Helping Gilroy Understand the Benefits of High Speed Rail

Aug 3rd, 2010 | Posted by

Just over a week ago, as I sat in bumper-to-bumper traffic on US 101 southbound in San Martin, on a freeway packed full of traffic headed to the Gilroy Garlic Festival, I asked my wife rhetorically “how on earth can anyone in Gilroy look at this traffic and not be beating down the door to improve rail service to their city?”

As Caltrain seems increasingly likely to end its Gilroy service, you’d think that the city council there would recognize that its future prosperity depends upon getting a train station that can enable their residents to reach jobs in Silicon Valley and San Francisco – and can enable people from across California to come to Gilroy for events like the Garlic Festival.

Unfortunately, as a recent article makes clear, there’s still some work to do to show Gilroy why HSR is a godsend the likes of which they haven’t seen since the 101 freeway was built 50 years ago:

Though the severity of their distaste for the state’s high speed rail project ranges from mild irritation to unreserved outrage, Gilroy city council members aren’t ready to collectively speak out against the undertaking.

Unlike Orange, a city in Southern California whose city council recently voted unanimously to oppose California’s proposed bullet train, Gilroy council members aren’t ready to formally cast their vote against the project, but their frustration with a lack of answers from the organizing agency is rising.

This is how a city should respond to the high speed rail project when they have concerns: be open about those concerns, but don’t try to destroy the whole project over it.

As we’ll see, it’s not exactly clear that the problem is the California High Speed Rail Authority not providing answers, but Gilroy not getting the answers they want. But given some of the anti-HSR attitudes among some Gilroy council members, it’s good that they’re not trying to stop HSR from happening, and recognize their duty to implement the will of the voters. Especially when you read Councilman Bob Dillon’s comments:

“I wish they would go away,” Councilman Bob Dillon said. “I’ve been against it since the get-go. It stands no chance.”

According to his calculations, the $45-billion, 800-mile system will cost more than $56 million per mile of track, and nearly $1,000 per inch, Dillon said.

“I would rather have my teeth pulled with no anesthesia” than support the project, he said.

As we know, HSR is going to happen – it doesn’t “stand no chance,” especially after voters approved the project and Congress funded part of it. Another Gilroy city councilmember, Dion Bracco, indicated he would “definitely” support an anti-HSR resolution along the lines of what Orange recently passed, but other councilmembers aren’t ready to go there.

For Gilroy city councilmembers who aren’t HSR deniers, the issue they have is with the Authority’s presentations to the city, and what they consider to be a lack of detail:

“Initially, there was a lot of optimism but I think that has changed a little bit as we learned more about the project,” Gartman said. “In listening to (the High Speed Rail Authority’s) presentations, it doesn’t seem like they’re very well organized. I can’t believe that they aren’t better prepared. They don’t know the answers that they should.”

However, the council appears to be frustrated that the plans at this point are conceptual and that the specific route hasn’t been finalized. Instead of just doing whatever the Authority tells them, Gilroy actually has the ability to help shape the route. They’re not passive actors, but active collaborators. I’m not sure the council recognizes that.

Here’s what the CHSRA project manager for the segment had to say:

According to Gary Kennerley, a regional project manager with the California High Speed Rail Authority, part of the challenge is relaying to residents that what the authority proposing isn’t set in stone.

Last month, the rail authority released a draft document outlining the possibility of aligning a rail line with the Monterey Street corridor, with U.S. Route 101 east of Gilroy or a combination of those two routes.

“It has been hard to convey to people that this is just an identification of alternatives,” Kennerley said. “No final decisions have been made.”

Gilroy needs to decide where it wants the trains to go. On the east edge of town, where it will fuel sprawl? Or along the existing rail corridor, where growth can be channeled into the city center and help grade-separate the tracks, improving safety and traffic flow while promoting economic growth?

The deeper problem seems to be that Gilroy officials just haven’t recognized that HSR will be a major benefit to their community, enabling it and its residents to enjoy prosperity for the rest of the 21st century:

Councilwoman Cat Tucker, who has expressed concern about the lack of hands-on meetings thus far, said she would prefer if the rail authority would run the bullet train over the Altamont Pass instead of the Pacheco Pass and bypass Gilroy altogether. Even though she considers herself an advocate for public transportation, she found both alternatives – either running the tracks through farmland or through downtown – unfavorable.

“It’s going to be one big, ugly monster coming through Gilroy,” she said.

You’re not an “advocate for public transportation” if you place aesthetics over usefulness, and especially not if you are willing to close your city off from the workhorse method of travel in 21st century California.

Mayor Al Pinheiro said he originally thought a downtown alignment might be beneficial for the local economy, attracting business from commuters who catch the bullet train in Gilroy.

But after further consideration, “I’m not thinking people are going to do much collateral spending in the downtown,” he said.

I don’t think Pinheiro has thought this through completely. It’s not just commuters from Hollister, Los Banos and Monterey who would use the station. With an HSR station, Gilroy itself would become a destination for commuters to live in – and instead of wanting to live in a sprawl-based community on the edge of town, they’d likely prefer to live downtown, in close proximity to the train station.

More than any other city in California, Gilroy has the potential to be the Ciudad Real of the California HSR system – a reference to the Spanish city that is 50 minutes away from central Madrid via the AVE high speed rail line that opened in 1992. As the Wall Street Journal described it last year:

Perhaps the most striking example is Ciudad Real, a scrappy town 120 miles south of Madrid in Castilla-La Mancha which, Mr. Ureña says, “had completely vanished from the map.” In medieval times, the town was a key stopover point on the route between the two of most important cities of the time, Córdoba and Toledo. But the railway and the highway south later bypassed the town, and Ciudad Real began to wither.

Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and Ciudad Real has come alive. The city has attracted a breed of daily commuters that call themselves “Avelinos.” The AVE helped attract a host of industries to Ciudad Real, and the train is full in both directions.

Indra, an information technology company, moved a “software factory” to Ciudad Real a decade ago. “Along with the University, the AVE was one of the key reasons we moved here,” says Ángel Villodre, the director of the center.

The University of Castilla-La Mancha’s campus here has grown sharply in size and importance. “The school is here because of the AVE,” says Mr. Menéndez, the department head. “Without it, it would be impossible to attract the high-level staff we need.”

Gilroy leaders need to pay very close attention to what is being said here. Ciudad Real went from being a small town outside the Madrid urban core to a major center of residential and high-tech activity. Gilroy doesn’t have a major university, but it could very easily be a hub for high-tech industries that would love the lower costs of the South County region and the connectedness to Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and the rest of the state.

Mayor Pinheiro seems to be looking at HSR from a 20th century mindset. And true, from that mindset, an HSR commuter station in the middle of downtown might not seem all that valuable. But from a 21st century perspective, when access to high speed trains will be a very desirable thing, the station will be what gives Gilroy a huge competitive advantage over competing cities like Morgan Hill, Hollister, Los Banos, and even places like Salinas.

The HSR station makes a compelling reason for people to want to live in Gilroy as opposed to an automobile suburb, and a compelling reason for employers to want to locate there as opposed to some other place that has to be reached by automobile.

There’s no doubt that the process of designing and building HSR isn’t easy. It requires cities to make tough choices, including in Gilroy. But they can and should take a more constructive approach to this. Decide whether they want the station in town or on the edge of it – the CHSRA is more interested in hearing what Gilroy wants rather than forcing something on them.

I’m cheering for Gilroy here. As I said before, I taught at Gavilan College for a time when I returned to California in 2007, and got to know the city and its residents well. I like Gilroy a lot and think it has amazing potential, especially with a downtown that can easily accommodate transit-oriented development and the businesses that will sprout up to serve those residents. It would be a place many companies would seriously consider locating, especially high-tech businesses – and that growth can happen without fueling sprawl, which Gilroy has fought to prevent.

All this requires Gilroy to recognize that the 20th century is over, and that they need to position themselves for a 21st century economy and 21st century methods of travel. The people of California have delivered a gift to Gilroy that may be quite literally priceless – after HSR opens, cities across the state will be clamoring to get a station of their own. Gilroy will already have one, and be well on the way to prosperity. Let’s hope their current leadership recognizes the opportunity they have, and is willing to make the most of it.

  1. Tony D.
    Aug 3rd, 2010 at 22:15
    #1

    Well, like I’ve said before Robert, there are a lot of us here in Gilroy who do want HSR (probably a lot more than who don’t). Unfortunately, we’re relatively young progressives who don’t have true roots in the town (been here for 5+ years) and who don’t have the ears of some city leaders. You are “heard” if your over 60, conservative and have been in town your whole life. Fortunately for the majority, and you put if perfectly, HSR is going to happen regardless of what some vocal minority wants; I’ll sleep easy tonight knowing that fact. Good night all!

    Dennis Lytton Reply:

    I’ve found that as well working in local politics. People who are “active” constituents for city councilmembers are not a normal cross section of people. Rather they are the type of folks often that Tony D. mentions.

    Even when I worked for a Los Angeles City Councilmember I found this to be the case. Councilmembers and their constituents who were nominal political liberals often had the most backwards and ignorant ideas about growth and future development.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    Well, there’s my generational pattern again; same thing here in the east.

    Just in case we have some people who haven’t seen my earlier comments (and I hope I don’t overburden regular readers);

    This seems to be rooted in the time in which the people involved came of age. Psycholigists will tell you that your outlook on a lot of things, including what the future is supposed to look like, become crystalized about the age of 20, give or take a few years.

    In dealing with rail transportation, particularly passenger rail in any form (including light rail and streetcars), you’ll find, if you’ve been around long enough, that people who are comfortable with it were either under 40 or over 70 as of 20 years ago, while the people who hated it were between 40 and 70. Since then, everyone has gotten older, and the current break points are at about 60 and 90.

    Why is this so? Well, for the people over 70 before and over 90 now, rail was part of everyday life, part of the landscape, and was part of a land they are sorry has gone away. The crowd under 40 before, and under 60 now, grew up with cars as part of the landscape, driving was not the big deal it was before (and is not as pleasant, either), and is also seen as both physically and ultimately environmentally dangerous. The group in the middle would have come of age between about 1950 and the first oil crunch of 1973; for them, the future was supposed to look something like “The Jetsons,” with flying or self-driving personal transport, and trains and trolleys were supposed to go away like the stagecoach.

    Not everybody fits this pattern due to individual variations, but most do. I was told that this had actually been measured by Amtrak’s marketing department by a man in that agency I used to know. More recently, this has been getting attention from the auto industry, which is apparently beginning to see its new customer source dry up.

    It’s terrible having to play such a waiting-for-dinosaurs-to-die game, and I wonder if we have the time.

    It’s also puzzling this phenomenon is not better known; it’s been reported on before.

    http://www.ct.gov/teendriving/cwp/view.asp?q=410722&a=3283

    http://consumerist.com/2010/07/why-are-fewer-teens-driving.html

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/07/deferred-dream-fewer-teens-getting-their-first-car/1

    http://www.gazette.com/articles/birthday-101701-teens-fewer.html

    http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/fewer-young-drivers

    http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2006/02/how_come_boys_d.html

    http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012301339.html

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/09/business/fi-rebel9

    It’s not just here:

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/The_demotorization_of_Japan.html

    http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/16/a-post-car-society.html

    Early trend?

    http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/04/report-number-of-cars-in-the-u-s-dropped-by-four-million-in-20/

    It’s not like this data has been hidden under a rock all this time!

    Andy M. Reply:

    This is a fascinating theory.

    Although HSR is about the future and not about the past, it can sometimes be useful to play the nostalgia card when campaigning. I believe a lot of people have positive associations with the railways of the past, including many who never actually knew them but learnt about them from hearsay.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    It’s more than theory to me! My observation of this came when I was in dispute with the West Virginia Department of Tar–er, Transportation, about the construction of a new four-lane road in the state’s eastern panhandle, which includes the towns of Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg (both served by commuter trains operated by the state of Maryland).

    My argument at the time was that we should avoid the mistakes of Maryland and Northern Virginia, and look at a public transit option–in my case, a modern interurban. I even put together a cost study showing this light rail variation to cost about $60 million less than the highway option in initial costs, and the savings would pay to run the system essentially for free for 10 years. This was based on a relatively light service of three trips per hour, each way, for 15 hours per day, in a relatively rural location (Berkeley County, as a whole, has a population of only about 100,000; perhaps 15,000 live in Martinsburg). This would have been for a system serving all three counties, including town of Berkeley Springs; the whole thing would have been about 50 miles long, and despite being a form of light rail line, would be operated in places at 70+ mph to keep a one-hour end-to-end timing and keep the wage costs down with only three or four cars or trains of cars on the line at any one time. This performance is possible; a couple of midwest interubans named the Indiana Railroad and the Cincinatti & Lake Erie had cars that could do this in the 1920s and 1930s. The C&LE even staged a race with one of its “Red Devils” against an airplane, and won (which says something about the state of aviation in 1930); at that, the C&LE car still had to rocket along at 90+ to win that race.

    What did I get for my trouble in bringing this to light? I was told by the grey-heads that I was trying to take people’s cars away, and bring back the horse and buggy. I was also reminded that this was not a Communist country.

    Still, it was in talking with these political misrepresentatives and others that I began to notice the age pattern mentioned above. The break points used to be at around 40 and 70 years of age then; later, I noticed the breaks moved up to about 50 and (presumably) 80. I currently estimate them to be about 59 or 60 and 89 or 90.

    This was also noticed on the commuter trains and Washington subway system. The passengers on the commuter train were getting younger and younger; on the subway, I’ve been feeling like a geezer for years (I’m currently 55).

    No comments of any kind would work with our dinosaurs for politicians, and we are building the dinosaur road.

    After being called a Communist, I would be tempted to live down to that label and annoy people. If I every get the chance, I’ll have to start wearing green fatigues, a green beret, grow a beard, and take up smoking cigars! “Have a smoke, my friend, these are the best cigars in the world, from Brother Fidel in Havana!”

    Hey, anybody out there in California want to bankroll me for this? It’ll be great fun, and it’ll make Robert and the rest of you look good and reasonable!

    Alon Levy Reply:

    For some reason, I always thought you were above the in-between age band, not below it.

    But anyway, the annoying thing about the WV officials’ reaction is that your proposal looks very good, much better than the peak-only commuter rail lines that some cities propose to spruce up their transit maps. The sort of interurban service you’re talking about could serve a large chunk of America: not necessarily really remote places like Wyoming, but most places in the eastern half of the country.

    Alas, that knowledge has been forgotten in the US. Nowadays, local governments build roads, or peak-only commuter rail, or slow LRT. Even the South Shore Line got demoted to the point of having less than hourly off-peak service. It’s too bad, too, since in so much of the country there are lightly used freight lines on which those interurbans could run – even single-car diesel trains.

    The communist epithet is something that I recently realized about Anglo-American capitalism: it builds pollution and government inefficiency into the system. East Asian capitalism can be just as rapacious when it comes to labor issues, but tends to emphasize good government more, so it wouldn’t randomly call people communists for no reason. For example, although Singapore is an anti-communist country, in which the communist party is banned, the government will not accuse its critics of socialism publicly; it accuses them of many other things, but it leaves the socialism accusations to internal propaganda.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    Thanks for the comments!

    Your thoughts about the Communist/Socialist epithets reminded me of an editorial that ran in the Washington Times in what must have been early 2008 (the writer mentions the New York Times story about fewer teen drivers, but for some reason, I can’t find it on line anywhere) in which the author, another white-head/bald-head type, complained that the idea of kids at 16 not wanting to drive was a horrible, un-American development! He suggested that the “American” affinity for motorcars was an important advantage in WW II, in that Americans were used to powered machinery, and needed that much less training and familiarization with engines and gears than their German and Japanese counterparts (although it seems to me the Japs and the Jerrys put up a pretty good fight at that with a then-modern mechanised force). He thought it un-American that people would prefer “socialized transportation.”

    Wish I could find that thing and post it here–looking back on it, it would read like a real hoot around here.

    In an earlier post, I had some commentary about trolley suburbs, with vintage video links to some examples in California. For fun, here are some modern clips of a heritage trolley operation in Fort Collins, Colarado, in which a 1920′s Birney Bouncer runs past 1920′s homes like it did back before the line was abandoned around 1951; the car and house styles look like what you would have seen in LA and Sacramento neighborhoods back in the goodle days (stole that one from the late John Hartford). . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEl2ZDuZQy8&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wGe6GXIT8&feature=related

    Enjoy!

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Ah, yes, the old “America won the war alone” trope. And people wonder why the Russians feel alienated by the West…

    YesonHSR Reply:

    this needs pointed out by the media!!! or us in the media as to “whom” is against HSR

    YesonHSR Reply:

    yet the media loves those lound mouths and makes them seem the majorty

  2. political_incorrectness
    Aug 3rd, 2010 at 22:19
    #2

    Ciudad Real’s HSR station is outside of the downtown core but is is 1/2 mile from the city center. The distance would be extended to 3/4 of a mile outside in Gilroy. I would certainly rather locate the HSR station closer to the strip mall near Pacheco Pass Road rather than the outlet mall as it is further away from the current Gilroy Caltrain staiton.

    It does look like the high-speed rail will induce some development near the station. I am not sure if there has been any new development in the past 3 years since the last GE satellite image. Bing Maps do not provide answers either. Although I would prefer a downtown station, the only impact I would fear is not being able to run express trains at full speed.

    Caelestor Reply:

    Yeah, I’m going to have to concur with the above. Build stations where the speed of express trains can be maintained (this does not mean beetfield stations though). It’s safe to assume HSR will spur some development at the station; since that development is only 3/4 from Downtown, it could eventually expand towards it or the nearby outlets, increasing its effectiveness.

    Caelestor Reply:

    Just to clarify, I’m talking about stations that won’t receive high frequency like LA or SJ.

    political_incorrectness Reply:

    Did you typo? Why would you not have high frequency out of LA or SJ?

    Caelestor Reply:

    Forgot a “not” between “I’m” and “talking”. Thanks for catching it.

  3. dejv
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 02:51
    #3

    Eccentric station placement means less efficient layout of connecting transit, because the station is likely to be a single biggest transit ridership generator. OTOH, placing 350 km/h line right to downtown isn’t very smart idea either and Gilroy’s downtown doesn’t seem to be in exactly central position either.

    Given the fact that majority of trains will go through Gilroy at full speed and there is future possibility of interconnection with coast line, it makes sense for HSR to flank Gilroy from east.

    Peter Reply:

    You will only have future connection with the coast line if HSR goes through downtown. Otherwise you’re going to need something like a shuttle bus.

    Andy M. Reply:

    Having two separate stations in a small town is something that should be avoided if possible. Not least because the local bus/transit network should center on a rail interchange as a hub to provide easy connections and act as a feeder service. Having two points to fucus on makes this all the more difficult.

  4. Matthew
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 04:57
    #4

    I think it should be made clear to Gilroy residents that they essentially have two options. Either Caltrans will eventually say that the 101 needs to be widened, especially if Caltrain suspends service, or they can support high speed rail. I’ve read quotes that HSR moves the equivalent of about 6 lanes of traffic, though I don’t have the original citation for that. Does anyone have a link that shows the equivalence? Robert, it seems like you’d be well positioned to write an opinion piece in one of the local Gilroy papers articulating these points. Any plans?

    Peter Reply:

    I don’t see that 101 would need to be widened just because Caltrain stops service. The entire daily ridership south of Tamien is less than 350. South of San Jose it is merely 269. 269 more cars on 101 per day is a drop in the bucket.

    SantaTeresaHills Reply:

    They may not have to widen because of commuting traffic. I think if you look at population estimates, California is projecting 60 million by 2050 from about 37 million now. They’re projecting 54 million by 2040. If you figure 40% to 60% more people in the next 30 to 40 years and you don’t build High Speed Rail, that means the existing modes of transportation will need to carry 50% more people.

    I really doubt we’ll see new freeways between the San Joaquin Valley and Santa Clara Count. Can 152 handle 50% more traffic? Maybe on weekdays but not during the weekend. They’ll end up expanding 152 to 2 lanes each direction and that may not be enough. If 152 is expanded, 101 north of Gilroy will also have to be expanded.

    Matthew Reply:

    There’s also the question of where those people will end up. Without infrastructure and zoning that encourages California’s inevitable growth to take place in city centers, places like Gilroy will be swamped by sprawl. Growth either happens in infill developments in current population centers, or it happens in greenfield housing tracts. In the past decades, I’ve watched as rural Riverside County (where I grew up) has relentlessly created new interstate freeways and widened existing ones. Now there is little distinction between what was once Riverside farm land and the suburbs of Eastern Los Angeles County, except the soul-crushing commute time. Similarly, as the last usable land in the Santa Clara Valley fills up, we will increasingly see development move south on the 101 corridor, followed by calls for widening the 101. I personally don’t want to wait until the entire state is one gigantic maze of anonymous, smog-obscured culs-de-sac. We’ve already done that experiment in the Inland Empire, and I’m ready for a new approach. High speed rail is just a piece of the puzzle, but an important one, that if planned right will make city centers large and small viable places to live and do business. For Gilroy to thrive, it needs to concentrate development in its center, increase connectivity to the rest of the state and world, and importantly to help encourage densification of Bay Area cities. This last point ensures that development happens in places that efficiently and organically promote high quality of life, without choking Gilroy with the endless cycle of sprawl, traffic, and freeway widening.

    political_incorrectness Reply:

    Matt, theoretically, high-speed trains could handle up to 18 lanes using TGV Duplex 16 car sets carrying 2200 passengers running every 5 minutes. This is assuming average vehicle througput of a lane mile is 2000 vehciles per hour with an average occupancy of 1.4.

    Matthew Reply:

    That seems to be pushing things pretty far (i.e. would need to have stations that could handle such large trains every 5 minutes, etc.), but essentially that means just one double track high speed rail line would be able to theoretically carry all traffic on the 101 and 5 combined several times over. It would be pretty safe to guarantee Gilroy that they would never need to widen the 101 if the line were built.

    Joey Reply:

    Well, CHSRA’s specs require that the system be able to handle 5 minute headways, and that all platforms be built long enough for 16 car trains, so maybe it isn’t too far fetched. Not that CAHSR will ever be operating that close to capacity.

    political_incorrectness Reply:

    Not necessarily true with no need for widening. When the Madrid-Seville line opened up, I think car traffic was only reduced by about 5-10%.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    The AVE is priced as a premium product. CAHSR won’t be.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    The 16-car TGV Duplex sets carry 1,100 passengers, not 2,200. The highest-capacity high-speed trains are bilevel Shinkansens, with about 1,600 passengers.

  5. TomW
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 06:50
    #5

    Maybe eitehr yourself or Californians for High Speed Rail shodul write to Gilroy, explaining what they can do to help the process.

    Eric Reply:

    It’s easier (for both sides) to sit back and complain rather than actively participate in the process. These days any sign of collaboration is seen as ideological impurity. Everything must be black or white, no grey!

  6. Andy M.
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 07:05
    #6

    The facts on Ciudad Real are not quite correct. Whereas it is true that the main arteries (both road and rail) going south did bypass the town, it is not true that it was not previously served by rail. In fact the Spanish high speed train was partly built on the alignment of what was previously the conventional railway linking Ciudad Real to Madrid. This older railway, however, was always a bit of a backwater and never had a decent service. It is however true that the AVE did make commuting between Ciudad Real and Madrid a possibility, and that previously this was unworkable.

    I believe Ciudad Real owes its origins to a Spanish King in the middle ages who wished to build a new road into the South. The previous corridor passed through rather unruly teritorry and tarvellers were often attacked and robbed. He therefore built a new, slightly longer but safer route with castles placed all along it to keep it safe. Later, as the problems of safety went away, travellers reverted to the old road which was shorter and this is what led to town’s decline. It is interesting to think that history has repeated itself but this time it’s not bandits that are making the old route uncompetitive but congestion.

    Drunk Engineer Reply:

    The facts on Ciudad Real are not quite correct.

    No kidding. As a ground-zero for Spain’s real estate speculative bubble, it suffers 23% unemployment. Not a model Gilroy wants to imitate.

  7. YesonHSR
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 08:49
    #7

    Sorry a little off topic….Is anyone going to the HSR board meeting in San Francisco..?? I am trying to go if work will allow..

    YesonHSR Reply:

    Guess nobody!!!

  8. Peter
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 09:07
    #8

    Again, a city government shows that they do not understand how the environmental planning process works in CA. They do not understand the phasing process, or how plans are developed, or how a project progresses in terms of detail from concept through final design. It appears they are asking the HSR planners to answer the questions they have about project details that the planners don’t and CAN’T have yet, since they haven’t reached that level of detail. This needs to be explained over and over so that the answer can maybe finally sink in.

  9. StevieB
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 09:30
    #9

    I have read in several newspapers that Gilroy would need 6000 automobile parking spaces. Where did this statement come from? Has someone determined that all HSR stations will need 6000 parking spaces? What would be the consequence if 6000 parking spaces were not built?

    Peter Reply:

    Page 53 of the San Jose-Merced Preliminary AA states that a large parking garage would be needed in Gilroy.

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100603182623_San%20Jose%20to%20Merced%20Preliminary%20Alternatives%20Analysis.pdf

    It does not state how many parking spots would be needed.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    The source is a memo produced by Parson Brinkerhoff in March with parking requirements. The Authority has taken it down from their website and I saw a recent mention that they are reviewing it. We have a copy of it so email us if you want to see it. info@calhsr.com

    Peter Reply:

    I think that if the Downtown Gilroy alignment is chosen, the monstrous parking garage should be opposed.

    StevieB Reply:

    If you follow the HSR Station Area Policy, agenda item 5 in August, then Downtown Gilroy is an obvious choice over a greenfield station east of the city. The policy calls for transit oriented development without free parking to encourage maximizing connections to other modes with a preference for traditional city centers.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Have you ever visited Gilroy? TOD? Other transit modes? Traditional city center?
    Next thing somebody will be claiming that Monterey is a huge public transportation trip generator.

    StevieB Reply:

    Other transit modes could include walking or bicycle or the line 18 bus to Gavilan College or MST line 55 to Monterey. Transport modes will be added to connect to all the HSR stations at some time if the system is to work as intended.

  10. Al-Fakh Yugoudh
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 10:12
    #10

    Why would a high speed train stop in a city of only 50,000 in the first place? I have no recollection of European HSTs that stop in cities that small. A serious HST should stop only in major cities, such as San Jose, Fresno and the like (and not even all trains, since some should be non stop from SF to LA). If a train has to stop in all small towns like Gilroy, then you should drop the “High Speed” from the name. Gilroy should be bypassed altogether and the train should veer Eastward even before it reaches St. Louise hospital. People who live in that area should take a bus/commuter train link or drive their own car to San Jose, like they do today when they need to catch a plane to LA. What’s this expectation that every community has to have its own station to serve just a handful of HST patrons? Just because there is a half a dozen people in Gilroy who would take that HST from Gilroy to the central valley or to LA, doesn’t mean that it makes business sense for a HST to stop there. High speed trains make sense when they make few stops in large cities, not to serve the needs to every single person along the way, otherwise it becomes a “local” train. Those who have chosen to live in Gilroy, or even in the Monterey peninsula, will have to make do with alternative transportation. You drive to SJ now for the purpose of getting on a flight, you can do so tomorrow when there is a HST at the Diridon station.

    synonymouse Reply:

    The entire CHSRA route selection is and has been political. All the towns, large and small, are lobbying for the fix that most benefits them, and to hell with everybody else. Palmdale and San Jose in particular set the precedent.

    Peter Reply:

    Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that an entity will lobby for its own interests. And this is new?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Every time the CHSRA tells a small town like Mojave to buzz off you leave the process with bruised egos. These jerkwaters are left with the noise, the eyesore, but no service.

    One real advantage with the unfairly maligned I-5 median alignment is no stops enroute, zippo, nada and no kvetching about it.

    Peter Reply:

    You mean, the disadvantage if the fairly withdrawn I-5 alignment is that it has no stops enroute, zippo, nada and no kvetching about it. This leaves all the communities of the Central Valley without reliable access to high speed rail and the rest of the state. How nice of you to tell them to buzz off.

    synonymouse Reply:

    On the contrary Bakersfield and Fresno would have superior service via a branch to the Tejon line . Sacramento would figure in the starter route via I-5. Sac to Modesto would be 110mph via a subsidized and tracked-up UP for the time being.

    The CV would get plenty. The central coast and the northcoast get nothing in any hsr plan.

    Peter Reply:

    And your funding for the upgraded and subsidized San Joaquins (aren’t subsidies one of your major complaints about HSR? But I guess they’re ok for Amtrak?) would come from where? And when would this be completed? 2060?

    Matthew Reply:

    European high speed rail lines do in fact stop in cities of approximately 50,000 people. Many trains are express trains and do not stop, but a number of trains proportional to the size of the city make stops there.

    Peter Reply:

    And how would 110 mph San Joaquins be “superior service” over 220 mph HSR for Fresno and Bakersfield?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Good enough and with convenient stops for the locals. You don’t need 220mph for relatively short hops.

    The current CHSRA scheme is not without its shortcomings. Let’s start with 60′ high eyesore dinosaur elevateds. Bound to be the eventual object of scorn even in desperate developer Fresno.

    Peter Reply:

    Oh, I agree that the 60′ aerials are going to be controversial. But I don’t think it is worth sacrificing HSR service to Fresno over this.

    This option may actually by eliminated by whatever agreement the USDOT or CHSRA comes to with UPRR. They are in fact negotiating to resolve UPRR’s concerns.

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    Of course, an HSR station doesn’t merely serve the city in which it’s located, but also surrounding communities, such as Morgan Hill, Watsonville, Hollister, and others. It’s not just Gilroy, but ~500,000 residents of the Monterey Bay Area who would use Gilroy as a location to access the rest of the state – and vice-versa.

    You might never have heard of “Cannery Row” or the “Monterey Bay Aquarium” or “Pebble Beach,” but there is a thriving tourist industry here that draws a LOT of people from across the state. A Gilroy HSR station enables those visitors to either rent a car and get here or, by 2020, use a train to come to Monterey or other locations in our region.

    Some people seem to forget that the purpose of a high speed rail system is to allow Californians to ride it.

    synonymouse Reply:

    And the same observation could be applied to the north LA basin station lost to the Palmdale diversion. How about Ventura and west?

    But Norcal gets to pay for the free Palmdale-LA hsr-BART. And people complain about the Peninsula not paying their fair share.

    Matthew Reply:

    Palmdale and Lancaster have a combined population of about 300,000. Southern California has a larger population and economy than Northern California and will proportionately finance more of the system. Your argument makes no sense.

    Peter Reply:

    “Your argument makes no sense.”

    It rarely does.

    synonymouse Reply:

    All of California north of the Bay Area gets zero out of the hsr, but is still paying. Palmdale is getting a super-BART and is paying a fraction of the cost. Meantime the north LA basin is deprived of their station and they are on-route not on a gamed detour.

    Sacramento has a vastly larger population and is the capital and yet gets short shrift due to sleaxy machination of some desert developers. They should break this thing up in use districts and let each district pay for its part of the infrastructure. Those who get nothing should pay nothing.

    Eric M Reply:

    Your right, we who live in the north bay do not get directly served by HSR, but we still voted for it. Some people can see beyong the end of their nose and realize this project is good for the state, not only in terms of transportation, but jobs and financial stimulation.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Socal should pay for the Tehachapi detour if they insist on it. It hurts Norcal by depriving us of faster service to LA. A whole system sandbagged to shower freebies on one well-connected town.

    HSRforCali Reply:

    Except the Tehachapi detour is slightly cheaper since it involves far less tunneling. So actually, it’s SoCal should pay the extra cost for a Tejon route. Look up your facts before making one of your mindless assumptions,

    Peter Reply:

    So, Sacramento won’t benefit from HSR in Phase 2?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Sac deserves to be on the starter hsr from the get-go. Way trumps Modesto or Palmdale.

    Tejon features 30 extra miles of double track and wire. 24-7, year and year out faster and cheaper to maintain and operate. Remember Donner over Feather River for a reason.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Meant to say 30 less miles, obviously.

    Caelestor Reply:

    While we’re talking about HSR station placement, is there a possibility of building a station at Visalia-Tulare? With a combined population of about 200,000 (assuming Hanford is too far away to matter, about 20 miles from Visalia), it’s bigger than Merced and arguably reaches more population than a Millbrae station.

    Joey Reply:

    Not really, because the UPRR alignment which goes near Visalia and passes through Tulare has already been eliminated.

    Samsonian Reply:

    I brought this issue up in a post earlier this week.

    Serving Visalia directly would be difficult. It developed east of the UPRR/CA-99 corridor, and there’s no major north-south corridor to run through it.

    An ideal station for Kings and Tulare counties is either in Hanford along the existing BNSF line (Amtrak station already), or in the city of Tulare along the existing UPRR line. Both options allow for a passenger rail service using the SJVR line from Lemoore NAS to Visalia and Tulare.

    Unfortunately it seems CHSRA has settled on the BNSF line, partly due to UPRR problems (although that isn’t stopping other parts of the line that will use UP corridors). And Hanford doesn’t want a HSR line and/or station in their town. So their routing east of Hanford, which will result in a sprawl inducing beetfield station at best.

    I’m not so sure the BNSF alignment is settled though. Bakersfield is not happy about the impacts of the HSR line, which would require property from Bakersfield HS or a hospital. This blog’s post on it had over 500 comments, many coming from people in Bakersfield.

    http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/bakersfield-high-was-never-at-risk-but-that-didnt-stop-hsr-critics/

    I don’t know how the whole EIR/EIS process works. It could be that the UPRR line through Bakersfield is preferred, so why not use it all the from Fresno as well.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Atami has 40,000 people.

  11. Al-Fakh Yugoudh
    Aug 4th, 2010 at 12:35
    #11

    I still don’t see the reason for a train stop in Gilroy. I’ve lived most of my life in Florence, Italy, where I travel frequently, metro pop. 1.5 million, most within 20 miles from the station, plus nearly 10 million tourists annually, and yet I’ve rarely seen more than 50 people getting on or off a HST at any given time (and that includes last week, in the peak of tourist season, when I used their Frecciarossa a few times). And this in spite of the $7/gallon gas and a dysfunctional airport with very high fares, which makes trains much more economical and convenient. Thinking that Gilroy (or even worse, Tulare), will get more than a dozen patrons for each train is very optimistic and doesn’t justify a stop which would slow down the train and prolong the trip for everyone else.

    Joey Reply:

    Well most trains will probably skip Gilroy anyway.

    Clem Reply:

    If it’s any reassurance, the December 2009 business plan ridership forecast was 4700 daily boardings in Gilroy (Initial phase 2035, fares 83% of air).

    Gilroy (4700) came in ahead of Fresno (4500) and Redwood City (3900).

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Gilroy would be mostly a commuter station, for high-speed commutes to SJ and SF.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    But commuter trains can’t use high speed tracks!

    We have that as gospel from Mehdi Morshed (CHSRA), Steve Heminger (MTC), Quentin Kopp (CHSRA), Rod Diridon (CHSRA), the City of San Jose, Carl Guardino (SVLG), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), Eugene Skoropowski (BART-Amtrak), BART, VTA, the Silicon Valley High Speed Rail Coalition (PB front), etc.

    RubberToe Reply:

    Richard,
    The latest AA for both SF-SJ and LAUS-Anaheim are now looking at the possibility of having the HSR share tracks with both Caltrain and Amtrak/Metrolink. It totally makes sense to do this since it saves construction costs, you just need to get the proper signaling to allow for it, plus the FRA waiver.

    RT

    Peter Reply:

    I think he knows that. He’s just being a prick.

    Spokker Reply:

    My only problem with this is over the possibility that bottlenecks at points further South on the line will delay high speed trains. There is also some concern over Metrolink and Amtrak’s old equipment.

    The shared track alternative will share a lot of money, but that won’t mean much when you arrive an hour late into SF because the Surfliner caught on fire again.

    Spokker Reply:

    *save a lot of money

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    assuming they let the Surfliner go north of Anaheim or south of Burbank so that it can catch fire in Norwalk.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Those wouldn’t be commuter trains – they’d be high-speed trains running exclusively on HSR track, serving commuters.

    Don’t kill me – I’m just interpreting CHSRA’s thinking.

    Caelestor Reply:

    Commuter trains can carry tourists too. Can we just use the term regional or intercity or something?

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Sure. But bear in mind, sometimes regional rail means something different from “upgraded suburban rail”; it can also mean “low-ridership branch lines serving rural areas.”

Comments are closed.