High-speed rail rattles Belmont

Rail officials said they are considering a 6-mile long set of passing tracks spanning San Mateo to Redwood City to offer train operators more flexibility in coordinating train schedules. To pull this off in the stretch of track that passes through Belmont, they are looking at increasing the elevation of the berm currently supporting the city’s rail line some 5 to 10 feet on the section of track north of Middle Road and constructing a 10- to 30-foot aerial bridge, or viaduct, in the portion south of Middle Road.

City officials had questions about how high-speed rail service might impact commuter train service through the Peninsula, the demand for high-speed rail service and how likely it was that Caltrain and high-speed authority officials would agree on using passing tracks as the solution for blending commuter and high-speed service.

Mayor Charles Stone emphasized the importance of maintaining the current level of Caltrain commuter service no matter which solution was chosen between adding passing tracks and coordinating the services on the existing infrastructure.

Though Ben Tripousis, the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Northern California regional director, said the authority’s analysis to date suggested running up to six Caltrain commuter trains and four high-speed rail trains per hour in both directions between San Francisco and San Jose during peak commute times was possible on existing tracks, he mentioned further conversations with Caltrain officials would determine whether that would adequately accommodate commuter service expected in the coming years.

Stone anticipated that if Caltrain commuter lines are negatively affected by high-speed service after long-standing efforts to electrify and improve service, rail officials could expect pushback from Peninsula commuters counting on the service.

“I don’t know what that looks like, but it’s really ugly, I’m sure of that,” he said.

Councilman Warren Lieberman urged the two bodies to explore an option to extend service on the existing infrastructure as thoroughly as possible before considering passing tracks. He said he had questions as to whether four high-speed trains an hour would be needed and forecasted opposition from Belmont resident and councilmembers to the adjustment to the Belmont stretch of tracks officials floated Tuesday.

“I would tell you that if there is any significant likelihood that a passing track is needed because you’re going from two to three to four trains an hour, you will get such resistance from this community and likely from this council,” he said.

Mary Morrissey Parden said she represented the Belmont Chamber of Commerce and city’s business community in opposing the passing tracks option, which high-speed rail authorities said could also entail acquiring 5 to 30 feet of property from business owners on Old County Road to expand the corridor’s right-of-way on either side.

“The Belmont business community will not support it,” she said. “They did not support [blended service] during any of our initial discussions until we heard the words ‘no passing track.’”

Councilman Eric Reed asked rail officials to clarify how likely the passing track option might be.

“I wanted to get a feel for just how likely the no additional passing tracks option is because I think that would make a lot of your problems disappear,” he said.

Tripousis was reluctant to place a likelihood on the option since a decision would need to be reached in partnership with Caltrain, the owner of the tracks.

Caltrain spokesman Seamus Murphy confirmed that Caltrain is working with the High-Speed Rail Authority to find a solution that meets the goals of both services and takes the needs of the surrounding communities into account.

“There are obviously major issues that need to be addressed and information that needs to be provided and identified in terms of how Caltrain service and high-speed service are going to live together on this corridor,” he said.

Adina Levin, representing the nonprofit Friends of Caltrain, said the passing track option could give both services more flexibility to grow should demand spike for either one. She mentioned new offices planned for locations near major stations in San Jose and San Francisco as examples of developments that could affect Caltrain ridership.

“We could have a lot more people using Caltrain two, three or four times the demand of what we have today and we may need more Caltrain trains,” she said.

Tripousis said rail authorities would be preparing an environmental assessment that community members could weigh in on in the coming months and will be setting dates for open houses for San Carlos and Belmont shortly to present possible plans to residents that could be affected by passing tracks. The San Carlos City Council also heard a presentation on the passing track proposal at a meeting in late June. There, city officials and residents expressed concern about how adjustments could affect existing infrastructure — particularly as a viaduct 50 feet above the current tracks is one proposal — and how plans are being communicated to residents in communities surrounding the tracks, among others.

In other business, the council approved amendments to the city’s park regulations to allow dogs to run off-leash in the Barrett Community Center Park from March until November in the early morning from sunrise to 8 a.m. as part of a two-year pilot program. Also included in the pilot is an option for dog owners to let their dogs off their leashes at the park from 6:30 p.m. to half an hour after sunset from June 15 to Aug. 15. Dogs are not permitted to run off-leash in the park outside of these hours to allow for sports activities, camps and recreational programs to operate.

The council also reviewed the status of the city’s 2035 general plan, interim zoning, Belmont Village specific plan and zoning and climate action plan. An environmental impact report aimed at assessing the changes expected under the new long-range plans was released June 30 with a public comment period on the document to extend through Aug. 18. City officials are targeting fall to set final adoption hearings for the new plans. Visit belmont-2035generalplan.com to learn more.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102