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.

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.

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.

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.