• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BayRail Alliance http://www.bayrailalliance.org No. 2004-2 September-November 2004 Editorial: New Caltrain 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.

Load more

  6

Copy Link