The Burlingame Voice

Caltrain Electrification Starting to Slip Behind

For some reason, the SF Examiner lands in B'game driveways on Sundays.  Maybe that is when the progressive rag makes most of its money off of real estate ads so they need to bump up the print run.  This Sunday's edition highlighted that "Monitor warns of two-year Caltrain project delay" and then describes the back and forth between a federal monitor" and Caltrain about what constitutes a delay.  The project arrived in B'game about a year ago as noted here.  Here is a taste of the warning

“The overall progress of work is far behind the original schedule,” that oversight monitor warned. Foundation placement and the installation of the overhead electrical contact system are “far behind” initial projections, they wrote.  But the federal oversight monitor wrote in a June report, “The Electrification contractor’s most recent Schedule Update Narrative for May 2019 shows a Substantial Completion date of March 3, 2022, compared to the contractual date of August 10, 2020, which represents a further slippage.”

Caltrain, for its part, said it is firm that construction is on schedule for 2021, with trains expected to be running by 2022. That date is also a change — Caltrain’s program plan initially showed the electrification project’s “substantial completion” marked for August 2020, but Caltrain acknowledged in its own project report that this date has slipped to September 2021.  That project report is also not publicly available on Caltrain’s website, a break in common practice with other transit agencies, leading to concern from Caltrain officials. It is a public document.  Instead, the report was provided to the San Francisco Examiner by a source under the condition of anonymity and became the heated subject of discussion at the Caltrain board’s meeting Thursday.

My least favorite part of the piece was the opening teaser line:

Caltrain’s soon-to-come electrified trains may one day whisk commuters from the South Bay to San Francisco with BART-like frequency, easing congestion on freeways and bolstering the local economy.

I'll get into this more later, but suffice it to say the ONLY two ways we will ever see BART-like frequency from Caltrain is if high-speed rail never reaches the Peninsula or if the budget and land-takings go up dramatically to add "passing tracks".  There are some nice graphics from Caltrain-HSR reports that illustrate that.  Once I find them I will share them, but intuitively we know this to be true.  Imagine adding a local bus route around the Indy 500 brickyard track.  But Caltrain is stuck--the money for electrification comes from high-cost rail so they have to button-up and press on.  Here is the new wall in San Mateo at 25th Ave.-- no room for a passing track there.

The Ups and Downs of Caltrain

With the recent news about Caltrain, I have an opportunity to connect some dots - or at least try to connect some dots since they don't all fit very well.  First we have the news that Caltrain ridership is down again.  Mid-week ridership dropped for the sixth straight month and is down 2.3% this year compared to last year or down about 1500 boarding per week.  In Monday's Daily Post our County supe, Dave Pine, was quoted as saying overcrowding maybe one factor.  Sort of like Yogi Berra's old saw "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

Some other factors are a shortage of shuttle drivers for the last-mile connections to business parks and medical centers, the increase in pass prices, the wet winter, and according to Caltrain COO Michelle Bouchard "overall economic cooling"!  Doesn't feel cooler out there to me.  The second dot is the planning for capacity increases.  Last Friday, the Daily Journal had a piece that you might be able to link to here if you haven't used up your free allotment for the month.  The basic question is how many trains to add, how many stops to add with those additional trains and where might four tracks be needed to accommodate the increased frequency?  The transit agency has been studying three scenarios for growth - "moderate", "baseline" and "high".  High-growth equates to 2.5 to 3.25 times the recent mid-week ridership and would require more expresses and a local stopping every 15 minutes along the route--which in turn drives the need for four tracks.  You have to wonder how Caltrain would pull off even modest lengths of four-track given the new housing developments immediately next to the right of way?  We've seen it in San Mateo and San Carlos and there are more on the way.

The "moderate" scenario in Caltrain's 2040 vision would actually trim stops at the downtown San Mateo station from 70 to 58 while the baseline would drive 116 stops.  The high-growth would need 196 stops and a number of grade separations to keep from completely snarling car traffic on the Peninsula- including ambulance, police and fire trucks.  That's a lot of money that doesn't exist right now meaning that dot is hard to connect.  And of course we have the specter of High-cost Rail running on the Peninsula.  Money continues to be burned on high-speed rail planning even though there is no real plan to get through the mountains in either Northern or Southern California.  The current thinking is that no new passing tracks would be needed on the Peninsula for HSR, but the confluence of moving parts makes that a tenuous decision at best.  The hand-waving in today's Daily Journal piece was impressive.  I think it's safe to say neither the local cities nor the County nor the State have a clue how train service will accommodate the needs of growth on the Peninsula.  The dots are disconnected.

Broadway Overpass: A Long Way Away

One of the common questions I hear in town is "When are they going to fix the rest of Broadway?" meaning now that the bridge has been replaced, what about the rail crossing?  My standard response is "There isn't nearly enough money socked away to even start".  That is the bottom line of a piece in today's Daily Journal recapping the discussion at Council on Monday.  Here are my favorite tidbits, but do click through here to get all of the bits.

No decision was made at the meeting, as the issue was only discussed following a presentation from the county Transportation Authority, which allocates Measure A sales tax revenue for transit projects. The project is currently largely unfunded, and is expected to be completed by 2026, according to available financing.  Examining the rising cost of construction, Transportation Authority officials anticipate the price will jump by about 35% over the life of the project, amounting to about $40 million more than the proposed current cost by 2026.

Although it is apparently considered the most-needed project in all of Northern California.  Here's another gem

In a separate presentation, a Caltrain official said future service at Broadway will sap stops from the Burlingame station as well, as the proximity of the two stations will result in one train stop at either station every 30 minutes.

You mean like a real train service?  Discussion of Mike Brownrigg's idea of not having a station at all at B'way (ostensibly to shorten the Giant Wall Dividing The City) raised the other council members' hackles.  With massive residential development at the Anson apartments on Carolan and Facebook coming along with whatever goes in on the State Lands Commission property (see the next post below), one would think we would want more train service at B'way.  Anyway you look at it, there's not enough money floating around to do much of anything for years.

 

High-Cost Rail - Part 147 Partially Pulling the Plug

Yesterday's big news that Gov. Newsom has a new, much smaller approach to high-speed rail was welcomed in many quarters--including this one.  I toasted him with a lovely California cabernet last night--and that is a rare occasion indeed.  Common sense seems to have prevailed at least partially.  I say "partially" because some confusion still remains regarding what the Gov. really meant and how he will stick to it as the details of The Money become clearer.  The post below has some of the direct quotes in the comment section.  My first-glance quick list of money issues that remain are:

--Is the Caltrain electrification funding still available?  It appears so since Newsom mentioned the "bookend" funding which fits Caltrain.  The Daily Journal editorial shows the size of the need writing "Those who are familiar with the nuts and bolts of Caltrain electrification may be concerned that a refocus of the high-speed rail project on the Central Valley may mean that a $713 million commitment toward the $2 billion local project would evaporate."  Caltrain brass quoted in Railway Age state "The Caltrain Electrification Project is currently under construction and is scheduled to be complete in 2022. Last year, the State increased its commitment to the electrification of Caltrain service when it awarded an additional $165 million to support the purchase of additional electric trains. Caltrain is currently working to complete the Caltrain Business Plan".  Unlike HSR, electrification is popular to the extent the general public understands it, so here's hoping for enough money to finish.

--To keep building the Central Valley sliver that Newsom is still committed to he will have to hold onto the federal money.  His quote about not wanting to send it back to Donald Trump may or may not be wishful thinking.  Expect some legal wrangling over whether a short bit of track constitutes performance.  If the remaining federal funds are clawed-back, then the whole scheme collapses including the bit about continuing to do the environmental review of the longer section.  At least one state legislator noted that continuing the environmental review leaves property owners in limbo potentially for decades.

--If you want to get really train-geeky, here is a detailed piece titled California HSR: Seven Deadly Mistakes that goes into all sorts of the funding and approval mistakes that have doomed this boondoggle from the beginning.  #3 is my favorite and we knew this from the get go:  CHSRA then made a broader leap for the remainder of the funding, saying that its finance team “anticipates that the commitment of state and federal dollars will attract private sector funding.”  The other six are equally damning.

California taxpayers can mark Feb. 12, 2019 as a day that may have saved their bacon for another campfire like pensions, "affordable housing" subsidies, "free health care" or any number of other Newsom priorities.  But for now, B'game can rejoice that a vision of trains blasting through town at grade at 110 mph, interspersed with more Caltrain and freight trains, purporting to be faster, safer and cheaper than flying has passed with Jerry Brown's tenure. 

High-Cost Rail - Part 146 Newsom's Decision Time

We touched on Gov. Gavin's dilemma back in November just after the election.  Now, two months in with a budget sort of laid out, many pundits are thinking it is decision time on high-speed, high-cost rail.  A certain Brooklyn bartender who has made it to Congress lumps high-speed rail in with a number of other high-cost ideas, but Newsom is perhaps a bit more astute than that.  Here is one pundit quoting two others on the prospects for California

However, campaign promises are easily forgotten. As are responses intended to keep local folks happy. This is the same politician, after all, who said in 2015 that if he became governor, he’d probably kill two of Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature projects— high-speed rail and the Delta water tunnels.

Will the real Gov. Newsom please stand up?

I ask because longtime Newsom and Capitol watcher Dan Walters visited Fresno on Monday and told a room filled with Rotarians and their guests: “I have a hunch it is going to die. Newsom is not so enamored of the bullet train.”

Wrote Gabriel Dillard of The Business Journal: “There was a gasp in the room of Fresno community leaders … .”

I called Walters seeking the context of his remarks. He said that he expects only the first segment of high-speed rail to be completed, leaving the Valley with a souped-up version of Amtrak. But he put the odds of the line going from Bakersfield to the Bay Area as less than 50-50.

Click through for the rest of the piece by Bill McEwen especially where he notes some powerful California Dems are starting to get cold feet.  The Fresno mayor demonstrates the exact wrong thinking on any giant capital expense when he says "we’re too far into it, I think, for the state just to walk away".  Figure less than 10% of the total final cost has been spent--that is a sunk cost and better to not sink the whole state.

A BART Non-answer

I'm catching up with the January issue of the free San Francisco magazine that magically shows up in the mail every month.  It's often worth a quick read and can venture south of EssEff once in awhile like four years ago when we were deemed Utopia-qualified.  This month has a piece profiling the newly-elected BART board member, Janice Li.  Her claim to fame is as a bicycle advocate.  She also "still thinks it is scary, weird and absurd to be an elected official".   But somehow she has the elected official's non-answer answer down pat as seen here:

Q:  Riders south of San Francisco don't get to vote for BART elected officials, even though there are BART stations there.  Is that a good idea?

A:  There are two sides to the San Mateo problem.  Some people say that the people who live there aren't paying their fair share.  Others say that they are losing out because they have no representation.  I'm not totally sold that BART should even have a voter-elected board.  It's extraordinarily rare.

If you are waiting for the rest of the response, join the club.  I'm not feeling super confident about the future direction of the Caltrain and high-speed rail connections at the intermodal station in Millbrae.  You?

Higher-Cost Rail - Part 145 Newsom's Dilemma

The Chron is covering yet another audit report on the ballooning costs of Jerry Brown's train to nowhere.

Pushing to break ground on California’s high-speed rail project before critical planning for the Central Valley line was in place drove up its cost by $600 million, with that “flawed decision” potentially increasing the price tag by another $1 billion, state Auditor Elaine Howle said Thursday.

And more financial problems are looming for high-speed rail. The state could lose $3.5 billion in federal grant money if the first segment of the line is not completed by December 2022 as planned, Howle warned in a report. The auditor’s office said to meet that deadline, the pace of construction must double over the next four years.

Incoming Gov. Newsom will have an early decision to make come January as he has a number of other big ticket items on his plate of promises.  And his dilemma is how to split this baby

Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom has been less enthusiastic about high-speed rail than Brown, saying he would focus on completing the portion from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area before deciding whether to make a push to Los Angeles.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, a critic of the rail project, said the report shows that high-speed rail is “dead in the water.”  “There will never be a completed track from the Bay Area to Los Angeles,” Patterson said. “This project cannot be revived in its current state, and this audit is further proof that the best we can hope for is a rump railroad running from Bakersfield to Madera.”

The problem is a "rump railroad" - great term which I will adopt-- is not what the original Proposition promised and thus likely illegal.  It's really time to stop pouring good money after bad and dump the rump.  Will Gavin have the guts to do it?

High-Cost Rail - Part 144 Revolving Door, Reduced Expectations

The revolving door at the High Speed Rail Authority continues to spin.  As a member of the Community Working Group (courtesy of the city of B'game), I got an update from the Northern California HSR Authority team last night.  There were a lot of new faces from a year ago including a new Regional Director (Boris Lipkin) and a new Project Manager (James Tung).  But the working group attendance was sparse to say the least.  I am using the term "update" loosely, since there is not a lot of news and very little of it is good for the Peninsula, taxpayers or people looking to go somewhere at high speed.  There were some other attendees who appeared interested in handouts for of all things, "affordable housing" from the HSR money train.

Decisions that are still pending include whether to have passing tracks from 9th Ave in San Mateo south to Whipple with all that implies for taking property and whether to build a viaduct in the South Bay to get to Diridon Station more easily.  The big kicker was an apparent lack of progress on how to get through Pacheco Pass via tunnel.  It's estimated to cost from $6-9 billion, but the engineering studies have yet to start.  And the extension to the Transbay Terminal is totally in limbo as SF Supe Aaron Peskin considers withholding funds until project management improves.  And anything south of the metropolis of Bakersfield just doesn't get mentioned.  But the gravy train continues to ladle out money at least until the election in two weeks.  Even if Newsome wins the governor ship as expected, he may have to flip-flip a third (or is it fourth?) time and kill HSR in hopes of paying for even 10% of what else he says he wants to do.  Here is the new team for Norcal.

And here is the timeline that still shows "Valley to Valley", i.e. Silicon Valley to the Central Valley up and running by 2029.

The only good news of late is that the Western U.S. earthquake warning system is plodding along so that by 2029 when a high-speed train goes off the tracks it will do so at a slower speed.

High Cost Rail - Part 143 $27M per Day

Not much else to add besides what the LA Times is reporting on burgeoning expenses that aren't even burgeoning enough

LOS ANGELES —The California bullet train project has cost state taxpayers an average $3.1 million a day over the last year —a construction spending rate higher than that for the Bay Bridge, Boston's Big Dig or any U.S. transportation project in recent history.

But still it's not enough, planners say.  In order to hit its 2033 deadline and $77 billion budget, the California High Speed Rail Authority will have to increase daily spending by up to nine times over the next four years or risk putting the already-delayed system further behind.  Russell Fong, the authority's chief financial officer, acknowledges the goals will be difficult to achieve.

Still, officials said they are beginning to ramp up spending, and the estimates were officially adopted by the rail authority board in its 2018 business plan.  But outside infrastructure experts question whether the $27 million-a-day outlay necessary under the plan would even be possible.

"That burn rate is ludicrous," said civil engineer James Moore, director of the University of Southern California's transportation engineering program. "It is so far outside standard experience that it doesn't make sense to assume it will occur."

"Outside standard experience".  I like that and will use it going forward.

Quelling the Infernos

The headlines are burning up with reports of numerous wildfires all over the state.  Today's headline notes that Gov. Brown thinks we are in "uncharted territory".  That's only because he has been ignoring the obvious precedents that have peppered his whole time in office including the Tubb's Fire of last year that should have been a third or fourth wake-up call.  Luckily some state Senator from Orange County that I have never heard of, John Moorlach, has a firm grip on the obvious as noted in this piece in the SF Chronicle.  I'll chop it down to the essence, but you can read through it at your leisure while you ponder the foothills and Mills Canyon as the potential next hotspot while also pondering that the B'game Fire Dept. is doing its part to help up north by sending some of our team elsewhere--just like they did last year.

    3 practical steps to reduce wildfires in California

1. We should revisit Senate Bill 1463, which I authored in 2018 but was killed in committee even though no one testified in opposition to it. Called “Cap and Trees,” it would continuously appropriate 25 percent of state cap-and-trade funds to counties to harden the state’s utility infrastructure and better manage wildlands and our overgrown and drought-weakened forests.
2. We should stop funding the high-speed rail project with cap-and-trade dollars — $621 million this year, according to the analysis of the fiscal 2018-19 budget by the Legislative Analyst’s Office — and divert it to protecting our forests.  Some of this may involve prescribed burns in our forests, as authored this year in Senate Bill 1260 by my Democratic colleague, Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara. 
3. Where such burns are impractical, such as around homes and developed property, we can employ mechanical thinning. 

Moorlach also notes

A single forest fire can release four or five times as much greenhouse gas than are reduced by a year’s worth of government-regulated industry and personal vehicles emission. Oddly, the California Air Resources Board doesn’t even count wildfire greenhouse gases in its carbon-reduction reports.

With the Ferguson fire (Yosemite) nearing 60,0000 acres burned, I'll bet that estimate is way low.  #2 is so obvious that I hope even Gavin Newsom gets it.......