If Atherton will accept an upgraded station platform -- outside boarding that eliminates the narrow center platform and allows one train to stop while another continues through the station -- then it seems reasonable to ask for trains to again stop at the depot. Not every train, but enough to make the service useful for residents who wish to commute daily.

An underpass to send Watkins Avenue under the tracks wouldn't be a bad idea, either. It would be a tight fit, but it's more attractive in the long term than keeping the grade-level crossing.

Arguing against the poles and wires is a lost cause. It's just part of the changing railroad technology, much the way diesels displaced steam in the mid-1950s.

In the end, people will be happier with electric trains.

@All Aboard: You might have noticed the huge water main that daylights across the creek next to the Watkins crossing. I think an underground crossing there is impossible.

We once did a large workshop on track alignment for HSR and the bottom line is that everyone wants the trains magically buried, but it takes a mile running out at either end to transition from surface to tunnel.

Everyone is very much in favour or electrification for the speed, lack of pollution, noise control, etc. But don't forget that the ROW is still owned by Union Pacific, and they still want their three-times-a-night freight trains to rumble through, no matter what Caltrain or HSR come up with. So as always, it's the worst or weakest link that drives the system.

Everyone wants the trains magically buried, no one has a good answer for how to pay for it. Berkeley wanted BART underground, and they passed a bond measure to pay for it, with help from the Federal government. If people are really serious about wanting a trench or a tunnel, there need to be serious conversations about where that money is coming from.

One thought is the put the trains underground and the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and to use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Really?: Union Pacific does not own the right of way. Caltrain does.

What has been ignored in this discussion and for years are the virtues of an electrified and elevated 3-track Caltrain/UP/HSR solution through San Mateo County:

Improved safety
Elimination of the tracks as a barrier between east and west
Elimination of horns at every street crossing
Reduction of most train diesel pollution
Significant reduction of engine noise
Minimized conflict with existing utilities.

Since the third track would be for the exclusive use of high speed trains between San Jose & San Francisco, there would be a built-in limit on the hourly number of HSR trains on the system, probably no more than two or three per hour. Some trains from LA could terminate in San Jose, allowing more frequent service between those cities.

Residents and decision-makers should have access to realistic cost comparisons between the trench and an elevated alignment followed by a fair evaluation of the virtues and flaws of each alternative. I’ve read that elevated is 1/2 the cost of trenching.
Let’s get the numbers or be reminded of what they are.

Aside from cost, he only downside of elevated tracks might be of perceived aesthetics, adjacent to residential backyards. An elevated structure should easily blend in with the 50’ wall of office & apartment buildings next to the tracks in Menlo Park, that are now guaranteed by the rejection of Measure M.

After 6 1/2 years, Atherton, Palo Alto and Atherton elected officials need to act like leaders and negotiate a resolution to the design issues of HSR so that an electrified system compatible with HSR can be built that serves the interests of the region, their constituents and the State of California.

One action that would help Atherton to get more Caltrain service is to rezone the area around the station for higher density. I know that would be a tough fight though it will eventually increase the usage of the Atherton station and make it more viable.

@Mark Simon:

My apologies, I was misinformed. It's good news, but then do you need to provide for Union/Southern Pacific or can we all ignore the freight service?

Why should all of the taxpayers in Atherton pay to fund the lawsuit Jim Janz is demanding be filed, when Janz and other neighbors of his chose to purchase homes next to the railway? This is really all about preserving the value of their homes.

really? wrote:
> the ROW is still owned by Union Pacific

This is partially true.

> Really?: Union Pacific does not own the right of way. Caltrain does.

This is completely wrong. (ugh, from an alleged caltrain employee even)

The Caltrain right of way between San Francisco and Tamien stations is owned and maintained by its operating agency, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB).

The Caltrain right of way between Tamien station and Gilroy is owned by Union Pacific.

And to be clear, Caltrain plans for "electrification" are ONLY between SF<->Tamien. It would remain non-upgraded diesel trains between Tamien<->Gilroy. Passengers south of Tamien will have to get off the train at Tamien, wait for an electric train, then board an electric train at Tamien.

Small clarification: The 2nd quote was from "Mark Simon, Caltrain".

The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board is Caltrain's board of directors.
Web Link

All Aboard wrote:
> If Atherton will accept an upgraded station platform

Caltrain is the problem here, not Atherton.

Atherton has for years asked that all remaining "hold-out" stations -- not just Atherton -- be upgraded for safety reasons. (they're called "hold out" because other trains that approach a "hold out" station with a train already at the station are required to wait ("hold") until the train leaves the station. This is to ensure an oncoming train doesn't run over boarding passengers).

Hold-out stations can be very, very dangerous. And it's not like they haven't had numerous close calls to remind them of this hazard. Caltrain has NO excuse for not having upgraded them years ago.

NONE.

Barbara Wood wrote:
> The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board is Caltrain's board of directors.

Yes, and if your subtle point is that he's not "completely wrong"...well maybe I was a tad harsh and I apologize.

But it's not correct to say the ROW is owned by Caltrain, either.

really? wrote:
> You might have noticed the huge water main that
> daylights across the creek next to the Watkins
> crossing. I think an underground crossing there
> is impossible.

There is a massive amount of infrastructure underneath SF that they plan to reroute while digging tunnels. Existing infrastructure isn't deterring the tunneling in SF AT ALL.

In comparison, the peninsula/southbay infrastructure in/under the right-of-way is a pittance.

Tunbridge Wells wrote:
> If people are really serious about wanting a trench
> or a tunnel, there need to be serious conversations
> about where that money is coming from.

It should come from the same pool of money used to dig a tunnel under San Francisco (and tunnelling is more expensive than trenching, especially under/through the massive infrastructure under SF).

If that's not enough money to both trench and tunnel, then all affected towns/cities should add money to the pool to pay for it.

Peter Carpenter wrote:
> put the trains underground and the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and to use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking.

This is a pretty brilliant idea.

I was thinking that solar panels could be installed within the trench (above train but no higher than grade) to supplement the power requirements for the trains. But I suspect your approach is likely the more cost-effective one.

If Atherton sues, Caltrain should present this article as evidence that the claims are clearly not environmental- instead they're just bullying tactics to try and get more train service. Hey, it'd be the first time an Almanac article was useful!

Don't just focus on costs. As Carpenter pointed out, there are potential large revenue sources for some alternatives. Not just bond issues, but also the use of land or air rights for underground or trenched options. With today's very low interest rates, some of the costs can be financed reasonably

What is A-town's re ord on lawsuits? All u remember are the ones for thr PAC and for a couple planters. Both losses, amiright?

Others?

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station, etc.

Let's take the big view and come up with a win-win solution.

Thinking more about how to best utilize the existing right of way I would add a pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And I would include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.

A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.

Do it once and do it right.

"Really?" is partially right about the control of the tracks (and Mark Simon doesn't tell the whole truth). Yes, the Caltrain JPB board bought the right-of-way from Southern Pacific in the 1980s, but SP retained certain rights. Among them was the right to continue freight trains and veto anything that threatened the ability to move freight on the tracks. Electrification and HSR can't happen without SP's say so. Which means the JPB will have to write SP a big check.

It's interesting to read that Atherton is contacting Palo Alto to be a co-plaintiff in the suit, but not Menlo Park. I guess after seeing Kirsten Keith's selfie with Governor Brown at the HSR groundbreaking, they figured Menlo Park was now in favor of HSR.

Comments from Dave Price regarding the forementioned "selfie" can only be viewed as ironic comedy, unless Dave Price doesn't read his own paper.

________

One ‘selfie’ is worth 1,000 words (Web Link
January 12, 2015 -- Dave Price , Daily Post

When I first saw the “selfie” of Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kirsten Keith and Gov. Jerry Brown, I thought it was a hoax. I mean what politician in the mid-Peninsula would go to the groundbreaking of the California High-Speed Rail project and pose with the project’s No. 1 proponent. With all of the anger that project has evoked, nobody would do that, right?
________

THE UPDATE: CORRECTION 2 (Web Link
January 10, 2015 -- Daily Post

A story Thursday about the groundbreaking for high-speed rail should have said that Menlo Park is no longer suing over the project. The city's case ended on July 24 (2013) when a state appeals court upheld the California High-Speed Rail Authority's program Environmental Impact Report for the route of the train.
________

City told to approve third rail track (Web Link
January 14, 2014 -- Jeramy Gordon, Daily Post

The Menlo Park City Council tonight will consider planning for a third set of tracks that can accommodate highspeed rail, in order to get a county grant to build an overpass at the Ravenswood Avenue crossing, Senior Transportation Engineer Nicole Nagaya said. The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally wanted to build two additional tracks for a total of four along the Peninsula, but residents and politicians said that would be detrimental to the area...
________

City ends rail legal fight (Web Link
May 1, 2013 -- Breena Kerr, Daily Post

The Menlo Park City Council announced last night that it will not continue fighting a legal battle to stop high-speed rail. In late February, a judge threw out a 2008 lawsuit brought by Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, in which the cities challenged the environmental report for the California High-Speed Rail Authority project. Last night, Mayor Peter Ohtaki said the city would not pursue an appeal of the lawsuit following a discussion of the matter in closed session.

It would be helpful if "peninsula resident" would explain the difference between Caltrain and the PCJPB, the owners of the Peninsula Caltrain right of way, and what its significance is in his saying Caltrain's Mr. Simon was wrong to say Caltrain owns the ROW.

Secondly, SP (Southern Pacific RR) ceased to exist in the early 1990s, as I recall. Union Pacific bought what was left of SP and acquired SP's freight trackage rights on the Peninsula Caltrain line. The ROW purchase agreement between SP and the PCJPB contains language spelling out that the freight rights can end when and if the line should become incompatible with such. While this may heve been written with BART in mind, it could also conceivably be made to apply in case of electrification and/or HSR-related ROW and/or track infrastructure changes (eg steep grades, impaired clearances, etc.) that make continued freight sevice infeasible/impractical or even impossible.

Not sure what point @interesting is trying to make. If @interesting is defending Kirsten Keith, then explain where she stands on electrification and high speed rail.

One thing that complicates a law suit is that you can't sue a railroad for non-compliance with CEQA. The relevant law is NEPA, the federal law. This is the result of the house member representing Turlock trying to prevent CHSR construction in the San Joaquin Valley and complaining to the EPA. It referred the case to The Surface Transportation Board. The board agreed that CHSR had to satisfy NEPA but since CEQA was so much stricter they had already done so.

At this point the legal department of CHSR realized they had been offered a gift on a silver platter and requested a ruling of the board as to whether or not that meant that NEPA superseded CEQA because of the commerce clause of the US constitution. By a two to one ruling they agreed. And the representative from Turlock discovered that he had a bullet hole in his foot.

Dave Price never writes that Keith ever opposed HSR. If you read the Daily Post "selfie" article and come away with that impression, then the joke is on you. The "Blended Plan" was proposed by Eshoo, Simitian and Gordon in April of 2011, and Menlo Park has officially adopted that plan. This all happened years ago, long befor Brown was re-elected to a historic 4th term, to become the most popular Governor in California's history.

Electric Multiple-Unit (MU) trains are great: faster acceleration, no exhaust, quieter. But "Blended Rail" (e.g., High Speed Rail on Caltrain) brings problems, like commute stations and grade crossings.

After California voters in 2008 approved Prop 1A (entitled "The Safe, Reliable..." HSR bond act), proud San Franciscans saw a gold mine: money to electrify Caltrain and extend it to their new TTC Taj Majal.

Added HSR trains even on Caltrain 79 mph tracks, would prove vulnerable to accidents, suicides, and even terrorist attacks, NEITHER SAFE NOR RELIABLE. They could well see tragedies and train delays, like that at Bourbonnais, Illinois, in 1999. Amtrak there, also on 79 mph track, hit a heavy truck at a grade crossing, derailing two locomotives and 11 of 14 passenger cars, with many casualties.

High Speed Rail needs to be fenced and grade separated. CHSRA should end first at San Jose; it could then follow the UP/Amtrak Mulford route to Oakland and Sacramento. From the site of a new transfer station at the BART overhead in Oakland, BART now runs 16 trains per hour to four downtown San Francisco BART/Muni stations six to ten minutes away.

Trains at up to 125 mph through Peninsula communities? No. Safety trumps a one-seat-ride.