On December 4th, Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR) submitted the comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) for the Altamont Rail Corridor Project. Our letter focused on three key topics: expanding the scope to cover the Altamont destinations described in Prop 1A, station location criteria, and alignments/station locations to be studied..

CA4HSR Scoping Comments – Altamont Rail Corridor Project

To understand the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, it is important to know the background on how it has came about. From 2004 to 2008, the Bay Area was caught in a big fight over whether the Altamont or Pacheco Pass would be used to connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley. CA4HSR remained neutral in this fight. As a regional compromise, the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Authority picked the Pacheco Pass alignment but agreed to support a separate “Altamont Commuter Overlay” project separate from the High Speed Rail project. At the time the overlay project was more imaginary then real, as it had no funding for construction.

Up until early 2009, the Altamont Rail Corridor Project was more paper than real. However, two things changed the status of the project. First, President Obama had $8 billion inserted into the stimulus for high-speed rail and committed to ongoing funding of high speed rail (HSR) through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Secondly, the Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (the Altamont Commuter Express-ACE manager) were able to convince the FRA that the Altamont overlay would be “intercity” rather than “commuter” rail, thus qualifying it for national HSR funds. This means the former “paper project” from 2008 is now eligible to compete for up to $50 billion in HSR funding that may be included in the transportation bill re-authorization next year. Therefore, CA4HSR believes that the Altamont Corridor Rail Project is now a real project that has a fair chance of being constructed.

Californians For High Speed Rail is delighted by this progress and views the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s pro-active stance as a model for California transit agencies. ACE commuter service currently runs three one-way round trips a day, between Stockton and San Jose. The service is slow, and its capacity is limited due to its secondary position to Union Pacific. The Commission’s leadership wants to transform the existing ACE service into the leading passenger rail service in Northern California. The Commission envisions eventually running modern, electric multiple unit rail cars on passenger-only tracks from Sacramento and Merced to/from the Bay Area. The Altamont Rail Corridor Project, at full build out, will have the necessary infrastructure to allow California High Speed Rail trains to access the corridor. The current planning process will lay out how to incrementally construct new high-speed rail compatible tracks, as funding comes available, until the ultimate vision is achieved. This is exactly how transit agencies should think and plan ahead long-term. CA4HSR’s objections to the current scope are not that it is too ambitious, but that it is too limited.

Proposition 1A, which is funding the Altamont Rail Corridor Project EIS/EIS, defines the Altamont corridor as a “high speed train corridor” in Article 2 Section (B)(3). Specifically it reads, “Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor.” CA4HSR enthusiastically approves of adding San Jose to the scope of the Altamont Rail Corridor Project, but believes San Francisco and Oakland must be studied as well to meet the intent of Proposition 1A. We also reject the concept that future high speed service from Altamont can be provided to San Francisco and Oakland by utilizing BART service for large potions of the routes to the two cities by forcing patrons of the Altamont service to transfer to BART trains in either Livermore or Warm Springs.  Rather, San Francisco should be reached via a new high bridge to replace the old Dumbarton rail bridge and the Peninsula. Oakland should be accessed by either a new Transbay tube from the San Francisco Transbay Terminal or by upgrading the current Capitol Corridor line from Union City/Fremont to downtown Oakland. CA4HSR’s letter includes five new alternatives through southern Alameda County that could accommodate efficient access to San Francisco and Oakland from the Altamont.

At this point Californians For High Speed Rail is not endorsing any one alternative but wants to insure that Northern California ends up with the best interregional rail plan possible. The region and the State have to opportunity to now plan for such interregional rail service. If you wish to join us in the effort contact us at: brian.stanke@ca4hsr.org The planning for Altamont Corridor Rail Project service has just begun and the more that people get involved, the more of an impact we can have.

About Californians For High Speed Rail

Californians For High Speed Rail is a grassroots, statewide coalition of high speed rail supporters advocating for the high speed rail project approved by California voters in November 2008. Founded in 2005 and re-launched in 2009, we exist to educate, inform, and organize Californians about ways they can help make high speed rail a reality in this state. Additionally, Californians For High Speed Rail also encourages sustainable development of the high speed rail system, promoting the building of stations in city centers and surrounding transit-oriented development, as well as developing and improving feeder transit systems.

The crown jewel of Innovation Place is a complete transformation of the University Avenue station area, as envisioned in the team’s graphic above. High speed rail or not, this area of Palo Alto is in dire need of a redesign; today, access between three important zones of activity (the University Avenue shopping district, Stanford University, and the Stanford Shopping Center) is a circuitous and dysfunctional jumble that is both unpleasant and time consuming to navigate, whether by foot, bike, car or bus. Neighboring areas just a few hundred feet apart feel miles away from each other.

The remainder of the Innovation Place proposal consists of a 31-acre linear park adjoining Alma Street, featuring a bike and pedestrian path and reuniting the two halves of Palo Alto formerly separated by the train tracks. The additional cost of putting the tracks underground would be financed by selling $700 million worth of air rights for development.

Go over to Clem’s blog to read the full details and see some very intriguing designs, along with Clem’s thoughts on the concept’s strengths and weaknesses.

Personally I think this is exactly the kind of work that Palo Alto residents ought to be producing. Rather than trying to say “no” to the HSR/Caltrain project, the thinkers behind Innovation Place have said “yes” to integrating it into their community. It would be wonderful if Menlo Park and Atherton chose to follow this model instead of wasting taxpayer money on a lawsuit that is doomed to fail.

As to the concept (which should not be described as a “proposal” at this point since it isn’t at that level of specificity), I like it. There’s the question of the possible roller-coaster effect of a high speed train entering a tunnel for Palo Alto only, and whether $700 million is enough to underground the route. It’s also unclear whether Union Pacific will go along with this, as it would pretty much eliminate their ability to continue freight operations over that section of track (although they could theoretically revive the Dumbarton corridor and use the shared tracks along the rest of the HSR/Caltrain corridor north to SF). But this is absolutely something worth exploring.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has spent more than a decade studying the Peninsula Corridor and Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass, and concluded twice that the Caltrain corridor is the premier solution for high-speed rail in California. The alternative route, over Altamont Pass, would bypass San Jose and San Francisco entirely.

That last sentence has been getting some attention in the comments to yesterday’s post, with Morris Brown implying that Kopp is himself being misleading here, and potentially even violating CHSRA board policy in the process. Rafael agreed that the notion an Altamont alignment would cut off San Francisco and San Jose was “patent nonsense” but suggested that Kopp may have been thinking of one possible Altamont routing that would have sent trains to Oakland.

And yet Kopp is not wrong in the overall point, which is that Altamont had serious problems that could have produced significantly degraded service to SF and SJ. The concept being floated by some latter-day Altamont advocates is that San Jose would essentially be a stub track off the Dumbarton/Altamont mainline. San Jose wouldn’t be cut off in this case, but it would get many fewer trains, as express SF-LA trains would not pass through Diridon Station at all. Rafael also pointed out in the comments that the Dumbarton corridor was far from an easy slam-dunk, presenting significant land use and engineering challenges. It is possible that those challenges may have ultimately forced an Oakland terminus.

AB 3034, which was approved by voters as Proposition 1A, mandated a 2 hour 40 minute runtime between SF and LA. As Pacheco is more direct and several miles shorter than the Altamont route, Pacheco met the standard. The same is true of the statutory requirement that SF Transbay Terminal be the route’s northern terminus. AB 3034 wasn’t yet law when the choice was made in July 2008, owing largely to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s delaying tactics on the state budget, but the key points of AB 3034 were already clear, and the existing Prop 1 already had much of that in place. So the CHSRA was constrained in its choices, and given those constraints, Pacheco is a legitimate solution.

Kopp offered further justification for the Pacheco choice:

A watchful public should be informed that this corridor has received more study than any other routes in California. If detractors want to cloud public memory, let me try to refresh it. Consider just a few of the reasons for choosing Pacheco Pass. An Altamont Pass alignment would require:

• Construction of a new transbay tube or bridge, an insanely costly endeavor, a threat to the Bay and certain to encounter opposition from environmentalists. Transformation of an antiquated 19th century railroad trestle bridge through a national wildlife refuge is a fantasy.

• As many as six tracks through developed East Bay communities, forcing expensive, controversial eminent domain proceedings and construction of elevated tracks, both bitterly opposed by residents and civic leaders.

• The splitting of trains, some going to San Jose and others northeast to San Francisco, eventually limiting the system’s capacity and defeating the purpose of building high-speed rail service for Californians.

I discussed the first and third points above, but the second one is really worth noting. The Peninsula supporters of Altamont are being stunningly hypocritical in their demands – what they want to do is dump tracks they don’t want onto neighborhoods across the bay. They are perfectly happy to force Pleasanton and Fremont to accept something they claim will kill communities.

Kopp also did a good job undermining the arguments made by the environmental groups that are party to the Altamont lawsuit:

You don’t even need to accept my word. Consider that on April 30, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified the Federal Railroad Administration and all interested persons that the corridor most likely to contain the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the Bay Area to Central Valley section is Pacheco Pass.

On May 8, 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers concurred, concluding the Pacheco Pass will cause less adverse effect to the aquatic ecosystem or other significant adverse environmental consequences, and “there are no other practical alternatives to the Pacheco Pass.”

Some may argue that Pacheco has some environmental impacts, which it may. But the arguments being made here by federal regulators is that Pacheco’s impacts are less than those of Altamont, particularly the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.

Kopp closes his op-ed by calling for a “more reasoned discussion” of the matter. This reminds me of some of the health care town halls, where opponents of reform who know they have absolutely no chance to stop this through the usual political process (because the majority of Americans want reform to happen) have taken to trying to shout down their opponents. Although we haven’t seen some of the more violent expressions of disagreement over HSR, I think there is a fundamental similarity between the health care disruptors and the folks behind this lawsuit. They didn’t get their way in the normal process, and now they are trying to disrupt the HSR project rather than let it proceed, even though voters approved the project and the route.

There are productive ways Peninsula residents can help ensure HSR is built in a way that meets their needs. But this Altamont obsession is distracting them from that more necessary work. The sooner the Peninsula accepts the reality and permanence of the Pacheco alignment, the better they will be.

Moreover, the new Transbay Terminal in San Francisco will be ~1/3 mile from the nearest BART station, Embarcadero, which gets overcrowded during rush hour. TJPA’s plans for a pedestrian passage under Fremont Street are still “optional” at this point and, BART has made no commitment to use any of its $241 million share of the prop 1A bonds for additional side platforms at Embarcadero plus ramps featuring moving walkways connecting to such a passage. Unless that changes, BART passengers would have to hoof it across SF city streets to the HSR station, in any kind of weather, with baggage and perhaps children in tow. AC Transit will operate buses into the building, but its unclear how many HSR passengers will take advantage of that option.

Millbrae will hopefully offer a more convenient transfer, but BART takes it’s sweet time getting out to there. Worse, on any given day of the week, only one line runs out to Millbrae, so many HSR passengers will have to transfer twice. Either way, the time lost just getting to and from the nearest HSR station will mean Oakland Airport will continue to offer flights to Southern California for many years to come.

HST/Commuter Overlay

Recently, CHSRA did award a $70 million contract to AECOM, for project-level EIR/EIS work on the awkwardly named “HST/commuter overlay” that is “under consideration” (see the pink bit here). The overlay concept was introduced toward the end of the whole Altamont vs. Pacheco debate as a punt ahead of the November election. The idea is to recycle the work done on the Altamont options studied for HSR into an ill-defined regional adjunct to the core HSR network. The overlay would link Stockton and Modesto to Oakland and San Jose via Tracy, Pleasanton and Union City. There is, however, no money at all for building this overlay in either phase I (starter line) or phase II (spurs to San Diego, Sacramento and Irvine).

Moreover, the originally selected route between Pleasanton and San Jose would have trains emerging from a curved tunnel in Niles and then proceeding south via the UPRR and WPML rights of way, CA-262 and the I-880 median. Now that Santa Clara county voters have voted to add another 1/8th of a percent to their sales tax to actually bring BART to San Jose, the short but vital WPML section is no longer available. Co-operation from UPRR was always an iffy proposition anyhow, especially in Fremont. Note that Parsons Brinkerhoff are the lead consultants on both HSR and the BART extension to SantaClara/SJC. That obvious conflict of interest alone ought to speak volumes about how major transit infrastructure projects are run in Northern California.

Realistically, nothing will come of the overlay concept anytime soon. And by soon, I mean before 2030. The only exception would be if CHSRA were unable to obtain a ROW out of San Jose and down to Gilroy, e.g. because of environmental justice issues or opposition from UPRR in principle. Some observers have characterized that railroad’s stance as a negotiating ploy and that may yet turn out to be true: as a for-profit enterprise, money talks even for UPRR. On the other hand, it is a long-standing, profitable enterprise that just might walk away even from a juicy deal if it thinks it could be detrimental to its core business. Time will tell.

Existing East Bay Passenger Rail Services

Meanwhile, there are already several passenger rail services in the East Bay, in addition to BART. First, there’s Amtrak Capitol Corridor, which is operated by Amtrak but managed by BART (h/t to anon @ 12:50pm). It connects San Jose to Oakland to Sacramento and Auburn. The core segment between Oakland Jack London Square is served by 16 trains each way on weekdays and 11 on weekends/holidays. San Jose is served by 7 trains.

Second, there are the four daily Amtrak San Joaquins (each way) between Oakland Jack London Square (OKJ) and Bakersfield. There are also two daily Amtrak long-distance trains serving the area: the Coast Starlight between Seattle and LA and the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, with a bus connection to San Francisco.

Third, there is the Altamont Commuter Express between Stockton and San Jose, also offering four trains each way but only on weekdays.

However, this isn’t quite the transit smorgasbord it may seem to some: Amtrak Capitol Corridor only connects to BART at the OaklandColiseum/OAK and Richmond stations. San Joaquins connect only at Richmond and the other standard gauge services don’t connect at all. With some track work, the San Joaquins could have an intermodal station with BART in North Concord now that the Navy has returned the inland portion of the old Naval Weapons Station to the city. However, planners there appear to see no value in an intermodal station and appear to have settled on a TOD concept served by BART alone. That means the questionable eBART project to extend service to Antioch – using new DMU equipment rather than regular BART rolling stock – remains alive and kicking.

Amtrak via new Nelson Mandela Station

In particular, the OKJ station is served by a grand total of just two AC Transit bus lines, with a few more stopping 1/4 mile further west. For a city of 400,000 that is also at the geographic heart of the BART system, OKJ isn’t an effective Central Station for standard gauge rail. Unfortunately, running tracks right into downtown (near 12th/Broadway) would require many miles of expensive tunneling.

Fortunately, there may be a more affordable compromise: a shortcut between Emeryville and Jack London Square via Nelson Mandela Parkway. That is a city street, so the alignment would have to run in a mostly covered trench. It has also been lovingly landscaped, something that might have to be re-done at the end of construction. The prize, however, may well be worth it: an intermodal station with West Oakland BART, just one stop from downtown Oakland and downtown SF. In addition better connections into Oakland, the point of the exercise would be to reduce line haul time between SFO, downtown SF, Sacramento and Truckee (in Winter), thus relieving pressure on I-80.

View Larger Map

While not exactly a Central Station in the traditional sense, the West Oakland location could act as a regional transfer hub. The station is currently served by three AC Transit bus lines, more could conceivably be added. There are also plenty of empty lots in the area that could support parking or taxi service if there is demand.

The biggest obstacle to construction, other than funding, would be the UPRR yard next to I-880 and 3rd Street. Passenger trains are not permitted in freight rail yards, so the alignment would have to skirt the terrain while rising back up to grade level. A couple of industrial businesses, one of which looks like a cardboard recycling center, might be affected by eminent domain as a result. Note the single track connector hugging I-880: it would only be used by southbound trains that need to return to Emeryville. There is not enough room for a dual-track loop, nor is one needed. Note that a new “Nelson Mandela” station might prompt Amtrak to reduce service to Jack London Square.

Amtrak CC: WiFi on Board

Like Caltrain before it, Amtrak Capitol Corridor recently conducted a WiFi on Board trial based on terrestrial WiMAX connections to the fixed infrastructure. The service proved much more popular than Amtrak California had bargained for. Nevertheless, the plan is to upgrade bandwidth capacity and still offer it at no charge – something that would be easy enough to do: just print a one-time password good for 2 hours on the ticket. The rationale is evidently that courtesy internet access will help boost seat capacity utilization. Stay tuned.

ACE via Union City BART

Further south, there is scope for an intermodal station with BART in Union City. There is a little-used single-track freight spur running from Industrial Parkway to Niles via Van Euw Common, right alongside the elevated BART tracks. SMCTA had already identified this possibility in the context of plans for limited commuter service across the 100-year old Dumbarton rail bridge, but this has been postponed by the suspicious 1998 fire that destroyed the western trestle and, by the need to repay a $145 million loan from the BART extension to Fremont Warm Springs that San Mateo county had to take out to pay for cost overruns related to the extension to Millbrae/SFO. Some $54 million is still outstanding, the project time line keeps slipping.

However, one opportunity appears to have been overlooked in this context: with some additional track work and trackage rights, the existing ACE service could in theory make a detour via this anyhow planned intermodal station with BART in Union City, cut over to Union Landing (I-880/Whipple Rd) and back down to Newark, as shown in green on on the map below. In addition to the BART intermodal, there would be two new stations to improve transit options for the army of Silicon Valley worker bees that sleeps in the East Bay. Like the Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains, this modified ACE route would still include a stop at Great America in the heart of the “Golden Triangle” bordered by CA-237, I-880 and US-101. BART does not and will not reach that destination.

View Larger Map

ACE to SF via Niles Canyon north slope

Shown in red on the map is the option of a new ACE service direct to additional Silicon Valley employers, Millbrae/SFO and SF 4th & King. In addition to a little bit of access track work north of Sunol and in San Jose, this would involve trackage rights from UPRR or NCRY (whichever now owns the old SP ROW along the north slope of Niles Canyon) plus trackage rights from UPRR along the Milpitas line. At the wye in San Jose, trains would head north up to San Francisco via the Caltrain ROW, in baby bullet mode. That would require trackage rights from PCJPB plus permission from UPRR, which still owns the rights to intercity passenger service on the SF peninsula. One option would be for ACE to accept Caltrain tickets on the peninsula and deduct their value from the trackage fees.

The Milpitas Line is little-used south of 101 but represents a valuable back-up route in case the Alviso line through the salt marshes ever becomes unavailable, e.g. because of an earthquake. However, any passenger rail service on this line south of 101 should implement FRA quiet zone regulations first. Of course, if and when the Dumbarton rail bridge re-opens, there could be scope for further improvements to ACE.

The bigger issues may be in Pleasanton, Livermore and especially, in Altamont Pass itself. Single tracking and slow freight trains mean ACE is at the mercy of UPRR as it tries to stick to its schedule, though it has earned high marks for punctuality recently. That said, the service does take 2h10m to cover 86 miles – not exactly a high speed train.

More detailed studies will be required to decide which is preferable, but my hunch is that the 150-year railroad ROW might actually be the easier of the two options, as existing plumbing, gas, telephone and utility lines will at least be documented more accurately and may anyhow run deeper to avoid vibration damage.

Before I delve into the gory details, allow me me clarify a few things up front:

1. The suggestion described below is my own, it does not come from CHSRA nor their consultants for this segment (HNTB). My objective is to discover what is and what is not acceptable to residents of the mid-peninsula towns of Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View. No sleight is intended to residents of other peninsula towns, that’s simply the geographic scope I selected to illustrate the concept.

2. I’ve assumed that CHSRA will win the pending court case regarding the EIR/EIS process and, that it will secure the ROW to Gilroy needed to implement its preferred route (as in: not mine).
3. Implementing this would be a good deal more expensive than the original proposal of a retained fill embankment. The funding gap would need to be quantified and appropriate financing negotiated. CHSRA is having enough difficulty scraping together the ~$33 billion it has already estimated for the starter line. That means any solution that goes well above-and-beyond would require that cities tax themselves and/or rustle up other funds not already available to CHSRA.

   It’s also worth looking HSR implementation (pls zoom in) in the peninsula as a whole. For example, it’s not immediately obvious why CHSRA is proposing a tunnel between San Tomas Expy and San Jose Diridon station, so local officials should ask for an explanation and request an alternative if appropriate. This may involve co-operation and cor-ordination with other peninsula communities and multiple railroads, but that should not preclude an attempt at overall optimization. Even if that succeeds, there still has to be some element that will keep every town and hamlet along the route from seeking upgrades or else, cost escalations will sink the entire HSR project very quickly indeed. That’s not an acceptable strategy for mid-peninsula cities to pursue.

4. Unfortunately, HSR construction will be a noisy, messy affair pretty much regardless of which option is chosen. It may be possible to phase construction such that there are always two tracks available for Caltrain and heavy freight trains. However, the work might proceed faster and at lower cost if the old single-track Dumbarton rail bridge were restored first so UPRR’s Mission Bay Hauler trains could be diverted, perhaps permanently. This would be at their option, since they have a limited easement on the Caltrain ROW – even a say in who else gets to use it! During critical periods in the construction schedule, Caltrain could maintain some limited SF-SJ service via temporary trackage rights on UPRR’s Alviso line and also offer temporary bus services via Central Expressway/Alma/El Camino Real.

   Considering its western trestle and approach burnt to a crisp in a suspicious fire in 1998, restoring this 100-year-old bridge would be a marginal proposition at best (and one CHSRA has not budgeted for). After HSR construction, a restored bridge could support UPRR, a few Caltrains across to Union City, perhaps even a new ACE service up to SF – figure around half a dozen trains each way per day. Note that replacing the bridge with a new dual-track causeway with bascule sections would be preferable for seismic and fire safety alone, even if it is only ever used for a limited volume of freight and commuter rail/Amtrak. Basically, the decision hinges on how much construction near and rail traffic through the DENWR (founded in 1974) will be permitted at all.

   Sadly, the idea of running dozens of HSR trains through there at grade each and every day is almost certainly a non-starter. If the Altamont HST/commuter overlay ever gets built, CHSRA’s plan is to run regional high speed trains down to SJ Diridon, not across Dumbarton and up to SF. This is why – for better or worse – I’m sticking with plan A here and trying to contribute to the process of finding an acceptable solution.

The Enclosure

In a nutshell, what I’m suggesting here for the mid-peninsula is to build an enclosure for all four tracks to minimize visual clutter from the overhead catenary system and especially, to keep bow wave and noise emissions isues to a minimum – even for trains moving at 125mph. At grade, the enclosure would be composed of two sides and a lid. The outside width of the enclosure would be 75 feet.

To conform to AAR specifications for tunnels, the sides would be 18′ tall and then continue up along an arc. The definition of where the sides end and the lid begins is up to the architect. They would consist of a slender latticework of steel I-beams encased in concrete for protection against rust and fire, rather than conventional rebar.

The spaces in-between would be filled with large soundproof glass panes (possibly sandwich structures), probably triangular with rounded corners. These would be embedded in the latticework using a visco-elastic putty/dense foam interface to minimize stresses in the glass membrane in response to temperature, wind and earthquake loads. An example of how large glass panes can be supported securely yet flexibly is the mile-long terminal building at Kansai Airport near Kobe (Japan), which has withstood subsidence, typhoons and a major earthquake without damage to its glass skin.

However, the use of large glass panes would preclude the use of regular ballast, as small pebbles propelled by the aerodynamic forces of passing trains could damage them. The rails, too, can be damaged by ballast pitting. Instead, the concrete sleepers would be attached directly to a concrete foundation slab. A promising new Japanese approach based on ballast bags filled with a special non-toxic aggregate made from recycled materials could be applied to dampen rail-wheel noise beyond what the enclosure alone would achieve. Damping is most effective for medium and high frequencies, but those are the ones that the human ear is more sensitive to.

The idea is to create an airy, largely transparent structure with rounded edges along the top. This should massively reduce the claustrophic effect a tall solid embankment can have, something even an interesting surface texture cannot fully overcome. Thanks to the large glass panes, the result would be more like a giant version of what the French call a vitrine, showcasing products at a store or artifacts in a museum. Both metaphors seem apt, considering that passenger trains played such a vital part in the state’s past and will do again soon. Peering through the glass, you would be able to see the trains passing but should hear no more than a quiet low rumble. That’s because the lid eliminates virtually all direct transmission paths through the air, much like closing a door will greatly reduce noise coming from an adjacent room. The visco-elastic putty will permit the glass panes to move and even flex slightly in response to the bow waves of passing trains, lending the whole structure the grace of a subtle kinetic sculpture.

The lid would implement the circular arcs required by AAR for the walls of the outside tracks (used for HSR?) plus the relatively flat center section in-between. However, since the Caltrain/HSR tracks will need a couple of feet of additional vertical clearance anyhow, the wide span of the structure could perhaps be supported as a vaulted ceiling, completely eliminating the visual clutter of internal columns.

One stunning example of this concept is found at Santiago Calatrava‘s beautiful Satolas TGV station, located next to the regional airport in Lyon, France.

Ironically, the very success of the TGV service ended up depriving the airport of customers for domestic flights. Note that the Satolas station is much wider and taller than what I am suggesting for the mid-peninsula and, that its sides are open to the elements. Nevertheless, I hope the comparison gives you a sense of what a skilled civil engineer-cum-architect can accomplish. That said, pulling off a vaulted ceiling 75′ wide would be a bit of a challenge in earthquake country.

The underside of the lid would be used to suspend the overhead catenary system or perhaps, space-saving overhead conductor rails from Switzerland that support speeds of up to 150mph, certainly good enough for Caltrain/UPRR use. There would be no need for the usual catenary poles.

In spite of the slender latticework, the rounded edges, the vaulted ceiling and the glass panes, the enclosure concept still implies a large above-ground structure, roughly 75 feet wide, ~28 feet tall in the center and literally thousands of feet long. Inevitably, it would dominate its surroundings, so it’s not appropriate in all locations. As indicated above, it would also cost a pretty penny. Unfortunately, selling air rights above it to developers wouldn’t be a viable option.

The Linear Park

That is why I’m suggesting that the upper side of the lid be leveraged for an elevated linear park serving the community, with the objective of boosting – rather than blighting – the values of nearby properties. Many options exist: if the edges of the enclosure are curved as suggested above, the park could be confined to the central portion of the ROW or feature cantilevered outriggers or both, to suit local requirements.

Many linear parks already exist, e.g. the new Highline in New York and the Promenade Plantée in Paris:

Both of these leverage abandoned elevated railroad rights of way, rather than the space above active tracks. However, Seattle’s Freeway Park, Sam Smith Park and the Lid Park on Mercer Island (WA) are all built on top of major active transportation arteries. More recently, President Sarkozy of France has invited suggestions for yet another expensive grand makeover for that country’s capital. Richard Rogers’ entry would create park spaces above active railroad tracks and yards, though the scope of that is far more ambitious than what I’m proposing here.

In addition to safety railings, there might be value in installing bowers and pergolas to support climbing plants that provide shade and provide some formal structure at a human scale, cp. the Promenade Plantée video above.

Load restrictions at existing road underpasses may force architects to narrow the linear park to just a foot/bike bridge across a lightweight lid section that could be an architectural flourish or a more delicate feature spanning a (very) shallow pond or trompe-l’œil mural.

Trench Sections

In some parts of the alignment, the most appropriate solution may be to force the tracks to descend into a deep trench so they can pass under existing cross streets, to avoid vehicle access impacts to buildings along the first block to either side and/or intersections with frontage roads. Such constraints are more common where residential properties directly abut the Caltrain ROW. Note that trench walls require a certain thickness but that the lid structure would serve as a buttress. Engineers will have to work hard to fit it all into just 75 feet of width, but it ought to be possible.

The enclosure and the linear park above it would follow the elevation change of the tracks. Obviously, the latticework side walls would be replaced with solid concrete below grade level. In these trench sections, the park would actually run 2-3′ above grade to support lush vegetation, e.g. using recycled water. The sides would be retained with heavy wooden beams or else sloped as a 2:1 embankment. Either way a suitable fence and/or hedge would be indicate the property line, that’s a detail to be resolved at a later stage. Because edges of the lid would still curve down to the sides, there would be plenty of soil to support large shrubs and small to medium-sized trees. Bike and pedestrian paths would slope down toward cross streets unless traffic planners, civil engineers and landscapers decide that very low hump bridges would be preferable, e.g. to reduce excavation depth. Playgrounds, fitness parcours or (lightweight) outdoor sculptures might be appropriate in one location, perhaps a serene Japanese pagoda with water features and a rock garden in another. Again, plenty of scope for customization at the city or neighborhood level.

Optionally, tall graceful arches could be installed in some of these sections of the park to provide a visual frame of reference, support wire trellises and/or enhance outdoor lighting.

Ventilation

Along the entire length of the structure, there will be a need for ventilation funnels at regular intervals. These should be shaped to direct sound upward and feature a grate/net to prevent objects from falling in (or being lobbed in). If any train operator insists on running diesel locomotives through the structure, the funnels should feature quiet fans. Note that extremely strict EPA Tier 4 emissions regulations will be in force by 2015, these should be used in this enclosed structure.

Track Elevation Transitions

Here is where things get a little technical, feel free to fast forward to the next section if you’re not so inclined.

The following map shows which sections of the Caltrain ROW I would recommend be left at grade (blue) and which might best be put in a deep trench (red). The green sections represent elevation changes. In cross-section, these S-ramps consist of vertical arc segments, typically connected by a straight slope segment. Note that these transitions are not identical for the Caltrain/UPRR and the HSR tracks. Freight trains are limited to slopes of 2.2%, whereas HSR trains can negotiate 3.5%. On the other hand, Swedish and German design guidelines recommend vertical curve radii of 6400m and 10000m, respectively, at 125mph. Tighter curves can be used at lower speeds.

Note that some of the existing road underpasses may have been designed for just two tracks, just like those up in San Carlos. The bridges for the additional tracks on either side may therefore have to be elevated a little to maintain vertical clearances for tall road vehicles. I’ve allowed up to 2′ difference in elevation at these points, which should be plenty. The upshot is that the inside and outside tracks would run at different elevations in a number of locations, limiting where the extra-long turnouts for baby bullet operation at 90mph could be placed.

The minimum vertical clearances are spelled out here: 24’3″ for the Caltrain/UPRR tracks and 22’6″ for the HSR tracks. Note that there is no need for an additional 1’3″ electrical clearance in this case as the HSR tracks are not ever supposed to be used for AAR plate H freight cars. I assumed an additional 4′ would be needed for the support structures of the short (75′) road bridges at rail underpasses, with the additional option of support columns if fully-loaded 18-wheelers (80,000lbs GVWR) are to be permitted.

The Google Map

I’ve crunched the numbers in a spreadsheet, without any spiral easements in this first cut. The whole thing has ended up resembling a very gentle rollercoaster.

View Larger Map

Churchill Avenue: Rail Underpass

Only between Embarcadero (an existing road underpass) and Churchill Ave (which should ideally remain at grade) in Palo Alto is the transition a really tight fit. Caltrain would remain limited to 79mph at that one location, which is not a problem since all of its trains stop at University Ave anyway. HSR trains could run at 125mph (Swedish rules) or have to slow down to 103mph (German rules) – the difference stems from the passenger comfort thresholds maintained by these national railroads, rather than safety considerations.

Palo Alto Avenue: Road Underpass, Chicane

The Palo Alto Ave (Alma St) grade crossing is located between San Francisquito creek and the University Avenue Caltrain Station. Since both of those needs to be negotiated at grade, a deep road underpass is unavoidable in the context of this scenario. Given the proximity to the delicate root system of the venerable El Palo Alto coastal redwood tree, moving the road crossing south a little bit might be worth considering. That might also mitigate the impact on the connection for the eastern part of Palo Alto Ave. The 100-year-old railroad bridge across the creek should be replaced for safety reasons. Its replacement should support four tracks at grade and be located further from the tree, to protect its roots during construction. Worst case, the tracks could run on a low viaduct (1-2′) to avoid exerting any pressure on the root system at all. The resulting crawl space could be filled up with loose earth if desired.

A fringe benefit of moving the tracks will be that the curve radii at the north end of the Palo Alto chicane will be eased somewhat. Doing so at the south end would also be appropriate, if the land can be obtained at reasonable cost. Easing the chicane would avoid a much more intrusive rectification of the Alma/University grade separation. Leaving the chicane in place would force express trains to slow to about 85mph, adding a full minute to their SF-SJ line haul time. If CHSRA selects Palo Alto University Avenue for the mid-peninsula HSR station, at least one straight 400m (1/4 mile) platform will be required, forcing a more significant redesign of the alignment. Both Redwood City and Mountain View are viable alternatives.

Honorable Mentions

In several locations, creeks and storm drains would have to be diverted underneath the tracks. In at least the latter case, regular cleaning would be required to prevent a build-up of debris and a risk of local flooding on the upstream side.

From north to south:

• in Redwood City, the section between Woodside Rd and 5th Ave should remain at grade on account of the existing grade separations, the Dumbarton wye and the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct that provides the peninsula with drinking water.
• in virtually all of Atherton and Menlo Park, the tracks would run in a deep trench, an implementation both cities requested of CHSRA.
• in north Palo Alto, tracks would run at grade everywhere except for the rail underpass at Churchill. This may or may not avoid conflicts with a toxic plume and an emergency aquifer, I’m not sure where they are located exactly.
• in south Palo Alto, both E Meadow and Churchill would remain at grade.
• San Antonio Caltrain station would still be at grade as well, but HSR tracks there would have to run underneath the Caltrain platform(s), as both the ROW and the San Antonio overpass are too narrow to support four tracks plus two platforms. That means a pedestrian overpass will be needed to reach the platform(s) – not much of an eyesore considering it will be right next to the road overpass. Also, the enclosure could be narrower between Charleston and Rengstorff, since only two of the four track would rise back to grade level. That would leave scope for bike/pedestrian paths, trees or elongated shallow water features at grade level, with spectacular lighting effects.
• in Mountain View, Castro Street and VTA light rail tracks mean that Caltrain/UPRR and HSR will need to run in a trench. Rengstorff Ave is a poor candidate for a road underpass, so the caltrain/UPRR tracks would remain underground for a total of ~2.2 miles. HSR tracks would run in a deep trench all the way from E Meadow to just north of 237.

HSR station in Mountain View?

The anyhow needed long trench in Mountain View would open up the possibility of an underground HSR/Caltrain station there. The city has recently requested that CHSRA study the possibility. IMHO, it might actually be a lot easier to put one there than at University Ave in Palo Alto. The Arroyo del Agua creeks would make an elevated alignment preferable in Redwood City, so an HSR station there would dominate the skyline.

In Mountain View, the Caltrain ROW could be widened underneath Central Expressway, with temporary lane closures during the construction period. Platforms would be reached via not one but three pedestrian underpasses, on account of the 1/4 mile HSR platforms. These would be two levels down, connecting West Evelyn to Willowgate. In the long run, the greatly enhanced property values on the far side of Central Expressway might merit rezoning for mid-to-high-rise mixed-use developments. Bike grooves next to stairs are always highly recommended in pedestrian underpass designs.

VTA light rail would remain at grade but be upgraded to dual tracks, with the option to extend service out to Rengstorff. This would be at the expense of the linear park feature but serve the senior center and create some room for overnight parking. A new line from Mountain View to Alum Rock would be possible, as would stairs/elevators from either Caltrain or HSR directly to the VTA platform(s).

In addition, a new streetcar loop service based on ultra-low floor (ULF) rolling stock could connect the downtown area (popular lunch destination, candidate for a small pedestrian zone?) to Shoreline business park/amphitheater with a yard east of Crittenden Lane. If the VTA line is extended, tracks for the two services would cross at right angles on Castro Street.

Most buses could continue to stop at W Evelyn, though city traffic planners could leverage the pedestrian underpasses to make auxiliary stops on the far side of Central Expressway (Willowgate, Moffett) potentially viable. A southbound bus lane from Rengstorff to just past the VTA turnoff on top of the tracks could also help avoid congesting in the downtown area.

Vitrine Entrance/Exit

Given the no doubt hefty premium an enclosure/trenching and a linear park would command, it’s very likely that some peninsula cities will choose an uglier but cheaper option for HSR implementation, e.g. a Japanese-style viaduct with sound walls. However, the transition from open to enclosed track sections will be much like a tunnel entrance and should therefore be sloped and beveled to minimize any impact on the lateral stability of the trains and tunnel boom. The following example illustrates the residual effect at 186mph. Please note that all of the sounds you will hear would be less pronounced at the lower top speeds (90-125mph) applicable to the peninsula.