For a while last year the Redwood City salt works development and associated open space initiative seemed to hog local media attention. Now that that’s in a dormant state, the story du jour is the controversy over where to run high-speed rail tracks along the Peninsula.
Since my last column on this issue, the story has continued to unfold. There have been more public meetings — some merely informational and some more confrontational. The period for the public and local government to provide feedback about track routing and other issues has been extended a month. Congress and President Obama have appropriated $8 billion toward high-speed rail projects nationwide, and California high-speed rail is hoping to snatch $2 billion of that.
Opposition to the laying of high-speed rail track next to current Caltrain tracks at ground level or along raised grades has been solidifying. The opposition revolves around the possibility of having to expand the right of way, which could involve having to purchase or acquire through eminent domain private property. There are also noise and vibration concerns, even though railroad officials point to both Caltrain and high-speed rail being electrified in the future, with no diesel engines. Some are concerned about building more elevated tracks on earthen banks as having a “Berlin Wall” effect, dividing neighborhoods and communities.
Some have been disputing the choice of the Caltrain corridor itself as the best location for high-speed rail tracks in the Bay Area, saying that the Altamont Pass and the ACE train route is more logical. Others like the current Pacheco Pass route but say high-speed trains need only go so far as San Jose or Millbrae, where they could connect with Caltrain and BART. Whatever the case, it’s apparent that the Pacheco Pass route is the final route and it’s futile to fight that decision.
The end results of all these stirrings is that the High Speed Rail Authority has been moving from being mostly an engineering and planning operation to putting more time and energy into community relations, where rail officials attend public meetings to listen, calm concerns and defend their decisions.
One aspect of the high-speed rail plan that hasn’t been talked about much is that the announced time to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles — approximately 2 1/2 hours — is based upon express trains with no stops along the route. These trains, of course, wouldn’t be used by commuters traveling between San Francisco and San Jose, for example. “Local” high-speed trains making all the projected stops between San Francisco and Los Angeles would take from 30 to 45 minutes longer.
Also, in a document filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the high speed rail authority, under the category of “system capabilities,” stated that the planned system should be “capable of operating parcel and special freight service as a secondary use.” I could see high-speed rail passenger trains with a portion of one car devoted to carrying time-sensitive documents and small parcels from San Francisco to Los Angeles and vice versa — one-day service that would beat Fed-Ex overnight service and generate more revenue — but to operate dedicated freight trains along the high-speed rails during midday or at night probably wouldn’t be popular with cities along the Caltrain corridor. Judge Quentin Kopp, chairman of the high speed rail board, says there are no current plans to carry freight on the high-speed route.
Getting back to the Bay Area, some mid-Peninsula residents, especially those near the current Caltrain tracks, are pushing for putting Caltrain and high-speed rail tracks in underground tunnels. This would open up some land on top for development, especially for transit-related development and roads. Also property values for homes near the current tracks would likely increase, partly due to the elimination of trains and tracks on the surface with their accompanying vibration, noise and pollution. But tunneling is very expensive, and trains travelling in tunnels have safety issues. There have been three fires so far in the “Chunnel” train tunnel connecting England and France, including the first fire that closed down the tunnel for full operation for six months. It’s hard to fight fire and get people out of tunnels in an emergency.
I’d like to post my own suggestion (not an entirely original one) for the placement of high-speed rails along the Caltrain corridor, since the rail authority is close to beginning engineering studies for this purpose. It solves a few problems.
Where the current Caltrain tracks run on the surface, and aren’t elevated, and there’s not enough right-of-way currently to add two additional tracks, the high-speed rail tracks could be in a trench underneath the Caltrain tracks, in much the same way that BART and Muni light rail tracks are below the surface of Market Street in San Francisco. There still are tracks on the surface of Market Street, used only by historic streetcars.
Trenching isn’t cheap, but neither is having to buy private properties along the way or having to use eminent domain. The engineering challenges would be considerable and the Caltrain tracks would have to be temporarily re-routed, but it beats the extreme expense of tunneling. On the negative side, the Caltrain tracks on the surface would continue to lack grade separations — that is, they would still need crossing arms and flashing lights.
Where grade separations exist in such cities as San Carlos, Belmont and San Mateo — and apparently soon in San Bruno — the trenching idea wouldn’t work. There, the elevated ridges of earth would have to be widened to accommodate four tracks, and probably the right-of-way would have to be widened as well.
One wild-card idea in this mix is the possibility of using elevated tracks on concrete columns such as BART uses in various locations. When this is done, pedestrians and vehicle traffic can much more easily pass underneath.
Despite the contentious nature of deciding where the high-speed rail tracks will be situated, the big issue for both Caltrain and high-speed rail is obtaining money. I calculate, for example, that constructing the entire high-speed rail system will cost much, much more than what it cost the U.S. to build the Panama Canal in the early 1900s. The canal cost $7.7 billion in today’s dollars. That’s just a drop in the bucket for California high-speed rail, especially when you take into account the interest paid on bonds.
Bil Paul’s column appears Thursdays in the Daily News. Reach him at naturalbornwriter@yahoo.com.
