Go to the Friends of Caltrain for the most current actions to save Caltrain.
Caltrain is about to make decisions about the design of electric rail cars that will affect the service for many decades to come. At the last board meeting, David Couch, who is managing the electrification project, talked about the set of decisions that Caltrain will make this year. For more about the decisions, and opportunities to weigh in – including a Citizens’ Advisory Committee Meeting tonight – read on.
The good news is that Caltrain is thinking seriously about how to migrate to level boarding, and the discussion is much more about how than whether. Level boarding is expected to provide 50% again as much speed improvement as electrification itself, above and beyond to improving accessibility for disabled and elderly folk.
There are important questions about how the migration is going to work -how the transition will be done technically, how the platform changes will be paid for, and how the obsolete San Francisco Public Utilities Commission rule requiring un-necessary stairs will be addressed.
The bad news is that Caltrain is leaning heavily toward platform incompatiblity with high speed rail. This is unfortunate, because having platform compatibility with high speed rail would help with greater capacity for the blended system in the long run.
There are other important decisions that will affect service for riders for decades to come:
Standing room. Today, Caltrain’s goal is to have a seat for every rider. But there clearly hasn’t been enough room. The average Caltrain ride is 20+ miles, but some people have shorter rides. Should there be more comfortable standing space for at least some people with short rides?
How much space to allocate for bicycles, and how to think rationally about bikes. In our area, 80% of jobs are within 2-3 miles of Caltrain – people use bicycles to make the last-mile connection. If Caltrain wants to save some space on the train, there’s no free lunch -the alternative is providing shuttle or bike share services (or more traffic congestion)
How much space to allocate for bathrooms? Average trips are 30-50 minutes, and Caltrain has bathrooms in only two stations.
There is a set of upcoming events where you can learn more and weigh in. In addition to the events below, there will be a Friends of Caltrain panel discussion, with a date TBD shortly.
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
Aug. 20, 2014 at 5:40pm
Caltrain HQ, 1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos
1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos
Sept. 8, 2014 at 11am and 6pm
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos
Sept. 18, 2014 at 5:45pm
Local Policy Makers Group (LPMG)
1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos
Sept. 25, 2014 at 6pm
Caltrain Access Advisory Committee
1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos
Sept. 22, 2014 at 11am
On Thursday, Judge Vance Ray of the California Appeals Court Third District cleared the way for the State to start to issue the $9 billion in bonds for the California High Speed Rail project called for in Proposition 1A, the voter-approved ballot measure that authorized the high speed rail project. This ruling clears the way for California to issue bonds, and greatly reduces the funding risk to Caltrain electrification.
Judge Ray overruled a lower court decision by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny which froze the bond sale on the grounds that the project’s funding plan was inadequate and all of environmental clearances were not complete, as claimed by a group of Kings County residents.
Instead, the Appeals Court refused to second guess the decisions of the State Legislature and the High Speed Rail Finance Committee which had used the preliminary finance plan in deciding to authorize the bonds. The appeals court validated the Attorney General’s argument that blocking the bonds approved by the legislature “…jeopardizes the financing of public infrastructure throughout the state by interfering with the Legislature’s exercise of its appropriation authority, invents judicial remedies where none are provided by law, and subverts the very purpose of the validation statutes.”
Before the actual spending of bond proceeds, a final funding plan for each project segment will need to to be reviewed and approved by the Finance Director, Peer Review Group, and legislative committees. Update: It is not yet clear whether the final funding plan needed to spend Prop1A bond money would need to cover the full $26 Billion needed for the initial operating segment, or just for the segment being immediately built.
This past week’s decision does not yet cover the part of the lawsuit alleging that the current High Speed Rail project plan fails to meet the requirements of Proposition 1A. Another part of the lawsuit argues that blended system with Caltrain, and the trip times enabled by the current design, violate Proposition 1A. The appeals court ruling acknowledges that “Substantial legal questions loom in the trial court as to whether the high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) seeks to build is the project approved by the voters in 2008.” Judge Kenny will hear that part of the case later this year.
But if this blogger reads correctly, the Appeals Court is leaning toward allowing the High Speed Rail Authority flexibility in the specifics of implementation of a very large public works project that meets the overall intent the ballot measure. For example, the appeals court cites a precedent where BART was allowed to relocate one of the terminal stations, despite the language in the authorizing ballot measure that specified the station locations. The features in a ballot measure are characterized as “preliminary plans”, rather than as ironclad specifications from which deviation violates the legal contract with the voters.
The courts have been particularly attuned to the fluidity of the planning process for large public works projects. In fact, the Supreme Court has allowed substantial deviation between the preliminary plans submitted to the voters and the eventual final project, admonishing: “[T]he authority to issue bonds is not so bound up with the preliminary plans as to sources of supply upon which the estimate is based that the proceeds of a valid issue of bonds cannot be used to carry out a modified plan if the change is deemed advantageous.” (Cullen v. Glendora Water Co. (1896) 113 Cal. 503, 510.) Similarly, the court broadly construed the purpose of the proposition approving the Bay Area Rapid Transit District and sanctioned the relocation of one of the terminals
If the High Speed Rail project plan meets the overall goals: “a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports; reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases” it sounds like the court will be skeptical of arguments focusing on specific features of the project described in the ballot measure.
This ruling reduces a big risk to the Caltrain electrification project, for which half of the funding comes from the High Speed Rail project. The state budget’s allocation of 25% of cap and trade funding toward High Speed Rail was helpful in potentially bringing in other revenue sources, but the $9Billion in Prop 1A funding will contribute directly to building the first parts of the system, including Caltrain electrification.
The component of the lawsuit about whether the project design complies with Prop1A will be heard later this year.
Update: with this information, the State of California is intending to sell Prop 1A bonds next year. This would be in time for Caltrain to make the next big purchases for the electrification project in 2015.
For the 15% or so of Caltrain riders who use a bicycle to get to, from and around the station area, improvements are coming in San Jose and San Francisco, and you can participate in refining these improvements.
In San Jose, on August 13, the City transportation department is hosting a meeting to review a set of bike improvements west of Downtown, including bike lanes on Stockton from Alameda to Emory, Julian between the Alameda and Guadalupe River Trail, and improved bike lanes on Park from Market to Santa Clara. Click here for the full list of improvements. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 6:00 PM, Gardner Community Center, 520 W. Virginia St.
In San Francisco, SFMTA is working on designs for protected bike lanes on the Embarcardero. Share your thoughts with this SFBC survey and sign up to get involved. http://www.sfbike.org/news/protected-bikeways-planned-for-the-embarcadero/
On July 22, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to place a transportation measure on the ballot, supported by Supervisor Wiener, to fund Muni and active transportation in proportion to population growth.
Supervisor Wiener proposed this ballot measure after the untimely demise of a proposed vehicle license fee measure, which would have raised $33 million per year for transit and active transportation. In an attempt to lure drivers to support the VLF, the Mayor instituted a reward for drivers – free parking on Sundays – which reduced funding for Muni by $11 million per year, while incurring opposition from businesses (who lose out when customers can’t find parking) and transit users (Muni isn’t free on Sunday!). But then the Mayor withdrew the VLF proposal anyway. Supervisor Wiener got a vote to bring the VLF back in 2016, and then promoted the replacement funding in the meantime.
The Mayor opposes the measure, expressing a concern that it will reduce spending on other city priorities. San Francisco Transit Riders Union, which follows SF transit funding closely, supports it. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition supports it.
The San Francisco ballot in 2014 will also include a $500 Million General Obligation (GO) bond to pay for transportation capital improvements, improving Muni reliability and speed, planning for the downtown extension and funding pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Meanwhile, opponents of transit and active transportation have launched a ballot measure to end San Francisco’s transit-first policy, freeze parking rates and build more parking supply.
In San Francisco, the car-free and car-light are a majority in the city. It ought to be possible to win support for transit and active transportation funding, and move the city forward rather than backward in support sustainable transportation.
If you would like to get involved, come to the San Francisco Transit Riders Union Transit Action Committee this Monday at 5:30 at Church Street Cafe.
Also, come meet fellow transit supporters in San Francisco at an SFTRU fundraiser and Muni pub crawl on Thursday August 14.
Can the Bay Area provide a seamless experience for transit users across agencies and modes? What role can be played by Clipper and Transit Data? How do other parts of the world provide integrated regional transit services? Come to SPUR San Francisco tomorrow, Wednesday July 16 at 12:30pm for a panel discussion, co-hosted by Friends of Caltrain.
Use this Facebook event page to invite friends and colleagues.