Comments from COST
COST (Coalition for a One-Stop Terminal) submitted the following comments on the Caltrain 20-Year Strategic Plan. ("SamTrans staff," referred to in this letter, also work as Caltrain JPB staffers. SamTrans provides the staff that also serve as JPB staff. It is also of interest that SamTrans is the partner with BART in building BART extensions to Colma and SFO/Millbrae. Gerald T. Haugh serves as General Manager of SamTrans and Executive Director of the JPB.)As with the 10 year "plan" which SamTrans staff attempted to foist on the public two years ago, this so-called Strategic Plan document is extremely weak, disappointing and at its core anti-Caltrain. Once again, you clearly indicate a desire to do as little as possible for Caltrain, preferring trivialities and status quo to any serious efforts to actually accomplish the many promised improvements which were committed to when the commute service was purchased from Southern Pacific.
Specific Issues
The "Plan's" weaknesses are legion:
1. The Caltrain Downtown Extension has been abandoned in the plan; the EIR document should be completed and this vital improvement remain in the plan. Mayors change, even in San Francisco, and the next occupant of that office will likely be friendlier to public transit.
2. Electrification has been studied, is being studied yet again, and is an obvious candidate for implementation NOW, not treated as a "possible" 20 years hence. Electrification would allow for system speedup, is cheaper to maintain than diesel over time, would insulate the system against any coming fuel price shocks, and most important, would contribute to the reduction of Bay Area pollutants. This improvement in air quality will qualify for preferred funding consideration, especially at the federal level.
3. The notion of delaying substantial Gilroy improvements up to 10 years is equally ludicrous. Work needs to begin now to double track on essential sections of the Union Pacific ROW, in order to facilitate increased service ASAP.
4. The notion of taking 20 years to increase 40 trains is equally unrealistic. So few locomotives and new cars are included in this plan that it is obvious most of these "added" trains, like the six most recently added, are midday infill, rather than increases in essential peak period alternatives to congested auto use. It makes much more sense to begin the process to add substantial new trains immediately, not many years down the line. Ordering more vehicles at one time allows for economics of scale, as well as better service, quicker. Since Caltrain is at its highest levels of usage in 40 years with minimal improvements, think how much more patronage you will attract implementing REAL improvements.
5. This document is consistently breathtaking in its shortsightedness. On one hand you talk about increasing transit (shuttles) to destinations (employers), yet on the other hand you encourage increased auto use by promoting larger parking lots. What about increased transit service from origins (home) to Caltrain stations? If not SamTrans busses, what about using the shuttles for increased transit runs to Caltrain? Again, diminished use of autos, not increased use of autos, should be transit's goal.
6. Your own goals highlight promoting transit connectivity and doing a better job of connecting residential and employment centers, but you immediately dismiss one of the primary ways of doing this, the Dumbarton rail bridge, which would connect East Bay residents with Silicon Valley jobs.
Broader "Plan" Weaknesses
It is immediately obvious that this is the employee's plan, not the public's or even that of responsible public agencies. Nothing is proposed other than maintaining the status quo, or cautiously and inexpensively adding minor service improvements. Aren't you folks aware that freeway congestion in San Mateo County alone was up over 120 percent last year, in just one year? Aren't you prepared to recognize this, and do something about it?
The fact is, this is a "Plan" in name only. Any responsible planning professional in predicting out five, 10 or 20 years first looks at growth projections; residential population increases, congestion increases, and most important job growth. This growth should be the basis for responsible public transit growth, yet you have not bothered to do this
Where are the ABAG job and population growth projections? What about Santa Clara Manufacturing Group employment growth projections? Where are Caltrans or San Mateo Congestion Management Agency projections of Highway 101 congestion? The fact is, your Market Demand Study is only a momentary snapshot of conditions, and your service level increases grossly underestimate the demand for increased transit service. You already have increased ridership almost 20 percent this year, despite a fare increase and little service improvement; you should be able to double ridership in five years, with some truly ambitious programs.
You should have true Goals, not just reluctantly predict what service you will be forced to put out by public demand.
The Municipal Railway has predicted that opening their Muni Metro connection will increase Caltrain daily usage by 10 percent or about 2,000 new patrons daily. BART, of course, predicts tens of thousands of transfers between Caltrain and BART at Millbrae (How will this be accomplished, by the way, when only five of 12 morning commute expresses stop at Millbrae?) and that Caltrain ridership will double.
We all know BART's numbers are fatuous, but it still seems reasonable to predict that between Muni Metro and BART there will be a lot more than 3,800 new passengers daily.
Caltrain utilization from residents of San Francisco to Silicon Valley jobs has grown consistently, ergo, access to San Francisco stations needs to be improved. What about the Downtown Extension? What about working with the Municipal Railway on improved a.m. connections? What about increased bicycle access, including fostering bike racks on Muni?
The new San Francisco Giants ballpark will be located one block away from the existing Fourth and Townsend station, yet you don't even bother to quantify the many thousands of new trips which will be created.
Silicon Valley is rapidly becoming the economic engine of the Bay Area, and will soon be the primary justification for Caltrain. Where are the improved connections from the East Bay (Dumbarton), the South Bay (Gilroy service increases) and the North Bay (improved San Francisco Access)? To once again belabor the point, your "plans" and "predictions" do not take into account the elementary principles of planning.
COST Proposals
1. At a minimum, the approval and release of this "Plan" be postponed at least 90 days, so that job, residential and traffic congestion projections for Caltrain's service area can be properly reviewed.
2. The timid and tepid proposals of the "Plan" should be abandoned in favor of an aggressive approach to the region's congestion problems. Present goals espoused should be telescoped from 20 years into five years, and more ambitious programs proposed, including costs, funding sources and minimum time lines.
3. These should include, but not be limited to; (a), electrification, (b) substantial service increases now, (c) genuine investigation of a Dumbarton rail service connection to BART and AC Transit in the East Bay, (d) Gilroy track and service improvements now, (e) generate substantially improved access to Caltrain in San Francisco, and (f) develop improved SamTrans access to Caltrain stations in lieu of substantially increased parking.
It goes without saying that most residents of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties take the improvement of Caltrain service very seriously. Any plans proposed by your office should reflect that fact, rather than bureaucratic hesitation to aggressively move forward.
Sincerely,
Pam Rianda,
COST Chairwoman
Please give us your feedback on this site!
Last updated: November 28, 1997
