Recent meetings of the Community Working Group for the High Speed Rail/Caltrain Blended System planning and the Citizens’ Working Group for the San Francisco Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibity (RAB) study provided more information, and raised even more questions about decisions affecting blended system capacity and station area land use.
Recent High Speed Rail decisions appear to pose new limits on the capacity-constrained blended system. Â And plans for railyards for High Speed Rail (and potentially railyard changes for Caltrain, involve multiple agencies and jurisdictions that appear to be working at cross purposes.)
HSR platforms and blended system capacity limits
The California High Speed Rail Authority has disclosed two decisions that could reduce High Speed Rail ridership and affect the capacity of the blended system with Caltrain.  At the High Speed Rail / Blended System Community Working Group HSRA staff noted that the High Speed Rail Authority is planning for platforms at different platform heights that Caltrain at the shared stations other than Transbay, even though Caltrain has gone through the trouble of specifying double-doorset train cars to enable compatibility with High Speed Rail’s high platforms, with the goal of increasing system reliability and potential blended capacity.   At the RAB meeting, staff added that HSR is planning for compatible platforms at Transbay, which is the most space-constrained station.
But is it worth reducing the number of seats on Caltrain trains, if the extra doors to support high platforms are used only at Transbay?  Using both sets of doors at once would require Caltrain to remove seats; that capacity would be added back only if and when Caltrain upgraded all its stations to high platforms.  Early in the discussion of platform compatibility, High Speed Rail representatives suggested that CHSRA might help pay to lengthen platforms, helping Caltrain to gain back the lost capacity.  But the idea that HSR will help buy back the capacity it proposes to take away seems to have fallen by the wayside, and didn’t appear in the latest business plan.
Meanwhile, High Speed Rail disclosed separately that the authority plans to shrink their platforms by nearly 50%. This has the potential to save construction costs, but could add risk to HSR’s business plan, which depends on ridership to make a profit that would be needed by private operating partners, and is required by law according to the terms of Prop 1a, the bond measure that would contribute approximately $10B in funding to the project.  CHSRA staff and consultants contend that the shorter trains won’t affect the business plan, but there are not yet available numbers showing the case. The platform length could potentially affect blended system capacity, if High Speed Rail needs more schedule slots to meet its business requirement to make a profit, and has less room to provide supplementary room for commuters between San Francisco and San Jose.Â
One potentially challenging side effect of the platform shortening, according to information disclosed at the RAB meeting, might be removing a train box extension that could potentially make an eventual 2nd Bay Crossing tube easier, and would have operational benefits helping to keep trains out of the way during rush hour.
Railyard coordination challengesÂ
At the CWG meeting, the High Speed Rail Authority discussed the locations they are considering locations to store and maintain trains in 80 miles of track between San Francisco and Gilroy. Â Â Â They are considering two locations, one near Gilroy, and one in Brisbane near the Bayshore Caltrain station – on a portion of the land that is also being considered for a major development in the crossfire of local and regional controversy. Â
On that same land in Brasbane, there is currently a development proposal being reviewed by Brisbane City Council, which would build 4,434 housing units in addition to 6.9 million square feet of commercial space. Â Â The developer would need to spend a billion dollars to clean up the polluted formerly industrial 700 acre site.
But the town of Brisbane, with only about 4,000 residents, is currently opposed to adding housing, since the new residents would outnumber the current residents of the town.  Brisbane’s mayor was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as suggesting that San Francisco add the housing to balance the development’s 15,000 jobs.  After a recommendation by Planning Commission for a housing-free option, City Council is now considering the land use plan, with a decision expected in 2017.Â
Meanwhile, High Speed Rail is considering building its railyard in Brasbane either on the east side of the tracks (proposed for commercial space), or the west side of the tracks (proposed by the developer for housing). Â (see slide 21)Â and the Baylands developer website.
High Speed Rail has the legal right to use eminent domain power to take the land for railyards, regardless of what the city wants to do. But High Speed Rail staff said at the CWG meeting that the agency would be deeply reluctant to take such an unpopular step.
If High Speed Rail’s first working segment gets to San Jose and stops there for a while, Gilroy might be reasonable as a railyard location. It is 30 miles south of downtown San Jose, so trains would need to back up 30 minutes to be stored at night and travel empty for 30 minutes north to stage in the morning.   But if High Speed Rail initially or quickly manages to run trains to San Francisco, the trains would need to travel empty (“deadheadâ€) about for 80 miles in the morning and at night.  This seems logically like an operating cost burden for a service that is required by law to make a profit.   When HSR gets to San Francisco, Brisbane will be a lot closer – 5 miles from 4th and King, and 6-7 miles from Transbay.
But High Speed Rail’s presentation about the railyard options says nothing about the other uses being considered for those lands – including whether environmental cleanup and development would be financially feasible on half the land.   So there are currently at least 3 mutually incompatible proposals for the Baylands area.
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Railyard Alternatives (RAB) study is looking at options to use some or all of the railyards that Caltrain currently uses to store and maintain trains at 4th and King for the purpose of “creating more San Franciscoâ€, in the words of the Mayor’s transportation policy lead Gillian Gillett when the idea was first floated. Â
At the RAB citizens’ working group meeting, staff shared more about the options for the railyard.  According to a relatively recent study, Caltrain could compress their storage and maintenance needs at 4th and King, if there were supplementary railyard space within a 10 minute from 4th and King.  The reason for the distance is that Caltrain staff would need to spend extra time deadheading the train (driving them empty from the railyard in the morning, and back when they need to be stored). If it takes more than 10 minutes per trip, Caltrain would need to add another train crew, costing a million extra dollars per year – operating funding that Caltrain’s funding partners don’t have available, and wouldn’t generate any more passenger revenue.
San Francisco and Caltrain are looking at two undisclosed locations – one which is within the City and County of San Francisco, and another which is “outside San Franciscoâ€, and could logically also be the Baylands site. Â
In the San Jose Diridon Station Area, there is currently a multi-agency working group with the City of San Jose and the various transit agencies including VTA, Caltrain, and High Speed Rail, collaborating together on the transportation, land use, and funding options for transforming the Diridon Station Area. Â Â The working group faces many issues and challenges, but they are working together. Â Â
By contrast, in the area near Bayshore Caltrain,  the City/County of San Francisco, City of Brisbane, High Speed Rail, and Universal Paragon the developer, are working on seemingly mutually incompatible plans for the area, with no visible signs of collaboration on issues that have major regional and statewide significance.   Perhaps such collaboration is happening behind the scenes – it is a major challenge to the region if it isn’t.
The next stages of the San Francisco Railyard study will determine whether, and how time-sensitive, the Caltrain railyard options might be.   Another much-debated option in the study is whether and when San Francisco should take down the stub end of I-280, creating a surface boulevard instead.  Some car-focused residents of San Francisco strongly oppose the freeway removal.  The land currently occupied by Caltrain’s railyards is shadowed by the freeway, and would be much more valuable for development if and when the freeway stub comes down.  If the railyard reuse is slated for a later phase, this defers the challenge of where to store Caltrain trains to later.
Timeline changes
Both the San Francisco Railyard study and the High Speed Rail blended system planning are now on a later timeline than earlier disclosed. Â
The High Speed Rail Authority, which had earlier planned to release a “preferred alternative†for the plan to run service to San Francisco, has delayed this decision until winter/spring 2017.
And the San Francisco RAB study, which had earlier planned to publicly share the cost and timeline options this fall, has moved that milestone until January/February 2018. Â There will be two more CWG meeting in November/December and January/February, with the last meeting closely followed by a larger public meeting.
It is clear that the various agencies are not collaborating in an effective manner. This seems to be driven by civil engineers with no input from architects, urban planners, or urban designers.
i wish people would give up on the 280 teardown. Given that train tracks run below it the amount of land that can be reclaimed is minimal.
Maybe we can reclaim the land under I80 but putting into a tunnel. At least is prime real estate that’s worth something.
The CWG actually recommended dropping I-280 from their list of tasks for consideration.
What I heard was that opinions were mixed on the topic. Did the CWG take a vote and make that recommendation??
While the land directly under the tracks is relatively small, an earlier study showed that buildings that are built next to the freeway woudl be substantially less valuable than buildings on that land if the freeway stub were removed. So the land would have more value if the highway was boulevardized.
I’ve lived near 5th & King and having 280 and Caltrain nearby hardly made the land less valuable.
But if you’re right, then perhaps we can build some more housing there before it becomes more valuable?
The double-door scenario won’t be a waste if Caltrain can convert the system to level boarding during the lifetime of these trains. This blog and many others have already covered the benefits of it (http://www.greencaltrain.com/2012/12/faster-service-and-more-capacity-if-caltrain-and-hsr-can-solve-platform-problems/).
Sharing platforms with HSR is a nice perk as well but that seems less likely as Caltrain will want longer trains (versus the news above about HSR wanting shorter trains/platforms). Unfortunate.
Why replace one physical barrier (the tracks) with another one (a Boulevard)? The CWG would rather focus on connecting the TTC to the East Bay and relocating the maintenance yard to Oakland instead of trashing Brisbane.
Whether this will actually happen is TBD.
Caltrain made the right decision to use 25″ height platforms at the non-transbay stations. The wheelchairs, bicycles, luggage, etc are all going to be on the lower level. It is far better (for dwell time) to have level-boarding directly to the lower level. Otherwise, the train is stuck waiting for wheelchairs to use the internal lift system to get out of the train.
And yes, this does mean a very tiny loss of seats — but that is much better than having trains get delayed.
The REAL solution is to migrate California HSR to the Euroduplex architecture which happens to hold the World speed record for steel wheels on rail (357.8 MPH). This would eliminate the need for 4-foot platforms, dual doors and internal lifts while simultaneously allowing other manufacturers to bid trains with much higher seat/bike/toilet capacity at a substantially lower cost. http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/Government+Affairs/pdf/BAC+7.21.16+Correspondence+Packet.pdf
Here are the actual numbers:
– Existing capacity: 3,600 seats/hour/direction with some trains at over 125% capacity.
– 2012 plan: add 1,800 seats/hour/direction (50% increase).
– 2016 plan: REMOVE 800 seats/hour/direction AFTER ADDING ANOTHER TRAIN and blowing north of $2B.
Any chance that “deadhead” trains from Gilroy to SF could stop in San Jose and pick up passengers? Maybe some would get up extra early to take a train that went non-stop from SJ to SF.