San Gabriel Valley Debates HSR Routes
Although construction of the second phase of the HSR project is some ways off, particularly the Los Angeles-San Diego route via the Inland Empire, the San Gabriel Valley is already being engaged on the HSR project. Routes are being proposed, and community reaction is being received.
One thing that these communities aren’t aware of, but should be, is that for the LA-Inland Empire route, the California High Speed Rail Authority hasn’t settled on where the tracks will go. Right now, they are proposing possibilities so the public can react to them.
However, that’s not how the public has been trained to react to government action. Sadly, the public has been trained, especially by the media, to see government as opaque, and producing a completely worked-out plan for the public to simply react to and fight if they don’t like it. The more collaborative process now being employed by the CHSRA in places like the San Gabriel Valley is unfamiliar to many Californians, and appears to be causing some confusion, as a Pasadena Star News article indicates:
Some cities in the path of a proposed high speed rail line through the San Gabriel Valley are lining up against the project’s potential to displace homes and businesses.
Rosemead earlier this year passed a resolution opposing any route that would displace property owners, while Alhambra city officials are scheduled to meet Monday to discuss the project. Officials will consider a resolution opposing a route along surface streets.
Covina City Manager Daryl Parrish said he also has concerns about the proposed routes.
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, meanwhile, is set to vote next Wednesday on a motion to oppose a surface route for the project.
So if surface streets aren’t going to be used, and if Union Pacific isn’t willing to share its rail corridor, another viable option is to follow the freeways:
Several routes are being considered, including one along the 10 Freeway and another along the 60 Freeway.
Two potential routes on either side of the 10 Freeway could displace local residents, prompting officials and residents to charge the CHSRA hasn’t done enough to explain the proposal to the public.
Arellano said her agency will do more public outreach after a board meeting in September. She said the CHSRA is now doing environmental work and considering various routes; the agency has not yet fully studied any potential impacts on neighborhoods.
A map on the CHSRA’s website does not show the various alternatives the authority is considering. It shows the rail line running along the 60 Freeway, nowhere near the route proposed along the 10.
Arellano said rail authority officials will likely update the website after September, with new proposed routes.
The original project proposal called for the line to run along the 60 Freeway, she said. But after outreach meetings last fall, the agency decided to consider the possibility of a route along the 10, she said.
In other words, the alignment along the 60 generated some concerns, so the Authority decided to look at a alignment along the 10. But the Authority doesn’t yet appear to have that alignment worked out in any great detail. Obviously that can be frustrating to residents, legitimately so, but that’s what happens in a process where the government agency is responsive to the public – proposals change.
Frequent communication is important, and the Authority should certainly do as much of that as possible. At the same time, the public needs to also keep in mind that these routes are still in the formative stages, and that their feedback is desired. If the route proposal and details aren’t coming immediately, it’s not because the Authority is intending to mislead the public, it’s more likely because the Authority is short-staffed and therefore has to take its time to nail down the important details of a new route proposal so that they can fully inform the public once the route is ready to be unveiled.
Neither myself nor Californians For High Speed Rail have any position yet on these new alignments. As of last fall, the alignments being proposed were along the rail corridors, which is what we based our scoping comments upon last November.
My suggestion is that residents and cities in the San Gabriel Valley continue to be engaged in the process of selecting a route – but that they also be patient as the Authority nails down the details of proposed routes so that the public can provide informed feedback. It’s unfortunate that there tends to be an adversarial relationship between citizens and government, and there’s no need for it, especially with the HSR project – as we saw in the Peninsula, the Authority is very receptive to public feedback and input.
I was in San Juan Capistrano today and I was thinking about high speed rail. Walking around the train station at Capistrano makes it very clear why the city is or was going to be a problem if the LOSSAN Corridor was selected as the San Diego leg.
Here is a real historical place in which the character of the city would be changed by HSR. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and the San Gabriel Valley, no, the character is going to stay exactly the same. White suburbs with a ROW just wide enough or HSR. San Juan Capistrano is not only more important than these cities, it’s way more constrained and A LOT nicer. People make the sign of the cross when they walk, drive or ride past the mission for Christ’s sake.
People think that if you erect a viaduct or bridge or something that people are going to start getting raped. No, the characteristics of the city determine whether or not that’s going to happen, not the structure itself. San Juan Capistrano should be the bar. Is your city like San Juan Capistrano? No? Okay, a viaduct for you, then.
“Oh, but look at BART in the East Bay! It ruined those cities!” Uh, no, the extreme poverty did you moron. That was happening with or without BART.
Spokker Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
“White suburbs with a ROW just wide enough or HSR”
That should be for, and does not apply to San Gabriel Valley. That region is pretty diverse, to be honest.
Samsonian Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 3:18 am
I really got to disagree with the notion that one wealthy surburb is above the transportation needs of a whole region or state.
LOSSAN through San Juan Capistrano can accommodate at least 2 tracks without much trouble. The section along the beach and coastal bluffs is another matter. LOSSAN should be realigned into the I-5 corridor in these problem areas.
The LOSSAN corridor warrants its day in the sun. It serves LA-SD faster than an inland route, and it has its own local market as well.
Nathanael Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
They’ve analyzed it. Even double-tracking the whole of LOSSAN is very expensive; the only viable options seem to be trenches and tunnels, through multiple cities. Getting it off the bluffs is very, very expensive. Getting it out of the military base is very expensive.
Then try to make it fast. You can’t. The best routes they can find are twisty as hell.
Then suppose, at great expense, you manage to straighten and flatten the route. Now try to run any high-speed express service — remembering that the entire corridor has substantial commuter service which *will* expand.
Hmm, looks like to get a high-speed train there you need more than two tracks. And now you’re in the realm of really, really, REALLY expensive, because there wasn’t really enough room for two tracks in much of the LOSSAN corridor, let alone three or four.
Which is why building the express tracks on the inland route makes a lot of sense. LOSSAN will still need to be upgraded, but giving it intensive local service and putting the San Diego-LA expresses inland will be cheaper *and* more effective than trying to crush them all into the one corridor. Plus it will serve a few extra communities inland. :-)
Spokker Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
In any case, I don’t think the 10 alignment is going to happen anyway. Far too constrained (they can’t even double track Metrolink here), and I bet the Riverside Line corridor will be used instead.
Joey Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Problem being that the Riverside Line corridor is used by the one and only Union Pacific Railroad. Still probably the best option though.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Its really very far off at this point ..at least 2020 ..There are far bigger Nimby fish to fry here in the Bayarea .Lets hope that in 10 years that thinking of today wiill have changed and HSR will take up some of the freeway Row to get thru this area
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
There needs to be a regional rail solution in my opinion. Metrolink should abandon one of its lines and in exchange, BSNF should form an agreement to use the abandoned ROW exclusively for cargo. Then, HSR could continue east from Anaheim on BNSF’s ROW through Corona, and onto Riverside and San Diego. The agreement would futher stipulate usage and management of Colton Crossing, as both BNSF and UP would retain their ROW’s beyond that junction.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I was in Oakland and Berkeley for the last 36 hours or so. Part of it was spent in Rockridge, a wonderful neighborhood split by not only an overhead BART, but an overhead freeway viaduct (CA-24). Yet’s it’s widely considered one of Oakland’s best, most prosperous, most thriving neighborhoods.
Then today I spent time in Albany, where BART is built as an aerial viaduct through the entire city, which has done nothing to prevent property prices from rising, and doesn’t make the community feel split either (I asked a member of the Albany city council about it today, and she indicated that the BART viaduct has been integrated into the city and doesn’t act as a divide – whereas San Pablo Ave does).
What I found funny is that they say it will create a dvide if run along the 10. If it is run along the 10, the San Bernadino Freeway already does that job!
Victor Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I couldn’t agree more, The i10 Freeway does do that and I lived in San Gabriel CA from 1979 to 1988, So I ought to know. If the HSR line was put in the middle of the freeway, Modifications would need to be done, Either to overpasses or to the area under them or both. I’d rather HSR go along the CA-60 Freeway, Why? Beyond S Azusa Av the fwy going eastbound still has a wide center section with no Freeway lanes, Although that may not always be as to the West of S Azusa Ave the center of the fwy is having lanes added by Caltrans.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I would agree to going along the Pomona as well. It has a better connection to Ontario Airport but if a connection is added at San Bernadino, I worry that would jeopardize San Diego-Los Angeles express times.
The whole point of running tracks through the San Gabriel Valley is to serve the terminals at Ontario Airport. The hwy 60 alignment fails to accomplish that, the I-10 option gets close but that’s worth exactly zip unless there is a firm commitment to also build a courtesy people mover in the same time frame.
If Ontario proves impossible to reach, I’d recommend canceling the LA-San Diego leg of the electric HSR system altogether in favor of substantial upgrades to legacy FRA-compatible diesel routes (i.e. double-tracking the coast corridor and the Metrolink lines to the Inland Empire, upgraded signaling, grade separations, 110mph through Camp Pendleton etc.)
UPRR would probably be far more amenable to letting someone build an extra track on its land past ONT if it were permitted to share it. Just because CHSRA has decided to restrict its efforts to planning routes for non-compliant electric bullet trains doesn’t mean the State of California or the federal government have to as well.
Joey Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Look at the map (page 14). All of the alignments pass Ontario International.
¨The whole point of running tracks through the San Gabriel Valley is to serve the terminals at Ontario Airport¨
A SGV alignment is first and foremost to serve the Imperial Valley and San Diego in one alignment. Serving Ontario Airport would be a convienence, not an ojective or goal.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Most conspicious is the inclusion of a extension for Metro’s Gold Line in the County’s long range transportation plan. In addition, Ontario is owned by the City of LA and would have a regional advantage if it was the only airport in Southern California with HSR access.
Brandon From San Diego Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 4:06 am
I am afraid there is not; it is out of convienence due to the fact that it is politically impossible to go down the Coast and an alignment through the Inland Empire kills 2 birds with one stone.. serving the IE and SD. However, believe me, I´d rather SD be served via the Coast as it would be quicker and provides better views!
Btw, a Gold Line Extension to Ontario Airport is NOT in the Los Angeles County LRTP… Ontario is out of their jurisdiction and authority.
Closer to reality… a Gold Line Extension to Ontario Airport is being studied by the Foothill Extension Authority… for purposes that are not quite clear; however, might possibly include the provision of providing a ´temporary´ agency ´mission´ and a foothold for agency funding. The Foothill Authority has planned the extension of the Gold Line all the way to the county line at Montclare or Claremont, and only relatively recently has secured construction funding… for part of that way.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I did not say the extension to the Gold Line would reach Ontario. If you sift through the data you will see that the Gold Line extension does not augur the same time of ridership as say Expo, but is being offered as a carrot to certain constituency as a peace offering. However, if as you say another party or HSR ends up terminating at Ontario Airport…well…then the City gets something for nothing.
StevieB Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
The Stategic Planning Study Report for Metro Goldline Foothill Extension to LA/Ontario International Airport was prepared for the Gold Line Authority in 2008 funded by San Bernardino Associated Governments and Southern California Association of Governments. On page 98 and 99 which is in part 2 of the report sources of funding are identified. The main local source of transportation funding in the county is the San Bernardino Measure I quarter cent sales tax.
Some were upset with van Ark because he used the term “final solution” as it relates to a Peninsula alignment.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15700985?nclick_check=1
“As if the California High-Speed Rail Authority didn’t have enough problems, CEO Roelof van Ark riled up a few members of the audience at Thursday’s board meeting when he remarked that the authority will ultimately come up with a “final solution” to the rail-alignment problem along the Peninsula.
That didn’t sit too well with a woman in the San Francisco audience who read into van Ark’s words an association with the Nazis’ “Endloesung” for the Jews in World War II. She registered her disapproval in public comments, and a couple of hecklers joined in the fun.”
I hope those that were offended realize how insensitive the Berlin Wall comparisons are to some people.
Not me though. None of it offends me. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy.
Victor Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Of course some got upset, My Dad went into those camps most likely where those words were aimed at by the NAZIs and He had to do paperwork for both wounded allied and pow personnel during WWII in Europe as a part of the US Armys 368th Medical(from North Africa in 1942 to Occupied Germany in 1946). You too would get upset If It brought back bad memories and such, the lady is right, As that’s where the phrase comes from, It was used there as Jews, Disabled People and others were deported by train to Work “to death” camps from all over Europe. The wall was a Russian idea and had nothing to do with WWII, It was created just a few Years later after WWII to try and stem the flood of people wanting a better life that was being denied to them by the Russians back then, As Russia wanted a buffer zone and treated Eastern Europe as just that for a good while. Some people were released from those camps only to die after being starved to death while being made to work and some were lucky to recover their health, walking skeletons anybody? It happened, a lot of the dead were cremated, Some weren’t deemed fit to work and so were gassed and then cremated by the NAZIs. I’ve seen the pictures and some runway models look really close today as some have their ribs showing and that isn’t healthy. CEO Roelof van Ark could have been a bit more sensitive and maybe this would not have happened at all, People used those words in a hateful way to exterminate people like rats, they needed to look in the mirror some, Our troops made the German people bury the unburied remains then, Some NAZI guards got worse, From both surviving inmates and from some of our troops who were upset at the criminal actions that had taken place.
jimsf Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
With all due respect, I doubt the van ark guy used the words “final solution” in quotes, or with emphasis that would designate them negative in an insensitive manner. He surely used them as they would and can be used, two words with no negative connotation whatsoever. A final solution just means that that if your have considered several solutions, and then come up with your final choice, that would be the final solution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else. Otherwise you’d have to suggest that the words final and solution can never be used, ever for any reason which is just ridiculous. The comment was not only not offensive, it wasn’t even insensitive because clearly the conversation and topic were about high speed rail and nothing else. Common sense would dictate that one not be upset when clearly, the words are being used in an unrelated context.
Spokker Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 3:16 am
By all means, bring up the Nazis as if it had any relevance to building high speed rail in California. They are all ghosts at this point.
I think it was pretty clear that van Ark didn’t use the phrase “final solution” to mean that the plan is to ship Peninsula Jews to the ovens in Gilroy.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
These people are now just looking for excuses to make Van Ark and anyone from the HSR Authority look bad. It’s a totally dishonest attack.
Further, these are the same people who called the tracks a “Berlin Wall,” which quite directly and intentionally trivializes the dozens of people who died trying to cross that barrier, as well as the millions of people impacted by its construction.
Like I said before, HSR opponents who jeered at the board meeting and who make these new claims about Van Ark are the same kind of phenomenon as the crazy teabaggers who shouted at members of Congress last summer.
synonymouse Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Seems to me that “nimby’s”(the new n-word?)get regularly scapegoated by the hsr true believers.
But instead of Berlin Wall maybe they should call the aerials what they used to refer to Phil Spector’s recording style: “wall of sound”.
In any event there will some resemblance to a prison wall since high fencing and probably razor wire will be required to keep out the low-lifes. The dark side of the force is strong with elevateds.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 12:02 am
They are not being scapegoated, we’re accounting them for their actions and disagreeing with their opinions. The tracks are already there, how are communities not divided as is? If it is an elevated structure, there shouldn’t be the need for barbed wire fencing except at entrances to evacuation stairways.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 12:10 am
How much razor wire is strung up along the elevated highways and BART tracks in the Bay Area?
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 12:54 am
Last I knew, not much, Skytrain in Vancouver and light rail in Seattle is the same way. The only exception for light rail is along the I-5 corridor but that is it. Elevated sections do not have razor wire strung up on fences.
dave Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Only a small portions around the tunnel sections where people could jump the fence and get into those tunnels.
Item for reference (oh, and Alon is in the comments section):
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/08/08/transportation-user-fee-model-obsolete-but-no-solution-on-the-horizon/
The CAHSR documents say the 10 Freeway alignment was included as the result of community input. All alignments will have a negative effect on someone so you will never be able to please everyone.
Killer “Big Lebowski” reference.
O/T: The Philadelphia Inquirer is in the middle of a four-part series “Is America ready for HSR?” right now. Part one and two are already up. Also with interactive flashy graphics, like this.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 9th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Some of the factual errors in the article are really grating – for example, the statement that the AVE has locomotives at both ends of the train, like the TGV and ICE.
Reality Check Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
It’d be more grating if it was either a materially significant error, or even an error at all … since there are AVE trains with locomotives at both ends, like the TGV and older ICE trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The trains depicted in the photos are EMUs.
Reality Check Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Nope, they don’t fit this definition of EMUs. And even if we stipulate for the sake of your pride that it’s wrong to call trains hauled by dedicated power cars “locomotives,” you must really be bored or made of soft cheese to complain here that such an inconsequential and easy-to-make (as you’ve shown!) category error is “really grating.”
Alon Levy Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Um, what? The train depicted in the main graphic is a Velaro, which does not have dedicated power cars.
But no, there are more annoying bits. For example, still with the graphic, the implication that all modern high-speed trains use articulated bogies is just wrong. The use of a single cost figure for track maintenance, rather than a range based on terrain and traffic, is misleading. Many of the special features stated for high-speed trains (tilting, gauge changing, regenerative braking) are not specific to HSR.
And there’s the article’s rah-rah tone, which, together with what’s in the graphic, makes me think the writer just listened to a marketing pitch and turned it into a news article.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Shocked, I tell you, shocked. to hear that newspapers take press releases and sales propaganda, run it through a meat grinder and call it news. Shocked….
I attended the Alhambra City Council meeting tonight. The I-10 alignment west of the 605 was only introduced by the Authority in February. Before that, the routes were to the south, along UP lines or the 60.
The Authority has given the City of Alhambra three options (all elevated) A) a 100 mph curve that cuts through a neighborhood and then uses the metrolink right of way in the center of the freeway; B) two versions of a 75 mph curve that runs along either side of the freeway on Ramona Rd, the local service drive (which side of the freeway depends on the approach); and C) a 50 mph curve that runs only on the metrolink right of way. The trains will run 150 mph through the remainder of the city.
Beyond normal NIMBY complaints, the issues revolved around lack of communication regarding the plan. Needless to say, authority staff were reamed by the city council and community members over the lack of communication, plans to take homes, noise, failure to post any informaiton on its web site on the route along the I-10 corridor west of the 605.
Jose Martinez, rep for the Authority, said that Authority staff is currently engaged in paring down the alternatives for the 170 mile route. The first attempt to shortlist will be made at the October board meeting, which he expects will be in the SoCal region. It was clear from his comments that the route along the I-10 corridor west of the 605 would likely be shortlisted.
Also, I would like to note that you should not downplay the concerns of the residents who will have to live with the consequences of the chosen route. Whatever plan is chosen will disrupt someone’s life. Many of the concerns are due directly to the lack of information about what the plan means. The knee-jerk reaction is not as much about being trained to react a certain way as it is a natural human instinct to protect oneself and family. For example, many of the comments by those whose homes are on Ramona Rd and may be razed related to thinking they would not get just compensation, it would be hard to find new homes in the same area/school district, and they would lose their benefits under Prop 13. Other comments related to the three schools and hospital that border the freeway. In addition to safety, the concerns dealt with logistics of how the process works and where the schools would be relocated.
The failure of the Authority to communicate its plans initially will only lead to bad blood and strengthen any resolve to fight the plan regardless of compromises offered or mitigation included. I would have thought the Authority would have learned its lessons after the Peninsula fiasco.
Also, I would like to note that you should not downplay the concerns of the residents who will have to live with the consequences of the chosen route. Whatever plan is chosen will disrupt someone’s life. Many of the concerns are due directly to the lack of information about what the plan means. The knee-jerk reaction is not as much about being trained to react a certain way as it is a natural human instinct to protect oneself and family. For example, many of the comments by those whose homes are on Ramona Rd and may be razed related to thinking they would not get just compensation, it would be hard to find new homes in the same area/school district, and they would lose their benefits under Prop 13. Other comments related to the three schools and hospital that border the freeway. In addition to safety, the concerns dealt with logistics of how the process works and where the schools would be relocated.
The failure of the Authority to communicate its plans initially will only lead to bad blood and strengthen any resolve to fight the plan regardless of compromises offered or mitigation included. I would have thought the Authority would have learned its lessons after the Peninsula fiasco.
Spokker Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 3:14 am
You do understand that it’s very early in the process right?
Besides, the I-10 alignment was added after public comment. You can’t please everyone. Some people are going to have to move if this thing is built. It’s not a tragedy. It’s not even a freeway.
And what’s all this crap about lack of communication? They communicated with you at the open house didn’t they? Phase 2 is years away from even having it’s environmental work completed. This is the time to comment and communicate. No one is stopping anyone from doing that.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I’m not downplaying the lack of concerns. I’m suggesting that people should not jump to conclusions. There seems to be an assumption that some government agency is going to make its plan and then everyone else just gets to react to it and suffer the consequences. In fact, the Authority is developing the plan details, and probably didn’t have any more information they could give to flesh out what were very conceptual plans first floated earlier this year.
My overall point is that there are opportunities for these cities to work constructively to shape the route to their liking, and that the cities and residents should try a cooperative approach first, before jumping to conclusions.