Peninsula Residents Speak Out In Support of HSR Project
Tuesday night, Menlo Park’s city council voted to join the high speed rail lawsuit that Palo Alto voted to file.
Yet these lawsuits, as well as Palo Alto’s anti-HSR resolution, come just as HSR supporters are making their voices heard. Their elected leaders on these two city councils don’t appear to be making an effort to listen to or reflect the views of these supporters – but as HSR supporters continue to mobilize and speak out, they will become a force their elected leaders will no longer be able to ignore.
Just over a week ago, the Weekly Wamp – a newspaper serving Woodside, Atherton, and Menlo Park (hence the “Wamp” name) – sent a reporter and a camera to Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park to ask people about high speed rail, expecting to hear some strong criticisms.
Instead this is what they found – that, in the paper’s own words, “people want high speed rail”:
Perhaps to the surprise of some, people seem to be all for the California High Speed Rail in Menlo Park.
Kay Hardtke told us, “I can’t see any problems with [the High Speed Rail] staying above ground. I would hope they would put some more fencing protection parallel to keep people from jumping in front of it on the Peninsula.” She would like to know “How are we going to pay for it, is it federal or state? And who’s going to do the work?” We asked if she thought the rail was a good idea, and she affirmed, “Yes, I believe it’s a good idea, it’s a good alternative to driving I-5.”
Ron Keith said, “I have mixed opinions. I think it would be very good for California, I think it would be good for commerce, I think it would be good for the environment. But I think some of our laws around private property make it so difficult to really get it passed and to really get it through… and I think the economics are such that whether it’s a good idea or not it’s just not going to happen in my lifetime.” We asked if he was pro or con on the matter, and he replied, “Oh I’m definitely pro high speed rail, I just don’t think me being pro is going to move the needle.”
Read the whole article for more of these public views. I feel for Ron Keith, by the way – he is at a point now where he’s fatalistic about the project, given the growing amount of opposition, and doesn’t seem to feel his voice will be heard, perhaps because of the success of Menlo Park HSR critics in swaying their council to their view.
Here on the California High Speed Rail Blog, our post about Palo Alto’s lawsuit and resolution generated a number of comments from Palo Alto residents who support the project, and who feel unrepresented by their elected officials.
Here’s Andy Duncan:
I haven’t posted much recently, mainly because I recently moved from LA back to the bay area, specifically: Palo Alto. More specifically: downtown Palo Alto, about two blocks from the tracks.
Clem posted on his blog a diagram showing the various grade separated crossings already existing on the corridor, and indeed that was my first impression: wow a lot of these crossings are already grade separated. In fact, the peninsula seems to be grade-separation happy, and not just for rail, but for various “expressways” crisscrossing the area.
Regarding noise, even just two blocks from the tracks the existing trains are pretty quiet. cars driving down my street are louder, and mainly what you hear are the horns from the remaining non-grade separated crossings. Electric trains would be even quieter, even at 125mph.
About those horns: they’re way, way, way quieter than the metrolink horns. Metrolink got in trouble with the FRA and had to switch to louder horns and move the horns higher on the trains. Let’s hear the peninsula NIMBYs calling for keeping those grade separations when the FRA wakes up and cracks down on caltrain too. It’s only a matter of time.
The existing ROW is the perfect place for HSR. It’s wide, bordered on one side by one of those four-lane expressways (Alma, which is the north end of the Central Expressway), It’s already half grade separated through PA. The ROW is completely fenced with security fencing so crossing is only possible at intersections and crossings and is as much of a community dividing line as an aerial or a “berlin wall” would be. But neither of those seem necessary. PA should be campaigning for a slight berm and they should be clamoring to keep the trees and shrubs that provide noise and visual separation. (most of the separation is shrubs or small trees, by the way, very little is made up of old trees). Digging a trench would likely take out more trees than a berm.
I specifically moved to PA and to downtown PA because it’s the densest area on the peninsula and because of the access to Caltrain. Perhaps it takes a bit of an external eye, but this is the perfect place for HSR and the perfect place on the peninsula for a station. RWC might want it, and they might be willing to encourage a bunch of development, but it’s going to take 20+ years before they have the draw that PA does.
Oh, and for all the talk about parking garages ruining downtown PA, there’s several down there already and they don’t seem to be blighting anything. Grade separating the remaining crossings would help with traffic, even the relatively light caltrain schedule causes backups at Channing, Meadow and Charleston today. Even if you keep it at two tracks you’re going to need to grade separate those to avoid creating LA-like traffic.
Caltrain is the best thing the peninsula has going for it and the only hope they (we?) have for avoiding LA-style traffic hell. HSR+Caltrain would be terrific. Build it.
Jack’s comment was much more direct and to the point:
so I’m a Palo Alto resident and my wife is a student at Stanford, how do I tell the city council that I support the project and they do not represent my point of view?
Daniel Krause, Vice-Chair of Californians For High Speed Rail, pointed him to our handy “Contact your city council” tool, and I also pointed Jack to the Palo Alto City Council webpage for him to make a few phone calls.
Obviously, the above are just a few anecdotal examples of HSR support. The other side can point to their own comments, letters, op-eds, speeches and organizations to bolster their case. So what’s the truth about public opinion on HSR?
Well, we have two scientifically valid surveys of public opinion that indicate it is the HSR supporters who are in the majority in the region. First is the April 2010 survey done by Fairbank, Maslin, Mullin and Metz for a candidate in the 21st Assembly District race that found 76% of those surveyed supported the HSR project. This was after more than a year of high-profile debate and criticism of the project, I might add.
Second is the mother of all surveys: the November 2008 election, where 60% of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties backed Proposition 1A.
Those voters didn’t say “tunnel or nothing.” They said “we want high speed rail.” The burden is on HSR opponents, especially those who were elected to represent these cities, to prove that their constituents no longer support the project and no longer support constructive ways to collaboratively determine the design.
So far, I’m not seeing that burden being met.
“Oh I’m definitely pro high speed rail, I just don’t think me being pro is going to move the needle.”
Very valuable insight here. I feel the same way sometimes.
Matthew Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 7:47 am
I’m pleased with the general tone of this blog post in comparison with others on this blog in the past months. I think there’s too much emphasis on “people who oppose HSR are wrong” and not enough on reporting directly the views of people who support it, and the benefits of a system once built. In other words, this blog could use a little less focus on NIMBYs and more focus on the benefits and technical aspects of the system. I’m very pro HSR, but I’ve been getting PAMPA fatigue recently. It’s not that these issues shouldn’t be reported, but I don’t think it needs to take up more than 50% of column inches. Just my 2 cents.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Thats exactly what the NIMBYS want..constant attention from the media as if this were A natural disaster or something,the more noise they make the increase in attention and another chance to smear the project with negative information to be seen..Of course some people near the tracks oppose it thou you can be sure that drops by the number of blocks away! And since PA and even MenloPark are fair sized cities that the majority still want HSR…60 percent passing rate is nothing to sneeze at and a recent post stated about 100 people gave their opinion on a PaloAlto city website regarding HSR..100 out of 58,000 yes truly the entire city is “against” HSR as some have stated in the media.As was also stated the same people show at all these HSR functions
thatbruce Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Of course some people near the tracks oppose it
It would be interesting to know the basis of their opposition; is it towards the completed system, or the inevitable disturbances during the construction period?
Missiondweller Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:58 am
You make a good point, especially with regards to promoting HSR in the media.
If you’re against HSR you want to distract from all the benefits while smearing it as a financial catastrophe and boondoggle.
To promote our side, we should constantly remind people why they voted for it and let them know that progress is being made and much hard work/planning is being done to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely to ensure Californians get their monies worth.
Al Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Well said.
“the mother of all surveys: the November 2008 election, where 60% of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties backed Proposition 1A… The burden is on HSR opponents, especially those who were elected to represent these cities, to prove that their constituents no longer support the project and no longer support constructive ways to collaboratively determine the design.”
Well said, and extremely important. The voters spoke. If the opposition thinks the people have changed their minds, it is their responsibility to show the evidence to support such a claim.
Spokker Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
B-b-b-but the voters were lied to. Voters were lead to believe that trains would be invisible and be powered by candy and farts.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:08 am
I thought it was high speed unicorns. And is it a california thing to use “the” in front of things that don’t require the word “the.” “Take the 10 to the 405″ “I took the bart to the concert” “did the amtrak leave yet? Where do I catch the amtrak”
It started down south and caught on here and it’s hella weird.
AS for the gloomy sentiments, its pretty common. Most people I talk to say exactly the same thing, “it would be great but “they’ll” ( whoever they is) won’t get it done in my lifetime”
People are that pessimistic about things now because every time getting anything done is proposed, the special interests come out in knee jerk opposition. They don’t even know why or what they are opposing most of the time, their just “against it dammit!” cuz they “aren’t gonna have their lives taken over” or some other nonsense.
I was reading some other blogs yesterday, unrelated, and it amazes me that this sentiment about “the government wants to control everything” is prevalent. It’s completely irrational. The smoking bans for instance, those are in place on the local lever because people wanted them, not because the “government” (as if the government is somehow not the “people”) wants random control over stuff. Its total paranoia combined with the inability think critically.
The government is just made up of a bunch of americans who get yelled at via phone and email to “do something” about “everything” so thats what they try to do. Its messy. But they don’t sit around worrying about “controlling everyones lives” just for the hell of it. There just happens to be more people who oppose smoking near doorways than not, for example.
Its maddening to read these things. So my point is that its the naysayers and opposers who get noticed because they are usually just the type of people who are more likely to raise a fuss to begin with, about anything. Normal people just expect that rational decisions will be made and that they shouldn’t have to try to micromanage everything once they vote. Plus, normal people are generally exhausted by the end of the day.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Wait – I thought in San Francisco people took 101 and 80, not the 405 or the 15…
There are a lot of anti-government traditions around, but the one in the Republican Party comes specifically from racial issues. Traditionally the feds were more liberal on slavery and segregation than local and state governments; thus the South developed an attitude that national government is evil. This has descended even to non-racists and libertarians, who sincerely believe that it’s bad for the federal government to pass certain regulations but perfectly fine for states to pass them. Even the Real Americans ™ issue is the same: Southerners didn’t mind New Yorkers until New Yorkers started telling them to stop oppressing black people too much.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Seriously, the republicans are racists argument is old, tired and bold faced lie that has nothing to do with HSR.
Just like to point out that the KKK was made up of Southern Democrats. Back then you had to be a KKK member even to run for a local office as a democrat. This is a fact and you’re welcome to google it. I could point to Senator Byrd as a perfect example of KKK democrat.
Now back to HSR..
Nathanael Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:53 am
While it does have nothing to do with HSR, the stats from surveys will show you that the Republican party has a higher percentage of people who admit to racial bias than either the Democratic Party or independents.
Probably largely because those racist Southern Dixiecrats all joined the Republican Party during the 70s, 80s, and 90s — you can track the individual members of Congress doing so quite easily. (Unlike Byrd, few of them renounced the KKK, preferring to renounce the Democratic Party.) This was encouraged by Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”. Where were you?
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:58 am
“Seriously, the republicans are racists argument is old, tired and bold faced lie that has nothing to do with HSR.”
Seriously, parties never change, either, do they? Lincoln was a Republican, after all. Do you seriously think that he would have been a Republican in today’s political environment?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Richard Nixon, formerly of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, would be called a communist today….
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
In the words of former Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I wish my memory was better, but I seem to recall something about Lyndon Johnson, of all people, saying that signing the Civil Rights act would likely send the South into the Republican camp for at least a generation. He chose to sign it anyway, which, knowing some other things he was infamous for, suggests as always that we are a mixture of heroes and villains, angels and devils. . .I just wish the angels would win out a little more often.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Let Me Google That For You
Alon Levy Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
The only thing the Republican Party of 2010 and the Republican Party of 1870 have in common is the name.
CACondor Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Peninsulans take 101 and 280.
CACondor Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“Traditionally the feds were more liberal on slavery and segregation than local and state governments; thus the South developed an attitude that national government is evil.”
Actually, the way I understand it, is that it goes back before that. In the Washington Administration, Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton insisted that the government pay its debts, many of which were held by New Englanders. This was seen by some as a redistribution of wealth from the south to the north, and was opposed, and this was the beginnings of the party system.
But I may have that wrong.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
There were a lot of other economic issues surrounding states’ rights. The biggest one was not debt payment, but tariffs, which helped Northern industry and hurt Southern agriculture. However, if you read the documents of secession, you’ll see slavery prominent, not tariffs. And after the Civil War, the economic dimension collapsed entirely.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
In olden times, when I grew up, the bay area did not partake in the “the” phenomenon. Its was strictly a socal thing. But as the 80s progressed and people started traveling more between the two, and moving back and forth a lot more between the two, little by little you started hearing the “the” up here. I remember this all very clearly and I was one of those people who started trying out the “the” up here just for kicks, well, fast forward a decade and the traffice/news was starting to do it as well and now its all over. Now, we did always say “the nimiitz” ( formerly highway 17 in the eastbay and later redesignated as 880, or now “the” 880. and we also used “the bayshore” (101) but not “the” 101. Now its “the 101 and the same goes for the 280 and the eastshore fwy. ( and our signs never used the FWY shorthand either)
I’ve always wanted to do a poll though, especially in socal, as to which is more preferred, the name or the number, since there are so many choices.
In many cases one fwy number has several names as it passes through the basin, I guess this is helpful if you want to be specific ( the 10, sta ma fwy or the 10 san bernadino fwy
(What was my point? I don’t know, I started vacation 45 minutes ago so I don’t have to talk about trains for a week.)
name or number people, name or number?
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Have another drink. It’ll keep yourself and us entertained.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
lol I haven’t started yet Im still packing. .. but …. perhaps its a good idea.
but really, name or number? I’m guessing the socalians prefer the numbers as they are more expedient.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Just don’t drink and drive. Stay safe.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
the only thing I could find in the fridge was an old bottle of mikes margarita. bleh. Ill be doing the bart to sfo…… ooooooooooh noooooooo not that!!!! ( this is the where the witch releases the flying monkeys) Yes bart to sfo ( useful only to me, apparently, out of 7 million people, and yes Richard, I would like to thank the taxpayers of america for that ) then some kind of odd sized united jet – at least I hope its a jet… a Bombardier CRJ-200 ( wow those guys make everything)
Now, if we had the dadgum hsr up and running I way prefer to take that to RIV or SNB and make my over to PSP from there. But we don’t so I have to get airborn in this whirligig and hope the rubber bands don’t snap be for we get there.
I know, I truly know, that when we get hsr up and running, that californians are going to love the shit out of it. It will have to cool factor. It totally will. You’ll see.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“this is the where the witch releases the flying monkeys”
Haha, I guess you’ve seen Tin Man.
rafael Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 6:27 am
The government is just made up of a bunch of americans who get yelled at via phone and email to “do something” about “everything” so thats what they try to do.
Those who hand out large campaign contribution checks tend to have a lot more influence than ordinary citizens. Since the dawn of for-fee political advertising on TV in the 1960s, the US has gradually morphed from a true democracy into a plutocracy with the outward trappings of democracy. Raising funds and running for election has become the major activity for any elected official.
Technically, voters still have the final say. However, slick, professionally run political campaigns for elected office and some ballot initiatives are quite effective in manipulating the general public and/or reducing participation by certain groups such as young adults and minorities. The focus has shifted almost entirely from rational discussion of policy to visceral, emotionally charged negative messages. Politics is no longer about getting anything done, it has become about preventing change – a strategy that is aided and abetted by antiquated rules designed to protect minorities against the majority (e.g. US Senate, California Assembly & Senate). In addition, wealthy individuals can use ballot initiatives and legal challenges to manipulate and/or thwart the express will of the people, often without revealing their identity. The result is a political system that has become ossified at multiple levels, to the detriment of US competitiveness.
It’s no wonder John Q. Public feels dejected. Casting a vote no longer translates into the changes politicians on both sides keep promising every election cycle. The art of the possible has degenerated into the farce of the impossible.
synonymouse Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
The “farce of the impossible” – what an apt summation of the current CHSRA scheme self-described as profitable.
Face it: the Prop 1A campaign was a scam in that PB-Palmdale totally misrepresented or hid what it intended to do. If PAMPA trusts anything that PB says the nimbys deserve the total screwing that is planned. The only reason that the CHSRA is going thru the motions of even listening to PAMPA is that there is a chance that Whitman might be elected.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Still ranting your Tejon lunacy, syn?
DesertXpress has been delayed…again: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/desertxpress-likely-further-delayed-federal-agency/
Barstow prepares a study showing the project’s impact: http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/barstow-9240-council-desertxpress.html
Matthew Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Hmmm… I’d like to see it built sooner rather than later, but it won’t make as much economic sense until it can hook up with CAHSR in Palmdale. In terms of Barstow’s angling for a station, Barstow has a population of 22,000. Compare that to several million people in Las Vegas, and tens of millions in Southern California, and we’re really talking about literally only one 1000th of the population that will be served by the train. Perhaps a greater percentage of the Barstow population would use the train than the rest of the SoCal/LV population, but the numbers are so low anyway. Why not just buy a house in Victorville for any Barstow resident who wanted one rather than build a station in Barstow ;-) Surely the economic benefit to Las Vegas, Victorville, and Southern California as a whole is greater than the $1.3 million that will be lost by Barstow.
I feel for Barstow residents. Economically, they’re very dependent on I15 traffic, and they’re economically much worse off than the rest of California. Ultimately, though, selling gas and fast food to people who don’t want to be there in the first place isn’t likely to be sustainable in the long term. Adding a stop on a high speed rail line won’t get people off the train, either. Unfortunately, I think Barstow residents will need to find a way to be economically viable that provides a greater fundamental benefit to society, be that the solar energy industry, moving to other areas of economic activity, or other kinds of entrepreneurship.
Emma Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Agreed. It will definitely benefit when the CAHSR extension to Southern California gets built. It’s a shame that the federal government doesn’t support our efforts to relieve the highways, save money and protect the environment which is what HSR is doing.
rafael Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Just because a town has a station doesn’t mean each and every train has to stop there. The incremental capital cost of a couple of side platforms serving 1-2 trains per day in each direction would be small, provided the station is located on the anyhow chosen alignment. The incremental operations overhead would also be quite small.
The bigger issue here is if it makes any sense to increase service to a location that has and will always have very little water and therefore not grow its population significantly. DX will be funded by Las Vegas casinos and they understandably have zero interest in increasing tourism between the LA basin and Barstow. At the very least, the town and San Bernardino county would have to provide assurances that they would not provide building permits for any (off-reservation) Indian casino within say, 15 miles of a Barstow station in the next say, 30 years. There were plans for just such an establishment just a few years ago but afaik, turf battles between Indian tribes nipped that idea in the bud.
http://www.indiangaming.com/regulatory/view/?id=22
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 11:51 am
1. Not it isn’t. Not remotely small. Not even close. Not even by CHSRA’s cost “estimates” (nudge nudge wink wink.)
2. One of two trains PER DAY? Just what the world needs: more Amtrak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
It’s relatively small when you are talking about a patch of asphalt by the tracks and a worn bus shelter. Works out well when two trains a day toddle through at 35MPH. You have to explain to them that it wouldn’t be a patch of asphalt and bus shelter. It’s miles and miles of station sidings and since a new station has to be ADA compliant it needs level boarding, so it’s much more than a patch of asphalt.
It would be much cheaper to have free limo service between Barstow and Victorville for anybody with a train ticket.
Joey Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The cost of building a couple of platforms is small. The cost of maintaining a station is not.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
you don’t need a station. all you need is platform. just a flat slab of concrete where people can board. It needn’t be staffed. It doesn’t even need a waiting room. The city would likely pay for it ( they usually do) and if there are say 4 round trips a day, one of those round trips could stop at BAR
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Putting a station in Barstow is like putting a station in Wasco.
Unless there are enough troops stationed at Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow or at Fort Irwin Military Reservation who would travel to Vegas for their weekend leave to make it worthwhile.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
ok if you say so. I just feel bad about leaving those poor souls stranded out there with people whizzing past them. I’d feel left out if I lived there.
Anyway, I’m still hoping for a 58 route some day so that the dream can be realized.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I would too. But no one’s forcing them to stay in a dying town.
jimsf Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
according to this its a mecca of activities there’s even a mcdonalds train
( someone has to stick up for the regular places)
so I followed up with the CA4HSR site and contacted my council member after some minor edit to the email, this is the reply I got from Nancy Sheperd. Her main concern seems to be that Palo Alto is being ignored by HSR. Is it true what she said below, that Palo Alto’s input on the project is not considered? Certainly some input were considered and some weren’t, and there must be some understanding that this is a statewide project and a single city cannot expect to have all their terms met. I’d like to start a dialogue with her, so I’d like to bring up examples of concerns of PA city council that HAVE been met.
email from Nancy below:
——————
Palo Alto is not opposing the HSR project, only in its current leadership and project which subjects municipalities to various exercises in outreach and design input that are then not taken into consideration. We have been working collaboratively and constructively just as you request–but our input on the project is not considered. This we find unacceptable.
I agree with you that HSR can make valuable improvements to both the Caltrain system and local grade separations, but as of today the authority has not addressed any of our concerns or interests. This is unacceptable and not typical of the EIR and CEQA process.
Nancy Shepherd
Council Member
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Their input is not being ignored. It just so happens that their demands (“tunnel or nothing”) are unreasonable. Unreasonable demands won’t be entertained.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I’ll rephrase that. They have prioritized maximum mobility and permeability of the Caltrain ROW. They have opposed any above-grade alternatives, and stated their preference for a below-grade alternative.
The Authority’s staff looks at those inputs, and has to come up with the best way to compromise between unrealistic, unreasonable, technically unfeasible, and astronomically expensive tunnels and trenches, and the unpopular above-grade options.
The best way to implement the cities’ requests for maximum mobility and permeability (visually and physically) without blowing the budget is an aerial. That’s how they came up with the aerial alternative.
Reading between the lines, the cities are demanding a veto over the project overall. THAT is what is out of whack with the CEQA process. If the cities were the responsible agencies, they WOULD have the power to approve or disapprove the project. Here, the CHSRA is responsible, wherefore the cities DON’T have the veto power they are used to.
Jack Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Hi Peter,
thank you for the reply. I guess instead of responding to her accusation (HSR authority not addressing Palo Alto’s demands), I’ll just urge her to work constructively with the HSR authority on the implementation. Frankly speaking, the current implementation of Caltrain ROW through Palo Alto is very intrusive. I feel that either at-grade with underpass for cars, Viaduct with at-grade crossing for cars, and of course belowgrade option are all an improvement to status quo.
I’m also planning on urging them to come up with a plan a la Berkeley to come up with funding plan using some kind of a parcel tax in the even that a below-grade ROW option is available through HSR authority.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Don’t forget the major property impacts with constructing over/underpasses. A lot of properties would lose their a large part of their street frontage and/or their driveways if you go with tracks at grade.
The creeks alone will make below-grade infeasible in my opinion. The available options through PAMPA just aren’t very good overall.
Victor Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
With creeks nearby, I’d say bridges over the tracks, Instead under the tracks with pumping, Over the tracks in the long run works, Under can get flooded during storms. Of course less property will be taken if the rails are elevated, If any extra is needed.
The Cities that want to Sue should put the following up for a Vote of the residents of their respective cities:
1. Do You support HSR? Yes or No
2. Do You want to build HSR tracks:
a. Above Ground Level,
b. At Ground Level or
c. Below Ground Level?
3. If You want a Tunnel for HSR under the City, Do You want a City Property Tax Levy to help build It?
StevieB Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
An example of addressing demands is the reduction of the estimated width of an elevated structure to 80 feet. This would reduce the required right of way needed if elevated structures were built over the 4 streets with level grade crossings in Palo Alto.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 10:38 am
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18360#add_comments I decided to tear this thing apart and rip it open. Their use of CEQA for veto power is a bunch of bullshit. I agree with Peter fully on the above. However, I would entertain them on the fact of if they do not cooperate with the Authority’s wish of an ariel option where they could have input on design asethetics, expect an ugly viaduct to go through.
Clem Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
The CHSRA’s detailed responses to each and every one of Palo Alto’s scoping and EIR comments are in the public record. It’s really not hard to find them.
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Saying “this is why we can’t give you what you want” is not the same not taking Palo Alto’s input into account.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Here’s how the process works:
1. Decide.
2. Announce.
3. Defend.
Response to DEIR public comment, only because the law demands something: “Thank you for your input. Comment acknowledged.”
Response to anything except legal action: “”
Peter Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Which is why San Jose is now getting an aerial across the 280/87 interchange instead of through Gardner? Or why shared track options are now being reviewed for Socal?
Realistic and reasonable suggestions are considered. Others not.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
More public expense = more private profit is always to be welcomed. Comment acknowledged.
And God damn it, San José, the Tenth Most Importantest Sprawlburb In The Entire Universe, deserves it, because, God damn it, it’s special.
mike Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
[quote]More public expense = more private profit is always to be welcomed.[/quote]
But PAMPA’s suggestions involve a lot more public expense and thus a lot more private profit, yet they are not being welcomed. Presumably, in your framework, it is because the request is so large as to be unfundable.
Looks like the algorithm should be revised to “Somewhat more public expense = somewhat more private profit is always to be welcomed. Ridiculously more public expense = project is not funded is not to be welcomed.”
lyqwyd Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“Palo Alto is not opposing the HSR project”
I would argue that the city council is most definitely opposing the project. They’ve made an anti HSR resolution based on spurious information and contrary to what the general population feels about the project. they are also making unreasonable demands, such as tunnels through the entire city at California taxpayers expense, and they are planning on filing lawsuits in order to try and stop the project. All they’ve said is they want it done “right” but have not explained what “right” means other than a tunnel through PA.
The vast majority of Palo Altoans voted for it, and a survey almost 2 years later shows a continued high level of support for the project, as currently planned.
I would ask Nancy Sheperd to explain exactly what has not been taken into consideration, and exactly what collaberative and constructive efforts they have made.
Palo Alto’s government appears to be on the very extreme end of opposition to HSR, so if they are going to claim that they are not opposing it, they need to explain how that is the case.
Victor Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Palo Altos Residents need to rise up and start a recall petition, For wasting tax payers money whom the council and mayor are squandering money on frivolous lawsuits that will only get the city into debt.
synonymouse Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 10:18 am
PAMPA needs to rise up and start a recall of Prop 1A.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I’m sure they’ve got a spare $2 million lying around for that purpose…just lay off a few more librarians and street maintenance crews. A few potholes are a small price to pay to make a doomed last stand by trying to go back to the ballot!
synonymouse Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Meg has spent, what, about $100 million so another $2 mil is chump change. Besides between contributions and Socal conservatives the amount is far from insurmountable. Time to put your money where your mouth is. The “nimbys” are just wasting their time unless and until they recognize this is a political problem. They will have to swallow thier political proclivities and deal with the reality that PB-Palmdale and the Pelosi machine fully intend to throw them under the train.
Otherwise the “nimbys” might as well sell out now and relocate before the construction totally lays waste to their property values.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Speaking as one, what makes you think that social conservatives are against investment in high speed rail?
synonymouse Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Southern California conservatives.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Maybe some Orange County conservatives, but plenty of San Diego area conservatives would like them some bullet trains, according to the last polls I read (which are some years old), and the Bakersfield conservatives appear to want them even more.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Fast electric train service, a byproduct of bring HSR through suburban San Francisco and Los Angeles will increase property values. Happens everywhere in the world including the Bay Area.
It’s pretty obvious why PA is opposing it:
- it’s running an aerial freeway through the city and talking about 100+ trains a day. That is an impact–big time. Everyone who reads this needs to think about what that will be like if it’s in their town.
- the project makes no sense economically in a state that is bankrupt
- the ridership numbers are flawed, as proven by several studies
- the business plan is a joke, with cost estimates that are way low, given big projects like this around the world
- the ‘authority’ is full of pols who have repeatedly lied and shown gross incompetence in their ability to manage a project of this magnitude
- the so called context sensitive process was a complete farce, with the authority basically overriding everything that was proposed by the cities
- the jobs issue is vastly distorted, with any jobs coming 2-4 years out and most of the work likely being done by foreign sources.
And you wonder why the opposition is growing? It will continue to grow.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Yes PaloAlto online!!! Of course spoken like a true NIMBY.. sorry that hundred and 40-year-old railroad will be no different than it is today except electrify and grade separated.. all of your statements are just personal opinion from obviously a very narrow minded position.. and where in fear mongering it is stated that it will be an aerial? That is just one option the others are at grade and entrenched.. but know you all need to have a goldplated tunnel… well guess what you pay the difference !Your Council man Clein stated its a 100 year use.. so you will have plenty of time to pay it off and all those people living along the tracks will have their house values doubled to live next to park but don’t expect the rest of us to pay for your upgraded housing value when you already live along a railroad.. opposition is not growing of course ..Nimbys and naysayers wish!! Media manipulation aside by the NIMBYs its far more people in places like Palo Alto do want high speed rail to be built than those that dont
StevieB Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
The governor proposed a balanced budget months ago. The bureaucrats in Sacramento do not have the incentive to pass a balanced budget on time. The state is not bankrupt.
Victor Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Yeah on the backs of those like Me and others in other similar circumstances, Some need help IHSS to do what I do, I get Supplemental Security Income(SSI) as I’m totally disabled, I’m forced to live on $845.00 a month and No I do know for a fact that I can’t work, I can barely do household chores now and I’m 50 now with a limited education, Even Women open doors for Me when they see My cane, Back in January 2009 It was $907.00 before the cuts started, Thanks to the Lame Duck and the Republicans in the Legislature, Hopefully I won’t lose the last $15.00 from My check as I need every penny just to survive, People who get Food Stamps in California don’t get SSI and vice versa, As per the USDA and SSA, Even though the part of SSI in California know as the SSP(State Supplemental Payment) has not had any portion devoted to being in Lieu of Food Stamps since around 1990 from what I read once according to California State Law.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Victor, go down to the county office and apply. Unless you are living rent free you may be eligible.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Victor — When the state has to subsidize the train, your benefits will be in even more jeopardy.
Peter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Has anyone credible said that HSR will need subsidies? As in, anyone not getting paid to say so or quoting such a person?
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Sure HSR authority says they can do it without a subsidy. But then you read the business plan and look at the numbers and it’s hard to believe they can do it without a subsidy. The authority is not to be believed. Their numbers change all the time. THey are politicians who have sold this white elephant well. But they’re not business people. The vast majority of HSR in the world gets subsidized. Amtrak is subsidized. There have been a number of business people who have looked at the numbers and laughed. If it’s such a good deal, where is the private sector? Why subsidize HSR when we ought to be helping people like you, our schools, the local transit systems, our universities, the levees in the delta, and every other infrastructure project in this crumbling state?
StevieB Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Which of the majority of HSR in the world are subsidized and which are not?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Actually pretty much all HSR lines make operating profits. Nobody’s claimed it will repay the capital cost in ticket sales, at least not in less than several decades.
Why are you making it an either-or between needed HSR infrastructure and other needed infrastructure? The enemy here is the “drown the government in the bathtub” types, who’ve made it impossible to pass a reasonable budget or raise practically any taxes at all ever, even when it’s badly needed.
Then there’s the *unneeded* infrastructure, such as the prison lobby campaigning to put more people in prison — ending imprisonment for nonviolent drug offenders would put lots of highly-paid prison guards out of work, but you can’t really say that the imprisonments are money well spent.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Technically you may be right. However, the point is that the business plan makes no sense. So if the state has to subsidize it, what sense does that make?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Business plan makes sense. What’s your problem?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Prop 13 blew up the ability to pass a reasonable balanced budget by requiring 2/3 majorities in both houses of the legislature. Which means you have to satisfy that many more whiny prima-donna pork-seeking legislators. It’s bad enough getting majorities, but to get 2/3s majorities you have to pass STUPID budgets.
Spokker Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
The elevated viaduct is about 76 feet wide according to Clem’s blog. What freeway do you know that’s 76 feet wide? 101 is about 200 feet wide.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 4:40 am
Tom, I have some questions for you.
Have you ever been near a high-speed train under electric power? I have, or at least if not a true high speed train, then an Amtrak one at well over 100 mph, and I am still amazed at how quiet the thing was. Embankments, bridges, fences–you really do need those to keep people out of the way, those electric trains really can sneak up on you. In addition to the trains themselves being quieter, you will no longer have horns blowing fror crossings. Noise should not be a concern.
In addition to this, there is the question of peak oil. Now, a lot of people say the world will never run out of oil, that there’s plenty in the ground–and they are right. What they don’t tell you is that this oil is in places that are extraordinarily deep, under water, heavy and sour, largely decomposed (this is what is in the tar sands)–in short, either not really the ideal we’ve had, hard to get to, expensive to bring out and/or refine, or all of the above. We won’t run out of oil as much as run out of the ability to pay for it. Add in the fact that something like 54% of total oil demand is for motor fuel alone, and that all the other transportation systems we use bring the oil for transport sector up to 65%, then you have a serious economic threat and military security problem.
Electric autos? Not a bad idea, but you then have the problem of financing the road system in some way that isn’t a subsidy for cars (although there is already an enormous amount of that, far worse than for rail, in fact), along with all the operating problems (bad drivers, drunk drivers, finding a parking space).
In short, I ask what alternatives do you propose? As I see it, we have to go back in time to an earlier lifestyle. That includes trains, electric streetcars, and something we didn’t have back then, high speed rail.
Oh, I’ll admit, I do live in the eastern US, so I can’t say I’m all that familiar with Palo Alto; it’s not my backyard, as some would say. However, I’ve been around railroads almost all my life, and in a way they are part of my back yard, so I am not totally ignorant of what you face. Take my word for it, you will get something you will really appreciate once the dust settles.
If you can, I suggest a trip to the eastern US, or even to Japan to check out electric railroading. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at what you see.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Yes that is a good idea and recommendation for these people or at lease for the authority to show them via videos.. show them a high-speed rail along the Northeast corridor through a lot of those beautiful little New England town’s were Acela does 125mph.. also show Philadelphia where it runs right past the University and New Jersey where it runs right past brand-new tract housing at 135MPH.. clean quiet electric trains are huge step up from diesel and horns.. you’re right about hardly hearing the trains. I was on the platform at Metro Park and an Acela was passing through it was so quiet I barely noticed it was almost at the end of the platform!
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Have you actually ridden the Acela? It moves at a crawl past the University of Pennsylvania in and out of 30th st station past a lot pretty bad looking real estate. And it sure does not run at 135 mph anywhere on the route. The tracks can’t handle it.
But look, Yes, there’s a lot more here than noise. Have you read the business plan? Do you truly think the ridership in and out of Gilroy will exceed that of Boston? Do you truly think the whole thing can be built for $45 billion? Do you really think the state won’t have to end up subsidizing it? If you do, then you are living in a dream world.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
lots have you??And NO it does not crawl past Temple..duh not that silly PA can stand in the shoes of one of Americas largest and first city…kill the lame whiny cries and made up terror.REMEMBER you moved next to a railroad..and its not even a real main line one..try 50 freight trains in 8 hours like the BNSF or NorfolkSouthern..that will give you crybabies something to complain about
YesonHSR Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
And millions of people will ride it..like that freeway ..you know that 800 foot BerlinWall (101) that runs thru parts of Menlo/PA..that you enjoy..So where are you standards for that “horror”? you can take the teabaggy opinion and drink it down .
Alan F Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I have ridden the Acela between Washington Dc and NYC many times. It hits 135 mph for stretch in Delaware and on the long straightaways between Trenton and New Brunswick NJ. It hits 120-125 mph as do the Regionals on many other segments between DC and NYC. The 150 mph stretches for the Acela are in RI and MA.
North of 30th street station, the segment through the Zoo interlocking is slow as it a complicated arrangement of tracks and crossovers. The 8-9 mile segment north of the Schuylkill river through north Philly is typically run at around 65-75 mph, but it is one of the segments of the NEC that is higher up on the list for improvements. Yes, I have ridden the NEC many times with a GPS and have read the NEC Infrastruture Master Plan. Wish the plan was more ambituous, but perhaps the existence of HSR in CA will eventually change that.
I grew up in Berwyn PA less than a mile from what was then called the Main Line, now known as the Eastern Keystone corridor. The part I live close was a grade separated electrified four track line. Mostly commuter trains to Philly on it. Never heard anyone complain about the noise or about living near the tracks. The tracks were just part of the background we took for granted. I find the objections of those living near a current busy diesel passenger and occasional freight train non-grade separated Caltrain corridor to upgrading it to a electrified grade separated corridor hard to understand, if not bizarre or ignorant. If I lived near the current Caltrain tracks, I would consider it a no brainier to take the opportunity to upgrade it for faster & quieter commuter trains and access to a true HSR train service running to LA and much of California.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
The approaches to 30th St Station are indeed in bad condition, but it’s a station approach for God’s sake, it can’t be fast because they’re about to stop. This said, there is a project in the works to speed up Zoo Junction.
The Gilroy passengers will include people connecting from Monterey and Salinas. Yes, I believe the numbers, because of that. Hopefully Monterey will manage to build its planned connecting rail, so that Gilroy won’t be crammed with parking lots for cars….
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Hi DP — I’ve lived in the east and I heard the trains all the time. Maybe my hearing is better than yours. I haven’t been to Japan to listen.
I have no options to oil, but I’m not sure that building an expensive HSR in CA is going to do much for the oil situation. The real issue is one of priorities. If you think the train here can be built, run at a profit, and not risk a subsidy by the state, then you don’t know much about the economics of these projects. That’s my issue. The business plan behind this train is just wishful thinking. This state has a lot more pressing needs than to get stuck with a white elephant. Where’s the private sector investment? It’s not there because it doesn’t pencil.
Peter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
“Where’s the private sector investment? It’s not there because it doesn’t pencil.”
I’d direct your attention to the following discussion: The Good and the Bad In International Funding of California HSR.
China and Japan have offered to fund essentially the entire project. If HSR in CA didn’t “pencil”, do you seriously think they’d be willing to put some skin (to the tune of $40 BILLION!!!) in the game?
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Sure. It’s gets them in the door. They have dollars to shovel. And they have an HSR industry in China that needs to be fed. Are you kidding?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:17 am
Hi again, Tom,
Your comment about not having a substitute for oil is precisely the problem with oil–there is no substitute that packs as much energy in as little weight that is also as cheap and as easily handled, and also has a supporting infrastructure (pipelines, storage tanks, gas stations). That’s part of why I consider rail service on all levels to be vitally important, even if it means a drastic change in the American lifestyle. It is the one form of land transportation that can be oil-free, and has been in the past. You might say that the day is coming when we will be living in what might be called a post-auto lifestyle, and it may be closer than anybody realizes. I want us to be ready for this.
As to your comments about the timing and priorities, well, I understand where you are coming from, but I also have to ask, “If not now, when?” I’ve been an advocate of revived rail services and all for a long time, ever since I was in high school, which is where I was when we went through the first oil crunch in 1973. All I’ve gotten in the 37 years that have followed were insults, excuses, and brush-offs. Our own policies, in the meantime, have been to continue on a path to a vision that might have been appropriate in Eisenhower’s time, but this has been apparently unrealistic for a long time. The end result has been we are in a far worse fix now than we were in then. It has not helped matters that gasoline was never taxed appropriately in all this time (I estimate its current real cost to be between $7 and $8 per gallon, if you add in subsidies, deferred maintenance, and an oil war or two), and when I did make the case, I got still more insults and excuses. To tell you the truth, my political misrepresentatives make me look like a cross between Albert Einstien and Audie Murphy. That’s not a boast, that’s an expression of disgust. This even goes for a state senator here in the east, who said to me, “You’re right, but we can’t do that. If we did that, we would not be elected, and we couldn’t do anything.”
Recently, I had some comments about a new airplane seat that looks to be horrible for passengers, and commented about how, in WW II, a similar device for trolley cars was met with derision, even in wartime. This lead to comments about how nobody worried about money in WW II because there were more important things. In view of energy security, and being in charge of our own destiny, we are in similar straits. We’ve waited way too long. Again, I ask, (and please, do not feel insulted, this is not intended as such), if not now, if not here, then when, when do we finally get the oil monkey off our collective back?
Below is a link you may wish to look at. I have a low opinion of economists, but this one I like, because he is trying to deal with the physical world as well as the fiscal world. There are many other stories on this site regarding energy and railroads, which I think are worthy of study.
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/search/label/Living%20Energy%20Independence
Take care.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:22 am
A couple of more links from a pro-rail site in New England; take note of the editorials at the end of the first, and follow-up commentary in the second.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09072010.shtml#And
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09132010.shtml
Again, take care.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I will comment that I’m more optimistic about electric cars than Lubic, and I *still* think we need electric rail.
In urban areas, cars just sit in traffic (massive waste), therefore we need urban passenger rail. (Yes, it’s also hard to get enough battery for buses, plus they get caught in traffic, hence why I ignore them. Though trolleybuses with exclusive lanes can substitute for local urban rail in some cases.)
Cars are miserable to drive *long* distances and electric planes appear to be grossly impractical for the foreseeable future, therefore electric intercity trains. Even if electric planes become practical, airports are incredibly inefficient for trips which are less then two time zones, hence still electric rail.
It’s very hard to get enough battery to power freight trucks over significant distances, therefore freight rail.
Electric cars are how people from rural areas will get to town, and how people in suburbs will make diffuse trips which require cargo.
jimsf Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 6:19 am
The state is not bankrupt.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hey, Yes — Here’s a response. No fear mongering intended. The authority has pretty clearly stated that it will be aerial. Opposition is clearly growing, otherwise this blog wouldn’t be so obsessed with what’s happening on the Peninsula. You have to admit that the business plan is badly flawed, the authority is out to lunch, and the project makes no sense in this economic climate. Call us names all you want, but there are lots of reasons why this project makes no sense.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
No need for names..its the truth stop acting like some pussy
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Not sure who the pussy is; nor am I sure how that is relevant. Fact is that although CA is not technically bankrupt, it’s very close. And it’s a fact a lot of stuff in the state budget has been severely cut.We have a lot of restoration to do before spending money on the luxury train.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
You and your whinning…about everthing
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Yes On, Peter, go easy with the name calling. I know it’t tempting, and may even be fun, but we have enough incivility in the world as it is.
Of course, if Tom really, really proves so. . .but he hasn’t yet, in my opinion. . .
Spokker Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I disagree. Name calling is a perfectly valid and acceptable tactic both now and in the past. There was never a time when name calling was off the table. In fact, engaging in name calling and then complaining about incivility is another perfectly valid and acceptable practice.
That civil discourse is something to strive for is an ideal that few people really believe, even the ones who say they do. In regards to the high speed rail debate, the terms “foamers,” who want to build a toy choo-choo train, and “NIMBYs,” rich white people who are absolutely hysterical about everything, help frame the debate and simplify it into us vs. them. Both sides do it and it’s ismply a part of human nature that has always and will always play out.
Spokker Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Which reminds me, there are guys who are very offended by the term “NIMBY.” They also pleads for “civil discourse.” Then they launch into rants about how the CHSRA board members and staff members are incompetent, corrupt, moronic, stupid, unethical, lazy, etc. Then they rant about foaming railfans who want to use public money to build toy trains, calling them stupid, moronic, wasteful, ignorant, etc. They are very condescending toward the younger people who advocates for high speed rail, suggesting they don’t know any better.
I don’t mind it at all. It’s simply human nature.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 5:43 am
I’ve seen everything you just stated (and been the object of it sometimes, too), but I haven’t seen the bit about being condescending to young people, at least not “in print.” This isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, and I certainly know many younger people have expressed frustration with their elders, but can you point out where somebody actually said something like this, something insulting to younger adults in general? I always like to see things that bolster our case, even in a case such as this.
YesonHSR Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Very true Spoker ..they can sure sling words and made up bad news ..but say anything back and then O the crying! Case in point the guy from the BayArea chamber of commerence that told it like it is…they called him a bullie..after all the names and twisted facts they have been shouting out
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Umm, D.P., that was YesonHSR who called Tom a pussy, not me. Not that I disagree, I just wouldn’t write it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Sorry, I thought both of you were going in. . .appreciate your sense of decorum, of which there is too little today. . .
Spokker Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I agree with YesonHSR. You should stop acting like a pussy, to be perfectly honest.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Tom,
You’ve got to forgive some of us for this names business. Some of us, myself included, have been called some horrible things for suggesting rail. Myself, that’s included being called a Communist (plus some other comments that were “not fit to print”), along with charges that I was trying to take away people’s cars and bring back the horse and buggy.
In my case, my “crime” was in suggesting a semi-high-speed trolley line, or light rail line (70 mph top speed, possibly higher) as an alternative to making an older 2-lane road into a 4-lane road. Even put together a cost study that surprised even me in terms of money saved over building a new 4-lane road (most of the difference came from not having to move so much rock and dirt around). This was in an area much more rural than where you are, covering three counties in West Virginia ranging from 50 to 100 miles west of Washington, DC, with a combined population on the order of perhaps 200,000, with the largest town having a population of about 25,000.
Difference in cost was something like $60 million in initial cost at the time (just about 20 years ago now), and based on the information I had at the time, would have paid to run this line for free for about 10 years. Service would have been three trips an hour, for 15 hours per day, and the anticipated performance was to attempt to cover the entire 50 mile line in 1 hour, including stops. This performace could be possible; an electric trolley line, an interurban called the Cincinnati & Lake Erie, had cars that could do it back in 1930. In fact, they had a publicity stunt in which one of these high-speed trolleys raced an airplane, and won. This says more about the state of aviation in 1930 than anything else, but it still required a trolley to race for miles at 97 mph! The Depression and other things killed the C&LE despite this, but amazingly, one of those “Red Devils” is preserved in California at the Western Railway Museum in Solano County, painted in the colors it wore on the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, which bought some of these cars after C&LE called it quits.
Principle argument for the rail line was seeing a 12 lane road regularly become a parking lot outside Washington, DC. We have commuter trains here, somewhat similar to your Caltrain service, and so after being stuck in traffic once too often (and taking 4 hours to drive a measly 100 miles) I’ve said “never again,” and so far, I’m happy to say I’ve been able to keep my word. I do think you have a better operation–in fact, we have some of the older cars from your service working on some of our trains here!
Anyway, my arguments did no good; we are building what I call a dinosaur road.
I’m a bit short on time at the moment (guess who’s wife has an immediate “honey do” job), so I have to cut off at this point. I will compliment you on having a more civil tone than some others in Palo Alto! In any event, I hope to get back to you with some other material to look at, particularly in regard to the true cost of our highway system. Alternately, check back to some earlier comments in this site, where some of these things have been discussed, including what is still, to me, a fascinating observation that much of the opposition to rail in general is really generational!
And despite the differences, thanks for joining the club here at CAHSRBLOG.com.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Oh, a couple of other things.
One, our commuter train service runs on a rather busy freight railroad, on which run all manner of freight trains, including long, heavy coal trains of up to 200 cars, each one weighing over 100 tons (and also including all those empty trains going back); I understand your freight service in your area is nowhere near as intense.
Two, this page has a program that lacks an edit function. Forget to change a typing error or something, and if you post the message, that’s it! That’ll explain a lot of goofy looking spelling and other things you’ll see here, and it’s likely you’ll sputter and fume at the thing yourself if you’re here any length of time.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Well, it’s pretty damn close. Terrible bond rating. Deficits. Cuts to schools, infrastructure, universities, you name it. Any extra dough ought to go there, not to a low priority luxury railroad.
StevieB Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:37 am
State K-14 school budgets are doing very well in California due to California Proposition 98 which guarantees an annual increase in funding if the state revenue increases or decreases. School funding increases as a percentage of the budget every year automatically.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Deficits, on the other hand, are guaranteed by proposition 13 from the 70s, which means that the legislature cannot raise any sort of taxes in order to pay for all the spending mandated by other propositions (and demanded by lawmakers as a condition of voting for the budget — and you have to get 2/3 of both houses!) :-P Result: legislature engages in accounting trickery.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“- it’s running an aerial freeway through the city and talking about 100+ trains a day. That is an impact–big time. Everyone who reads this needs to think about what that will be like if it’s in their town.”
-If it was an ariel freeway, it would project noise 24/7/365 and be alot louder than the NEC between New York and New Jersey
“- the project makes no sense economically in a state that is bankrupt”
So $80 billion for turning 99 into an Interstate and uprading all the rest of the highway network when high gas prices are coming makes sense when no one will use expanded roads?
“- the ridership numbers are flawed, as proven by several studies”
You can play the UC Berkley ITS card all you want, the fact of the matter was the numbers were satisfactory, they would have preferred airline traveler assumptions, not what the rest of the world does for train travel.
“- the business plan is a joke, with cost estimates that are way low, given big projects like this around the world”
Got figures for Barcelona-Madrid, LGV-6, CTRL? Cost estimates are projected out and they are low unless PAMPA gets its gold plated tunnel it wants.
“- the ‘authority’ is full of pols who have repeatedly lied and shown gross incompetence in their ability to manage a project of this magnitude”
But so have other polls around the net such as the Gilroy pulse poll.
“- the so called context sensitive process was a complete farce, with the authority basically overriding everything that was proposed by the cities”
CSS can have some unwanted outcomes, especially factoring in the cost.
“- the jobs issue is vastly distorted, with any jobs coming 2-4 years”
If construction starts, then that would be false
Next falacies please.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Dear Political — You are the one operating on falacies:
- It will project noise and 100+ trains a day will hardly be like a walk in the woods. Get real.
- Who said anything about putting $80 b into 99? The state can’t afford either option, HSR or much else.
- The ridership numbers don’t pass the smell test. More people in Gilroy than get on in Boston? Come on.
- If you believe the thing can be built for $45 b when every large infrastucture project in the world is over budget, you are not paying attention.
- The word was ‘pols’, as in politicians. The Authority is full of incompetents.
- The Authority has used CSS as a method to placate the Peninsula. People are finally waking up to that.
- Yes, but what kind of jobs, how many, where? Digging holes? The real money will go to foreign contractors. If we want to spend money, spend it on what the state needs–schools, fixing our existing infrastructure, levees, etc. This is a luxury.
Peter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Tom,
“It will project noise and 100+ trains a day will hardly be like a walk in the woods. Get real.”
Have you ever been near Acela? Just to give you an example, my in-laws live in Prospect Park, just outside of Philadelphia. Their house is less than a block from the NEC. They have God knows how many Amtrak plus all the SEPTA trains go past their house all day. And here’s the amazing thing: THEY DON’T NOTICE THE TRAINS. I’m pretty certain Acela goes by at 125 mph at that location, but it’s only noticeable if you’re actually listening for it (I was, since i was curious about how loud it actually is). I asked my in-laws if the trains ever annoy them, and they said “Oh yes, the trains that go by in the middle of the night wake us up.” This would refer to the freight trains. In other words, THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW about the passenger trains going by all day long at 125 mph. How’s that for real?
“The Authority has used CSS as a method to placate the Peninsula. People are finally waking up to that.”
CSS does not work when the communities demand something that is not financially possible. Sorry, end of story.
“Who said anything about putting $80 b into 99? The state can’t afford either option, HSR or much else.”
If HSR is not built, that is what will have to happen in order to absorb the increased traffic between the cities in the CV.
“Yes, but what kind of jobs, how many, where? Digging holes? The real money will go to foreign contractors. If we want to spend money, spend it on what the state needs–schools, fixing our existing infrastructure, levees, etc. This is a luxury.”
Right, because California construction workers can pick and choose their jobs right now. Somehow the jobs of actually building something aren’t valuable?
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Peter — Acela doesn’t run at 125 mph anywhere. Max speed is around 80+. I suppose different people have different sensitivities to trains. They make noise.
Perhaps end of story. Problem is that the HSR Authority was completely disingenuous about CSS. Lost all trust with the communities.
Not sure the traffic will increase at anywhere near the levels projected. It’s not like there is a traffic jam on 5 to la these days.
Point is that if they want to build something and spend money, build something that is truly needed now. HRS is not needed now, while there are many other things that are.
Alan F Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Acela doesn’t run at 125 mph anywhere. Max speed is around 80+.”
Where do you come up with numbers like these? Tell me how the Acela gets from DC to Penn Station in NYC, a distance of 225 miles in in 2 hours 42 minutes (fastest current run time when it skips the stop at BWI airport), an average speed of around 83 mph if it does not go faster than 80+ mph with a number of stops. The Acela and Regionals are not as fast between DC and NYC – and especially to Boston – as I would like, but Amtrak can get the DC-NYC run times down to 2:15 which would be a good run time if enough funds are ever made available to replace the 100+ year old tunnels & bridges and upgrade & add tracks on the NEC.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Alan,
He’s talking about average speed, perhaps confused with some of the anti-rail propoganda that has come from the usual suspects who want us to pay homage to the auto, auto insurance, oil, and road lobbies forever.
Sadly, too many have been so conned, perhaps we can show at least some things said about us aren’t true at all.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
My error, DP. Yes, it’s average speed.
I’m not interested in paying homage to auto, auto insurance, oil and road lobbies. I have no support for all that. It’s all about priorities, maintaining communities, and focusing on the real needs of the state. HSR makes for a nice European style travel system that will largely serve the well to do. Acela has mainly business travelers on it; people who can afford to up $150-200 to go from DC to NY. The average person, if they take the train, take the equivalent of the local. Kind of like taking Southwest now to LA.
Spokker Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Yes, people who can’t afford Acela tend to take the Northeast Regional (which isn’t even that bad). Fact is, we don’t even have a Northeast Regional here. If I have to ride the cheaper local all-stops HSR service at non-peak hours, sign me up. Still better than flying. Still better than current train service, and it will still get you city center to city center (SF, SJ and LA, at least).
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 5:53 am
The Acela is a premium train. So is the AVE, used by some as a canonical piece of evidence for why CAHSR won’t get high ridership. If you look at trains priced for the general public, like the TGV, you’ll see that they get used by the general public.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:44 am
One of the issues with NOT building HSR now is that by the time the state “needs” it (in about 10 years, by which time it becomes operational), it will be too late to start building it. We may still decide to build it then, but at a much higher overall cost. While at the same time having had to spend a LOT of money upgrading and widening freeways to deal with the increased traffic.
The cost of doing nothing is NOT nothing.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
No, high ridership at Gilroy and Palmdale makes a fair amount of sense. Those stations would see heavy commuter traffic, leading to high ridership. Boston doesn’t: Amtrak is far too slow and infrequent to replace cars or commuter rail.
If you look at serious challenges to the ridership model, rather than stuff produced by GM lobbyists, then you’ll see that they’re largely quibbles. The Altamont/Pacheco issue is about which alignment can be expected to get 65 million riders a year and which can be expected to get 70.
And by the way, most of the money in HSR goes to local construction crews. Foreign consultants get their cut, but it’s only a small percentage of the cost.
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
What about buying the rolling stock, the steel and track material, the operating systems, etc. If you think it’s only foreign consultants, look again. We don’t have that expertise in the usa.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Hi again, Tom;
Actually, we have more than one would think. Civil engineering is civil engineering (although there are some commentors on this site who would say, quite strongly, that what has been made available in California was not the best, and not for inability to use a transit, either), track would almost certainly be American (after all, the freight roads need rail and bridge steel, too, and are often going in for concrete ties as well, which Amtrak also uses in the NEC), and it is quite possible the equipment will be built here due to “buy American” provisions. although the designs will be from abroad, and sadly, that’s where the profits will go, too.
It wasn’t always so.
http://www.progressivefix.com/how-america-led-and-lost-the-high-speed-rail-race
Tom Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
again, if you want to spend money on projects that are truly needed in CA, put it into schools, universities, local transit, levees, and a host of other infrastructure projects. We don’t need HSR. We need some/all of the other things.
I don’t know specifically what we have in the way of equipment, etc here. Fact is we don’t have HSR; other countries do; the companies that built their systems are not USA companies. Plus, the Authority has been wined and dined by foreign companies and countries looking for the deals. So I’m not impressed with what we bring to the table.
Spokker Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Education funding is not lacking in California. If anything, we should spend less on education by cutting down top-heavy administrations and focusing on teachers and curriculum. Or, every single administrator (assistant principals, for example) should have teaching credentials and teach a class or two.
Local transit is being invested in. See Measure R in Los Angeles for an example.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 5:51 am
LA Unified has about half the per student funding of New York. It shows in student performance.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“Local transit is being invested in. See Measure R in Los Angeles for an example.”
See how even transit-retarded Santo Clara County is trying to improve its light rail and is hoping to implement BRT throughout the county.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
You in California need the HSR line. You need it very badly. You’re just so used to South American levels of transportation quality that some of you don’t realize it yet. :-P
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
- Who said anything about putting $80 b into 99? The state can’t afford either option, HSR or much else.
Falacies or just quickly reading? “and uprading all the rest of the highway network”
- If you believe the thing can be built for $45 b when every large infrastucture project in the world is over budget, you are not paying attention.
What about the 10% that are not? Even in high school we learn not to use every when writing since it just seems like every.
- The Authority has used CSS as a method to placate the Peninsula. People are finally waking up to that.
That is just an opinion and not a fact. Take out the cost factor, tunnel and trench would have been pushed, input cost factor and things change.
- Yes, but what kind of jobs, how many, where? Digging holes? The real money will go to foreign contractors. If we want to spend money, spend it on what the state needs–schools, fixing our existing infrastructure, levees, etc. This is a luxury.
Your original issue was with jobs alone. If I am not mistaken, the grants for HSR have a Buy America clause. If this is a luxury, why is the rest of the world building or expanding HSR systems?
- The ridership numbers don’t pass the smell test. More people in Gilroy than get on in Boston? Come on.
Is that for Northeast Regional trains and Acela? Or one or the other? Also which numbers the 2005 numbers from the interactive map or the most recent?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Just to remove one of your errors, most major infrastructure projects in the world are now going under budget. A recession will do that. Recessions are the time to build major infrastructure projects.
Apparently even in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley the natives are as restless as in PAMPA:
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/17219/
StevieB Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Kern and Fresno counties are both working hard to bring HSR to the San Joaquin Valley. Kern working behind the scenes to enhance bid for rail facility
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
That is only one person’s view of the progress. If they are as restless, they would have already resulted to litigation.
synonymouse Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
That’s exactly the point the columnist makes. I too grow weary of the opposition’s inability to mobilize. Inertia and dawdling only serves the Prop 1A crowd.
PAMPA should quickly decide if trenches are what they want, as they will never get a four track subway. And accordingly they will have to put tax measures on the ballot to pay for the extra cost of trench over aerial. Assuming the funding legislation passes PAMPA will be in a position to force the truth out of PB-Palmdale. That truth is that the latter will refuse to trench out of an implacable commitment to brutalist aerials. At that point PAMPA can go on an all-out political offensive to get Bechtel replaced by another engineering consultant.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Where did the columnist of the two-bit Manteca Bulletin (who can’t even bother to proof-read his first sentence) talk about the opposition to HSR not mobilizing?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Bechtel will give any of their clients what they want. If they don’t want Brutalist, they won’t get Brutalist. The cost difference between Brutalist and something more in keeping with the ambiance of the Peninsula – something Craftsman-y like the DL&W grade separations through New Jersey or the Queens Blvd. viaduct – isn’t all that much. Or something Craftsman-y like this
http://www.menlopark.org/departments/eng/GradeSeparationSupplement.pdf
….anyway there’s Brutalist freeways scattered all over the Peninsula, even if they did go with Brutalist, it would blend right in.
synonymouse Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 11:47 am
PAMPA has to decide and soon whether it wants to support a repeal of Prop 1A or go with the very risky approach of trying to cut a deal with PB-Palmdale it can live with. IMHO the latter has no intention of budging on its insistence on aerials throughout the hsr. Bechtel’s corporate hubris is bottomless, which is I guess why it chooses to go to war with the UP.
There are some inexplicables out there. Like how come the vastly overrated political phenomenon known as the Tea Party hasn’t started a recall of Prop 1A. Another bizarro moment is the SF Chronicles’s refusal today to endorse Boxer. The Chron is Pelosi machine pravda so you have to question the unity of Jerry’s political kids. He will ascend to the governorship with ratings as low as Schwarzie’s and much lower than Gray Davis when he was elected. The CHSRA will be facing deep discord in Sac next year.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I’d go “Craftsman-y” myself–the DL&W people who provided the original inspiration had a fine sense of style that is too often lacking in physical infrastructure today. That, or a collection of steel girders, plates, and rivets that I would call “Industrial,” which has its own functional style, at least to my eye–but what do I know, I’m a steam fan!
A thought about some of the overpasses, particularly in Palo Alto–do they have to be full height to pass a large truck, or can they be lower, for autos and perhaps buses only? Might help mitigate some of the problems there, and save money to boot. Of course, the idea of HSR only to San Jose makes more sense all the time–you only have a 50-mile or so gap to fill, all of it at one end, and if the service takes off as so many think it will, it will likely shame the Peninsula into the upgrade. Main thing to accomodate will be common platform heights, and some way of hauling an HSR set over a line that may not be electrified at the time of the service opening.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Crafstman style is good, and not significantly more expensive than Brutalist. The DL&W did nice work.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
do they have to be full height to pass a large truck, or can they be lower, for autos and perhaps buses only?
Yes they have to be full height. Otherwise the truck drivers don’t pay attention to the signs warning them of the low overpass and drive the truck into the railroad bridge. Youtube is full of the videos. There’s even set, which I can’t find, of the bridge that is frequently whapped by trucks. Big signs, flashing lights, if I remember correctly even one of those things with pipes hanging down that makes a racket before the truck shears off the top of the trailer…. the warning barrier makes a big racket and the trucks merrily drive into the bridge.
There may be extraordinary circumstances where something less than 14’6″ would be allowed. The circumstances would have to be very extraordinary. There are no extraordinary circumstances on the Peninsula.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Or there’s the rail bridge in Berlin that just got taken out by a truck pulling a crane. They have to rebuild the whole bridge now.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Oh well, it was an idea. . .
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
If the road were protected by a toll gate and truck drivers were turned back at the toll gate, a shorter road might work. Nothing short of a human with authority is going to stop those truck drivers, though. (And I think much more stringent testing requirements for truck driving licenses are a good idea, a la the London taxi drivers’ exams, but THAT’s going to be hard to get anyone to approve.)
As Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton prepare for legal battle with CHSRA, they will not be joined by Burlingame. By a 3 to 2 vote the Burlingame City Council has decided not to join the law suit. Burlingame does not rule out the possibility of future legal action but for now about the most they will do for the Three Litigating Cities is to “hold their coats”.
Since Burlingame is not supporting the lawsuit, I would guess that no other Peninsula City will either. We may shortly find that three cities with a combined population of around 90,000 are out there all by themselves in attempting to kill a project that would enormously benefit all of California.
John Burrows Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 1:11 am
I probably should have said “Since Burlingame is not joining the lawsuit”