Gilroy Plans Launch of HSR Study
The City of Gilroy is about to launch its HSR study, which will examine vertical alignment options as well as where a station should go. If you’ve been following along, you’d know that there are two proposals on the table: a downtown station along the existing tracks, at or very near the Caltrain station; and a greenfield station in east Gilroy. Here’s what the Gilroy Dispatch had to say about the study:
A study of two proposed locations for a high-speed rail station in Gilroy will address concerns of traffic circulation, parking, land use, economic impacts and other factors, a city official said during a South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee meeting Thursday night in Morgan Hill.
David Bischoff, Gilroy director of planning and environmental services, told the committee the study would also focus on the pros and cons of three different track alignments: at-grade, aerial and trenched.
The study, which is funded by a $150,000 matching grant from the Valley Transportation Authority, will go before the Gilroy City Council, which then will send a station recommendation to the rail authority based on the knowledge gained from the study, Bischoff said.
This is a reasonable thing for the city to do. Instead of whining that the Authority should do the study, or suing to complain about this or that element of the project, Gilroy is being proactive and looking into the matter itself.
That isn’t stopping people from making their voices heard (nor should it). Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo, a critic of the east Gilroy alignment who has expressed her strange belief that HSR will somehow damage the quality of life in South County (because $4 gas and long traffic jams on Highway 101 are the pinnacle of human civilization) teamed up with CARRD to introduce the claim that a previous agreement with Santa Clara County would preclude a station from being placed in east Gilroy:
Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo read a statement from Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design claiming the east Gilroy station violated an existing 20-year agreement between Santa Clara County’s Local Agency Formation Commission, the city of Gilroy and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
According to the statement, the east Gilroy station would fall within a protected area, as described in the “Strategies to Balance Planned Growth and Agricultural Viability” which was approved Gilroy, LAFCO and the county supervisors in the fall of 2006.
“The proposed east Gilroy station would be in the northernmost part of the protected area in the unincorporated part of Santa Clara County,” Sheets-Saucedo read. “The alignment would bisect this protected area and would include a station with commensurate parking and other structures with the intent of creating a very dense area around the station.”
But Gilroy City Administrator Tom Haglund disagreed that this was a legal barrier:
“At this point there is no basis to say that conducting the city’s grant-funded east side visioning process requires the city to first revisit the strategy document as suggested by CARRD, nor is there reason for the previously awarded VTA grant funds to be withheld from the city,” Haglund wrote.
And in fact, the agreement does not appear to be a binding contract. Still, the city of Gilroy and perhaps Santa Clara County would have to amend their general plans to allow an east Gilroy station.
Which might be a good idea, or it might not. The other option is a downtown station, which makes a great deal of sense for a number of reasons, including protecting farmland, channeling growth into the existing urban footprint, and enabling a same-station transfer to other rail services, particularly something to connect to destinations in the Monterey Bay area.
It would be preferable for those who dislike an east Gilroy station to argue for a downtown Gilroy station, instead of trying to undermine the project as a whole. The tracks and the station have to go somewhere, and not building this is simply not an option. I’m actually sympathetic to the arguments being made against an east Gilroy station, but those who oppose it need to do so from the perspective of supporting the HSR project as a whole – and they’ll have to become active supporters of a downtown station too. Otherwise their opposition can and probably should be dismissed as mere NIMBYism, when they have the chance to instead stand up for something positive and constructive.
There seems to be a concern in the area about maintaining the rural quality of life so many have sought and as much as HSR is seen as impacting that lifestyle, it is opposed.
A recent city survey, self selecting, showed strong support for a downtown station, there is also concern about routing the tracks, the type of stricture and the necessary overpasses, and other construction changing downtown and having structures looming over the city.
At the same time downtown struggles to attract shoppers and businesses.
Joe Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/printer/article.asp?c=272225
VBobier Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
The Mayor must represent the people in Gilroy who lost in 2008, So of course He wants a Trench or East of Town, Of course the Santa Clara County LAFCO is saying East Gilroy is out, As to the Trench, The Mayor wants a Trench, He should find the money Himself, Otherwise It will go where the CHSRA and the Residents want the HSR tracks, Downtown.
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:23 am
The Mayor wants a study. 150K investment to get facts and make informed decisions. That’s where we are right now.
What I hear first hand, talking with him and the council, is an intention to have HSR in Gilroy but they have serious concerns about the impact to the city center.
Gilroy’s historic streets and neighborhoods, places the city council members grew up and played as kids, will be forever changed.
VBobier Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:20 am
And they don’t want change to happen It sounds like, A trench is out of the question, Unless Gilroy pays for It themselves, As the CHSRA won’t pay for a Trench most likely and I doubt a city could sue them into doing so either.
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
A trench is not out of the question. Nor are 6600 parking spaces the definitive number. HSR has said so to the City.
First Gilroy isn’t being obstinate about HSR, it’s not demanding free infrastructure nor suing HSR.
Second City Government has an obligation to negotiate with HSR about the design as it passes into/out of the City. This is posturing.
The concern I have heard from the council is train noise, and interference with traffic patterns. Overpasses for cars in the downtown area would drastically alter the city center and old section of town, an area where I live.
The trench – at first blush – maintains surface streets and traffic patterns. There’s a study Gilroy is paying for to investigate the concept.
I personally do not fear a elevated structure – I lived in SF off the 24 trolly/bus and could never hear the electric motors or bus wizzing by so I don’t think HSR will be as loud as the current service.
The city could negotiate in kind value such as zoning changes, ancillary development to make the station area more compelling and I’m confident that if trenching is right, the City would issue bonds – we did it for our schools.
The leadership knows this service is essential with expensive gas and the lack of high paying jobs in town.
VBobier Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Hey I’m all for a trench, If a City wants to pay for studies & then pay for a trench if the study says the trench would be better, Then that would be what a city should get. They’ve been talking about adding some sort of noise maker to electric automobiles for just that reason, Their almost too quiet, I’m not even sure the blind can hear them. So yeah I doubt an electric HSR passenger train would be nearly as noisy as a typical freight train. But I wouldn’t doubt some on the losing side of the 2008 vote might say otherwise.
What needs to be highlighted is this: east Gilroy and downtown Gilroy are likely to be vastly different propositions from the standpoint of train speeds. In the starkest terms:
East Gilroy = 220 mph
Downtown Gilroy = 150 mph
For reasons of noise impact and track curvature, a downtown alignment will not enable full speeds to be sustained through Gilroy. (For those who doubt basic feasibility, 220 mph can easily be reached in flat terrain from SJ, and even more so on the downhill coast from Pacheco Pass).
That glaring speed difference has implications for trip times of ~50% of HSR riders who will pass through Gilroy on a train that does not stop there. Furthermore, trains will waste energy to slow from 220 mph to 150 and accelerate back up to 220.
Before people get all enamored with TOD around walkable HSR stations, they need to get your brain wrapped around a basic fact: this is a high-speed train, not your neighborhood light rail. If you plop speed-restricting obstacles in its path, it will no longer be HSR. A minute here, a minute there, and pretty soon you’re talking real chunks of time.
CARRD’s memo describes the east-of-101 alternative as “a rural agricultural area outside the city limits with no road network, infrastructure or supporting transit services”… OK, yeah, except for an excellent interface with highway 101, which is only the main transportation backbone of the region.
If the Pacheco routing survives the ongoing legal and political challenges, then I think the Gilroy station belongs east of 101.
VBobier Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Yeah well, The County seems to think otherwise, That no rail can go in East Gilroy where the land is an unincorporated county area and is not a part of the City of Gilroy itself.
Spokker Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Don’t worry, there is someone or some animal in East Gilroy that will be unduly impacted by the train. You’ll see speed restrictions in either case once the lawsuits are over.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Ya the person metioned is this article..NIMBY!!
tony d. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:51 am
If Pacheco survives ongoing legal and political challenges? Huhh? Clem, get over it already.
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Don’t tell me, tell the judge.
Jon Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I wasn’t aware there was a serious possibility of the Pacheco routing being switched back to Altamont. Do you have a link/reference to a lawsuit which might achieve that result?
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Sacramento Superior Court
Case 34-2008-80000022 (filed after the program EIR was certified in 2008)
Case 34-2010-80000679 (filed after the program EIR was re-certified in 2010)
tony d. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
A judge can’t tell the Authority where to route its trains into the Bay Area; its really that simple.
The train has left the station in terms of primary route into the Bay Area (pun intended).
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Your opinion (or mine) has rather little bearing on the matter.
Peter Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Clem, Tony d. is right. Judge Kenny can’t tell them to change the route. Judge Kenny can only tell them to redo the EIR. That’s why all a successful EIR challenge can do is delay.
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Pass the popcorn.
tony d. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Besides, you know damn well Clem that the frivolous lawsuits were NIMBY (Peninsula) in nature,
as well as workable issues with UPRR’s ROW from Sj to Gilroy. The future Altamont
HSR overlay takes care of any minor issues concerning passenger numbers.
Case closed!
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Like I said… tell it to the judge!
Tony D. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Nice strawman retort there Clem.
synonymouse Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
The lawsuit that will crucial will be the one against the CHSRA creating any taxpayer-funded guarantees of private financing, aka loans. If a judge thinks he can get away with subverting Prop 1A so far as to effectively neutralize its provisos there will be a voter initiative. And the machine will have a very difficult time defeating it as even the SF Chron, which usually parrots the party line, has astonishingly come out against any more bonded indebtedness.
The reason is obvious – the state cannot afford its current level of spending and will have to make drastic cuts. The state controller yesterday came up with a new figure for the the state pension health care liability – $60 billion. Now who is going to take priority: retirees or PB? PB may have some juice but not up against machine loyalists.
The newest budget move is for the Democrats to pass the June tax election with a simple majority, which I always thought it could come to. Should be a donnybrook even with the establishment spending a fortune to browbeat the lumpen into paying for the elite’s toys.
Yeah, I know, Tiny Tim won’t be able to get his operation.
But if y’all have a plan to squeeze money out of the rich to pay for PB’s stilts better let Jerry know.
Tony D. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
So are you really in favor of the GOP not allowing Californian’s the right to vote? Whether your for or against tax extensions, let us @#$%& vote for crying out loud!
synonymouse Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Let Jerry prevail upon his business and labor friends to fund signature gathering to put his initiative on the ballot if he doesn’t want to go for simple majority vote. Or put Prop 1A back on the ballot along with his tax prop.
The GOP is truly through in California if they cave to Jerry on this. If they do, they should have the honesty to change parties. It is a de facto one-party system already.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
When is this to be heard..again?
Alex2000 Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
All you guys are getting bogged down by Clem’s last sentence.
The rest of his post made a lot of sense.
thatbruce Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 11:14 am
@Clem: Is ‘both’ technically possible? That is, a downtown alignment for stopping trains, and an east-of-101 for through trains?
Whether or not this is financially feasible is an entirely different question ;)
Joey Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Why wouldn’t it be? It was even an alternative under consideration for a while.
Peter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Both are technically possible, but that option was knocked out for a number of reasons: Increased maintenance and construction cost, double the environmental impact, and the possibility that the Gilroy station would never be built, for starters.
egk Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Well, I don’t know exactly what they considered, but I would have thought that through tracks on 101 (not east of 101) combined with stopping tracks downtown would have had LESS overall impact. No high-speed traffic-in-the-city impacts and less rail-through-greenfields impacts. This would have simply had the 220mph tracks veer off from the downtown alignment and follow 101 along the edge of town. And, of course Gilroy station would be built if it was worth it for the operator, which is probably what we would want.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
What is the configuration of a median or fringe 101 alignment ~ is it suitable for true high speed operation with respect to required minimum curve radii?
Peter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
No, it’s not suitable. There are a couple of sharp turns, including a 90mph turn just north of the South County Airport.
thatbruce Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
If only there was a way to utilise the existing rail facilities in Gilroy for stopping trains. Shucks, guess we’ve got to build something very expensive then.
This is a great point. The original plans called for an express trip time of 2:40 based on the route through downtown Gilroy. So if it goes thru east Gilroy, I assume this would be a time savings of a couple additional minutes relative to the original plan. How does this now compare with the Altamont routing, which presumably would also be limited to lower speeds?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:17 am
It compares badly against Altamont, as Altamont has faster SF-LA trip time than Pacheco.
Tony D. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:46 am
No, not really…but then again, you’re drunk anyway!
VBobier Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 9:02 am
When My Mom got drunk She blacked out, Blacked out would seem faster, As It’s like someone flipped a light switch to off. Dad said She couldn’t even finish Her drink at a restaurant, He had to carry Her out to the car to go home.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Right there in the Executive Summary, the EIR clearly states Altamont is faster than Pacheco. That was before Diridon “S” curves, and a possible Gilroy downtown alignment.
And yet no matter how often one quotes the EIR, either on blogs or in court, this myth persists that Altamont is “slower”, or “limited to lower speeds”.
tony d. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:49 am
It’s Pacheco…get over it already (and stay sober)!
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Which Altamont? Its fine to say “Altamont”, and no matter what happens in caving to NIMBY’s in the egress from the Bay, if it was Altamont / Oakland / SF via a bay tunnel or bridge, it would obviously be faster, because of the run through the CV instead of the Peninsula, if it was Altamont / SJ / SF it was slower, and if it was Altamont / Dumbarton / N Peninsula / SF, it would be possible faster, possible slower, depending on what assumptions are made about the final design envelope on the egress from the Bay.
But the clearly faster one is out, and there is no certainty that the plausibly faster one would pass EIR challenge ~ if they got dinged for failing to cross a couple of t’s and dot a couple of i’s when going along an existing alignment, I have very little faith that the CAHSR could put a legally defensible alignment through the wetlands west of Newark.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Amazing. The exact chapter and verse is cited in the EIR, and others have copied the relevent section here verbatim, but you go and invent your own Altamont straw man alignment.
Irrelevant. Caltrain (who I am told is equal partner with the CHSRA) is already planning a rail crossing there. They will have no more problems with this than Caltrans, which in the last 2 decades has built or retrofitted several Bay crossings.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Yes, Altamont is faster by 2 minutes, on paper. But it’s more dependent on being able to run on UP tracks, and would have to veer further east in the CV (=longer runtime) otherwise; it’s also more dependent on running at full speed through the CV towns. And it involves running at a higher average speed over a longer distance, which means that there’s less room to improve run times by using better rolling stock than is assumed in the simulations.
(Note to everyone: the Altamont in question is the main one considered, i.e. Altamont/Dumbarton to SF with a split to SJ. That’s “Altamont,” just as “Pacheco” means Pacheco to SF through Gilroy and the Peninsula.)
I disagree with the above. Gilroy doesnt have to be a destination, it’s an excellent transfer station.
Both Amtrak (Capitol Corridor) and Caltrain have proposed extensions into the Salinas-Monterey-Santa Cruz area.
A shared station with HSR would allow transfers and make those destinations very easy to access.
Also, the coastal starlight stops at Gilroy and continue south, again, another great connection, especially if the proposal to make it twice daily goes through (coastal daylight).
The coast will never get HSR, but by transferring to HSR, trip times will certainly be attractive.
Donk Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Why can’t San Jose be the transfer station?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Because if you have people coming up from SoCal, it makes no sense for them to transfer at SJC to a train bound for Monterey or Santa Cruz. Gilroy is the logical place, because you spend the least amount of time on a slower train. This holds true for people coming from the Bay Area as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
More likely, they’d go to Gilroy and drive from there. Trains wouldn’t be time-competitive, and that area has nearly universal car ownership anyway. If in Korea, where car ownership isn’t much higher than in New York City, the mode split for people arriving at HSR stations is 52-44 transit-car, then it’s okay for California to have some of its more rural stations assume car access.
JJJ Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
You know how you erode universal car ownership? BY making attractive alternates.
And Monterey and Santa Cruz are HUGE tourist draws….and they have limited parking. It’s best to get the tourists to come by rail, which is extremely time competitive.
Monterey has a good bus system.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Sure, let’s talk about attractive alternates. People keep cars for regional travel – if they need them for intercity travel only, they rent cars when necessary or take the bus – which means that the most effective policies would be regional. Let’s talk about downtown walkability, densification, and highway removals; better bus service; and maybe even light rail within those cities. In other regions, where the legacy rail lines don’t have unfixable sub-200 meter curves, I’d also recommend regional rail, but in the Monterey Bay area it’s out. Connectors to intercity rail are probably not going to be any more successful than airport connectors.
wu ming Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
car ownership in korea is very inflected by region. seoul is like NYC, the rest of the country is more like upstate. it’s not just one huge city, even if a huge chunk of the population is in greater seoul.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Yes, that too. Some would drive and some would take the train.
Obviously the transfer from along the upgraded 110mph Capital Corridor southbound will be San Jose, and the transfer from local or upgraded Starlight/Daylight services northbound will be Gilroy.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
The ridership of all the trains you’re mentioning is, by CAHSR standards, zero. Even the Capitol Corridor is going to be useless for SJ-Gilroy service: why take a slow train when you can transfer to HSR at SJ?
Salinas-Monterey-Santa Cruz has no rail infrastructure that can compete with 101. The rail lines are circuitous and curvy, so any regional rail service would necessarily be slower than driving, even without FRA meddling.
I’d suggest to forget about that region, and concentrate on making the Diridon area even mildly walkable, as opposed to a giant parking lot more befitting an exurban small-town stop than a major urban express station.
JJJ Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Again, someone coming from Fresno to Monterey will want to transfer at Gilroy, and not take HSR all the way up and then slow rail all the way down.
Someone coming from San Francisco will also want to get as far south possible on HSR before transfering to a Monterey train.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Nobody is going to be riding the Capitol Corridor dino-train. Nobody. It’s not going to run.
Nobody is going to be riding FRA Caltrain dino-trains (freight, grade crossings, ding ding clang clang highball Amtrak!) which will not run parallel to and 100% redundant with and separate from and unequal to HSR tracks. Nobody. It’s not going to run.
Nobody is going to be riding an FRA Amtrak Starlate dino-train between San Jose and Gilroy (or anywhere south, for that matter.) Nobody. It’s not going to run. Just think about it for a microsecond.
The transfer from the “lucrative” blogger-boy Monterey market would be from buses or private automobiles (rail is not and never will be competitive in time or cost or convenience) to non-Amtrak non-FRA trains, just as Alon (not an idiot! can read a map!) states.
Jon Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Often regional rail is slower than driving. Doesn’t matter; if your journey is (say) Santa Cruz to Fresno, a slow regional train to Gilroy and a transfer to HSR will still save you time over driving.
Get a connecting rail service running, even if it is slower than driving. If people use it (and I believe they will) it’ll be easier to make the case for upgrading the line to reduce journey time.
You’d probably need to deal with the FRA first, of course. Slowing down the route an already slow route with dino-trains would not be smart at all.
Winston Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Transfer or not, building a station in downtown Gilroy is just stupid. Downtown Gilroy is a 4 block long, 1 block wide speck that has less retail in it than any of the numerous big box stores on the fringes of town. Further, Gilroy’s plans are to sprawl more. This IS a great location for a 1000-2000 space parking lot. It would fit right in with the hundreds of acres of other parking lots that make up Gilroy. Heck, they could brand the station the High Speed Rail outlet. Besides, for the number of passengers who would likely use a Salinas-Gilroy rail line, a shuttle van would probably be all you need and would cost less than a trench.
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Geography dude.
Gilroy exists because it is strategically located along the N/S and E/W corridors. It’s a nature place to stop a train, and not every train has to stop.
HSR is also forward looking, the State has to grow and this service is long term vision about where and how to grow California without choking the roads.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Strategic?
“Well, if there’s a bright center to the universe, you’re on the planet that it’s farthest from” is what Luke would have said about Gilroy.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
“The ridership of all the trains you’re mentioning is, by CAHSR standards, zero.”
The question here is what is the benefit to the origin/destination region in question ~ which in this case would be substantial. “Denigrate to dismiss” may be an effective rhetorical ploy in internet forums, but its not a reasonable way to approach the development of sensible transport policy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Sensible transport policy for places like Monterey County are “Should we run the bus more than twice a day?”
Peter Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Ever tried driving 101 between Salinas and Gilroy?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@Everyone:
First, under the only set of regulations and operating practices making small-town regional rail economically feasible, tram-trains are legal. This means that if a line from Monterey to Gilroy is feasible, then so is a line to Gilroy-HSR running on the street east of downtown Gilroy.
Second, the fastest way to get from Monterey to Fresno is going to be driving to Gilroy and taking HSR from there, followed by taking a bus to Gilroy. Trains would only be marginally competitive at best, and could never be competitive from Salinas, not with the Watsonville detour.
And third, regional rail that’s significantly slower than driving doesn’t compete. The places you’re thinking of that have successful slow regional rail have even slower highways, because of traffic.
Perhaps in the future some sort of DMU service (or what we will see with eBART) could be implemented from Gilroy to Salinas/Monterey. Straighten out a few curves/add some sidings and rail from Gilroy to Central Coast could compete with 101.
In terms of speed through Gilroy: Does slowing to 150mph from 220mph really make that much of a difference in terms of travel times from LA-SF? Would it really take that much time to speed up/slow down from said speeds?
Andy M. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:06 am
“In terms of speed through Gilroy: Does slowing to 150mph from 220mph really make that much of a difference in terms of travel times from LA-SF? Would it really take that much time to speed up/slow down from said speeds?”
I think it wouldn’t make much difference. High speed lines are normally not solid high speed anyway. I don’t know what layout is planned for Gilroy but I guess there will be through lines for fast trains and platform lines for stopping trains. That means there are going to have to be track switches at either end of the station, and there is a maximum speed at which such plant can be traversed and if you can do that at 150mph that is pretty good. I think the speed will probably be less than that. So all trains will be slowing down anyway to some degree. If you’re not going to have any switches that means through trains wil be racing through platform tracks which would also require some speed restriction for safety reasons so either way we’re talking about slowing down trains.
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
There’s no need to speculate about parameters that are already known from CHSRA technical memos. Gilroy would be a four-track station with two outboard platforms and two refuge tracks (TM-1.1.8A) about 6000 ft long with 1300 foot platforms (TM-2.2.4). Station turnouts would typically be run at 110 mph diverging (TM-2.2.4) but must also allow 220 mph straight through (TM-2.1.2).
The time lost is the better part of a minute (to say nothing of the kilowatt-hours lost). Bear in mind the SF-LA trip time is supposed to be 160 minutes.
Peter Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
And they only have what, four minutes, of padding for design?
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I’m not aware of any description of how much margin they kept in their run time simulations. I do know those simulations assumed 220 mph through Gilroy.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Through tracks have no speed limits on LGVs. Speed on a diverging track depends on its curve radius.
Decelerating and accelerating is expensive both in time and electricity. Regenerative braking only restores a fraction of the energy, and only if the substation can take the extra current, which is not always the case.
The life of electric and mechanical parts is also shortened, increasing maintenance costs.
The normal condition for a train is when it practically runs in free wheel, consuming just enough power to compensate the air drag. Slowing down for other reasons than stopping at a station is bad management and ends up costing millions. Van Ark certainly knows that.
Andy M. Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:06 am
Well, you could always build a by-pass at a later point on which full speed running would be possible. Non-stop end-to-end through trains won’t make much sense until the line has been built end to end so in the initial phase there will only be stopping trains anyway.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
The tracks from Gilroy to Watsonville to Salinas are owned by UP. That means you’d be lucky to get any passenger service to run on them, and if so, you’re stuck with FRA clunkers. Anything else would require vastly more money than it’s worth.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
The Watsonville detour is huge. Salinas-Gilroy is 45 km by road, and 60 by rail. Even if it were feasible to straighten the curves that go around the mountains, it wouldn’t change this basic problem.
The best place for the station is (probably) downtown, but the best place for the *tracks* is away from the urban area.
The objections to an East Gilroy station are all about station-related deveopment in greenfield, while the objections to a downtwon station are all about trains and tracks running through urban areas.
For those interested, here is the letter CARRD sent along with articles discussing the land in question:
http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/gilroy-high-speed-rail-station-comparative-visioning-document/
There is a lot of turn over among elected officials – many of whom were likely NOT aware that this station would be located in the Gilroy Ag preserve. We raised the issue so policy makers could have the discussion openly and with the relevant facts. It is a complicated decision with large consequences. We don’t know what the right answer is – but previous policies were clearly designed to avoid construction in that area.
Policy is supposed to be the main guide for all planning. How will policies affect Gilroy now?
Enviros like Committee for Green Foothills have been supportive of HSR as a concept but are now on record as opposing an East of 101 station and alignment. Rod Diridon warned that “promises were made” with many enviro groups in Gilroy to keep all construction in the area in the downtown.
It will no doubt be a tough conversation.
Tony D. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Environmental issues aside, being a Gilroy resident, I favor the downtown HSR station/urban alignment myself. The UPRR ROW through Gilroy is pretty blighted on both sides, so there shouldn’t be any major issues with quality of life impacts and such. An HSR aerial above the one-track/lightly used UP would work in my opinion.
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I would not mind an aerial structure.
Most favor the downtown alignment. The concern is the at-grade station would require overpasses for many streets near downtown or not building overpasses would effectively cut the city in two.
What if they built a elevated, two story station? More expensive but possibly more interesting as a transportation hub and center. I am curious about the study and options.
Spokker Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
As a resident of Gilroy, your input is the least important of all.
Eric M Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Nadia Said:
“We don’t know what the right answer is”
Then why in your letter are you pushing so hard against the East 101 alignment?
Nadia Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
We’re not – we’re merely making the point that the area in question presents a policy problem. If policy stands in general, then there shouldn’t be any money blown on alternatives when multiple groups including LAFCO and Santa Clara county might later come back and shoot down. So better to have the policy discussion up front instead.
To their credit, HSR has established station guidelines to help reduce sprawl and encourage density around the stations. In this case, the East alignment actually goes against the Authority’s guidelines. Of course, as Clem points out, there is the time problem presented in the Prop. However, others have argued (I don’t really know) that Altamont would be faster – so sometimes time matters and sometimes it doesn’t?
You also have the unusual situation where Morgan Hill and Gilroy signed a Joint resolution opposing the Program alignment (along UP) and supporting a 101 alternative – which in Gilroy’s case pushes this into county land – outside of the City limits. All of this was done BEFORE any of the enviro work was even completed. Why is Gilroy allowed to push something out of their boundaries?
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy_files/city_hall/community_development/high_speed_rail/CC_-_Gilroy_and_Morgan_Hill_Joint_HSR_Resolution_-_staff_report_(12-7-09).PDF
of course in a rational world the HSR tracks would bypass downtown Gilroy and run along 101, but there would be a connection to upgraded existing rail infrastructure so that HSR trains could stop at a downtown Gilroy station (where there would be intermodal transfer). One does wonder whether – even in the American context which would require a whole separate set of HSR tracks for the downtown station – this wouldn’t make financial sense in that the greenfield line wouldn’t have to be aerial and that downtown track wouldn’t have to be built to 220mph standards…
Nadia Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 10:02 am
The East of 101 area is a flood zone – so aerial is likely
Jon Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I agree that’s the best solution, but it was considered and rejected as too expensive to build and maintain.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
There’s no such thing as “upgraded existing infrastructure” in FRA land and where everything is owned by UP. There was, at one point, a Gilroy station loop alternative which would have put the express tracks east of Gilroy and run a slower, two-track alignment through downtown, but it was eliminated for somewhat questionable reasons.
Lawmakers to launch passenger rail caucus
The Hill
3/14/2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/149375-lawmakers-to-launch-passenger-rail-caucus
I think we should just drop Pacheco at the last minute do Altamont, still make it down to Diridon Station and do SJ-Sac, SF-LAUS VIA Dumbarton, SF-SJ (Regional/Caltrain, electrified), Sac-LAUS. and save the $7B that the current Altamon Overlay cost by making it part of the mainline, eliminating Pacheco costs. Gilroy can still get an extension either innitially or later, take it downtown and make it a Intermodal terminus for HSR were other light rail, diesel commuter rail, bus from Salinas, Santa Cruz, Monterey areas can come together.
Donk Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
If they end up spending money to build track to Merced before Pacheco, I will also support this. Otherwise, whatever the fastest way to get it built from LA to the Bay Area (whether to SJ or Fremont) is what I will support. If you are an Altamont supporter, you should be in the Merced camp.
Personally, I don’t have a problem taking BART from Fremont once I get into the Bay Area. I will already probably be taking either the Purple Line or the Expo Line to get to/from Union Station.
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Pacheco is the route.
Dropping the approved, studied route wastes time and money and delays service.
I personally don’t see why San Jose bound and originating travelers have to take BART to use HSR. SJ is the 2nd largest city in CA. Why do taxpayers in San Jose have to accommodate cheapskates and dabblers?
Let’s also close down SJC and SF airports too. Why have taxpayers support three airports?
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Dropping the approved, studied route wastes time and money and delays service.
Considering Altamont’s potential for long-term cost saving (see dave’s post above and mine below), it still might be worth it.
Clem Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I personally don’t see why San Jose bound and originating travelers have to take BART to use HSR.
Who said anything about having to ride BART? Altamont scenarios have high-speed trains terminating at the same San Jose Diridon station as the Pacheco scenarios.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Donk did above. But your correct that it’s an unlikely scenario.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Terminating in San Jose in which phase? BART to Fremont would be good enough for a very long time.
Donk Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
I would send it over/under the bridge to the Peninsula before I sent it to San Jose. Who goes to downtown San Jose anyway? Fremont BART will be good enough to get you where you need to go in the San Jose area and the East Bay.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
That’s assuming that BART to San José actually happens. If we’re fantasizing about Altamont we can fantasize about that, can’t we?
Donk Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
BART will be in San Jose at least 5 years before HSR will. People actually want BART.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Actual people, or just the VTA?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Unfortunately it probably will. HSR to San Jose would have been cheaper.
Peter Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Well, to Berryessa at least. Diridon and Santa Clara will have to wait a while still.
synonymouse Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
BART is masterful in having its way with the Bay Area. The CHSRA could only dream of such postiion and power.
Joey Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Not only would you save money by building Altamont instead of Pacheco + Altamont overlay, but the extension to Sacramento would be shorter, saving money in Phase 2, and you get very good Bay Area-Sacramento trip times, eliminating any reason to futilely pour money into the Capitol Corridor.
Reps. Mica and Shuster: Private rail is the way to go
By Keith Laing – 03/14/11 11:23 AM ET
Does this Mica guy have any idea what he wants or is going to come up with some new position every week.
wea are now suppose to believe that its Obama’s fault the the republican governors rejected HSR.
This Mica guy is just another sorry ass politician doing someone’s ( not the public’s) bidding.
“However, Mica and Shuster blamed President Obama for the fate of proposed high-speed rail projects in Wisconsin, Ohio and now Florida that have been canceled by conservative Republican governors who say the projects are too expensive, even with federal help. Conservative activists in Florida have begun referring to proposed railways as ObamaRail, much like some derisively refer to his healthcare reform law as ObamaCare.
With Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida rejecting funds, and the California project also looking troubled, I don’t think the Administration’s so-called high-speed and expanded passenger rail program could have had a worse launch,” Mica said. “The only chance of success for high-speed rail is to rely on the private sector and focus on a project that makes sense, particularly the Northeast Corridor
The private sector can not compete along existing rail lines because those lines are already owned by freight railroads and there is no mandate that says the freights have to let anyone but amtrak on their tracks. for one thing. second, any private company is going to have the same problems of OTP and capacity and scheduling, using a freight RR tracks that amtrak would have. And three, the cost for a private company to purchase the land for a new long distance row, and go through all the EIRs would be prohibitive for even the richest companies to do. In fact it would be straight up impossible to do and a private company can not use eminent domain either.
These guys are either complete morons, which I suspect is part of the problem, or playing poliltics, or both. What a joke.
Tony D. Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Republicans are a bunch of @#$%& idiots who think that all Americans are stupid! November of 2012 is looking sweeter by the minute!
joe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Tea Bagger Governor policy is patterned after Bizzaro Superman.
They do/support the opposite position.
Oppose any and all initiatives.
Obama killed HSR by supporting it.
On a slightly unrelated note, Barstow NIMBYs are now opposing High Speed Rail because it would be too successful:
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
For the record I also oppose DX because the alignment is stupid: 60mph turns in the middle of the desert, private use of the federal-and-state funded I-15 median, and a stub from Barstow to Victorville instead of a connection at Mojave to CHSRA.
dave Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 8:15 am
It’s hypocracy, Barstow says they oppose it because it will take a big chunk out of their economy, then the Mayor of Ontario says that no one will ride it so they oppose it as well, So wich is it? Will it succeed or will no one ride it?
synonymouse Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Hypocrisy is also calling Barstow nimby for demanding service but not Palmdale for doing exactly the same thing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Um Barstow is demanding no service for everybody. It would cut into their grifting of the tourists that stop there.
Even if Barstow was asking for service, the thriving metropolis of Barstow is smaller than some suburbs of Palmdale.
joe Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Barstow For The Win!! Barstow opposes success.
thatbruce Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Barstow is saying that DX will impact the number of travellers passing through and importantly, stopping in Barstow. Ontario is saying that the number of travellers from San Bernardino and Orange Counties who will use DX will not be significant.
The two statements can be reconciled if you assume that the only people who will use DX from the LA basin will be from LA County (unlikely).
Of course, if Ontario gets their way and a stop on a transportation corridor from Anaheim to LV, Barstow still gets fewer travellers stopping there, while Ontario gets increased revenue via parking fees due to the surrounding population base.
DX with a terminus at Victorville and no connections to other transport systems will be to the economic detriment of Barstow (and other small towns on I-15 between Victorville and LV), due to a lowering of travellers on I-15 (at least initially, until demand grows in the future). DX with a connection to another transport system and a stop at Barstow will be to the long-term economic benefit of Barstow, due to cheap(er) housing; ie, a bedroom community for LA.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
There’s barely enough people in Barstow to justify the erection of a bus shelter much less a HSR train station.
synonymouse Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Build resort class casinos in Orange County & elsewhere in the Golden State and keep the shekels here. Tell Reid, Adelson, Wynn, et al to go perform the classic anatomically impossible.
Joey Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
25000 is respectable. If we were talking about regional trains rather than intercity trains, it might make sense to have a stop there. But for HSR you generally want cities with 100k+ or a large regional catchment area (which Barstow lacks).