Duplicating an elevated rail line along the Caltrain corridor would be expensive and take years to build (Look to the building of 4.5 miles of the Bay Bridge as an example. It might be finished 24 years after the 1989 earthquake). Caltrain can be brought into the 21st century and having a HSR train making stops along the peninsula will defeat it’s purpose of being “high speed”.

Caltrain does have a bullet service, but the bullet runs a few times in the morning and a few more in the evening, during peak hours.

Regular trains which run once an hour between 10 and 3 are hardly convenient to use for a connection to something that is likely to run even more infrequently.

Caltrain is not under-utilized during peak hours (lots of people have somewhere to go to, and trains run conveniently)

However, it is clearly empty in between. Well, people still have somewhere to go to, but the route is not as predetermined as when you need to go to work, and the once-an-hour aspect, together with hardly synchronized bus schedules on either side is hardly conducive.

So would I prefer to catch Caltrain in San Carlos at 11, get to San Jose 50 minutes later and then spend another 30-40 minutes waiting for a connection to HSR?

I’d rather board HSR directly somewhere in Redwood City, and 25 minutes later won’t even notice we passed San Jose.

Passage of time is only noticed during stops. It takes 14 minutes on the bullet from Redwood City to Mountain View, and 20 on the local; the difference is between “oh, MV already?” vs. “I have read half my book, and it is only California Av.”.

Getting off the train and waiting for another would add not just 55 minutes to the trip; it will make it tedious.

Great insights — thanks for taking the time to weigh in with this info. As I speculated, there’s much more to this than the casual observer is aware. Just for clarfiication, I’m not advocating skipping San Francisco. There are other ways to connect SF, Oakland, and San Jose without using the Peninsula — BART figured that out.

I think the whole project will be much more palatable if there’s a tangible benefit to Peninsula residents. Having a few stops on the Peninsula would be a plus. But there will be a battle that will brew over an entire length of elevated track – there are many in San Carlos who still feel that the berm that was erected for Caltrain is a scar that divides the City in half.

Thanks again for your comments!

CG

1) Caltrain and HSR are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the success of HSR depends on excellent local and regional transport systems to deliver passengers to their final destinations. Caltrain has an unparalleled opportunity to piggyback on the funding that will be made available for HSR to build a better system. HSR and Caltrain are working together so that both systems can benefit from the improvements that will be made in coming years. You can find out more than you ever wanted to know about this at http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/ , a blog that focuses specifically on the interaction between Caltrain and HSR.

2. HSR will actually improve the noise situation. HSR requires grade separation (see #3) which will allow Caltrain to avoid having to use their horns. Studies have shown that the speed-related noise (as opposed to horns for at-grade crossings) caused by HSR is not a significant factor.

3. Yes, it means elevating the entire line. HSR requires grade separation. Tunneling is always an option but this is far more expensive than elevation. Today every community that Caltrain runs through has either an ugly fence (everywhere except Belmont/San Carlos) or a berm (San Carlos). San Carlos has it easier than other communities in this regard, since we already have the berm. Let’s face it, the berm is an eyesore, but this is the result more of a failure of vision than an imposition of the berm. Elevated railways can be developed in clever ways that enhance the community and provide new development opportunities. The fact that Caltrain has failed to do so should not be interpreted as proof that this is the only option.

4 and 5. Yes, the construction will be inconvenient and the cost will be high. Unfortunately, there’s no way around that. It’s clear that for CA HSR to be viable it must terminate in SF; any HSR system that skips one of our flagship cities is a joke. What other options besides the Peninsula are there? The two alignments that were considered were the Pacheco Pass (through SJ and up the Peninsula) and the Altamont Pass (through Livermore and the East Bay). The Altamont pass was rejected; many people don’t realize this, but Prop 1A actually specifically endorsed the Pacheco Pass option for both environmental reasons and practical reasons (HSR can’t skip San Jose, a more populous city than SF). How else can HSR get from SJ to SF without running up the Caltrain Right-Of-Way? The fact is, the ROW predates the communities that grew up on the Peninsula, and it’s there because that’s what makes the most sense for running trains between the Bay Area’s two biggest population centers. The construction will present challenges for the Peninsula, but we stand to gain far more from having one of the world’s best local and long-distance public transit systems running through our communities.

Yes. There will be short term gain, but in the long term this will improve my life with an improved caltrain.