Today's Peninsula Joint Powers Board meeting in San Carlos was
heavily attended by representatives from the Coalition for Expanding
Train Service (CETS). I'll get to that in a moment. People
sometimes say the most interesting things in "throw away" lines. Ms.
Lempert (the MTC liaison) was making a lengthy statement, but her
words " a competitive transit world" jumped out at me. That is the
point that I have been attempting to make in recent weeks.
Competitive is just what they shouldn't be. Even though Caltrain's
literature and comments want us to believe their efforts to establish
connectivity with other modes and agencies, such as the buses of
SamTrans, or with BART, Lempert's point is more on target. It's too
bad that the various transit agencies are in competition with one
another. From the outside, it looks like testosterone-driven
territoriality. Caltrain's self-congratulatory success -- more
dollars, more riders, we're the best -- is a symptom of their intent
to become a regional rail carrier, linking San Jose and nearby
stations with San Francisco and its nearby stations, and
simultaneously diminishing their mid-line (SMC) services. Thus, from
Caltrain's point of view BART is being kept at bay, so to speak, and
discouraged from seeking to spread it's evil tentacles up the
Peninsula, which is Caltrain territory. Meanwhile, Caltrain hopes to
reach down to Salinas and beyond.

At the meeting today, the thinly veiled rancor and confrontation
between CETS and the JPB members -- challenging facts, hinting at
funding cut-offs, playing politics -- continued unabated. To hire a
consultant (preferably wise and sympathetic to San Mateo County) was
the ball in this tennis game. Also, there was an appeal again to
reinstate train stops since this was said to be the justification for
building high density housing near the stations. Whether a majority
of the residents and citizens of any particular city may or may not
want such high density housing seemed not to be in question.
(Wasn't that what the Referendum in Menlo Park was all about?)

 From what I heard, it seems safe to predict that Caltrain will not
budge, no matter how many threats or official Resolutions are
generated. The train people trotted out a cascade of numbers and
facts demonstrating the infallibility of their statistics and
achievements. (Remember from college "Lies, damn lies, and
statistics?") In their literature, Caltrain persists in calling
itself a "system." Therein lies their shortsightedness since they
are not, although they should be, part of an integrated urban
transit system. A single rail line of 70 odd miles does not a system
make.

Once more I would ask both parties (CETS and Caltrain) to consider --
instead of asking for what the other side won't or can't give --
sitting down and working together on the bigger issue of
metamorphosing Caltrain from a money losing, "business-plan" run
railroad into a component of a coherent, distributed, networked,
regional mass transit system that operates under a single management
umbrella as a public service utility.

Recently I have been misunderstood as being hostile to one side or
the other. No, I am trying to be an "equal opportunity" advocate,
wishing "a plague on both their houses" for failing to come to grips
with what both sides really should be seeking: Convenient
connectivity via far more extensive use of Samtrans as the local
bus-based server linking under- and unused stations with full service
stations like Redwood City and Palo Alto along the evermore regional
Caltrain line. For those advocates of transit-oriented development,
may I call attention to the fact that the operative word is
"transit-," not "rail-oriented?" I think the train has left the
station for good. Now let's create something better.

Martin

-- 
**********************
Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net
**********************