Category: SamTrans-Caltrain

  • High-Cost Rail Part 89 Frankenstein

    I wish everyone had a subscription to the Wall Street Journal since, in my opinion, it is two notches above any other daily news source for insight and analysis.  In today's edition, editorial writer Allysia Finley lays out the sordid history of our high-cost rail project as a prelude to the Tos v. California High-Speed Rail Authority lawsuit that get an initial hearing on May 31st.  Finley notes that Quentin Kopp is supporting Tos because he believes that various aspect of the original Prop. 1A are not being met.  She writes

    Mr. Kopp seems more and more like the protagonist Victor Frankenstein of literary lore, disillusioned by what his ambitions have wrought.

    And she goes on to remind us of all the caveats that got 5% more people to vote for 1A than against it

    The initiative mandated that trains run every five minutes at peak speeds that exceed 200 miles per hour; zip between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes; and operate without a subsidy.

    Given the split-the-baby "blended solution" that we are faced with on the Peninsula as HSR is supposedly going to work with an electified Caltrain and the estimate of 150 mph in rural areas, Finley reminds us

    To meet the law's 2 hour and 40 minutes travel time, the rail authority intends for the train to barrel through the Central Valley and Tehachapi Mountains, which are traversed by a fault line, at 220 mph.

    While the fastest train in the world with years of operational experience running in France tops out at just under 200 mph.  Keep your fingers crossed on May 31st!  We've only wasted a few billion dollars so far, maybe we can save the other $80-90 billion this will cost.

  • San Mateo Boom – Sonic Boom?

    The article in the Daily Journal about all the transit-oriented development going on in San Mateo caught my eye because the high-cost rail cognescenti in B'game have been marvelling over the new construction at Peninsula and California–just over the border in San Mateo.  The DJ notes

    Ground has broken on a new 111-unit transit-oriented development in San Mateo’s rail corridor between the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations.

    The former Lithographix printing facility at 2090 S. Delaware St. has been demolished and the new $43.7 million apartment complex is scheduled to be ready to lease in spring 2014, according to developer Wood Partners.

    The reason the high-cost rail watchers have focused on the one on our southern border is the setback from the railroad right of way.  It would appear to be just enough to handle a four-track allignment for HSR.  Can you imagine being in one of those units when the sonic boom of a 120 mph train goes by?  You have to wonder what all of these developers are thinking–"I'll be long gone before HSR gets to the Peninsula?"

    Here's the foundation being laid a few months ago.  I'll add the current view later.  I almost think B'game share the "credit" for these units under the ABAG quota.  They are a lot closer to B'game than anything but the disputed 7-11 in San Mateo.

    Peninsula Condo complex_foundation

    Update:  Here is the view from the right-of-way.  The funny thing is they have built the new condos with windows onto the tracks!!!!  I happened to go to an Open House in the building on the opposite side of the tracks today and the first thing one potential buyer did was open the window in the unit to hear how loud the train was.  I didn't have the heart to tell him how loud High-cost Rail would be.

    Peninsula Condo complex_train

  • High-Cost Rail Part 86 $5K Well-spent

    Last night the B'game City Council voted to contribute $5,000 to a lawsuit that seeks to ensure that the High-cost Rail Authority does what it is supposed to do regarding spending Our Money.  Unfortunately, said lawsuit is necessary since the dolts at the Authority cannot comprehend or comply with the simple written English provisions of Prop 1A.  Voting for the donation: Mayor Ann Keighran, Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg and Councilwoman Cathy Baylock. Voting against: Councilmembers Jerry Deal and Terry Nagel.

    You would think this would be a slam-dunk 5-0 vote with the only discussion being whether to up the donation, but it wasn't.  Terry Nagel has been a massive disappointment on the whole High-cost Rail issue for quite awhile so this confused "no" vote is just par for the course.  But Jerry Deal appears to be swaying away from what is best for B'game and the question around town is "Why?"  I'll be seeing him this weekend and plan to ask him directly.  I'll let you know if I get anything but handwaving about Caltrain electrification being so damn important.

  • San Francisco Magazine – B’game “Utopia”

    I like reading San Francisco magazine.  I especially like that for some reason they mail it to me for free while Mollie Stone's sells it on the rack and they offer annual subscriptions for $24, but a gift horse is always welcome.  The January issue is especially welcome since it has a cover article titled "Project Utopia" where they "polled 200 Bay Areans about the qualities that define their dream neighborhood and selected 10 precincts that match those criteria–no Craigslist trolling required."  And guess what?  Two "precincts" were not in EssEff and one of those is "Burlingame Terrace"!  The description on page 79 reads

    Because…maybe Pleasantville isn't lame after all.  Was it the combination of $72 parking tickets and having three bikes swiped in two years?  Or was it the warm summer night you visited friends in Burlingame Terrace and noted, when you pulled up to their sitcom-ready clapboard, that their kid's Trek was just lying in teh driveway, decidedly unstolen?

    A decade after the first portents shimmered into view, Burlingame is calling out to disenchanted urbanites. (I guess they missed the '06 earthquake and B'game's subsequent growth spurt)  Its main avenue is proving to be more than a suburban sweet spot, and not with any old coffee-shop tuna melt, either, we're talking tuna conserva with cannellini beans.

    Pizzeria Delfina, Blue Line pizza, Sephora and La Boulange get mentions, along with our "smallish lots–a legacy of its roots as a summer colony–pay a nice divident: human-scaled streets with neighborly houses."  Well at least that aspect of B'game looks greener from the other side of the monster house divide.

    Here are our "grades":  Affordability  B-, Walkability B, Public transportation B, Weather A, Safety A- …and "the bummer:  It's a far cry from being culturally diverse".

    Recent arrival Soni Obinger notes "The one downside is that there is no nightlife" and I can agree on that one.  All I want for Christmas are a downtown jazz/folk club and a pocket movie theater (with one or two screens).  Heck they could even be in the same establishment on different nights of the week.

    Thanks San Francisco magazine.  You pretty much nailed it!

     

  • Elevated Concern

    Local columnist John Horgan has a good take on the Broadway overpass-underpass-no pass discussion at the last Council meeting here.   The essence of his concern is

    The Broadway Caltrain crossing is one of the most congested in the area. Enough funds are available to remedy the situation with something along the lines of the berms Caltrain has built at rail crossings in Belmont and San Carlos.

    However, by declaring itself agreeable to this important change in its prior position, there is a danger that the council has opened the door to something similar south of Broadway. That concern was a key focus of the council's deliberations.

    There were assurances that the city could have it both ways, that a raised structure at Broadway would not preclude more attractive, at-grade options south to Peninsula Avenue, and the border with San Mateo, in the downtown area.

    Still, the city has lost a consistent argument, a firm stance, if you will.

    I haven't watched that section of the meeting, but I trust John's take on it and thus am also concerned.  The one open question in my mind is the money–I'm not so sure "it's there" in practice, i.e. when you actually can get some general contractor to put in an official bid.

    Broadway overpass

  • Caltrain: Planning for 2014 Taxes

    There are only five taxes that you have to vote on this time around (30, 38, 39, A and D) so when better to have agencies start planning for the next batch.  The SF Examiner is highlighting a survey done by the San Mateo County Transit District that appears to indicate another 1/4 cent sales tax could pass.  The article notes

    When first asked, 63 percent of San Mateo County voters said they would support a quarter-cent sales tax increase to provide funding for SamTrans and Caltrain. And after pollsters presented context and information about the need for a dedicated funding source, that rate increased to 66 percent, said Jayme Ackemann, communications manager for Caltrain. Ackemann noted that opposition efforts to tax measures usually knock a few percentage points off support ratings come election time. For the proposal to pass, it would need two-thirds approval.

    SamTrans currently receives about $60 million a year from a half-cent sales tax, meaning a quarter-cent measure would likely raise half that amount. Last year, Caltrain dealt with a $30 million shortfall with unsustainable one-time funding measures. SamTrans has had its own budget issues, which forced the agency to cut its funding contributions to Caltrain.

    Ackemann stressed that the poll was conducted simply to provide options for both SamTrans and Caltrain. The agencies have not made decisions on when, or if, they will move forward with the San Mateo County-only option.

    The piece goes on to note that some think San Fran and Santa Clara counties should probably contribute as well–but that has been the essence of the challenge from the beginning.  In related news, the City's e-newletter notes the SMTC is soliciting citizen board members for Caltrain's sister, SamTrans.

  • Keeping SamTrans Solvent

    The Daily Journal article on SamTrans changes has a "just the fact, Ma'am" approach–as it should.  A couple points caught my eye

    SamTrans’ debt service requirement this year is $24.4 million, with $12.7 million going to pay down the debt related to the BART airport extension.

    It operates 48 bus routes in San Mateo County but just four them handle nearly half of the transit agency’s weekday ridership.

    SamTrans has a weekday average ridership of about 45,000 a day but 45 percent of the riders travel on just four routes: the 120, 292, 390 and 391.

    Those last two are the main routes up and down El Camino through B'game.  Keeping it solvent is important especially because

    SamTrans only recovers 12 percent of its cost from the fare box and gets most of its support from tax revenue.

    That revenue model is where the recurring Caltrain funding issues originate, too………it's a shame that half the debt is for a BART connection that is so problematic. 

  • Why Can’t Caltrain be Smarter?

    Caltrain continues to try to hook itself to High Cost Rail thinking that the giant boondoggle will spill enough excess cash on the Peninsula to accomplish the upgrades it thinks it needs.  I say "thinks it needs" because it appears to be completely convinced that electrifying it's SF-SJ route is the only way to improve the service, yet all it has to do is look a little north to see an alternative.

    The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) system is using smarter diesel train technology to get into service quickly.  The first 39 mile phase is due to be operational in three to four years on track that has been out of service for years.  But the pertinent aspect for us poor Peninsula residents is SMART's choice of Diesel Multiple Unit technology–a modern diesel approach.  If you don't want to wade through the 165 page spec, here is Wikipedia's summary

    A train composed of DMU cars scales well as it allows extra passenger capacity to be added at the same time as motive power. It also permits passenger capacity to be matched to demand, and for trains to be split and joined en-route. It is not necessary to match the power available to the size and weight of the train – each unit is capable of moving itself, so as units are added, the power available to move the train increases by the necessary amount.

    Distribution of the propulsion among the cars also results in a system that is less vulnerable to single-point-of-failure outages. Many classes of DMU are capable of operating with faulty units still in the consist. Because of the self contained nature of diesel engines, there is no need to run overhead electric lines or electrified track, which can result in lower system construction costs.

    These advantages often outweigh the underfloor noise and vibration that may be a problem with this type of train.

    And of course if Marin chose it, you know it's at least a bit green.  SMART says they "produce less than half the CO2, one-eight the NOx and one-fifth the particulate matter of a standard locomotive-hauled train."  Heck with that improvement, maybe leaf blowers can stay as they are in town!

    So the question remains, why can't Caltrain be smarter instead pandering to High Cost Rail and helping to ruin the Peninsula's downtown areas and the state's finances?

  • Saving the Old Train – Part 2

    The Caltrain funding saga has a long history.  But news reported in the Daily Journal  this week of increased ridership (up 13% year-over-year) and commitments from the three partners appear to have made the number for another year

    To close next year’s deficit, the three agencies that support the rail line, SamTrans, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have agreed to contribute $33.5 million to the fiscal year 2012-13 operations budget, up from the $25.4 million the three agencies contributed this year.

    Caltrain closed last year’s nearly $30 million deficit with one-time fund swaps approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

    Moving forward, budget deliberations will include changes in the formula used to determine how much each partner will pay toward the operations of Caltrain. VTA has also agreed to discuss resumption of the full cost of operating service to Gilroy.

    For FY 2012-13, SamTrans will contribute $14 million to Caltrain; SF Muni will contribute $5.8 million; and VTA will contribute $13.7 million.

    Could it be that the impending demise of High Cost Rail woke up SamTrans, SF Muni and the VTA to the fact that they need to do this on their own?  Probably not, but it does make one wonder what changed from last February?

  • Caltrain Smooth Operator

    The news being reported in the Mercury Times that Caltrain is taking the second highest lowest (thanks KH) bid instead of the lowest, thus paying $4.8 million more per year for the next five years for operations isn't necessarily crazy or bad business.  There are often service-related reasons to pass over the low bid.  But if it is going to look for new taxes or more service cuts, it will have to do a better PR job than it's done here to sell the decision.

    What exactly "blew Caltrain's socks off?" 

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026