The Green Caltrain blog is sponsored by BayRail Alliance, an all-volunteer non-profit organization supporting green rail transit in the Bay Area. This blog and BayRail have no affiliation with Caltrain.Is the 4-track High Speed Rail design back?
“Four-track design back on the table for high-speed rail” is the headline of an article published in local media on the Peninsula, including The Palo Alto Online, Menlo Park Almanac, and Mountain View Voice.
The Environmental Impact Report for the initial Central Valley segment of the High Speed Rail project also includes a broader program-level project description with a 4-track design that many on the Peninsula corridor have rejected.
The four-track proposal would require substantial road closures on the Peninsula including:
* A lane of Alma Street between Homer Avenue and Embarcadero Road
* Two lanes of Alma between Embarcadero and California Avenue.
* A lane of Alma in Menlo Park, between Oak Grove Avenue and Ravenswood Avenue
* One lane of Central Expressway between San Antonio Road and Rengstorff Avenue in Mountain View.
This design was rejected in favor of a “blended system” which remained substantially within the existing Caltrain right of way, first proposed by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State Senator Joe Simitian, and State Assemblyman Rich Gordon. Caltrain has conducted a feasibility analysis indicating that a blended system would be viable, enabling up to two high speed trains per hour within the existing tracks, and up to 4 high speed trains per hour with the addition of a short section of passing track. Caltrain has stated in written comments to the HSR business plan that it does not support the 4-track buildout, and wants reference to this design removed from the plan.
On February 13, the High Speed Rail Authority issued a statement that supports the blended system concept;, but does not retract support for a longer-term 4-track buildout.
In order to regain any support from skeptical Peninsula residents and lawmakers, it will be important for the High Speed Rail Authority to make it clear that the 4-track design is off the table.
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Most of Caltrain ROW has spece for 4 tracks. Even Palo Alto Station can be 4 track since there are some space between NB and SB track. California Avenue can be made 4 track if it eliminate parking space. Frequent Caltrain and connection bus service definately reduce the requirement of parking lot at train station. Menlo Park station can be made 3 tracks if they use parking space. This is still better than 2 track.
Some station (Hilsdale) need 6 track 2 platform to make Caltrain local-express transfer.
For the time being, HSR will need dedicate track between SJ and SF once Caltrain and HSR increase the ridership.
Consider that current pace (10~15% per year) of ridership increase and post electricifcation ridership increase, planning 6 train/h may not be enough. Minimum of 8~12 train/h (4 express, 4 local and 4 express-local) are needed.
March 8th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I’ve always thought this blended approach sounded like it would hamstring HSR from SJ to SF for the sake of some Peninsula residents. It should be a 4 track ROW so that the HSR trains can operate at top speed and with as many trains as needed per hour. The residents that oppose the 4 track ROW should have their sections put underground and they should pay extra sales tax (as Berkeley did when they opposed ariel structures slicing through their city when BART was first constructed). If it’s not done right the first time it’s going to cost more to do it the second time.
March 9th, 2012 at 11:33 am
The “blended system” idea isn’t unique to the Bay Area. In Europe, High Speed Rail services also share commuter rail tracks in metropolitan areas, and they travel somewhat slower in metro areas than in open country side. “Doing it right the first time” is an important principle – but there are risks to overbuilding in addition to underbuilding. The earlier HSR business plan called for 10 trains per hour, where London-Paris and Boston-Washington run 3 trains per hour. There is a reasonable case to be made that a blended system is right-sized and a 4-track system is overkill.
March 14th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Your nuts. This blended system is insane. Japan has a blended system and it takes more than 3 rails. One local train takes 2 hours between two destinations. A second HSR train takes 30 minutes.
In Mountain View CalTrain is calling for 4 tracks jut what has been put forward by the CAHSRA all along. I and others are wise to the games being played. For CalTrain to succeed Mountain View for one will need a train in a covered trench.
This blended system is just fancy words for we are going to shove 3 to 4 rials down your throats at current grade and just deal with it. No EIR and illegal use of funds.
I am proposing a super pac that will get the needed money to put a ballot referendum calling for the end to Prop 1A. Maybe not this year, but then again maybe, there are enough conservatives around who would be more than happy to see the high speed rail killed. Do it right or don’t do it at all. It is more same as usual with fancy words this time and an MOU that seeks to consolidate the power into the MTC. [section removed - no personal attacks].
March 20th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
According to the plan discussed publicly by Caltrain staff, there are 5 potential locations for passing tracks. No decision has been made about whether to use passing tracks, and if so, where to put them. A decision will not be made until after more analysis is published about the schedule, traffic, and gate downtime implications of a variety of options.
Also, the current plan calls for some grade separations to be done in the first phase, and more grade separations to be done later as funds become available. The decision about which grade separations to prioritize will not be made until after more analysis is published and community feedback solicited on variety of options.
Caltrain has stated in writing to the High Speed Rail authority, and CEO Scanlon has said in public at a board meeting, that Caltrain does not support a 4-track system, and will not allow it on its right of way. This is likely to be a condition of the Memorandum of Understanding between MTC and HSRA. The wording about the 4-track system in the program EIR is a problem and should be removed.
Another likely condition is that Caltrain will be in charge of working with the local community regarding decisions such as passing tracks and grade separations. MTC is not and should not be involved in design decisions for regional projects. MTC’s role is to distribute federal and state funding for road and transit projects. There is no feasible way to extricate MTC from that role.
There are a variety of valid reasons to be concerned about High Speed Rail. There will be a contentious battle about whether to approve its funding this year and whether to continue to authorize and fund it in subsequent years. There are enough arguments to make about high speed rail without contentions that contradict available evidence about what is actually being planned for the corridor.