SF-SJ Alternatives Analysis Delayed to April 1
Been meaning to write about this since I first learned of it a few days ago, but I’ve been rather busy myself (as you probably noticed). As Mike Rosenberg reports, the Alternatives Analysis for the Peninsula segment that was to be released on March 4 will be delayed until at least April 1:
The planners responsible for the Bay Area section of the high-speed rail line have again delayed the release of a report detailing whether the bullet train could rocket along the Caltrain route underground, on raised tracks or not at all.
The alternatives analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the state’s bullet train had last fall been pegged for a December release before being postponed to March 4.
But the California High-Speed Rail Authority board will not hear the report until April 1 at the earliest because agency officials are still reviewing the plan, Deputy Director Jeff Barker said Tuesday.
The report will include the first new information released for the Bay Area since a Sept 30 precursor to the alternatives analysis.
I know that some on the Peninsula are still pinning their hopes on this “no-build” option that would have trains stop at San José, but again, that isn’t going to happen. The HSR system’s finances and ridership don’t hold up if you take out the route to San Francisco, making people transfer to Caltrain instead (most intercity riders won’t do it, depressing overall ridership to the point where the system won’t generate the anticipated revenues). And of course, a “no-build” option means Caltrain is pretty much stuck as-is, since NIMBYs will fight grade separations for Caltrain alone. In fact, they’re already fighting grade separations for Caltrain, a fact that isn’t stated as often as it should be.
Of course, terminating the HSR trains at San José is illegal according to Prop 1A, which mandates SF Transbay Terminal as the northern terminus of the trains. It’s ironic that HSR critics who have spent months whining about ridership numbers and the letter of the law according to Prop 1A suddenly throw all that out the window when they happen upon something that might help them keep the whole project from their backyards.
What won’t be postponed is the revised program EIR for San José to the Central Valley. That revision was ordered by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney last fall, and Rosenberg’s article suggests “no major changes are expected” for that document, which is of course what we’ve been saying would be the case all along.
So we’ll have to wait another month for the Alternatives Analysis on the Peninsula, which is fine, I advise the Peninsula folks to spend that time wisely, determining their preferred options for both constructing and funding the project (keeping in mind that any tunnel will require some level of local financial commitment to become viable).
I see this as a bad move for CHSRA. Palo Alto just asked for an extra 45 days to review this. Before the delay, CHSRA could credibly deny that request. But now it seems to deny it would be somewhat hypocritical as they themselves are now months behind schedule on releasing the document. I also find it concerning that the date was back so late in the game. It seems if they really needed an extra month, they should have known much earlier.
Did they give any explanation as to why it was pushed back or why they will need an extra month?
YesonHSR Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:55 am
The revised EIR should keep the nimbys busy complaning for the time being!! The article is slightly different from last night…and 45 days is more than enough ..This area has had far more meetings and hearings with CAHSR than all other areas of the state .
Victor Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I agree, 45 days is plenty long enough. Oh and what is this CAHSR? I’ve heard of the CHSRA(California High Speed Rail Authority), But no any CAHSR, As that doesn’t exist as a part of California state government under prop 1a.
Peter Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Now now, children, play nice.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Its CAlI HIGH SPEEDRAIL!! we all know what it is and its just like there web page! And with some of th biils in the Senate it just might be Cailfornia rail Department soon
lyqwyd Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I agree that 45 days is plenty, but PA is already asking for 90 days, it seems tough to deny that request on the grounds of moving quickly when the authority just delayed the report by a month.
Peter Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
But they’ll still have their 45 days to comment. They’re not losing any time in that respect.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:31 am
The only info I have is the same as what Rosenberg said in the article: “because agency officials are still reviewing the plan.” Vague and unsatisfying, but true.
Agree that this would probably give some fuel to the calls for an extended comment period.
Clem Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Reading the tea leaves, I think they’re waking up to the fact that the AA will undergo extremely close scrutiny. Taking the time to make the analysis water-tight will probably save far more time later on when the litigation begins, as it inevitably will.
Clem Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Forgot to mention, many people in Anaheim weren’t even aware of their AA until several months after it was released. The situation couldn’t be more different on the peninsula: everybody is waiting for it with baited breath.
Another wrinkle is how to couch the AA in terms of Context Sensitive Solutions, the process they’ve said they would use to obtain community buy-in. The politics of this are extremely delicate.
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Well if they need an extra month to iron out the kinks, then I think it’s worth waiting.
Another excellent post Robert.
Do you have any reason to believe that the Peninsula is finally accepting reality and looking at how they want to accommodate HSR there?
Given the complexities of the issue, I’m not at all surprised that the Authority is delaying the AA. It just gives them more time to get all their ducks in line. They know they’re going to get hammered in the comments, so it’s in their best interest to do it right and be completely ready for when the hate mail starts flowing in.
I’ve been following the California HSR progress (thanks for this blog!) and there is a question that has been nagging me for awhile.
Was it ever considered to run HSR from SJ to SF via a route in the east bay instead up up the peninsula side of the bay? I realize that to terminate in SF there would have to be a way across or under the bay from Oakland which may be prohibitive. It would also seem to me that a city like Oakland would have a serious vested interest in having HSR come that way.
Just curious mostly. thanks.
lyqwyd Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
It may have been considered early on, but the cost of a new underwater tunnel would be in the billions, and Oakland does not have enough clout to make it happen.
Dave Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
It seems that it has already been studied long ago. One reason I can think of is that their is no available ROW on the Oakland side since Bart has already taken it up which is incompatible with any conventional overhead electrical train. It probably was shown to be counter-productive to rip out the Bart lin on the East Bay only to replace it with HSR.
On the other hand the ROW on the peninsula is ripe for HSR since it is easily upgraded in comparison to Bart, has avialable ROW, Track Gauge, type of mixed traffic to use the corridor, compatibility of new equipment (EMU’s & HSR trains) V.S. (HSR & Bart Equipment). Then the Bay crossing wich would probably be a second transbay tube, wich would not come cheap at the start of a new transportation option a lot of people already question in regards to cost. We don’t need higher start-up costs right now. But the second Transbay Tube is innevitable.
Scott Lund Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Thanks. I suspected it would end up being a ROW issue, but I didn’t realize that BART was that incompatible (not surprised though).
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I’d like to also mention the fact that the Peninsula probably has greater ridership opportunity because there are a lot of businesses, as well as people, located along the corridor.
Despite the delay, I think the CHSRA should release what they have for the March meeting stamped “DRAFT” on every page then release the final copy in April. From the release of the draft report in March till the releasing of the final report in April, the comment period should be opened up. In this case, if you combine March and April, that would give 57 days, or you can allow for the full 45 days after April 1 (in addition to 27 days in March counting March 5-31) for interested parties to make their comments, which could be a possible total of 72 days. I think this ought to be explored as it would give PA/MP/Atherton the extra time they requested and potentially garner some good will.
Peter Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
That would that the Authority spend twice as much time (and money) responding to comments. Especially if stuff that people comment on for the draft is stuff that the Authority ends up addressing in the final AA. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
When you think about it, they’ve already begun to give sneak previews to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, etc., to which the public has demanded copies or handouts of the report, so why not get it out there in draft form and open up for comments? Also, I doubt there will be major differences between the draft and the final report since much of the work that has gone into the report has probably been finished, while the remaining work, as Clem noted, is probably to “make the analysis water-tight.” In any case, releasing some information is better than nothing since the lack of information breeds suspicion and fear mongering.
other news ny high speed test track
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
We need to “test” 110MPH?
Peter Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Well, maybe the equipment is so old they need to test it at 110 mph. To see if it might fall apart.
Maybe the stretch will be used to test newer equipment, though. Who knows.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Prototype would have been a better word. They want to restore a third track so passenger trains can bypass all the freights. 110 until they can find the money to grade separate.
Interestingly, I’ve talked to a lot of Peninsula residents about the idea to stop HSR in San Jose. Oddly, just about everyone I’ve talked to who is for stopping HSR in SJ claims to still be in favor of electrifying Caltrain and grade separating it. Make sense? You bet it doesn’t. They claim it’s the size of four tracks that scare them — or just the idea of HSR.
Dave Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Their claims would be more understandable if the row was so small that it could only barely hold two tracks and as has been discussed here, the Corridor can accomadate four tracks on most of the line.
Bianca Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I’ve talked to some of those people too, and my take is that they fall into two categories: 1) some people are not informed about the amount of money Caltrain would need to grade separate and electrify on its own, and there is some blindness about the difficulty Caltrain would have in raising that money from the three counties it serves; 2) others are opposed to any change at all to the Caltrain tracks but understand that isn’t a politically viable position, so they claim to support electrification knowing full well Caltrain alone doesn’t have the clout to pull it off.
That being said, at the Menlo Park alternatives analysis preview last week there were lots of murmurs of agreement to the notion that Caltrain be kept un-electrified forever, but then that crowd was heavily skewed towards people who own houses very close to the tracks, who would be impacted by any changes to Caltrain at all.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Quieter faster service is somehow a bad thing? Hmmm.
The people advocating for electrification only are ignoring that once Caltrain is electrified HSR trains could go all the way to San Francisco. No technical barrier to it anyway.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
imo… for every 50 people attending a scoping meeting on this stuff, or any other mega project, only 1 is informed enough to sufficiently understand the proposal and the tradeoffs.
For every 10 folks that ‘get it’ only one of those is unbiased enough to not let their opinions get in the way of their mouth, and to provide constructive/valued comment.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
And the vast majorty of these are near where any change is to be made..ok 100 people out of what a City of 20,000! This is what happens to everything in this day and age..30 people complain and get there way 10of thouands were for it.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
What is real bizzare is Caltrain had all these plans before prop1A even passed I even saw plans for it on the MenloPark City web site!! 4 tracks grade seperation.. different options for the Row hight ect ..Some how HSR has turned into this booigeman!! And really most people want this even there ..but the loud squeaky wheel in this day gets way way to much media spotlights
I’ve long doubted that HSR is buildable at all in California, given the witch’s brew of environmental legislation you have to deal with. However, routing this thing anywhere near Palo Alto is just plain dumb.
That town is the heart of the enviro-protest industrial complex. You have the environmentalists. You have the environmental lawyers. You have the students to man the protests and the college profs to write the propaganda. Finally, you have the wealthy foundations who finance the whole machine.
There is no question that the residents of that city have the wealth, power and expertise to kill the whole project. The only slight snag is that when HSR dies, Palo Alto residents would probably prefer not to have their fingerprints on the knife. There are many ways for large construction projects to perish, and I’m sure the local environmental attorneys will find whichever is least trouble. After all, they have decades of experience.
Lionel Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Fortunately, the vast majority of Plao Alto residents are in favor of HSR. This is one battle the Palo Alto establishment will loose. It will be like their failure to push through the historic preservation ordinance.
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I’m skeptical of the fact that they have enough power to kill the project. They may be powerful, but really, they’re just one town, and this is a statewide project with huge popular, political, environmental, and plenty of other types of backing.
wu ming Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:56 am
um, what? palo alto/stanfurd the center of the california environmental lawyer community?
hardly.
The other issue that people are ignoring is that if Caltrain is electrified it would be perfectly possible to run a few high speed trains through to San Francisco. They would have to run at Caltrain speeds, and within the capacity limitations of the track. It would cost an extra half hour, and only one to two trains an hour would be possible. However, it would save massively on construction and legal costs.
Of course it wouldn’t satisfy the San Francisco ego.
This might be a surprise to the residents of the Most Glorious City on the Planet, but 90% of the Bay Area’s population lives someplace else. Many of the riders forecast for SF are probably just using it as a transfer point.
Evan Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
This is exactly my point man! If they’re going to run at any kind of high speed, they need to grade separate the tracks. And to run at all, they need to electrify the tracks. So, as I said above, if you’re going to spend the billion to electrify and grade separate the tracks, why not add two more tracks at the same, at little additional cost, to have actual high speed rail to SF?
What you’re proposing not only doesn’t make much sense, but it would decimate ridership. And it’s funny you suggest this about SF’s ego — because if anything stands out as egotistical, it’s the mid-Peninsula’s sense that this project should be stopped, to the loss of millions of Californians, so that the status quo in Palo Alto can be preserved. Oh, and did I mention I’ve spent the last 21/25 years in Palo Alto?
schrodinger Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Electrification isn’t the problem. That’s only a billion or so. The real problem is the grade separation, which will cost many billions if you have to grade separate everything. Especially if you have to make it look pretty. Complete grade separation is only needed if you insist on running a lot of trains, or running at high speed.
The other real problem is the number and speed of the trains and the noise they will generate. The media is still reporting 200mph running on the Peninsula, and that would be extremely noisy. CAHSR needs to commit to being quieter than Caltrain, even if that means slowing down to 80 mph.
Finally, while there has been much discussion of Palo Alto, San Mateo also looks tricky to me. Not much room to work with there!
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Oh FFS it’s been said a billion times that HSR will be running at 125mph on the Peninsula, which barely qualifies as “high speed” by international standards. Don’t you listen? Granted, there will be some aerodynamic noise at that speed, but it’s not 200.
Also – CalTrain expects to increase service frequencies in the coming decades. Additional demand and higher speeds induced by electrification will contribute to this. Plus, the peninsula corridor has been receiving incremental grade separations for decades. We’re already going in the direction of grade separations, and we will only need them more in the future. Yes, it will cost billions, but it seems to be worth doing, especially when you throw HSR into the mix.
schrodinger Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I’ve read enough about the project to know that 125mph is now planned for the Peninsula. But a few days ago, I saw a media story mentioning 200 mph.
Also, the interactive map on the CAHSR Authority website quotes a time of 13 minutes for a distance of 34 miles between San Jose and SF Airport. That is an average speed of 157 mph.
Finally the movie shows a train running at least twice as fast as Caltrain. It looks like a speed of 150+ mph.
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
You believe everything the media says about CAHSR? Considering all the bs and FUD they put out? All official announcements have said that 125 is the top speed.
By the way, where does 34 miles come from? I just measured SF-Millbrae along the CalTrain route, and it’s less than 14 miles, giving an average speed of about 60MPH. If you look at the entire corridor, SF-SJ, which is about 50 miles, and which HSR will complete in about 30 minutes, that gives about 100MPH average, which is consistent with the 125 estimate.
By the way, don’t look for accuracy in the videos.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
It is indeed peculiar and inconsistent that the interactive map on the CHSRA website claims the train will cover the 34 miles between San Jose and Millbrae in 13 minutes (>>125mph and thus faster than the supposed official speed limit), yet it also claims that the train will cover the 14 miles between Millbrae and San Francisco in 13 minutes (barely 60mph, hardly high speed by any definition).
If you play with the interactive map, you find all sorts of peculiar gems.
Joey Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Whoops. Read that as SF-Millbrae. Anyway, it looks like the interactive map is wrong, as the official business plan says it will take 22 minutes to get from SJ to Millbrae, for an average speed of about 93 mph. Keep in mind that this is for the local, not the express.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Does anyone have on hand a chart of the estimated noise of a high speed train at different distances and speeds?
Clem Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Try this or this.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Exactly. You can’t run at high speeds without grade separations. Those grade separations are what make the system viable from a ridership perspective. Remember of course that 2:40 as travel time from SF to LA was written into Prop 1A and validated by the state electorate. Some on the Peninsula can whine all they want to about this, but unless they plan to go back to the ballot over continuing from SJ to SF, this is a battle they lost in November 2008.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Given the assumption that HSR trains on the Peninsula will be averaging roughly 100mph, grade separations are not essential for train performance. At train speeds below 110mph, grade separations are primarily intended for the automobile traffic. True to intent, it used to be road money that paid for grade separations at rail crossings.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I believe grade separations are required if there is any hope of FRA or CPUC approving those speeds. Plus the cities might want a safer corridor – speeding trains through an urban area at grade at those speeds is a recipe for disaster. Already Palo Alto has a serious problem with death on the Caltrain tracks that grade separations would almost totally solve, as happened in San Carlos.
schrodinger Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
But you can run a limited through service to SF without grade separating the Peninsula. Based on a Baby Bullet schedule, it would take one hour from San Jose which adds half an hour to the total trip. Maybe Caltrains could be lengthened to 8 cars in order to free up some additional slots. One or two trains an hour departing SF should be feasible.
You may well decide to do a few grade separations, but you wouldn’t have to do everything.
Whatever else was in 1A, what wasn’t in there was enough money to build the system. A return to the voters to ask for more cash is inevitable, at which point requirements can be changed to cut cost.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
We knew Prop 1A didn’t have enough money to build the system. A return trip to the ballot was always possible, but FAR from inevitable. The notion that voters will approve slowing down the system just tp appease the NIMBYs doesn’t seem sound or likely to me.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 3:27 am
At 3:10, and with the usual delays and slowdowns created by running on legacy commuter rail, SF-LA would probably have just enough demand for 1-2 tph.
BW Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I don’t think anyone is really considering what true problems are to be had with running the HSR through San Mateo. The city has been very quiet up to this point, but I think people are starting to wake up. The Mayor of Burlingame is now calling on the people of San Mateo to get involved. Jerry Hill and Carol Groom just toured the city with Mr Pringle and reiterated thier strong desire for an underground alighnment.
http://smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=opinions&id=125645
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Oh, I think we’re all aware thatt San Mateo will be a challenge. Not an unworkable challenge, however, even if any non-tunnel solution requires eminent domain.
BW Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I have no doubt that an engineering solution can be found, my point is, if strong arm tactics are used to decide the alignment based on cost effectiveness alone, CHSR may have another Palo Alto on its hands.
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Cost effectiveness is never the only factor considered, though obviously we don’t want to build an $80 billion system. So far, we don’t even know what options are on the table for that segment yet, let alone any preferred alternative. We’ll find out in April.
Clem Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
> Many of the riders forecast for SF are probably just using it as a transfer point.
That’s an excellent reason for serving SF. The SF HSR station can drain a large portion of the Bay Area demand, including most of BART’s catchment area in the east bay. Taking BART to SJ will in most cases be much slower.
schrodinger Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
People don’t have to transfer in SF. Other places will work. Dublin/Pleasanton would work very well, and would be even cheaper to get to than San Jose.
San Jose works just fine for the Peninsula and the Livermore Valley.
I don’t think that taking half an hour longer to get to SF will cut ridership all that much. I’m sure it will cut it some, but it will also cut the costs of building the system.
Matthew F. Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Transfers are what kill you, though. Half an hour travel time, PLUS getting up, getting your bags, getting another ticket, waiting for the train…
YesonHSR Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Maby a slightly slower schedule wont do alot of damage..say 2hR50min…BUT no change of trains its got to be a single seat ride and at least 2 -4train per hour leaving TBT. What the CHSRA needs to show in these alternative plans is that No HSR system in the world forces its riders to change to a commuter train to one of its major endpoints and it unworkable
Bianca Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The shinkansen doesn’t terminate and Yokohama and make everyone transfer to commuter rail to get to Tokyo. The TGV doesn’t terminate on the outskirts of Paris, it goes all the way to the Gare de Lyon. Convenient downtown-to-downtown service is one of the key features of high speed rail, and trying to eliminate service to downtown San Francisco would be astoundingly stupid. And politically impossible- Prop 1A specified service to the Transbay Terminal, so stopping HSR in San Jose means killing the project entirely, even without stopping to consider a scenario in which the Speaker of the House of Representatives would allow anyone to get funding to build HSR, anywhere, if her own district got shut out because of a handful of people with an overinflated sense of self-importance here on the Peninsula.
And grade separations are long overdue. As a Peninsula resident who gets stuck trying to get across Menlo Park on a regular basis, grade separations are sorely needed. It is something that will benefit the entire town, and the folks who live adjacent to the tracks need to look around and remember occasionally that they are part of a much larger community that will benefit enormously from electrification and grade separation.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 3:26 am
Pleasanton has no connecting transit, at all. BART doesn’t count – it’s too slow for trips this far out.
If you want to be that cheap, then why not avoid the mountain passes, build the system from Bakersfield to Los Banos, and make people transfer to buses?
Joey Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Downtown San Francisco, as Clem said, is a major transit hub. It is also a major business district and a large tourist destination.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
It also has some of the nation’s most powerful politicians looking after its interests.
Anyone here who thinks Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dianne Feinstein will let SF be cut out of the HSR project, raise your hands.
A little off topic, but one of the biggest selling points of HSR is connecting areas that are typically served by short-haul flights like the Bay Area to the LA Basin. A new article and report to be released soon shows that the CAHSR system will definitely compete with airlines and the Bay Area’s three main airports, possibly stealing “about 6 million passengers each year” from the combination of SFO/SJC/OAK. While this should come as no surprise, judging on what has been going on with other HSR systems around the world and that a similar conclusion was put forth by the Brookings Insitution, this system will ultimately prove the naysayers wrong. This is also one of the reasons why HSR needs to go all the way to downtown SF, not simply stop in SJ to placate a select number of cities. See: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14467088
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Yeah, this will likely be the subject of tomorrow’s post. This study proves our points about HSR’s popularity.
The notion of terminating in SJ instead of SF is not only illegal, it is economically suicidal. Peninsula cities that support it believe that all of California should throw away its economic future just to placate them. It is insane.
schrodinger Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
While the worst problems are on the Peninsula, those cities will have allies. South San Jose has similar issues. Morgan Hill will be a problem too.
Then there is the San Fernando Valley. That will be easier than the Peninsula but the proposed speed is higher. The website indicates an average speed of 120mph from LA to Sylmar.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 3:23 am
The route map indicates a top speed of 100-125 mph from LA to Sylmar, if I remember correctly.
synonymouse Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
economic suicide? – oh, the hyperbole of it all!
The hsr can go to the East Bay. Quit harassing the Peninsula.
Joey Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Quit harassing the East Bay.
Seriously – it has to go through someone’s backyard, so you might as well do it where it makes sense.
On the contrary the East Bay wants the hsr. Or if you insist on the Peninsula route it down 101 where the environment is so degraded the presence of the hsr won’t even be noticed.
Joey Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 12:55 am
You sure of that? I know for a fact that there are NIMBYs in Pleasanton (not necessarily part of the East Bay route but it proves my point) that were fully willing to resist the project if it went through their communities, but have simply remained quite because the route avoids them. I wouldn’t put it past Fremont and other areas to do the same, especially since eminent domain and full bulldozing of long rows of houses would be required because of UPRR’s unwillingness to cooperate.
And how many times do we have to go through this whole 101 thing? 101 is likely to be more expensive, does not offer any significant transit connections, and denies CalTrain the benefits of grade separation and electrification. Besides, while I acknowledge the fact that HSR will have a nonzero impact on the areas that surround it, I have trouble believing that it will really “degrade” as much as people claim it will. Besides, there are some advantages too, like grade-separation of local streets and the elimination of noisy, dirty diesel engines and horns.