HSR Opponents and Critics Seek To Revive Altamont Route
Back in July 2008, the California High Speed Rail Authority approved using the Pacheco Pass route to link the Bay Area to the Central Valley. Their reasoning included the following:
The Pacheco Pass alignment, rather than one through the Altamont Pass further to the north, was the fastest and “most environmentally responsible option” for the high-speed train system, minimizing impacts on wetlands as well as the San Francisco Bay and eliminating the need for another San Francisco Bay crossing, bridge or tunnel,” the authority says.
Other arguments included Pacheco being more direct and allowing for faster service, as well as enabling more service to San José, the state’s third-largest city and one of its most important economic hubs, and more and faster service on the popular San Francisco – San José corridor.
The debate over Altamont and Pacheco went on for a LONG time but it was ended in July 2008. I remained neutral – each option had its pros and cons which evened out in the end. Once the choice was made, however, it seemed sensible to accept it and move on for the sake of the project. Voters approved the choice in November, and for nearly two years the entire project has been built on the assumption that Pacheco would be the route.
However, certain groups never accepted this. One of them is David Schonbrunn’s TRANSDEF, who claimed to support HSR but opposed Prop 1A, partly because of the choice of Pacheco over Altamont. Another is Richard Tolmach, who has also become a critic of HSR and has long been pushing for a revival of Altamont. And Gary Patton’s Planning and Conservation League have similarly been fighting high speed rail, apparently in pursuit of Gary Patton’s agenda of opposition to passenger rail that has led to environmental damage and lost money across Northern California.
At the same time, Peninsula HSR critics and opponents, primarily motivated by NIMBYism, began to call for a revival of the Altamont alignment. Their logic was that it would enable a bypass of Palo Alto and part of Menlo Park (though not the neighborhood along the Dumbarton rail route). That would leave much of the Caltrain corridor unimproved, and San José in limbo, but those were acceptable outcomes for these opponents.
Unsurprisingly, the Peninsula HSR critics and Schonbrunn/Tolmach have now realized they have common interests. Tomorrow morning at Burlingame High School, Schonbrunn, Tolmach and PCL will be joined by Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt and Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock (and potentially others) to announce they have partnered with a French design team to propose a new Altamont alignment. Their press release is below:
Altamont Revival Press Release
Detail can be found on the TRANSDEF site. A look at Exhibit C shows the route they plan to use from SFO to Tracy.
The route is notable for several reasons:
1. Proposes routing the trains onto Highway 101, despite the fact that this would likely significantly depress ridership by bypassing the dense urban centers of the Peninsula (and yes, the Peninsula rail corridor is dense), could drive up costs significantly by requiring reconfiguration of interchanges or very tall HSR viaduct structures
2. Proposes then routing the trains over the Dumbarton rail corridor, despite known concerns about environmental impact
3. Proposes then routing the trains through Fremont, perhaps through a costly cut-and-cover tunnel under the power lines, or perhaps with aerial structures in Fremont neighborhoods (which apparently is OK to Peninsula proponents of this plan, since it seems Fremont doesn’t count as much as Palo Alto)
4. Proposes then routing the trains through open land southeast of Pleasanton and Livermore without a station there, despite claims going back years by TRANSDEF and others about the Altamont corridor supposedly having so many more riders
5. Is vague about how to connect the route to San José, despite the city being the third-largest city in the state and one of North America’s most important hubs of economic activity, as if San José was just an afterthought.
Their proposed Altamont route appears to be a recipe for sprawl at the expense of ridership. This is very ironic, given the fact that one of TRANSDEF’s chief criticisms of Pacheco is that it fuels sprawl. The route would run to the south of Pleasanton and Livermore through what are currently vineyards and open land, instead of following the existing Altamont rail corridor. That would avoid running it through those two cities, but it means any possible Pleasanton/Livermore station would be a “greenfield” station – which is much more likely to fuel sprawl. That’s significant in the Tri-Valley area, especially Livermore, which has been battling for years to limit sprawl and preserve open space.
The plan relies heavily on the French model of HSR, which sometimes bypasses city centers (though not Paris) in favor of greenfield stations, although that model has produced questionable results. They seem to ignore the Spanish and Japanese model of running through city centers, choosing to cherry-pick for unclear reasons.
When the proposal is unveiled tomorrow, it’s going to be cast as an answer to all the project’s problems. But it comes with many unknowns and huge downsides. Depressed ridership, potentially higher cost, inefficient service to San José, inability to help upgrade the Peninsula rail corridor, and unknown but likely significant environmental and community impacts – it all seems like quite a lot just to appease a few Altamont diehards and a few Peninsula NIMBYs.
Which is all this really is. Instead of sitting down and figuring out a sensible solution to implement the plan voters approved, including a San Francisco to San José segment eligible for $2 billion in federal funding over the next two years, these critics and city leaders want to waste more time and toss away that money in favor of a study that is inherently designed to suit their own desires. Rather than working with us to ensure we have the federal funding to get the system built properly, or to help advocate for the best design on the Caltrain corridor, this group still thinks they can make one last go of it, massively changing the project at the last minute for their own reasons.
Ironically enough, late design changes are usually the number one of cause of cost-overruns on megaprojects.
Yet another risk to the project the State Auditor strangely left unmentioned.
Looks like they NIMBYs are using the age old trick of tossing everything at the wall and see what sticks.
Stupid for the future of CA, but it is what works in this state.
You know, there are plenty of valid reasons to support Altamont over Pacheco, but these guys seemed to miss most of them, as well as throwing some very weird things into their technical analysis. Their inclusion of the 101 alternative appears to exist for the sole purpose of satisfying NIMBYs north of Redwood City, and how they equate route splitting to actually physically coupling and decoupling trainsets is beyond me (Granted, they provide decent examples of where it is done already, but on a modern, dedicated high speed line, it seems like a great way to induce operational delays and offers little benefit over keeping the trainsets separate for the entire journey). Oh, and they claim to be analyzing ecological impact, but a quick search of “Don Edwards” returns zero results (it’s not shown as an ecologically sensitive area on any of their maps either). There are also a lot of holes in their plan, such as how the 101 route would connect to anything north of the airport (not that this is a difficult question, but any competent analysis should at least show this), or like the fact that one of their maps shows the current 1-580 BART alignment as an option, but they fail to mention it anywhere. Overall, their claim to “HSR Infrastructure Expertise” seems to be rather lacking, dare I say, perhaps even more than it does in the CHSRA…
Heck, this could kill Altamont’s credibility more than anything else.
I used to work for an engineering consultancy and I would be ashamed if we put out a report as amateurish as this SETEC report. Just read the conclusion- ‘we think CAHSR should adapt this route because then it would look like our French routes, and we have the best trains in Europe!’ Clearly they’ve been given a conclusion and been paid to write a report in support of it- a classic example of Bad Science, particularly when compared to the excellent Alternatives Analysis document issued recently by the CAHSR Authority.
It should also be noted that there are very good reasons for using the Altamont route; it was decided to use the Pacheco route after a thorough cost/benefit analysis, but Altamont is also an attractive option and could be revisited in the future as an additional line to reduce journey times between Sacramento and SJ/SF. But given that there is only money right now for one of the two routes, what you don’t do is revisit the decision long after its been made with a hastily slapped together, politically motivated argument for the option that’s already been discarded. This is nothing more than a delaying tactic.
Go Nimbys – anything to defy the fix.
Lots of assumptions on how everything would work out. The part about trying to kill the BART extension to San Jose is demonstrative of their thinking. Also, where will they get the room to put HSR down 101? Last time I checked (this afternoon), there is no room to widen 101 from Redwood City to SFO since there is either no available land (hello eminent domain) or marsh land or SFO gets in the way. Also, this proposal does nothing to help existing transit systems, like Caltrain. Don’t forget, SF will not freely give up the land that holds the Hetch Hetchy pipe system; nor will they allow anyone to build even something like what is proposed without immense compensation so good luck with finding a usable right of way. Further, as Joey pointed out, there are massive ecological issues associated with the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. More importantly, how does this group propose getting into SF and the Transbay Terminal, let alone 4th and King, which is required under Prop 1A. Lastly, this is just an attempt to “pass the buck” from the peninsula to the East Bay; which I am sure this plan has not been presented to Fremont, etc.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 8:15 am
It’s basically a plan that says “anyone living near the Peninsula rail corridor is sacrosanct, anyone else in the Bay Area is fair game to have this HSR line dumped in their laps.”
Hiring a team from SETEC was a clever move.
(SETEC English website)
This firm has an excellent track record of projects in France and abroad completed on time and within budget. Its reputation is also due to the fact that the group’s capital is wholly owned by its management. That makes it immune from the influence of banks and construction companies whose interest is to inflate costs.
A study by SETEC will inevitably have an impact.
Tony D. Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:08 am
“A study by SETEC will inevitably have an impact.” No it won’t! No company or small group of selfish Americans are above the voters/citizens of this state. No pun intended, but the train has left the station on the primary HSR route into the Bay Area. There is no news and, quite frankly, I find this all to be hilarious. Thanks for making me spit out my coffee this morning AP.
By the way, what’s wrong with the Altamont HSR commuter-overlay concept?
Tony D. Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:09 am
I meant “There is no news here.”
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:10 am
It actually serves Pleasanton and Livermore? I guess that’s a problem…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 10:39 am
They suck this little press conference into so nobody would ahow up and counter this .So where is the cost ?
rafael Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@ Tony D -
“what’s wrong with the Altamont HSR commuter-overlay concept?”
Simple: it entails a massive investment over-and-above both the BART extension to San Jose and HSR via Pacheco. If the HSR starter line ran through Altamont and San Jose residents were prepared to accept indirect access to HSR via BART, there would be no pressing need to tear up south San Jose, Gilroy, Pacheco Pass and the grasslands. In addition, multiple freeways would be relieved by frequent, fast rail service between Sacramento, the Delta counties and the Bay Area. Monterey could be offered subsidized turboprop service to SoCal, SFO and Sacramento.
Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with running the starter line via Altamont:
a) getting from SF to Redwood City via the 101 corridor assumes that PCJPB would be willing to let CHSRA use its right of way south the Sierra Point (Brisbane) or even Millbrae. This might be negotiable, but only if HSR coughs up the delta needed to fund Caltrain electrification all the way to San Jose. Even then, Caltrans would likely veto any request to construct HSR tracks in the 101 corridor. Sticking with the Caltrain corridor all the way to Redwood City would still impact Burlingame, San Mateo etc. as well as Menlo Park residents near the approach to the Dumbarton bridge.
a) building a suitable bridge or tunnel across the Bay at Dumbarton would be a lot more difficult than most advocates appear willing to acknowledge, primarily because of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and methyl mercury contamination of the Bay mud. The EIR process for that alone would take many years. Note that the SETEC study does not include the option of a crossing that ignores the old Dumbarton rail bridge and hews close to the road bridge instead.
b) crossing either Union City or Fremont would be even more difficult as UPRR has the only available railroad ROW and it is very unlikely to entertain any requests to share it. Given that BART is elevated in the area, the only alternative would be a very expensive tunnel. Between the dense residential housing, the very much active Hayward fault and the high water table (cp. Quarry Lakes), that would be a tour de force. Note that the SETEC study does not include an alignment in the CA-84 corridor and along Decoto Road, which would permit a valuable intermodal station with BART in Union City.
c) crossing the East Bay hills would require yet more tunnels and crossing the Calaveras fault.
d) passing Pleasanton and Livermore altogether would defeat the dual purpose described above. Central Pleasanton could be avoided by tunneling through the hill southeast of it, at additional expense. A second valuable intermodal station with the planned BART extension to Livermore would then be conceivable near Livermore municipal airport, though there are water table and UPRR grade crossing issues that would favor an elevated solution. However, sacrificing that airport to reach the I-580 corridor east of CA-84 is probably not an option.
Summarizing, running the HSR starter line through Altamont instead of Pacheco would simply replace one set of EIR and funding headaches with another.
Tony D. Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
SJ accept indirect access to HSR via BART? “Tear up” South San Jose, Gilroy, Pacheco Pass, grasslands? For all the knowledge you posses Rafael, you flush it all down the toilet with such ridiculous commentary. You, of all people, should know that this war ended years ago. Again, the primary HSR route into the Bay Area WILL BE THROUGH THE PACHECO PASS! In the future, we’ll also get a HSR commuter overlay through the Altamont…THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS! Tracy and Mountain House getting direct HSR service over San Jose/Silicon Valley? Yeah right! Please, stop disrespecting the largest city in Northern California and economic engine of the state.
rafael Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 4:22 am
Tony -
just to be clear: while I’ve never been crazy about the preferred route via Pacheco, I have accepted it and moved on. Indeed, I have done so primarily because the BART extension to San Jose will use the only really viable right of way between Niles and Milpitas.
My objective here was to highlight what I perceive to be flaws in the SETEC study on which TRANSDEF and others are now hanging their hats. For all the talk of train splitting, it completely fails to identify a viable HSR alignment down to San Jose. CHSRA had studied the option of splitting the line in Redwood City, but that would still mean constructing HSR infrastructure – grade separations and all – through Silicon Valley in addition to the nightmare of crossing the Bay, the East Bay plus the Amador Valley.
As for disrespect, you should bear in mind that the preferred route does not include any stops in the East Bay, i.e. the most populous part of the Bay Area and home to many of the worker bees that make Silicon Valley hum. The size of any single city is really neither here nor there, as there is virtually no undeveloped space between any of them. The whole area is essentially one giant agglomeration. Why is it perfectly fine to demand that East Bay residents take BART to Transbay Terminal or Diridon station but an affront to ask San Jose residents to travel to either Union City or Redwood City to catch an HSR train there? Seems like six one way, half a dozen the other to me. The Altamont vs. Pacheco decision rested on other, more technical arguments.
Isn’t this something they should have unveiled to coincide with the comment period for the SF-Merced Program EIR? If not, it’s just a photo-op and an attempt to avoid CEQA.
I’m surprised that the East Bay hasn’t started complaining about it.
I’m for any alignment that gets CAHSR built quickly.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:21 am
I think someone should make sure information regarding the attempts to change the alignments gets into the papers in the East Bay. See what happens then…
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
The whole proposal requires BART to give up its ROW to HSR so SJ can be on the system…I SURE that will not happen..then it requires the SFWater district to give up half its row..dont know about that..and of course Caltrans letting HSR use part of 101 between Redwood city and SFO.
This smells of desperation.
Someone needs to firmly tell this group that they can either waste their time with these straw man arguments that will go nowhere, or have a say in how HSR is implemented on the peninsula. If they’re going to be in denial then they’ll get HSR anyway and it will be implemented however CAHSR determines is best. You shouldn’t get a seat at the table if you are simultaniously trying to undermine the effort.
For those of you who know the East Bay, how does this plan jive with the latest Altamont corridor plans –
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100503135614_Agenda%20Item%209%20Cover%20Memo%20-Altamont-%20Initial%20Alternatives.pdf
Maps are under item 9 at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/about/default.asp?topic=boardArchive&year=2010&month=5
The East Bay cities are more likely to welcome the hsr than the Peninsula, which faces blighty berms and loss of Baby Bullets. BART could benefit greatly from an interchange at Livermore and would likely proceed to usurp the Caltrain row.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Try saying “blighty berms” five times fast. I bet you can’t.
Also, you’re implying the Peninsula would somehow get to eat their cake and keep it too. You can’t keep Baby Bullets or similar service while also implementing BART.
And what gives you the impression that there would be no berms or aerials in the East Bay?
Once again, thou hast checked sense at the door.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:40 am
True ..just like Fresno the people are less ultra sensitve like the MenloPark Nimbys
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The “loss” of Baby Bullets is nonsense, since HSR takes over that role. In fact, with more frequent HSR headways, the Baby Bullets are expanded and made faster and more reliable.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
*SSSHHH* Don’t tell Richard Mlynarik or Clem…
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
HSR takes over that role for people heading to RWC or SJ. SSFF would almost work if some HSR locals also stopped at stations at PA, MV, and Sunnyvale, but the 24 station rule makes that impossible.
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I suggest that a CHSRA takevoer of local service, in this instance Caltrain, would constitute an abrogation of Prop 1A.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
It wouldn’t be an explicit takeover – just a couple of HSR-branded Kodama runs to replace the Baby Bullet. Depending on how busy the tracks are, CAHSR might get away with running double-deckers with a top speed of 240 km/h and terminating them at Gilroy.
Spokker Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
But that doesn’t replace Baby Bullet service. Baby Bullet serves San Jose, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, Hillsdale, San Mateo, Millbrae and SF, depending on the specific train. If Palo Alto gets an HSR station, what of the other Baby Bullet stations?
If you want to use HSTs to replicate Baby Bullet service you need to have the same platforms heights, signaling and other uniform features.
Spokker Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I assume the high speed trains would carry a more expensive fare than the Baby Bullets today, all other things being equal.
The only thing that would make the HSTs a replacement for Baby Bullets is partially subsidizing the cost for Caltrain riders to ride high speed trains. Otherwise, those red EMUs should have access to all four tracks.
Whether there is a net benefit or net cost to Caltrain riders remain to be seen. There will be higher frequency even if there is no Baby Bullet service, but ultimately it depends on what Caltrain riders value more, speed or frequency. People who ride the locals will definitely see an improvement, but will the cost to Baby Bullet riders be higher?
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I suspect there are legal issues for Prop 1A, ie. basic mission and jurisdiction questions.
A state government run operation, say under Caltrans aegis, might be able to get around this, but for a private operator the subsidy required certainly for local service, and very likely for long distance, would be a headache to deal with, budget crisis to budget crisis
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
The basic point is that it doesn’t matter what color the train is as long as it can provide service where there is demand. That means building flexible, 100% interoperable infrastructure, e.g. the same platform height and the same train control system, so you can reallocate scarce resources such as track capacity to meet demand. If you let HSR take over the function of the Baby Bullet (that is, to serve the biggest peninsula commuter markets with attractive express service), you inherently cast in concrete where that train can be stopped. The service pattern is dictated not by where the demand might be today or 25 years from now, but instead where the platform is the correct height and length and which track has the correct train control system. That is nonsensical.
The biggest loss we could experience is the loss of seamless, integrated commuter service on the peninsula. As hinted at by synonymouse, this turn of events is unlikely to be lost on BART.
The East Bay routes would be in more industrial areas instead of thru the heart of toney suburbs. Overall you will find a much higher support to opposition ratio in the East Bay than on the Peninsula. No scheme is perfect but the Altamont plan has many appealing aspects and will not disappear.
Do not underestimate BART. The CHSRA doesn’t even a union but BART has some very well connected ones. BART Ring the BAy would produce a lot of union jobs. There are two options BART could offer the Peninsula: two track subways for those more affluent areas that can find the funds like Berkeley or something more radical for BART but perhaps about time: multi-track with express service. Again do not discount BART – a long-established local entity which towns like PA are much more likely to trust than the arrogant state-wide CHSRA.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Use the “Reply” button!!!!!!!!
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
I wish this software had a preview feature
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
What operating system and browser are you using? Maybe it has something to do with that.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I use Windows XP and I don’t see any preview feature.
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
The software the Altamont site uses has a very nice preview feature.
“1. Proposes routing the trains onto Highway 101, despite the fact that this would likely significantly depress ridership by bypassing the dense urban centers of the Peninsula (and yes, the Peninsula rail corridor is dense), could drive up costs significantly by requiring reconfiguration of interchanges or very tall HSR viaduct structures”
I almost think that anyone who proposes such a move has never taken Caltrain in their lives. Do such individuals know, for example, just how crowded the current PA Caltrain station, for example, is with commuters from Stanford/downtown PA using it?
Arrgh, NIMBYs bring out the class warrior in me.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
As well they should. NIMBYism is inherent class warfare. “I’ve got mine, screw you!”
Jim Wunderlich Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Jeez Robert – not all of us who want CHSRA to spend a lot more money on hiding HSR down the peninsula are NIMBYs the way you are using the term. I just got home after taking Caltrain home – how many of the people commenting on this blog did the same?
The basic problem for most of us is we have no confidence that CHSRA will do anything but ram their “solution” down our throats. There are many on the Peninsula who are trying to join the process but if you have been to any meetings where CHSRA reps are present it wouldnt make you feel very included.
So you fault people trying to be as big a thorn and all the other folks, like UP are, trying to get their considerations included? I think most people believe CHSRA have made up their minds so anything we say is just going to be ignored – you really are surprised that opposition is the only thing left? I’m open to suggestions on how many of us might feel part of the solution other then just to drink the kool-aid they keep dishing out.
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
I believe the only way the Peninsula people are going to be able to stop the berms is to start a campaign for BART to replace Caltrain. Sad, as an electrified Caltrain by itself could serve as a example of a system better than BART. But the hsr juggernaut insists on a massive footprint and even then handicapped by incompatiblity.
BART Ring the Bay could really mess with the CHSRA blitzkrieg. BART has enormous political clout, enjoys considerable popularity with the general public, and greatly covets the lucrative Peninsula market. And the BART line can be designed in such a way as to close out the hsr. Essentially this is what would obtain today had not the “nimbys” campaigned to keep the SP commute service 40+ years ago.
Bechtel would still get its money.
Andy Chow Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
You think BART treats its communities better than HSR? You’re wrong. Not only you have a raise a few sales taxes, you also have to say good bye to the stimulus money (since BART will never be compatible with HSR).
The BART parking lot at Millbrae station (between the tracks and 101) was built on a low income apartment neighborhood. The city supported removal of the housing to make room for a huge parking lot currently underused.
Some of the BART horror stories of cutting phone lines and gas pipes:
http://www.sanbrunobart.com/Bart2sfo/?2000
http://www.sanbrunobart.com/Safety/?1999
http://www.sanbrunobart.com/Station/Large/99121528.shtml
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:02 am
We all know BART has many shortcomings, many of them stemming from SP influence at the very top at Bechtel. Nevertheless, BART has the best image of all public transit agencies in the Bay Area. And when it comes to politics and funding BART is the fixmeister.
Believeit, if the CHSRA starts ripping up the Peninsula to erect berms the level of public infuriation will will dwarf any past dissatisfaction with BART.
The CHSRA has come on like the Attila the Hun whereas BART has shown it can be leveraged to accomodate local preferences, as with the Berkeley subway. Remember it is the same Bechtel behind the both of them.
Andy Chow Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
San Bruno and Millbrae so far feel that CHSRA is treating them better than BART did. The whole BART nonsense is nothing but a pure distraction and a delay tactic. BART is still a train running on steel rails, just that it is inferior and more expensive. It still doesn’t escape the decisions on grade separation, or the high cost of putting any train underground.
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Tell that to the BART unions, the ones that are joined at the hip to the political machine that runs the Bay Area.
IMHO it is not a question of if but when BART will make its move. It is now or never or BART will lose out for good on what it considers its manifest destiny.
Irt wouldn’t be 4 tracks just BART’s two. The hsr would be aced out, the way BART was aced out 40 years ago.
jimsf Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Its not kool aid. some of us agree with the plan and the route choice, and we are california voters and taxpayers and don’t appreciate the escalating costs and increased time frames for getting projects done because every time anyone tries to get anything done in this state it turns into a federal case. and for the most part its just a lot of BS.
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Nonsense. The Peninsula “nimbys” are simply taking care of their castle. If they don’t who will. It is called civic pride or good citizenship. There is no malice intended.
You guys constantly defend the route thru Palmdale(or Modesto)because the locals want it so badly. Well, the East Bay wants the hsr much more than the Peninsula so why not grant them their wish? Besides the Altamont route serves the overall Bay Area better than Pacheco. The real class war here is the crass power play by San Jose plutocrats.
If you examine the TRAC map of the CHSRA routing versus Tolmach’s alternative you will see how illogical the CHSRA plan really is. First you deviate way to the east, traipsing after the UP’s ancient Tehachapi Loop, then when you finally arrive in Norcal you meander way to the west thru Pacheco. At least pick a side and stay there – Altamont is consistent with your shift of focus way to the east.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:30 am
That’s just dumb. You end up having to go just as far to the west with Altamont that you do with Pacheco to reach San Francisco.
There’s a reason the Tehachapi Loop is where it is. It’s the best location to cross the mountains. Please note that there has never been a rail line along the Grapevine. Path of least resistance in terms of topography. Once again you seem to imply that HSR will use the Loop, while you know that that is not true.
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:49 am
You don’t need to reach San Francisco – SFO is adequate.
The reason why the Tehachapi Loop is still there is because even with base tunnels the ruling gradient over Tejon would be too steep for general freight. And the cost – you would need electrification on top of the expense of mining the tunnels.
Still I’ll bet the UP would be interested in Tejon tunnels if they could induce the government to pay for them. For the hsr, which can handle the gradient, the Tejon bores are a no-brainer – save a statutory half-hour and all weather, hidden footprint.
Dumb to impose retrograde thinking on an all-new project.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
“You don’t need to reach San Francisco – SFO is adequate.”
Really? You bitch and moan about the “flawed” ridership figures that were developed in 2007 and here you are saying you don’t need to have the line run to the terminus that would draw the largest number of riders in Northern California. Your logic appears to be lacking. But then again, you are part of the group that thinks ending the line short of where the population is or avoiding routes where the population by seeking to have I-5 be the route instead of by cities including Fresno and Bakersfield is astounding. The whole point of HSR is to have the routes go through areas of population that can easily access stations, not avoid them.
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Yeah – stop the hsr at SFO and forget about both San Francisco and San Jose for the time being. SFO is an adequate collector terminus. Take the billions you save and extend the I-5 alignment to Sacramento.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
You want a half-ass system built, all so you can say “it failed, see I told you so.” Or you can say this is another “Becthel disaster;” which by the way, what do you have against Bechtel, I’m just curious since you seem to have a bone to pick with one of the world’s largest engineering and construction firms. HSR is designed to connect the state, especially the population centers. Either way, your idea of building a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure by avoiding population centers is one the reasons why you are and will continue to be ridiculed as a NIMBY.
synonymouse Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:25 am
The hsr as envisioned by Tolmach is much more likely to break even than the meandering snail rail current CHSRA scheme.
corntrollio Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the NIMBYs who are arguing about these sorts of things have never used Caltrain and have never looked at any plans for HSR. They’ll say anything to get their way, despite the fact that the Southern Pacific ROW has been in the same place for over 100 years. Even as recently as a few months ago, I’ve seen Mercury News articles (more like op-eds) saying trains would be going over 200 mph through San Jose, and some people still think trains will be going that fast on the Peninsula.
Tom Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Surprise, surprise, Corny. With each passing day more on the peninsula know more about the mismanagement and disaster HSR is. Also, we all love being called NIMBYs. Let’s see. If the train was running down your back yard, cutting your town in half, and putting up a 40′ structure the size of a freeway overpass, would you be cheering it on? Think about that for a little while and you may come to a more charitable view of what peninsula residents are facing.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Where did you get 40′ structures from?
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
The top of the structure will be about 20 feet above the ground (less if they dip the roads just a little), and will be much narrower than your average freeway overpass (perhaps as little as half the width). The catenary will extend higher but it is not a solid visual obstruction. Elevated tracks will create no physical barrier “cutting the town in half.” If anything, access from one side to the other will be improved by grade separations. Now, if you want to talk about a psychological barrier, then that’s something different, but so far, it’s not something that has even been brought up.
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Err, well maybe not quite half. A freeway with four lanes in each direction (pretty common on Bay Area freeways) will be about 130′ wide. A four track rail corridor will be 80 feet (give or take about ten, according to CHSRA planning documents), still significantly less.
synonymouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
They are not talking about BART style elevateds; they are insisting on solid berms. If that is not a wall I don’t know what is.
Maybe you should ask BART why it is not into berms.
Bianca Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
they are insisting on solid berms
Dude, the Alternatives Analysis that came out on April 8th made it abundantly clear that there will be no berms on the Peninsula. Don’t believe me? Read it here.
Just saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Berms are the right solution for both economic and urban environment points of view, as anybody who has ever lived in a flat area with competently constructed and well-integrated rail could show you.
The consultants controlling the process are only too happy to be pushed into the briar patch of extra cost civil engineering and fold immediately in the face of “community pressure” (wink wink). Oh noes! You don’t want BERLIN WALLS? Ow wow wow, stop twisting our arms! That hurts! OK. An extra billion or two for us … just because you INSISTED!
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Yeah, the facts remain that berms are cheaper and do a better job of absorbing noise and vibrations.
Though apparently they require more width to construct…
synonymouse Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 1:16 am
I wonder how those retaining walls and all that nice fill do in an 8.0.
I’ll bet kinda like the Embarcadero Freeway after the measly little Loma Prieta.
Peter Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 8:11 am
*Sigh*
Because we’re the only country that experiences earthquakes. Unlike, I dunno, Japan? They don’t get earthquakes and don’t use berms, right?
synonymouse Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Still no explanation of how you are going to deal with subsidence and liquifaction of all that fill in a a a severe quake.
You have to wonder why BART avoids berms.
Peter Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:37 am
I’m not an engineer. And neither are you. So neither of us are in a position to pass judgment on that issue. I personally trust the engineers to do their jobs. If you don’t, then YOU come up with the reasons for why they’re wrong.
Btw, I don’t think ANYTHING is built to survive an 8.0 if on top of the epicenter. Not even nuclear power plants.
Again, BART is not the only railroad to be built in earthquake land.
synonymouse Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
It is incumbent upon the berm advocates to demonstrate how liquifaction and subsidence would not be a problem, when these are well known issues with fill in seismic areas.
Concrete structures do risk this problem.
dejv Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Berms don’t liquefy, at least if earthquake doesn’t occur during floods. Subsoil can liquefy and it can be mitigated. UTFG for papers about that.
Bianca Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I live in Menlo Park, and the existing rail corridor already cuts the town in half. For three quarters of a mile, between the creek and Ravenswood, there is no place to cross, which makes for an awfully long detour for pedestrians. A pedestrian crossing at Middle has been discussed for years but tabled until there is some certainty about what will happen on the corridor.
Besides, grade separation will enhance pedestrian safety and quiet the horns, both of which are very good things.
So much for there big press meeting..have not seen anything in the news
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Oh, I’m sure the heavy hitters were there, like the Palo Alto Daily Post and the SF Examiner. You know, the movers and shakers of Bay Area news…
I’ve said it before and said it again; the Chinese method works best. STFU and BUILD BABY BUILD. Opponents mysteriously disappear never to be heard from again. Keeps costs down and gets things done quickly before material prices rise.
Joey Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I think Russia demonstrated recently why this may not be ideal…
Andy Chow Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 12:08 am
The problem is that it is often couple with bad engineering and planning (because they’re not accountable to anyone), which means that some underground construction could cause buildings to fall apart (which actually had happened).
The problem here is the attitude of fear and entitlement. People here are very protective of their assets. If people here are willing to drive their kids to school everyday because of sexual predators concerns (which the chance is extremely low), and willing to let security folks scan them at the airport because of terrorist concerns (also a very low chance), what can you expect when you propose something they could see as threatening to their property values.
nanashi Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:57 am
Why is this country so hard and so stupid to figure out something so easy? Just STFU and build!!! If the government doesn’t want to play that game to keep their hands clean, there are people who specialize in that field; hire the mob; I’m sure they can find some people tied to the Triad in San Francisco. Stick a gun to these NIMBYs head and say it’s either your signature or your brains on this agreement to move out. A few mysterious disappearances here and there would send a message to STFU. Who cares about a few people and their stupid possessions, this is about the bettering the lives of the masses. If they don’t like it because it goes through their exclusive neighborhood, sucks to be them. They’re gonna get paid for it moving out, big deal. Just STFU and move along, or if they don’t want to, let them mysteriously disappear.
Tom Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
That’s a really helpful comment, there, Nana. Do you really want to kill people to build a stupid train? You are truly sick.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
There’s a little thing known as “democracy” and a spirit of public engagement in this country that rightly makes the Chinese method inapplicable here.
That being said, CEQA does need to be reformed so that NIMBYs can no longer block infrastructure projects and developments that help provide energy independence and address global warming.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If we don’t manage to attain energy independence and mitigate global warming, then housing prices and all those other concerns will be irrelevant, anyway…
Tom Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
You’ll be just fine, won’t you, Robert, when the next project runs along your street.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
I think he’s trying for just that in Monterey.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Yep. I practice what I preach, supporting light rail here in Monterey.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Actually, adjusted for inflation China has the same subway construction costs as many European countries, despite having a fraction the inflation-adjusted wages. The amount of construction done in China makes it easy to ignore the fact that Chinese transit planning isn’t all that competent.