At the high speed rail board meeting held last week in San Francisco, authority staff revealed the latest proposals to fund and build a high speed rail line on the Caltrain corridor. The proposals address many of the compatibility concerns, though there are still important details to be worked out. But the proposals also suggest that Caltrain’s electrification be delayed until after a large amount of grade separation and track building is done. Electrification will be a major benefit for riders, allowing trains to be run more cheaply at a much more frequent schedule. We question whether maintaining the aging diesel trains (and their inflexible schedule) while track and crossing construction is done is the right sequence for Caltrain riders.

There are two separate but related proposals on the table. The first is the revised alternative analysis, which is a list of project alternatives that the authority staff will carry forward to complete the environmental impact report. The revised AA still envisions a complete, built-out high speed rail corridor. The second is the ARRA federal stimulus funding application, which will only fund some of the elements of a complete corridor. Although the High Speed Rail Authority does not have the funding to build a built-out corridor, the agency needs to complete an environmental review before any of the ARRA and other funding is used.

Revised Alternatives Analysis

In the revised AA, the proposal is to have Caltrain operate on the outer two tracks and the high speed rail trains operate in the inner two tracks. In that track arrangement, Caltrain can also use the two inner tracks. Overall this proposal would reduce the footprint. Earlier the authority studied an alternative where HSR trains would operate entirely on separate tracks independent from Caltrain. In some cities, HSR trains would either run either elevated or in a trench.

On the other hand, the revised AA is drawing criticisms from some Peninsula cities because it ruled out tunnels and “stacking” options — where two tracks would place on top of other two tracks, either underground and/or above ground. The staff argued that more land would be needed at transition points (where stacking tracks start and end) with the stacking options. This option would also limit Caltrain/HSR inter-operability.

ARRA application

Last week, HSRA also submitted ARRA applications to the federal government. After the award of $2.25 billion in ARRA fund for HSR in California, the state still has $1.65 billion in HSR ARRA fund yet to be spent (the rest has been allocated to the train box at Transbay Terminal and HSR planning/engineering activities). HSRA staff has been asked to submit applications to spend the rest of the ARRA fund. The staff has come up with 4 different applications (one for SF-SJ, two for Central Valley, and one for LA-Anaheim) with each costing  $3.31 billion (half would come from ARRA and other half from HSR bond and other funding sources). HSRA staff is expecting that the one of the four applications would be chosen for the remaining fund. For each of those application, the staff is requesting funding for partial infrastructure improvements as the ARRA fund isn’t sufficient to build full HSR in any of the corridors. At the same time the proposals must provide “operational utility” — short term improvements for existing passenger rail services.

For the SF-SJ portion, the staff is planning to build a grade separated, 4 track corridor between Bayshore and Redwood City. The tracks through Burlingame and San Mateo would be elevated. The existing grade separated tracks in Belmont and San Carlos would be raised higher on an elevated structure.

That application does not include electrification. In the staff report to the board, the staff has proposed to submit electrification for the entire corridor under a separate non-ARRA funding application. That separate application would also include 4 track extension from Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale to Mountain View. The staff is not currently making any funding request to build extra tracks between Atherton and Palo Alto, nor to build a tunnel from 4th & King Station to the Transbay Terminal.

Californians for High Speed Rail is claiming victory because the plans include Caltrain electrification, the 4 track expansions and grade separations.

However, there’s no guarantee that the SF-SJ application will receive all or any of the ARRA funding (since the state has submitted three more applications for to use the same funding on different sections of the route). In addition, there’s no certainty that the federal government will actually fully fund one of the four applications (since every portion of the state wants a piece of that pie).

What does that mean to riders?

The revised AA and ARRA application indicate that Caltrain and HSR trains can at least share tracks. That means Caltrain service can be maintained if not incrementally improved as HSR infrastructure is being added, that Baby Bullet trains can still be maintained and bypass local trains, and the possibility that HSR trains can operate without a 100% four track, grade separated corridor.

On the other hand, there are concerns such as platform heights yet to be addressed. There are also issues with some of the priorities. HSRA is proposing to spend the precious, early ARRA funds to rebuild tracks in Belmont and San Carlos, which is largely unnecessary. The early part of the proposal will subject riders and the community to additional construction impacts that do not improve rider experience and add construction inconvenience.  That same ARRA funds could be used to electrify Caltrain earlier, which will vastly improve service and rider experience all along the corridor.

We have to question the notion that we cannot electrify until the 4 tracks are done. While we believe that Caltrain/HSR staff should do full diligence not to place any electric substation in areas that would be used for track expansions, much of the infrastructure could easily be relocated and reused. The plan already assumes that Caltrain service would be maintained throughout construction, which adds cost because of temporary tracks and stations. Continued service, is of course, a necessity for Caltrain commuters; there’s no viable substitute for Caltrain.

If we were to delay electrification, how should we address the operating needs, as most of the rolling stock will have to be replaced in a few years? Already Caltrain riders are suffering delays and system meltdowns because of mechanical problems. If all the funding is in-line as HSRA and Caltrain hope, electrification should be at least be done concurrently with track expansions and grade separation, rather than after.

Last week, at a meeting in Palo Alto City Hall, Mark Simon of Caltrain discussed riders’ concerns with potential incompatibilities between Caltrain and the High Speed Rail project that will take trains from LA to San Francisco up the Caltrain corridor. The presentation didn’t lay compatibility questions to rest, and raised more questions about how the agencies are working together.

The Peninsula Cities Coalition is hosting a meeting this Friday, July 23, in Belmont. This meeting provides an important opportunity for riders to speak up about how critical it is for Caltrain and High Speed Rail to work together to serve riders. Details about the meeting are below.

Compatibility issues

In summary, the three main potential problems for the systems working together are track sharing, platform heights, and signal systems

Track sharing. California High Speed Rail Authority is assuming a separated corridor along the Caltrain right of way, according to the Alternatives Analysis. To visualize this, imagine two HSR tracks and two Caltrain tracks running side by side but there would be limited access from one system to another. This means it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Baby Bullet Caltrain trains to pass local trains or trains on either system to pass disabled trains. With the split corridor, station facilities would also be separate.

Platform heights Another potential difficulty in sharing stations is that Caltrain is planning on using equipment with a different door height than the HSR equipment. This means even if the tracks and stations were shared, the platforms could not accommodate both Caltrain and HSR since the platforms will be at different heights. While this will create rider inconvenience along the peninsula, the Transbay Terminal is affected the most by this discrepancy. Currently, Caltrain terminates at 4th and King streets in San Francisco which is about 1 mile from the job rich financial district. In multiple studies, local governments have concluded that a downtown Transbay Terminal terminus for Caltrain is essential to grow Caltrain ridership. Despite the $4 billion cost of the Transbay Terminal, platform compatibility issues mean half of all Caltrain trains will continue to terminate at 4th and King.

At the meeting, Mark Simon danced around the issue of sharing tracks and stations, saying that he hopes for a phased implementation plan, with Caltrain electrification first, and working out the track sharing later.

Signal systems. The two agencies are planning on using different signal systems. Caltrain is planning to build a custom-developed system, which is still on the drawing board. Simon assured the audience at the meeting that Caltrain’s new system will be built to be compatible with the HSR system, and if there are incompatibilities, it will be easy to retrofit. It’s hard to evaluate the claim, since the new system is still being designed and does not have published specifications, or whether the custom system will be able to be modified cheaply.

The California for High Speed Rail Blog provides an in-depth analysis of the technical compatibility issues. Readers interested in more detail are highly encouraged to read this analysis.

Challenges working together. Simon talked openly about tensions between the agencies so far. Discussing differences in approach, Simon observed that “Caltrain isn’t giving up and owns the right of way – we still have the trump card,” though he expressed hope that new management at the High Speed Rail Authority would be more collaborative. This language indicates that the combination of Caltrain and High Speed Rail is seen as a zero sum game. But if the agencies are competing with each other, riders and taxpayers lose. Riders don’t care who wins the arguments, we want to have a system that works together smoothly.

Solving the compatibility problems
An alternative to the shared but separate corridor currently proposed by the High Speed Rail Authority and a submissive Caltrain is a true shared corridor. Caltrain would order new electrified trains that are compatible with high speed trains so platforms can be shared. The signaling system would be shared. With compatible platform heights, Caltrain could preserve express and local service with cross-platform transfers between the two. Everyone wins in this scenario.

There are many technical details that need to be worked out for interoperability. The California High Speed Rail Blog offers one detailed proposal for how this interoperability might occur. For riders and taxpayers, the important thing is that the two systems work well together, so riders can have schedule choices and convenient trips. And so taxpayer money won’t be wasted ripping up and rebuilding systems that weren’t built to work together the first time.

Californians on the Peninsula will need to live and work with this train system for decades. There is no excuse for territorial squabbling resulting in a system that doesn’t work well for riders.

Tell Caltrain and High Speed Rail to work together
The Peninsula Cities Coalition is hosting a meeting this coming Friday, focusing on interoperability between Caltrain and High Speed Rail. Californians for High Speed Rail will present their analysis of the issues. The meeting is expected to have representatives from Caltrain and the High Speed Rail Authority.

Please come to the Friday meeting and tell Caltrain and HSR that they need to cooperate to make the trains work together for riders.

Friday, July 23, 8:15am
One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont

FRA’s decision letter to Caltrain in PDF

From the letter:

Overall, JPB’s petition states that the electrified operating environment it proposes will be safer than the one that exists today. JPB further states that this conclusion has been validated by detailed vehicle analyses performed by the Caltrain team, vehicle suppliers, and through the PHA process. By investing in mishap prevention, primarily through PTC and grade crossing improvements, JPB asserts that it will significantly reduce the severity of incidents (collisions specifically), should they occur. JPB also asserts that through this combined risk reduction strategy, which addresses both the frequency and severity of mishaps, JPB will achieve a higher level of safety than it achieves today. Read More

Late last week, Caltrain received an important waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration that permits the agency to use European-style light weight equipment. This waiver is essential as Caltrain is pursuing electrification and replacement of the current fleet.

This is also a major milestone for BayRail Alliance. More than 10 years ago, BayRail lobbied Caltrain to place electrification as the agency’s highest priority. Soon after, we specifically included lightweight EMU as part of our rail vision. At that time, many thought that obtaining a waiver from FRA was impossible, and that Caltrain should instead focusing on replacing its diesel locomotives with FRA compliant electric locomotives. Electric locomotives, while have better acceleration than diesel locomotives, are slower and less flexible than EMUs.

BayRail applauds the Caltrain staff, specifically Robert Doty, for spearheading the effort to obtain the waiver. In Caltrain’s waiver application, Caltrain proposed that it would use equipment with the latest Crash Energy Management technology as well as enhanced rail signal system to avoid collision. These safety measures would help make the railroad as safe, if not safer, than under current FRA regulations.

A new electrified Caltrain would provide a new rail alternative for the Bay Area and the rest of the nation. Presently, the rail transportation spectrum in the United States is dominated by light rail, diesel commuter rail, and subway/rapid transit. This new Caltrain can be upgraded directly from commuter rail, would have capacity and performance comparable to rapid transit, and would cost similar to light rail. This is particularly significant in the Bay Area since BART runs on non-standard gauge tracks. Any type of replacement would incur billions of additional costs and years without rail service during construction.

This waiver is also important for high speed rail. The current plan for high speed rail in California calls for the latest European or Japanese technology, which neither of them are FRA compliant.

As if Caltrain and high speed rail don’t get enough news coverage already, Mike Rosenberg of San Mateo County times is saying that electrification and high speed rail will make Caltrain run slower – based on a hypothetical schedule with no Baby Bullet trains meant for high speed rail environmental planning. This is another story designed to sensationalize the issue and to divide Caltrain and high speed rail supporters.

The fact is that Caltrain isn’t ready to abandon the Baby Bullet service. As someone who has seen tons of planning documents and a number of transit projects, the hypothetical schedule should be taken with a grain of salt. Read More