Comments on: Report from Yesterday’s San José HSR Workshop

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:18:35 +0000

Sorry, this should have been included with Joey’s and Peter’s comments above, I hit the wrong button on my keyboard or mouse. Can you move this Richard?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:15:21 +0000

Since my portrayal of the meeting doesn’t really matter in many people’s minds, I will just say, without revealing exactly who said it or who it was said to, that the HSR folks appreciated our civility, respect for, and engagement in the process towards a solution. This is hardly a characterization of “crazy people”. I believe they would rather come here than go to any meeting up the peninsula. I’m hoping we can work out a mind-blowing, world-class solution for not only Gardner, but the City of San Jose and HSR in general, something that will be world renowned for all of its positive attributes. To build on past errors in judgement that were politically expedient and cheap won’t cut it.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:55:56 +0000

Right now we have a raised berm and trees to “soften” this existing source of blight (based on years of proof Caltrain, UPRR and the JPB are bad neighbors). The existing berm’s width would be widened to accomodate new tracks for HSR by removing all the trees, the taking of some of Fuller Park, and the installation of verticle concrete walls that are at least 14 to 18 feet tall for about 2000 feet, or something close to that, creating over 72,000 square feet of a new graffitti canvas. We already have to do 100% of the graffitti abatement to the railroad bridges ourselves, with no help or money from the rail folks, will this change? Add to this, the necessary fencing and the power lines and it becomes a whole new definition of a blight inducing barrier.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:40:59 +0000

The evacuation issue is legitimate, I will give you that. That would likely have to be mitigated by a development of a community disaster response plan.

Fuller Ave would in fact experience an increase in traffic. That may be an unavoidable impact if the Gardner alignment is chosen.

Once again, I agree with you that there are negative impacts. A 280/87 alignment, if constructable, would in fact be the best compromise (I assume you are aware of the potential issues with it?). I just do not see a tunnel being feasible in any way. It’s way too expensive, there are many technical difficulties associated with it and the TEN+ year construction time would delay start of operations by years.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:23:42 +0000

Peter, thank you for correcting Joey’s statement. In essence, cutting off the West Virginia egress to the Gregory Plaza neighborhood would leave one narrow road, Fuller Avenue, for about 113 residences to access Bird Avenue. The possible fire and crime response implications would severely impact the neighborhood. What about access to this neighborhood in the event of a large earthquake and fire scenario afterwards? All these people trying to leave at the same time would create a situation similiar (or worse) to the Oakland Hills Fire Disaster back in the 90′s. There has to be a better solution than this. A tunnel or the 280/87 alignment avoids this problem.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:25:38 +0000

By the way, if I read the design drawings correctly, coming from Diridon Station HSR will be on a berm elevated by less than 10 feet by the time it reaches W. Virginia St. So, for the VAST majority of the time the alignment goes through Gardner, it is NOT on an aerial. For the rest of the time except just before it crosses 87 again, it will be at the same level at Caltrain currently is. There will not be any vast aerials through Gardner. That fear, like I said, is overblown.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:09:07 +0000

Actually, the grade crossing at W. Virginia St. would in fact be closed with the Gardner alignment.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:08:05 +0000

As in, come up with your own post that portrays your impressions of the meeting. I portrayed mine, why don’t you portray yours.

There’s no reason to expect at this point that anyone is getting a tunnel to begin with. The Peninsula cities want one, but they have to come up with a plan to pay for them, while at the same time overcoming all the technical difficulties.

Even if, it’s not an issue of “They got a tunnel so we should get one.” It’s a matter of cost and time. If it costs SIX times as much to tunnel (likely even more given the poor soils and groundwater conditions), and TEN PLUS years to excavate the station, do you REALLY think that’s a good idea?

Note also that even if HSR does not go through Gardner, Caltrain and UPRR still will. There will be an increase in Caltrains, as well. You’d still have the horns of every single train blasting as they cross Virginia St. You would NOT have that with HSR.

I’m all in favor of building the 280/87 alignment if it is technically feasible. But I will not pretend that a tunnel is a good idea, simply because it doesn’t have impacts on Gardner.

By: Joey

Joey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:26:20 +0000

Correction: it creates a visual, and possibly psychological barrier, but NOT a physical one. No crossings will be removed, so access from one side of the track to the other will not be inhibited.

By: Travis D

Travis D — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:20:50 +0000

The Peninsula’s legal roadblocks and obstructions will be defeated, as they should be, so I don’t think the threat of lawsuits from Gardner carries much weight. Gardner’s legal obstructions would be defeated in turn too, as they should also be.