Progress at last. Thank you, Andy. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Menlo Park City Council. And, thank you Atherton City Council. You were all great. Thank you, those of you residents who spoke to the Councils.

The joint Atherton and Menlo Park grade separation study session last night was stunning in its difference from the one on the same subject I attended several years ago under the "jurisdiction" of the prior "slate. I'm sorry, as Councilman Carlson put it, that so few of us residents were there. But, those that did attend and spoke to the combined Council were eloquent and right on target. Atherton was well represented and they already know much more about the realities of Caltrain, grade seps. and HSR than we do. But, we are all learning. Our Council now talks enthusiastically about multi-modal urban mass transit. WOW. That's progress.

Andy made a very powerful point; comparing the conception of the failed "capitalist," profit-driven business-model for the transit operators vs. urban mass transit as a public service utility. He pointed out that the various transit carriers ought to stop competing for limited resources and work collaboratively in a multi-modal network. This is an issue we have discussed extensively before and to which we shall return many times.

(We really need to get Alan Hoffman
[http://www.missiongrouponline.com/], the transit consultant who spoke in Redwood City several years ago and inspired both Heyward Robinson and me to think much more progressively about urban mass transit, to come up here and speak to all of us about what this really means for us and the rest of the Bay Area.)

Let's get to the substance of last night's discussions, Grade Separations, the major topic of the study session. Atherton's public works director, Duncan Jones is an ex rail engineer and really knows what he's talking about. He presented a quick analysis of an option he has advocated for some time: a fully trenched rail grade/elevation, completely below ground. That way, all street crossings are at street level and the trains run, out of sight, below ground level. It was a compelling case, not yet publicly presented to Menlo Park.

Clearly, there was a lot of enthusiasm for this concept, especially since the construction process could be accomplished without temporary tracks outside of the expanded rail corridor (the shoo-fly). Of course, an expanded rail corridor, whether trenched or not, will still involve eminent domain takings and a devastating, ruinous construction process, but that is the case for all the other options as well. In the past, Caltrain's studies have downplayed the enormous adverse impact on our towns. After last night, they won't be able to get away with that any longer.

The issue with the trenching is not that it's a bad idea. It's a very good idea. The problem is that whatever we want in Atherton and Menlo Park has little or nothing to do with what "they" will actually pay for and do. Last night we heard some talk about increased Caltrain flexibility. The experience of CETS, which attempted to get Caltrain to make slight modifications to its schedule, ought to be an object lesson. Caltrain made excuses but did nothing, or next to nothing. Caltrain is not a customer-responsive service. It's a continuously failing business with an unsuccessful business model. The cacophonous sound of their trains drown out any voices other than their own.

As I have pointed out previously, the CHSRA already has engineering studies showing track elevations through our two towns and they are about 15 ft up with retaining walls or berms. They will say these are the most practical, least expensive and how we'll get used to them. I would expect them to come back to us and say -- as was discussed last night -- if our two towns pick up the cost increase difference for the far more expensive trenching, they might consider it. And that would be far more than both towns could possibly afford.

I won't bore you with comments about those few who defended grade separations except to say they were short on facts, information and persuasion. Actually, it was remarkable how little support was offered for either grade separations or the high-speed train. I could name names here and so can you. Never mind.

The central issue, which I wish to re-iterate here yet again, is that grade separations are not a given. They cost lots and lots of money. The going rate these days, as I have been saying for some time, is around $100 million each. Construction will involve much more than merely the bridging the six intersections, and therefore costs will doubtless be far higher than even the $600 million for the street crossings. The entire rail corridor, from 5th Avenue to the creek will be under re-development. Caltrain, in their strategic plans, suggests that it would cost $3 billion for the entire rail corridor build-out (from SF to SJ); that is, to CHSRA specifications. I'm guessing that's just another low-ball number. For projects of this magnitude, Measure A is a drop in the bucket. The State is in a bad economic situation and so is our whole country. Getting matching funding will be far more difficult than ever.

It's safe to say that all the present cost projections are very poor guesses. What usually happens is that, after everyone agrees the work actually ought to be done, and funding at a projected level is secured, the promoters go out for bids that construction people will realistically commit to, and lo and behold, the numbers skyrocket; it seems that none of the bidders can do it for anything like those projected numbers we all believed. (Among the reasons: China, India, labor costs, materials scarcity, fuel costs, dollar decline, etc. etc.) The prime contractors want more. The sub-contractors want more. The lawyers' billable hours are more. The consultants cost more. There are, suddenly, hidden and unanticipated costs. Wow, who could have guessed that?

What's my point? We can talk grade separations 'til hell freezes over and it will be no more than an academic exercise UNTIL AND UNLESS sufficient funds are available. And, there is only one foreseeable source of funding on that order of magnitude, November's high-speed train bond issue.

Last night there were discussions about alternative routes for the high-speed train, such as the 280-freeway right of way. Is it a better alternative? Probably. Then why won't it happen? Because Caltrain has ambitions to expand their empire and only high-speed rail will pay for it. But, they already run a high-speed train on the corridor, the baby bullet. Why do we need a redundant one? We don't. But, that's not the point. Caltrain would love to have a dozen set of tracks out there; convert the entire Peninsula to a railroad corridor; whatever. To railroaders, more is always better. It's called empire building.

We all need to step back, take a breath, and for a moment stop thinking rationally and reasonably, because that's not what this is about. Let me say that another way. We need to think like they do. Of course we don't need a second high speed train on the rail corridor. However, we have rail-gene railocrats running rail empires. They have "blind ambition." Some call it an edifice complex. Contrary to what you may believe, they are not interested in improving urban mass transit or even regional mass transit. They want to expand their own empire; more is better, more tracks, more whizzy trains, the latest and the shiniest. They compete with each other; BART with Caltrain; VTA with BART, etc. "My railroad is bigger and better than your railroad!" Want a Freudian interpretation?

Pacheco is not the better route for the high-speed train. Altamont would serve a much larger population (and rapidly growing) east of the Bay Area. Both Altamont and Pacheco have environmentally sensitive areas to destroy. So what! The Pacheco route is where the political and the economic clout are. In short, CHSRA decisions are political and self-serving, not functional or practical.

For the high-speed train advocates, CHSRA ought to be building small components of their train first and test its efficacy; say one leg from SF to Sacramento and another from San Diego to Anaheim. What are the problems, what are the successes?

Even more practically, and this was said last night at the meeting, for all that money, there ought to be regional transit development going east from both LA and the Bay Area. That would be a major economic boost for both regions. But, CHSRA has a childhood fantasy as well as a generous dose of Europe/Japan envy. Expensive shiny toys for well-to-do boys! They want an Orient Express; a luxury train for people like themselves and they want us to pay for it. Oh, those elegant club and dining cars! Oh, all that sleek leather-upholstered seating and glistening chrome! Why, it's like flying first class! Exactly!

The most important point that was made last night concerns urban mass transit. Andy, who recused himself due to conflict-of-interest, made a compelling statement as private citizen. Jim Janz did the same. They both deserve our gratitude for the success of the study session. Andy's point was that grade separations and the high speed train will not contribute to a regional mass transit system, which both the northern Bay Area desperately needs, as does the southern Los Angeles Basin. What a waste of the $100 billion or more that the high-speed train will cost - at taxpayers' expense - when a small part of that could build a comprehensive multi-modal transit system.

Finally, please note the two year old name of our email alias: Neighbors for Urban Mass Transit. We have been pumping out these messages for quite a while. They finally seem to be heard. Today's Palo Alto Daily reported on the study session with the headline:

Two Cities Shun High-Speed Rail

http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-1-30-rail

That's progress. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any longer!"

-- 








**********************

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


**********************