Elevated Concern

Local columnist John Horgan has a good take on the Broadway overpass-underpass-no pass discussion at the last Council meeting here.   The essence of his concern is

The Broadway Caltrain crossing is one of the most congested in the area. Enough funds are available to remedy the situation with something along the lines of the berms Caltrain has built at rail crossings in Belmont and San Carlos.

However, by declaring itself agreeable to this important change in its prior position, there is a danger that the council has opened the door to something similar south of Broadway. That concern was a key focus of the council's deliberations.

There were assurances that the city could have it both ways, that a raised structure at Broadway would not preclude more attractive, at-grade options south to Peninsula Avenue, and the border with San Mateo, in the downtown area.

Still, the city has lost a consistent argument, a firm stance, if you will.

I haven't watched that section of the meeting, but I trust John's take on it and thus am also concerned.  The one open question in my mind is the money--I'm not so sure "it's there" in practice, i.e. when you actually can get some general contractor to put in an official bid.

Comments

[jennifer]

I agree. Once that structure is up, there is a real concern that it will stay up; look at Belmont- they don't want their aerial alignment, but that is what they will be stuck with whether 2 or 4 tracks. There have been no assurances that this will remain a two track system on the Peninsula, and not grow to a 4 track one. It is all conjecture and empty promises.

Since there is likely only enough funding for one grade separation of the least expensive sort in San Mateo County, wouldn't it be ironic if the city of San Mateo, having agreed to passing tracks in exchange for grade separation, actually gets this funding, instead? Then we will be in quite a pickle, having shown our cards early, indicating deviation from Burlingame's longstanding opposition to an aerial structure.

[Poppy Guy]

Also, I thought a problem with having above grade going to grade or below grade was difficult to do in such a short distance. In other words, a train going at over 100mph can't easily track up and down elevation for grades above and below so quickly.

The city's acceptance of an above grade solution at Broadway seems like either a no-go from the start, or acceptance of more extensive raised option. I'll gladly take the no-go scenario...

[jennifer]

In the very early days of this debacle (about 3 years ago) the consultants working for HSR were considerably more forthright with information (probably the loose lips was not seen as an asset by those who had hired them). When they didn't know something, (which unfortunately was often) they said so. On occasion they'd get back to members of the public, though frequently did not, probably because there was so much that was unknown. As irritating as that was, with Caltrain joined at the hip with HSR, there is yet another layer to decipher. I do recall several instances at those first meetings, where HSR consultants said it was not possible for a high speed train (120 mph? 180 mph? not sure) to go up and down within short distances. I assume they said this because either it is not possible to engineer that way, or it is undesirable. Since the option to eventually run HSR through the Peninsula has not been (and likely, will not be) removed from the table, we should assume that they will be looking to design something that can also eventually accommodate higher speeds than Caltrain.

Another mystery is that many of us saw huge drilling devices taking samples around the station, presumably for soil testing or the like, to find out how realistic it would be to dig a trench or construct a tunnel. These were probably pretty expensive undertakings, but I'm not sure what was discovered or where this information was recorded.