|
City staff have completed review of a Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report for the Caltrain Electrification Program. City staff have drafted a letter of comment on technical issues (Attachment B). Technical comments will be forwarded to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) subsequent to the City Council hearing on this issue, along with any other issues that the Council may wish to transmit.
The Caltrain Electrification Program environmental document presents an opportunity for Council to consider policy issues associated with rail service on the Peninsula and through Sunnyvale. Several issues are intertwined with the Electrification Program, including electrification versus other alternatives, grade separation, and high speed rail.
Electrification or Other Alternatives
The Caltrain Electrification Program seeks to reduce train noise and pollution, improve train performance, and enhance the image of CalTrain to stimulate ridership. Caltrain has studied three alternatives for what would be a $600+ million project. There is considerable debate, notably by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors (of which Council Member Fowler is a member) about the benefits and efficacy of this project. Staff recommends that the City Council consider a policy position on electrification and/or other Caltrain improvement priorities.
Staff believes that the study of alternatives is lacking from a technical and policy standpoint, and raises issues regarding the range of potential alternatives. The report is limited to electric locomotive propulsion or multiple unit (MU) self propelled cars. The report dismisses the MU alternative due to lack of availability of suitable cars or funding, but fails to analyze all the operational and cost differences, advantages and disadvantages between MU’s and electric locomotive-hauled trains.
The report also disregards a scoping letter of September 15, 2000 from City staff requesting that ‘a reasonable range of alternatives’, including Light Rail Trains (LRT), be addressed in the JPB study. Light rail vehicles (LRVs) are a potentially feasible and viable alternative for a number of reasons as enumerated on the attached draft staff letter of comment (Attachment B).
There are also disadvantages and complexity of course, to this or any alternative, the main point is there should have been a public debate on the subject. The option to extend BART should also have been revisited. That is because BART has already reached south to Millbrae. BART is also under preliminary design to San Jose and up to the City of Santa Clara, almost to Sunnyvale. This was after Santa Clara County voters recently endorsed BART development. So the remaining gap in BART is much reduced since the last study of its extension to the Peninsula. CalTrain electrification may preclude the possibility for BART on the Peninsula. Staff believes that the public and decision makers will be better served by a more thorough evaluation of alternatives. At this time, the Council may want to consider establishing policy on Caltrain electrification, or request more detailed analysis of alternatives by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board.
Grade Separation
As Caltrain service improves, it directly impacts travel on two Sunnyvale roadways, Sunnyvale Avenue and Mary Avenue, by virtue of the level grade crossings at these locations. Train frequency has increased by more than 40% since the inception of public ownership of the corridor. The current Caltrain CTX project will further increase train frequency and will greatly increase train speeds. Caltrain electrification will further impact access at these crossings by increasing gate downtime, and potentially further enabling expansion of the number of trains through the crossings. Caltrain’s policy is supportive of grade separation of all grade crossings along the route. The agency has a long range capital plan, but it does not include grade separations in Sunnyvale currently and no funding is identified. The expectation is for local agencies to advocate for grade separation, with the level of support amongst agencies being the driving factor for prioritization.
High Speed Rail
The potential for a high speed (150 mph +) rail system along the Caltrain corridor is discussed as a possible motivation behind the electrification project. The City has not taken a position on high speed rail, but the current preferred alternative of the California High Speed Rail Authority would have a system running through Sunnyvale.
Staff believes that the specter of high speed rail is an inappropriate possibility to consider as a justification for the electrification of Caltrain. Electrifying CalTrain in the short term would set back the prospects for high speed rail in the corridor.
The major prerequisite for high speed rail in the JPB corridor is a continuous four-track rail line and probably its complete grade-separation. Caltrain’s existing track configuration, structures, and lack of grade separation (particularly in Sunnyvale) will preclude a simple conversion of an electrified Caltrain to high speed rail. If areas of remaining double-track need to be shifted to accommodate two more tracks, or, raised or lowered for new grade separations, much of the pre-existing electrification system may have to be demolished and rebuilt in many long segments. All of this will add to the cost of high-speed rail and diminish its feasibility.
A better way to promote future high-speed rail may be to use any available funds to extend the four-track segments and to add grade separations. This would also have more direct and immediate benefits for CalTrain express train service and public safety. It may be more appropriate to address the need for electrification once plans for high speed rail are more real.
In any case, the linkage of electrification and high speed rail is probably hasty and inappropriate. Staff believes that the letter of comment on the Caltrain Electrification Program DEIR should contain a statement to the effect that Sunnyvale believes it is inappropriate to discuss Caltrain electrification in the context of “setting the stage” for high speed rail unless a complete analysis of the impacts of high speed rail on the timing and configuration of electrification is included in the environmental document, or until such time that high speed rail is a concrete possibility and well developed alignment engineering has been completed.
Staff also recommends that Council consider the establishment of Legislative Action Policy regarding future high speed rail. Both the Santa Clara County Cities Association and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group have recently asked for the City’s position on the issue of high speed rail (Attachments C and D). Staff’s believes that wholesale endorsement of high speed rail is premature at this time, for a number of reasons. At the local level, specific design issues and coordination with Caltrain improvement plans as mentioned above are unresolved. The current environmental document is on a programmatic level only, so many details of the specific impacts of construction and operation to local communities have not been determined. The economics of high speed rail construction and operation are a controversial proposition; the High Speed Rail Authority is embracing high end, very fast train technology for a moderately populated corridor, whereas the country’s only other existing comparable high speed rail corridor from Washington to Boston is a high subsidy, pricey, moderate ridership operation using a much cheaper and less sophisticated technology. Financing for the proposed system is unclear. The agency is proposing a multi-billion dollar bond issue in Fall, 2004 which would cover only approximately a third of the cost of the proposed system, at a time when the State’s credit rating and consequently it’s bonding capacity are in decline. Conversely, high speed rail development might support long term economic development across the State. These effects are not studied in the Program EIR, but are important long term policy questions to be considered. Travel time savings is touted as a primary benefit, and one that would lead to considerable ridership; however ridership models often subscribe significant mode shift characteristics to moderate differences in travel time between modes, based on “relative” time savings. In actuality, mode shift can be considerably greater to affect, due to ingrained behavior, land use characteristics, attitudes, and other entrenched factors. It is uncertain whether the rail system would carry a significant number of riders to impact other tarvel modes or even be successful or self-sustaining. However, creation of a major rail corridor can profoundly affect general travel and land use patterns over the life of the project, which may be a desirable policy direction.
Staff recommends establishment of a legislative action policy to monitor the implementation of the California High Speed Rail Plan and advocate for a financially self-sustaining system using proven cost effective technology and based on conservative ridership assumptions, that does not require significantly increasing the State’s bonded indebtedness. The City should actively participate in planning and design to minimize the impact of high speed rail operations in Sunnyvale. Staff believes that should a system be built, however, that an alignment that serves San Jose directly is more beneficial to Sunnyvale and the South Bay as a whole than an alignment via Altamont Pass which would serve San Jose on a stub route, and therefore recommends that the City support a Pacheco Pass or Diablo Range Tunnel alternative over an Altamont Pass alternative.
Other Santa Clara County Cities’ Positions
The cities of San Jose, Santa Clara and Mountain View are in the process of considering positions on high speed rail. San Jose and Santa Clara staff recommendations are to support the California High Speed Rail Project and the southern alignment through the Diablo Range or Pacheco Pass. Santa Clara was signatory to a letter supporting Caltrain electrification’s inclusion in the VTP 2030. City of Mountain View staff are not recommending a position on high speed rail, or for that matter Caltrain electrification. The Cities of Palo Alto and Morgan Hill support Caltrain electrification, but have not taken a position on high speed rail. The City of Milpitas has not taken a position on high speed rail or Caltrain electrification.
|