CHSRA Proposes Aerial Structure along I-10 in San Gabriel Valley
Although the Los Angeles-San Diego portion of the California HSR project won’t be built until the 2020s, planning work is still going ahead on it. In the San Gabriel Valley, where some local residents began flipping out once they heard about the project, the California High Speed Rail Authority is addressing concerns by proposing an aerial structure along Interstate 10:
The City Council on Monday discussed a California High-Speed Rail Authority proposal for an elevated structure within the I-10 Freeway median.
The proposed rail platform through Alhambra would stand at a minimum of 27 feet, but the actual height might be greater, depending on whether it needs to travel over other structures, rail officials said.
Alhambra officials believe the rail would be about 75 feet above ground by their estimates. But high-speed rail officials said it’s too early to tell how tall the structure will be.
“We have stressed to Alhambra and all San Gabriel Valley cities that the aerial alignment is not final and at this very early stage in the environmental process there are many details still yet to be pinned down,” Rachel Wall, spokeswoman for the California High-Speed Rail, said in an email.
This is being proposed because other alignments, along existing railways or along the side of Interstate 10 or the 60 freeway, were vehemently opposed in preliminary meetings held in Alhambra in 2010. With this feedback in mind, the CHSRA went back to look at options that didn’t impact existing homes, and sensible came up with an aerial structure.
Alhambra’s current leaders, however, appear to not really understand the importance of the HSR project, and seem in a “we’re going to oppose whatever you give us” mood:
Alhambra council members have gone on record opposing any high-speed rail route on surface streets through the city, but members also oppose the elevated rail concept for the I-10 median.
“Anything that moves traffic around faster is fine with us…It’s just a matter of how it comes,” said Mayor Gary Yamauchi. Alhambra “would probably be more suitable for a trench or tunnel than a huge structure that would go up 74 feet above ground and be 50 to 60 feet wide.”
Yeah, that’s not happening. If cities like Burlingame, which have been engaged in high-profile lobbying for a trench or tunnel for years now, aren’t going to have one given to them (although if they want to help fund it, it would probably happen), then Alhambra isn’t going to get one either.
There’s some good maps and information at the site of an Alhambra NIMBY, Alhambra123, who also reports that the Authority may postpone planning on the LA-SD segment in order to conserve funds for planning on the Phase I route from SF to LA:
The Rail Authority likely will put further study on hold until funding becomes available. The state budget does not include funding for further design work, supplemental alternatives analysis, or the EIR/EIS process.
This might be for the best. Alhambra and the San Gabriel Valley appear to need more time to realize their need for high speed rail. As gas prices keep rising, as gridlock on Interstate 10 and the 60 freeway worsens, and as housing values begin plummeting because of those problems (while at the same time density begins pushing its way eastward from downtown LA), Alhambra residents will come to their senses on this, and momentum for a possible El Monte station will increase markedly.
In addition, by 2020 we should have high speed trains running from SF to LA. Once that happens, the discussion will change entirely, as people will start clamoring for a station. Instead of complaining about the route, Alhambra will start demanding a station. And the complaints of the city council in 2010 and 2011 will be seen as quaint.
Maybe if the long distance HSR network was supported by a more fine-grained network of regional express lines along those corridors, in which even smaller cities could get stations, then some nimbys might become more yimbys (sort of like Caltrain). What advantage are these towns getting from HSR?
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
You mean other than less people driving on the freeways they try to use to get places because those people are on trains, instead?
ant6n Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Ya.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Given rising congestion, I’d say that’s enough.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
high speed rail isn’t being built in a bubble.
both ARTIC and Transbay Terminal will have high speed rail and local, regional transit connections. Los Angeles, San Gabriel Valley to Ontario HSR should be built with local transit connections in mind as well.
Donk Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
They do supposedly have local transit connections in mind. By the time they build that leg of the HSR system the Gold Line to Ontario Airport should be done. So that station will provide access to the western SGV and Pasadena. They will probably eventually end up extending Gold Line the line further east or south.
Donk Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
For anyone not familiar with the Foothill Gold Line extension here is a map
http://www.metrogoldline.org/
Elizabeth Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
The analysis did by the ridership consultants on freeway traffic in the Bay Area, even with best case ridership numbers, didn’t show any noticeable improvement. Traffic on the peninsula was actually supposed to get marginally worse. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823160/Travel-Condition-Forecast-Bay-Area
I haven’t seen numbers for the grapevine where you might expect to see more improvement, but for the bay area and LA, the local traffic numbers account for the vast majority of car trips.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 10:28 am
But the Bay Area and LA have the “more fine-grained network of regional express lines along those corridors”, so they are obviously not the areas that the question is referring to.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
An HSR station can’t be a patch of asphalt and a bus shelter by the side of the tracks. In addition to the high platforms you need miles of station siding so the train that is stopping has enough track to decelerate on and enough track to accelerate on without being in the way of the trains that don’t stop.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
the situation is different in the San Gabriel Valley than on the Peninsula. You could put those regional trains on the existing Metrolink tracks and have Cal HSR run on the I-10 corridor.
Cal HSR and Metrolink have to meet up someplace, but they wouldn’t have to share the same ROW. Cal HSR will likely go to Ontario airport, so perhaps an extension of the Gold Line or a branch of the Metrolink San Bernardino Line can be built.
Aaron Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
To be fair, it’s going to be hard to sell that point in the SGV. Most people don’t drive from DTLA to San Diego via the 10, they take the 5 straight down, so I’m not personally sure that there’s going to be direct relief on congestion on the roads that people in the SGV care about. The Ontario Airport access project doesn’t help people in the SGV; after all, SGV residents can already get there, although there will be a secondary effect of drawing more airlines to Ontario, allowing for more destinations and probably lower prices, but could be a double-edged sword if there is a constituency there against ONT expansion in the same way that Burbank Airport will never, ever, ever expand. I doubt that’s the case, though, as my memory is that ONT has a whole lot more room to expand operations on site, whereas Burbank is one of the oldest airports in the country and is very much shoehorned into a residential community. (If you were going to choose to build an airport in LA today, you’d never build Burbank).
I don’t like having to say this, but there isn’t a massive amount of benefit to be realized for them. The primary benefit will be the benefit anyone along the corridor will get – faster access to San Francisco and Central Valley cities – they’re too close to LA to merit taking HSR into DTLA, unless HSR decides to run quasi-commuter service the way that Amtrak does in conjunction with Metrolink.
But as I said in a prior comment, I don’t think that the opposition will be as entrenched as it is in the Peninsula since the SGV is clamoring for other forms of rail transit; there is definitely room to win “hearts and minds” there in a way that has proven more challenging in the Peninsula. Alhambra also isn’t exactly the heart of the SGV – unless they can drag the other cities along with them, their voice alone isn’t going to be enough to do anything other than generate heat. Having said that, though, bad traffic is a favorite topic for the local news, and CAHSR needs to make certain that it doesn’t lose control of the narrative early on.
I hate to say it, but local news stations enjoy creating controversy, and CAHSR would be well-advised to do its very best to get in front of that risk. If HSR supporters allow a vacuum to develop, it’s not difficult to see how a few noisy locals and the ideologues at USC could quickly fill said vacuum; it’d get even noisier if the Los Angeles-based Bus Riders’ Union decided to use this as a way to attract attention to their sensationalism. LA is a very different community than SF is – there are a number of potential opponents, but asides from the car-centric “research” centers at USC, I don’t think there are a large number of currently entrenched opponents. If CAHSR gets on the ground early and fills that vacuum, I don’t see this devolving into the metaphorical screaming match that it’s become in the Peninsula.
Matthew Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
It will still be faster for them to take HSR to San Diego. Travel time on the CAHSR webpage is listed at 1:18 from LAUS to San Diego. It will also be faster for them to get to San Francisco, the Central Valley, and Sacramento.
The I-710 freeway extension project (which has been argued about for ages) has gotten a lot of NIMBYs started up in the San Gabriel Valley. And they will see every transportation project through the lens of the 710 freeway.
However, Ant6n does make a good point. If Metrolink could be upgraded with more trains, faster trains, electrification, more frequent service, better service, the San Gabriel Valley would appreciate the Cal HSR project more.
Knowing that there are fewer cars headed for LAX or Ontario airports might be nice, but some concrete improvement to local transit would help a great deal more.
Aaron Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
And they will see every transportation project through the lens of the 710 freeway.
Definitely agree. The SGV isn’t the Peninsula. There are many people there who have very legitimately strong opinions against the 710, people whose minds can be changed if they can be convinced that HSR’s scope won’t resemble the 710. There is definitely a drive for increased transit in the SGV, and many people are pushing for the (probably ill-advised) extension of the Metro Gold Line all the way east. (Transit is a good idea, but I’m not yet convinced that extending an LRT line to be far longer than many heavy rail commuter lines is the way to do things, there’s a legitimate question as to whether or not the far SGV would need the kind of headways that Pasadena-Union Station-East LA (or Long Beach) necessitate, although I suppose it works in Tokyo, with lines like the Tokyu Meguro line transitioning to operation as the Namboku and Mita subways in Minato Ward).
But my point isn’t to argue about that but to instead say that there is definitely local support for rail transit, CAHSR just has to sing in the right key so as to distinguish themselves from the 710 advocates.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Just about EVERY subway line in Tokyo continues on out into the suburbs as a commuter train line. The exceptions are the Ginza and Marunouchi lines; that’s because they are third-rail.
Personally, I think that’s precisely the role that the Gold Line extension can take. (And you could do the same thing with BART/ Caltrain, if BART wasn’t broad gauge.)
The SGV needs proof that they will get regional rail as well as Cal HSR speeding through. They don’t all need the same ROW, but they should link together.
schrodinger Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
I’m quite curious as to how the Japanese got their high speed lines built through cities. I read somewhere that they used the routes of existing commuter lines. Presumably they shut down the commuter service and replaced it with high speed track. Finding routes that were straight enough must have been a problem.
San Gabriel Valley has a lot of freight and there look to be big problems down there for HSR. What they really need to do is integrate and rebuild the whole network to move freight, commuter and long distance passenger trains without resorting to expensive viaducts.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Usually, they use existing commuter lines. Sometimes, they use greenfield routes – often involving tunnels, or in the case of the Tohoku Shinkansen a commuter line on the same ROW for mitigation. In some cases they avoid the built-up area and build the station nearby, especially when the usual station is only a terminal. (Unlike France, Japan avoids splitting lines to many destinations.)
Only in one case did Japan shut down commuter service to make room for HSR: express commuter services from the north of Tokyo were reduced to make room at for terminal tracks for the Tokaido Shinkansen, and when JR East extended the Tohoku Shinkansen from Ueno to Tokyo, it had to completely sever the two express commuter tracks south of Ueno. The four local tracks remain, but are the most overcrowded segment in Japan, so JR East is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the express tracks as an aerial over an aerial.
The cost of this approach is that HSR construction in Japan is more expensive than in Europe. However, even things other than HSR cost more in Japan – e.g. subway construction costs are toward the high end of the European range – so it is only in part a problem of Japan’s preference for urban construction.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:05 am
of course, the real test is in the performance.
the most crowded subway I have ever been on was in Japan; nowhere else have I experienced more rail lines going more places and at more convenient times than in Japan. I don’t know how they do it.
London can match Tokyo line for line for efficient subway service, but Japan in general has better service, especially out to the suburbs and beyond. And I love British trains.
of course, this is all personal anecdote, but the farebox receipts for public and private railways bear out the boast.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:50 am
Shanghai’s Line 1 has to be as crowded as anything in Japan; I’d guess it has about twice as many people per square meter of train as New York. A few months after I visited the city started to hire pushers at the overcrowded central transfer station.
I don’t have personal experience here, but by Japanese standards the London Underground isn’t great. It has, what, one third the ridership of Tokyo Metro plus Toei? And it charges usurious fares and still can’t fund itself out of the farebox.
Ken Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 11:07 am
On a recent trip to Japan, I saw a documentary on how Tokyo is able to maintain an efficient public transportation system that is on time.
The answer was simple: they have a centralized command control center similar to NASA and our air traffic control system. There’s a big room with a huge screen showing how people move on a constant basis. They collect data from every tap in and tap out, what percentages of riders at which time of day go from which station to which station, etc. etc. All these data are then analyzed to how to effectively run normal, limited, and express services on the same track.
You don’t see that level of centralized command here in the US. There’s no data collecting of how people travel or what times the freight train run.
joe Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
US is different.
US air traffic, doesn’t have central air traffic control. Planes move from FAA region to region along travel corridors and are handed off. Each region has it’s way of implementing the rules, not uniform.
Space Station has the Mission Control at Johnson, Shuttle a different mission control system.
Our next air transportation system will improve capacity but it’s probably going to give more authority to the aircraft – and more data so they can make autonomous decisions to maintain separation – maybe free flight.
The point is we are not centrally controlled. The efficient operation of HSR and local systems isn’t going to be centrally controlled either. It’s going to be distributed with more authority and information pushed down to the individual train level with some sort of overall monitoring and safety enforced.
A system needs to be resilient and operate with levels of safety and control.
My opinion/
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 12:50 am
why wouldn’t we centralize HSR operations? so the operator in Fresno can fail to tell the operator in Bakersfield when and if there’s a problem?
in other words, why ignore a system that works elsewhere?
/my opinion
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:04 am
Trains benefit from centralization. Period. I think this is why certain “libertarians” don’t like them.
dfb Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Yes, upgrading Metrolink would provide benefit to the SGV. Unfortunately, the current CHSRA plans would force Metrolink off its current right of way in the center of the I-10 freeway. They actually think UP would consider accommodating Metrolink on a permanent basis. It does not help that the San Bernardino Metrolink line that uses the 10 freeway is the most popular line, with about 12,000 passengers per day.
For the record, Alhambra is highly supportive of the 710 extension to Pasadena. It bears the brunt of the failure of Caltrans to complete the freeway. All that traffic headed for Pasadena dumps off into its city streets.
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
UP has its own corridor near I-10 – the freeway track is exclusive to Metrolink, and I’m pretty sure that most if not all of the San Bernardino line right-of-way is publicly owned.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:51 am
The UP owned Alhambra line cuts through Alhambra, San Gabriel, El Monte, and other cities to the east. The freeway track is owned by Metro (L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority). It is used primarily by Metrolink but is also used for freight from time to time. Freight has no ownership stake in the track but uses it with permission when necessary to relieve freight congestion, when trains are broken down on the Alhambra line, or when UP needs to perform maintenance on its tracks. Not all of the San Bernardino line is publicly owned. My understanding is that portions through El Monte and Covina are owned by UP but Metro owns an easement for trackage rights.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
On top of the Alhambra line and the I-10 route, Union Pacific also has the more southerly route through Commerce. The Commerce route is more directly connected with the Alameda Corridor and they have a giant intermodal yard on that route. UP isn’t hurting for tracks in the Los Angeles area.
Johnathan Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
The 710 freeway tunnel is expected to cost $4 billion, simply because South Pasadena NIMBYs have a voice at the table. I think this is why Alhambra residents find the project outrageous.
Metrolink and freeway buses fail to serve Alhambra well, yet both Gold Line extensions appear to follow the 210 and the 60 routes. Alhambra residents would be supportive if the HSR aerial option can extend the metro red line to El Monte Station and 710 freeway at-grade option are all built together.
My vote would be to ban the 710 freeway construction, upgrade the Metrolink tracks for better service, and HSR on El Monte Busway.
Victor Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 7:43 am
A ban on construction of the 710 extension isn’t going to happen Johnathan, The lawsuits are all over with. Truck traffic from the Port of LA needs the 710 to be completed and to get that traffic off of City streets, As the 710 is a major Semi Truck route, Which for a number of years I experienced first hand. You can’t put truck traffic on HSR or on Metro anything, It just isn’t possible.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Truck traffic will not go through the 710 tunnel. I attended a transportation forum last weekend in Pasadena. All of the panelists, including Metro board members, were in agreement that a surface route is dead in the water. They seemed to agree that trucks would not use the tunnel. One of Parsons’ lead engineers/managers on the project flat out said that trucks are not appropriate for a 710 tunnel and added that the 710 is a relic of a bygone era that needs to include transit if/when built.
We are spending billions on the Alameda Corridor project to move goods from the ports and will spend billions more to increase rail capacity over the next few decades as fuel costs increase and it makes more sense to use rail than trucks.
btw: scoping for the 710 begins next month.
Boy, I’d love to think that “by 2020 we should have high speed trains running from SF to LA,” but I just can’t see how that’s going to happen unless DC turns upside-down and starts raining money on CHSRA. As I understand it, the 2020 date for SF-LA service is based on a CHSRA timeline that assumes that the project isn’t held up by funding, lawsuits, or political meddling.
joe Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
$5.00 a gallon gasoline is a powerful motivator.
Um, why not remove the middle lanes and median from the overly-wide I-10? No aerial, no tunnel, no private property takings.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Ohh, I see, it’s being used for that goofy, underperforming busway.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Gah, no, there’s *still* enough room, for Metrolink, the busway, HSR, and a full four-lane superhighway WITH entrance and exit lanes How wide IS that monstrosity?
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
no need to shove everything down the same pipe. Metrolink might want to expand. And maybe the Red Line. (maybe). And don’t underestimate the busway.
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Whenever I’m in socal, after all these years, I remain in complete awe of the massive size and scope of the freeway network. Surely it is with handiwork of the gods! And never do I feel more like a californian then when Im on one of those freeways with the top down, be it going fast, or going nowhere.
tony d. Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
The LA freeways make me sick because they’re so vast and complete. San Jose’s, Gilroy’s primary connector to
I-5: a two-lane farm road known as Pacheco Pass Hwy/152. But its OK; SoCal has 12-lane freeways!
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
The romans would love LA.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
the Romans built stuff to last and they pioneered techniques in concrete. They built viaducts, too.
What’s your point?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Romans, ancient or contemporary would hate LA. Rome was and is very walkable. LA isn’t.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
I’ll concede the modern Romans, but how do you know ancient Romans would hate Los Angeles?
Walkability or chariotablity isn’t the only parameter. Hey, we have Trojans here! And a coliseum! And a mediterranean climate!
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
also: http://www.italianlosangeles.org/index.php?1&221
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Actually, you are probably thinking of Orange County.
Donk Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Yeah like the Bay Area is that much better. You guys have “hella” concrete and sprawl and mini-malls also. Plus we are no longer building freeways, and in 10 years we are going to have a better transit system then you. Enjoy your dysfunctional BART/Caltrain connection, your VTA system, your Oakland Airtrain, and your freeway median stations. If you want to bag on someone, bag on OC – they are the ones still building freeways, worshipping Rick Warren, and listening to Limbaugh.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Going fast? When do you drive in LA, 3 am?
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
yes, and we’re catching up with the Bay Area in transit, too, mwuah ha ha ha.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
and our subway is standard gauge.
thatbruce Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
And a single-track Metrolink line; FRA trains down the middle of the freeway.
Prior to 2009/2010, the Busway was separated from general traffic by a lane-width of shoulder; this has now been converted into another general traffic lane in each direction. This makes converting the existing single track to double track a greater exercise in political will, assuming any politicians remember the promises made during planning and construction about a possible future conversion of the Busway (back) to rail.
By what criteria would you say that the Busway is underperforming? It generally flows when the general traffic does, even with the added burden of being a 3+ carpool lane during peak hours (instead of 2+).
Mind you, running high-speed trains down that particular median implies some hefty speed restrictions at either end.
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:09 am
Underperforming by a transit standard. For that amount of money, you could have gotten a decent rail line which would have been more popular.
thatbruce Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 10:25 am
When the El Monte Busway was planned and constructed, it was replacing (augmenting, reusing, etc) the Pacific Electric tracks which I-10 was originally built around. Certainly, there could have been an effort at the time to cooperate with SP to run a train shuttle service from one end of the Busway to the other (El Monte busway station, note PE tracks in lower right), possibly even restoring the double tracks that were there in PE days, but that wasn’t the way that the political winds were blowing at the time.
Actually, its quite fortunate that SP held onto that bit of former PE trackage through the construction of the freeway and Busway (unlike similar trackage in the center of CA-101), as otherwise there wouldn’t be the option of running Metrolink or CAHSR along it.
bixnix Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The busway (I believe they’re 3+ people, actually) lanes on the I-10 are set to become High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes next year, I believe.
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:09 am
Combine this with what thatbruce said, and we see that busway funding is simply stealth funding for general-purpose lanes. I expect a campaign to remove the toll to come next.
synonymouse Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 11:24 am
HOV lanes, bus lanes, BRT’s, and rubber-tired people movers, have always been ruses of the highway lobby. Hark back to the Westinghouse “Skybus” of ca. 1970, which was an attempt to kill off what was left of the Pittsburgh Railways streetcar network, which fortunately survived and became the base of the current light railway system.
bixnix Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I’ll disagree with that, Nathanael. Freeways (and transit in general) in the LA area are chronically short of money to maintain them. Once the money starts flowing in from the HOT lanes, it will be hard for Metro to give up that revenue stream. That has been one thing that the MTA has prioritized – it still owns the land above some of the subway stations, for example. Maybe somebody will lobby to remove the tolls, but it won’t go anywhere.
dfb Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
That section of the I-10 freeway is one of the busiest freeway corridors in the nation. It has six lanes in each direction (soon to be seven) as well as a single track Metrolink commuter rail. One lane is a bus/carpool lane that requires 3+ people in the vehicle. A second is about to open as a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane, as part of a congestion pricing study.
The proposal would use the Metrolink right of way, displacing Metrolink.
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Since there is effectively only one (maybe two) Metrolink stops along that line and speeds are going to be limited anyway, it is quite logical for Metrolink to share tracks with HSR along that segment. That doesn’t mean it’s what they’re planning though.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
There’s no need to share the tracks. Metrolink shouldn’t have to end up like Caltrain, fighting for a limited number of tracks. If anything, Metrolink needs to upgrade its own tracks.
The aerial will do just fine. There’s still plenty of time to build support.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:56 am
You misunderstand. CHRSA’s current plans do not include sharing tracks with Metrolink. The Metrolink right of way is 20 feet wide. Apparently, there is not enough space for an elevated structure and to run Metrolink trains.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 1:01 am
Obviously, something will have to go if elevated tracks are built over the freeway. I do not see why that would have to be Metrolink. A lane of traffic could be eliminated. The busway could be eliminated if replaced with something better, such as expanded Metrolink.
Build the aerial above, rebuild Metrolink below, take some from the autos. Sounds fair to me.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 1:06 am
Because Metro is cooperating, Caltrans is not. ;-)
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 1:12 am
No obstacle is indefeatable. Caltrans is a state agency; so is Cal HSR. Have the two agencies hash it out.
And if you care about Metrolink, complain to Caltrans.
For goodness sake, I-10 is huge. Eliminate the HOT/ HOV lanes if they have to, move Metrolink if they have to. Some things go, some things stay. Metrolink should be on the “keep” list.
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:12 am
Seriously, SIX lanes in each direction? Plus a track?
Make that two tracks in each direction and you can still have four lanes in each direction. Hell, make one of those a bus lane or HOT lane if you like.
There is no function to expressways with more than three lanes in each direction. The extra lanes don’t do any good whatsoever.
Joey Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Do read. I of all people am aware that what makes sense and what the CHSRA is planning are two different, if not mutually exclusive things.
Look for high speed rail to be specifically called out in the State of the Union:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26obama-text.html?pagewanted=5
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Boxer and Mica are having quite a love fest in the after show interviews and high speed rail is part of that discussion.
The speech was great. Renewed my support for the president, and my faith in the country.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Hands down the best president ever for high-speed rail or that for that matter any kind of passenger rail renew. You’ll see a renewed attack on him and his policies by the Reason Cato trolls and other types that no one should have any choice outside of their oil powered cars. What high-speed rail supporters need to do is to make sure this man is reelected in 2012 and I think he will be if all the same people that came out in 2008 show up instead of irresponsibly staying home as in last November and letting 42% of the voters elect a Congress.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
BTW I dont plan to wait 25years just 8more and we Californians will be running a beautiful high speed rail train between Los Angeles and San Francisco!!.. And that’s the very thing why they’re trying to stop this project because we will have it… and their jealous we actually voted a bond for it and want to move forward!!!
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
If the left hadn’t stayed home in november we wouldn’t have the republicans gloating about their big majority win mandate blah blah blah. What makes me sick, is that (except for the tea party dumbasses who can’t even grunt in complete sentences) regular garden variety republicans know damn well the only reason the won is because no one showed up at the polls but they gloat over their meaningless victory anyway. Its pretty sad. Its sort of like braggin about passing a test when you know you copied the answers off someone elses paper. The have no shame and no dignity and no self respect whatsover and all they ever do is whine about spending money. I pity the woman who are married to them. They probably have to shop in secret.
wu ming Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
the left didn;t stay home in california last november, it’s a strictly east-of-the-sierras problem.
Roger Christensen Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
High speed rail references got applause, tepid perhaps, but applause just the same! The Boxer Mica Date was my fave.
Dan S. Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Agreed. HSR supporters are incredibly fortunate to have Obama in the White House. I hope you’re right about 2012, and suspect that you are. I think he’s playing a really conservative playbook for his first 4 years with the goal of winning a second 4 years. I hope it works, because he’s sacrificing the full power of the bully pulpit at the moment with his consensus-building and middle-running agenda. Well, support for HSR notwithstanding, which really couldn’t be much more, IMHO.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 10:42 am
He definitely wins my vote being ranked among the top three Republican Presidents ever.
Didn’t like the paving the way for deforming Social Security and the bogus deficit hysteria, but you got to expect that from a Republican President.
“without the pat-down” seems to be getting good reception.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
HSR isn’t required to get rid of the pat-downs. As commander-in-chief, the President can simply issue an executive order.
Moscow, BTW, was one of the first airports to receive full-body scanners. Lot of good it did too.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:53 am
I think it was on the pre screening side..which if your willing to blow yourself up can happen anywhere
tjon Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
That disconcertingly reminds me of Napolitano’s request (statement?) that the DHS look into security for rail and subways… amongst other public areas.
joe Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Airport pat-downs would hurt HSR and are unnecessary. Obama’s understanding makes sense and is commensurate to the risk.
If some nut put a small bomb in his pants, it would not take out a HSR train. A at plane at 35K ft, if a hole were blown, would depressurize. Very different risks.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
It’s probably too much to assume, but I wonder if Obama’s comments on this, his possible understanding of security in a rail environment, comes from him being a regular rider on Chicago’s El system back when he was just a lawyer and community organizer?
I used to live in Alhambra and all of a sudden I can relate to their problem. Intellectually, they probably are supportive about high speed rail and could see the benefits for Angelenos and Californians. However, as currently proposed, all Alhambra gets is another rail line through their city without any direct benefit…not even a station. Perhaps, a development fund dedicated to cities directly affected can ease opposition.
RailwayAge latest copy, some stuff on transit, passenger, and HSR in this issue.
Victor Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Alstom has an ad there on pg 19 touting a 225Mph AGV, Sounds like a hint to Me, Now if only they’d provide funding for the rest of the system here in California.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Whatever its merits, the AGV is 20% more expensive than the competition and Alstom’s obsession with safety is less and less a sales argument.
Even SNCF-owned Eurostar opted for cheaper Siemens trains.
Alstom could find a way to California through China’s CNR with whom they have just signed a partnership. Then you might have 2 Chinese bids: CSR/GE and CNR/Alstom.
GE is a much bigger name than Alstom in the US. So, Alstom’s chances are very slim.
Presentation slides from the January 14th HSR seminar put on by the Japanese are posted:
http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/2010/11/hsrla.php
Synonymouse was right: more stilt-a-rail, brought to you by the people who strongly prefer to build reinforced concrete bents and box beam viaducts. The taller the merrier!
jimsf Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
stilt-a-rail, tilt-a-whirl, as long as its fast.
schrodinger Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
It won’t go anywhere if it is too expensive to build.
Rail track across flat empty land isn’t that expensive to build. It is the bridges, grade separations and tunnels which run up the cost.
The sad thing is that there is almost enough money in the inital budget to get from Sacramento to Bakerfield IF you strip the project down to the essentials. With French construction costs $7 billion would do the trick, and that would give America our first real high speed line. You’d need to stay out of the cities, keep the stations simple and have sane regulations.
James Fujita Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Avoid the cities and you’re missing the whole point. Faster trains to nowhere. Longer drives for the passengers. Bigger parking lots at the stations. More construction for local rail projects to meet the train out in the greenfields.
The aerial won’t kill Fresno and the San Gabriel Valley will survive as well. And we can afford to build a better HSR, rather than build cheap and pay for it, literally, down the road.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:31 am
French HSR has to avoid built-up areas because there is no other solution, whatever the cost. A route like the one planned for California would have been killed in the preliminary “public debate” phase. Many projects like highways or high-tension lines don’t make it through that phase.
TGVs are not trains to nowhere. You have dedicated high-speed trunk lines that stays away from cities, with switches to conventional lines.
I’ll take the example of TGV-Med (Paris-Lyon-Avignon-Marseille, 474 miles).
Paris-Marseille is non-stop and never gets near any built-up area except when it runs on conventional tracks near Paris or Marseille. If you want to go to Lyon, you take a Paris-Lyon train, because Paris-Marseille by-passes Lyon.
Using conventional lines for high-speed trains is certainly easier in France. Regional lines are all electrified, and most are grade-separated and allow speeds of 110mph or higher.
As for greenfield stations, there are very few of them and are the result of a judgment of Solomon. When two small cities whose size didn’t justify having a station competed against each other, the SNCF settled the issue by building one in between.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“because there is no other solution”
California has found a solution. build aerials. it will work for Fresno, it can work for Alhambra.
obviously, you can’t switch HSR to conventional rail because the owner of the conventional tracks doesn’t like passenger trains, either conventional or high-speed.
I-5 won’t work, that would completely avoid all of the cities in the Central Valley. and if you build bypasses around Fresno that’s all that will ever get built. what use does UP have for electrification?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
There’s nothing wrong with considering a Shin-Fresno station, tangent to the urban area at the shortest distance practically feasible without aerials. It might even be worth it – it would be less than 10 km from Fresno, which is a shorter distance than many Amtrak stations, like Buffalo-Depew.
On the other hand, Shin-Bakersfield would be useless – Bakersfield sprawls too much to the west, forcing such a station to be 20-30 km from the center of the city.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
I’m not familiar with Buffalo-Depew; I’ve never lived in New York.
So who gets to pay for the light rail line to take people 10 km to Shin-Fresno?
Caelestor Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
For Fresno, people can drive the 10 minutes and park there, just like what many do at SFO. Add a taxi and downtown bus service, and everything’s set.
James Fujita Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
so… Cal HSR saves money by not building through downtown Fresno and Fresno gets…. a larger parking lot?
c’mon, Fresno deserves better than that. how about some compensation? they haven’t been all NIMBY like some communities; they know what HSR will bring.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 2:41 am
LRT isn’t needed – a frequent bus should be enough.
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
build the station downtown, and some people would be able to walk to where they are staying, be it a hotel or a downtown loft apartment.
build the station in an unnecessary, inconvenient, undesired greenfield outside the city, and now everybody gets to ride the bus. or drive.
the high-speed rail authority will ultimately decide the route, they deserve at least some of the credit or the blame for the effects this will have on a community.
Joey Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
James – of course downtown stations are superior, but the question is if it’s worth the cost of a 12 mile viaduct, various noise mitigation, and possibly limited speeds anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
There’s always the option of not building either but building both. Take the money saved by not building miles and miles of viaduct through downtown Fresno and build cheap bypass tracks outside of town. Let the trains stopping in Fresno use the current tracks or the UP tracks.
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
right. because when you’re building a multi-billion dollar project which could improve the lives of millions, the cost of doing it right, doing it smart must always take a back seat to doing it cheaply and cutting corners.
forget San Francisco. let’s build this sucker to San Jose, full stop. and buses are good enough on the south end, too, right?
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I was replying to Joey, but it works for Adirondacker, too.
San Jose to Bakersfield! shuttle buses for everyone!
and Union Pacific will be DELIGHTED to let Cal HSR drag into town on its conventional tracks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
The local train would come into Fresno’s downtown station. The trains not stopping in Fresno. ther’e will be a few, would zip past Fresno on it’s outskirts. Both would be using cheap at grade tracks. MIght work for Bakersfield too. Since the trains stopping in Bakersfield ( or Fresno ) would be slowing down anyway it mitigates the noise problems. You only need two tracks through town, not four.
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
which tracks? Union Pacific’s non-electric, passenger-unfriendly tracks? get real.
and Santa Fe has a narrow route into Fresno, especially from the north.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Building both options is expensive. Some of the infrastructure, for example the tracks, has to be duplicated, because sharing tracks with freight even on the local tracks would kill reliability.
I should clarify that overall, I think Fresno is a better solution than Shin-Fresno. But both need to be examined fully. Sometimes, there’s no way to follow the legacy line easily, creating situations like Shin-Yokohama, the Second Tohoku Line, and Shin-Fuji. Unlike in Bakersfield, where I’m pretty sure a greenfield station would be barely better than no station, in Fresno a greenfield station could be successful.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
which tracks? Union Pacific’s non-electric, passenger-unfriendly tracks? get real.
The new ones on the 200 foot wide ROW UP has through Fresno…assuming I’m reading the really bad tax maps correctly.
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
every situation is different.
and the definition of a greenfield station is also situational. some people would call the Hanford Regional station at 198/ 43 a greenfield. I don’t see it. Hanford is small, but growing, and the station is close enough into the city that I think Hanford will grow into it.
Fresno is larger, and so a greenfield station would have to be a lot further out of town. realistically, using local tracks won’t work, either. you’d have to seriously update Union Pacific, and I don’t think UP wants that.
the Bay Area is going to upgrade its conventional tracks, and judging from the conversation here, that’s going to be a struggle.
unless we provide dedicated funds for upgrading Metrolink, it will probably be a struggle in Los Angeles as well.
the Japanese “greenfield” Shin-X stations all have gobs of local transit. I would want to see guarantees of the same in Fresno. if the station is going to be out of town, it should be GOOD transit, not just shuttle buses. if the station is going to be on conventional tracks, I want to see more than just the “lead-in tracks.” hell, let’s electrify commuter rail all the way down to Visalia and back up to Madera. I know that’s not going to happen, but neither is “we can just use conventional rail”
(* “shin” just means “new” anyways. the NEW Fresno HSR station technically would be “shin” as well)
TRAC has printed articles promoting Tejon, Altamont and Fresno bypasses. and their ideas have been rejected by Cal HSR. Cal HSR is moving forward to meet the timetable set forth by the government. I don’t believe in paralysis by analysis, and I don’t believe we need new elections, either.
at some point, a route has to be chosen, and a route has been: viaduct through Fresno, south to Hanford and Bakersfield. and don’t stop planning, designing and building until we reach the L.A. to S.F. goal.
thatbruce Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I’d prefer that they keep planning, designing and building a consistent and useful transport network, rather than stopping at just one milestone ;)
Dan S. Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
So you reject the narrative that the CHSRA already proposed non-elevated solutions to the community and the community requested something different so then the CHSRA proposed an elevated structure? To me, that storyline doesn’t fit very well with your implication.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Two of the three options given to the community went through neighborhoods in Alhambra. Despite what it might say, CHSRA only has one real choice using the I-10 corridor between the 710 and 605 freeways (elevated trains). The Metrolink right of way is only 20 feet wide. It needs a minimum of 50 feet to put trains at grade. All the streets, save one or two, go under the freeway so a trench is also out, unless it goes below streets or reroutes them. And a tunnel is cost prohibitive.
The relevant question is whether the elevated structures needs to be so high or whether there are better ways to cross the 10/710 interchange (the reason for a 75′-100′ viaduct).
thatbruce Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
It would be possible to double-track the current ROW as it currently is beside/within I-10, at the expense of accepting the current speed limitations (curves), reconstruction of the Busway through the Calstate Busway/Metrolink station, resumption of the two recently-added extra lanes between I-710 and El Monte, and I think widening of the tunnel beneath the west-bound I-10 lanes at the El Monte end (can’t remember whether its wide enough for two vehicle lanes and two tracks).
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:16 am
If Caltrans could be persuaded to release its grip on the corridor and its insane plans for infinite numbers of highway lanes, there would be a lot more options for using the bloated, massive, enormous I-10 corridor.
So does this mean that the EIR/EIS on both Phase 2 extensions (San Diego and Sacramento) are now on indefinite hold?
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Brown’s budget proposal defunded Altamont Corridor, San Diego, and Sacramento planning.
Dan Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:34 am
That’s disappointing, but not unexpected. Given the budget problems it’s probably a reasonable thing to defer the longer-term side of the project to focus on the imminent construction.
It seems a president was already set in LA for rail to be in a trench, a la the Alameda Corridor
Donk Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Obama was in the Alameda Corridor?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
A gentle correction, the proper term to use would be “precedent,” although to listen to some of the opposition’s talk until fairly recently, it would seem some of them would like the current president in a trench filled with cement!
jimsf Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 5:09 am
lolz
Victor Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Yeah I remember how It was before the trench was built in Alhambra, Traffic flowed better afterwards, Even in San Gabriel CA(next to Alhambra CA) where I lived from 1979 to 1988, The trains didn’t block San Gabriel Blvd anymore. But just like in the Penn, If the area wants a trench, Then someone other than the CHSRA will have to pay for It, Do I see a HSR trench becoming reality? Nope, Moneys tight. One of the light rail transit lines going south to Long Beach CA has an aerial line where at one time there was nothing but old SP row, It doesn’t look that bad as people got used to It and today generally ignore It.
So basically what Phase II is shaping out to be is a competition for which segment has the fewest NIMBYs. Clearly the Merced-Sac section will get built first since they actually have people supportive of the project. LA-SD will take a backseat – they also have problems with NIMBYs on the southern end, especially in Rose Canyon. Altamont will be held back by people in Livermore.
Joey Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I’d be more worried about Pleasanton actually, though obviously it will all depend on the exact routing. We should be getting a preliminary AA in early February.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Where by “people in Livermore” you mean of course the BART pork-scarfing sleazebags at Parsons Brinkerhoff and their sundry political bagmen.
Donk Reply:
January 25th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Err…I meant Pleasanton, not Livermore. But yeah the pork-scarfing sleazebags in Livermore will probably also slow down the project by building BART tracks on the ROW next to an ACE station, which would then require CAHSR to spend an extra $500M to underground the Altamont route through Livermore.
wu ming Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:02 am
i would be thrilled if this means sac gets the fast-track
NIMBY is an overused term that really has lost its meaning. Your use of NIMBY is synonymous with “if they’re not with us, they’re against us.”
Alhambra does not need to come to its senses with regard to the proposed CHSRA alignment. Much of the resistance is actually related to the burdens placed on the community by the 10 and 710 freeways. The 10 continues to get more and more congested and the 710 continues to dump Pasadena-bound drivers onto city streets. The high speed rail project is viewed skeptically as just another burden foisted on the community with no benefit. Not only that, but the plans also would take away Metrolink from the corridor, which has a positive affect on relieving congestion.
CHSRA would have better luck if it came to the I-10 corridor intending to kick start a dialog about the future of the I-10 corridor. It (and more importantly Metro) need to focus on the relationship of high speed rail to local transit, the place of high speed rail and commuter rail in relieving congestion, how to move the maximum number of people possible, and the positive affects of rail on the local quality of life. Population will only increase. Few who live along the I-10 corridor want all those people trying to drive and clogging the freeway and city streets more. CHSRA (and you) likely would be surprised at the support for rail in the I-10 corridor communities. Instead, the communities were forced to react to plans to cut through neighborhoods and accept another burden on top of those already put on the cities by the freeways.
I hope the I-10 corridor takes advantage of the time granted by the budget crunch and has that dialog internally. That way it can give direction to CHSRA when it does restart work on the L.A. to San Diego line. Perhaps the corridor cities will even decide to support an at grade option that allows Metrolink and CHSRA trains to share tracks (and removes traffic lanes from the freeway).
btw: I doubt Alhambra will ask for a station. It is too close to Union Station and downtown L.A. El Monte station will have an uphill battle when its residents find out it will require a large number of homes to be razed.
Matthew Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 8:17 am
I don’t understand the allegation that “communities were forced to react to plans….” Actually, it’s very early days, and the CHSRA is facilitating dialog by talking about possible alignments without committing to any specific solution. I’m sure if the community would make financially sensible suggestions of how to get HSR through the San Gabriel valley with minimal disruption, the CHSRA would be very open to that. I can only assume that the negative attitudes of the Alhambra City Council members are reflections of an attempt to get the rest of the state to pay for a trench without their working to identify and secure funds, or to cancel the project entirely. Perhaps NIMBY is an overused term, but I think that it’s fair to apply it to opposition for the purpose of coercion rather than cooperation in identifying viable alternatives.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 11:55 am
To be fair, most communities along the routes chosen for study by CHSRA feel they are being forced to react. That demonstrates a county and statewide failure to proactively consider what we want and need of our future transportation infrastructure and freeway corridors. Not to mention, we continue focusing on individual auto transportation and relics of a bygone era rather than mass transit that will transport as many people as possible through an area.
That said, CHSRA is not promoting dialog when it comes into an area and dictates where and how it will go through. There have been little to no discussions of local needs or CHSRA putting all the stakeholders in a room to hash out a solution.
FWIW, a trench will not work through that area because all but a couple of the streets go below the freeway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
feel they are being forced to react.
The information about where and how this was going to be done has been available for years.
thatbruce Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Helpfully located in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, and warnings about leopards, yes?
The key thing is that the information has been available for years, but the current people in the respective city governments haven’t been taking it seriously (either for years or they haven’t been around long enough), which is why it inevitably comes as a shock when they are asked to comment about the plans.
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:18 am
We’ve been reading the information for years. If the city government people don’t bother to read the notices they get from the CHSRA and Google the project…. well, I don’t know what to say about that.
Matthew Reply:
January 30th, 2011 at 3:08 am
If the voters approved the bond measure in 2008, it seems they’ve had over 2 years to consider that it’s very likely the project will be going through their area. Perhaps “shock” is a common tactic, but it doesn’t mean it’s a sensible one.
Donk Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 8:52 am
According to my best efforts on Wikipedia, the 10 and 710 freeways in that area were built in the 1950s. These freeways have been around for more than 50 years. I have never actually set foot in Alhambra, but odds are that most of the residents in Alhambra moved there after they built the freeways. I can understand them being pissed if they expand those freeways, and I can understand them being pissed at South Pasadena, but stop acting like these poor souls in Alhambra had these freeways forced upon them when most of the city has really developed after the freeways were built. Now people just want to increase their property values and quality of life, which I can totally understand, but if you don’t want freeways in your backyard, you are going to have to live somewhere else.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Quite a few people in Alhambra and other cities along the I-10 corridor are from those cities and their family histories in the area extend before the freeways. But I did not necessarily mean to say that the freeway itself was foisted upon most of the current residents. Caltrans does continue to increase traffic lanes and traffic congestion continues to get worse.
Why is this a problem for alhambra? I didn’t know the line was going that far north. I thought the choices were he 60 the 10 or somewhere in between. My google map shows alhambra to be well north of the 10.
I just found a california city that Ive never hear of. And I know them all. Its called avocado heights. I love it. We have to put a station there!
Joey Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:41 am
It pinpoints the center of Alhambra north of I-10. That doesn’t mean the city doesn’t extend as far south as the freeway.
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
The freeway goes east-west through the southern portion of the city.
I don’t understand why the Authority responds to objections to at-grade rail plans by offering to build elevated rail. Obviously more people are going to be effected by an elevated rail than an at-grade rail. At-grade requires eminent domain of properties very close to the line. Elevated effects everyone who can see the new, elevated line. and still has eminent domain issues. In cases where at-grade is feasible for the geography of the land, which I assume is most cases, the Authority should stick to its guns and go with that approach.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 7:54 am
I don’t understand why the Authority responds to objections to at-grade rail plans by offering to build elevated rail
Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!
You’re making a fundamental category error: the aim of the “Authority” — meaning the consultant mafioso which control it — is not to build a cost effective transportation system or to maximize public benefit.
It’s actually very easy to understand.
Lionel Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
“consultant mafioso”?
What kind of drug are you taking?
Joey Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
After you see the kind of technical decision making that goes on at the CHSRA for a while, you start to believe that the only reason they could be doing what they do is because someone wants to profit. Or let me put it this way – when you look at it from that perspective, suddenly all of their decision-making makes a whole lot more sense.
Caelestor Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
The question is, how are we going to fix this?
This is the exact reason why I have a hard time understanding this project, how slow it’s taking and why it costs so much.
Can’t we just build HSR using existing infrastructure? Notably, just get rid of a lane on both sides of the Interstate or State Highways and run a track through it. Stop dealing with NIMBYs and using funds to build stuff from scratch, make use of what we already have. It’s just like upgrading a computer; you want faster speed, add RAM, you want larger space, add a new HD. Why not just lay a track through the interstate? It’s already there, it goes where people want to go, it has bridges, overpasses and underpasses, just make good use of it.
Besides, HSR is supposed to be Interstate 2.0. It’s supposed to replace cars and we’re all going to see empty highways as gas prices continue to rise. Why waste money on building something new when we can just upgrade what we already have?
dfb Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Engineers working on the project told me that most freeways are too curvy for high speed rail. However, existing Rail lines are much more straight an sited on level ground.
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:22 am
This section of I-10, however, was built encroaching on old rail right-of-way, so it’s relatively straight for an interstate.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
That’s just not how Bechtel works. PB is profoundly politicized and will follow the course that is either the most greased or the path of least resistance. Evidently Caltrans(aka the Highway Lobby)is scarier than all the nimbys in PAMPA put together.
California is powerless to shake off PB and baggage, namely its compulsive edifice complex. I say unchain the beast, force feed the cancer. It insists on Jetsons; give it Jetsons: maglev or else nothing. Forget the CHSRA’s pathetic transmogrification of BART. “Why waste money on building something new when we can just upgrade what we already have?” Eminently sensible, but there is no way in hell that PB-CHRSRA will even for a moment consider that approach. Maglev is a better investment than a bloated BART on steroids. Expensive, but very high performance, technology to match the gold-plated concrete-crazed civil engineering.
Rick Rong Reply:
January 26th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Just out of curiosity, why do you always refer to “Bechtel”? Isn’t that a separate company from PB? By the way, PB is now a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty.
James Fujita Reply:
January 27th, 2011 at 12:57 am
it’s a common political technique. 1) stay on message 2) ignore inconvenient truths, facts on the ground, etc. 3) stay on message 4) repeat ad nauseum
Nathanael Reply:
January 28th, 2011 at 3:20 am
“get rid of a lane” is anathema to Caltrans, apparently. Propose it and you are viewed as a devil or a crazy man.
At least that’s my interpretation of what I’ve read. And YES, this is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. That I-10 is far, far wider than it has any right being, and the extra lanes are pretty useless; the marginal value of extra lanes drops very fast after three in each direction.
The derisive tone in which you dismiss “local concerns” is part and parcel of CHSRA’s longstanding PR issue. Maybe if it were your home, your business, or your property values at stake, you too would vehemently oppose a 75-ft aerial structure instead of “seeing the need” for a new statewide rail system.
For the record, I am a project supporter, but this type of elitest “planners know best” attitude is likely to backfire.
Critics of the system are having some sour satisfaction watching it implode, and I would think even the tub-thumpers would be wondering a bit about their gem. Here is an excellent example: The Train in the Sky. Tracks elevated to 50 or 75 feet above grade, so we can clear everything else. This compares with BART, which is, what, 25 feet above grade? What are they thinking?
1. Nobody does this in Europe.
2. The viaduct will be a seismic threat. One good earthquake will get it wiggling like a hula dancer’s skirt. If a train is on the viaduct when the quake hits, the entire train will be pitched off the viaduct to the ground 75 feet below.
3. Viaduct costs much more than earthen berm construction, where is the money coming from? This raises the $42B cost, which HSR doesn’t have anyway. This is the evil of starting work on a project without all funding lined up. They are simply going to build until the money runs out, at which point they will ask for more money, like a teenager who goes through his allowance by Wednesday and expects his parents to advance him next week’s allowance. Without a budget, they are under no pressure to do anything economically.
4. This also shows how politically driven the project is, and how little it owes to rational transportation planning. The line should not have run to the Central Valley communities, as they do not have the population to support it, but the communities, aided by the sprawl lobby, had the clout to get it anyway. Once it was decided to run it down that side of the valley, the obvious path was through the rural areas, but the farmers objected, and had the clout to put it into the cities, where it is much more expensive to build. The cities at first welcomed it, then began to have second thoughts, and said they didn’t want the tracks messing up their urban plans, and they had the clout to get this absurd 75-foot-high colossal structure. But it’s always clout, never thought.
datacruncher Reply:
January 29th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“The line should not have run to the Central Valley communities, as they do not have the population to support it, ”
Uhmm, approximate current populations:
San Francisco City/County 815,000
San Mateo County 737,000
Fresno County 980,000
Kern County 872,000
I guess they should leave off San Francisco and the Peninsula since those populations are smaller than the Central Valley areas, apparently too small to support it too.