Page 4

May-June 2002

Q and A

High Speed Rail

How would High Speed Rail cross the

mountain ranges between the Bay Area,

the Central Valley, and the Los Angeles

area?

Consultants have drawn up

detailed engineering studies showing how

HSR would cross the Diablo Range

southeast of San Jose, and the Tehachapi

Mountains south of Bakersfield. Mountain

routing options include extensive tunnels

and bridges, so that grades do not exceed

3.5%. (By

comparison, 6% is

the steepest grade

found on freeways

over the mountains.)

Even while climbing

a 3.5% grade, high

speed trains are

capable of maintaining a 200

mph or faster speed, according

to Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director of

the CA High Speed Rail Authority

(CHSRA). Prior to December 2001, the

CHSRA had considered a 31-mile tunnel

all the way across the Diablo Range on the

San Jose-Merced line. Upon enlisting help

from international tunneling experts and

state-of-the-art alignment modeling

software, the CHSRA cut billions from cost

estimates by limiting individual tunnel

lengths to six miles in both mountain

crossings.

Why have HSR planners selected the

Highway 99 corridor through the Central

Valley? Why not route HSR along I-5, or

via 101 along the coast?

The Highway 99 route makes the

most sense for serving the greatest number

of people on one line, and for linking

Southern California with both Sacramento

and the Bay Area via a single line for most

of the distance. A large proportion of HSR

ridership is projected to come from the

Central Valley, from cities such as Stockton,

Modesto, Fresno and Bakersfield. Airlines

serve these cities poorly, and

ground level fog often hampers

Central Valley highways and

aviation facilities during the

winter months. Weather

has negligible effect

on rail operations.

Due to further decline in sales tax

revenue, Santa Clara County and VTA have

proposed to eliminate some Caltrain

improvement projects. These projects were

earmarked for funding from the Measure A/

B sales tax passed by voters in 1996. The

newest estimate projected a revenue shortfall

of $205 million, up from the $114 million

projected last December.

To address this deficit, VTA staff

presented an "Issue Paper" to the Board of

Supervisors on April 30. In the document,

they gave recommendations for reducing

expenditures. These included preserving

funding for projects that are already well into

design or under construction. However, they

proposed cutting the Measure B Caltrain

budget by $20 million, a reduction of almost

25%. Besides Caltrain, the county also has

considered cutting projects along Highways

17 and 85.

The impacts to Caltrain projects would

be significant because most of the individual

projects along the rail line have yet to reach

the design and construction phase. "Caltrain

is going to take a big hit, except for certain

parking projects that are well into design,"

said BayRail executive director Margaret

Okuzumi. Okuzumi also serves on the

Measure A/B Citizen Watchdog Committee.

To offset some of the revenue reduction,

state funding that was allocated in 2000 by the

Governor would replace sales tax funding for

Caltrain projects south of San Jose.

Despite the budget woes, BayRail

believes that some Caltrain safety

improvements, which also would speed up

service, need to be funded. These include

outside boarding platforms and pedestrian

undercrossings at California Avenue and

Santa Clara stations. These stations

currently present a safety hazard with narrow

center platforms. They also delay service

because only one train can enter the station

at a time. "Our highest priority is station

improvements which enhance safety, train

speed and reliability." Okuzumi said, "With

help of letters and phone calls from our

members and friends, BayRail sent a clear

message and we are still hopeful that VTA

and the county will use any remaining funds

to improve unsafe stations."

Oakland ($10.3 billion), expanded connector

roads to the Dumbarton Bridge ($760 million),

and operational improvements plus express

bus expansions on all bridges ($820 million).

BayRail has been a strong advocate

for Dumbarton Rail and a future conventional

rail crossing between San Francisco and

Oakland. In early 2001 in response to BayRail

and others, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board

voted to become the future operator of

Dumbarton Rail. Plans for the Caltrain

extension to downtown San Francisco also

include tail tracks to connect to a future

transbay crossing.

The much lower cost of Dumbarton

Rail presented by the Bay Crossing Study

should further reinforce political support for

the train service. Moreover, local sales tax

programs in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and

Alameda Counties contain earmarks for the

service. Many public officials who support

Dumbarton Rail have voiced concerns about

the increased traffic on existing roadways,

especially Highway 101 near SF Airport, if a

new highway bridge were built.

Because of the expected high cost for a

conventional rail crossing between San

Francisco and Oakland, transbay buses (and

to a lesser extent, ferries) will be the focus for

expanded transit between Oakland and San

Francisco in the near term. The Caltrain

downtown extension is part of a larger project

for an improved and expanded Transbay

Terminal to serve additional buses from the

East Bay. Transbay buses, which would

greatly benefit from additional reserved lanes,

are able to serve many cities and

neighborhoods in the East Bay that are not

well served by BART.

[

Dumbarton

, from page 1]

South Bay Tax Drop Puts Caltrain Projects in Peril

Study Favors Dumbarton Rail