Threading the San Mateo Narrows

Downtown San Mateo as previously discussed is one of the most difficult bottlenecks on the peninsula corridor, with some of the narrowest right of way anywhere on the peninsula (see mini map at right, extracted from Milepost 17 map). The following is an expanded discussion of horizontal alignment options in the downtown area.

Assuming one needs to build four tracks through this area (an assumption we will later revisit), the inescapable mathematics of right of way width and track clearances dictates that the railroad will expand significantly beyond its current boundaries. The figure below shows a cross-section elevation at Third Avenue looking "north". The building on the left is the cinema, built partially on former railroad right-of-way and completed in 2003. To the right is Railroad Avenue, providing access to several blocks of downtown business frontage. Railroad Ave becomes a residential street north of the train depot.


The cinema, along with other recently built projects such as the Main Street Parking Garage and the new train depot, have greatly restricted horizontal alignment options for the railroad. While they would only cost a few million to tear down and redevelop, these buildings are the source of considerable civic pride, so it is likely that the city will bend over backwards to preserve them--potentially at many millions of dollars of additional cost to the high speed rail project, and possibly with additional impact to residences in North Central San Mateo. Such is the sad reality of cost-benefit analysis when other people's money is involved.

The figure below shows the city's preferred vertical alignment, with the tracks relocated below grade in a four-track trench, with side clearances appropriate for safe 125 mph (200 km/h) operation. The avenues would cross the tracks on bridges.


As is readily observable, a four-track trench (the narrowest possible below-grade solution) could not be built without impacting structures on one side or the other of the right of way. Constructing the side walls of the trench would require even greater clearances than shown, approximately 110 feet by the city's own estimates--to accommodate wall tie-backs as well as temporary tracks to keep Caltrain operating during construction. More importantly, the trench obliterates Railroad Avenue, the only access to several businesses and residences. Those would have to be acquired under eminent domain.

An outright tunnel would allow continued access to Railroad Avenue, along with exciting new land uses on top of the tunnel. However, a tunnel isn't just a trench with a lid: it requires a vertical divider for fire safety and to support the roof, which further increases the side clearances. (The reasoning behind the resulting dimensions was discussed in the Joy of Tunnels.) Building an underground station would consume even more space for platforms, stairs, escalators and elevators, as will be shown later. The figure below shows how a tunnel compares to the available space: it simply won't fit without causing even greater impact than a trench.


About the only option that is possible to construct (a) without "taking" several buildings and (b) without permanently removing Railroad Avenue and its frontage is an elevated viaduct. The diagram below shows what such an elevated might look like. It could be built in halves, in order to keep Caltrain operating during construction. While an adorable little sketch by city staff (reproduced at right) shows a single concrete column supporting the entire four-track bridge deck, it is likely that seismic codes and the requirement to support massive freight trains would lead to four rows of columns, placed directly under each track. Parking is probably the only reasonable use for the concrete forest resulting underneath. The ambiance would be just like other parking garages in downtown--and might even replace other parking structures entirely, freeing up those locations for redevelopment. Driveway access to Railroad Ave businesses could be preserved.


The elevated option is also likely to be far cheaper to build than a trench or tunnel: it involves about the same amount of concrete, but far less earth moving or road closure logistics. Furthermore, an elevated does not require the permanent closure of several residential cross-streets north of downtown, as contemplated in Focus on San Mateo. Despite the visual blight and noise, look for this alternative to be ultimately favored by the California High Speed Rail Authority... and possibly also by the city, once all the trade-offs are fully understood. While the elevated may not be a desirable solution, on the whole it may be the best solution.

Station Placement

The foregoing musings do not take into account the configuration of the downtown San Mateo train station. By far the most important consideration is the location of Caltrain platforms--both their location with respect to the tracks (outside platforms vs. island platform), as well as their location along the tracks. Recall that the new depot was squirreled away to the north of First Avenue, on the outskirts of downtown, to minimize the impact of lowered grade crossing gates on rush hour traffic. If the tracks are grade-separated and grade crossings are eliminated, this concern evaporates, enabling some options for a more centrally located station closer to 3rd and 4th Avenues, which form the main east-west artery of downtown San Mateo. Such central locations would be far more accessible for both pedestrians and motorists.

In a four-track scenario, the resulting station widths are shown in the diagram below, not including the width of any ramps, stairs or escalators that might be required to access the platforms. These widths bear a direct relationship to the horizontal alignment of the tracks, since the station will be constrained on at least one side by existing structures.

The island platform requires about 6 feet more width than the outside platforms, and the tracks sit 23 feet further apart. The CHSRA might use this as an excuse not to implement island platforms, despite their significant operational advantages.

Let us consider the below-grade option favored by the city, with the station remaining at its current 1st Avenue location. The existing station is shown below in a cross section at 1st Avenue looking "north":

A below-grade station would be built in a trench, with 1st Avenue on an overpass. For all the talk about San Francisco's Transbay "train box", San Mateo's very own train box would be nothing to sneeze at, as readily observed in the following diagram.


Whatever horizontal and vertical location is ultimately selected, none of these four-track station options will fit in downtown San Mateo without very significant property impacts. So you might consider...

Solutions with Three Tracks

So far, we have assumed that four tracks would be absolutely necessary throughout downtown San Mateo, with potential property impacts that go along with that. In practice and with a little bit of creativity, the envisioned levels of Caltrain and HSR service could be achieved on just three tracks, by consolidating the two southbound tracks for a brief stretch through downtown. The goals of such an approach are:

• To reduce the property impacts to downtown businesses and residents by minimizing excursions outside the existing right-of-way
• To increase the range of configuration options for the downtown Caltrain station, for example an island platform that maximizes station access from 3rd and 4th Avenues
• To reduce property impacts along the narrow right of way in the North Central neighborhood, immediately to the north, such that residences do not have their driveway under an elevated.

Naturally, such real-world engineering involves compromise. The drawback is that local and express trains must all share the same southbound track through downtown. Scheduling trains around this operational constraint involves coordinated HSR and Caltrain timetables, which can probably be done reliably because all southbound trains originate from nearby San Francisco and are unlikely to build up significant delays in the space of just 17 miles. (The northbound tracks do not benefit from this proximity to a terminal, and would be difficult if not impossible to schedule reliably; for example, a delay in Bakersfield could later result in a northbound conflict at San Mateo. That's why two northbound tracks are still required.)

Two of the most interesting three-track configuration options are shown in the figure below (linked to annotated PDF file), as designed by Richard Mlynarik. Both assume an elevated, for the reasons described above, and stay confined to the existing right of way between Monte Diablo Ave and the San Mateo Creek to reduce impact to residences along those blocks. There may be more design options with three tracks, but these two convey what is possible.
Option 1 is a three-track station with outside platforms. This can be built either just north of the parking garage and cinema, at the existing location of the San Mateo station, or just south of the offending buildings. The southbound track skirts the cinema as tightly as possible. The northbound platform is built over Railroad Ave, which complicates access by ramps, stairs, escalators or elevators. Railroad Ave would have to be shifted underneath the elevated to free up room under the platform, and station access might interfere with business frontage.

Option 2 is a better three-track station with a central island platform built over Third and Fourth Avenues. The same layout from the PDF file is overlaid on an aerial photo below.


The central island platform enjoys easier access from below, since stairs and elevators would have ample space to touch down under the elevated, with direct pedestrian access from both sidewalks of 3rd and 4th Avenues. It doesn't have to be an oppressive structure: it could look like this amazing photo of Amsterdam's Bijlmer station, a model of pedestrian access.

The difficulties in downtown San Mateo will be great, but so is the potential for an elegant solution that better integrates the station with the city.

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.

Draft Scoping Report

The CHSRA just released its Draft Scoping Report on the San Jose to San Francisco segment of the route. This report summarizes and categorizes the numerous comments received from federal, state and local agencies and governments as well as members of the public. Numerous appendices include all the raw input for this process, the so-called "scoping comments" that were submitted a few months ago in response to public scoping meetings held on the peninsula. The CHSRA is taking no chances with the environmental clearance process, leaving an extensive trail of documentation that proves the process was scrupulously followed.

Process Context

The environmental clearance process can be a bit obscure to a newcomer. The CHSRA provides an overview that includes the figure at right.

The process is governed by federal (NEPA) and state (CEQA) law. Due to the large scope of this project, the law allows for tiering of the environmental review, with a statewide program-level environmental review (completed and approved in 2008) followed by a more detailed project-level review of the peninsula, which is now getting underway and is due for completion in late 2011.

The final result of the environmental review process is an environmental impact document known as an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) under CEQA, and an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) under NEPA. A single document satisfies both regulations, thus resulting in an alphabet soup known as an EIR/EIS. When the project EIR/EIS is approved by the board of the CHSRA, any litigation has run its course, and design has proceeded sufficiently far, the project is "shovel ready". That is planned to happen on the peninsula as early as 2012.

What just happened over the last few months is scoping, and you had to live under a rock not to know about it since it was covered extensively in the local press (see archive). As its name implies, scoping determines what will and won't be included in the environmental review. After scoping is complete, it's too late to raise new issues to stop the project under CEQA or NEPA.

Scoping is pretty bland at this point: a giant pile of inputs is collated into broad categories and decomposed into an all-encompassing listing of the issues raised by all the stakeholders. Everything is still on the table at this point. It's mildly interesting to dig through it to see what everyone has to say, although reading the phone book might be more entertaining.

Where Next?

The next step in the environmental review process is alternatives analysis. The CHSRA will describe a broad set of alternatives (based on scoping inputs) and then select those that will be carried forward for detailed analysis. This involves discarding any alternatives that are not considered feasible or practicable, using structured evaluation criteria. This is where design options will start getting taken off the table, and sparks will really start to fly.

You can read an example of an Alternatives Analysis report for another segment of the HSR project, from Los Angeles to Anaheim, to get a flavor of what's coming to us. This project is slightly further along the process than San Jose to San Francisco. The alternatives analysis for the Caltrain corridor is currently expected around January 2010, just six months from now.

Baby Bullet: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?

In June 2004, after a period of falling ridership and revenue, Caltrain began operating a limited-stop express service, known as the Baby Bullet. Express trains used newly installed passing tracks in Sunnyvale and Brisbane to overtake slower local trains (as illustrated in the photo at right by Dan Klitzing). The start of Baby Bullet service marked a turning point for Caltrain, with weekday ridership rocketing from 25,000 to about 40,000 and farebox recovery ratio increasing to the mid-forties.

It was a welcome change to see Caltrain's transformation from a plodding public transit operator to a more strategic, business-oriented organization putting passenger service first. As evident in ridership statistics, Baby Bullet express trains consistently score the highest passenger load factors and are the greatest source of fare revenue for Caltrain.

Meanwhile, the California High Speed Rail Authority intends to transform the peninsula corridor into a four-track operation, with the slow pair of tracks shared by Caltrain locals and freight trains, and the fast pair of tracks shared by Caltrain expresses and high speed trains. The Memorandum of Understanding signed in April 2009 between the CHSRA and the Peninsula Corridor JPB (Caltrain) envisions "mixed traffic from Caltrain commuter rail and the high speed train service capable of operation on all tracks".

What exactly does that mean for Baby Bullet service?

Some Numbers To Connect

• 31% of ridership: Baby Bullets are Caltrain's highest-revenue trains, accounting for 31% of weekday ridership but only 22% of trains. There is a demonstrated market for rapid commutes along the peninsula. Will a private HSR operator attempt to cherry-pick this market away from Caltrain, leaving the publicly-funded agency on the hook to operate less profitable local trains?
  
  
• 4.8 million passengers: The CHSRA is under great pressure to show that its business plan "pencils out" and will allow funding of system extensions (to Sacramento and San Diego) partially through revenue bonds. The Authority estimates in its ridership and revenue forecasts that by 2030, 3.7 to 4.8 million passengers a year will ride HSR between peninsula destinations (San Francisco, Millbrae, Redwood City / Palo Alto and San Jose), accounting for about 9% of the entire system's ridership, and 2% of its fare revenue. That level of intra-peninsula ridership amounts to nearly half of Caltrain's entire 2008 ridership. Does this imply HSR intends to take over Caltrain's express commuter service and associated revenue?
  
  
• 9 or 10 tph: According to the same ridership and revenue forecast, which serves as the foundation for the analysis of design alternatives, the peninsula corridor will be sized for a traffic of 9 or 10 high speed trains per hour, each way, by the year 2030. When all trains travel at the same speed, a pair of tracks can support about 20 tph each way, but when speeds differ (as they might between HSR and express commuter trains) the capacity can drop into the low teens. With little spare capacity assumed for express commuter trains, will the CHSRA conclude that sharing tracks is not beneficial after all?
  
  
• 2'1" platforms: The CHSRA and Caltrain have so far shown no intention of coordinating on the crucial issue of platform height. Quite the contrary, details emerging from the Transbay Transit Center project in San Francisco indicate that the two systems will operate with different and incompatible platform heights (3'6" for HSR and 2'1" for Caltrain--a difference of two steps). The implication is that high speed trains will be unable to use Caltrain platforms, and vice versa. Will this restrict the number of locations where express commuter service can be provided?
  
  

• 2 dedicated tracks: The environmental impact work in southern California is a bit more advanced than on the peninsula, and a design alternatives analysis has already been released for the Los Angeles to Orange County section. (By the way, we should see one for the peninsula before 2009 is out... that's when the can of worms officially gets opened!) The LA - Anaheim route is similar to the peninsula in that it will have a mix of HSR and commuter traffic. The CHSRA analyzed several scenarios involving mixed commuter - HSR operation, and rejected them all in favor of dedicated tracks for HSR, stating on pages 36 and 37 that "the Dedicated HST Alternative was identified as the only alternative capable of accommodating the peak demand forecast for all classes of train service at acceptable levels and on-time performance." In other words, commuter trains can't be allowed to gum up the HSR timetable. In case there was any remaining doubt, they really drive it home: the dedicated alternative "provides for a safer environment (no mixing of FRA-Compliant and Non-Compliant trains), and does not require a waiver from the FRA." The result is a train-size Jersey barrier between the high speed tracks and lesser trains, as shown in the figure at right. Will the same, unimaginative "Dedicated HST" logic be applied on the peninsula?
  
  
• More than 4 tracks: Before the wording of the MOU between the CHSRA and Caltrain was altered, it stated that the peninsula corridor would be four tracks wide and that "In some places the corridor may consist of more than four tracks." Does this amount to leaving the door open for the possibility that HSR tracks could be completely segregated from Caltrain, with additional tracks (beyond four) as required to operate express commuter service?
  
  
• 70 minutes: If Caltrain service were operated by electric multiple-unit (EMU) trains, an all-stops local would need 70 minutes to travel between San Francisco and San Jose. (Refer to a presentation describing Caltrain's Project 2025, made by their "Rail Transformation Chief" Bob Doty last September: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) While this is much faster than 91 minutes achieved by diesel locals today, it is still 13 minutes slower than today's best Baby Bullet timing of 57 minutes. Express service will be needed even with the fanciest EMU technology if today's run times are to be preserved, let alone improved upon. Might Caltrain settle on 70 minutes as "good enough"?
  
  
• 9 board members: The nine-member board that governs Caltrain is composed of appointed county officials with little knowledge of rail operations and greater allegiance to the interests of their home county than to the specific interests of Caltrain. In practice and through no fault of their own, their accountability to current or potential commuters is limited to little more than good will and personal dedication. Furthermore, funding sources for Caltrain are unreliable. In political clout or financial wherewithal, the PCJPB is far outclassed by the CHSRA. Supposing they tried, could Caltrain protect its own interests with much vigor? Will the CHSRA wave the electrification bill over their heads to get whatever they want?
  
  
• 30 days: while the MOU signed between the CHSRA and Caltrain envisions "mixed traffic from Caltrain commuter rail and the high speed train service capable of operation on all tracks," either party can unilaterally cancel the MOU upon 30 days' notice.
  
  
• Zero: the CHSRA's desire to navigate the byzantine process to obtain from the Federal Railroad Administration a "mixed operations waiver" is likely zero. Such a waiver would be required if HSR service were operated on the same tracks as heavy trains that are fully "compliant" with FRA crash safety regulations. Caltrain is taking the lead on this complicated issue and making good progress, but what if this effort falters? Will the lazy answer be dedicated HSR tracks, strictly off-limits to Caltrain?
  

Implications for Peninsula Commuters

One doesn't need to wear a tinfoil hat to view the above points as possibly suggesting a "Dedicated HST" scenario on the peninsula corridor, with high speed trains operated entirely separately and independently from Caltrain. Why would this be bad for peninsula commuters?

• There would be no flexibility in adapting the stopping pattern of express trains to actual demand. If express service were taken over by HSR, the intermediate stops would be Millbrae and Redwood City / Palo Alto, due to platform incompatibility. Need to get from San Mateo to Mountain View in a hurry? Today, there's the Baby Bullet. Tomorrow? Forget about it and take the local.
  
  
• The opportunity to create transfers between local and express commuter service, across a common platform, would be lost. The HSR tracks would occupy a large portion of the right of way, making it difficult to create a four-track, cross-platform commuter interchange station. Cross-platform transfers are extremely useful in creating feeders for express service and cutting journey times even for riders who do not live or work near an express stop.
  
  
• Any spare capacity of the HSR tracks, such as might result if the ridership forecast was optimistic, would be wasted since it could not be taken up by other services such as express commuter trains.
  
  
• Incidents (e.g. suicides) would cause more disruption and reduce operational flexibility, since commuter / HSR trains could not use each other's tracks to circumvent the location of the incident. "Single-tracking" around an incident is far more disruptive to a timetable than detouring four tracks into three, as would be possible in a shared-track scenario.
  
  
• A common fare system where a single fare covers the trip from point A to point B, regardless of the transit operator or speed of service, would be less likely.
  

Anyone who cares about flexible and efficient express commuter service--regardless of who provides it--should hope that shared HSR / Caltrain operations on the peninsula corridor aren't just empty talk. Making it happen will require more coordination and possible regulatory complication, but failing that, the Baby Bullet's days may be numbered.

The Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently published a Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy, shepherding together various competing interests (CHSRA, TJPA, Caltrain, SFCTA, San Jose, VTA) to ensure that the Bay Area presents a unified front in its pursuit of a $1.8 billion slice of the $8.0 billion of ARRA stimulus funding available for high speed rail.

The MTC report contains a few surprises. But first, here are the projects contained in the $1.8 billion peninsula funding request. Also refer to pie chart at right.

• $400M for the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center "train box"
  
• $516M for Caltrain electrification
  
• $230M for Positive Train Control (automatic signal enforcement) for the peninsula (*)
  
• $212M for Caltrain's San Bruno grade separation project
  
• $205M for a newly revealed TTC train box "Rail Platform Extension" (*)
  
• $149M for reconfiguration / HSR modernization of Caltrain's Diridon station in SJ (*)
  
• $98M for reconfiguration / HSR modernization of Caltrain's 4th & King station in SF (*)
  
• $52M for DTX (SF downtown rail extension) design (*)
  

Projects with an asterisk (*) are funded nearly entirely out of the stimulus. Those without an asterisk have additional sources of funding already allocated.

A Two-Phase Approach

ARRA stimulus funds are targeted for so-called "shovel-ready" projects that can create short term jobs. That puts the California High Speed Rail Authority's San Francisco to San Jose HST project out of the running; the high speed rail project on the peninsula is in the early stages of an environmental clearance process that promises to be highly contentious, to be completed in 2011 at the earliest. While design work is already well underway, the controversial quadruple tracking, the numerous grade separations, and the wholesale reconstruction of nearly every Caltrain station planned by the CHSRA are not even close to shovel-ready.

That evidently pushed the MTC to split the construction of high speed rail on the peninsula into two phases. The first phase (as listed above) consists of a patchwork of projects that were already in the planning / environmental clearance pipeline before Proposition 1A was passed and HSR became a realistic prospect. It's definitely a pragmatic approach, with some caveats discussed below.

A Sudden Caltrain Bounty

Caltrain, with its appointed three-county board of directors, has historically held very little clout in getting its major capital improvements prioritized by the MTC. As recently as a few months ago, the MTC re-allocated $91M of Dumbarton rail (a.k.a. Caltrain) funding over to BART. Caltrain's biggest capital improvement project, planned for decades but with an ever-receding construction start date, is the electrification of the peninsula corridor with 25 kV overhead wires to provide quicker and more modern service. (artist's concept at left).

In the Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy, Caltrain projects are suddenly front and center, thanks to their relatively advanced state of shovel-readiness and some new-found political support. This is a welcome change from the usual BART über alles funding strategy.

Caltrain electrification was always considered an unwelcome fly in the BART-around-the-Bay ointment. Now that billions of HSR funding have materialized, the Bay Area transportation-industrial complex is seemingly more attracted to HSR than to BART, if that is even possible. This changes everything: far from being an impediment to BART, electrification is now a "foot in the door" for bringing high speed trains into San Francisco and undertaking some very juicy construction projects during Phase 2--including several billion dollars of grade separations.

For thousands of Caltrain commuters, it should be welcome news that electrification has gone from problem to solution. Nevertheless, one question comes immediately to mind...

Is The Cart Before The Horse?

Does it make sense to electrify Caltrain in Phase 1, only to rebuild the corridor once the HSR project is environmentally approved and construction begins for Phase 2?

Pros:

• Commuter improvements are not beholden to HSR Phase 2 schedule, which may be delayed pending environmental review and inevitable litigation
  
• Electifying in Phase 1 conveniently coincides with the timing of Caltrain's unavoidable need to replace their obsolete train fleet
  
• Electrical substations and other lineside equipment can remain as-is for Phase 2 (Caltrain's planned 25 kV system is world-standard and fully compatible with HSR)
  
• The overhead contact system (basically anything above the rails) is made of modular components, easily reused or reconfigured
• Electrifying in Phase 1 allows testing / commissioning and possibly even limited high speed train service prior to Phase 2 completion
  

Cons:

• Building temporary "shoo-fly" detour tracks during grade separation construction becomes marginally more complicated
  
• Since vertical and horizontal alignment of tracks will be altered in many places, pole footings will need to be reconfigured. This is probably just a footnote on the demolition orders, considering that nearly all existing Caltrain station platforms and most existing grade separations will be entirely rebuilt in Phase 2.
  

Not that any of this matters, since the agenda is more political than technical--but thankfully, the pros do seem to outweigh the cons on a purely technical basis.

Bang for Buck: High

Go-Go Gadget Train Box!

A few months ago, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (the agency charged with building the new Transbay Transit Center) got into a tiff with the CHSRA over the adequacy of their train platform layout. Entrenched in conflicting positions, the TJPA designed a 150-meter radius curve (extremely and impractically sharp) into one end of their platforms, while the CHSRA adamantly insisted on perfectly straight 400-meter platforms. We didn't hear any more about this little mind-the-gap issue, until now.

The Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy asks $205 million for a "Rail Platform Extension" which would extend the train box north-eastward from Beale St. to Main St., as shown in the figure at right, to enable the sacrosanct straight platforms.

Sadly, it's another design by committee. The CHSRA's straight platforms are not a valid technical requirement. The underlying requirement concerns the admissible gap between the platform and a train's doors... and any reasonable value of that gap will still allow for some amount of curvature, however slight. For example, a 1 km radius will produce an additional gap of 5 cm (2 inches) at most. As if proof were necessary, high speed trains stop at curved platforms in nearly every county that has them.

Extending the train box has enormous potential for the Transbay Transit Center, for other reasons than making the platforms perfectly straight. That potential would be fully exploited by a proper design of the train box, to be discussed another time. And why does a 250-foot extension cost another 50% more than the basic train box?

Bang for Buck: Medium (for reasons unrelated to platform curvature)

San Bruno Grade Separation

A worthy project provided they do it right and straighten the darn curve.

Bang for Buck:
Zero (if built as Caltrain designed it)
Medium (if they straighten the curve)
High (if they straighten the curve and build an island platform)

Fourth and King Terminal

Caltrain had unfunded plans to modernize and expand the 4th & King terminal in San Francisco, as part of their Project 2025 plan. They even have a track layout in mind. For this, a design totally removed from system-level optimization of San Francisco rail operations, they are asking $98 million.

If somebody cared enough to configure the Transbay Terminal correctly, perhaps the 4th & King station wouldn't need to make up for Transbay's glaring lack of capacity.

Bang for Buck: Low (if only they fixed Transbay instead!)

Positive Train Control

The Investment Strategy calls for fully $230 million (!) to implement positive train control on the peninsula corridor. While PTC would finally bring the corridor out of the 19th century, why is Caltrain in the driver's seat to define the system for all of California? And why are they re-inventing the wheel by "defining the requirements" for a "new signal system" when this technology is a solved problem, sold as a commodity off-the-shelf item by countries that already have modern railways? Buy a fully debugged ETCS Level 2 system from your choice of several established vendors, and be done with it already! This is sure to become another disastrous R&D project.

Bang for Buck: Low

Diridon Pan-Galactic

San Jose's naked ambition to become the Grand Central of the West is on full display, with a $150 million grab to build a new station whose grandiose architectural configuration is rooted more firmly in a civic inferiority complex than any realistic transportation need.

Bang for Buck: Very Low

In closing, can we really expect $1.8 billion dollars (more than 20% of the nationwide high speed rail stimulus) to land in the Bay Area? Probably not. Whatever the Bay Area may score in Washington, the Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy reveals a great deal about the region's evolving funding priorities.