2 opposing views to Caltrain plans 2 opposing views to Caltrain plans (May 19, 2004)

Electrification, high-speed rail will have devastating effects on area

By Jack Ringham

Your May 12 articles about Caltrain electrification and high-speed rail on the Peninsula helped inform us about what might happen.

Caltrain is promoting benefits of electrification. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is glorifying its plans for 130 additional trains per day on the Peninsula at speeds of 125 mph. Both programs have devastating effects. The ambience of our communities could be changed forever.

Caltrain's proposed overhead wires, poles and support structures would add an eyesore along its corridor in an era when the trend is to underground utilities. Also, the plan recommends cutting down about 1,727 trees to clear wires along the corridor in a report to Caltrain by HortScience, a consulting arborist.

Over 80 of these trees are in Atherton and 27 in Menlo Park, mostly on private property. This would lower property values, reduce insulation from train noise and decrease return of oxygen to the atmosphere. There could be litigation by property owners for indemnification, a major cost to Caltrain, not currently planned.

Caltrain plans to convert to electrification about 2008 and states it would be compatible with high-speed rail (proposed for 2014 and beyond) without significant electrification system overhaul. This seems unrealistic since high-speed rail adds two sets of tracks and complete grade separations along the entire Caltrain corridor. This would certainly require rebuilding most of the overhead system and existing grade separations that would be installed for electrification.

Caltrain dropped weekend service for two years to prepare for Baby Bullet service with new diesel locomotives and cars. By 2008 it wants to construct overhead electrification and replace diesel with electric locomotives. Then high-speed rail would add two sets of tracks with complete grade separation and rebuild the overhead electrification system, which could mean more trees would have to be cut down. Parts of Caltrain's right-of -way are too narrow for more tracks, thus requiring private property acquisition.

The route of high-speed rail is not firm. There is an active movement to reconsider the Altamont Pass route. This brings high-speed rail across a Dumbarton bridge, joining Caltrain's right-of way at Redwood City. We should strongly support this approach since it would avoid high-speed rail's grade separations and/or street closures, construction disruption, and division of communities plus the daily impact of 130 extra trains per day blasting through Atherton and Menlo Park at 125 mph.

Until the route and timing of high-speed rail are determined, Caltrain should delay electrification so it can be intelligently integrated with high-speed rail. Meanwhile Caltrain should add Baby Bullet trains stopping at different stations to make this service available to more riders.

Concerned readers should send electrification comments to Caltrain by May 25 by e-mail to electrification@caltrain.com or by letter to Caltrain Electrification, 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070. Public comments won't be accepted after May 25.

Jack Ringham lives on Fair Oaks Lane in Atherton.

Better to use resources to install 'door-to-door service

By Jerry Secrest

I propose Caltrain put its electrification program on hold and pursue a program to significantly cut riders travel time door to door. Cutting travel time would increase ridership and increase the value of Caltrain service. Cutting door-to-door travel time may increase revenue and operating margin.

The electrification program needs to be put on hold as it does not significantly improve service but costs a minimum of $600 million. The program does improve air quality along the Caltrain route but does not in the region as the electricity needs to be generated elsewhere. Certainly, reducing noise along the route is a program benefit.

Electrification is intended to improve the Caltrain image, although this is doubtful if the program does not improve value to users. The alternative to electrification is a project to improve the door-to-door time for most riders.

There are several ways to do this that can be evaluated and implemented for much less money than electrification. One possible way to achieve shorter door-to-door time is a coordinated mixed transit system of on-line computers, vans and trains. Here is a possible sequence a rider might use to go from a home or office on the peninsula to a home or office in San Francisco:

* The rider goes to the Caltrain Web page and inputs the starting and endpoints for their trip with the desired time.

* Caltrain matches the request with the train schedule and available van seat(s) at both ends. The rider accepts the schedule.

* The user is given a reservation, charged via a credit or debit card, and a ticket is printed out on their computer.

* At the appropriate time, Caltrain dispatches a van to pick up the rider and other riders in the same area using the same train. The van picks up riders and delivers them to the Caltrain station.

* The train is boarded and the user goes to their destination station. The rider uses information on the ticket to board a specific van at the destination terminal. The van delivers the rider to the destination door.

The technology suggested here is available and is being used today to make airline reservations, route robots through warehouses, and make purchases on the Web.

I strongly suggest that Caltrain broaden its view to include technology outside of engines and cars to make improvements in service and value to its riders. After the door-to-door improvements are made, Caltrain can work on reducing train time. One possibility is a hybrid combustion-electric system that does not require overhead electrical lines.

Jerry Secrest lives on Willowbrook Drive in Portola Valley

E-mail a friend a link to this story.