13 responses to “High Speed Rail”

1. Anonymous

   September 13, 2007

   Why is it that we should support a high speed train running up and down the Peninsula? I personally thing it would be better over the Altamont Pass and ending in Oakland. There is no logical reason for the urgent need for it to end in SF. The majority of the Bay Area population lives outside of SM and SF counties. Crowding our right of ways will also limit our transportation options in the future.

2. Anonymous

   September 13, 2007

   I agree. We can’t even get decent local train service now, and with all the money going towards that ‘pie in the sky project,’ we will certainly never get the local trains back. They promised everybody something in that fancy, expensive brochure, but it was obvious that the local stuff was last on their list.

3. Lori

   September 13, 2007

   Come on guys, think about it. If it comes through San Mateo County, all of the improvements for Caltrain will come from the high speed budget. We pay nothing and get the best system for us. Sounds pretty simple to me.

4. jroc

   September 13, 2007

   Where is the money coming from otherwise? I thought it was Caltrans? Are you suggesting that the City will eventually pay for grade separation? That would be the first time I hear that. I just don’t think that a train traveling at over 100 MPH down the middle of the Peninsula is going to make my life better in any way. I would be curious what the grade separations would look like for the HS trains. Probably a big berm like San Carlos.

5. Joanne

   September 13, 2007

   Personally I like the grade separations that was done in San Carlos. Very nicely done with the stained concrete, creeping vines and lighting.

   I only wished they would do Peninsula overpass in the same way.

6. Myles

   September 13, 2007

   JROC:

   Grade seperation gets paid by the Transportation Authority. That is the 1/2 cent sales tax increase that we pay in San Mateo County.

   That was the same group that supported the high speed to San Francisco. The state then pays for our upgrades.

   The cities don’t pay anything for most transportation matters.

7. jroc

   September 14, 2007

   Joanne-I personally prefer grade separations like those of BART in the East Bay where the elevated tracks are held up by columns that allow access under them. Picture the section between Bwy and Blgm Ave with this kind of separtion, with trees and a very long plaza underneath. When I picture that, the San Carlos berm that completely splits the City, seems the wrong approach.

   Myles-So if grade separation is paid for through a different mechanism, then bringing BART down as I have suggested before, should not be as expensive as Mr. Hecteman stated. I am assuming that his estimate included grade separtation. I read the web site he referenced and the only real argument against is the disruption of service but I am sure that there are bus bridges that can aleviate that problem.

8. Lori

   September 14, 2007

   It seems to me the tracks already split the town. Where on California Drive can you see what is on the other side of the tracks? No where, except near Broadway. The trees and Euc’s block the view, and some of those trees are really tall. A bearm isn’t going change the view.

   I don’t think i want to look at raised BART tracks like they have in the east bay.

9. Anonymous

   September 14, 2007

   Have you been to Burlingame Avenue lately? Actually, have you been anywhere around Howard or Bayswater Ave?. You can very clearly see across the tracks–definitely a visual link. Now with a new fence, even a pretty one, that link will need some creative solutions, but a berm would be horrible for our town.

10. Anonymous

    September 17, 2007

    Careful what you wish for:

    High speed rail means a minimum four track corridor all the way up the peninsula. Go back east an look at the rail routes in the Northeast Corridor. This is what you get. Then imagine those corridors passing the San Carlos station, the Burlingame station. They will split or towns like an interstate freeway.

    I am a huge rail supporter, but HSR is just a giant BART system that is getting more support from the construction industry than just about anyone else.

    HSR will likely abosrb $100 billion by the time it is built and will result a disneyland ride to LA, massive suburban sprawl along routes in the Central Valey, and little value for established towns along existing rail routes.

    Keep in mind that Federal money always includes the Federal agenda: sprawl, land settlement in remote areas (the CV), support of large corp. interests such as national developers and global construction companies,

    All this while peak oil unfolds and we start to realize that it’s better to take a slow train to LA once in a while rather than drive to LA every weekend.

    What we need to do is spend potential HSR rail money on DIGNIFIED local solutions that will carry more passenger to more useful places.

    mld

11. Kevin Hecteman

    September 17, 2007

    JROC: Grade separations are part and parcel of BART construction — the system’s electric third rail mandates it. I believe the money to build them would be part of BART’s construction cost. (From here, I’m taking the BART-Caltrain business to a new thread so this one stays on track, so to speak.)

    Martin: I don’t know that HSR would necessarily mean four tracks all the way to SF, especially since not all trains would be going there (some, I would think, will be going to Oakland, San Jose or Sacramento). I’m still wondering how/if this system can work, but I do like the BART analogy — lots of buck, not so much bang.

    But if we do this, I envision the following: HSR travels up the Valley (with Sacto-bound trains staying in the Valley) via Altamont Pass to a junction in Fremont. There, a single train can split into three trains. One turns north to Oakland; one turns south to San Jose; and one heads west across the Dumbarton to Redwood City, where it turns north to San Francisco. How’s that sound?

12. Anonymous

    September 17, 2007

    Hi Kevin:

    My point is that in the dicussion of BART vs. Caltrain, we can’t compare electrification of Caltrain to BART without including grade separation in the equation. Generally we agree that the rail must be separated either way and there have been conversations about this for years. So, you must compare the cost of electrification and grade separation. My guess is that this changes the cost argument?

13. Anonymous

    September 18, 2007

    JROC, I don’t think it will change the cost argument by much. I could use some more information regarding what, if any, grade-separation plans/ideas the city is making or toying with. But I’ve figured out this much: With BART, grade separations are mandatory. With Caltrain (electric or diesel); they’re optional. While Burlingame makes plans, Caltrain can keep running; if we decide to destroy Caltrain and replace it with BART, you”ll have no choice but to build those bridges (or that berm).

    As BayRail Alliance points out on its Web site, BART goes for something like $200 million per mile, whereas electrifying Caltrain would cost $4 million to $5 million per mile. It is my considered opinion that an electrified Caltrain would deliver a better, more flexible system in less time and for less money, and one that keeps SF and the Peninsula connected to the rest of the region (and country) by rail. Leaving HSR aside, electric Caltrain could still accommodate Amtrak (such as, perhaps, direct SF-LA rail service of the sort Martin Dreiling mentioned?), future Dumbarton service, and the occasional freight.

    We’ve seen that BART-to-Millbrae nearly killed SamTrans when the rosy ridership projections used to sell folks on the project turned out to be hocus-pocus. Once burned, twice learned.