The Burlingame Voice

Earthquakes: Early Warning in Mexico

We do it all here at the Voice.  Topics galore that go from intensely local to lessons learned from afar.  Today's WSJ has an article about the early warning systems - plural - serving Mexico City.  They have three.  We Californians have a half of a system and nothing that reaches regular residents.  Here's the lessons that I drew from the piece:

-A non-profit called Center for Seismic Instrumentation and Registry (CIRES) has the government stamp of approval, but two tech start-ups, Grillo and SkyAlert are taking a different, more digital approach.

-CIRES has 96 sensors on the Pacific Coast that feed a system that makes public announcements on TV, radio and public places with the idea of a one-minute warning.

-Grillo and SkyAlert want to send alerts via wireless networks to phones, Twitter and in-home alarms--in other words more immediate and personal.

-The choice of sensors is important to avoid false alarms with a choice between cheap Asian sensors and better Japanese sensors (I know, both are Asian, but Japan has been working on this problem for years.

The Local Angle:  First, here is you reminder that the BNN Emergency Drill Day is coming up on October 12th.  Last year's is described here.  Find the closest one to you and join it.  Second, if we are to be burdened with high-cost, high-speed rail, the least the Authority can do is spend a little of the $100+ billion on an early-warning system and interface the trains to it.  You could argue Caltrain and Amtrak should also do that and they should, but they aren't doing 110 mph through densely populated areas.

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.

Ferrying Commuters to B'game?

A letter to the Daily Journal reminded me of a longstanding discussion about having ferry service to the B'game Bayfront.  A local resident named Orhan Kurt writes:

Regarding the idea of ferry terminals, my friends and I here in Burlingame are shocked to watch as Foster City aggressively pushes to be the regional hub and to be part of the upcoming Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) study (June 17 edition of the Daily Journal).

Why does Burlingame wait on the sidelines? A regional hub should be right next to SFO.  Burlingame has officially recognized the need and accepted the ferry hub concept for Burlingame as was approved in the latest general plan. So where is the follow-up Burlingame?  Our own general plan consultants have encouraged us to connect the rail and SFO to the ferry system.

This seems like a) a no-brainer to decide to do and b) pretty easy given what we already have at the Bayfront right next to the Facebook/Oculus complex under construction.  Check out this landing option that used to house The Sherman.  Mr. Kurt may be expanding on what the General Plan says deep on page 154

M-4.8  Water-Based Transportation

Consider emerging water-based transportation options to improve multimodal access options to the Bayfront.  [AC, SO}

But he's on the right track, or is it tack?

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.

 

SB50: The 'Drop Zone' in B'game

Yesterday's SF Chronicle piece "SF supervisors oppose Wiener's new housing-near-transit bill, but there's wiggle room" captures some of the many concerns about SB50.  We started the discussion here noting that another SF politician, David Chiu, decided it was good politics to point fingers at Burlingame.  One SF Supervisor, Vallie Brown, joined the "ruin other people's backyard" movement by saying “We need bold proposals, and not just here. We need to have the rest of the Bay Area and California get into gear around housing".  Talk about exceeding one's authority.  But most of the SF supervisors appear ready to vote for a resolution opposed to SB50.  Now if only our own San Mateo County supervisors had as much backbone.  But so far they haven't demonstrated it.  Today's Comicle editorial tries to paint even the SF supervisors as some sort of "reactionary" body--good luck with that laughable assertion:

In the long fight to keep California’s wealthy, homogeneous, exclusive suburbs just the way they are, Palo Alto and Beverly Hills have an ally they might not have expected: San Francisco.  The city’s Board of Supervisors — thanks to its purportedly progressive faction, no less — is poised to reiterate its reactionary resistance to legislation that would legalize higher-density residential development near mass transit amid a crushing housing shortage.

For many locals the threat is still abstract, so here is a map showing the affected sections of B'game should SB50 become law--I call it the SB50 Drop Zone

Lest you think it is bad enough that some hack politicians from the city who cannot even manage their own streets in a first-world fashion want to co-opt approval of development in more than half of B'game; the last part of SB50 says a city that is "employment rich" can't stop development anywhere in town.  Don't get too comfortable up in the hills.  Our City Council has taken a clear stance against SB50 and should be encouraged as they have been by two letters in today's Daily Journal here and here.  To buttress their good instincts, they should consider starting a legal reserve fund since this is likely to end up in court if it passes in Sacramento.  It might also be time to reconsider whether SamTrans should be allowed to operate on our section of El Camino Real.  That sounds crazy to say about a state highway, but it's not any crazier than Weiner, Chiu and Brown telling us we have to build five-story tall high-density housing everywhere in town.

Mission Creep at Caltrain

Wikipedia defines "Mission creep" as "the gradual or incremental expansion of an intervention, project or mission, beyond its original scope, focus or goals, a ratchet effect spawned by initial success. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous irreversible path, each success breeding evermore ambitious interventions, stopping only when a final, oftentimes catastrophic failure was precipitated."  In other words, stick to the purpose that you were set up to deliver on.  Caltrain is creeping towards mission creep as shown here from the Daily Journal piece

Caltrain officials want to build housing, retail and offices on the agency’s underused property, though plans for transit-oriented development will have to be balanced with the future needs of the railroad.  “I think we’ve got tremendous potential to develop this corridor land for not only housing, but commercial developments along the way,” said Board Member Ron Collins, the San Carlos vice mayor.

Apparently Collins wants to mess up the rest of the Peninsula the way they have messed up San Carlos.

Collins said he wants affordable housing to be part of the plans and Board Member Charles Stone, a Belmont councilman, agreed emphatically.  “I want this policy to prioritize affordability,” Stone said. “We’re a transit agency, we want to do projects certainly that don’t interfere with ridership and enhance ridership and we want to do projects that don’t hurt us financially and improve our finances if possible, but at the end of the day what I’m most concerned about is we play a part in the affordability crisis where we can.”

Voila, mission creep.  How about you just run the railroad and prep for electrification, increased schedules, improve service including "unmet demand", and work on the last mile problem that inhibits ridership.  Could you just do that?

Caltrain Forecast = Train Noise Forecast

Phil Matier at the SF Comicle has a bead on the Transbay Transit Center problems and just added another item to the list of woes.  It's the capacity of the brand new terminal!  Turns out that if the predictions for Caltrain's growth are accurate, the terminal might be too small--and that may be the case even without high-cost rail making it to EssEff.  But here in B'game most people are more concerned with the train horns, so here is the prediction

Caltrain expects to see its ridership more than quadruple over the next 20 years to 250,000 riders a day, once it converts from diesel to electric trains.  But now there are questions over whether there is enough room in the underground station to handle the 12 to 16 trains per hour Caltrain may need to run into the city to handle all those new passengers.

“Our initial analysis shows that at least 10 trains per hour can be accommodated in the terminal,” (Caltrain spokesman Seamus) Murphy said. Meaning that Caltrain could be two to six trains short on platform space.  And that’s without high-speed rail, if it ever comes.

If this was phrased accurately, 12 to 16 trains per hour inbound to SF means 12 to 16 outbound as well so that could be 32 passes through B'game per hour--one train every two minutes.  And you thought the Broadway intersection was a bit of a mess now.........You might ask, "What about the grade separation?"  Here is the tentative schedule for the planning -- while noting that the actual construction funds are a long way from being in hand.  Having spent 30+ years in the forecasting business, I can tell you not to get too worked up about a train every two minutes just yet, but it bears watching...and listening.

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. 

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?