Speaker Perez to Host LA HSR Open House
The Speaker of the California Assembly, John A. Pérez, will be hosting a high speed rail “informational open house” Tuesday night, September 21, from 4:30 to 9PM at Metro headquarters next to Union Station in Los Angeles:
Please join John A. Pérez, Speaker of the Assembly, for an informational open house on high-speed rail in downtown Los Angeles to provide the community with project updates, information about proposed alternative alignments and station locations, design options and details of the environmental review process. This is a joint meeting with project teams for the three Southern California high-speed rail sections – Palmdale to Los Angeles, Los Angeles to Anaheim and Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire – that intersect in downtown Los Angeles.
This informational open house is an opportunity for residents and stakeholders to speak directly with members of the project team, ask questions and provide feedback.
The CHSRA is planning high-speed train service for travel between major metropolitan areas of California. Downtown Los Angeles’ Union Station will serve as Southern California’s high-speed rail hub, connecting Anaheim and San Diego to the south with points north including San Francisco and San Jose.
WHAT: Informational Open House on high-speed rail project sections in downtown Los Angeles
WHEN: Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Presentations will take place at 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
Attend the open house anytime between 4:30 p.m. and 9 p.m.WHERE: LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
1 Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
The presentations portion of the open house will be livestreamed at this link from 5:30 to 7:30 Tuesday evening.
While I can’t attend, I’m going to do my best to view the livestream feed. This should be quite an event, with three of the HSR planning teams in attendance (as they’d need to be, since Union Station is the hub of those three segments). For those of you who will be in attendance, anyone want to do a writeup for the blog?
OT: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=13150
I’m glad to see people are finally realizing that suing is going to do no good.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 10:27 am
PA = extortionists.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=16327
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=16950
It’s amazing how PA is pulling similar shenanigans with Stanford and its desire/need to upgrade its hospital while PA is essentially demanding Stanford pay for a new Police Station? Upgrades to PA infrastructure that have little to do with the project?
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 10:44 am
That’s actually quite par for the course for any new development.
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 11:07 am
The first thing the CHSRA needs to do is get back to freeway alignments and stop trying to seize the UP. The freight railroads are currently emboldened by a recovery in traffic and are prepared to go the mat with the likes of Kopp-Diridon and Palmdale. Perhaps the UP should just buy PB and undo the fix.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703305004575504180006530598.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
You have to wonder if the highway lobby, the trucking industry and the Teamsters are pulling strings at CHSRA-PB. They would greatly benefit from freight railroads hamstrung and hobbled by a money-losing but government protected hsr on top of them.
Once they are done at Bell the investigators should move over to Palmdale. In early November a quantum change could come to the CHSRA-PB bunker.
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 11:09 am
*snore*
Conspiracy theories gone wild. They should have a TV show on it.
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 11:12 am
Do you just pick a random thread for your diarrhea-of-the-fingers?
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 11:20 am
I look forward to the post-election “spinning” CHSRA uber alles or ready for a rethink?
Nathanael Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Suppose there is a “rethink”.
It will still go via the Tehachapis.
PeakVT Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The first thing the CHSRA needs to do is get back to freeway alignments and stop trying to seize the UP.
That’s a stupendously irrelevant point, not to mention untrue. On, the Peninsula, where Palo Alto is located, UP doesn’t own the right-of-way to begin with. Elsewhere the CHSRA is trying to place tracks adjacent to existing private railroad right-of-ways, which tend to follow the optimal paths between cities because they were laid out when the state was almost entirely undeveloped.
I’m having a hard time deciding which is worse: synonymouse’s nonsense or Morris Brown’s spam.
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 12:47 pm
The Tehachapi Loop is an “optimal path”?
The CHSRA simply thinks the UP is an easier target than Caltrans. We shall see.
Turns out that the CHSRA is not only not green but is anti-green in that it wants to screw with the freight rr’s which are more efficient than trucks on long haul. No doubt American truckers would like to see the freight railroads nationalized and converted to passenger, as in Europe, where trucks dominate freight hauling.
Nathanael Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
You’re an idiot. Still obsessing about the completely impossible (enigneering not possible) Tejon pass alignment. Now you’re lying; the CHRSA is not planning to take any freight rail capacity.
Oh, and you haven’t looked at how non-straight some of those freeway alignments actually are.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Maybe that’s the way to put to him. Instead of “UP’s ROW next to SR99″ just tell him they are using the freeway alignment, SR99 with minor diversions to make it straighter.
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
It’s actually SR 58.
Nathanael Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Heh. Yeah. Let’s start saying that. “Next to the SR 58 alignment, but straightened”.
The US 101 alignment in the Peninsula is actually worse than the Alma St. / El Camino Real alignment, even without the problems of overpasses and underpasses. Hence the use of the Alma St. / El Camino Real alignment… :-)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Out between Fresno and Bakersfield SR99 is nice and straight… because it more or less faloowls the railroad. Or SR58 or SR14 or SR82 take your pick. Population went were the transportation was, which meant the railroad. When they built the roads they built them where the people were/are3 which means where the railroad is…
PeakVT Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Pure BS. You don’t have any rational arguments, do you?
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
The nonsense is worse.
It’s like playing whack-a-mole. You bring up facts to counter one of his lunatic assertions, and get “countered” with a completely unrelated claim.
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
My point is simple and related. Highway interests don’t want the hsr anywhere near their domain any more than does the UP. So you have an unholy alliance of the road lobby and real estate developers. I wonder if anyone has come across long term Caltrans plans for highway tunnels thru Tejon. I suspect that’s where the problem lies if there indeed is only one good alignment.
Did you read the WSJ article – the freight rr’s know what’s going on. They have lawyers, lobbyists and pr flacks too.
The freight rr’s are actually being nice in trying to shoo off the CHSRA. They don’t want to broadcast it but the fact is that a busy railroad is a dangerous place, something the hsr should avoid. The railroads are the default carrier of the hazardous and toxic. Derailments occur, leaks occur, fires occur, explosions occur. How many pipelines are located adjacent to rail lines? And you nervous nellie over a base tunnel thru the Garlock fault? Trouble on a rail line is more inevitable than a tremor.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Let us overplay the risks when PTC systems have to be installed anyways. Recent accidents where PTC systems are installed happen closer to stations and at speeds within current FRA limits. History shows that there are systems to prevent accidents. Why UP think this would change I don’t know, my bet is they are stuck with everyone else in the 20th century mindset where train accident are frequent due to misread signals. Real-estate developers have a huge chance with HSR to develop in downtowns and reap huge profits if TOD is developed around current transit networks. The Bay Area has plenty of potential to convert the BART parking lots into TODs and in-fill a good chunk of the Freemont line.
If the freight railroads do not want CHSRA, why are CSX and BNSF negotiating with passenger train operators in good faith, including BNSF specifically with CHSRA? Where else are we supposed to build a rail tunnel, at an akward angle on the San Andreas plus Garlock?
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Yes, we should use Tejon. It is the route of the future not of the 19th century. The hsr is borderline feasible – it requires the fastest and most direct route. The rest of the system will almost certainly be slower than anticipated and the time savings of Tejon will be needed and most appreciated later. PB has to know this.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
It is funny to see a one man army cry foul in order to leave an area of 500,000 people out of the system over timesavings without realizing high-speed rail is meant to connect those major population centers. And when replying, easily overlooking everything else just to make the Tejon Pass point. That would require a 28 + mile tunnel, as long as Gotthard. That would make the project take longer, make it even more expensive, and leave a population center out of the picture that would benefit from HSR. I want to see a proposal like PB’s with all the graphs, details, etc on why Tejon is better to convince me. Anything less does not convince me right now.
Nathanael Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Syn: Addled views obsessing about a non-constructable Tejon Pass route. Provide the *extra* 50 billion dollars to cover the overruns on safely constructing a tunnel through a fault tripoint,
plus the extra redundant tunnels needed to keep it reliable, and we’ll talk Tejon.
StevieB Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The UC Irvine study recommended building parking for initial transit to train stations then refurbishing the structures as mixed use commercial and residential as public transit connections are made. Has anything simular been proposed for BART parking lots?
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
See my whack-a-mole comment up-thread.
thatbruce Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Trouble on a rail line is more inevitable than a tremor.
Here we go again.
Your base tunnel lies through the portion of the San Andreas fault which is bent and thus locked by the Garlock fault, and hasn’t moved since the magnitude 7.9 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake (technically in Parkfield). With previous historic large movements of this section of the San Andreas occuring every 140 to 160 years, good ‘ol Murphy has scheduled the next movement of that area for opening day of the completed HSR system.
During the 1857 quake, there was a displacement of up to 9m, or 30 feet, and an average of 4.5m. A similar amount of displacement is expected during the next movement of this section of the fault, along with landslides, collapse of buildings and other failures of assorted infrastructure, including the HSR system.
Rebuilding a damaged section of track which is above-ground is relatively cheap, compared with a similar length of damaged track below-ground, to say nothing of the tunnel itself which might well be damaged from a trainset coming to a stop by way of jumping the rails and rubbing against the wall at a significant speed.
In both cases (above vs below) after the expected significant earthquake, the surviving occupants of the train will need assistance. First responders can either fly into the area, or they can navigate ~10 miles of damaged tunnel which has a slight chance of having collapsed in the earthquake. Should any underground springs, or say Pyramid Lake start emptying into it, you’ve got even more of a problem. ( Since you’ve continually neglected to provide a description of how such a tunnel would be routed under Tejon Pass, I’ve put it following I-5 )
Your argument for a tunnel in the Tejon fails on both cost and safety grounds, as has been illustrated a number of times in this forum.
EXCEAR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
maybe in 30-50 years when the starter line (via Palmdale, Tehachapi, Altamont, and Fresno) is reaching or exceeding capacity, we can think about building an express route via Tejon and I-5. but till then, quit whining!
EXCEAR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I meant Pacheco not Altamont.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Wasn’t there a fairly big earthquake on or around Tehachapi back about 1952? I understand it did quite a number on the Southern Pacific, including collapsing serveral tunnels that had to be bypassed as a result.
I also understand the Northwestern Pacific went to Sausalito (sp?) and the waterfront there until an earthquake in the early 1960s collapsed a tunnel nearby. Business was marginal, of course, so the line was abandoned–but it still would make me uncomfortable in a tunnel in an earthquake zone, and there is still the fact that a tunnel has its own maintenace demands, especially as it get older.
PeakVT Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 10:50 pm
The tunnel on the line to Sausalito is near Mill Valley. Google Alton Hill Tunnel.
nobody important Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I have a message for synonymouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00
YesonHSR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Their hopeless ..nothing can get done in that town without it be debated and extored for money…their MO down there and of course HSR just HAS to build them a expopark at the rest of taxpayers expense because its ruining the town…hope this little game they play blows up in their nimby faces this time
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 5:06 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENgdM87Cqjg
YesonHSR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 5:15 pm
yawnn…again standard MO
YesonHSR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
sorry posting to Paloaltos lame threats
Maybe someone ask him about this development that is about to be built in the ROW of the HSR:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/09/michael_maltans_one_sante_fe_asking_for_hud_loan.php
RT
StevieB Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The alignment in the LA to Anaheim 5% plan, which are the latest I have seen, make a tight 20mph turn to the east after crossing the freeway south of Union Station, then curve south again along the river using a 25mph curve, to pass under the 1st Street bridge at the Los Angeles River avoiding the area of this development entirely.
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701142140_AppendixC.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701143718_AppendixD.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701145146_AppendixE.pdf
The latest plans have much wider curves for 35-40 mph.
StevieB Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Those are 2009 plans for the LAUS Elevated concept. The plans for the LAUS – Shared Track Same Level Concept carried forward at the July CAHSR meeting differ.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100717142455_LA-A%20Supplemental%20AA%20Appendix%20I.pdf
Peter Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Wow, ok, so they withdrew the Expanded Shared Track and Program Level Shared Track alternatives. I completely missed that. Mea culpa.
In the meantime, though, the Dedicated HST Alternative was carried forward, with 35 mph curves leaving an elevated LAUS.
This project is likely too large for this approach but- – -
Back in the 19th century, it was not too unusual for a railroad to have to deal with troublesome property owners. One technique that turned out to be useful was to build the railroad across the disputed property on a Sunday, when the court system would be closed and an injunction could not be obtained to prohibit the act. It was probably not unheard of to make sure the judge was out of town, too, as a form of insurance.
Come Monday morning, the case in court revolved around the undeniable existence of an operating railroad. Obviously, this was from a time when railroad construction could be much quicker, rougher, and dirtier than it would be today.
It may be noted that this technique was even used by railroads against each other, when a crossing of some sort was required by one road but the other wanted to refuse permission for a variety of reasons (including having to deal with a competitor). This even occured between main line railroads, one example being at a place called Shenandoah Junction, W.Va. (which is about 15 minutes from my house), in which the Shenandoah Valley Railroad laid a crossing (now a bridge) over the Baltimore & Ohio. Current companies are CSX and Norfolk Southern.
To my (extremely scanty) knowledge, this practice was never outlawed, nor overturned in court.
That would be interesting–in 24 hours, a new railroad down the Penninsula, with grade seperations; of course, it would require having in advance a huge stockpile of material, machines, people, and money, and a level and scale of planning and secrecy comparable to the Normandy Invasion in 1944!
Ah, but the chance to see the expressions on the faces of those hot-head NIMBYs–ho, ho, ho, that would be priceless!
Of course, if it were me, and I had the resources for such an act, it would be so nice to open the new service on Monday with a nod to the past in the form of a ceremonial excursion train with a steam engine. . .
What? What? Why’d you go and wake me up, I was having this great dream . . .
Alon Levy Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Another thing railroads did in the 19th century was lie about where they’d build the tracks, in order to profit from property speculation. Southern Pacific was especially egregious about it, and ended up participating in a gunfight with irate farmers; such practices are one of the major reasons Californians welcomed cars so eagerly.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 7:40 pm
They could get into gunfights with each other as well, as did the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (now in BNSF) and the Denver & Rio Grande (now part of UP) in the Royal Gorge of Colorado; this “railroad war” was the basis of a movie called “Denver & Rio Grande” from about 1950. Of course, it was rather loosely based on the real story (Hollywood, you know), but I think it’s still a fun flick, if rather noisy between the steam engines, the gunplay, the dynamite explosions, and a “cornfield meet” (head-on collison) staged with real trains!
You could say it’s a movie with real gusto!
YesonHSR Reply:
September 21st, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Its gone 180 at this point ..nothing can be built without a huge drama fight..look at this nonsense south of SanFrancisco..I have read on this board If I remember that the Authority as a railroad could have opted out of this CEQA review..They may have made a mistake ..as being show in this constant nonsense lawsuits
Speaker John Perez did not show up. His aide said he was called to an urgent budget meeting with the Governor. There was no new information not available on the CAHSR website in the group presentation. Engineers at the informal question session answered what they could and provided a few insights into how possible alignments came about.
Most concerns raised at this meeting pertained to the LA River and two state parks. The overwhelming preference from the crowd is for tunneling. That should be no surprise since the subject of cost was never raised.
StevieB Reply:
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 am
Several members of a coalition of parks and river advocates spoke. They sent a letter to the authority stating their position including the following text.
Spokker Reply:
September 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 am
Coming this Fall, Law & Order: Climate Justice.
StevieB Reply:
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
From a National Resources Defense Staffer Blog: