January 31, 2012, the San Francisco County Transit Authority (SFCTA) introduced a Fast Start Program in order to accelerate activity into the Transbay terminal. The agency was clearly not happy with the High-Speed Rail Authority’s Draft Business Plan which did not bring HSR to the Transbay Terminal until at the earliest, 2034 and only then if the funds materializes as expected. The "Fast Start" involves combining a tunnel project joining 4th and King to the Transbay Terminal with Caltrain’s electrification program. It suggests using existing tracks, not 4 tracks.
By the way, it is now thought tunneling could be done much less expensively than first thought. (Perhaps a re-think is in order for the Peninsula) The goal was to get some traffic into the Transbay terminal far earlier than forecasted. According to Jose Moscovich, Executive Director, the Fast Start concept is "4X cheaper, has 40 times more ridership and will be built a decade earlier."
The SFCTA states in their presentation that the segment from San Jose to San Francisco is environmentally cleared or almost environmentally cleared, which is not accurate. They fail to mention in their presentation that both the Independent Peer Review Group and the Legislative Analyst office do not believe the funding plan is legal. See the presentation of the actual meeting. http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=24&clip_id=14086 (click on item #9, the last item or move to 1 hr/18 minutes and continues to about 1 hr/40 minutes.
This appears to be an attempt to get funds early for San Francisco’s gold-plated Transbay Terminal which was envisioned in Prop 1A to be the terminus for the high-speed rail trains but the Fast Start program may just cement High-Speed rail into the Peninsula corridor by paying for electrification of Caltrain under the premise, it's an improvement that will help high-speed rail later.
Ridership numbers have been an issue state wide and questioned by many independent agencies and organizations who want more answers but there is no doubt that the Caltrain corridor will produce more activity than the Central Valley. There is no indication that this signals a substitution for the Central Valley money. The project seeks to find private investors and may well request tapping into 1A bond funds.
The Peninsula has been particularly critical and suspicious of how the ridership numbers were arrived at. Altamont was the selected route for many years and many still think today it is a better route, rather than Pacheco Pass since it operates in a more densely populated area.
A Caltrain spokeswoman stated at the Peninsula Cities Coalition (PCC) February 3rd that Caltrain was aware of San Francisco's Fast Start program but has only answered questions but has not been actively involved in the program planning. The Caltrain organization is currently deeply engaged in the capacity study that will measure the number of trains that both high-speed rail and Caltrain can operate together, sharing the existing corridor with the exception of a passing track area which is required in the high-speed rail proposition 1A.
Meanwhile on the other side of the state, Southern California agencies have endorsed an MOU between themselves and the HSRA eyeing about $1 billion dollars of state bond money for improving regional rail, not high-speed rail. http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_19893336 T
So it appears a money grab in full swing between Northern and Southern transit agencies to get a piece of 1A funds. If they are successful in getting part of the pie, it just might silence the criticisms about the viability of the entire project but perhaps that’s the point.
Comments