CHSRA Agrees To Tunnel Under Miramar College
We haven’t had much discussion at all lately of HSR in the San Diego area, so this San Diego Union-Tribune article on impacts to Miramar College is pretty timely:
After a campus visit by rail planners last month, the High-Speed Rail Authority backed away from proposals to cut through or bridge over the Miramar College campus, saying such a route would have a significant negative impact on the community.
“It is clear that the only (route) that should be considered through Miramar College is a bored tunnel option, deep enough to cause insignificant impacts to the college,” wrote Timothy Buresh, Southern California regional director for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, in a letter dated Sept. 30.
The whole article actually provides a very good and detailed discussion of the issues with tunneling in the Miramar area and the two alignments that are being considered. The alignment that would impact Miramar College is the original one that would run from Interstate 15 to the LOSSAN corridor via Miramar and Rose Canyon. It would include a stop at University Towne Center near UCSD, where a San Diego Trolley extension is already planned. The other option is along Highway 163 to Interstate 8 in Mission Valley and a long sweeping curve down toward the airport and downtown.
I’ve always felt that stopping at UTC and picking up the UCSD population was better than Mission Valley, although it would be interesting to see ridership projections. It may not make all that much difference in the end, and the costs of tunneling under both Miramar College and UTC would almost certainly be much higher than a 163/8 alignment that would have fewer tunnels.
I’m sure some in or near Mission Valley would complain about aerial structures, but given the enormous size of some of the freeway interchanges, it would be hard to take those complaints seriously.
Figuring out this question will be easier thanks to funding provided by the state legislature and approved by Governor Jerry Brown:
A bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this month allocated $4 million in rail bond funding to the continued planning of the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor, a segment which had not received funding in the governor’s budget. Some $2.8 million will go toward engineering design while $1.2 million will be spent on acquisition activities and public outreach.
Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), member of the Senate’s transportation committee, advocated for the passage of the bill.
“Our quarter, the Los Angeles to San Diego quarter, is the second most trafficked in the country,” said Deanna Spehn, Kehoe’s policy director. “Funding would have stopped. All work would have stopped. The people working on the project would have been assigned to other duties. You lose the momentum and you lose money.”
This gets to the point I made yesterday – more funding helps solve a lot of these problems. It allows for better designs and for mitigation to help address neighborhood concerns. But the same people who raise those concerns tend to be the ones who drone on about what we can and cannot afford, while remaining silent as the night about the jobs crisis or the fact that the 1% have hoarded the country’s wealth.
This is the self-defeating irony of HSR critics and opponents. If they cared about improving design, they would lead the charge for more funding. Instead they are convinced that the best chance to kill a project they dislike is to ensure it is starved of funds, which usually actually just produces a project that isn’t designed as well as it ought to be.
But then that assumes HSR critics and NIMBYs actually have any interest in seeing the project built at all, which nine times out of ten, they don’t.
Since the San Diego section is Phase II and therefore unlikely to be built before 2025 at the earliest, there’s time to revisit these questions.
“Our demands that HSR comply with our wishes and build tunnels and trenches through our community are definitive proof that that HSR cannot contain costs and will spiral out of control.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 17th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
The question is why anything else was ever planned in the first place. There is a reason LOSSAN is already planning on building a tunnel there. I highly suspect, actually that cost cutting will result in HSR using said tunnel but also the rest of LOSSAN for Phase II rather than the Riverside dogleg given the rather absurd amount of tunnels and viaducts that plan calls for.
Matthew F. Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:11 am
It might help if you define a little more what you’re talking about. None of the tunnels discussed in this article would be on LOSSAN – even the tunnel under UTC would be separate from LOSSAN’s eventually planned (and much needed) tunnel, because of the approach directions.
And if you think HSR will ever run along the coast, you don’t know how much those beachcombers love walking across railroad tracks. A secure and isolated right-of-way, let alone overhead wires, would NEVER survive a political battle against the beach bums.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Those beachcomber areas are already planned for tunnels as it is. Funding is the only thing holding us back from 125mph and 90 minute LA-SD trips.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Here’s another way to look at it:
Right now, today you can already connect to the LOSSAN corridor by taking Metrolink or Sprinter to many of the places the “dogleg” would serve. And Metrolink is trying to get even Murrietta and Temecula within its grasp.
Ergo… the is really no point is doing all this unless you are convinced that there is going to be some real estate boom in the Inland Empire (again) and that assets like Ontario Airport will be necessary to address the region’s congestion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=I5cYgRnfFDA
Joey Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The sensitive sections, San Clemente and Del Mar, would have to be moved anyway if you wanted to improve speeds meaningfully/double track.
Joseph E Reply:
October 19th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
If only there were a 200 foot wide right of way just a little further inland. Wait, there is! I-5 http://g.co/maps/g5wx3
Is there any real, technical reason that I-5 wouldn’t work? Take out one lane in each direction (6 lanes thru San Clemente and camp Pendleton will work fine with congestion pricing or making 2 lanes for carpools and buses only), and put HSR right down the center. You might only be able to go 90 to 100 around some curve, but so what? It would be about the same time from LA to SD, at 1/4 the cost.
The Inland Empire can be served with a separate alignment to Riverside and San Bernardino, then later to Phoenix AZ
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Yeah, I-5 is too steep and has curves too sharp. You could do something almost I-5, though. Biggest problem, though, is that you have no good places to put intermediate stations if you run along I-5, so you have to keep jumping in and out of the corridor, and that starts causing trouble.
Why does the San Diego extension get funding but the Sacramento extension does not? The Merced to Sacramento EIR/EIS should also get funded. The Sacramento extension should be a lot cheaper and easier than the San Diego extension.
Matthew F. Reply:
October 17th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Probably because San Diego to LA is supported by those who want to see HSR as regional-commuter rail, and not long-haul rail (I think it’s well suited and vital to the future both). 50,000 commuters drive from Riverside county to San Diego county every day for work – I predict HSR will pick up a sizeable portion of that. (San Diego to and from LA isn’t far behind that number, but would probably be equally well served once improvements to the express Amtrak, double tracking, signaling improvements, grade separations, etc. are complete)
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 9:42 am
San Diego market is much larger. I could see some utilizing Ontario Airport via HSR to avoid SAN and great redundancy if diversions are needed.
How real is the prospect that the train traveling under Miramar College will cause vibrations disrupting classes as the college president describes?
How real is the prospect that underground trains will affect foundations as the College District Chancellor Constance Carroll describes?
Is Manhattan constantly vibrating causing business disruptions and building foundations to crumble from the underground trains and subways? How is sports played in Madison Square Garden with trains underneath and how does the building keep standing? Did concerts, dog shows or the Republican National Convention stop when a train passed underneath the building?
Matthew F. Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Here’s a hint: Drs. Hsieh and Carroll are educators, and while I am certain they are excellent at their jobs (and I admire the community colleges in San Diego for very excellently meeting their teaching missions), they are simply not qualified to render an opinion on the matter.
StevieB Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 2:22 am
The city of Beverly Hills is convinced that their high school will fall into the earth if the subway to Century City passes under the campus. Misinformation and hysteria is rampant on the subject of tunneling.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:49 am
During rush hour there isn’t a time when trains aren’t moving under Madison Square Garden. Not unusual for there to be multiple trains to be moving.
Andy M. Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 3:34 am
In London, the line into Marylebone passes underneath Lords cricket grounds in a shallow tunnel. Lords is the UK’s premier traditional cricket location. Yet there are never any problems and trains continue to operate as normal during games.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 6:23 am
Steve, Good question. And I think we all know the answer. Unless we’re talking medical facility with MRI machines, or JBL laser research, there would be no vibrations that would affect current property uses. The vibrations coming from an HSR tunnel would not be perceptible from humans, or even dogs.
And, tunnels are underneath or very close to hundreds of other sensitive sites. The White House, Pentagon, Harvard, and hundreds of offie towers.
I am glad no one too serious from Miramar College is being a pollyana. The administrator of Beverly Hills HS sure has.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:33 am
They are right beneath us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXy2hu0BXKg
StevieB Reply:
October 19th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Experts spoke to the Metro board telling them tunneling under Beverly Hills HS is safe.
I am certain that those opposed will not be convinced of the safety but is it less likely that litigation to stop the tunneling will be effective.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
These fears of vibrations from train tunnels are insane. It reminds me of some of the demented panics created in the Victorian era by really innocuous new technologies. The only possible explanation is that these people have never, ever stood atop a railway tunnel.
…except that in Beverly Hills, all they have to do is visit Los Angeles and stand on top of the Red Line, so they don’t even have that excuse.
What gets me is that for the 163 alignment, they’d have to tunnel under Miramar due to flight-path restrictions – that in fact is the longest stretch of tunneling proposed on the 163-8 route. If they can’t work something out with the Marines, maybe even just a shallow trench (a few feet below ground so that the wires are equal with the height tops of semi-trailors), I will just be boggled. Given that highway signs must be “no less than 17 feet” above the roadway, and themselves must be 10 feet tall, I can’t imagine they’d need to go down too far to get the 30″ clearance needed for the wires.
I would love a UCSD-area stop since I will probably end up buying a condo there someday, hopefully within walking distance to the UTC stop (and of course since it is a major destination for business and educational travel, probably second only to downtown). At least I imagine a path along the 163 opens up the possibility of a future stop in northern Kearny Mesa (something near the 52/163 interchange), which may be more convenient for the outlying residential communities (East county, Clairemont, Mira Mesa).
Andy M. Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 1:58 am
I think the difference may be in the visibility. A highway sign is a relatively massive structure that a pilot can recognise easily and at a great distance. An OHL is a much lighter and more filigrane structure that under certain weather conditions might appear invisible, hence increasing the danger of a plane hitting it.
But I’m sure a way could be found around that problem,
Peter Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 4:17 am
“But I’m sure a way could be found around that problem”
Yes, it’s called obstruction lighting. Put a light on the top of each OCS pole, and you’re done.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 6:25 am
A trench is the answer. Maybe cap it adjacent to the runway approach.
Look at LA Crenshaw project by LAX for an example.
Donk Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:33 am
An even better example is Moffet Field in Mountain View. VTA passes right adjacent to it with a partial trench.
What’s the argument for doing Los Angeles – San Diego last, and not first? A high speed connection between LA and San Diego would be a fine hsr system in its own right. I haven’t heard of natives being restless down there, as they are up north. Asking that the tracks pass under your college, rather than cutting it in half, is a far cry from forbidding hsr from crossing your county. In the time it will take to settle the lawsuits from the farmers in the central valley, and the homeowners in Palo Alto, a Los Angeles – San Diego high speed train could be financed, built and running.
Peter Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 5:20 am
“What’s the argument for doing Los Angeles – San Diego last, and not first?”
That’s what the politicians wanted, so that’s what we got.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 6:26 am
Geographic equity.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:08 am
It’s hardly geographic equity when SoCal comprises 60% of Californians and LA-SD is expected to have the majority of ridership in 2030.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Yes, SoCal is awesome and it *is* tempting to send our tax dollars and water to that very important part of the state.
I believe the main objective for HSR wasn’t LA to SD. It was connecting SF to LA. Project management focuses on the primary objective. This segment isn’t core to the HSR core objective.
A cool side effect of HSR funded under ARRA and Prop1A is drawing public interest to new, connecting projects or segments and starting them with *additional* state money.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:49 am
We were already doing that here in SoCal long before Prop 1A
Peter Baldo Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Youre right, it should be SF to LA, and hopefully it will. Still, it’s possible to imagine a scenario where San Diego – LA gets built and is successful, then gets extended to the LA outskirts to pick up more riders. Then to Bakersfield where it connects to Caltrans and more riders still. In the event of a peace treaty with Kings County, the line could continue up the central valley to Sacramento and the Bay Area.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I didn’t say I agreed with it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 7:58 am
The Bay area is whiny like no other.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Yes, we are very whiny.
I am very interested in how ultra conservative tea-bagging segments of SoCal will react when the big gubberment, socialist, land-grabbing, hippie train CAHSRA migrates south.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:47 am
This would be the ultraconservative SoCal that is spending a good deal of money on track improvements for 30 minute service for Orange County and increased speed and capacity in general along LOSSAN, yes?
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Come on. This incremental work is on par with the widely supported Caltrain improvements. Let us see when the CAHSRA comes a knocking.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Aside from large segments of double and triple tracking, thirty some odd miles of tunnel in historically or environmentally sensitive areas, etc., in a rather active freight rail corridor, and so on. Of course, they are also being handled far more competently than Caltrain is with their project which is reaching towards truly breathtaking quantities of waste. If memory serves, Caltrains electrification cost, at $1.25 billion would pay for all of the double tracking, PTC signaling, and the three tunnel projects in San Diego County (although note for additional parking structures and the like which are currently programmed).
Mike Brennan Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:08 am
Here here. San Diego to LA simply would have made too much sense as phase 1. Huge existing ridership, no crazy passes or areas of entrenched nimbyism. Its boggling.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Recognize that if HSR would have agreed to a free tunnel along the PAMPA Caltrain ROW, there wouldn’t be a Palo Alto NIMBY movement.
trentbridge Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 11:24 am
No entrenched nimbyism? That’s why OC voted to build an international airport at the former USMC airbase at El Toro. Oh, wait – they didn’t. They voted to keep the dinky airport at John Wayne. That’s why the Toll Roads run down all the way down to San Clemente. Oh, wait – they don’t. Because we didn’t want a toll road cutting thru a state park or upsetting the Trestles surfing spot! OC has plenty of nimbyism!
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Ah yes, the chartered jet which overflew neighborhoods outside the defined flight paths and far lower than even the Marines flew.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:07 pm
First of all, it’s “hear hear”. Second, OC is an area of entrenched NIMBYism, and so are parts of San Diego County (though not other parts).
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Um, it was tried in 1982 and quite frankly support was supposed to be stronger for the current project in the Bay Area than down south…
Nonsense. Improving the design saves tens of billions. Pay more, get less isn’t a very compelling strategy.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:08 pm
How do you improve the design? You fund the design.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:08 pm
To be clearer, doing design properly requires money, that’s what I’m saying.
This isn’t good news.
Investors may not back bullet train until after it’s running, agency says
LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-investors-20111018,0,7732152.story
Eric M Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
They forgot to mention that China and Japan have already offered money for the project.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
QWell he manages to call up CARRD for a money quote:
CA not getting more money is not a real possibility. It is an impossibility the federal government will never ever give more funding to continue building HSR. It’s also a certainty that failing to use the funding as and when promised will result in the loss of the funding – billions lost.
Andy M. Reply:
October 19th, 2011 at 5:58 am
Is that so? Have they actually put a real offer on the table or have they just voiced interest in principle, but not yet discussed their terms and conditions (which could well be you shoulder the risk and we take the profit)
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Not this guy again…this is the best person the Times can find to write on HSR? It seems like he’s never written the phrase “qualified tax credit” in his life.
Basically that option would finance HSR much like …. affordable housing. That wouldn’t indicate that the project is risky (Section 8 has no shortage of applications), but that it won’t break even. Why? Because the bonds that are tax exempt are auctioned off to investors as a way to reduce their overall tax liability. Hence you can get more for the credit than it’s par value.
I don’t think we are there yet. That’s a serious bridge to cross.
Kings County Supervisors unanimously approve opposition to the HSR project in their meeting this AM (10-18-2011)
From the resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Kings County Board of Supervisors:
1. Affirms the findings herein;
2. REVOKES and RESCINDS Resolution #10-033 adopted May 25, 2010; and
3. OPPOSES the California High-Speed Rail Authority High-Speed Train Project.
The foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted upon motion by Supervisor
Joe Neves, seconded by Supervisor Doug Verboon at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of October, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Neves, Verboon, Fagundes, Valle and Barba
NOES: Supervisors
ABSENT: Supervisors
Andrew Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Time to change the game a little bit” ?? Then maybe it’s time for the state legislature to reexamine how much irrigation water Kings County deserves.
joe Reply:
October 18th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Wikipedia cites references that claim more than half of Kings County personal income comes from government jobs. If HSR bypasses the county – what will happen when the state wants to expand infrastructure? Shouldn’t expansion happen along the HSR route and with counties with stops?
Refusing to cooperate – If they are trying for sympathy – sympathy from whom?
I know Gilroy’s Mayor reminded the Councilman who opposed HSR that it WAS coming and Gilroy had no veto over the project so it was advisable to give recommendations to the HSR project and seek to influence it.
Kings County is going sue the State. I’m sure their anti-growth lawyer/adviser is hot thinking about the anticipated attention.
Farmers with subsidized water and price supports kvetching about freedom from big government. It should be a hoot.
“Time to change the game a little bit” ?? Then maybe it’s time for the state legislature to reexamine how much irrigation water Kings County deserves.
Here is ABC news coverage of the Kings Co. supervisors meeting and their rejecting all HSR in Kings County.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8395993
The link has a 2 minute video. Those supervisors don’t pull any punches.
Nathanael Reply:
October 21st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Those supervisors do, however, punch like drunken idiots picking a barfight, to continue your analogy.