Click here if you are unable to view this gallery on a mobile device.
Caltrain could see faster, more frequent service sooner rather than later under a proposal that would shift billions of dollars from the Central Valley segment of the state’s bullet train project and distribute it to other parts of the state.
The conceptual plan, which was hatched by Democrats in Southern California and is a long way from a concrete proposal, could be a boon for Caltrain. It would scale back the middle section of the high-speed rail project by running slower diesel trains instead of electric ones in exchange for significantly increasing passenger rail service in both the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where populations are densest and traffic is most congested.
It’s not so much an abandonment of building the bullet train in California, said Pablo Espinoza, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, but a new way of getting there. The state could see some immediate upgrades where it needs it most without precluding a full build-out of the high-speed trains when funding allows.
“The concept is intended to maximize shorter-term benefits using the limited high-speed rail funds available,” he said, “without sacrificing the long-term goals of a high-speed rail system in the state.”
Delaying electrification of the Central Valley line could save around $4 billion to $6 billion, said Assemblymember Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, which would be doled out for projects on either end of the state.
In the Bay Area, that would mean more funding for Caltrain, which would eventually share its tracks with bullet trains. The agency is in the midst of approving an ambitious business plan that would increase train frequencies from every 30 minutes during the peak commute hours to every 7.5 minutes with trains running at least every 15 minutes all day long.
Caltrain estimates it needs around $6.5 billion for passing tracks, grade separations and station modifications, among other improvements, to run more trains. It’s an investment agency officials expect will triple the number of riders, from around 65,000 passengers a day to 180,000 — or the equivalent of adding five and a half lanes of freeway down the already-crowded Highway 101 and Interstate 280 corridors.
By the time high-speed rail arrives, it will need a total of around $20 billion to complete the extension into downtown San Francisco and redesign San Jose’s Diridon Station, said Caltrain board President Gillian Gillett. Specific state funding for that plan, which includes multiple transit agencies that would share the same infrastructure, haven’t been addressed, she said.
“That investment has already started with the procurement of electric trains and the modernization of the corridor,” she said. “But new local, regional, state and federal investment will be needed in the near future to meet the region’s rail service demands.”
Improved Caltrain service would provide real relief for thousands of commuters, whether or not they take the train, said Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto. While there’s no actual proposal on the table, Berman said it’s time to rethink a project that’s been beset by delays and cost overruns from the start.
“Now seems like as good a time as any to take a step back and identify what is the best and most effective use of California’s transit dollars,” Berman said in a statement.
It’s not too late to rethink the state’s approach to building high-speed rail, said Friedman. She was one of several Southern California assembly members who began searching for alternatives after Gov. Gavin Newsom presented his “building block” approach earlier this year.
The governor’s plan includes completing the 119-mile segment of high-speed tracks and other infrastructure from just north of Bakersfield to Madera by 2022, per the requirements of a federal grant. It would extend the line slightly south to Bakersfield, and 52 miles north to Merced. Passengers in Merced would transfer to diesel Amtrak or Altamont Corridor Express trains and make their way to the Bay Area.
Republican lawmakers, including Fresno Assemblyman Jim Patterson, have ridiculed the proposal. Patterson has called the plan “absurd” and a “multimillion rump railroad.” But even Democrats are questioning the business model behind it, and the High-Speed Rail Authority’s own governing board has asked for a consulting firm to take an independent look at the expected revenues of operating early bullet train service along the Central Valley line.
“Doing just Merced to Bakersfield is a very different project,” Friedman said, “and one that I think people who initially voted for high-speed rail think would not be worth the investment.”
Instead of building a fully electrified line between Bakersfield and Merced, the state could run modern diesel trains, which can reach speeds of between 120 mph and 125 mph, said Arthur Bauer, a transportation policy consultant who was involved in the early planning efforts for high-speed rail, as opposed to the 185-mph travel speeds under the governor’s plan. That would eliminate the need for commuters to transfer trains at Merced as they make their way through Stockton and into the Bay Area, which he said could make up for slightly slower speeds.
Making investments in bookend projects while still trying to run high-speed trains through the Central Valley doesn’t have to be an “either/or” proposition, said Brian Annis, the chief financial officer for the High-Speed Rail Authority. The authority has been spending money on interim improvements along the way, including $713 million for Caltrain electrification, which will eventually pave the way for high-speed rail in the future, he said.
“We’re working here to deliver early interim service that would be high-speed rail in the Central Valley,” Annis said, “and I think that need not come at the expense of regional investments in Los Angeles and the Bay Area.”
If the conversation does evolve into an actual proposal, it’s likely the negotiation would occur when the authority asks the Legislature to release Prop 1A bond funds for the project, or when it completes its next business plan, which is due next year, Annis said.
In the meantime, Bauer said it’s time state leaders confront some serious realities about the beleaguered project, which has been woefully mismanaged from the start, faces technical challenges with no identified solutions, and is running out of money. Diverting some funding from the Central Valley segment won’t kill the dream entirely, but it would result in some short-term improvements that would benefit millions of commuters, he said.
“Let’s not delude ourselves,” Bauer said. “We don’t have an open checkbook, and our bank account is getting pretty low.”
He added, “I don’t think we’re precluding anything here. We’re just being realistic.”
Where will the bullet train stop in the Bay Area?
The California High-Speed Rail Authority last month made recommendations on preferred alternatives for a route and train stops for the bullet train in the Bay Area. Public meetings on the proposal will begin next week. The authority’s board of directors will vote on the plan in September.
Meetings will run from 5-8 p.m.
August 6: Adrian Wilcox High School, 3250 Monroe Street, Santa Clara
August 8: IFDES Lodge-Portuguese Hall, 250 Old Gilroy Street, Gilroy
August 12: Bay Area Metro Center, Yerba Buena Room, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco
August 15: City Hall, Council Chambers, 200 E Santa Clara Street, San Jose
August 19: Sequoia High School, 1201 Brewster Ave., Redwood City
August 21: Los Banos Community Center, 645 7th Street, Los Banos
