Printed from THE SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL

  04/12/2007

Time for an alternative to Caltrain

By Martin Engel, Guest Perspective

The April 5 Peninsula Joint Powers Board meeting in San Carlos was
heavily attended by representatives from the Coalition for Expanding
Train Service (CETS). The meeting has received extensive media
coverage, including this paper.

People sometimes say the most interesting things in "throwaway"
lines. Ms. Lempert (the MTC liaison) was making a lengthy statement,
but her words " a competitive transit world" jumped out at me. 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, Ms. Lempert's "competition"
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 its evil tentacles up the
Peninsula, which is Caltrain territory. Meanwhile, Caltrain hopes to
reach down to Salinas and beyond.

At this meeting, 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 its 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.

Both sides 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. Indeed, Redwood City has launched a
shuttle service to connect to the train station. Good idea.

Caltrain's system, built more than 100 years ago, was created by a
freight train company. Today's Caltrain is the evolution of that
freight train concept. Caltrain doesn't care where its riders come
from or where they are going. They are simply units of freight.
Therefore I say, CETS, you are banging your head against a brick
wall. I would venture to predict that Caltrain will, in the future,
reduce the number of stops along mid-Peninsula low volume stations
even further to reduce travel times.

The fact is, that for a regional carrier running trains this fast,
the four stations from Redwood City to Palo Alto are too close
together. This proximity worked when trains were going 40 mph, but
not when they go 80 mph. Caltrain even wants to add an additional car
to all of its five-car trains. That will make it even tougher for
them to start and stop. If they change anything, it will be to
further reduce local service and possibly close more low-use
stations. For better or worse, it's not your grandma's Caltrain any
more.

Time to think outside the box. Time to stop clinging to Caltrain's
indifferent legs and instead push for effective urban transit for the
entire Peninsula and Bay Area.

Martin Engel is a resident of Menlo Park.

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