Page 1

Peninsula Rail 2000

www.rail2000.org No. 2000-1 February 2000

In our next issue of SOT-

-ABC's of MTC

-Dumbarton Rail Part 2

See ELECTRIFICATION, p. 4

See Measure A/B, p. 2

Caltrain Electrification

Side-Tracked By Another

Study

The electrification of Caltrain has been del-

egated to yet another study--this time known as

the Caltrain Electrification Program Preliminary

Engineering, a potential bureaucratic twilight

zone. At the January meeting of the Caltrain Joint

Powers Board (JPB), staff presented the first quar-

terly progress report on electrification. It included

an introduction of the principal consultants in-

volved in the study and work items to be com-

pleted.

In his introductory remarks, the lead electri-

fication consultant, Michael Lewis of Parsons

Transportation, affirmed what PR2000 and

Caltrain supporters have been telling the JPB for

over a decade: electrification will increase speeds,

reduce run times, reduce operating costs and

should be completed simultaneously with the

track and signal rehabilitation. Because the 1998

Rapid Rail Study generated by SamTrans staff

ignored and marginalized the benefits of electri-

The proposed Dumbarton commuter rail

service would connect Fremont, Newark, Union

City and other East Bay cities to the Peninsula

via the Dumbarton rail bridge. The rail bridge

is located just south of where Highway 84 crosses

the Bay. The rail line connects to the Caltrain

mainline just south of Woodside Road in Red-

wood City. Proposed commuter trains would

connect to Caltrain, and connect directly to

Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and

Amtrak’s Capitol trains in Fremont. Dumbarton

rail service would provide an alternative for

East Bay residents who commute to jobs on the

Peninsula and northern Silicon Valley, who now

face miserable traffic congestion.

Commuter Rail Not Fremont’s Priority

Even though more of the commuters who

stand to benefit live in Fremont than in any

other city, the City of Fremont gives a cool re-

ception to Dumbarton rail and expanded Capi-

tol and ACE rail service. Why is this? The Fre-

mont City Council and staff view these propos-

als as competition for their top three transporta-

tion funding priorities.

Fremont Shortchanges Dumbarton Commuter Rail Proposal

(Part 1 of 2 in a series)

William G. Wullenjohn Sr.

See Dumbarton, p. 3

Victory for Caltrain Riders

SAN JOSE (January 25, 2000)—Responding

to a flood of letters from Caltrain riders, the Santa

Clara County Board of Supervisors called on tran-

sit planners to increase Caltrain service from 68

trains to 86 trains per weekday by the year 2006.

This increase had been promised to voters four

years ago by the Measure A/B transportation

sales tax campaign.

The 11th hour deal brokered by the Super-

visors with the Santa Clara Valley Transporta-

tion Authority (VTA) called for “good faith ef-

forts” to add trains, including possibly 10 more

trains in the next VTA budget cycle. Failure on

the part of VTA to meet this condition would

result in some of the Measure A/B money be-

ing withheld by the Supervisors. However, the

details of this agreement were left to be ironed

out. County Supervisors Jim Beall and Joe

Simitian in particular spoke out strongly for more

service. Supervisor Simitian rebuked VTA plan-

ning director Jim Pierson for wincing at the de-

cision, saying, “I know you don’t like this, Jim,

and I’m sorry, but we’ve got to uphold our prom-

ises to the voters.”

The political victory was welcomed by Pen-

insula Rail 2000, a grassroots Caltrain riders’

organization. Members scrutinizing the VTA

plan launched a flyer campaign, and as a result,

a few hundred irate Caltrain riders and con-

cerned residents contacted the VTA Board, the

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and

the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board urg-

ing them to reject VTA’s go-slow approach to

increasing Caltrain service.

“If this means that fewer cyclists get

bumped, then all this effort will have been worth

it,” said Margaret Okuzumi, a Peninsula Rail

2000 activist, referring to cyclists who are rou-

tinely refused boarding on Caltrain when the

bike cars are full. “But I’m waiting to see it in

writing. I’m disappointed that the Supes didn’t

Santa Clara County Supervisors Say

More Trains by 2006

In early 1999, the Fremont City Council es-

tablished these priorities as: 1) BART to San Jose,

2) I-680 carpool lane, and 3) a freeway connector

near Warm Springs to link I-880 and I-680. De-

spite recent developments, these projects remain

the Council’s top priorities. Even with the proven

success of ACE which began operating between

Stockton and San Jose via Fremont in October of

1998, the Fremont City Council has not altered

its priorities to include the proposed commuter

rail service from Fremont to the Peninsula across

the Dumbarton rail bridge or expanded ACE ser-

vice.ACE and Dumbarton rail proponents sur-

mise that with a BART extension to San Jose

estimated to cost at least $4 billion, Fremont

doesn’t want any funds, however small, spent

on new rail projects other than this BART exten-

sion. Given that such an extension could take

well over a decade to design, fund, and con-

struct, Fremont’s vision for near-term transpor-

tation improvements appears sorely lacking.

Fremont’s position on the Dumbarton rail

proposal contrasts with the community’s strong