The Dumbarton Bridge will be closed to traffic Memorial Day weekend to allow Caltrans and its contractor to significantly advance seismic retrofit work on the bridge, according to bridge officials.

Effie Milionis, a spokeswoman for the Dumbarton Bridge Seismic Safety Project, said that the three-plus-day closure will permit Caltrans to replace a major seismic joint across all six lanes of traffic on the bridge's western side.

The 1.6-mile Dumbarton Bridge, which spans from Menlo Park to Fremont, carries approximately 60,000 vehicles daily. In the event of an earthquake, the seismic joint will absorb and dissipate energy.

Milionis said completing the seismic joint is a significant milestone in the retrofit project, which began in 2010 and is expected to be completed next year.

The bridge will be closed from 10 p.m. Friday, May 25, to 5 a.m. Tuesday, May 29, Milionis said.

Motorists should plan ahead, allowing extra travel time to take alternate routes, including the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. Suggested detour routes are available at dumbartonbridgeinfo.org.

In a Northern California first, work is under way to install double carpool lanes in both directions on a freeway.

The new lanes will be built along a three-mile stretch of Highway 101 between Highway 85 in Mountain View and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto.

Along with merging lanes also being built, the new look will turn this section into one of the widest in the region, with 12 lanes. And all the extra asphalt also offers a glimpse into our commuting future.

The widening sets the stage for more toll lanes, including a second set of carpool lanes up and down 101 from Morgan Hill to the San Mateo County border.

In the next year or two, the eastbound Interstate 580 carpool lane in the Tri-Valley will be widened to include two toll lanes, also known as express lanes. And by 2015, a second set of carpool lanes could line Highway 85 through the Almaden Valley area of South San Jose.

Currently, there are double carpool lanes only on the approaches to the toll plazas at the San Mateo and Bay bridges, but none on area freeways except for short stretches where two carpool lanes merge at interchanges.

"All else equal, two lanes per direction makes for a better (toll) lane than one per direction," said Bob Poole, transportation director of the Reason Foundation think tank. "You can pass slow vehicles, be more flexible in case of a breakdown or accident, etc.

"And you can charge a lower toll if you have two lanes to accommodate paying customers instead of one."

Highway 101 ranks as one of the toughest commutes in the South Bay, and the stretch from Shoreline Boulevard north to Palo Alto is perhaps the nastiest. As the economy improves and more drivers join the commute, traffic jams will only get worse.

But a second set of carpool and merging lanes could ease the frequent lane changing that contributes mightily to slowdowns on this freeway. Motorists often slow to speeds under 20 mph as they approach their exits, leading trailing drivers to slam on their brakes.

"It's scary," said Megan Vaughn, 29, of San Jose. "I've seen people in the carpool lane literally stop when trying to move over for their exit. I hope a second carpool lane would bring an end to this."

Added Ed Mullen, a 51-year-old accountant from Mountain View: "The ride home is usually heavy or stop-and-go. A lot of the time the HOV lane is only moving slightly better than the rest of us, so I would guess there are enough frustrated drivers that would pay to move a little quicker."

Despite a decline in overall carpooling nationwide over the past two decades, diamond lanes on some Bay Area freeways -- including 101, I-80 and I-880 -- are filling up. It's common, engineers and commuters say, to find carpool traffic barely moving faster than lanes filled by solo drivers.

Bound by federal mandates to keep carpool-lane speeds flowing at 45 mph or faster, traffic planners say they have few choices to ease commutes and raise the money to pay for more road work. They can require carpools to contain three people instead of two, or they can add a second carpool lane.

"Increasing the occupancy requirement may be the logical solution if adding a second carpool lane is inappropriate," said Caltrans' Joseph Rouse, who oversees carpool lanes in the state. "However, going from two-plus to three-plus (occupants) may reduce vehicular demand by 75 to 85 percent. Such an adjustment may be too severe if

only a 10 percent to 20 percent reduction is necessary to maintain free-flow conditions."

As usual, Southern California is ahead of the Bay Area in testing the new approach. There are double carpool lanes on I-5 for a couple of miles south of I-405 in Orange County, and on I-110 in Los Angeles from I-105 to south of downtown Los Angeles. And there are projects under way to add double carpool lanes on I-10 and along more of I-110 in Los Angeles.

There are also two express lanes in each direction on Route 91 in Orange County, with an extension planned into Riverside County. And there are two express lanes in each direction on I-15 north of San Diego.

Not all freeways will get a second carpool lane, usually because there isn't room to add more than one. That's the case on I-880 through San Jose, where a carpool lane is being added, and on I-80 east of the Bay Bridge.

The widening of I-880 in the South Bay will run from Highway 237 almost to 101, with major changes scheduled for the Brokaw Road interchange. A carpool lane will be added on the southbound onramp and the merge lane extended 700 feet.

On the northbound side, the ramps will be shifted 70 feet east and there will be two lanes to turn left and two more to turn right. The tight, curvy two-lane ramp to north 880 will be smoothed out.

California legislators should deny Gov. Jerry Brown's requests for all but minimal funding for the California High-Speed Rail Authority in the current budget process, the Legislative Analyst's Office recommended Tuesday, April 17.

The nonpartisan analyst's office, which provides fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature, said the rail authority has failed to provide sufficient detail and justification for its plan to build a high-speed train system.

"Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and important details have not been sorted out," Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said in a 12-page report.

In its most recent business plan, the rail authority projected the first phase of the project will cost $68 billion. However, the authority has secured only about $9 billion in voter-approved bond funds and $3.5 billion in federal funds.

Consistent with the new business plan, Brown's 2012-13 budget plan requests $5.9 billion to continue the project, consisting of $2.6 billion in state bond funds matched with $3.3 billion in federal funds to start construction in the Central Valley.

In addition, about $800 million is requested to improve existing passenger rail services and about $250 million to complete preliminary design work and environmental reviews for various sections of the project.

"In this brief report, we find that HSRA has not provided sufficient detail and justification to the Legislature regarding its plan to build a high-speed train system," the analyst said.

"We recommend the Legislature not approve the governor's various budget proposals to provide additional funding for the project. However, we do recommend that some minimal funding be provided to continue planning efforts that are currently underway."

Caltrain's stalled effort to electrify its tracks flickered to life Wednesday morning when the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority that includes as its centerpiece a plan for funding the electrification project.

Calling it a major "milestone" in Caltrain's long quest to modernize its system, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission board voted to approve a "memorandum of understanding" with the rail authority that includes $1.5 billion for electrification and new train signals. Under the agreement, the rail authority would supply about half of the funds for the long-awaited project, with the rest coming from local and regional agencies.

The agreement was spearheaded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the rail authority with participation from a variety of regional agencies, including the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (which operates Caltrain), San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Samtrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. It is a key component of the rail authority's "new vision" for the controversial system -- a vision that calls for early investments in the northern and southern segments of the line. The rail authority still plans to begin construction in the Central Valley.

The agreement was heralded by various Metropolitan Transportation Commission board members, local officials and Caltrain advocates as a huge step toward electrification, a project that the cash-strapped agency is banking on for long-term financial stability. With electrified tracks and a new signal system, Caltrain would be able to operate more trains and, as a result, generate more revenue.

"This really is the foundation for electrification and, really, for the future of Caltrian," said MTC board Chair Adrienne Tissier, who also chairs Caltrain's board of directors.

For the rail authority, the new agreement provides a way to appease some of its critics on the Peninsula, where opposition to the project has been particularly fierce. Palo Alto in December adopted as its official position a call for termination of the high-speed rail project. It has also joined Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups in a lawsuit that challenge's the rail authority's environmental analyses for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles project. Electrification also supports the rail authority's long-term plan to stretch the voter-approved rail system along the Caltrain corridor.

Some local officials form the Peninsula raised concerns about the document Wednesday, arguing that it is not explicit enough in committing the rail authority to a "blended" system in which high-speed rail and Caltrain share two tracks. Burlingame City Councilman Michael Brownrigg said the new contract is "weak" when it comes to rejecting the previously considered four-track alternative.

Richard Hackmann, a management specialist with Palo Alto's city manager's office, told the Metropolitan Transportation Commission board the city sees the new agreement as an opportunity "to rebuild a working relationship with the High-Speed Rail Authority while moving forward with electrification of Caltrain on the corridor." Like Brownrigg, Hackmann said his city would like to see a written agreement specifying that the rail system would not use the four-track design.

"We want to make sure it's done in a way that does not adversely affect communities," Hackmann said.

Tissier said that while the two-track design is not specified in the Memorandum of Understanding, it will be detailed in the rail authority's new business plan, which is scheduled to be released in the coming weeks.

Other critics of the high-speed rail project lauded the new document, which they characterized as a critical step toward improving Caltrain. The agency, which has no dedicated source of funding, has a structural deficit and has been relying on one-time funding sources to keep its service levels intact for the past two years. Yoriko Kishimoto, a former Palo Alto mayor who co-founded the group Friends of Caltrain, was among those who praised the agreement.

"There is much work still left to do, but the day seems to be arriving for Caltrain electrification and modernization," Kishimoto told the board. "I truly thank all of you and all the leaders who have worked to align the stars on this day."

Michael Scanlon, CEO of Caltrain, called Wednesday a "historic day" for Caltrain and said the new agreement provides "the framework, and only the framework, for development of high-speed rail to proceed in a reasonable, pragmatic and, I believe, enlightened way."

"Everyone does not quite agree, but Caltrain staff is fully committed to continuing to working with the stakeholders," Scanlon said. "The work only begins when you start constructing a project and you really have to know how to listen to and work with communities."

Even with the new document, which the rail authority plans to consider next month, Caltrain's electrification is far from a done deal. The project is banking on funds from Proposition 1A, a 2008 measure approved by California voters that devotes $9.95 billion for the new rail system. But while voters approved the bond measure, it is still up to the state Legislature to release the rail funds. With the project enjoying mixed support in Sacramento (and overwhelming opposition by Republicans), it's far from clear when the funds for electrification will be released.

Dan Richard, chair of the rail authority's board of directors, indicated at a public hearing in Mountain View earlier this month that the board doesn't plan to ask the legislature for electrification funds this year. Instead, its funding request will focus on the "initial construction segment" in the Central Valley. The rail authority's plan is to start building the line in the middle and to later stretch it north and south.

Caltrain is one step closer to receiving the electrification and modernization officials say the system desperately needs.

An agreement between the California High-Speed Rail Authority and more than half a dozen Bay Area public agencies will entirely fund an upgrade to the system, which includes modernization, agency spokeswoman Christine Dunn announced in a statement Thursday morning.

According to Dunn, the funding agreement uses local, regional and federal dollars to leverage hundreds of millions of dollars matched by the high-speed rail authority.

The electrification and modernization of Caltrain have been in the works for more than a decade, and are "critically-needed improvements that will dramatically improve the service and help ensure the long-term viability of the commuter rail system," Dunn said in the statement.

The announcement comes just a week after Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, urged Peninsula residents at a news conference at the San Mateo Caltrain Station to get on board with the electrification of Caltrain.

Once the system is electrified, Caltrain will be able to operate lighter-weight electric vehicles with major performance advantages compared to the existing diesel rail technology.

Trains will be faster, cleaner, quieter and more efficient, according to Caltrain officials.

In addition, riders will see more frequent service to more stations, which will result in increased ridership and prepare the system to accommodate future job growth.

Modernizing Caltrain is also an important step in stabilizing the rail agency’s long-struggling finances. Caltrain is one of the few transit agencies in the country that does not have its own, dedicated tax base or source of revenue.

“Electrification is an essential improvement that is critical to the future of the system,” Executive Director Mike Scanlon said in a statement.

“This is an enormous step forward that prioritizes these improvements and delivers early benefits to the Caltrain system, its riders and surrounding communities,” he said.

Plans for the electrification of Caltrain still need to be approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at its meeting next week, as well as the boards of all the public agencies, and the state legislature will also need to sign off on the bond, Caltrain spokesman Seamus Murphy said.

If approved, Caltrain could be electrified as soon as 2020, more than a decade before it is assumed in the most recent version of the High Speed Rail Business Plan.

Caltrain is currently assessing the possibilities of various blended system alternatives to the four-track system, which the agency opposes, to determine what specific infrastructure improvements will eventually be needed to support high-speed rail and how they can be designed to minimize impacts on surrounding communities.

Community Meeting #2 - Thursday, March 29, 2012

6:30-8:30pm
Lucie Stern Community Center - Community Room, 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, 94301
Click here to view the announcement flyer with more details!

What is the Rail Corridor Study?

The City Council of Palo Alto initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study in July 2010 to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design improvements for the rail corridor. The study will generate a vision  - derived through an extensive community outreach effort – for the corridor that extends from the San Antonio Caltrain station to Palo Alto Avenue and from Alma Street to El Camino Real. This area provides many opportunities to connect residents to local services, regional transportation systems and to improve circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles. This vision will capitalize on the significant proposed investments in future transportation infrastructure while ensuring the study area and its surrounding neighborhoods, districts, businesses, institutions and community assets are enhanced and improved. The heart of this effort is to facilitate, understand and clarify the community’s vision so it can be clearly articulated in a policy document which will thereby inform future decision-making.

The Task One Summary was prepared to summarize the results of the collaborative work completed up to September 2011. This document is available here and in the "Resources" section.

Third Draft Complete

The Third Draft of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study is available for download. The study is a report of the Task Force's work and discusses the vision for the study area. Click on the image below to download a pdf file. Previous drafts of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study can be found in the resources section of this website.

Four years after California voters passed a bond measure to help fund a high-speed rail system, many now feel let down because of skyrocketing costs— heightened by the state's fiscal crisis—and the Rail Authority's controversial draft business plan and estimates.

Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CA-HSRA), said Tuesday, however, that "the governor told us the number will come down" from the current $98.1 billion.

The pricetag and other concerns–like the California High Speed Rail Authority's decision to begin construction in the Central Valley versus the "bookend" urban areas of San Francisco and Anaheim–were raised during a legislative hearing in Mountain View's Center for the Performing Arts hosted by the Senate Select Committee on High Speed Rail on Tuesday night.

"We are all supportive of high-speed rail, but it has to be high-speed rail done right, and decisions made against the best available evidence, use of money, and not based on political decisions," said State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), co-chair of the committee with Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto).

The high-speed rail project, which the CA-HSRA Draft Business Plan and Senate Select Committe estimates place the higher-end cost at $118 billion, prompted many in the 600-seat auditorium to demand that Proposition 1A be placed on the ballot again. Proposition 1A, which voters passed in 2008, raised $10 billion in bond financing for high-speed rail. Some voters expressed regret for voting for the proposition, based on recent developments.

"I wouldn't have voted for it knowing what I know now," said one attendee.

Richard and Board Member Jim Harnett carefully answered questions fired off to them by Simitian and Lowenthal. Their determination and commitment to the project remained resolute.

"No regional transportation plan is predicated on knowing where all the money is coming from at this stage," Richard said. "I can't look you in the eye and say that we have any greater clarity about the funding today but we'll have a more rational basis [in the future]."

He also added that "the ultimate rider projections show there will be enough riders so that they won't need a public subsidy."

This was rebutted in public comments by residents concerned about the validity of those projections.

Richard told Mountain View Patch at the conclusion of the six hour meeting that the CA-HSRA would "absolutely" be interested in private sector money.

"There is a lot of private sector interest, but we have to get it built first," he said, adding that they want to be conservative about how much they could get. He said around $20 billion. "The private sector would need to see the ridership figures first."

Under continuous consideration is the $760 million high-speed rail funds that could go toward the electrification of Caltrain, but that remain contingent–because of the language of Prop 1A–on the construction of the entire system.

Assemblyman Jerry Hill, in attendance, had held a press conference in San Mateo earlier that day to encourage residents to support electrification for the commuter rail.

Also, the potential loss of the $2.5 billion in federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that must be committed to the high-speed rail project by Sept. 30, 2012 in order to be allocated.

William Kempton, chairman of the HSR Peer Review Group, and Legislative Analyst's Office staff Farra Bracht and Brian Weatherford, also raised concerns about the analysis of the CA-HSRA.

There was a mixed bag of opinions during the public comments, which began first with statements from elected officials. Mountain View Councilwoman Ronit Bryant attended the meeting, however no elected member of Mountain View spoke on the record about the project.

The strongest opposition continued to come from Palo Altans and residents of San Mateo County.

Palo Alto Mayor Yiaway Yeh asked the State to eliminate the project. Atherton City Councilman Jerry Carlson said that "nothing I've heard tonight changes our mind," and that the funds should be used for other projects. He and Palo Alto Councilman Patrick Burke called for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to stop dictating what happens in the Peninsula.

Burlingame Councilwoman Terry Nagel said that "we are not against it if it's done right," but to be done right the CA-HSRA needs to listen to all cities affected along the Caltrain corridor. One of her constituents, Karen Perry, express her fear of losing her home.

Almost all speakers acknowledged and called this new board more "amenable" than the last.

Parties in favor of the project included the labor unions, the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose, and San Francisco Airport Director John Martin.

Cupertino Councilman Barry Chang, and others, spoke to the environmental benefits of getting people out of their cars because "we can't rely on fossil fuels." The potential reduction of vehicular deaths and the duty of goverment to enhance safety were also raised.

William Sandie of Los Altos, among others, hoped to see a French-style or Japanese-style high-speed rail system. He believed it a good idea to start to build in the Central Valley. The Central Valley portion, called by several the "train to nowhere" is part of the CA-HSR's "Initial Construction Segment" and has $6 billion dollars apportioned for it.

"Should we not have built I-5 because not enough people live between Sacramento and Los Angeles?" he said. "We didn't know then where the funds would come from."

But if the project does move forward, all begged the state senatoros to hold the Authority to greater standard. They want not only more transparency, but a solid business plan.

The Authority, however, is also aware of their limitations.

"We made an effort to show voters what it would cost over 20 years," Richard said. "Frankly, the voters also provided that the legislature would make the final call. It's built into the law."

A final 2012 Business Plan is expected to be released late March 2012.

A lower price tag, fewer tracks and a fresh commitment to fund rail improvements in north and south California are among the features that the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to unveil in its revised business plan, rail officials told a state Senate committee Tuesday night, March 13, at a public hearing in Mountain View.

The revised plan, which the rail authority's board of directors plans to release later this month, will also emphasize more than previous documents what has become known as the "blended" approach for the rail system -- a design that would have the new rail system share two tracks with Caltrain along the Peninsula cabinet. This design, which was proposed by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, a year ago, has been the subject of much debate in recent months, with many city officials along the Peninsula urging the rail authority to commit to the two-track alternative.

On Tuesday, rail officials indicated that with the new business plan, they are preparing to do just that. Dan Richard, chair of the rail authority's board of directors, and Jim Hartnett, a board member, both said that the "blended" approach is central to the agency's new vision for the project. The members made these comments at a meeting hosted by Simitian, who chairs a Senate budget committee on resources, environmental protection and transportation.

Last year, rail officials resisted the "blended approach," suggesting that it would run counter to Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond for the rail system that voters approved in 2008. The agency's latest environmental analysis for the major project sill refers to a four-track system, much to the consternation of officials in Palo Alto and elsewhere.

But Hartnett said Tuesday that the agency, in its revised plan, now embraces the idea of a "blended system" for both the northern and the southern sections of the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles system. Hartnett called the new emphasis on the "blended system" a "rethinking of the whole high-speed-rail approach."

"The new direction for high-speed rail is a high-speed-rail system that is dependent on its success on a blended approach both in the north and in the south," Hartnett said.

This new vision could have dramatic implications for Caltrain, which has also been adamant about scrapping the four-track design in favor of the less disruptive blended system. The new business plan, Hartnett said, would place greater emphasis on relying on existing infrastructure in the what the rail authority is calling the "bookends" of the line (its northern and southern segments). Specifically, he said, it will lay out a plan for "early investment in the north and in the south that will have direct positive impact on the regional transit systems" and lay the foundation for high-speed rail.

For Caltrain, this early investment could mean getting the funding it needs for electrification -- a project that the cash-strapped agency has been planning for more than a decade. The project, which the agency sees as key to raising its ridership numbers and achieving long-term financial stability, also includes positive train controls and a new stock of electric trains. It would cost more than $1 billion, money that the agency currently does not have.

The rail authority's new vision for the rail system could change that. The rail authority is preparing a "memorandum of understanding" with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that would identify "early investment opportunities" that the authority can make in the Bay Area. Though the document is still in the works, Caltrain electrification is widely expected to top the list of Bay Area's transit priorities.

"This is an opportunity for Caltrain as much as it is an opportunity for high-speed rail," Hartnett said, referring to the early investment. "We believe the plan will set out a reasonable way of doing that."

But even as they talked about making early investment in the "bookends," rail officials defended on Tuesday the authority's decision to begin the line's construction in Central Valley. This decision had prompted many critics of the $98.5 billion project to refer to the system as a "train from nowhere to nowhere." Some, including the agency's own peer review group, have challenged its earlier business plan for inadequate discussion of funding sources and for its vagueness in discussing plans to build the system beyond the initial segment.

Aside from the voter-approved bond and about $3 billion in federal funding, the project has no other committed funding. The agency's business plan anticipates private investment in the later stages of the project.

The challenge, Richard said, is to demonstrate that the first segment of the line would provide significant improvements even if the agency doesn't get the funding it needs to build the entire system. The revised business plan, he said, "will have a more rational basis for showing how the system develops over time so that each station that we'll have in front us we'll have something that is useful -- like Caltrain electrification, for example."

Richard, who was recently appointed to the board of directors by Gov. Jerry Brown, defended the decision to start in the Central Valley. Starting the rail system in this region will allow the agency to test the new 225 mph trains. On the Peninsula, the trains would reach speeds of up to 125 mph.

Richard also said the agency believes that the new system's ridership will be sufficient to cover its operating costs. The rail authority's ridership and revenue numbers have been a subject of major criticism on the Peninsula and elsewhere. Uncertainties over these projections, along with the project's escalating costs, were among the major factors that prompted the Palo Alto City Council to officially adopt a position last year calling for the project's termination.

But Richard said that the numbers show that even in the line's "initial operating segment" (the first constructed segment that would be capable of accommodating high-speed trains), ridership would be sufficient to pay for operations.

"We believe that the ultimate ridership projections will mean that there will be sufficient riders on the high-speed rail so that we will not be needing a public subsidy in order to operate," Richard said.

Though Richard did not specify how much the rail system would cost under the "blended" approach, he said the number will come down from the prior estimate of $98.5 billion. He called the price tag (which was a major jump from the agency's prior estimate of about $40 billion), a "sticker shock" for many people. It will be incumbent for the agency to show, in its new business plan, the ways in which the capital costs can be reduced.

"The key to it is the blend approach," Richard said. "This is one of the things that will lock us into the course that I think will save us a lot of money."

Though the rail authority's new vision is more consistent with the views of many Peninsula officials, some said Tuesday that they remain skeptical about the latest plans. Palo Alto Councilman Pat Burt, who chairs the Peninsula Cities Consortium (a coalition that also includes Atherton, Menlo Park, Belmont, Burlingame and Brisbane) said that when it comes to early investment opportunities in the Peninsula, the "devil will be in the details" of the agreement between the rail authority and the MTC. He noted that the MTC signaled that cities along the Peninsula would not have any direct participation in the process.

Burlingame Councilwoman Terry Nagel also said she is concerned about the MTC's ability to adequately represent the Peninsula cities in the "eleventh hour."

"I don't think the majority of the cities are opposed to high-speed rail if it's done right and that's a big if," Nagel said. "It would require money that is well spent on the Peninsula."

Palo Alto residents have a big transportation decision to make in the coming months: whether to support the electrification of Caltrain.

Joined by Caltrain and San Mateo city officials, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, held a news conference at the downtown San Mateo Caltrain Station on Tuesday morning to encourage residents to get on board with the electrification of Caltrain.

Electrifying Caltrain would make the trains quieter, faster and more frequent. It would also reduce emissions by 90 percent.

"Hear that noise?" Hill shouted during the news conference as Caltrain sirens blared and a train approached the station, screeching to a halt. "With electrification you wouldn't hear that anymore."

Hill said if Caltrain is electrified, ideally it will be merged with high-speed rail along the Peninsula, in a two-track blended system as opposed to a four-track system.

A four-track system, according to Hill, would infringe upon each community along Caltrain. Peninsula cities have widely opposed the four-track system.

The electrification of Caltrain by 2019 would cost about $1.5 billion. Right now a plan is in the works to leverage high-speed railbond money with local transportation funds; each would provide about $750 million.

Hill compared the magnitude of the decision to electrify Caltrain with another transportation possibly Peninsula residents faced in the 1960s: whether to bring BART through from San Jose to San Francisco.

"It's time for us to get involved and study the issue," Hill said.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is scheduled to release the details of the funding for electrification next week.