Caltrain Modernization Program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:23, 31 March 2017

Revision as of 17:29, 31 March 2017

Line 47:

===Opposition===

The affluent city of [[Atherton, California|Atherton]], which lies on the tracks, was an early and vocal opponent of electrification.<ref name=SFC-040725>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/End-of-an-Era-Caltrain-s-electrification-plans-2738949.php |title=End of an Era / Caltrain's electrification plans threaten Atherton's railroad charm |author=Whiting, Sam |date=25 July 2004 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> Billed as "America's second wealthiest city", residents opposed electrification and the proposed high-speed rail route because the overhead electrical lines would require tree removal and the town could potentially be divided in two by permanently closing the two grade crossings at Fair Oaks Lane and Watkins Avenue.<ref name=SFC-040725 /> Jack Ringham, an Atherton resident since 1966, summed up his feelings in a 2004 limerick:

{{quote |text=<poem>

Line 57:

</poem> |author=Atherton resident Jack Ringham |source=2004 ''San Francisco Chronicle'' article<ref name=SFC-040725 />}}

The holdout-rule station at Atherton became a weekend-only stop in August 2005 with the expansion of Baby Bullet service.<ref name=SFC-050801>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/TRANSPORTATION-Baby-Bullet-service-expands-2651234.php |title=TRANSPORTATION / Baby Bullet service expands / Starting this morning, Caltrain is running 96 trains on weekdays |author=Murphy, Dave |date=1 August 2005 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=25 March 2017}}</ref> In 2007, CHSRA chose [[Pacheco Pass]] over the Altamont Pass alignment; using Pacheco Pass meant high-speed rail lines would roughly follow the route of [[California State Route 152|SR 152]] from [[Interstate 5 in California|Interstate 5]] in the [[Central Valley (California)|Central Valley]] to [[U.S. Route 101 in California|US 101]] in [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]] and then follow the existing Union Pacific (UP) and Caltrain right-of-way to San Francisco.<ref name=SFC-090504>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Peninsula-cities-want-high-speed-rail-tunnel-3162795.php |title=Peninsula cities want high-speed rail tunnel |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=4 May 2009 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> Once the first environmental studies for routing high-speed rail over the Peninsula Corridor were published, the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton sued in 2008 to block the Peninsula Corridor route, joined by the city of Palo Alto in 2009, fearing the high-speed trains would eventually be routed through their cities on an elevated concrete viaduct.<ref name=SFC-090504 /> CHSRA reiterated its preference for Pacheco Pass in 2008 and approved the environmental impact report (EIR); however, in 2009, a judge upheld the lawsuit and ruled the San Jose-to-Gilroy segment was inadequately covered in the EIR because UP had stated it opposed sharing tracks and the vibrations from high-speed trains were not sufficiently studied.<ref name=SFC-100903>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pacheco-Pass-high-speed-rail-route-wins-again-3176124.php |title=Pacheco Pass high-speed rail route wins again |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=3 September 2010 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |accessdate=31 March 2017}}</ref> The revised EIR was approved with the Pacheco alignment in 2010.<ref name=SFC-100903 /> PAMPA lawsuitLawsuit supporters pushed for a tunnel instead of an elevated, grade-separated route on the Peninsula, but CHSRA board member [[Rod Diridon]] noted that tunneling was costly and could affect underground water.<ref name=SFC-090504 />

[[File:Caltrain Atherton Station.jpg|thumb|right|Caltrain has a weekend-only holdout-rule station in Atherton, which dates back to 1866]]