90 to 108 acres is a lot of land, a strip over 1000 ft wide by nearly a mile long. The CHSRA additionally desires the access tracks to such facility to be about 4000 ft long, to allow trains to leave the main corridor at about 100 mph and enter the maintenance facility without forcing other trains to slow down. This concept is similar to a freeway exit ramp, and would likely be grade-separated from the main line through a suitable arrangement of flyovers. The total length of the facility would be over two miles.

Site Location Criteria

Ideally, again according to the CHSRA memoranda, the facility should be located preferably within 1.5 miles of the San Francisco terminal, desirably within 3 miles, and exceptionally further than 3 miles. The good news for Brisbane is that it is further than 6 miles from the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco, seemingly outside the acceptable range of this criterion. The bad news is that there are no 100-acre parcels of flat, open land available within those 6 miles.

While the CHSRA's memoranda never mention Brisbane by name, the location of the San Francisco Terminal Storage / Maintenance Facility (TSMF) is nearly certain to be:

The Brisbane Baylands.

Curiously enough, a February 2009 visit to the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce by the CHSRA's Quentin Kopp does not seem to have touched upon all the implications of high speed rail for Brisbane, since it was reported as having been "well received." Let's see how it goes after Brisbane wakes up-- see the realistically-scaled overlay of the CHSRA's yard plan shown above, or better yet, see for yourself in Google Earth.

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

Palo Alto Innovates

While the city of Palo Alto has of late developed a certain ambivalence towards high speed rail, some residents are taking the planning into their own hands. Taking for granted that high speed rail will come through Palo Alto, a group of civic leaders and architects is elaborating some design proposals that may shape the California High Speed Rail Authority's ongoing analysis of alternatives.

The group proposes tunneling the train tracks through the entire 4 mile (6 km) length of Palo Alto, as first described in a Palo Alto Weekly cover story published before the 2008 election. This idea, which would liberate more than 40 acres of land currently owned and occupied by the railroad, has since been fleshed out into an urban design concept entitled Innovation Place. A presentation of Innovation Place earned the group a 2009 urban design award from the American Institute of Architecture California Council. As its creators note, Innovation Place is a collection of ideas rather than a specific project proposal.

The crown jewel of Innovation Place is a complete transformation of the University Avenue station area, as envisioned in the team's graphic above. High speed rail or not, this area of Palo Alto is in dire need of a redesign; today, access between three important zones of activity (the University Avenue shopping district, Stanford University, and the Stanford Shopping Center) is a circuitous and dysfunctional jumble that is both unpleasant and time consuming to navigate, whether by foot, bike, car or bus. Neighboring areas just a few hundred feet apart feel miles away from each other.

The remainder of the Innovation Place proposal consists of a 31-acre linear park adjoining Alma Street, featuring a bike and pedestrian path and uniting the two halves of Palo Alto formerly separated by the train tracks. The additional cost of putting the tracks underground would be financed by selling $700 million worth of air rights for development.

Tunnel Financing

The feasibility of the Innovation Place concept hinges on the financing for tunnel construction. Will air rights for residential and commercial development really be worth $700 million? Will Palo Alto's famously difficult development approvals process allow the construction of 660 homes and 814,000 sq ft of retail and the elimination of El Camino Park, Palo Alto's oldest public park? Will the incremental cost of tunnels (as compared to simpler track alignments) cost as little as $700 million?

These questions remain unanswered, and the technical challenges of building a cavernous four-track high-speed tunnel might not bode well for the cost. On simple grounds of environmental justice, the CHSRA has refused to contribute its own funding for any tunnels that benefit a local community rather than provide added transportation functionality. Instead, it encourages cities to pay for such tunneling costs, as Berkeley did with BART in the 1960s. That scenario might require Palo Alto to pay for the project by taxing itself through an initiative passed at the polls. For such an initiative to have even the slightest chance of passing, the benefits need to be distributed throughout Palo Alto, and not just be focused on the University Avenue area. That is why, out of political necessity, the linear park along the entire length of Palo Alto is a non-negotiable component of the concept. A partial tunnel just won't do.

The city of Palo Alto recently set aside $70,000, in large part for hiring an engineering consultant to provide independent review of tunneling plans. The consultant is Hatch Mott MacDonald, a mega-firm with extensive tunneling experience (and one of the key players in San Francisco's Downtown Extension project) that has previously provided advice to the backers of the Innovation Place concept. While such a consulting arrangement may be independent of the CHSRA, the firm does have an incentive to show financial feasibility of a tunnel because it may well end up bidding on its construction--a conflict of interest that should be mitigated to obtain the most objective evaluation of tunneling options.

Does It All Hang Together?

If Innovation Place has a weakness, it is that the concept really consists of two separable elements: the University Avenue redevelopment, and the tunnel / linear park. If Palo Alto were to become a high speed rail stop, the rare opportunity to reconfigure and redevelop the station area would present itself regardless of whether or not the tracks ran in tunnels. Most of the Innovation Place presentation is devoted to this intelligent urban re-design of the University Avenue area, which has great merit on its own.

On the other hand, the tunnel and linear park need the University Avenue development in order to make even the slightest bit of sense; otherwise, what's left is a billion-dollar public park, an idea that obviously won't get very far.

Beyond Innovation Place

One of the key features of Innovation Place is an underground station at University Avenue. However, it's worth considering an even wider range of options: this area could just as well be redeveloped without any tunnels at all. Streets on either side of the tracks could be reconnected using regular grade separations. Lytton Street could be connected to the bus depot, El Camino and Quarry Road, improving bus, shuttle and taxicab connections at the train station.

The station platforms could even be elevated with a large pedestrian and transit plaza underneath, in the manner of Amsterdam's spectacular Bijlmer Arena station, a project that has won several architectural awards. Bijlmer was designed by Grimshaw Architects and completed in 2007 for 130 million euros. (Photo by tataAnne; view more photos.) While it is about double the size that Palo Alto would ever need, its design philosophy is light years beyond the unpleasant and unsafe walk through the 1940s University Avenue underpass:

Every aspect of the design process was informed by the need to civilise the viaducts and to create a pleasant and safe ground level public space. To avoid a dark 100 m long tunnel, the concrete structures were spaced apart. Each 20 m span was supported at each end on just one column via an integrated cantilevered saddle. Arrays of columns were then aligned on axis with the boulevard to maximize visual connectivity from east to west. However, the most important decision concerned the roof design in general and its soffit treatment in particular. It is the modulation of this surface, its ribbons of roof glazing and its acoustically absorbent Oregon pine surfaces that convey civility from the perspective of the boulevard below. [From the Grimshaw website]

If one thing is sure, there is no shortage of architectural possibilities--with or without tunnels.

Looking Ahead, Not Back

Palo Alto is unleashing its creative talents on how best to weave high speed rail into the fabric of the city. The city will be hosting design "teach-in" on September 12th, sponsored by the Peninsula Cities Consortium. On October 3rd and 4th, the creators of Innovation Place will host a high speed rail workshop geared towards developing solutions and tangible design products for use in the CHSRA's analysis of alternatives, a key document that will be published by the Authority by the end of this year. Legislators, civic leaders, Caltrain and the CHSRA will participate in both events.

Whatever quibbles one may have with Innovation Place, it represents a forward-looking vision for Palo Alto and an embrace of high speed rail, rather than a desperate clinging to the past, and for that alone, it is refreshing.

Full disclosure: this blogger may participate in these events.

Focus on: San Mateo

The city of San Mateo was incorporated in 1894, 30 years after the railroad began operating. Along the 4.5 miles of rail through the city, there are today three Caltrain stations, two of which (Hillsdale and San Mateo) are Baby Bullet stops. The three stations in San Mateo generate greater combined Caltrain ridership than San Jose, a city with ten times San Mateo's population.

San Mateo is among the most treacherous areas on the peninsula to expand to four tracks for high speed rail because the existing Caltrain tracks run through dense residential neighborhoods and downtown blocks where the available right of way width is significantly less than 100 feet. The city is a "ground zero" of future grade separations: it is home to one-fifth of the grade crossings on the entire peninsula rail corridor (9 out of 46). To improve safety and traffic circulation, the city has long had plans to grade-separate all of its rail crossings; high speed rail will only hasten this process. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority has been carrying out a series of preliminary grade separation footprint studies in support of these plans.

San Mateo finalized a Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan in April 2008, covering the vicinity of the Hillsdale and Hayward Park Caltrain stations and including the re-development of the Bay Meadows racetrack site.

Station Area and Downtown

The San Mateo Caltrain station was rebuilt in 1999-2000 to alleviate auto traffic congestion. The new $11 million station with underground parking (photo above by ibison4) replaced a sparse older station a few blocks to the south. Every time a train stopped at the old station's center boarding platform between 3rd and 4th Avenues, auto traffic on 2nd through 5th Avenues was paralyzed, exacerbating rush hour congestion.

With some foresight, albeit a bit fuzzy, the new station's underground garage and surrounding structures were reportedly built so as to allow the tracks to be relocated underground. This would not only grade-separate the tracks through town, but also accommodate a future BART subway, as was envisioned in the late 1990s while construction of the SFO extension was underway.

Plans change.

The problem is now this: the new station building and underground parking encroach on the railroad right of way and do not leave the necessary clearance for four tracks, as likely required for Caltrain and HSR, whether at, above, or below grade. Worse, a couple of blocks south of the station, San Mateo's new downtown cinema and Main Street parking garage were completed in 2003 and encroach on what was once railroad right of way, leaving just 50 - 60 feet for the tracks (see Caltrain right of way map).

There will be no easy or cheap solutions to these constraints. In discussions about a preliminary grade separation footprint study for downtown, city staff makes the following key observations:

• The vertical alignment of all the downtown rail crossings must be consistent, since their close spacing does not allow sufficient space for rail grade changes;
• Any grade separation alternatives with the tracks at grade or near grade is infeasible because of the need to lower or raise downtown streets in a manner that severely impacts frontage on both sides of these streets;
  
• The two remaining vertical alignment alternatives leave the streets at grade, with the rails either fully elevated or underground--the latter being the city's stated preference;
• The right of way required to build a four-track underground trench is 110 feet wide, far more than the 50 - 60 ft available;
  
• Moving the horizontal alignment of the tracks to the east (with impact to Railroad Ave and frontage) is preferable to impacting the new train station, Main Street parking garage and downtown cinema;
• The underground alignment presents significant technical complications, with residential property impacts just north of downtown where the tracks would ramp down, possible street closures, as well as the technical difficulty of crossing San Mateo Creek underground.

While no decisions have yet been made, and despite the city's stated preference for a depressed alignment, the elevated alignment may present the least physical impact to property adjoining the tracks, although the visual impacts are worst. The city is considering options to mitigate the Berlin Wall effect, including building the track on a viaduct instead of retained fill. Contrary to San Mateo's official preference, the California High Speed Rail Authority shows an elevated track profile with 15-foot embankments through San Mateo in their program EIR/EIS; this may or may not be the preferred alternative once they complete the project EIR/EIS.

The issue of track alignment through downtown San Mateo is discussed in much greater detail in Threading the San Mateo Narrows. That discussion includes diagrams showing various track configuration options such as the elevated shown below.
For more details, read all about Threading the San Mateo Narrows.

North Central San Mateo

North of downtown, the tracks curve through dense residential blocks on right of way that ranges from 60 to 90 feet wide, less than the ~75 feet required to run four tracks on a retained embankment, and certainly less than the ~110 feet required to excavate a trench or tunnel. The tracks cross four residential streets (Poplar, Santa Inez, Monte Diablo and Tilton avenues) on low-clearance bridges that have long been slated for refurbishment.

The key question for downtown and the North Central neighborhood will concern the vertical alignment of the tracks. The close proximity of these residential blocks to downtown, combined with the gentle track gradients required for freight trains (yes, freight trains), will require that these areas be considered as one.

Vertical Alignment Considerations

The vertical profile of the existing tracks in San Mateo is shown in the figure below. This figure was created from Caltrain track survey data, with the vertical scale greatly exaggerated. The grade level of cross streets is estimated from the known vertical clearance at each location; the level of creeks is likewise estimated.


We make a few assumptions (for more background on where these came from, read about The Shape of Palo Alto):

• Vertical track radius is constrained to a minimum of 10 km
• Gradient limit of 1 to 1.5% for freight trains, 2.5% for passenger trains
• 20-foot clearance from underpass road surface to top-of-rail (to clear trucks)
  
• 30-foot clearance from overpass road surface to top-of-rail (to clear freight trains)
  
• Tracks must be close to level for 750 feet north of First Ave, for Caltrain platforms
• Tracks are elevated at Peninsula Ave., an area with adequate clearances and commercial frontage that would favor this minimum-cost solution.
  

Scenario #1: track elevated throughout. With a 1% gradient limit and a 10 kilometer vertical radius constraint, this is what San Mateo would look like. We assume each road is depressed by 5 feet (something that can be done with little impact to adjoining frontage), with the rails raised by 15 feet. It is likely that a viaduct structure would replace the existing embankments, possibly making room for a rebuilt Railroad Ave. All vehicle height restrictions in North Central would be removed. Worth noting, the elevated alternative does not require the closure of any crossings, unlike depressed alternatives.


Scenario #2: trench through downtown. To shorten the sloping approaches and reduce the depth of the trench, we assume each road is raised by 5 feet (something that can be done with little impact to adjoining frontage), with rails depressed by 25 feet. Even this 25-foot trench penetrates below the water table and will require constant pumping to keep dry. With the 1% gradient limit desirable for freight trains, this design would require the closure of Villa Terrace, Bellevue, Poplar, Santa Inez, Monte Diablo and Tilton avenues, unless those streets were either raised or depressed with considerable impact to frontage on either side of the tracks.


Scenario #3: trench through downtown, with steep approaches. With a less stringent gradient limit just a shade over 2%, difficult for freight trains but easily handled by high speed trains and Caltrain, the approaches to the trench are much shorter. This allows underpasses at Villa Terrace, Bellevue and Poplar and reduces the need to close cross-streets. Santa Inez, Monte Diablo and Tilton would likely still be closed.


Scenario #4: tunnels. While this alternative will no doubt be studied by the CHSRA, it is unlikely to be implemented due to a host of disadvantages, not the least of which is the astronomical cost. The sloping approaches to a tunnel diving under downtown are likely to present even greater interference with cross-streets than the depressed trenches described above.

Whatever alternative is ultimately favored, one must keep in mind that the biggest constraints on the vertical alignment of the tracks come from freight trains, which don't handle steep grades well and require very high vertical clearances. The more nimble electric trains used by HSR and Caltrain would easily handle steep gradients up to 2.5%, and would require about 3 feet less vertical clearance. In short, freight trains may have a direct impact on San Mateo neighborhoods.

Southern San Mateo

The southern half of San Mateo is an area currently slated for extensive re-development. It does not have nearly as much access across the tracks as northern San Mateo, and the available right of way is far less constrained, generally greater than 100 feet (see maps for mileposts 18, 19 and 20). The area encompassing the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations (and the former Bay Meadows race track) is slated for redevelopment as described in San Mateo's Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan.

Hayward Park includes a reverse curve in the tracks (curving right, then left). The northern curve at milepost 18.8 has a radius of just 1100 meters, good for about 95 mph. This curve made #5 on our list of Top Ten Worst Curves on the peninsula. While it was already flattened by shifting the tracks 20 feet westwards in the year 2000, this curve may need to be straightened some more so that high speed trains don't need to slow down as much in this area. This may not please residents of South Boulevard.

The Hayward Park Caltrain station was rebuilt in 2000 and moved slightly to the south of its former location. The original station provided convenient pedestrian access across the tracks at 16th Ave; the City is now considering a new pedestrian underpass at this location to restore the access that was lost after the move. The new Hayward Park station was built for three tracks, although it currently has only two tracks. The southbound platform already includes a cut (see photo at right) allowing it to be trimmed back to make room for a third passing track. Whatever the original intent of this configuration, the station will likely be entirely rebuilt when high speed rail comes through town.

The Route 92 overpass (actually two side-by-side bridges, seen in the background of the photo) provides ample clearance for four tracks.

The Hillsdale Caltrain station is already planned for relocation to the site of the former Bay Meadows station, and will be located between newly constructed grade separations at 28th and 31st avenues, connecting the west side of El Camino to the newly developed Bay Meadows area. The tracks will be elevated over 25th, 28th and 31st, linking up to the existing grade separation at Hillsdale Ave. These long-standing plans by the Caltrain JPB and the City are unlikely to be altered by the HSR project, except for quadruple tracking; for a detailed description, refer to Chapter 4 of San Mateo's Rail Corridor Plan. The resulting vertical profile is shown in the diagrams above.

South of Hillsdale, the frontage along the east side of El Camino Real is already owned by Caltrain, Samtrans or Union Pacific; while businesses on that narrow strip of land will likely be displaced, plenty of land is available for expansion of the tracks.

San Mateo promises to be one of the biggest design challenges on the peninsula. The CHSRA certainly has its work cut out for it, with a 50-foot right of way threaded through dense city blocks surrounded with residential neighborhoods, with a creek thrown in for good measure.

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

Some Light Reading

UPDATE 2: San Carlos has also posted their draft scoping comments for their city council meeting of Monday 2/23. The letter includes a concern about vertical clearances at the Holly St. underpass, which the Daily News (Redwood City edition) quickly blew out of proportion by proclaiming: Major High Speed Rail Dilemma Discovered in San Carlos. If that is the biggest problem we have on the peninsula, the high speed rail project really must be in great shape! This area is smack in the middle of the future site of the SamTrans Transit Village, a Transit-Oriented Development that threatens to intrude upon the right of way and constrain the configuration options for high speed rail. Transit agencies at their best!

UPDATE: Menlo Park has posted their draft scoping comments for consideration at the city council meeting on Tuesday 2/24.

If the rain is keeping you indoors, why not curl up by the fireplace with some light reading:

The city of Mountain View posted their draft scoping comments on the peninsula high speed rail EIR/EIS, to be reviewed / approved at the next city council meeting on Tuesday.

The Mountain View packet also includes a draft of the "We The Mayors" letter presenting peninsula communities under a united front. As further described in a Daily News article on Saturday, an alliance of peninsula communities is being formed outside of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), which has heavy representation from the cities of San Francisco and San Jose, cities whose interests will not necessarily align with those of the peninsula communities in between.

The town of Atherton also posted their draft scoping comments (see Item 19, pp. 13-42) on the peninsula EIR/EIS for consideration at their 18 February council meeting. Atherton had originally submitted comments on the Bay Area regional EIR/EIS, to which the CHSRA responded (refer to Chapter 22, page 101, comment letter L025). Atherton's scoping letter includes point by point rebuttals to the CHSRA's comments and a forceful argument for tunneling.

Atherton is of course one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to overturn the regional EIR/EIS's CEQA certification, which could re-open last summer's decision to route HSR through Pacheco Pass (and Atherton) instead of Altamont Pass. The court documents pertaining to this lawsuit are available on the Sacramento County Superior Court's document server; search under case number 34-2008-80000022.

Finally, Palo Alto has established on their city website a new section on high speed rail. There's not much there yet, but a good place to keep an eye on.

Lemonade from a Lemon: Millbrae Take 2

The comments in response to Focus on: Millbrae were quite thoughtful and identified another couple of reasonable options for reconfiguring the station for the arrival of HSR. They are labeled Option C and Option D in the expanded diagram below.

(click to enlarge-- and yes, this figure is getting too big...)

After some consideration, Option D stood out to me as the least-terrible way of making lemonade out of the existing Millbrae lemon.

Option D pro:

• 4 platform tracks for HSR / Caltrain
  
• Cross-platform transfers between Caltrain Express / HSR and Caltrain local, in both directions
  
• No demolition and reconstruction of the existing station mezzanine
• Platforms stay pretty much where they are
• "Site One" transit-oriented development to the west is minimally impacted
• Keeps It Simple, Stupid (compared to nearly every other solution)
  

Option D con:

• Loss of northbound cross-platform transfer between BART and Caltrain
• Non-stop HSR passes platforms at ~125 mph
• Need to establish physical separation of BART and Caltrain on adjacent tracks

While this is probably the best technical solution, it remains to be seen whether it is politically workable, especially because it destroys the BART cross-platform transfer, which was a huge selling point for the existing station. Then again, follow the money... the smaller station footprint and lesser impact to the neighboring development may favor Option D.

Focus on: San Carlos

San Carlos is about midway between San Francisco and San Jose. It is home to Caltrain headquarters, located just a block from the historic train depot. The depot was built in 1888 by Nathaniel Brittan, from the same stone and by the same masons as Stanford University. If the roof were made of tile rather than slate, you might think you were on The Farm.

Grade Separations

San Carlos is among the few peninsula communities where Caltrain is already fully grade-separated. The grade separations were built south to north, starting with Howard and Brittan Avenues (built 1993-95), followed by a bike / pedestrian tunnel at Arroyo Ave, a large concourse under the tracks at the San Carlos depot near San Carlos Ave, and ending with Holly St (built 1996-2000, in combination with Harbor and Ralston in Belmont). The two grade-separated tracks run on a raised berm which was opened to trains in October 1999. The Howard and Brittan overpasses sat unused for several years after they were finished, while the other projects to the north suffered delays. Due to poor construction phasing, Caltrain operated on temporary shoo-fly tracks (built on the west side of the right of way, alongside El Camino Real) for six years. Traffic and businesses were heavily disrupted by construction.

One might think that after all this pain and anguish, San Carlos would enjoy the prospect of breezing through the improvements required for high speed rail. Think again!

In another example of sheer incompetence, the 1990s Caltrain engineering department conceived all the San Carlos grade separations entirely without accommodation for future additional tracks, even as alarmed transit advocates tried to draw attention to this design flaw. Indeed, quite aside from HSR, the midpoint of the SF-SJ line is one of the most desirable spots to add passing tracks to allow Caltrain express trains to overtake local trains. Unfortunately, such forward-thinking transportation concepts as skip-stop express service were not yet ingrained in Caltrain's culture; the Baby Bullet had not been invented.

Throughout San Carlos, every rail overpass, including the pedestrian concourse at the station, was built for exactly two tracks. Every concrete structure that Caltrain built in San Carlos over the last 15 years will have to be reconfigured or rebuilt to make room for the two additional tracks required for high speed rail. Those concrete structures now constrain the possible placement of high speed tracks and may prevent shifting their alignment to the most optimal position. (Not that Caltrain has ever been known for shifting tracks to their optimal position: the signal in this tongue-in-cheek photo is just north of the San Carlos station.)

HSR Plans

The California High Speed Rail Authority indicates in its EIR/EIS peninsula maps that the tracks will run at "existing ground" level, with a reference to Volume 2, Appendix E, Figure CC-8, which shows four tracks running at grade. This configuration is not consistent with the existing embankment, which would more likely become a retained embankment with walls on each side.

Station

The San Carlos depot is considered a local landmark, so it will not be demolished. Built of sandstone masonry, it is not easily moved, unlike the even more historic wood frame depot in Menlo Park. The Caltrain grade separation project was built right up against it, in the manner of a thick lava flow frozen just short of the eaves. The photo to the right shows how little clearance remains, looking in the southbound direction. Note the textured concrete, strenuously trying (and failing) not to overpower the Richardson Romanesque style of the depot.

The CHSRA plans a four-track station with two center express tracks. This poses a thorny engineering question: how to squeeze four tracks plus two 15-foot platforms between the depot building (to the west) and Old County Road (to the east), while constraining two of the four tracks to use the existing overpass structure alignments. Something will have to give: the depot, the overpasses, or both. The figure at right illustrates the problem by overlaying an aerial photo of the San Carlos depot with a short section of 4-track right of way (red outline) drawn to scale, using the dimensions provided by the CHSRA.

Given the alternatives, perhaps moving the depot doesn't sound so bad after all.

Station Area Development

The city of San Carlos and Samtrans have plans to develop the land between El Camino Real and the tracks into a transit village. This 8.7 acre strip of land is owned by Samtrans, and was formerly occupied by the shoo-fly tracks during construction of the grade separations. The transit-oriented development was awarded to Legacy Partners after a drawn out "visioning" process that began in 2002. Samtrans will retain ownership of the land, and sign a 99-year lease with Legacy Partners. Construction is planned to begin within the next couple of years, well before HSR comes to town.

A Samtrans official has claimed that the development would leave enough room to add two tracks for high speed rail, although details remain unclear. There is enough uncertainty in how exactly the two tracks will be added, given all the existing constraints, that additional physical constrains from the TOD would be unwelcome.

NOTE: This post will be updated continuously, as warranted by additional information or new events relating to San Carlos. Full disclosure: the author lives in San Carlos

Focus on: Millbrae

Millbrae, by virtue of its proximity to SFO and its connection with BART, is planned as an intermediate HSR stop. The existing BART / Caltrain station is to be expanded, and is naturally the focus of the HSR project in Millbrae.

Millbrae Station

Plans for the Millbrae HSR station, described in the CHSRA's environmental impact documents, call for four tracks to pass through, with two outside platforms. This is shown as Option A in Figure 1 below.

Unfortunately, the incompetent design of the existing Millbrae station (opened in 2003 and billed as the largest multi-model station west of the Mississippi) has squandered much of the space available within the Caltrain right of way. Massive support columns for the expansive station mezzanine have been placed right where you'd want to run extra tracks, and a third platform track at the south end of the station (presumptuously built to terminate some Caltrain services, assuming everyone would want to ride BART into San Francisco) sits unused, with no possibility of continuing north through the station. The photo at right, taken in 2000 during construction, illustrates how a forest of concrete pillars now constrains the right of way.

The total lack of foresight in this design is breathtaking.

To make room for four tracks, the existing southbound platform and part of the mezzanine that it supports (including the ill-placed pillars) may have to be demolished and rebuilt a few dozen feet further to the west.


View Larger Map

Millbrae is an important stop for Caltrain, ranking 5th in ridership, and even higher when counting BART. As a measure of its importance, every Baby Bullet stops there. Assuming one wanted to make Millbrae an important interchange point with HSR, it would make sense to maximize the opportunities for cross-platform transfers. Cross-platform transfers require an island platform between two tracks, allowing passengers to quickly and easily change trains on the same platform. For example, a much-touted cross-platform transfer is already possible between Caltrain and BART in the northbound direction.

With four tracks through the station, a solution that maximizes cross-platform transfers would consist of two island platforms flanking the center pair of express tracks. The existing northbound island platform shared with BART would be preserved. Advantages:

• 4 trains can occupy the station at once (not counting BART)
• Cross-platform transfers between HSR and Caltrain
  
• Cross-platform transfers between Caltrain local and Caltrain express
• Flexible routing through station under perturbed schedule, which minimizes cascading delays

There are also some disadvantages. Non-stop HSR trains pass platforms at 125 mph, likely requiring a physical safety barrier. Other disadvantages depend on how this configuration is built. Two possibilities are labeled Option B and Option D, in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Millbrae station configuration options

Option B, to construct new island platforms and preserve the existing BART cross-platform access, increases the station footprint the most. The westernmost track is shifted ~60 feet to the west (vs. ~30 feet for thru configuration), with possible impact to private residences to the north and Millbrae Ave overpass to the south. As in the CHSRA's Option A, most of the station mezzanine and support columns must be reconfigured.

Option D (raised in the very thoughtful comments to this post) calls for converting the westernmost BART track to use by Caltrain / HSR. The way BART is operated, with half the trains terminating at SFO, the Millbrae station is underused. The eastern BART island platform is usually closed to service. With the expected HSR and Caltrain improvements, BART has no chance of being extended past Millbrae. All of these factors support the notion of cutting the BART portion of the Millbrae station from three platform tracks to a more reasonable two.

The biggest advantage of this approach is to preserve the existing mezzanine and platform configuration, without the need for large-scale demolition. The cross-platform transfer to BART (the cherry on the cake!) would be lost, in favor of better cross-platform options between HSR, Caltrain express and Caltrain local services. Option D also has the least encroachment on land to the west of the station, which may ultimately seal the deal.

Constructing Option D would require some reconfiguration of the existing station, such as removing the eastern Caltrain siding track, removing the western BART tail track, reworking the BART subway portal, and probably constructing a physical barrier to separate BART from Caltrain/HSR on the adjacent track.

Another possibility that preserves the existing mezzanine structure is Option C, although it only provides three platform faces for HSR and Caltrain. This option involves routing two new tracks to the west of the existing station, with some of the disadvantages mentioned above.

None of the options discussed here is perfect; all of them have drawbacks because of the suboptimal way the station was originally built. If the city of Millbrae, Caltrain, and the CHSRA are serious about making the Millbrae station live up to its intermodal billing, they should opt for the lesser of all evils (Figure 1 Option D), and not the design currently described in the EIS/EIR documents. While the BART cross-platform transfer (the station's political selling point) would be lost, other advantages far outweigh this loss.

Station Area Development

Whatever the final station configuration, adding two tracks to the Millbrae station will expand its footprint to the west, encroaching on an area locally known as 'Site One,' where the city of Millbrae and private developers desire to build a Transit Oriented Development. Ironically, the developers have claimed that HSR threatens to derail their TOD plans, quite shamelessly undermining their claim to be "Transit Oriented." The people who run Caltrain appear to have capitulated prematurely by promising the developers that HSR can be accommodated within the existing station footprint, an option that even the CHSRA doesn't try to pass off as feasible.

The CHSRA has also penciled in another parking structure for 230-400 cars to the west of the station on Site One, apparently without regard to the existing under-utilized 3,000 space BART parking structure, which has plenty of surrounding land for expansion.

Grade Separations

Most road crossings in Millbrae are already grade separated. A separation at Center St, at the entrance to Marina Vista, remains to be built. This is a constrained location where the BART tunnel box runs immediately to the east of the crossing, which prevents lowering the road.

BART Tracks

The BART to SFO project (which, as built, is much better described as BART to Millbrae) was brought to you by Quentin Kopp, who is now chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. While Kopp has clearly established a track record in bringing large transportation projects to fruition, his BART extension shows all the signs of having satisfied not just a transportation need, but the raw urge to pour way more concrete than strictly necessary.

A lot of this concrete was poured on, under, and around the Caltrain right of way, constraining it in various unpleasant ways that will come back to bite us (the taxpayer) as HSR is built. The botched Millbrae station discussed above is only the tip of the iceberg. The construction companies won't mind: there's real money to be made in jackhammering old concrete to make room for new concrete.

According to the CHSRA's environmental impact report Appendix 2D for the Caltrain Corridor, the HSR tracks will run through Millbrae at grade, right next to the BART tracks. But after BART was built so expansively into the Caltrain right of way, there isn't a lot of room left to build another pair of tracks. For example, take a look here and here, and think about how to fit in the planned 100-foot, 4-track right of way as shown at left.

NOTE: This post will be updated continuously, as warranted by additional information or new events relating to Millbrae. Last updated 09 December 2008.