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

Last week, San Mateo County’s congestion management agency – C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments), approved the same fee on the ballot in San Mateo County. For the San Mateo County’s ballot measure, half of the funds would go directly to cities for local streets and roads, and the other half would fund county-wide programs including SamTrans and Caltrain. Although the funds generated from the fee is not large (about $6 million per year), it would be a partial solution to the funding problem at SamTrans and Caltrain. Each train between SF and San Jose reflects about $100,000 in Caltrain’s budget, so using some of these funds to support Caltrain will keep a noticeable amount of service.

Currently SFCTA is not planning to use any of the license fee revenue for transit operations. While half of the revenue would fund street repair and reconstruction, the rest would be split among pedestrian programs and “transit reliability” improvements.

According to the staff memo regarding the fee, there was a discussion about whether to use some of the money for Caltrain:

“The issue of whether or not to commit a portion of the revenues to support transit operations has been raised throughout the Expenditure Plan development process.  Two members of the stakeholder advisory panel in particular felt strongly that San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties should commit all or part of  their respective SB 83 revenues to support and preserve Caltrain service, given its current budget crisis.  The CAC subcommittee and other members of the stakeholder advisory panel felt that Caltrain’s and the MTA’s operations needs are too large to be a good fit for this small fund source.  They also recognized that since the revenues will not likely be available until mid-2012, this would not be a solution for filling budget shortfalls during the current or next fiscal years.  Several members of both committees also felt that the approach to resolving Caltrain needed to be a regional one given the governance structure that includes San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.”

While a longer term solution needs to be found, SFCTA should take an active role in solving Caltrain’s funding crisis. SFCTA already funds various Caltrain capital projects with its Proposition K sales tax. It makes sense for SFCTA to support the continuation of Caltrain service.

If you can make it, please attend this meeting, and leave a message in comments.

July 20, 11am
San Francisco City Hall, Room 250

If you are unable to make to the meeting, please send a note to the SFCTA board encouraging them to use the $10 DMV fee to support continuing Caltrain service.

The board members are the SF Supervisors.
Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org
John.Avalos@sfgov.org
David.Campos@sfgov.org
David.Chiu@sfgov.org
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org
Chris.Daly@sfgov.org
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org
Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org

And copy your letter to the SFTA clerk, erika@sfcta.org

Thanks for supporting Caltrain and Bay Area transit!

This Thursday July 8, the CCAG (County/City Association of Governments) will be reviewing the content of the ballot proposal – including whether transit will be in the mix for the proposed use of funds. The draft spending plan calls for half of the money to be spent on local roads and half for county programs including funding Caltrain and SamTrans. The spending on local roads could be used to support local feeder shuttles. The proposal has been polling well – your input will influence whether it will be used to fund transit, not just roads.

If you can, please attend C/CAG meeting and ask the board to support the $10 fee, and to ensure that funds from the measure to be targeted at transit.

Time: 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Location: 2nd Floor Auditorium
San Mateo County Transit District
1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos

If you can’t make the meeting, please write or call:

Richard Napier
Executive Director
rnapier@co.sanmateo.ca.us
650-599-1420

From then on, I’ve made Caltrain my choice for commute. Extra sleep, email on the iPhone, movies on the laptop… and skipping the $3-plus-per-gallon price of gas.

50 weeks a year.
12 trips a week.
600 trips a year.
4 years.
2400 plus Caltrain trips taken to work.
about 50 miles per trip

That’s 120 thousand miles travelled without getting into a car. Just by me. Just since 2006.

This post was submitted by Sebastian Kunz.

This coming Thursday, July 1, at the next Peninsula Joint Powers Board meeting, the JPB staff is recommending the board to schedule a public hearing on possible fare hikes and service cuts at its September meeting.

Because of reduction of operating subsidy from SamTrans, which also triggered reductions from Muni and VTA, Caltrain is facing an operating deficit of $2.3 million in fiscal year 2010-2011. Over the summer, Caltrain will present service cut and fare hike alternatives to the public for consideration. But reducing service and raising fares can drive riders away. Despite the poor economy, Caltrain ridership is stabilizing, with ridership down only 1.2% from a year ago.

Please attend this Thursday’s meeting if you can and speak up against service cuts. The relevant items on the agenda are #9, call for a public hearing about service cuts and fare increases, and #10, the proposed operating budget for 2011. Members of the public can address the board on all agenda items.

Also, 10am meeting times are hard for many people with jobs. If you can make it, please also ask for public meetings to be scheduled in the evening when Caltrain supporters can attend.

If you are unable to attend the meeting, but want your voice to be heard about service cuts, and about holding meetings at times more riders can make, please send an email message to the JPB board at martinezm@samtrans.com. Please make sure to mention you want the email sent to the JPB board.

If you are able to make the meeting, please leave a comment and let us know what you learned.

Agenda for July 1 JPB meeting