Some San José Residents Still Want an Underground HSR Station
That’s according to Henry Cord and Jean Dresden’s op-ed in today’s Mercury News:
High-speed rail bureaucrats want to deny San Jose an underground train option, instead proposing tracks and station structures as high as nine stories towering over our community….
City leaders worked hard to persuade high-speed rail powers to route the rail through San Jose via Pacheco Pass and not Altamont Pass. Now, those same leaders need to ensure high-speed rail designs do not divide key neighborhoods in their city, including downtown.
At issue is a staff decision reported to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board on Dec. 3 and supported by San Jose’s Rod Diridon, the former county supervisor who is a powerful supporter of high-speed rail. The decision would essentially eliminate any consideration of putting the San Jose high-speed rail corridor underground.
In short, this is basically an open letter to San José Mayor Chuck Reed and the city council asking them to push back against Rod Diridon and the CHSRA staff and board on the issue of an underground station. Diridon’s reasoning was this:
At the meeting, director Rod Diridon said an underground station is off the table because of loose soil, a high groundwater table and the cost of digging deep enough for the tunnel to be under Highway 87 and the planned BART trains.
“It’s a really complex issue,” Diridon said. “If we were to keep the tunnel alternative in the study, it would fall out. You might be offering some very temporary hope in that alternative, but I don’t think it will ever be viable. Let’s concentrate on the ones that will work.”
The planned BART station already is at least four stories underground, project leaders and California High Speed Rail directors said.
The cost of building an HSR station deep underground would be enormous, even if these other issues Diridon raised could be handled, and Cord and Dresden haven’t explained where these funds would come from. Their op-ed argues that the issue is that San José and the neighbors in particular would be better off with a tunnel, so that should be the option and the only consideration that matters.
The problem is that the remaining “workable” high-speed rail staff recommendations essentially divide our city with a gargantuan structure. The engineers propose an overhead station and train tracks that would create a potential barrier through central San Jose. In addition to being 87 feet tall, the train station platform would be more than a half-mile long and almost a football field wide.
This cannot be solely an engineer’s cost-saving decision. This matter is also about doing what is right and in the best interest of the community from long-range aesthetic, quality-of-life and economic points of view.
Think about the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, which separated downtown from the waterfront, as well as the equally deficient Cypress Structure in Oakland. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, they both were eventually removed, and the areas they once blighted have been transformed into magnificent urban spaces.
Here in San Jose, train officials have regrettably suggested building something even larger and potentially more divisive and unappealing. These engineers are not thinking about a community’s practical realities — maneuvering each day through or around imposing structures, or attracting future real estate investors. A massive trestle platform with overhead railways is not the way our city becomes more fluid and livable. Nor does it enhance the connections between midtown neighborhoods and the downtown core.
This is a classic 20th century model of urbanism, where any elevated structure is seen as an inherent bringer of blight. There’s no reason at all it has to be that way, but it should be noted that “overhead railways” actually reduce physical barriers in the city, enabling people to pass underneath in a car, on a bike, or on foot much more easily. Besides, a structure that’s only a half-mile long won’t be some impassable Berlin Wall structure but a different implementation of a train station that already serves to split part of San José. Does it really make much difference if the current Diridon Station, feeder tracks and all, with the HP Pavilion just to the north, rises into the air? This all strikes me as much ado about nothing.
Ultimately, the question San José leaders, CHSRA officials, and the people of California as a whole must consider is whether the aesthetic concerns of a small group are worth taxpayer subsidy, to the tune of at least a billion dollars, potentially more. Cord and Dresden err in dismissing the question of cost, since it is by far the most important consideration for the city and the CHSRA. They cannot hope to succeed in their push for an underground station unless they deal with that question head on.
Are they willing to help pay for it? Should the city of San José fund the station themselves through public funds, which ultimately come from taxpayers? Can they make the case that doing so would generate new revenues, jobs, or economic opportunities for residents? Would an aerial station structure hurt revenues, jobs, and economic opportunities? I cannot imagine how it would, but Cord and Dresden need to provide some answers on that. If they can’t, then I don’t see why the San José city council would demand an underground station, when it is clear that the cost would be significant.
I suspect Cord and Dresden are of the opinion that it’s government’s job to subsidize their housing prices and their sense of aesthetics. That isn’t the case, but that 20th century opinion dies pretty hard. I’m not opposed to an underground station, but appealing to aesthetics isn’t going to convince anyone that such a station is necessary. They need to resolve the cost question before moving forward with their pro-tunnel activism.
Oh come on is this really that bad?
Peter Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I agree, Joey. Looks a lot like the new terminal at SJC. Shame they blocked the view of the terminal with the monstrous parking garage (with the creepy zombie hands on the sides).
You can’t put intergalactic spaceports underground, nor can you turn underground structures into grand monuments to Diridon’s manhood.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 7th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
The Vogons cc’d the VTA – the one about changing their minds and doing something in Betelguese instead. they didn’t bother to mention what they are going to do here. Bring a towel …
Does anyone else think that the new stations on the new Wuhan-Guangzhou line look cold, empty, and like an architectural nightmare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDD9Cr7pOXY
When the CAHSR system is built, we have to make sure that the cities who’ll have stations make sure that they’re built with a sense of unity with the surrounding area, and also are warm and inviting on the inside, unlike the station in the above link.
wu ming Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
if you think that’s cold, empty, and an architectural nightmare, you should see the stuff outside the HSR station.
well, maybe more crowded than empty, i guess. but there are few places on this earth more grim and aesthetically disheartening than urban inland china.
“they once blighted have been transformed into magnificent urban spaces.”…. teensy bit of stretch don’t you think
As for the station “towering over” the city. uh, its downtown. you know, where all the towers are…
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:51 am
90 feet is still at or below the height of the Pavilion. Their whole piece is filled with fluff.
Dumb question which I’m certain has been answered before. Why is BART 4 stories underground? Isn’t BART only 2 tracks?
Travis D Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 9:13 am
It has to go under an already underground light rail line. There may also be some utilities to contend with.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I wonder if it has to do with crossing the Guadalupe River just a few blocks to the east.
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 9:26 am
I think that that is the most likely reason.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Was there any push to put the HSR station alongside the bart line on the same level and sharing a station level?
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
The HSR tracks would still have to be deep enough to go under the Guadalupe River further south.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Sure, but they wouldn’t need to be as deep. I’m just curious as to whether the “two trains, one trainbox” option was considered. Is the BART extension so far along that redesigning the train box to accomodate more tracks is not feasible, or were there other issues, like curve radii, capacity, etc.
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The two alignments sort of cross each other as it is. You might be able to realign the BART tracks to fix this, but something tells me that’s never going to happen.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but does anyone know what happen on the OTHER HSR lawsuit at the December hearing? I was incommunicado and may have missed it if it was discussed.
For the record, the opinion of Cord and Dresden is that of a few, and not all, SJ citizens. In fact, there are still a few, older/conservative dinosaurs living in SJ that still think of it as that “Mayberry” of the 1950’s. I suspect that once we get hard architiectural renderings/designs of what will actually take place at Diridon, a lot of minds downtown will change for the better. Most progressive downtown SJ residents would drool over having “St. Pancras International Station” at Diridon.
And also for the record, the Diridon Station area in downtown SJ between HP Pavilion and the proposed A’s ballpark is now designated for Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
jimsf, unfortunately you’re right, there are no towers in downtown SJ. Having the “skyline” capped at 20-story’s sucks! They need to start thinking about relocating SJC, but that discussion is for another time/another blog.
Bay Area Resident Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
LOL oh really, I always love this blog for a chuckle.
It wouldn’t be published in the Merc if it were unreasonable. The fact is the SJ CITY COUNCIL is intensely concerned about this structure. The councilmember that represents SJ downtown held an emergency session after Diridon’s ridiculous claims that HSR cannot be underground while Bart has no problems doing so. It just doesn’t pass the smell test and putting an ABOVE GROUND train in the middle of a downtown area is just too amateurish, sorry.
Of course I no longer think this albatross will ever be built, so I don’t really care.
Tony D. Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
BAR,
You’re the one who’s being funny here; LOL at you! San Jose is all for high-speed rail; just done right. Once they’re educated on what exactly a train station downtown will entail in terms of design and architecture, you’ll see the “concern” go by the wayside. They’ll take above ground rail over no rail at all.
Trust me: 1) I’ve seen many an “unreasonable” opinion in the Merc and 2) HSR will be built.
jimsf Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
an above ground train station downtown BAR you’re gonna break that broach if you clutch it any harder…
I suggest that considering the historic location and existing station, they should build, instead of some ugly out of place “tries to hard to be modern” station as pictured in the videos, something warmer and more inviting. They did this with att park in sf and it fits beautifully into the formerly industrial neighborhood, and is wildly popular with locals. ( no easy feat ). Something like that would go great in San jose and be more easily embraced by the neighbors and it can be integrated with the existing building.
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 11:56 am
I’m not so sure how out-of-place a modern station would look, given its proximity to the HP Pavilion.
they are leavingthis in place yes?
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
We really don’t know one way or another at this point.
Tony D. Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
At say do what was done across the tracks at the SJ 51 lofts; retro brick on the bottom, modern “trainshed” on top; a hybrid of old and new.
@jim sf: What is wrong with modern?
Most of the modern railway stations that I have been in both in Europe and Asia have been open, airy and for me quite beautiful.
jimsf Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
nothing wrong with modern, I just think that a warmer, cozier scale with earthy materials would be more welcome and inviting, with outdoor market places around, etc, you know to make the neighborhood and rail station integrated and pleasant as opposed to plopping down a signature ego piece that says”look at me.” i just think it would nice in the long term to have a comprehensive integrated yet cozy and inviting neighborhood. Soemthing like this would be a huge hit among san jose folks, and would make the rest of the project a lot more palatable.
I mean this
I mean this
San Jose, Capital of Silicon Valley doesn’t need a multi-level Diridon Edifice of any type.
The is adequate space for 6 Caltrain/HSR platform tracks and 2 steam train platform tracks on a single level.
This is a THROUGH STATION for CHSRA — hardly anybody will be getting on or off, even according to CHSRA’s inflated ridership “estimates”, so HSR platform requirements are very modest.
Turning back 8 Caltrain per hour (in their dreams — 6 is going to be that can be justified for decades to0 come) using 3 platform tracks is a trivial undertaking; moreover, a couple empty Caltrain will deadhead every hour to Tamien (and perhaps even more stupidly empty and wastefully, to points further south), meaning that extra turnback capacity is available away from the San Jose Cahill Street Station platforms.
So there’s a ton of available station platform capacity available in a single level station … for a station which is configured competently (ie not by rail-ignorant morons at Caltrain/CHSRA, ie with fully flexibly, conflict-free station throats, highest-feasible-speed turnouts, widest-feasible curve radii, non-steam-era operating rules, and fully flexible platform/train allocation) this level of through and turnback traffic can be readily handled with 4 platform tracks, and handled with ease by 5 or more.
With a maximum of 3 to 4 (in their dreams) combined steam-era Amtrak/ACE relics, a few freight trains per day, and one Amtrak wreck every day (perhaps running a day late), there’s no way that more than two tracks are needed for the FRA side of things.
The ONLY way CSHRA come up with a two level 14 track edifice is the process the corrupt consultants use to come up with anything — blatant cost maximization.
Red meat alert: A Plan to Kill HSR
Jack Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@Clem
Wow, just wow. Last time I read signature companies were charging what 5 dollars a signature, good luck on raising the 2.5 million to get it on the ballot.
@jimsf
while I am a big fan of Kyoto Station
http://bit.ly/5V53dA
In architecturally conservative California, I think Berlin HBF would be a good standard to look to.
http://bit.ly/4qM4z2
trainsintokyo Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I’m amused by the idea of California being architecturally conservative compared to Kyoto, of all places. Not that you’re wrong, per se, but it’s amusing nonetheless.
For the record, the Kyoto Station reconstruction was quite controversial among residents, and it took many refinements (such as a reduction in height) to gain approval. Even then there are still lots of opponents.
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Oh I know, my wife is from Kyoto and I have traveled there many times.
If any of you know an HSR NIMBY or denier, send them this article written by the LA Times. It’s a wonderful story on how the AVE has greatly influenced Spain’s recent history and how it’s united the country. It also reveals the many benefits of taking HSR over flying. I really enjoyed this article, especially in how it expresses the main ideas of HSR’s advantages.
http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-spaintrain17-2010jan17
Spokker Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
You will not change any minds on the Internet.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
You just changed my mind about not changing minds.
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Does anything change anyone’s mind on the internet?
spokker Reply:
January 7th, 2010 at 5:43 am
Only a photograph of a woman fellating a horse. That made me lose all hope in humanity.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
The last article on Spain I saw was about the almost 25% unemployment rate.
Joey Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
And what, may I ask, does that have to do with high speed rail?
Tony D. Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Maybe Mickey Mouse meant that if the AVE didn’t exist, Spain’s unemployment rate would be 30-40%.
synonymouse Reply:
January 7th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Spain, like Greece, has been printing money and running up big deficits. The more conservative countries, like Germany, are carrying them. This has been a sore point in the EC for some time.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 7th, 2010 at 4:30 am
What are you talking about? The Financial Times has actually praised Spain’s past austerity, saying that while the US and UK splurged, Spain and Germany are perceived as fiscally responsible and can therefore run large budget deficits.
antimony biscuit Reply:
January 6th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
So just like California then?
Late to the posting party, but the berlin wall argument just doesn’t hold water. Highway 87 is only 1000 feet away and is a massive concrete structure that does more to divide the town than even the largest proposed station would ever do. The neighborhood is already in the process of redevelopment and a grandiose station, adjacent to the arena, could be a really positive thing.
I’m a big supporter of hsr, but, sometimes I think the approach of the pro hsr folks around here is too focused on the train system itself as the end all be all. As any architect knows, good design is as much about people if not more, that it is about buildings.
The stars of the cali HSR are not the trains. The stars of cali hsr, are the communities that hsr will SERVE. Serve, being the operative word.
If you approach the selling of hsr to these communities in a way that portrays it as this bug huge modern monstrosity that represents some elitist view of “its good for you and this is how they do it in europe and asia” you fail. Americans don’t know anything about asia, and the only thing they know about europe is that they don’t want to be like europe. Americans don’t like europe.
You have to put the communities first and the train should be the background, if not invisible. Whether you’re talking about the TBT in downtown SF, chock full of services ( shoe and watch repair, dry cleaners, limos, concierge) and high end retail, ( gucci for the cheating exec who needs to pick up that last minute guilt gift, Chaya, for happy hour cocktails and sushi ) or whether you’re talking about hanford, with a nice park, outdoor mall, and townhouses with ample parking and the usual retail, or San Jose, where there are small scale historic neighborhoods and family entertainment venues nearby, and where expanding on this historic,outdoorsy, family oriented, yet foodie obsessed locl culture, what you have to do is highlight those aspects of what can be.” What can hsr do for you” Not only are you more likely to win the hearts and minds of the local communities, but you will better fulfill the goal of creating long term jobs and economic stimulus.
Thinking in terms of the the engineering of the trains, curve radii, ego architecture, and the train as star instead of the community as star, of the “Great High Speed Train Show” is a mistake. Bloggers and the Authority need to realize this.
Califorians react well or poorly to certain things. I know what those things are. If you have spent a lifetime here you know exaclty where to look to find people congregating and spending money. its the same from redding to chula Vista. HSr has o be able to gently and effectively fold into our california culture, not plop itself down on top of us like some intrusive and uninvited guest.
Disagree all you want but I know what Im talking about. you’ll see.
unfortunately its hard to get the big politicos to stop trying to pee all over everything, and to take a more humble hat in hand approach.
Some good, reasoned comments on here. Hope I’m adding to it.
You state “a structure that’s only a half-mile long won’t be some impassable Berlin Wall structure”, but I don’t think the concerns of folks that live downtown should be discounted. Yes, the station itself is a mere half-mile long and 80-90 feet in the air, but how do the trains get from level grade (where they’re at around Monterrey Highway) to that height? The elevated section is going to be a lot longer than a half-mile.
As for cost? You’re right: this is going to cost more. But if anyone in California truly believes that this is going to come in under- or at-budget then I think they’re going to be very unhappily surprised. Should we really build the “cut-price” HSR we think we can get away with, or really invest in something that makes Californians proud to call their own?
San Jose downtown isn’t pretty and doesn’t contain “magnificent urban spaces” right now, putting an ill thought out aerial track up because it’s easy will cement that. If we really want people to live in high-density, urban areas in San Jose then you have to make it desirable and you have to listen to the people that do and will live there.
Aerial may be the best option, but we need to come to that decision after seeing all the options in full detail.
AJW, I have to disagree with you.
Yes the ramps to San Jose Sation might be longer than 1/2 mile, it will be not as bad as people make out. It will also be a lot more permeable than what is there now.
Price? I don’t think we should blow the whole wad for SJ….and that is what it would take to build an underground station. While the CAHSR should not be penny wise and pound foolish, we should also get the best bang for the buck.
I understand where you are coming from and I do agree that San Jose is less that urban.
BUT as far as underground vs overground, I have a fear that any station that put underground and this includes the TBT will end up feeling like the the station area of Penn Station, Grand Central Station and the like. Dark, dingy and not welcoming.
Most HSR station in the rest of the world are either at grade or aerial. The ones I have had the pleasure to visit in both Europe and Japan have been a good experience both.
AJW Reply:
January 8th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Thanks Jathnael, appreciate the response.
I guess we’re going to fundamentally disagree in some ways as I’m not comparing what’s proposed with what’s there now, but what we want to be there in 20, 30 or (hopefully) 100 years. London and Sydney rail transit (with which I have the most day-to-day experience) both employ large amounts of subterranean routing. Indeed, the new “Crossrail” project in London is completely underground utilizing existing and new tunnel construction.
The focal point of the station, to me, isn’t the platforms, but rather the ticketing or entrance halls and the areas around it. We can make Diridon far more aesthetically exciting, and also enjoy more utility by placing the tracks beneath and keeping the ground level open for stores, restaurants and public spaces.
I agree that “blow[ing] the whole wad” on San Jose isn’t a smart use of the the fund. However, I think that the HSRA needs to show some more thought in the treatment of the second largest community in California.
As an immigrant to the area San Jose was always described as a “100,000 person city with 900,000 people in the suburbs.” If we want to change that reality, getting people out of their cars and onto transit, then we need to stop creating plans that make downtown somewhere to avoid.
Peter Reply:
January 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
The main problems with tunneling beneath San Jose are cost and geology. The cost alone would be very high (lengthy two-bore tunnel required), and the geology is the wildcard, which could make the tunnel much more expensive.
Those problems are pretty insurmountable. Not to mention that evacuating trains 10 stories down in case of a natural disaster would be a nightmare.
With poor geology, it’s possible that an earthquake could cause even more damage than would otherwise be expected in such a situation.