BayRail Alliance

http://www.bayrailalliance.org No. 2004-2 September-November 2004

Editorial: New Battle for Transbay Terminal Schedule Doesn’t Benefit All...2 Speed Up Your Caltrain Trip...... 3 VTA PR Plan Won’t Deliver...... 4 Caltrain Extension continues Board Elections...... 4 Caltrain and Bikes ...... 4 The fight for the Transbay Terminal Myers refused an offer of more than Monterey County Rail Plans...... 5 Project (TBTP) is by no means com- $32 million (fair market value) by the County Transportation Authority plete. We are still working hard to en- TJPA for the vacant land as well as of- (SFCTA) that proposed an “engineer- sure that the future underground tracks fers to find another suitable location to ing solution” to accommodate both for the Caltrain Downtown Extension construct his building. He is demand- projects. It calls for excavating the site, (DTX) to the new Transbay Terminal ing $175 million for the parcel — $143 installing engineered fill to replace the (TBT) are not blocked by a high-rise million over fair market value! He has unstable mud fill, building the 80 condominium tower that a private de- also refused to work with the TJPA to Natoma tower, and then later tunneling veloper, Jack Myers, plans to build on design his building in tandem with the under it removing over 80% of its foun- a vacant plot of land at 80 Natoma DTX tunnel to ensure that it could be dation on one side to build Caltrain Street in San Francisco. built without affecting the structural in- tegrity of his building. The SF Bay DTX. The TA claims this will save ten The Transbay Project’s draft environ- Guardian wrote of Myers, “I saw the million over the cost of exercising emi- mental impact statement and report face of greed — real, ugly, unadulter- nent domain and buying the property at (EIR) was approved by the Transbay ated greed.” fair-market value. Engineering experts, Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) and including the tunneling consultant for San Francisco Board of Supervisors Supervisor Chris Daly introduced a Muni’s Central Subway project, testi- in April. The EIR is available at http:// resolution asking the SF Board of Su- fied that the SFCTA proposal is un- sfgov.org/site/tjpa_page.asp?id= pervisors to ac- 23586. quire the prop- erty at fair mar- Work at the 80 Natoma site was halted ket value through in June by the San Francisco Depart- eminent domain. ment of Building Inspection over new Unfortunately the concerns that the structural integrity of city, for whatever neighboring buildings and sewage lines reasons, has would be compromised. Myers sued taken a number the City, asking the Superior Court to of actions to de- lift the work ban. On August 12, the lay the TBTP court rejected Myers’ motion. The SF that have Building Inspection Commission will worked in consider Myers’ appeal to lift the stop Myers’ favor. work order on September 20, pend- ing an opinion from the City Attorney’s On August 10, office on whether Prop H requires them the SF Board of to halt construction that may interfere Supervisors re- with the Caltrain Downtown Extension. ceived a report from the SF Page 2 September-November 2004 workable and should be rejected out- called Myers to inform him of their “as- – Thank Senator Burton and right. sessment report” on their “solution” Assemblymember Yee for their contin- before they bothered to inform the ued support of the Terminal project. The purported SFCTA “solution” is a TJPA.) complete disaster in its geotechnical, – Especially, thank Chris Daly and engineering, construction, logistical, The Supervisors also voted to delay Bevan Dufty for all their help. They con- safety, insurability, legal and economic consideration of condemnation of the tinue to be great supporters of the aspects. Insurance agencies are unlikely property, and voted against allocating TBTP. to underwrite the tunneling under the money to the TJPA to allow it to com- Contact information for the supervisors: tower as its structural integrity would mence preliminary engineering for the http://sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp be at great risk. If this ridiculous pro- TBTP. Supervisors Chris Daly, Bevan posal is enacted, it will become impos- Dufty, and Tom Ammiano voted with For more information, see: sible to build the DTX. That would spell us, except for the final vote where the end of the entire Transbay Terminal Ammiano joined the rest of his col- http://bayrailalliance.org/caltrain/dtx/ Project, because without DTX, the new leagues. All of the others, including index.html bus facility would not be built and the McGoldrick, Sandoval, Gonzalez, www.sfcta.org/TBTDraftReport.htm massive redevelopment, including the Maxwell, Alioto, Ma, Elsbernd, and Peskin voted in a way that favored the construction of more than 3,000 afford- http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/tjpa/ developer, Myers. The delay in con- able housing units, would not take Tech-Report.pdf place. demning the property, creates increased costs for the city and endangers the The Transbay Terminal is essential for On August 13, the Transbay Joint Pow- TBTP, contrary to the will of the voters future statewide high-speed rail and the ers Authority (TJPA) board met to con- and Prop H. integration of our regional public transit sider “Urging the San Francisco Board into a convenient downtown hub. Don’t A letter signed by nine members of the of Supervisors to initiate eminent do- let greedy private developers sabotage state Assembly demands that the Board main proceedings to acquire Block this project. 3721, Lots 045A, 046, 053, and 054, support the TJPA condemnation efforts. parcels This letter was signed by John Burton, Editorial Don Perata, Assembly Speaker Fabian On August 17, the SF Board of Super- Nunez, as well as Jackie Speier, Tom visors, sitting as the SFCTA, reviewed Torlakson, Byron Sher, Liz Figeroa, New Caltrain the SFCTA’s proposed “solution” to the Leland Yee and John Dutra. conflict between the 80 Natoma and schedule doesn’t Action needed Caltrain DTX projects. benefit everyone Unfortunately, SFCTA voted to give its We have a chance to get the board of staff up to $10 million to spend during supervisors to vote for condemnation Since Caltrain’s new schedule with the next 30 days to further investigate on Sept 21 but we have to keep the Baby Bullet service went into effect in a conceptual engineering “solution” pressure on. Here’s what you can do: June, my daily Caltrain commute from These SFCTA actions are illegal. Un- – Several of the Supervisors are up for Foster City (via Hayward Park) to Sili- der Proposition K, the TJPA is desig- election, including McGoldrick and con Valley (at Lawrence) takes 30 min- nated as the lead agency, not the Sandoval. These two were not support- utes longer. Fewer trains stop now at SFCTA, which cannot appropriate ive of our efforts on August 17. If your Hayward Park, and those that do — funds to itself for this preposterous “so- supervisor is McGoldrick, Sandoval, mostly locals — are at less convenient lution” project. In addition, state law Gonzalez, Maxwell, Alioto, Ma, times than before June. The most con- places jurisdiction for the Transbay Ter- Elsbernd, or Peskin, please contact him venient train in the evening from minal Project with the TJPA, and the or her and express your dismay at their Lawrence to Hayward Park now waits SFCTA action violates that law. (Add- votes, and urge them to support con- there 5 minutes for a Bay Bullet to pass, ing insult to injury, SFCTA had even demnation of the 80 Natoma property and then makes one more stop than on Sept. 21. before. cont’d p. 3 Page 3 September-November 2004 My employer has added time to the than from Hayward Park, even though commute by providing fewer shuttles Hillsdale is closer. And Hillsdale is far Speed Up Your between Lawrence and its campuses, more crowded. Parking there can be and now puts my campus at the end of problematic. Caltrain Trip the shuttle route rather than at the be- ginning, as before the new Caltrain I’ve examined every possible way to Get additional frequencies and a schedule. take advantage of Baby Bullets but faster trip on Caltrain by “doubling there is simply no way I can utilize them back” Before June 5, I could leave the house without long waits to get to Lawrence at 7:10 am, and be at my desk in an from Palo Alto, Mountain View, or New Baby Bullet schedule got you hour. back-tracking from San Jose. Doing so down? Upset that your local service only makes the commute time even isn’t as good as it was? Board member Since June 5, with the new train and longer. Andy Chow has put together a guide shuttle schedules, it takes one-and-a- that may help with some of your trips. half hours. I hear many similar complaints from Sili- con Valley folks, most of whom use By taking trains backwards from your The wait at Lawrence Expressway is Lawrence. Caltrain needs some sched- destination to a higher-ridership station, annoying because of noise and exhaust ule revisions to better serve non-Baby passengers can receive a more frequent from both north- and southbound trains Bullet users. and sometimes faster service. Andy’s which hold under the bridge waiting for customized timetables provide informa- Baby Bullets to zip through in both di- Ryan Hoover, Editor tion on when and where to double- rections, sometimes with horns blaring. back to reduce your wait time and I’ve started using earplugs during that PS – I have customized the new speed up your trip. 16-minute wait. Caltrain schedule in Excel so that all trains listed for each stop are in the cor- Check it out at:

Sometimes I use Hillsdale, but it takes rect chronological order. Contact me — www.netjournal.homestead.com/ me longer to get to and from my home Ryan Hoover — for a copy. files/transit/doubleback.htm YES! I support improving Caltrain and Regional Transit! ; 2004−2 I support BayRail Alliance’s efforts to promote a regional transit system by upgrading Caltrain and extending it to downtown San Francisco, improving connections between buses, trains, and other transit modes, and establishing a High Speed Rail system connecting the Bay Area and Southern . I am enclosing a contribution to help fund BayRail Alliance’s programs.

___ $35 Regular ___ $50 Sponsor ___ $100 Patron New member

___ $250 President’s Club ___ $ ______Other ___ $15 Student/low income Renewal of membership

We are supported entirely by member contributions. Voting memberships start at $15 or $35, as applicable. As we engage in lobbying, dues are not tax-deductible at this time. I can help by: Calling or writing local public Name: ______officials when you tell me about important transportation issues. Address: ______Volunteering two hours a month City: ______State: ______Zip: ______(or more)

Phone (Day): ______Phone (Evening): ______Mail to the address listed on the back, or contact us toll free at: Email: ______(866) 267-8024 Page 4 September-November 2004

The following letter to the editor was sultants connected with the financially- submitted to the San Jose Mercury challenged BART project? VTA’s bus BayRail Alliance News. They didn’t publish it, so we service cuts and steep fare hikes save thought we’d publish it here. less money that what’s proposed to be Board Elections spent on this contract while causing VTA It’s that time of year again. We are to lose riders. VTA PR campaign seeking a few good people for our No amount of PR can hide the fact board, to serve 2-year terms. Board won’t deliver the 2000 Measure A campaign badly members set policy for the organization misled voters. According to numbers and are responsible for our Thanks to the Mercury News for un- released last month, even a *third* organization’s health. Because we are covering the Santa Clara Valley Trans- half cent tax won’t allow VTA to a volunteer-run organization, you will be portation Authority’s (VTA’s) plan to deliver all Measure A promises by expected to assist in our operations as award public funds to politically-con- 2036. well as governance. nected buddies (September 2, page 1A). Clearly, this contract needs more We especially are seeking board mem- A PR campaign for another tax to vetting. It was put on the board’s con- bers with business, financial or account- build projects that VTA can’t afford sent calendar, with details kept secret. ing expertise. However, potential board to operate, won’t restore public The sums are large compared to what members need only have an interest in confidence. Instead, VTA should use consultants typically charge for market- furthering our rail/transit advocacy and existing resources to provide rapid ing and public outreach work. the ability to devote time and effort to bus with affordable fares among other their duties. If you are interested in serv- simple improvements to attract riders, If a major goal of this PR campaign by ing on our board, please contact Mar- just as Caltrain has done with its Baby VTA is to increase public transit rider- garet Okuzumi by e-mailing Bullet trains. ship, why is the money going to Wash- [email protected]. ington lobbyists, a polling firm, and con- -Margaret Okuzumi city/county of San Francisco. They As far as we see it, the way to solve Caltrain and Bikes have contributed basically the same the problem is to 1) improve bike amount of money to Caltrain for the storage facilities at all stations, 2) past four years. In order to be able increase on-board bike capacity and Limited bike capacity of the new to run the new Baby Bullet trains with 3) increase frequency of train service. Baby Bullet trains has spurred many no budget increase in these tough cyclists to write angry letters and economic times, Caltrain squeezed All of those things require money. We petitions. While riders were savings from many places, including, just told you that Caltrain’s budget forewarned about the limited capacity unfortunately, local service. Last was a nail-biter. We’ve long ago, we’re sympathetic to these May, the Peninsula Corridor Joint communicated with Caltrain staff and concerns, and have some comments. Powers Board approved a very tight they’re well aware that bicycle budget that barely allowed Caltrain to capacity is an issue. The speedy new trains have been run any Baby Bullet service at all, very popular. The new service has crossing their fingers that increased So what to do? Caltrain staff can’t saved many riders a lot of time and ridership and revenues would save the tell you who to lobby, but we can. has boosted Caltrain’s image and day. Fortunately, that’s been the case Here are our suggestions: appeal. Significantly, the Baby Bullets so far. have reversed a two-year trend of - Lobby VTA, SamTrans, and the declining ridership, even as VTA, for Caltrain recently posted an FAQ city/county of San Francisco. example, continues to lose riders. about the bike capacity situation on Send letters to their board of their website, at directors (or to the SF Board of Three entities contribute to Caltrain http://www.caltrain.com/ Supervisors in the case of San operations, VTA, SamTrans, and the caltrain_bike_FAQs.html cont’d p. 6 Page 5 September-November 2004

7. Overlay intercity rail ser- Monterey County layover facility, parking garage, and bus vice to the Monterey Peninsula onto 6. transit center to the . Rail Plans 8. Add no new rail service but run bus Monterey Peninsula proposals service to points north from , Salinas and other communities assum- The Transportation Agency for For the Monterey Peninsula service ing certain highway improvements are Monterey County (TAMC) is creating project, TAMC purchased the made. an Alternatives Analysis for the , extending from Cost and funding Monterey Branch Line to prepare for Castroville to Monterey, from Union an application for federal New Starts Pacific Railroad in September 2003 Total cost of the Caltrain extension is funds. The Monterey Branch is a sepa- using state Proposition 116 funds. The estimated to be $70.7 million. Net an- rate but related project to TAMC’s analysis for service on this line includes nual operating cost is projected to be plans for a Caltrain extension to Sali- eight alternatives and a no-build option: $0.7 million. TAMC hopes to fund the nas. Six of the eight alternatives for the Caltrain service with Federal New Monterey branch service assume a 1. Extend Caltrain to Salinas. Starts and state transportation funds, Caltrain extension to Salinas via Pajaro 2. Provide state-sponsored, limited “other agencies”, and a local half-cent and Castroville. Three alternatives as- stop Amtrak service to a station at the sales tax on the ballot in Monterey sume rail service to Salinas is a state- former Fort Ord. County in June 2005. If it passes, the funded California Amtrak intercity ser- 3. Extend Caltrain to Salinas and pro- tax, would provide $17.5 million for vice rather than a Caltrain extension. vide Caltrain branch service to Marina. extending Caltrain to Salinas and the 4 . Run a bus shuttle from Seaside, in Monterey Peninsula. Bus capital and In decades past, Monterey County had lieu of rail, connecting to Caltrain in operations would receive $28 million Southern Pacific’s Express, Castroville. from the tax, out of a total of $350 mil- a steam-powered train that ran be- 5. Run local rail or bus rapid transit lion expected to be collected. A local tween San Francisco and Pacific service along the Monterey branch to tax on this November’s ballot in Santa Grove. Currently, Monterey County is connect with Caltrain at Castroville. Cruz would provide $6 million for the served by Amtrak’s 6. Extend local rail or bus rapid transit Pajaro station.The Caltrain Salinas ex- and a Monterey-Salinas Transit bus service from Monterey to Salinas via tension also has a $1 million earmark in connection to Gilroy that meets Castroville in addition to extending Federal funds, $3 million from Prop Caltrain. Amtrak plans a future “Coast Caltrain to Salinas. 116, and $20 million from Traffic Con- Daylight” train between San Francisco gestion Relief Program funding. ### and Los Angeles. TAMC hopes to ex- pand Caltrain to Salinas, as well as pas- senger rail service to the Monterey Peninsula.

Caltrain extension to Monterey County project

TAMC plans two roundtrips/weekday for the Caltrain extension, increasing to four roundtrips in ten years. They ex- pect to attract 530,000 riders/year with a one-way fare of about $4.80. TAMC plans to complete the EIR for the Caltrain extension next year and to ac- quire the right-of-way in 2006.

They hope to begin service in 2009. They plan new stations in Pajaro and Castroville and propose to add a train Page 6 September-November 2004 Bikes, p. 4 CALENDAR OF EVENTS Francisco). Specifically, ask BayRail Alliance General Meeting Visit www.bayrailalliance.org for updates them to improve the bike capacity, bike storage facilities, Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) Meeting 1st Thursdays at 10:00am and frequency of Caltrain. Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 3rd Wednesdays at 6:00pm Complaining to these entities will Location for BayRail Alliance General Meetings and Caltrain JPB and ultimately be more productive CAC meetings: than yelling at Caltrain staff. SamTrans administrative offices, 2nd floor auditorium 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, - Contact city council members of one block west from San Carlos Caltrain station. the city that you live in. That’s a Meeting dates, topics, and locations are subject to change without notice. more indirect way of lobbying the For latest information: www.bayrailalliance.org. above agencies, but if you can get a city councilmember to be your Submissions: champion on this issue, it can go a long way toward influencing what

We welcome submissions via email. © 2004 BayRail Alliance, all rights reserved. these agencies do. Please include your name and phone - Be persistent. Change takes time. number, and send your submissions to Executive Editor: Ryan Hoover [email protected]. We especially en- Contributors & Copy Editors: Andy Chow, Folks who have been asking courage submissions that include infor- Michael Kincaid, Margaret Okuzumi, fellow riders to sign a petition mation on what interested readers can do Russell Reagan have the right idea—just make and any photographs or other graphics. sure that you’re targeting the right decisionmakers also. ###

BayRail Alliance Board of Directors: Andy Chow (Vice president) Postage Michael Graff Here Sylvia Gregory 3921 East Bayshore Rd. Michael Kincaid Patrick Moore Palo Alto, CA 94303 Margaret Okuzumi (Executive Director) e-mail: [email protected] Paul Wendt (Membership director) http://www.bayrailalliance.org

BayRail Alliance is a 20-year old, Forwarding and address correction requested all-volunteer, entirely member-supported transit group working to promote the creation of a modern rail network to serve the greater . BayRail is not affiliated with any rail or transit agency, contractor or vendor. Our goals include: converting Caltrain to electric propulsion; increasing Caltrain frequency to at least once every ten minutes at peak times and every half- hour at off-peak times; extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco and to the East Bay via the Dumbarton Rail Bridge; expanding the ACE and Amtrak Capitol Corridors; and building the proposed high speed rail line connecting the Bay Area and Southern California.