Caltrain Saved, For Now

Chronicle reports: Caltrain has found a way to stay afloat for the next two years. The Metropolitan Planning Organization, the closest thing the balkanized Bay Area transit/transpo landscape has to a arbiter, stepped in and pledged to divert monies slated for maintenance projects (!) and capital projects like electrifying the Caltrain tracks (who knew?) and building a "Dumbarton Bridge line." Again: who knew.

And raise fares. Natch.

And to think people thought Caltrain would stay solvent by closing stations or limiting hours.

It's hard to tell from either the Chronicle or the Examiner account whether the diverted funds are the MTO telling Caltrain what to do with its (Caltrain's) money, or whether it's the MTO throwing its own money at Caltrain. I lean toward the latter. The plan is for Caltrain to locate a dedicated funding source in the next two years--it is unique among all Bay Area transit agencies in lacking some kind of local tax revenue source. Because the current arrangement is hardly appealing, for anyone. And one of the craziest things is that Caltrain has one of the highest farebox recovery rates in the area; they get more of their budget from fares sold than BART or Muni do. Through the looking glass.

At least the new Transbay Terminal has some sweet public art commissions lined up: Tim Hawkinson plans to use rubble from the old Transbay Terminal to make a new sculpture. Previous work:

 

A bear!

And a "300-foot long sculpture was comprised largely of 13 bus-sized inflated bags", AKA a giant bagpipe.

Things You Don't (always) Think About

From a SJ Mercury op-ed about Caltrain's importance to Stanford. Caltrain is facing a $30 million budget shortfall next year.

Losing Caltrain service would cripple our regional transportation system and economy, limit mobility and employment options and require 2.5 additional highway lanes between the South Bay and San Francisco to keep the commute flowing at current levels, according to UC Berkeley professor of city and regional planning Elizabeth Deakin.

I think we can all agree that adding a minimum of 24 feet to several hundred miles of freeway (hundred: there are multiple freeways serving the 50 mile stretch between SF and SJ, 280 and 101 being foremost) would cost substantially more than $30 million. Just sayin.

Glad to see that Stanford is getting ink for leading the charge to find Caltrain funding.

(Duplicate?) Underground Rail Galore Planned in SOMA, South Beach

The San Francisco MTA is looking a few million short for their planned central subway. The subway would connect the existing Caltrain terminal at King and 4th with light rail service above ground to Bryant and 4th (by the looks of the map) and then underground to Chinatown.

The proposed additions

What is unclear is how this plan will connect with the Transbay Terminal, a project that is much more likely to move forward, since the previous Terminal has been demolished--buses are currently using a temporary structure. According to the Transbay Terminal project map (also below) on the website, the new Terminal will be bounded by Mission and Howard, and 2nd and Beale. So, far enough away from the black line on the above map that the central subway will not pass through the Transbay Terminal.

Additionally, the Transbay Terminal proposes building an underground right of way from King and 4th to the 2nd and Howard/Mission. This would serve as the SF terminus for high speed rail.

"The rail line will be extended 1.3 miles underground from its current terminus at Fourth and King streets into the new Transbay Transit Center, providing a seamless connection between the Peninsula, the South Bay, Southern California and San Francisco’s Financial District."

So to pull this together: HSR and Caltrains will come through the 4th and King station, and continue underground to the Transbay Terminal (blue line above). The 4th and King station will also have a branch northwest along 4th street, taking Muni light rail aboveground to Bryant, then underground to Chinatown.

I wonder how the underground subway would connect with existing Muni subway running along Market Street ... (update: commenter lmz informs that the Union Square Central Subway stop would have an underground ped connection to the Powell St station)

Also, can a high speed rail train execute a 90 degree turn? Maybe the right angle is an exaggeration of the publicity map; these are obviously not engineering specs, and it will be underground in any case (and thus not constrained by street grids).

Both of these projects are "actively searching for funding." Especially the central subway, which is more tenuous. If rail service is already being extended from 4th and King to 2nd and Mission, does it also need to go up to Chinatown along a separate route? Wouldn't it be better to extend, later, northward from the Transbay Terminal? I must be missing something here.