Morgan Hill and Gilroy React to Pacheco Pass Recertification
So far, in terms of their official policy, the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy appear to be taking a more sensible approach to the HSR project than their counterparts in Palo Alto (more on them on Wednesday):
City officials from Morgan Hill and Gilroy were unable to attend the meeting, but in December the cities signed a joint resolution supporting the Pacheco Pass option, a single station to be located in Gilroy and that the tracks run east of U.S. 101 and not adjacent to the Union Pacific tracks. In April, the councils recommended that they should review a “visual analysis” to assess “how the alternate alignments aerial structures would impact views of the nearby hills and adjacent commercial facilities,” according to Morgan Hill’s staff report.
City Manager Ed Tewes said both cities are anticipating the next phase of the EIR, which they hope will detail the design ideas, including whether the train will operate at grade or elevated.
“We’re not just interested in a colored-line on a map,” Tewes said.
Tewes and Gilroy City Administrator Tom Haglund, “are asking for a thorough environmental impact review of those options with design concepts sufficient enough for us to investigate,” Tewes said.
These are all reasonable things, although it shouldn’t be taken to assume that the question of where a Gilroy station would be located has been settled (it hasn’t, and it’s a key issue). Gilroy and Morgan Hill want to see some specific proposals of what this might look like, and that’s going to be a very important element of the debate about where exactly in South County the tracks ought to go.
The article from the Morgan Hill Times is refreshingly honest about what is driving the small but vocal number of HSR critics in the region:
The cities await more details with particular interest in if the train will run at ground-level or if it will be elevated. The aesthetics of the latter have been a major concern of South County citizens opposed to the rail.
An elevated solution won’t be particularly high, and a ground-level track next to Highway 101 will be barely noticeable, making an extremely minimal impact on the region in terms of both aesthetics and noise. Again, the location of the Gilroy station matters a great deal, to the question of the vertical alignments as well as the lines on the map.
As we’ve argued several times on this blog, HSR will be a godsend to South County and to Gilroy in particular, bringing jobs, higher property values, and new businesses to a city that would become an important economic hub of 21st century California. In a city with a 17% unemployment rate you would think those are extremely important considerations.
To most residents, they are. To some, they’re not, as apparently their own aesthetic values take precedence over their neighbors’ financial security:
The words “careful” and “thoughtful” aren’t likely the first two that come to mind when Gilroy resident Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo describes the planning of the state’s high-speed rail system.
“It’s concerning on every level,” said Sheets-Saucedo, who has organized numerous community awareness and outreach meetings. “It’s all about pushing through this process in a very hasty and, quite frankly, irresponsible manner.”
Right, because a project that has been under development and intensive study for 12 years is hasty.
As with other HSR critics and deniers, Sheets-Saucedo prefers to mobilize the latent belief among some Californians that “nobody rides trains anyway,” to insinuate without a shred of evidence that the ridership numbers are flawed:
Running bullet trains through South County will change the face of the region, starting with the possibility of a 6,600-space parking garage in Gilroy, said Sheets-Saucedo, who echoed the same sentiments many residents have expressed by questioning the rail authority’s ridership figures.
“Everything about the system and the way it’s designed is triggered by ridership figures,” she said. “Here in quiet Gilroy, we’re going to have ridership figures that require 6,600 parking spaces? That’s absurd.”
The Revised Final Program EIR did not adequately address these ridership issues, Sheets-Saucedo said.
The parking spaces issue is going to continue to be hashed out, and I would not be so sure that Gilroy should expect to have to build 6,600 parking spaces. But Gilroy should expect significant ridership at their station, which is the transfer point (if you will) for Californians headed to the tourist destinations here on the Monterey Bay, and how the 700,000 or so residents of the region will access the rest of California. Gilroy itself is also likely to become a destination, whether for new jobs or for new residents, as the HSR station attracts new businesses.
Let’s hope South County residents recognize just how important and positive HSR will be for their lives and their futures, and that they let their city council know that they want sustainable transportation and jobs – instead of letting a few people hold the city back from prosperity in the pursuit of their own ideas about aesthetic value.
An HSR station only makes sense if it can deliver several thousand average daily boardings. Otherwise, don’t bother.
The population of Gilroy itself cannot sustain ridership at that level. Instead, as CHSRA has always maintained, the station there will also have to serve the wider region, i.e. Morgan Hill, Hollister, Watsonville, Monterey, Salinas etc. Passengers will be arriving from those cities by train, bus or personal motor vehicle. If Gilroy wants to avoid clogging its city center with through traffic, it should insist that the HSR station be sited east of 101. This is also far more compatible with the planned speeds for through trains, which will be well in excess of 125mph (i.e. full grade separation is mandated by FRA regulations).
Unless regional bus service is substantially expanded to limit congestion on that freeway south of Gilroy, plans should include a short standard gauge spur (single track should be sufficient) to support a new TAMC/VTA-operated passenger rail shuttle between Salinas and the Gilroy HSR station. Separate shuttle buses should connect that station to downtown Gilroy and Hollister. Neither Caltrain nor Amtrak CC service will be viable south of Tamien once HSR goes live, though there might still be a business case for one or the other until it does.
Gilroy City Administrator Tom Haglund seems to have a better understanding of the process than many bureaucrats.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 7:31 am
On the contrary.
The project-level EIR merely allows Gilroy to choose the color of concrete. It is at the Program-level where all the fateful decisions happen (i.e. whether Gilroy/Hollister gets paved over and converted into San Jose suburb).
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am
The Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR selected Pacheco Pass. Gilroy thinks the San Jose to Merced Project EIR discussion of the location of a Gilroy station important even if you do not find it “fateful”.
joe Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Thank you Mr Drunk.
You are right. If we connect San Jose to Gilroy with HSR then the city will grow and become connected to San Jose via a modern rail line. We have access to jobs and sensible growth.
The converse, if we reject HSR and rely on car centric transportation, our area sits under developed and is bypassed.
Gilroy is located at the junction of E/W routes, pacheco pass and hecker pass and the obvious N/S connecting the Bay area to the Central Coast and LA. It’s a natural place for a city and as CA grows, the rail will help Girloy maintain a high-quality of life.
As a Gilroy resident, I (along with others) wholeheartedly support this project. While station location doesn’t really matter to me, I’m with Rafael in that the station should be located near the Outlets east of 101. Gilroy has a small downtown that will survive on its own merit; no need for massive TOD or parking garages IMHO.
joe Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Why keep our downtown small and encourage car-centric sprawl? Downtown’s not doing well now and cease being a downtown with the HSR station on the edge of town. Gilroy city center should build up to 3 stories as it’s been doing recently. We should leverage the existing transit hubs.
The 6,000 parking spaces is an outdated 20th century car-centric ridership model and design. HSR is wrong to focus on cars and parking for ridership. trains should drop us off where we want to be, not an island in a sea of cars.
The connections to HSR should be centered on walking to/from Gilory downtown and rely on mass transit; buses, shuttles and run a train from Monterey. Local parking should focus on short-term needs pick-up drop-off. Long term parking can mimic an airport; remote and located near rental car facilities and connect with an automated rail-shuttle to/from downtown.
Long term parking could be near the outlets and used as a spillover for the malls. The HAR shuttle a way for ridership and mall shoppers to get to downtown without needing their car. Mass transit to HSr station could ride the shuttles to the Malls.
Caelestor Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Problem is a downtown stop adds time to the more lucrative SF-LA trip.
Jay Taylor Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Not all train will stop at all stations.
Joey Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
No, but speed restrictions might be imposed on a downtown station that might not exist on the edge of town.
Peter Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
But if they trench it, the speed restrictions likely not be necessary.
Caelestor Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
How much would that cost?
Peter Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Supposedly 1.3x the cost of the aerial.
Peter Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Helps that they don’t have to excavate an 80 foot deep trench like in PAMPA
joe Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Servicing where people live is not a problem. Either a loop off the main route can be built, an alternative that’s being considered.
Building a train system away from city centers and existing transit hubs isn’t gong to get the ridership. The 6,000 parking garage is a car based mentality for a system, designed to replace air and car travel.
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
During scoping the Gilroy council indicated a preference for a downtown trench opposed to an aerial structure downtown while others on the council asked for an east side alternative. The council is divided and has not come to a decision. The problems with either in Gilroy is not all trains will make a stop. To maintain speed on those trains that do not stop the curves must be wide requiring many properties to be taken.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Heh. As though reaching a consensus would make any difference in what the CHSRA plans to do.
joe Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
The City could use the consensus to raise revenue and cost share a solution with HSR.
Sheets-Saucedo posted a letter on September 2nd which he cherry picked all the juciest information from the opposition. He forgot to mention a few things that Clem placed in his blogs where the opposition Penninsula cities have had plans before to grade separate with elevated structures.
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/268417-letters-good-reasons-opposition-quickly-mounting-to-high-speed-rail-plan
I had my response published two days ago.
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/268473-letters-doing-the-right-thing-after-a-theft
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Yvonne is a “she” btw.
dave Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
This lady is seen here back in July, 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dosw0lbyNc4
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
She is also seen at the February Gilroy council meeting berating the council for considering an elevated east side alignment. She avered trains belong in a trench and that was what californians voted for.
Peter Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
She’s the Gilroy version of Morris Brown.
The question is why, after 12 years of study, did a final program EIR get approved that failed to acknowledge that the most likely route through the area is NOT the one in the program EIR, but what seems like a strawman alternative – passing by homes at 220 mph and knocking out most of the Gilroy downtown because of the gentle curves required to maintain 220 mph speeds?
A similar thing is going on the CV. The Program level EIR generally went directly though every town on its route. There is a consistent pattern of creating in the project level bypasses around each of these towns, which have significant impacts on local agriculture.
Just in Hanford, the alignment would require more than 600 acres of prime farmland, by the narrowest possible calculation.
In both cases, the first real time for the people most affected to participate in the process is at the “color of concrete” stage. Not surprisingly, this is creating a lot of anger and frustration, which is not helping the project move forward.
At the last board meeting, the farm bureaus from across the state announced that they formed a coalition. If you think wealthy landowners in Atherton can cause trouble, you should see third and fourth generation farmers who don’t feel they are being listened to.
All of the alternatives have significant impacts and these decisions are not easy ones, but a lot of hole the authority finds itself in is a hole they themselves dug.
synonymouse Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:35 am
They could have avoided all these problems with the I-5 median alignment as the starter route.
joe Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Elizabeth
What a generous helping of FUD. Knocking out most of downtown Gilroy — really?!?
My preference is the EIR route and I’d prefer a station within walking distance to my home and downtown, not east with the station built as a island surrounded by 6,000 parking spaces.
I’ve lived in SF along the J and 24 trolly lines. I welcome HSR to Gilroy – it will save the town.
And I would LOVE to have those concerned 4th and 5th generation farmers sign binding agreements that would disallow them to sell their land for development if we protected them from a HSR ROW.
Roger Christensen Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I am waiting to hear more detail on the east Hanford routing. There was talk of mitigating the amount of farmland impacted. I live about three miles from the right of way. My understanding is that the right of way veers east south of Kingsburg, bypasses Laton, crosses the Kings River and seems now to have aerial segments. The main impacts seem to be that it cuts through farmlands making access on each side difficult and expensive. None of this is ripe for development other than the proposed station site on Highway 198. Anyone know more detail? Zip coverage in the local media.
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I think there was something at the September meeting on that. I came in on the end so I am not clear. Did you look at the recording of the meeting?
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
The Kingsburd Recorder has an article today called High speed rail alignment about Hanford.
Roger Christensen Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Thanks, gosh, from my hometown newspaper. Interesting to read that the adopted plan will have “continuous revisions”.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I was at the meeting. They voted for the eastern bypass, instead of the in town one. There was discussion of the farmland impacted, but no discussion of any mitigation. As a matter of fact, the sprawl induction was not actually on the slide in which the various impacts were compared for a through town and a bypass option. Diridon was concerned and brought this up. Apparently there were some promises made to the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters which appear not to be considered here.
IMO The potential for sprawl – one looks at the station location and can just see Hanford and Visalia growing together – will probably not be mitigatable and there will probably be no station there.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The program plan showed it parallel to the street, following the rail alignment. The REAL plans, presented at a February 2010 council showed it having to follow a curve, which would take out the one side of the long narrow downtown.
You can watch it here.
http://gilroy.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=16&clip_id=797&meta_id=70884
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Yvonne Saucido is there at minute 48 saying trains belong downtown in trenches and not where people live.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Indeed. A number of people have noted over the last decade that the crazy 220mph routing through the Central Valley cities made less than no sense technically, economically or environmentally, but appeared to have been selected by our lead consultant friends (and routinely rubber stamped by the board as everything in the natural order of things is) at a time when they were gearing up to sell a state-wide ballot issue and determined that the farm lobby was at least awake, while the electeds in the cities along the line were completely comatose.
(The fact that dim-bulb “environmentalists” chanted and continue to chant nonsensical mantras about “TOD” and “sprawl” and “greenfields” and “vibrant downtowns” without ever seriously considering for a nanosecond what 220mph means at Flight Level 0 only abetted this. Way to go!)
So the more potent short-term political force was mollified in the short term to ensure that the $10 billion of bond porkage snuck over the 50% plebiscite, despite the serious (and blindingly obvious) problems with such an unprecedented routing of very high speed ground transportation. This could always be, and to some limited extent is being patched up later, at higher cost, once the money is safely in the bank, as “unexpected” problems are identified by “further studies”.
(We see something of the the same thing with Transbay Terminal, where instead of fixing obvious problems 5 years ago they’re most interested in spending $400 million of your tax dollars ASAP, and then will come back for more later for a couple hundred million more to build another SF station when the trains “unexpectedly” don’t fit under the Big Bus Station in the Sky.)
“Strategic Mispresentation” has been and always will be the primary tool in the PB-Bechtel-Soprano consultant arsenal.
Promise whatever it takes (9 trains per hour! Profits galore! A chicken in every pot! Electricity too cheap to meter! Vibrant downtown TOD! 30,000 riders per station per day! No wetland or farmland impacts!) to get the pork rolling in, then turn around and bitch slap the suckers who are funding you.
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Despite your conspiracy theories the bypasses that show up later are because the EIR requires evaluation of alignments received as scoping input.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Oh. OK then.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
StevieB,
You realize that you are supporting Richard’s theory, right?
Joey Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Would I be correct in assuming that if, as you say, 350 kph is impractical because of noise, power consumption, etc, then 300-320 kph would be more realistic?
mike Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Just to be clear, the market value of “prime farmland” is approximately zero. Every single time that CHSRA chooses to sacrifice “prime farmland” rather than pour concrete, every citizen of California should be cheering. Even the farmers (who likely will get bought out at above market value).
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Even farmland that has mature almond trees on it?
mike Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Yes. This stuff is generally measured in terms of thousands of dollars per acre. At most tens of thousands of dollars per acre. Even almond orchards. Farming is the lowest value economic activity (in terms of market prices) that the country engages in. It’s what you do with land that has no development value.
Need a hundred acres? No problem – that’s only a few million dollars! You can’t even build 10 four-quadrant grade crossings for that much, let alone a 3 mile long grade-separated aerial structure!
mike Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
To be absolutely clear, the tradeoff being considered here is spending $8 million on buying out a bunch of farmers at above-market prices for a bypass versus spending $200 million building a several mile aerial structure straight through the town. Which should we do?
Also, for the enviros keeping tab, note that building the bypass involves returning hundreds of acres back to natural habitat (presumably CHSRA has no desire to go into the farming business), while the aerial structure does not.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Whether the cost of doing the bypass is $8 million or $80 million, the fact remains that the bypass is so much cheaper for the Authority, that there is a sense of inevitability about picking the bypass over the in town route. This is exactly why the farm bureaus and environmentalists who got on board with the project after they were promised that it would not be doing bypasses are feeling like some serious bait and switch is going on. If these bypasses are so much cheaper and less impactful, why on earth did the program level not have them? Nobody likes feeling like a sucker…
Peter Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
But there are many good reasons for constructing a bypass around Hanford. The primary reason, in my opinion, is that an alignment through town would NOT closely track the existing rail line and would wipe out one of the town’s two commercial areas. Hanford went to a lot of effort to develop that area, and it would be devastating to the local economy if it was eliminated by the HSR alignment.
Can’t the East of 101 be considered with it’s parking structures coupled with a plan to deveop a new TOD center around this new site instead of trying to transform the small city center of Gilroy and run trains at 220mph through it? This would also apply to other small towns (like Hanford/Visalia) that are to have a station but are still small enough that it can avoid going through downtown. This would not apply to bigger cities where city centers would be the target.
We could cut the opposition this way and in the case of Gilroy be able to capture the ridership from Santa Cruz, Monterey, Salinas, Hollister, Morgan Hill through parking garages as well as consider DMU or Commuter rail service from those areas as well to replace those innitial auto trips to the parking garage until ridership is not dependent on them.
dave Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Before anyone suggests, no it will not be sprawl. If it’s distant enough to not disrupt the city of Gilroy but close enough that it’s within it’s boundaries and have good access to public services without having to build many or any new ones.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
It is mostly about city development regulations in order to prevent the inducement of sprawl and enforcing those regulations.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
What???
It is actually outside the city boundaries. One of the major concerns of the city is that they have very limited services on that side of 101 and no money to provide them.
dave Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I’m sorry I don’t have a master plan in front of me like the rest of you. I don’t live in Gilroy, I just pass by in my truck. I’ll let you guys take it from their. Let’s just not become hostile, huh.
Clem Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Why should Gilroy provide services for the HSR station? San Bruno doesn’t provide services for SFO, do they?
Elizabeth Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Annexation is a way of life in south county. It is everyone’s presumption that a HSR station and alignment through the east side would open the area to development and annexation.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I would like to see a cost analysist of TRANSDEF’s Altamont option. I think the bridge would be expensive plus there would be damage to the very sensitive Wildlife Refuge Saltflats.
Samsonian Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Estimates for a new, high rail bridge at Dumbarton were several hundred million some years back. It should still be well under a billion if done by competent people (hah!).
What irks me is this completely spurious argument, usually put forth by Pacheco proponents and otherwise reasonable people, that replacing the existing, broken rail bridge with a modern one would be tantamount to raping the Bay, the wetlands, and cute, furry, little, endangered creatures.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.498321,-122.112222&spn=0.022846,0.071797&t=h&z=15
If people bothered to look at the Dumbarton corridor and use that thing between their ears, one would see an existing, dilapidated rail bridge and very near by PG&E high voltage transmission lines, SF PUC’s Hetch Hetchy water pipeline, and the Dumbarton (road) Bridge carrying tens of thousands of polluting vehicles every day.
Obstructing a modern rail bridge with modern rail service in this corridor on environmental grounds is greenwashing hypocrisy.
Tony D. Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Whatever! For the umpteenth time, HSR will go through Pacheco Pass. Get over it already!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Gilroy has already fought battles over development on the east side of 101. It is by no means certain that a station would lead to development and annexation. One reason why a downtown station is actually more desirable.
If Sheets-Saucedo supports a downtown trench, then she and I should talk.
rafael Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 11:15 am
a) New residential development next to a rail line hosting trains at 220mph? Oh, those condos will sell like hotcakes!
b) Trench through a topographical depression at risk of 100-year floods? 25kV AC, meet standing water!
It is refreshing to see someplace other than the peninsula being discussed here!
Okay = off topic but I felt compelled: to share this
Samsonian Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I think my ears started to bleed while laughing.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/07/MN1N1F8CCH.DTL
Maybe it’s a coincidence, but the Chronicle ran a piece where they did a somewhat scientific survey of noise while riding BART, and it’s not pretty.
BART and the FTA can brag all they want about how BART is the quietest rail system, but every rider knows it’s ear splitting, and there’s some proof. Even the most recently built sections south of Daly City are crazy loud.
I don’t think I’ve heard a “modern” train as loud as BART is, inside or outside the train.