Yes. This is well timed and exactly what must be discussed. Thank you.

One other point is that Caltrain and Palo Alto is unusual for a commuter system in that it is the midpoint of a two way commuting system. I would like to see more data on this. We have people commuting out of town both north and south by way of Caltrain as well as people commuting in, from both north and south. Instead of looking at this as a suburban rail with one way commutes taking riders to a central hub and bringing them back in the evening, we have a system which is more like a central subway with riders coming and going on every single train that stops at each of our stations.

Thank you Jay for the article. Here are a few updates:

Grade crossings are estimated at between $180M to $300M each, much more than the available funds from measure B of which $700M is allocated for Caltrain crossings in Palo Alto, Mt View and Sunnyvale—7 crossings in total. Palo Alto hopes to get $350M from this measure. This will not be enough, but it’s a start.

The important take-away from CAARD Co-founder Nadia Naik’s work is that currently Caltrain ridership takes away 4 lanes of commute traffic from our freeways today, so the improvements to Caltrain matters to everyone in Palo Alto.

Sadly, our city will have the most difficult and emotional decisions to make for rail along the corridor in Santa Clara County since we have vibrant neighborhoods in immediate proximity to possible grade crossing improvements. So we need to work hard together for a thoughtful way forward.

I agree that grade separations present an enormous challenge to Palo Altans and our quality of life, there is misinformation in this article and the assumptions and information by this self-appointed ad hoc group.
The article states incorrectly an estimated figure of about $200,000 per grade crossing fix - an underestimation so vast it is breathtaking.

The ad hoc group seems to misunderstand a great deal about its subject. For one, it asserts that we could somehow use the land above the tracks for other uses, if we tunneled, selling the land to cover half the costs of tunneling. The problem is, the railroad own the land right-of-way, not us, and it would likely cost a billion to buy IF it were for sale.

Also, there is seemingly no awareness that a tunnel cannot be put under north of Cal Ave., due to underground issues such as San Francisquito Creek, El Palo Alto and the grade that tracks must be at. Same with a trench.

Also at this time, there is no way of knowing if any number of homes would be lost to grade separations - some crossings may be entirely closed. This group is getting ahead of itself.

You all need to learn a whole lot more before you go public and start advising residents about what is what with details of grade crossings. CARRD and Nadia Naik are the best at doing this. She's been studying and educating residents for years on these issues and is the most reliable citizen-source for residents to turn to for accurate, up to date, sophisticated information that can be understood by anyone. Her slideshow is excellent - I have seen it. She does meetings for the public often. And she is on the City's Citizen Advisory Committee for this.

I have a suggestion - your new group should concentrate on getting the word out to people - that would be a tremendous service that needs doing rather than doing something you aren't equipped to do well and is already being done far better.

Here is the video link some of us created a few months ago based on the exceptional work from CAARD.

Web Link

"Most are not even sure which of the many moving parts to watch ... What can one grain of sand on a beach do about what happens to it?"

Does not take many grains of sand thrown into the gears to halt any forward movement.

Unfortunately San Jose is again trying to divert money Measure B money to itself PA thought it would get (but not guaranteed). It wants it to deal with the gooGle, etc influx.
Remains to be seen how this will shake out.

The assertion that the 46 acres of land is worth $1 Billion seems wildly optimistic, that works out at $22 million per acre. Record setting construct-able plots are going for $15 million per acre, but the land above a Caltrain tunnel would not be construct-able, it could only be used for parks and parking lots that cost money to maintain. The 46 acres above a buried Caltrain would have limited value to a developer.

The video shows a Bart train going into a tunnel but nowhere on peninsula does Bart pass under substantial buildings. Where Bart goes underground it travels below a road. The proposed new underground Bart extension in San Jose carefully follows the road network and never passes under a building.

Unlike Manhattan, the geology of the Bay area cannot support heavy structures on top of tunnels.

Knowing this should provide some of the motivation for NOT moving the rail underground.

Thanks to Anon and Nancy Shepard for pointing out the goofy numbers in the op-ed. It doesn't help create a meaningful civic discussion around fanciful assumptions.
I too would love for Caltrain to be tunneled throughout the city, but there are a lot of reasons that is very unlikely to occur. As Anon pointed out, we likely could never tunnel under the El Palo Alto tree. It's the Number 2 historic landmark in the state. That and other reasons means a tunnel could probably not start until south of Churchill. The Shepard video also claims that the estimated cost of a tunnel the length of the city would be $1-2 Billion. That is about half the cost of what the city consultants estimated. Lastly, as TBM noted, a narrow right away abutting Alma does not lend itself to much development and we don't even own the ROW. The Shepard group and Tanaka have been claiming for two years that high density development on the ROW could pay for a tunnel. Tanaka has championed massive amounts of high rise office development downtown to pay for it. We need to set aside fantasies and focus on how we can fund the best alternatives achievable.

Build it.

When one visits other communities on the Peninsula that have separated the track/roadway, one sees how much is added to the community's quality of life.

Tamsta - you don’t need to go to other towns to see tracks separated from roads. We have them in Palo Alto - University, Embarcadero, and Oregon. We just need more and possibly redesign some.

Don't be confused by all the Anons. None of the above Anons are me, Anon.

It shouldn't matter -- every argument should stand on its own merits.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Yes. This is well timed and exactly what must be discussed. Thank you.

Agreed. We really need more general understanding of the complex issues involved here. These changes will have a major impact on the future of the community.

>> One other point is that Caltrain and Palo Alto is unusual for a commuter system in that it is the midpoint of a two way commuting system.

Agreed. It is important to understand that the Palo Alto station in particular is both the source of a lot of northbound commute traffic to SF and the commute destination of traffic from both directions. (And the reverse late in the day.) Lots of reports here:

Web Link

Web Link

Will there also be a high-speed non-stop express line between certain cities?

I hate train stops especially if I'm still in transit headed somewhere.

Posted by Faster Is Better, a resident of another community

>> Will there also be a high-speed non-stop express line between certain cities?

There already are express trains. Here is the timetable:

Web Link

Obviously, to avoid stopping at every city, you can't get on and off everywhere. The true express trains stop at the Palo Alto station, and not the California Avenue station, for example. But, note also, that there are some nice in-between trains also that may work. A couple of my favorites are the southbound 268 and 272 trains in the afternoon that express through the northern peninsula but then stop at both Palo Alto and California Ave, and take only 40-45 minutes to get to Palo Alto. Not as fast as the true express trains, but, almost. Check the timetable and see what works for you.

It's a decade beyond time that we stop fighting the future, and start embracing it. We need to grade separate (or close) every intersection in PA that crosses the tracks. For traffic, for walkability and for the safety of our residents — even though it's too late for some of my fellow Paly alums :(.

It's going to be expensive, and well-worth the cost. It's not something we should debate. We must do it, and stop putting our damn head in the sand.

We also need to make room for 3 tracks, ideally 4. We can be a world-class place to live. We deserve world-class infrastructure.

Passenger rail transportation is not the future, it is the past, and has been for over 60 years. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep an obsolete transportation system, that serves 1% of the Peninisula's population, on life support makes no sense.

Passenger rail has fallen so far behind the technological curve that it is no longer compatible with the modern landscape and can only coexist with the modern world by being "separated" from the modern world in its own private "Jurassic Park" also known as the Caltrain ROW.

The financial and human cost of providing end of life support for passenger rail technology is just too high.

So Caltrain can do whatever they please? Can they say that every 15 mins a train will pass thru Palo Alto going 200 mph? Surely Palo Alto must have some sort of control over what Caltrain can do inside our town? If Caltrain electrifies, where will they get the juice? From Palo Alto, or will they import it from elsewhere?

@Ahem, What would you propose Palo Altans do in 2020 or so when Caltrain's new EMU's start running through town. As trains are added, congestion at crossings will increase. How much increase and how much delay can be estimated, but not known in advance. The other communities don't want to get rid of the system, and any replacement cost for any system would pale in comparison even to the tunnel. Should we just plan to continue to sit in cross town traffic until autonomous electric vehicles become cost effective and common place?

@Giraffe,

Caltrain is managed by a JPA made up of the three counties. Within their owned Right of Way, their rules and those of the FRA control. In order to Grade Separate, the VTA and/or the City has to put in money, because what Caltrain could do on their own won't cover it. My scenario above is based on nothing changing in Palo Alto before Electric Operation begins. Now that Electric construction activities have begun in Palo Alto, whatever we pick will have to include the cost of staging the Electric System to maintain train service. Caltrain buys their power, they don't really need CPA Electric to operate. Palo Alto missed the best window, fighting over High Speed Rail, after voting in 2008 to support it. Only the VTA sales tax lawsuit has prevented VTA from distributing funds to the other cities.

Three Counties and 60,000 riders won't wait for one little city, no matter who lives there!

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Passenger rail transportation is not the future, it is the past, and has been for over 60 years.

Based on what criteria? What is your algorithm for determining past/future-ness?

>> Passenger rail has fallen so far behind the technological curve

Based on what criteria? What formula yields the number on the "technological curve"?

"that serves 1% of the Peninisula's population"

You've been told before that this is a disingenuous figure. What matters is the percentage of commuters that take Caltrain, which takes pressure off of already congested highways.

Crossings at grade are going to become even more of a nightmare than they currently are as Caltrain runs more and longer trains. Palo Alto only has four unseparated crossings left.

Two (Palo Alto Ave and Churchill) are within a quarter mile of an existing separated crossing, and given the footprint/disruption of a separated crossing these should just be closed. The remaining two (Meadow and Charleston) are within a quarter mile of each other, so one should be separated and the other closed.

This leaves only one separation to construct, which would likely be Charleston due to traffic. Given the $150k estimate is three orders of magnitude low (25th Ave in San Mateo was $180m) this would be a workable and financially viable alternative. The city should be compensated for grade closings, not just separations, and the funds used for the separation that does get done.

Caltrain provides 60,000 "rides" per week day (less on weekends). The vast majority of people using Caltrain during the week take two rides per day. 60,000 divided by two gives you 30,000 users, which is about 1% of the Peninsula's population of 3,000,000.

To increase ridership, Caltrains should offer periodic promotions like a 2 for 1 day (round trip/one fare) or even a free one-way ride on certain weekends.

Most people like free stuff and it might even reduce traffic.

@Giraffe,

Railroads are governed by 100 year old Federal laws put in place by the Robber Barons to insulate the railroad industry from public opinion.

Federal law does limit the speed of trains to 79mph, unless the rails are "grade separated" from the rest of the modern world. If Palo Alto builds grade separation for Caltrain then Caltrain can go as fast as they please and there is nothing local laws can do to stop them.

Why not include the whole of California's population? Or of the USA? Did you know that Caltrain is only used by 2% of the states in the United States?

Or you can stop being disingenuous and look at how Caltrain is used by commuters and how many cars it gets off to road during rush hour.

Closing Churchill would be a nightmare. Embarcadero and Page Mill are gridlocked all the time, even with Churchill running many hundreds of cars during rush hour and on weekends. Bite the bullet and move the train underground. The overground access should become a green space with bike access and the whole city will be connected and free from the constant swarm of trains.

If the El Palo Alto root system is in the way, divert the tunnel under El Camino Park. Dig under the San Francisquito creek to avoid grade issues. Tunnels are built throughout the world and it just isn't a big deal. Think of the end result -- do you want a Palo Alto to be a town mauled by traffic and split by 200 trains running all day long? With Measure B you have the funds to make a beautiful open city free of dangerous and noisy trains. Take advantage of this opportunity and make Palo Alto that best that it can be.

@Ahem... "30,000 users, which is about 1% of the Peninsula's population of 3,000,000."

This percentage is totally irrelevant!

The peninsula has 16 lanes of freeway, shared between 101 and I-280. Today, in the peak hour, Caltrain carries the equivalent of about 3 packed freeway lanes. It's a good bet that if Caltrain shut down tomorrow there would be massive and unprecedented gridlock. The relevant ratio here is 3/16 or 19%, which is what Caltrain achieves today using obsolete clapped-out diesel trains. I don't include local roads in this percentage because the average commute on Caltrain is 23 miles, and who drives on local roads for 23 miles each way?

Caltrain can (and will) easily be expanded to the equivalent of 8 freeway lanes, without growing its geometrical footprint through Palo Alto. Trains are an amazingly efficient way to carry massive amounts of people quickly and efficiently to, from and through Palo Alto.

We've been through this before: Caltrain solves a geometry problem. Geometry is orthogonal to technology, so there is no Silicon Valley technology that you can throw at this problem unless it solves the geometry problem first. Success is measured in people per square meter per second per joule.

Self-driving cars and Hyperloops are marvelous technologies but they don’t solve the basic geometry problem. They use too many square meters and seconds and joules to be of any use in dense areas where space and time and energy are at a premium. Moving single people in 2000 kg pods stuck in gridlocked traffic, even if chauffeured by a computer, is not a solution.

If you think of transportation as a circulatory system, BART, Caltrain and other mass transit will always be the aorta, and will only be enhanced (not displaced) by capillary technologies like the self-driving car.

Geometry cannot be solved with technology!

Even so, the numbers are cooked.
The train is Victorian. We all know it’s time fore a change.
Only 10,000 people ride the train and there is no way that is more than a lane of traffic at most.
Victorian trains need to go!

@Ahem, the numbers are most assuredly not cooked. They are easily traceable and verifiable, although I will concede that innumeracy has become something of a badge of honor in these interesting times.

Detailed numbers, from 2016, are here: Web Link

Ridership has continued to grow since then, and once electrification is completed ridership will take off with more frequent, faster and longer trains. That’s not Victorian, it’s just Modern.

Why is Ahem stating that Caltrain is being used by 10,000? People should be required to use real instead of fake facts. There are too many Palo Altans who try to make up their own facts just like our fearless leader.

The very expensive alternatives are not going to happen. It's is taking a long time for the average citizen to get their minds around the fact that their wish in not everybody else's command.

@Clem,

If you really think about it, it is Caltrain that has a fatal geometry problem.

Rail technology has never solved the problem of being a one-dimensional system in a two-dimensional world. Roads can, and in many cases do, completely replace passenger rail, but passenger rail can never replace roads because passenger rail is completely dependent on roads to get people to and from its one-dimensional system. Passenger rail users are completely dependent on roads for every other transportation service except their 5/7 short ride from one station to another.

Oh, and then there is the little geometry problem with real-estate. Caltrain doesn't have enough, so it expects cities like Palo Alto to steal property from its residents, and then build hundreds of millions worth of improvements on the property for Caltrain's exclusive use, free from local laws and ordinances.

This is what Fascism looks like. Benito Mussolini said "Fascism is the fusion of corporate and state power". There is no more intimate fusion of corporate and state power than when the state owns and operates a corporation... like Caltrain.

Bury the tracks, build a bike lane along high density housing and it will more than pay for itself. No cars allowed.

I suppose the railway version of Godwin’s Law is that Mussolini must eventually be mentioned.

No doubt the fatal one-dimensionality of trains is what caused this mode to finally disappear with the advent of the horseless carriage!

Meanwhile, back in reality, one-dimensional BART carries 27,000 people per hour through the Transbay Tube every weekday morning, almost double the number of people who use road vehicles on I-80 over the Bay Bridge. That’s so many lanes, I lost count.

Could it be that the reality of modern mass transit is fundamentally at odds with your quaint and outdated beliefs?

"So Caltrain can do whatever they please? Can they say that every 15 mins a train will pass thru Palo Alto going 200 mph? Surely Palo Alto must have some sort of control over what Caltrain can do inside our town?"

Caltrain owns all of the rail infrastructure in Palo Alto. The trains were here before the city was incorporated. Neither CPA nor the 15 other communities through which Caltrain passes have any say.

Palo Alto needs to stop thinking of itself as "special". It has no more sway with Caltrain than Burlingame, Sunnyvale, San Bruno or any of the other peninsula cities Caltrain serves.

Leslie, in fact that is what Palo Alto basically wants. They want to build pack and stack housing right beside Caltrain and those residents to have no cars because they have Caltrain instead.

Not only is it pack and stack housing with people like sardines, but they want more trains getting them to go faster and more frequently so that they can get where they are going faster than driving.

You can't have one without the other, at least if you have pack and stack housing then as the trains are already full at commute time with the extra riders the trains will have to be more frequent. C'est la vie.

Regarding the Palo Alto Ave crossing, we need to consider closing the crossing, and extending Alma across the creek into Menlo Park. This would benefit both communities, and could be done without affecting our cherished tree, or neighborhoods.

Much of the rail benefit goes to people who don’t live here. Tax the businesses bringing the congestion and rail demand to town. 60000 riders with an annual tax of 500 buck raises 30million per year. The citizens who live here are going to be on the hook for far more. The businesses get the benefit, they should contribute to the cost.

600M over 20 years will help

QUOTE: Much of the rail benefit goes to people who don’t live here. Tax the businesses bringing the congestion and rail demand to town.

Interesting point/consideration as PA is primarily a 'passing-through' pit stop for many Caltrains riders. Though some passengers do get on/off at California & downtown PA, most of the ridership seems to be coming from further south heading towards SF.

Second busiest station after San Francisco.

Someone is getting off here. And I bet they work here.

I definitely don't want to tax the users in the sense that making ticket prices so high that people will not see the point of using the train.

Recently out of town houseguests used the train in off peak times. They were quite put out that there was no off peak special discounts or family tickets. We also use the train for Sharks and Giants games, again a very important function for those of us who live on the Peninsula and don't want to drive to games because of traffic and parking problems.

Rather than taxing users, we should be asking Caltrain to boost ridership at weekends and off peak times with fare incentives. After all the train will run regardless of how many riders are aboard.

Business taxes that tax for square footage rather than the number of employees makes sense to me. I would also like to see "free parking" at workplaces taxed as a perk, but that can't be a Palo Alto issue but would probably have to be done Statewide.

So yes, can we tax the perks of free parking spaces and put the money towards improving public transport. That would make a lot of sense to me. As I said, it would have to be a Statewide move, but how about it?

Instead of just making things up, why not actually READ the reports that have been made available to you many many times. Such as Web Link

Caltrans counts cars on the road - not some convoluted assumption about round trips and halving counts. 60,000 riders is 60,0000 people in cars wether solo or carpool, you can’t cut that in half because you assume it might be a round trip. PALO alto is the second busiest station after SF. Tax riders and your taxing your
fellow PALO Altans.

Guess what the roads would look like in PALO Alto if you put all those riders in cars. Well, you don’t have to guess, or make up numbers. Just READ the report that has been made available to you so many many times..

PALO Alto is a huge beneficiary of Caltrain. Bigger beneficiary than any other town than SF. Other towns should tax Palo Alto fo using a disproportionate share of Caltrain.

Has anyone actually -seen- El Palo Alto? I know it's our namesake tree, but I've driven by that park often on Alma and there is just a scrubby tangle of uninteresting redwoods. I'll bet no one would notice if it was removed in the service of better rail. . .


<stepping away from computer>

^^^^It's just a dead tree resting by an old metal bridge. Even the squirrels can't be bothered.

A tree service could easily chop the thing down while the PACC commissions a sculptor to design one in its place.

Then again, considering the hideous sculptures we've seen in Palo Alto over the years, that might not be such a great idea.

There is a serious problem on this thread with diehard rail supporters either using multiple names and/or posting using the online names of other posters.

Ahem, @Ahem,

I'm just me. The query about El Palo Alto was serious. Rail aside, I've always wondered what the big deal was. It's apparently been dying for quite awhile now thanks to the surrounding humans. Replacing it with a plaque wouldn't change much. It doesn't have much value as a tree, if it ever did.

"the PACC commissions a sculptor to design one in its place."

Oh gawd, no. It would probably look like an array of chrome tailpipes.

"Then again, considering the hideous sculptures we've seen in Palo Alto over the years, that might not be such a great idea."

Maybe OSH is having a close-out sale on aluminun xmas trees. Just stack them vertically until they reach the required height.

"I'll bet no one would notice if it was removed in the service of better rail. . ."

Sure they wouldn't.

I hope you're really not that naive.

Pollution from passing cars, locomotives and old age killed the tree.

The tree is insignificant deadwood except for the 'historical' fact that someone in Portola's expedition party noticed it one morning and designated the tree El Palo Alto as a geographic reference point.

Even the native Ohlone Indians could have cared less as they already knew how to get to what is now known as Palo Alto without having to rely on a dumb tree.

"Pollution from passing cars, locomotives and old age killed the tree."

News flash: the tree is still alive. It was in ill health from smoke from coal-burning steam locomotives but has since been nursed back to better health. They lopped a few feet off the top and installed a sprinkler that runs up the tree.

Maybe it could be moved but at great risk.

How many of these people bought their homes before this rail line was running nearby? The house's value has already been adjusted to compensate for the train. They already got a discount and are paying less in property tax.

The rail line was built in 1863. Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894.

Asking who was here first is kinda like people being annoyed by jet noise when Mills Field (now SFO) was built in 1927.

Posted by Rick, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>>> Has anyone actually -seen- El Palo Alto?

Yes. I'm sure you have, too. But I guess you didn't know it. To get a better look, drive down to the end of Alma before it crosses the tracks, turn right on Palo Alto Ave., park along the creek, and enjoy the the trees, surrounding park, bridge to Menlo Park, and so on. You might be surprised by how nice it is.


>>> I'll bet no one would notice if it was removed in the service of better rail. . .

We can have better rail and El Palo Alto. What we can't have is more cars.

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> There is a serious problem on this thread with diehard rail supporters either using multiple names and/or posting using the online names of other posters.

Are you concerned about "overcounting" or "undercounting"? Looks like you are concerned about both at the same time!?!? I post only as Anon; other posts are by one or more other people. Regardless, arguments should stand on their own merits, so it really doesn't matter.

Speaking of which, do you have any arguments with technical merit? Or do you think that silly labels like "antiquated" or, now, "Victorian" are actual arguments?

I get it that trains are not door-to-door and you therefore don't like trains. But, in appropriate usage, trains are orders of magnitude more efficient, cleaner, and safer than cars.

QUOTE: News flash: the tree is still alive. It was in ill health from smoke from coal-burning steam locomotives but has since been nursed back to better health. They lopped a few feet off the top and installed a sprinkler that runs up the tree.

And now the name is appropriate...The Tall Stick.

>> Has anyone actually -seen- El Palo Alto?

Yes. It resembles an old telephone pole except with some branches sticking out down below.

Even the Stanford mascot looks better.

> They lopped a few feet off the top and installed a sprinkler that runs up the tree.
> It resembles an old telephone pole except with some branches sticking out down below.
> And now the name is appropriate...The Tall Stick.

Would it be possible to maybe mount a plastic top section and add continuity to the tree? That way it would more closely resemble the City of Palo Alto logo.

Either that or the city should consider deleting the top section of the tree from the city emblem for added authenticity.

> Either that or the city should consider deleting the top section of the tree from the city emblem for added authenticity.

^^^^ That or change the logo altogether. Skyscrapers or a green dollar sign might be graphic considerations.

QUOTE: They lopped a few feet off the top and installed a sprinkler that runs up the tree.

QUOTE: Would it be possible to maybe mount a plastic top section and add continuity to the tree?

QUOTE: ...the city should consider deleting the top section of the tree from the city emblem for added authenticity.

Symbolically, these concepts/ideas are reflective of the current pro-development vs preservationist debate in Palo Alto.

Since we have wandered rather off topic, I would like to meander back towards the topic by dropping a reference page here regarding what the density options are. (I have previously posted a good reference PDF with a different orientation.) This reference has good pictures and plans showing what the different options are for "density". Density near Caltrain has been of considerable interest lately in quite a few discussion threads.

Let me start by saying that I tend to favor row-house/townhouse configurations myself for higher density. You can typically get all the density desired in low-rise townhouse configurations. High-rises are -not- required. This page is specifically designed to help people visualize different density options:

Web Link

@Anon, no one has yet explained why we need higher density housing rather than reducing demand by reducing office capacity?

Posted by Rick, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> @Anon, no one has yet explained why we need higher density housing rather than reducing demand by reducing office capacity?

Rick, I'm strongly in favor of -no more office space-, but, I also want to de-couple the high-rise issue from the density issue. There are powerful interest groups trying to push (again) for high-rises, by making the unfounded claim that high-rises are necessary to achieve denser housing near Caltrain stations. I want people to understand that high-rises are not necessary to achieve any of the densities that people have discussed. Just check out the web page. But, I can assure you that allowing high-rises will eventually destroy Palo Alto as we know it, replacing Palo Alto with an urban office desert.

Per Wikipedia, in 1814 El Palo Alto was 162 feet tall with two trunks. Today, it has one trunk (one came down during the 1886 flood) and is only 110 feet tall, due to poor conditions over the years. Since the 90's, the tree has been much better taken care of and is in reasonable health. It is no way the same tree as when Portola was here. However, it is still widely admired and it is unlikely to be removed.

Web Link

Another thread that makes me glad I moved out of Palo Alto. Sold my home next to the tracks for over 3 million To Chinese buyers.

Didn’t relizee how noisy Palo Alto was until I moved. Constant trains, planes, and automobiles. Homeless everywhere, broke down RV’s Give it another ten years and it will resemble San Francisco.

> Another thread that makes me glad I moved out of Palo Alto. Sold my home next to the tracks for over 3 million To Chinese buyers.

Didn’t relizee how noisy Palo Alto was until I moved. Constant trains, planes, and automobiles. Homeless everywhere, broke down RV’s Give it another ten years and it will resemble San Francisco.


^^^^^This. Nothing more to be said. Will be doing the same ASAP. The new foreign-born home buyers can have what is left of Palo Alto.

That dilapidated old tree is an appropriate symbol of what PA has become.

No turning back.

@Anon,

That's fine, but the real issue is that we also don't want density. Density inexorably leads to congestion and we have far too much of that already.

You're decades too late to keep that genie in the bottle.

"Didn’t relize how noisy Palo Alto was until I moved. Constant trains, planes, and automobiles. Homeless everywhere, broken down RV’s Give it another ten years and it will resemble San Francisco."

If you can't tolerate the noise, the homeless and the broken-down RV's, move to Woodside. Or Morro Bay.

> Didn’t relize how noisy Palo Alto was until I moved. Constant trains, planes, and automobiles. Homeless everywhere, broken down RV’s Give it another ten years and it will resemble San Francisco.
>> If you can't tolerate the noise, the homeless and the broken-down RV's, move to Woodside. Or Morro Bay.

My how Palo Alto has apparently changed. We left PA 30 years ago for Manhattan Beach. No airplane noise, broken down RVs or homeless people around here. With all of these threads complaining about traffic and overdevelopment, Palo Alto must be a dreadful place to live nowadays.

Glad we got out when we did although we probably could have made more money selling our house on Alexis Drive at today's prices. Then again, there weren't as many overseas buyers back then.

>> With all of these threads complaining about traffic and overdevelopment, Palo Alto must be a dreadful place to live nowadays.

Absolutely horrid. We just moved to Lincoln after the last kid graduated high school.

Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH. They then brought their elderly parents over and now have an extended family living arrangement...kind of like the Waltons.

I imagine that many more will be re-situating in Palo Alto as they seem to have the readily available resources to purchase expensive homes.

>> Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH. They then brought their elderly parents over and now have an extended family living arrangement...kind of like the Waltons.

We are planning to do the same. As a matter of fact, our listing brochure will also be written in Chinese. Our RE agent is forwarding copies of it to an overseas colleague of hers who helps situate families moving from China to the midpeninsula.

Pre-qualified clients = immediate CASH on hand. No financing/escrow/mortgage considerations or hassles. If they like what they see...SOLD.

Doesn't get any easier than that. I imagine Palo Alto will have a sizable mainland China population in a few years.

^ Saw something similar in a Montana publication, "Sold our ranch to a nice California family from the west coast who paid $6M CASH. They then brought their elderly parents over and now have an extended family living arrangement...kind of like the Waltons," though I don't really remember the exact quote.

The Chinese government has been cracking down on corruption and that has unleashed a multi-billion dollar flood of ill-gotten gains from China. Meanwhile the United States has implemented very strict regulations which make it very difficult to launder money through financial institutions, leaving real-estate as the only practical way to launder large sums of cash.

Canada's Southern Ontario province implemented a 15% foreign buyer's tax in Southern Ontario but it has failed to stem the tide of foreign buyers. People with ill-gotten gains can afford to pay %15 extra. The tax is really just a way for the provincial government to get a piece of the action.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
If this is done one crossing at a time it will be very expensive, take a long time and result in a dis-integrated design.

Please at least think about a more comprehensive and integrated approach.

Why not see this as an opportunity rather than a problem?

One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula.

A piecemeal approach will be very expensive.

Do it once and do it right.

> Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH.

>> the United States has implemented very strict regulations which make it very difficult to launder money through financial institutions, leaving real-estate as the only practical way to launder large sums of cash.


This explains a lot in terms of the changing demographics in Palo Alto and other nearby communities.

Should Palo Altans interested in selling their homes be wary of alluring quick cash house sales and boycott these types of transactions?

Easier said than done in many instances. Perhaps the next step is for neighbors to pool their resources and buy certain homes in their residential areas to curtail the massive influx of overseas buyers permeating their neighborhoods.

“The Chinese government has been cracking down on corruption and that has unleashed a multi-billion dollar flood of ill-gotten gains from China. Meanwhile the United States has implemented very strict regulations which make it very difficult to launder money through financial institutions, leaving real-estate as the only practical way to launder large sums of cash.”

So......get out while the getting is still good. And if prop 5 passes if you are over 55 you’ll get a tax break on you’re winnings.

If the tree ever decides to die the city can change its name to Chino Alto

Posted by Selling Out As Well, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> >> Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH.

>> We are planning to do the same. As a matter of fact, our listing brochure will also be written in Chinese. Our RE agent is forwarding copies of it to an overseas colleague of hers who helps situate families moving from China to the midpeninsula.

>> Pre-qualified clients = immediate CASH on hand. No financing/escrow/mortgage considerations or hassles. If they like what they see...SOLD. [...] Doesn't get any easier than that.

No escrow? What do you do with the suitcases full of $20 bills? Isn't it a little worrisome to travel around with $6M -CASH-?

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> The Chinese government has been cracking down on corruption

It is a little late to be pulling the money out, no?

>> and that has unleashed a multi-billion dollar flood of ill-gotten gains from China. Meanwhile the United States has implemented very strict regulations which make it very difficult to launder money through financial institutions, leaving real-estate as the only practical way to launder large sums of cash.

There we go with the "cash" thing again. What form is it usually in? Gold coins? $6M would be roughly about $150 kg of gold. Do you put that in your checked luggage? Be a shame if the baggage handlers misplaced it. :rolleyes:

“There we go with the "cash" thing again. What form is it usually in? ”

CASH just means it’s not a loan the buyer is getting from a bank which also means no appraisal or loan qualification necessary. The buyer has many ways of getting their money (cash) into a place where they can move it into your bank account or via an escrow service.

If you have a non cash buyer, they must qualify for the Bank loan and it must appraise and inspect to the banks satisfaction. This can add a couple of months to closing, and the deal can fall through if the appraisal is lower than expected or the bank refuses the loan because they don’t like the buyers future cash flow prospects (can’t pay taxes or insurance or relying on expectation of rental, etc.) Thus Cash is the best kind of buyer. But It’s not in the form of a suitcase full of gold. Seriously ??

> Cash is the best kind of buyer. But It’s not in the form of a suitcase full of gold. Seriously ??

Correct. Amazing how many folks think these overseas CASH home buyers are actually carrying around vast amounts of currency to close a residential transaction.

>> Sold my home next to the tracks for over 3 million To Chinese buyers.
>>> Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH.
>>>> This explains a lot in terms of the changing demographics in Palo Alto and other nearby communities.
>>>>> ...get out while the getting is still good. And if prop 5 passes if you are over 55 you’ll get a tax break on you’re winnings.

Our house goes on the market next spring. The home buyers from overseas can have Palo Alto all to themselves. As long as the buyer pays CASH and meets (or exceeds) my asking price, the property is their's for the keeping.

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> CASH just means it’s not a loan the buyer is getting from a bank which also means no appraisal or loan qualification necessary. The buyer has many ways of getting their money (cash) into a place where they can move it into your bank account or via an escrow service.

>> [...] Thus Cash is the best kind of buyer. But It’s not in the form of a suitcase full of gold. Seriously ??

I was being facetious. But, the whole thing about CASH transactions involving various foreign buyers is getting a bit worn. Of course, some people will prefer a transaction which can be completed in three days rather than an uncertain one in three months, while, other people may prefer to gamble three months for 7% more, say. It is a seller choice.

For those of us who have sold in the past few years, I can tell you this from experience.

1. The market is such that you set your price a little low to attract buyers to your open house. Because the comps are higher, you attract more buyers interested in a good deal.
2. You hold an open house on the weekend and don’t take any offers till the following Thursday. The buyers make their best offer since they expect there to be other offers and know you’re likely to take the best one
3. You evaluate the offers. You can consider price, confidence the deal will go through (loan dependencies, contingencies, etc). YOU CANNOT use race or your preference for a “type” of person to reject an offer. That would be illegal.
4. After a “blind” evaluation of the offers you can accept one or leave the home on the market in hopes it appreciates - but in the latter case, why did you put it on the market if you think you can get a better price later ? Just wait till your ready and save all the extra expense of fixing up and staging twice and angering your real estate agent for wasting their time.

In the end, the highes offer is better, all cash is better still. But if you reject that offer because the buyer is Chinese (or a “type” you don’t want in your neighborhood, then you’ll probably sued.

Having said all that - prices are dropping. Take a look at Zillow and you’ll see lots of houses on the market for over a month and/or selling below asking (after price reductions.). The days of the bidding wars are gone and your home is probably worth 15% less than spring. All cash buyers are drying up and mortgage rates are eating people’s max offers down.


I wish you luck!

> YOU CANNOT use race or your preference for a “type” of person to reject an offer. That would be illegal.

If one is moving and selling their house, who cares who the buyer is? As long as they have CASH.

>>...if you reject that offer because the buyer is Chinese (or a “type” you don’t want in your neighborhood, then you’ll probably sued.

Who care's what your [former] neighbor's think?

How important is it to keep Palo Alto and Churchill Ave. open.

“How important is it to keep Palo Alto and Churchill Ave. open”

Essential for maintaining the flow of Chinese buyers into the area. I believe you’d see a big home price drop if you closed them.

"Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future."

I don't know whom you are preaching to, but you seem to be unaware of who actually owns the ROW. Hint: it isn't the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park or Atherton.

HSR, if it happens, will share the ROW with Caltrain. This plan was hatched several years ago, and there is already fiber running along the ROW.

You could save yourself some typing by familiarizing yourself with the facts before posting. A few things have changed since the last time you posted these same brilliant ideas.

"How important is it to keep Palo Alto and Churchill Ave. open."

It's important if you want to mitigate automotive gridlock. If you close those roads the auto traffic will have to go somewhere else.

There seems to be some fallacious thinking by people who post here that if you close crossings the trains will stop coming. Closing crossings will likely cause more problems than it solves.

Who owns the ROW does not change the value of the ROW.

If the trains are placed underground then the owner of the ROW can capitalize on the value of the freed upped surface area.

^^^^^
>>> "If the trains are placed underground then the owner of the ROW can capitalize on the value of the freed upped surface area"

If this made economic sense, the owner of the ROW would have done it already.

>>> "We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula."

You are right about this, which is why putting the rail underground would be a mistake, building on the ROW would preclude future generations from exploiting new technology on the ROW, such as suspended maglevs of bunches of vacuum tubes.

"The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital"

Not really, by the time you built a new Caltrans compliant access road and bicycle path along the ROW, there would not be many square feet left in the narrow strip for construction of buildings.

The feasibility of a trench or tunnel in Palo Alto is in question due to the necessity of crossing creeks. You would know this had you bothered to read the other posts in this thread.

"If the trains are placed underground then the owner of the ROW can capitalize on the value of the freed upped surface area

"If this made economic sense, the owner of the ROW would have done it already."

As well, the owner of the ROW is in the business of running a commute rail service, not developing real estate. Building a 50-mile trench/tunnel through 16 communities in 3 counties would cost into the trillions for a rather narrow strip of developable land. Good luck building political support and financing it. If it made economic sense, Southern Pacific would have pursued it years ago.

"The feasibility of a trench or tunnel in Palo Alto is in question due to the necessity of crossing creeks. You would know this had you bothered to read the other posts in this thread."

Wrong.

The SF Water company bored a tunnel under the Bay from East Palo Alto to Fremont.

Web Link

Please do you homework before making false claims.

>“How important is it to keep Palo Alto and Churchill Ave. open”

>>Essential for maintaining the flow of Chinese buyers into the area. I believe you’d see a big home price drop if you closed them.

Same goes for SFO notwithstanding the noise from approaching aircraft.

The term 'A slow boat to China' does not apply in terms of going the opposite direction.

Incidentally, though our home is currently not for sale, we received a polite inquiry from a Chinese RE agent as to whether we would be interested in selling.
The figures she tossed around in terms of what her clients might be willing to pay were very attractive to say the least. We are now considering as our children have left the next. Perhaps it's time for new birds and new nests.

"The SF Water company bored a tunnel under the Bay from East Palo Alto to Fremont."

Under the bay. No creeks to cross.

As I said, creek crossing by a RR trench/tunnel has become an issue with the local water district. That you are unaware of this does not mean it isn't so.

The creek is fifty feet wide at flood stage.

The SF Water CO tunnel is FIVE MILES long.

Please document why a tunnel cannot be bored beneath the creek.

"Please document why a tunnel cannot be bored beneath the creek."

Ask the people at the water district.

If they say "no", then no trench or tunnel. Same with Caltrain.

There are slso engineering issues to do with the grade needed to go under the creeks. Caltrain has the final say on this.

So no documentation as to why a tunnel cannot be bored under a tiny creek.

Look at the Chunnel (which only has trains) under the English Channel and Musk's two new tunnels in LA and lots of tunnels in Norway that go under water.

Facts trump assertions.

A tunnel can be bored under any creek, the problem is that the tunnel would need to be deep and then every station platform would need to be deep underground, and that would be very expensive and disruptive because the 700 foot long platforms would be dug from the surface on the site of the existing station, closing the station and diverting the train onto adjacent roads during the big dig. The station platform would probably be below the local water table, adding to the construction and operating costs.

The water pipe under the bay went to a depth of 100 feet to find good tunneling rock. It would not be financially viable to move all of the peninsula stations 100 feet underground. It is also difficult to find a suitable location to build a long ramp from the surface to the deep tunnel, given that ramps cannot cut through creeks and station platforms cannot be on a slope.

The creek problem with the short trench plan is that even with a 2% grade, the train cannot pass above one creek and fully pass under the next, the distance between the creeks is insufficient.

Leslie,

You are the one who doesn't seem to understand who owns the ROW. Caltrain and the ROW are owned by San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and managed through the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board.

The ROW is owned by the government. In a government of the people that means WE, the 3,000,000 people who live in the three Counties, own the ROW.

The PCJPB is a legal construct used to subvert democracy and allow governments to operate a corporation and use it to socially engineer the public into a more perfect consumer of products offered by their cronies in the real-estate industry.

How about an above ground tunnel for noise abatement and a small number of bridges directly over them to allow car crossings?

"In a government of the people that means WE, the 3,000,000 people who live in the three Counties, own the ROW."

In fact the Counties are just holding the land in trust for the State, which has sovereignty, and the people of the state voted to build a high speed rail system on that land.

In the central valley, kings county tried to block a road overpass being built on the pretext that the structure wasn't up to the standards of their dirt roads, LOL. The High Speed Rail Authority played the sovereignty card, with references to relevant case law, a very entertaining read: Web Link

I think you're confusing this to be an argument about what's possible from an engineering perspective rather than what's possible from a cost perspective.

CPA decided several months ago not to tunnel under San Franciscquito creek. In addition to engineering considerations there are the political considerations of going into Menlo Park/San Mateo county. So they decided not to.

Several other creeks enter into the picture as well.

"the tunnel would need to be deep and then every station platform would need to be deep underground, and that would be very expensive and disruptive because the 700 foot long platforms would be dug from the surface on the site of the existing station, closing the station and diverting the train onto adjacent roads during the big dig. The station platform would probably be below the local water table, adding to the construction and operating costs."

Besides the hurdle of financing it, you'd have to get PCJPB to agree to it.

>Another thread that makes me glad I moved out of Palo Alto. Sold my home next to the tracks for over 3 million To Chinese buyers.
>>Sold our house to a nice Chinese family from overseas who paid $6M CASH.
>>>Our house goes on the market next spring. The home buyers from overseas can have Palo Alto all to themselves.
>>>>...though our home is currently not for sale, we received a polite inquiry from a Chinese RE agent as to whether we would be interested in selling.


With all these posted sentiments and current relocation plans, I am beginning to care less about the various RR grade crossings as we will probably be moving out of Palo Alto as well, ideally towards the middle of next summer.

Perhaps this issue is best left to those remaining in PA along with the new residents re-situating from overseas. Good luck and drive safely.

To put it bluntly, I am beginning to care less about trains and cars as this issue will no longer be any concern of mine or my family's.

We are also going to be part of the ongoing Exodus.

TBM,

The people of California voted to build high speed rail in the ROW but they also gave the state a budget and performance requirements. The project isn't even near completion, the project is way over budget, and the system as planned will never meet the performance requirements.

If the state needs grade separation to run its trains faster, why doesn't the state pay for the grade separation?

The state owned ROW is like a mini Venezuela threaded through California complete with all of the same dysfunction, incompetence, corruption, and blind allegiance to a failed political ideology.

>>> "The people of California voted to build high speed rail in the ROW but they also gave the state a budget and performance requirements."

There was no budget requirement, the vote was to borrow $9.9b to "initiate" construction.

Well funded groups have gone to court to litigate "the system as planned will never meet the performance requirements", but the judge wants to see actual scientific proof and the petitioners have none to present because none exists. The Authority, in contrast, have sophisticated computer models based on detailed engineering measurements that show the performance requirement can be met.
There is no deadline for meeting the performance requirements, the Authority merely needs to show they could get there eventually through continued incremental build-out.

>>> "If the state needs grade separation to run its trains faster, why doesn't the state pay for the grade separation?"

Eventually, the State could do that, but the State will build the value engineered option, which is the split grade with rail raised 15 feet and roads lowered 5 feet, over the objections of Palo Altans.
The State, via the High Speed Rail Authority, has sovereign rights and can change Palo Alto's roads without Palo Alto's permission.

"Eventually, the State could do that, but the State will build the value engineered option, which is the split grade with rail raised 15 feet and roads lowered 5 feet, over the objections of Palo Altans.

"The State, via the High Speed Rail Authority, has sovereign rights and can change Palo Alto's roads without Palo Alto's permission."

By that reasoning, could the State of California simply close those the crossings (Charleston, Meadow, Churchill and Palo Alto Ave.) without building or financing replacement crossings and simply say "Deal with it, Palo Alto"?

Posted by Leslie, a resident of Midtown

>> By that reasoning, could the State of California simply close those the crossings (Charleston, Meadow, Churchill and Palo Alto Ave.) without building or financing replacement crossings and simply say "Deal with it, Palo Alto"?

A complicated and specialized legal question. It turns out that someone at DOT has conveniently created a website that addresses the mesh of federal and state legal issues. Even if I were a lawyer, which I'm not, I would defer to a specialist to address questions. Ultimately, a conflict would inevitably end up in court. But, I believe that the California State Public Utilities Commission would be a major player:

Web Link

Of course, I could be wrong. Better talk to a legal specialist for advice on this one.

Judicial decisions have established the subject of railroad grade crossing is a matter of statewide concern within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and that it does not come within the field of municipal affairs.

The California Public Utilities Commission has the EXCLUSIVE power:

(a) To determine and prescribe the manner, including the particular point of crossing, and the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection of each crossing of one railroad by another railroad or street railroad, of a street railroad by a railroad, of each crossing of a public or publicly used road or highway by a railroad or street railroad, and of a street by a railroad or of a railroad by a street.

(b) To alter, relocate, or abolish by physical closing any crossing set forth in subdivision (a).

(c) To require, where in its judgment it would be practicable, a separation of grades at any crossing established and to prescribe the terms upon which the separation shall be made and the proportions in which the expense of the construction, alteration, relocation, or abolition of crossings or the separation of grades shall be divided between the railroad or street railroad corporations affected or between these corporations and the state, county, city, or other political subdivision affected.

All I am asking is for a 75+mph train that goes non-stop from PA to SF without stopping for anyone else...cars, additional passengers etc.

If this can be accomplished, I will renew my Caltrains pass. If not, I will switch back to my car and 'barrel up' 280 to 19th avenue and beyond.

The only reason I take the train is because bumper to bumper 101 commute traffic is not good for a car. Hard on brake linings and gearbox. Those who own a Porsche will attest to that. As far as burning up petrol, I could care less. Gas is what it is.

"All I am asking is for a 75+mph train that goes non-stop from PA to SF without stopping for anyone else...cars, additional passengers etc."

The baby bullets are the closest you're going to get. How many millions did we spend on the baby bullets? They're available to anyone who doesn't live under a rock.

Web Link

Having just returned from Europe where transit is frequent and accessible, I am convinced that the proper long term solution for our growing cities is to underground the trains, and yes, the stations.
Doing this would cost more for sure than other short term options but consider that the opportunities to create bicycle and pedestrian pathways on top would take many additional car trips off the roads.
The engineering issues here can't be tougher than putting train lines under the Seine or Danube.
Interest rates are low. Surely the financial community that has launched many a company here in Silicon Valley can figure out creative ways to come up with funding.
Key communities (Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto) want the undergrounding and should push together to do this. It is the right thing for the future.

"the opportunities to create bicycle and pedestrian pathways on top would take many additional car trips off the roads."

How many people are willing to bike from Palo Alto to San Francisco round trip 5 days per week, week in and week out?

"The engineering issues here can't be tougher than putting train lines under the Seine or Danube."

The train lines under the Seine and the Danube aren't crammed next to private residences on pricey real estate which need driveway access like our beloved Caltrain is.

"Surely the financial community that has launched many a company here in Silicon Valley can figure out creative ways to come up with funding."

What's to "figure out"? Those companies are not in the business of giving away free money. They would expect to be paid back with interest, just like a bondholder would. Any such arrangement would be subject to voter approval.

"Key communities (Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto) want the undergrounding and should push together to do this."

What about the other 13 communities served by Caltrain? Several of them are already grade separated or are much further ahead of Palo Alto with grade-separation plans of their own. You can cross them off your list of supporters. They won't be interested in spending the money for something they already have or don't need.

A lot of these grandiose ideas die a quick death when they meet the brick wall known as "reality".

> How many people are willing to bike from Palo Alto to San Francisco round trip 5 days per week, week in and week out?

Personally speaking, I know of no such fool. A highly impractical and potentially dangerous way to get to SF. Besides, one would have to be in good shape as well. This concept is also impractical for those who are handicapped or have physical limitations. An idiotic concept at best.

If taking a train is really the way to go, perhaps the key is to expand the RR tracks to 4 and offer more scheduled runs. This would involved eminent domain and the acquition of properties along the west side of the tracks as Alma/Central would still be a necessary expressway for local motorists.

"While some residents and civic leaders have been sounding an alarm about the impacts of bigger, faster and more frequent trains for years,"

Why have they been sounding the alarm? Bigger and faster does not necessarily mean louder. Not all trains go through Palo Alto at top speed. If people are worried about crossing signals, those have always been there.

"What is about to happen to Palo Alto alone is worth noting. Palo Alto's University Avenue train station and transit center is the second busiest hub of bus and train commuters on the 46-mile-long Peninsula Caltrain line, right after San Francisco."

But it is not just happening to Palo Alto alone. Traffic congestion and public transit are regional issues and demand regional solutions. If our transit center is the second busiest, then rail transit upgrades are something to be welcomed.

It is time to have a non-stop dirigible service to SF. Departure from Moffett Field/Mountain View with an eventual landing at the Presidio.

Less reliance on trains/cars + plenty of parking at former blimp base. Run Google out of there as well. They're partly responsible for PA's housing/traffic/parking problem.

That will dovetail nicely with California's high-speed blimp project.

"How many people are willing to bike from Palo Alto to San Francisco round trip 5 days per week, week in and week out?"
Who says the car trips reduced would be only those that are on the highway? What about the people who clog up Alma, El Camino, Middlefield in their cars? Some of those trips could be eliminated if there were a safe and continuous path through our communities.

"The train lines under the Seine and the Danube aren't crammed next to private residences on pricey real estate which need driveway access like our beloved Caltrain is."
Well, yes those are right next to pricey neighborhoods. That is why they are underground.

"What about the other 13 communities served by Caltrain? Several of them are already grade separated or are much further ahead of Palo Alto with grade-separation plans of their own."
yes, some other communities have made plans. Our 3 communities can make our own, and there is sufficient distance from Redwood City and Mt. View for trains to go to grade if needed.

@Blimp Time : "It is time to have a non-stop dirigible service to SF. Departure from Moffett Field/Mountain View with an eventual landing at the Presidio."

Already attempted in 2008-10 by "Airshp Ventures".
Web Link
Web Link

They had a private Zapplin built airship flying out of Moffett for a few years.
They had nice plans for more. Unfortunately the business failed. Insufficient riders and funding materialized.

" We ceased operations due to lack of a major/title advertising sponsor, a necessary part of the revenue mix. The Zeppelin was disassembled and has been returned to her place of manufacture in Germany. "

A real shame....

"Who says the car trips reduced would be only those that are on the highway? What about the people who clog up Alma, El Camino, Middlefield in their cars? Some of those trips could be eliminated if there were a safe and continuous path through our communities."

If it's such a short distance, let them walk or ride bikes like I and everyone else I know did when we attended Palo Alto schools. It astounds me to hear that soccer moms are driving their kids to Paly in their big, hulking SUV's. To Paly? I used to bike from approximately Bowden Park to Jane Lathrop Stanford (Wilbur) for summer school. A pleasant trip it was.

"Our 3 communities can make our own, and there is sufficient distance from Redwood City and Mt. View for trains to go to grade if needed."

Frankly, Palo Alto has dithered so much on grade sep and has its head so far up its hind quarters that I can't imagine any other city wanting to work with us.

Palo Alto has been wise not to jump into grade-separation. The financial and human costs to its citizens is just too great for a system that carries so few people. Caltrain probably will not even survive an economic down turn, the autonomous vehicle revolution, or the new demographic reality.

Gen Z recently passed the millenial generation as the most populous generation in America. Gen Z does not share the millenial generation's fear of driving and they have little interest in carrying on the boomer generation's Quixotic war on cars.

"Palo Alto has been wise not to jump into grade-separation."

Doing nothing at Churchill, a low-auto-traffic crossing, remains an attractive option. Leave it as it has been for 150+ years.

Autonomous vehicles owned by individuals in current car numbers solve nothing and still take up square miles or a lot of volume to store. There will be even more trips if people send them out on errands. Even vehicles not owned but summoned still don't solve the number of individual trips or the peak loading problem that gives us low utilization. On the other hand, the loss of vehicle access, owned or summoned, would be a huge loss in individual and family range and freedom. But the subsidized and individual costs of cars really dwarf transit.

A form of transit that could contribute might be connected, auto-driving passenger vans. You ask for one with a phone and the request includes your GPS location and where you are going. The vans are dispatched and routed centrally to make minimal trips given the accumulating passenger load. I recall a humanly operated van system in Shenzhen (China) that worked like that with the vans often a husband and wife business. My companion would wave one down, the person at the door would ask where you wanted to go. If it fit a good route with the other passengers, OK. If not you waved another down.

Approximate solutions to the Traveling Salesman Problem are fine, of course, a quantum computer isn't required..........

It's always surprising that people believe that they can buy a house and freeze the world around them for decades until they choose to leave. Perhaps offering at least twice market value in cash for eminent domain would work. When people campaign to bring the railroad down their street we would know it's enough. Cutting the litigation and delays would end up saving way over the usual expense due to the increase in project costs over time.

Older people in the area say that BART was once projected to ring the Bay. But the Nimby's killed it. Now we see yet again the price for the function is vastly increased and will just keep increasing much faster than inflation. If Palo Alto can't solve the problems it will lose control entirely. That may be what people actually need with their endless faction fights.

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> [...] a system that carries so few people

"There you go again." -- Ronald Reagan

No point in posting the numbers again, because you always ignore data. But, I will acknowledge, again, that Caltrain does not take -you- from your door to where you want to go.

Posted by A Fast Train Is the Only Answer, a resident of Palo Alto Hills

>> All I am asking is for a 75+mph train that goes non-stop from PA to SF without stopping for anyone else...cars, additional passengers etc.

Please help me understand your requirements. Caltrain currently doesn't stop for cars. But, several trains in the 300-series take 39-41 minutes from Palo Alto to SF in the morning. They actually travel at 79 mph, faster than your requirement. But, they stop in Hillsdale and Millbrae. Why do a couple of stops bother you, if the end-to-end elapsed time meets your requirements?

"A form of transit that could contribute might be connected, auto-driving passenger vans. You ask for one with a phone and the request includes your GPS location and where you are going. The vans are dispatched and routed centrally to make minimal trips given the accumulating passenger load. I recall a humanly operated van system in Shenzhen (China) that worked like that with the vans often a husband and wife business. My companion would wave one down, the person at the door would ask where you wanted to go. If it fit a good route with the other passengers, OK. If not you waved another down."

It sounds like Lyft or Uber on steroids.

What's wrong with stopping at designated stops along the route and picking up or dropping off a couple of dozen passsengers? No central dispatch, no calling and asking for a vehicle, no matching riders with other riders, routes and vehicles. There is a schedule and you know your vehicle will arrive at 8:21 am or whatever. Very simple. That's what you've got with Caltrain.

This isn't China. We're not going to reinvent the peninsula commute service. We can't even get to first base with grade separation.

Leslie said:

"What's wrong with stopping at designated stops along the route and picking up or dropping off a couple of dozen passengers?"

Obsolete 19th century thinking about how transportation will work in a highly networked world. Also, not competitive with private vehicle ownership which goes on the owner's schedule instead of the vehicles schedule.

Caltrain user are habituated to the routine but most people don't want to waste a lot time walking to a designated stop, or running if they are late, and then waiting for the transportation which might be on time, but is frequently late.

Why saddle the van-share concept with limitations intrinsic to passenger rail?

"Why saddle the van-share concept with limitations intrinsic to passenger rail?"

Because it's preferable to dumping another couple of of thousand vehicles on the highways every day.

"most people don't want to waste a lot time walking to a designated stop, or running if they are late, and then waiting for the transportation which might be on time, but is frequently late."

There is no big challenge in catching a train on time.

I just don’t like trains.
There. I said it.

Posted by Ahem, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> I just don’t like trains.
>> There. I said it.

Hey, we are agreed-- you just don't like trains!

I, OTOH, like taking a rational, systematic, systems-oriented, data-driven approach to everything, including transportation of freight and people. Some people find that rationality irritating. I'm aware of it. We can discuss different personality types and their likes and dislikes in another thread. As far as I am concerned, this thread is about rational transportation policies and solutions.

Anon,

Please be aware there are more than one person posting under the name Ahem.