Rural Gilroy Doesn’t Want To Be A Dumping Ground
There’s a reason NIMBYism doesn’t work: you eventually run out of places to put things if everyone doesn’t want it in their backyard.
Take Gilroy as a case in point. Yesterday residents of rural parts of south Santa Clara County voiced their disagreement with an east of Highway 101 alignment for high speed rail at a Gilroy City Council meeting:
Rural Gilroy residents showed up in droves to the Gilroy City Council meeting Monday to express their ire at a potential California High-Speed Rail route aligned with Highway 101 east of Gilroy.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority discussed various potential routes for the train during a study session, including a route that ran downtown, a route that ran adjacent to Highway 101 and a newly proposed route that ran further east of the highway.
More than 30 residents from rural areas north and east of Gilroy told California High-Speed Rail Authority officials that they should keep the train out of their neck of the woods.
“I am disturbed about this belief that if we can’t make it work in the city of Gilroy, we’ll just move it out to our country cousins,” rural Gilroy resident Jeff Amstutz said.
The backstory here is that some residents of central Gilroy, along the UPRR tracks used by Caltrain, don’t want high speed rail going through their town, and have wanted to push it out to either Highway 101 or to the rural land to the east of the 101 corridor. The latter option is not proving popular with the rural folks:
“I’m appalled at what is going on and what is about to happen,” rural Gilroy resident Yvonne Saucedo said. “It is going to happen in our lifetime, and it’s terribly irresponsible.”
Attendees applauded as speaker after speaker expressed concern about the impact of the project on rural life. Many of them shook their heads as they looked at the animated route.
Mayor Al Pinheiro questioned Monday whether the cost of placing the train east of Gilroy would be substantially cheaper than running it through town. However, high-speed rail representatives indicated that would not be the case. Property costs only make up about 5 percent to 10 percent of the total project, they said, and moving the tracks to rural areas likely would only affect the cost by about 5 percent. By contrast, trenching the railroad tracks could increase the cost of the project by about 30 percent.
The article wasn’t quite clear on what the reaction was to a Highway 101 route. But it is clear that rural Gilroy doesn’t appreciate being made to accept HSR merely because the urbanized part of the region doesn’t want it in their backyard.
That’s not to say their concerns are any more valid than those of Gilroy residents – or of Peninsula NIMBYs. The notion that rural life would be destroyed by HSR is as laughable as the notion that Palo Alto would be destroyed by it. There will of course be impacts, especially along the Highway 152 corridor between Gilroy and the Pacheco Pass, as the trains will swing in a wide curve to connect the north-south alignment near Gilroy to the east-west alignment that will take the trains through the pass and eastward toward Merced. There’s a lot of farmland out there that will be impacted by this, and that means there’ll be a need to address cross-corridor access for people, water and wildlife, among other matters. But to call it “destruction” is a bit much – the rural portions of south Santa Clara County have survived Highway 101, and the primary threat they face is sprawl, which Gilroy has done an effective job so far of stopping.
Still, the discussions might have gone more smoothly had NIMBYs in urban Gilroy not been so eager to dump the tracks onto their rural neighbors. A more collaborative process would have been useful in laying out possible alignments and generating a discussion that made clearer what the concerns were and where the tracks could go. The CHSRA has held countless meetings in Gilroy over the last year on this, so it’s unfair to hold them to blame for the dispute among locals. One wonders if civic leaders have done enough to foster a spirit of collaboration and constructive dialogue – from what I’ve seen it’s been more of the usual California approach of “oh we don’t want that here, go dump it somewhere else.”
We heard a lot of that at the Palo Alto State Senate hearing last month, including folks who wanted to dump the route onto Fremont and Pleasanton. I’m sure residents there would love to be getting this in order to appease Peninsula NIMBYs.
What it suggests is that California could use an overhaul in its planning process. CEQA isn’t designed for this kind of collaborative planning, and local governments are too quick to throw a fit at something they dislike instead of finding ways to get a project built but built in a way that is cost-effective, useful for the city, and useful for the general public. I don’t think this debate in Gilroy will prove to be a major obstacle, but it’s another sign of how California’s planning process, along with too-common NIMBYism, are ongoing challenges for the HSR project to manage.
I would be curious to hear how this process for HSR compares or contrasts with the location/siting of 101. Were they afraid of how it would affect “rural life”?
The mayor of Gilroy is actually in favor of the downtown alignment and has most of the city’s backing. Downtown is already dying and if the station moves outside of downtown… downtown is dead. And he knows that.
This is actually good. It will force the rail downtown where the city, minus the usual nimbys, want it.
What, are they afraid that they won’t be able to pretend they live in Frontierland anymore?
I’m sure the route has real pros and cons, but some people need to get real.
jimsf Reply:
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:46 pm
i loved frontierland. but hsr is a much better ride than any of those
jimsf Reply:
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 pm
correction, it was called frontier village it was located in what used to be a very rural area. You would never recognize it today. In those days san jose was not silicon valley, and it was not connected to any other city, it was full of and surrounded by miles of agriculture. A sleepy little town, with taco stands and fruit stands and country folk.
I understand the point of the rural folks. There’s already a ROW through downtown. If you chose to live way outside of a small town, it’s probably because you don’t want to deal with the hustle & bustle of urban life, and you specifically chose that location because of that. If somebody lives in downtown Gilroy (or another unnamed city), near a rail line, I find the arguments against running rail there fairly empty.
jimsf Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:01 am
( urban life, hehe, in gilroy? sorry it just made me chuckle a little)
lyqwyd Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
I know, it was kinda funny when I wrote it :)
You didn’t mention a few key issues:
(1) the Atherton lawsuit. That is why the CHSRA is souring on downtown Gilroy… because it puts them in or near UPRR’s ROW with all the terrible headaches this represents.
(2) the massive speed increase. They are now planning on doing Gilroy at 220 mph. That poses two major issues:
(2.a) 220 mph trains are very loud (near 100 dB) and incompatible with urban environments– yes, there is not a single town anywhere in the world literally bisected by 220 mph trains. Richard Tolmach is 100% correct on this specific point.
(2.b) 220 mph trains need a very wide curve radius, which is difficult to achieve from downtown because of the alignment change into Pacheco Pass. A hook through downtown means a speed restriction for every high-speed train, even the ones that don’t stop. That does nothing good to the mandated run time of 2:38.
If sanity prevails, the downtown Gilroy alignment will never be built. The folks in rural Morgan Hill and Gilroy are going to get a new train in their backyard because that’s the least-worst place to put it.
Spokker Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:25 am
How loud are high speed trains compared to regular old train horns? I found this study by the Iowa DOT and they did some tests.
http://www.iowadot.gov/trainhornstudy.htm
“To look at the variability in train horn volumes, from one train to another, 12 readings were collected on North Dakota Avenue 250 feet from the tracks. The twelve readings averaged 95.5 dBA, with a low of 90.6 dBA, a high of 102.8 dBA and a standard deviation of 3.63. ”
So we have a horn that sounds on a long, long, short pattern for every grade crossing the trains encounter. Is it worse than high speed rail? Better? I’m trying to get a reliable estimate here.
Of course, I don’t know if Gilroy has these automated train horns that Iowa is talking about in that study.
TomW Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
There won’t be grade crossings for the high-speed trains…
Spokker Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
I was talking about the regular old 79 MPH trains.
Peter Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:46 am
“How loud are high speed trains compared to regular old train horns?”
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/final_nv.pdf
The answers to all your questions lie within. Note that the HSR trains they tested were first-generation trains, like the original TGV and the ICE-I. Newer ones are apparently a lot quieter.
Interestingly, if you extrapolate the Acela’s volume line, it doesn’t hit 90 db until 200 mph. I guess Bombardier did something right…
Peter Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Page 34 has the comparisons.
Lmax at least stays below 90 db. SEL normalized to 100 ft, 740 car length goes up to 94 db. You can look up the definitions in the text. It’s a pretty interesting study.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:28 am
I guess Bombardier did something right…
It’s called mass damping.
I’m here all day folks!
me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
According to the HSRA presentation made for Fresno residents, 220 mph will be 98 decibels at ground level.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:54 am
From how far away?
Peter Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Should be at 100 ft, if they use the same standard.
And is that 98 db Lmax or SEL?
Me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
“passby noise” whatever that means
Spokker Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:54 am
Either way some type of rail infrastructure would have to be built to get inside Central Valley cities even if that means a slower operating speeds and the inability to hit 2:40. Otherwise Central Valley residents, especially those in the middle of the region, get a slow Amtrak ride to the nearest station in… uh, Tracy? I can’t tell where Tolmach wants riders to transfer.
Anyway, you’ve got to build those tracks for lightweight electric trains into Fresno, Bakersfield and Modesto, even if we built a “racetrack” first.
Considering that Prop 1A requires a running time of 2 hours and whatever minutes and that Central Valley cities are served, it would appear we have a conflict on our hands.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:01 am
I think 2:40 only applies to express trains.
Spokker Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
I imagine express trains will have to slow down to 110-125 MPH in Central Valley cities.
Peter Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:19 am
I wouldn’t be so sure. I think they may be able to keep their speed up if their sound signature isn’t that high (Lmax below 90 db). Maybe not the full 220 mph, but 180-200 mph maybe. It’s possible given the advances in technology since the FRA obtained its data used in its noise and vibration study.
Me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
The ONLY plans they have right now is 220 through the cities. The expensive structures are so that they can do that.
synonymouse Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
You can make up the lost time by relocating to I-5 and the Grapevine. All attempts at running at very high speeds in urban areas will be subject to nuisance abatement litigation Get used to it. The eco-friendly image of hsr will be severely tarnished with noise and vibration complaints.
Freeway alignments are the best solution – even if some curves and slowing running are involved. Along I-5 you should be able to achieve the highest speeds associated with the newest iteration of hsr.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
But then you lose your patronage – y’all denialists got to get on the same page so one complaint does not undermine another complaint. If the concern is raised that the variance of the ridership estimate is too high and one std. deviation low may be too low, you can’t also push for an alignment that is ridership minimizing.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Frankly, I don’t think noise mitigation in cities is impossible. It will just require some creative thinking.
Dan S. Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Nuisance lawsuits are to be expected. So are nuisance blog posts. Zero proof they’ll be effective.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 am
Clem, there aren’t that many 220 mph trains to begin with. But 200 mph trains will bisect towns in the Tohoku region soon.
Me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
Clem is right about the curvature issues. I just watched the presentation http://gilroy.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=16&clip_id=797. If it went downtown it couldn’t follow the rail alignment – it would have to take a lot of buildings.
I think everyone is understating the issues with both the downtown and the rural alignments.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:37 am
With apologies to RM, how many of those world-class, SNCF-approved, over-engineered, over-hyphenated countries have heavy freight rail lumbering through towns on under-maintained, so-beat-to-shit-they’re-not-really-standard-guage-any-more tracks, with horns 15-feet off the tracks putting out 95-110DBA of noise at every crossing?
I don’t think anyone is saying that 90DB is quiet, but it’s quieter that what’s going through there now.
If you bite the bullet(train) and get Japanese rolling stock you can drop another 5-10DBA off that.
it doesnt need to be trenched just do this to kill the noise
TomW Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:33 am
Trees and shrubs do an very good job of absorbing sound – many sound barriers merely reflect the sound upwards. Plus they look nice.
What about requesting that the Authority and FRA adopt Context Sensitive Solutions as a policy for ALL projects?(just like the Federal Highway Administration has already done and CalTRANS). CSS is a collaborative process, it “enhances CEQA” – to use Hal Kassof’s language. It provides a proven framework for transportation projects to get people to focus on solutions that work and it saves time and money because they don’t spend time studying the alternatives considered non-starters. And, PB wrote a whole white paper about why it’s great stuff. And HNTB has a whole presentation on the benefits of using CSS.
Robert and Brian, how do you feel about it?
Where is the link for live online viewing of tomorrow’s high speed rail meeting? Usually, they put the link up well before the meeting, with the agenda.
Anybody with basic observation and reasoning skills (not to put words in his mouth, but indications are that Clem is among them) understood two fundamental things about the CHSRA years ago:
(1) the Los Banos-Pacheco routing into the Bay Area is a catastrophe, trading fast, direct, unproblematic, tunnel-free, rural construction over the Altamont Pass and no risk, geologically well understood Dublin-Fremont and Fremont-Redwood City tunnelling for higher risk Pacheco tunnelling and massive unnecessary urban impacts Santa Clara to Redwood City; and
(2) the 350kmh through the middle of central valley cities is completely insane, combining completely avoidable impacts with heroic engineering with massive, massive, unnecessary costs.
(And no, Palmdale vs Grapevine isn’t in this list; they did one thing right, for whatever reason that may be, accident, rare good judgement or political.)
Given these truly fundamental and catastrophically bad starting points, it takes a mad suspension of disbelief for any intelligent observer to imagine that anything good could come out of the world class transportation experts who run the show. And since then they’ve done absolutely nothing to support such self-delusion.
There’s a truly fabulous, cost justifiable and environmentally positive high speed rail project possible in California. The state and the world really needs it. But what we’re getting is just more third world graft from the same old BART-Bechtel-PBQD-sopranos failures that we always get in California, where public works are solely an excuse for private enrichment fronted by the professionally unethical.
So sad.
Tony D. Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
OOhh, there there Richy. Still loathing over the choice of Pacheco over Altamont (anyone have a pacifier?). Pacheco routing a “catastrophe?” Oh boy! Just get over it already and spare us the nonsense. Thank you.
jimsf Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
The valley towns, and the others for that matter, don’t have to worry that much about the trains roaring through. Out of 4 trains per hour in each direction (8 per hour total) there would likley only be one train per hour that will be express. Most of the trains are going to make the stops. So thats only 2 per hour that will go through at speed.
jimsf Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
meanwhile – valley town the group that formed in hanford to support high speed rail and a possible station has gown to over 700 and counting, much like cal for hsr group.
Valley people are actually smarter than bay people.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Or more desperate to get out of town.
jimsf Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:56 am
that too.
Me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
From the Fresno presentation:
HST Service via Fresno (both directions)- Peak: 20 through trains/hour, 12 stopping trains/hour- Off-Peak: 14 through trains/hour, 8 stopping trains/hour
So 8 trains an hour at 220mph peak, 6 off-peak
Alon Levy Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The East Bay towns that lobbied hard for Pacheco would disagree with your statement that Altamont is unproblematic.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Dear Alon,
Comparatively.
And don’t mistake doing what you’re paid to do (another example from the same book: “representative” Fremont politicians lobbying against Fremont-SJ non-BART rail, over the course of a decade, at the behest of BART contractors) for doing what’s in the interests of your constituents.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Regardless of what the cities themselves are saying, Altamont has serious problems in this respect. The route goes straight through Fremont, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and as if that weren’t enough, it’s ALL Union Pacific right-of-way, with no wiggle room around it. Which means that you’re going to have to bulldoze a very long stretch of houses to make room for high speed rail.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Yes, comparatively Altamont is easy. But it’s not problem-free *cough* Dumbarton Bridge *cough*.
Politicians lobby against the interests of their constituents all the time, even against the wishes of their constituents. In Palo Alto and Menlo Park, 1A got a majority of the vote; the towns are against HSR because of minority NIMBY interests. From a political perspective, what the people want is nearly irrelevant, except insofar as it’s one of the factors that influences elections, alongside money and political favors.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I’m still not convinced that Altamont is easier overall. Come to think of it, in terms of right-of-way and alignment issues, Pacheco seems much simpler.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 3:56 am
In terms of dealing with UP, Pacheco is much easier. It also simplifies service by avoiding splitting service. It’s still more complex with respect to how it can be improved later, the areas it serves (no East Bay service), and SF-Sac service.
Much of it boils down to Pacheco being easier up front, costing less in Phase 1, and more problematic later on, costing more when you include Phase 2.
Peter Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:02 am
East Bay service can be covered by an upgraded Capitol Corridor. 110 mph should be more than sufficient for that.
Mark Drury Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
I completely agree with Richard on the points he makes. Problem is, the Cult of HSR won’t abide the mere mention of Altamont or any other change to the existing “plan,” as that might very well land things in front of voters again (voters who are somewhat better informed now than they were in 2008), or might otherwise slow the project down long enough for cooler heads to kill CAHSR as currently proposed. Looks like we’re set to flush $4.5B down this toilet — let’s hope the waste stops at that figure or less until such time as we have a realistic plan in place. Regards,
Mark D.
http://nwprr.net/profile/MarkDrury
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Been there done that back in the 60s and 70s giving us things like I-78 through Union County New Jersey which is rumored to have cost a million dollars a foot to build. (Yes 83.333 an inch or roughly 5 billion a mile…and it’s not even in a tunnel… ) The time to object to and influence the selection was years ago when the decision to use Pacheco was made.
Mark Drury Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 10:05 am
I’m sure there is some direct and well-known relationship between I-78 in New Jersey and HSR in California but I, sadly, am ignorant of it. And the time to pull back on a very poor decision (Pacheco) is now, no matter how much past political wrangling led to that decision.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 1:14 am
The NJDOT proposed an alignment. The Friends of the Reservation had their reservations about it. ( the park in question is called the Watchung Reservation ) So it was realigned. They then had to redo the alignment to avoid some other pet project of another group. There were lawsuits over the ability of the fauna in the park to get enough nooky. Then there were lawsuits over noise. Over the chance that the stable that burned down in 1830 may have archeological significance. Over the placement of the exits. There was a group that didn’t want any exits built so after the lawsuits over the placement of the exits was settled they sued to have the exits eliminated. There were studies done for what it would cost to tunnel through the park Dragged on for 20-25 years. The parts that were completed were great because the highway had no traffic on it for decades. Made commuting really really fast East of the park the local lanes were able to handle the traffic easily. Dragged on for so long that by the time the connection through the park opened the never used express lanes had to be repaved. Sound familiar?
The fiasco that was I-78 is one of the reasons there’s a defined process for building new infrastructure.
Alternatives were explored years ago. That was winnowed to a few alternatives years ago. A decision was made for alignment years ago. The last time to object to the final decision was years ago. It’s unfortunate you don’t like the decisions.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I feel it’s far more appropriate to refer to the Altamont boosters as a Cult. It seems pretty ridiculous to cross the mountains so far north that you have to go south again to reach San Jose and any route up the peninsula.
And then there are those who think CAHSR can somehow take over a bridge? Or build one of its own? Fantastic!
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Funny and strange how choosing the Altamont Pass is exactly what the Southern Pacific did in connecting San Francisco and San Jose to Southern California and its transcontinental system. Altamont has had rail for well over a century, while Pacheco has never had any rail whatsoever (care to guess why?). Southern Pacific also built the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, the original bridge crossing of the Bay, in 1910 to improve travel times to San Francisco.
Yeah, SP was a Cult! Didn’t know what the hell they were doing!?
Joey Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
*shrug*
The objectives and destinations of SPRR back then were very different from what CAHSR is doing today. I would probably have been fine with Altamont, but don’t discredit Pacheco just because there’s not tracks there today.
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
fact is you’re just not going to get a bridge over the bay to pass environmental muster in the bay area. Go ahead and try, but you’ll still be here trying 20 years from now.
Caelestor Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
For (2), what’s the solution? Move HSR to I-5?
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
His solution is to run HSR via I-5 and the Grapevine, maybe shaving 25 minutes off the line haul time but eliminating 3 million+ in potential ridership areas. Not to mention an altogether more expensive and risky mountain crossing at the grapevine.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Never mind, misread the post.
synonymouse Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
There would still be a branch to Bakersfield and Fresno, and still faster service for them to LA.
More expensive, riskier – who knows? Bring an experienced base tunnel builder like Herrenknecht to evaluate how difficult the Grapevine really is. I don’t trust Bechtel one iota.
And you are conveniently ignoring the significantly shorter track mileage. Less mileage, cheaper to maintain.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Shorter mileage except for the spurs to Fresno and Bakersfield which may have faster service but much more infrequent service.
synonymouse Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 10:40 am
The service would be commensurate with demand, as with any transport system.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 11:48 am
And most people will opt for twice an hour to Sacramento, SF, LA, versus once every two hour s tto SF and LA and twice a day to Sacramento. Doesn’t cost much to stop an almost full train for a few passengers. Running to a terminal means they would want the train to be reasonably full at the terminal. It would run much less frequently.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
That’s just a pure and blatant shell game argument you’ve pulled here: increase the relative cost of providing the service, and the “services commensurate with demand” is less service for the exact same demand.
You’ll not con the residents of Fresno and Bakersfield that a spur service will be built to the same top speed as the main trunk, that a spur service will necessarily be completed at the same time as the main trunk, that there will be as many services on a spur, nor that they are better off with one additional forced transfer.
And because you are clearly talking about a lower quality of service to the Central Valley, you are obviously talking about fewer passengers originating in the Central Valley to both sides, so you are talking about cutting the total ridership on the system.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Right now I think we only have the money for one option: either serve central valley cities (SR-99) or don’t (I-5). So for the moment, I think it’s best to choose the option that maximizes ridership (and we know that intermediate stops are key to the success of a HSR line). If demand proves so great that strain is put on the Central Valley trunk line, an express line can be built later, but for now I think it’s best to go where the ridership is.
As for Tehachapi, I suppose I can understand your general distrust of consultants as well as your desire for a faster travel time. All I have to say is this: The Grapevine option did appear on older CHSRA maps, which at least suggests that they looked at it, and also, I’ve driven the Grapevine and can say that it’s pretty tough terrain. I’ve only seen pictures of Tehachapi (and compared the terrain on Google Earth), but I can say pretty decisively that it would be an easier alignment. Now, my observations alone don’t indicate that the Grapevine is impossible (though the subterranean fault crossing does sound dangerous), but there is definitely something to be said for these things.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:43 am
And “don’t” would require funding in large enough blocks to get from the Bay to the LA Basin in one step, because there is no passenger base to define distinct CV segments.
Which means “don’t” requires getting (1) larger chunks of Federal money at a time while (2) starting out building toy HSR commuter lines at both ends and waiting until “later” to ever be able to connect them.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I think the solution is to have the line run along the edges of the urban areas, with suburban stations. It’s not I-5, which would have no or rural stations and would pass tens of km away from the urban area.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
For a small city of 100K or more, with an existing rail alignment through downtown, that’s your first preference. Running along the edges of a city that size is only when the first preference is not workable, and you’d certainly want a local rail service that crosses to suburban stations at either side and runs to downtown if you are forced to a second best alignment.
synonymouse Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 10:45 am
That’s still greenfield and would engender environmental objections.
The great advantage of I-5 is that it is already an environmental disaster, which cannot be mitigated. Freeways are incredibly noisy and the public accepts this reality. The hsr would not add any detectable noise to that cacaphony. Plus it does not interfere with agriculture and the maximum speeds can be torqued higher without neighbors objecting, because they won’t notice a damn bit of difference.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
That is all just a way of saying that the advantage of rail over air and interstates of being better able to be brought to central urban locations because its more space efficient than air or road should be tossed in the rubbish bin. Sure its more work going to where people live than not going to where people live, but its a passenger service not a freight railroad. Going where people live is the name of the game.
Name a successful HSR system overseas that was built on the principle of deliberately routing away from millions of residents enroute.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
For the record, unless you want to travel through the Altamont pass at 60mph or less, it WOULD require tunnels, and that’s to say nothing of Niles Canyon.
Tunnel free Altamont pass?? how? its even in CAHSR images
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I see no tunnel (plan 2-D-64).
That surprised me also.
Tunnelling is required Dublin-Fremont and tunnelling is desirable Fremont-Redwood City.
The (comparatively, comparatively, Alon) positive thing is that tunnelling risk, which is the real cost driver is low, due the the excellent geotechnical information information from the immediately adjacent and parallel Hetch Hetchy water tunnels, which are under construction right now in both locations.
mike Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Richard, I am confused by the plans. On 2-D-64, for example, there is no tunnel labelled, yet they clearly show the alignment sinking up to 100 meters below ground level. How is this possible sans tunnel?
Incidentally, aren’t you at least a little pleased that they are using meters?
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Incorrect. The plan clearly shows the HSR line below the existing grade in the Altamont Pass (check pages 2-D-62, 65, and 65).
Reality Check Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
All of the sections shown in 2-D-64 are clearly labeled either “structure” (section AP-3) or “at-grade” (adjacent sections AP-9, AP-8 and AP-1, from west to east). So this suggests the “below existing grade” portions are cuts, not tunnels.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
But they indicate cuts where applicable too. And structures, which would be necessary where the proposed alignment is 60 feet above the base of some valleys. I am more inclined to believe that this alignment map doesn’t show enough detail to indicate where such short tunnels, cuts, and structures exist. Plus, I find it hard to believe that they would cut more than 100 feet down rather than just build a tunnel.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Joey, you’re wrong. You’re wilfully misinterpreting.
Cut, fill, and bridging with zero tunnelling all the way from Tracy to Livermore.
Joey Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
You still don’t explain why they don’t show the smaller cuts and fills on the map.
mike Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@Reality Check, Richard
Did either of you even read my post? The figures on 2-D-64 clearly show the alignment being up to 100 METERS below grade. That’s 330 FEET, for those not versed in the metric system. It’s almost equal to the elevation change that I-580 experiences from Livermore to Altamont Pass. It’s as if they plan to just remove an entire hill or two from the mountain range. Why would you cut that deep instead of tunneling?
Look, I agree that Altamont is, all things considered, the superior option. But the Altamont-backers do themselves no favors by displaying such overt bias towards their preferred alignment. On the one hand, they tell us that the idea of running a train at 200 kph through Peninsula suburbs on a relatively straight, wide ROW is laughably impossible. But one the other hand, they claim that building an alignment with multiple 300+ foot deep cuts is no problem – very feasible, quite simple. Come on.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:53 pm
You know, when I accuse people of lying, which isn’t infrequent in the pathetic context of California transportation planning, I have the facts to back me up. Try it some time.
You can move a very large amount of earth for the cost of digging even a short length of tunnel. That’s true anywhere in the world, and it’s true in spades (yuck, yuck) around here.
Point some bulldozers in the right general direction and away you go!
See figures 3-9.18a and 3-9.18b, generated by consultants to the CHSRA from engineering data (rather than confused or wilful misinterpretations about what one supposes the data might be) supplied by CHSRA.
There are many bigger highway cuts than this around.
PS Another thing to consider is that CHSR never applied the same route optimization software and studies to the Altamont route that they expended (ie wasted) on the straw man Henry Coe State Park “Alternative” (nudge nudge, wink wink) or on the Pacheco There Is No Alternative. I suspect it is possible to do s good deal better than what they showed in their fraudulent EIR, but even what they did show using rough cut draw-some-lines-on-a-map preliminary alignment sketching was surprisingly (to me — I wrongly assumed tunnelling would be needed) feasible and effective and un-risky.
Joey Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Highway cuts larger than 300 feet? Can you provide examples?
Also my understanding is that short tunnels are relatively easy to construct compared to long ones. You can put both tracks in the same tunnel, and you don’t really have to worry that much about emergency exits and fire safety.
By the way, can you cite the fact that they never applied the software to Altamont? I may not be a sophisticated piece of software, but I’ve taken a look at the terrain of Altamont (on Google Earth) and I can’t really see any way through flat enough that it wouldn’t require short tunnels and aerial structures. Oh, and let’s not forget about that long tunnel through Niles Canyon too.
dejv Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 8:18 am
And then cross your fingers so they don’t encounter saturated highly plastic clays, quicksands or similar nice stuff.
mike Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Richard,
No one has accused you of lying (despite your accusations towards others). I personally am claiming that you are downplaying issues related to the Altamont alignment while overplaying issues related to the Pacheco alignment. I still believe that Altamont is on net superior (though that ship has already sailed), but I think the case can be made on the basis of facts. Distortions and exaggerations are not necessary.
For reference, this is what a 100 meter road cut looks like. It is the “deepest road cut east of the Mississippi” (in spite your claim that “there are many bigger highway cuts than [100 meters deep] around.”)
Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the amount of earth moved for just one of these mega-cuts would be of similar magnitude to the total amount of earth moved for all of the retained and unretained fill that will be used on the Caltrain ROW from SF to SJ (assuming the Peninsula folks don’t get their $8 billion tunnel as a free gift from the California taxpayers). No one is saying that these cuts aren’t possible. We’re just pointing out that they aren’t cheap, easy, or trivial. And that’s a fact.
Clem,
Can you provide a link to the 220 mph through Gilroy claim? Thanks.
Clem Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Of course. 6 August 2009 Project Implementation and Phasing Workshop slide 13. Straight from the chief engineer, Tony Daniels. For your orientation, Gilroy is located at kilometer post 595.16. Express speed at that location is 350 km/h or 217 mph.
It’s not a black on white statement that “we plan to run at 220 mph through Gilroy” (which would fly like a lead balloon) but it is undeniably being planned for, as this graph conclusively demonstrates.
Me Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I have also had fairly extensive conversations with the Authority in which I asserted they were crazy to do this and they asserted they were not crazy, even though everyone kept saying they were.
This is their intention. The taxpayer is paying for plans that acommodate this. Whether it will happen or not is another question.
Clem Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Do they even care? Once the shiny gold-plated viaducts are built through downtowns (12 MILES through Fresno), and the nuisance lawsuits have limited speeds to 125 mph, somebody will be laughing all the way to the bank.
mike Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Clem,
I agree that their 217 mph through Fresno (or Gilroy) is a risky plan at best. But I don’t see why nuisance lawsuits would cap the speed at 125 mph – that’s much lower than observed in other areas. For example, with no (visible) mitigation, Acela Express runs at 150 mph straight through the centers of several Boston suburbs. There have been no nuisance lawsuits there (at least, no successful ones). With mitigation, the Shinkansen operates at up to 186 mph through Japanese cities.
It’s certainly possible to run at 180 mph with acceptable noise levels, but it’s expensive in terms of structures. Overall it would surely be better (but less contractor-enriching) to run on the outskirts of Fresno and Gilroy.
The greatest irony here is that Fresno really should be cautious about CHSRA’s plans, while Palo Alto should be embracing CHSRA’s plans. In Fresno, 217 mph trains would make a significant amount of noise, and all of the UP/BNSF tracks would remain at grade. There’s little upside there beyond the (admittedly large) direct benefit of connecting to the HSR system. In Palo Alto, 125 mph trains would be fairly quiet (especially compared to current at-grade Caltrains), and all of the grade crossings would disappear. There’s a lot of upside there in addition to the direct benefit of connecting to the HSR system.
But Fresno actually asked CHSRA to put the tracks through the city center, while Palo Alto is doing everything it can to block any improvements to the Caltrain ROW. Crazy stuff!
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I don’t know the best alignment for Gilroy, and since the biggest business at Gilroy is likely to be transfers to/from the coast south of there, it may be that running a local train from Salinas through the center of Gilroy with a downtown stop to terminate at a station at the edge of town would keep Gilroy town center from drying up and blowing away. I dunno.
But clearly going to downtown Fresno is best all around if its feasible. At Fresno in particular, the highest frequency station is going to get development, and if its not infill development in Fresno city center, it will be sprawl development at the outskirts.
spokker Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
So CAHSR will operate at 186 MPH through Central Valley cities. The travel time will be a little longer. Who cares?
We get bogged down in 220 MPH or nothing when slower speeds would be a huge improvement too.
Evidently, though, you put the station as close to the center of town as you can given the constraints on the alignment and the existing built environment. Beet field stations just to run away from NIMBY’s is tending toward promoting sprawl.
synonymouse Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 10:48 am
no podunk stations = no sprawl
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
It depends on what you call “podunk”. Obviously no downtown Fresno station equals more sprawl. No downtown Bakersfield station equals more sprawl. And over and above it all, encouraging people to drive instead of take the train, which is your main strategy, equals more sprawl.
You know, people might actually agree with you if you took a more polite tone instead of acting like we’re all petulant children. As it stands, though, you’re just acting like a dick.
trainsintokyo Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
That was directed towards Richard Mlynarik.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Fifteen years of patient polite dispassionate presentations and suggestions and lobbying and $50k wasted got us where we are today (eg unmitigated, avoidable Transbay disaster). It would sure be nice if that fairy story you’ve been told about public process worked, but objective evidence shows otherwise. Anyway, good luck with the politeness program. Be sure to report back on all the significant changes it effects in staff plans at any public agency.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I don’t see anywhere that it said you were likely to succeed by not sounding like a fringe raver foaming at the mouth, but rather that sounding like a fringe raver foaming at the mouth makes it less likely that you’ll win.
You of course can’t win on technical arguments alone – you need to enter into coalition with political interests that are roughly aligned with the technical arguments winning out, and it will normally only be a rough alignment … technical arguments mixed in with sophomoric rants of outrage that juvenile fantasies about the public process are just that and that politics enters into political decision making would be a strategy to take likely political ineffectiveness and translate it into guaranteed political ineffectiveness.
trainsintokyo Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
You know the expression, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”?
You’ve got the “big stick” part down pat. It’s the “speak softly” part you need to work on.
As BruceMcF says, you can’t win by simply arguing the technical merits and expect people to immediately drop their objections and agree with you. Regardless of the truth of your argument, people have to be persuaded that of that truth, and that requires a softer touch.
That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Anonymoose Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Although virtually everything Richard says is true
The system (meaning the powers that be at the CHSRA, the construction firms, etc.) is currently destined to give us a system that will cost way too much money (think accommodating 2 or 3 roundtrip freight consists on the peninsula compared to hundreds of Caltrain / HSR train movements), that provides inferior service (think Pacheco pass / nonexistent SF – Sac service that Altamont could have provided), and that can’t even meet basic needs (think the Transbay Terminal station / approach fiasco and the operational inflexibility that the terminal provides)
All the while, all the indicators that we’re receiving are bad:
- Caltrain is pushing ahead with its stupid own signaling system instead of using a standard, commodity system from Europe or Asia
- Pacheco seemed to be picked only for San José’s political satisfaction—it is very difficult to make the rational case against Altamont in favor of Pacheco
- On the Peninsula, there has been zero effort to coordinate Caltrain-CHSRA efforts (to the point where the two systems might use incompatible platform heights)
It really is embarrassing how this project is being handled. I think Richard has the right to say it as it is
jimsf Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 1:06 am
EVen if all that was true, it wouldn’t matter. Because no one in california has the authority to make overriding decisions to force agencies to cooperate or collaberate or do anything else. Everything is subject to the most local of politics the most, and the big picture the least. Thats because we have a democracy, and an initiative process, and layers and layers and layers of local, city county, neighborhood, politics, transit agencies, and so on. This isnt china or nazi germany where one guy says “this is how it will be done”
demcracy is great until its you who doesn’t get your way. but thats the way it is. one only need look at the health care reform situation to see the ugly messy way that things get done or dont’ get done. Its no different with hsr. and every hsr corridor is going to go through exactly the same thing. even the ones that dont involve bart, kopp and bechtel.
If you can’t compromise. democracy is going to be a disappointment every time.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Even if you can compromise, it will be a disappointment much of the time – its just that there will be some victories along the way as well. Its not for nothing that Churchill described Democracy as the worst possible form of government, with the sole exception of every other form we have tried.
Peter Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 10:12 am
There’s a saying amongst lawyers that the best settlements are those that no one is happy with. I think that will be true here as well.
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:51 am
You can usually tell the posts from younger folks from older folks too, (broad generalization yes) because when you are under 32, you are very idealistic. by the time youre 40, its more like, meh, are we outta beer already? lol
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:53 am
oh, hmm speaking of…. its my friday, better run to the store. and when I get back Im going to tell you all about the little raggy piece of “news” paper I read today. four glorious pages of hsr bashing……
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
And the Federal government can and does refuse to fund bad plans no matter how many local referendums, resolutions by the state legislature, loud protest marches etc. happen.
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Uh they just said 400m for it, and a week before that they loan tjpa 1.7m on top of that.
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
and they are also funding the central subway.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Here’s a rational argument: straightline, Oakland/Sacramento is about 70 miles. Dogleg, Okland/Tracy/Sacramento is about 100 miles.
The HSR will not be able to run 220mph from San Francisco to the central Peninsula, there is no guarantee that it would be possible to bridge, and tunneling under at that point would cost a whopping amount of money, and running via San Jose would mean you are still running somewhere in the sub-175mph range through San Jose, then up to Altamont, then across the the corridor in the Central Valley, in order to get down to LA.
All to allow getting from San Francisco to Sacramento via San Jose and Altamont when there is the much more direct Capital Corridor alignment already in use that could be upgraded.
The relegation of the Capital Corridor to “impossible to upgrade” so that without the Altamont corridor “there is no rail access to Sacramento” … while just gleefully assuming that the destroyed railbridge is replaced with a new HSR bridge through an environmentally sensitive, or a tunnel, or that its possible to come out of San Jose to reach the Altamont alignment while operating at 220mph … that’s self-contradictory.
If any of the handwaves required to make the Altamont alignment feasible can be made, its easier to jump the hurdles to providing clear 110mph paths along the Capital Corridor.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
The route between Sacramento and San Francisco is very very flat, so flat that there are tides in Sacramento. The route between Stockton and San Francisco via Martinez is equally flat – there are tides in Stockton too. Dragging out my ancient OGR, according to the timetables San Francisco to Sacarmento is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the same route is 92 miles. San Francisco to Stockton via the Altamont route is 91 miles. Sacramento to Stockton is 48 miles. Hmm go 47 miles out of your way and dig through some mountains is going to be cheaper and give you a faster route. Hmmm.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Definitely, going 47 miles out of your way and digging through some mountains will make it faster.
Huh, imagine that, going the more direct route (92 route miles when I had roughly 70 miles line of sight … though that is Oakland/Sacramento … is 76% efficient, 139 miles is 50% efficient) – why, its supposed to be the magic wand when running away from customers and toward more tunneling under more constraints … but its the transport equivalent of a brick wall when it comes to the Bay to Sacramento w/out tunneling.
Odd, that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am
I’ve had the gumption to do some math. The part on the northern route is relatively easy. To get from Sacramento to San Francisco in an hour means they have to achieve an average speed of 92 miles an hour. NEC like speeds. The CAHSR website says HSR will take 20 minutes to get between Sacramento and Stockton. Which mean you then have 40 minutes to get from Stockton to San Francisco – an average speed of roughly 135. Hmmm. Just slightly less than the average speed of the trip from Sacramento to Stockton on track that is going to be good for 220 MPH. Hmmm.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2010 at 10:42 am
..but then I don’t know why we are measuring to San Francisco. There isn’t going to be any place put the train once it gets there, They can all get on the bus in Emeryville and get stuck in traffic on the Bay Bridge. Or transfer to to BART at Coliseum onto to standing room only trains.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
It’s not the end points that matter, it’s the bits in between. The route from Fairfield to Sacramento isn’t the issue, it’s how you get from Fairfield to Oakland. Right now, the route goes along that flat part of the bay you mention, the problem is it isn’t terribly straight, and making it straighter means tunnels, viaducts and other expensive bits.
I agree completely however, that a HSR line connecting Sac, Davis, Fairfield, Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, San Jose. is far more of a priority than Sac, Stockton, Livermore, Fremont, San Jose.
AndyDuncan Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
(the reason I highlighted Vallejo is that it’s not currently served by the Capitols, but could be along a straighter, more populated route than the existing line)
Joey Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Well, the endpoints DO matter, but the intermediate portions are perhaps equally as important.
I agree with your idea about Sac-Bay Area HSR. Though if you’re realigning the route, it might do to include Vacaville (100,000+) in the mix (SF too though that’d be expensive).
jimsf Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Actually it should perhaps eventually look like this
Joey Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Vallejo has more population than Martinez and Benicia combined. With 100,000+, it makes sense as a stop, plus you get rid of that pesky 180 degree turn in Martinez.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
No, not everything Richard says is true. What he says about Peninsula operations is true, including his criticism of TBT.
However, the further away he gets from German/Swiss/Austrian rail operations as a model, the less correct he is. As it happens, Germany has a very good regional rail system, at least when DB doesn’t have to pull three quarters of the rolling stock due to brake defects, but its HSR is so-so. So when Richard says that slab track is the only rational way to do HSR, he’s wrong; Germany uses slab track, but France, Spain, and Korea don’t. And when people point out such mistakes to him, he always responds by mocking.