Here in the Bay Area, we’re having our own Sputnik moment on the California high-speed rail project. Since the Authority Board voted in December to begin construction of the system connecting Los Angeles to the Bay Area in the Central Valley, we’ve seen the departure of the lead engineer for the Peninsula Rail Program, the release date of the draft environmental impact report delayed, and stood on the sidelines watching commitments of state and federal funds head to Los Angeles and the Central Valley. In short, we’re getting beat.

If the Bay Area is to maintain its economic standing in a globally competitive world, we must regroup. To build a statewide system of high-speed rail connecting major metropolitan cities in California will require our region to redouble its efforts to earn the continued support of local, state and federal decision-makers and elected officials and the public at large.

Foust is making some very strong points here. High speed rail is indeed essential to maintaining global competitiveness. Metropolitan regions that enable cheap, sustainable transportation will have an edge over those that waste money on oil-based methods of travel. And as congestion increases on freeways, no amount of hybrid or electric vehicle innovation can overcome the far more cost-effective electric trains.

Some might argue that Foust is merely making a claim to economic benefits for HSR because she supports the project. But it seems likely that it’s the other way around – she supports the project because of its economic benefits.

Foust goes on to detail the economic benefits of HSR to San Mateo County – and then explains what she believes should be done to bring that about:

The Authority needs to finish and release the draft environmental impact report on the San Francisco to San Jose corridor but first taking the extra time to examine more closely trenching and other alternatives important to communities along the route, including the planning, design and construction of improvements to Caltrain on the corridor that will accommodate and serve both the near-term and long-term needs of the Authority and Caltrain for inter-city high speed rail service.

We can work more diligently towards the principles of sustainable growth and preservation of community character as we forge a path for California’s future. The Authority needs to continue to engage the public to craft a vision for our corridor.

It sounds like Foust believes, as many HSR supporters do – including Californians For High Speed Rail – that both the Authority and the community need to come together to look at all the options. I would add that they need to do so in a constructive spirit, and be mindful of the financial constraints on the project. I’ve never opposed trenching or tunneling, but we have to keep in mind that, as was brought home on Saturday at the Friends of Caltrain event, there isn’t exactly a lot of money lying around to build stuff. Just as the Caltrain event was dedicated to finding a funding source to keep the trains running, so too should any collaborative effort on the Peninsula include an effort to fund the construction of the desired infrastructure.

Foust’s op-ed is a good reminder that the discussion over HSR isn’t just about trenches, tunnels, and viaducts. It’s about San Mateo County and the rest of California being able to maintain its prosperity in the 21st century.

Staff members are expected to recommend to the high-speed rail board next week that the report be delayed for as much as a year, former board member Rod Diridon told Belmont city officials Thursday afternoon.

The EIR was initially due last December but was pushed back until the spring, he said….

The staff will likely recommend the EIR be delayed to allow more time to look into a number of matters that still concern Peninsula city leaders, residents and business owners, including looking into a two-track system through San Mateo County instead of a four-track system.

I’m not convinced this is the best move. Delay of a few months made sense – with stimulus money going to the Central Valley, there was some room to delay the draft EIR into early 2011 to enable more time to discuss implementation of the project. But any greater delay will actually hurt, not help, the Peninsula. While I have never believed that HSR would hurt property values along the route, it is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that there would indeed be a hit to property values from the uncertainty surrounding the project’s design. Once something is decided, the market can price it in and values will stabilize and, before long, begin rising (depending of course on much broader factors in the national housing market). But if a year or two goes by with the situation being uncertain, then it could well cause problems.

And then there’s the ostensible reason for the delay – a desire to explore a two-track system instead of a four-track system:

“This could make all the difference between having the project and not having it,” said Bill Dawson, a member of Belmont’s high-speed rail ad hoc committee. The committee is comprised of local residents and business owners who investigate the potential impact of high-speed rail on Belmont.

“It’s a game-changer,” Dawson said. “People are worried about having four tracks. The right-of-way in Belmont is wide enough to accommodate four tracks, but many oppose four tracks, because it widens the right-of-way.”

Look at that last paragraph there and marvel at the circular logic being employed. The right of way is wide enough for four tracks, but four tracks would widen the right of way? Um, what? Either the ROW is wide enough right now or it’s not.

The other question is whether a two-track system would actually meet the needs of both Caltrain and HSR. I would assume that HSR opponents are proposing this precisely because it can’t, and the tracks would be used primarily by Caltrain. Or, if Caltrain has to scale back its operations, HSR could use more of the track capacity, but none of us wants to see that happen to Caltrain.

Another reason the two-track proposal doesn’t really make sense is that it doesn’t resolve the question of the vertical alignment. Is there that much difference between a two-track aerial structure and a four-track aerial structure? As for a tunnel, Diridon explained at the meeting in Belmont, their chances of getting one without the locals helping pay for it are slim at best:

“If we build a tunnel down the Peninsula, we’re going to have the build the tunnel for Sanger, and Cochrane, and the other Central Valley cities,” Diridon said. “That’s the law. If we don’t, the project will be stopped by legal action.”

Holding out for a tunnel would significantly delay the high-speed rail project, he said.

“If you hold out for a tunnel, I think what you’ll do is delay the project on the Peninsula maybe forever,” Diridon said. “Because I don’t think you can build a tunnel.”

And of course, the costs of giving everybody and their brother a tunnel would be astronomical, so it’s not something that can be done without local funding. As we know, the Peninsula so far has been reluctant to provide it.

So I’m not quite sure what this EIR delay is going to accomplish. It’s not going to resolve some of the basic inconsistencies in the anti-HSR viewpoint. If a delay can help everyone hammer out an agreement on how to build the tracks, then it would be valuable. So far though, the anti-HSR folks seem to be pretty deeply entrenched, and many political leaders on the Peninsula are either with them or aren’t yet willing to side with the clear majority that supports HSR and wants it built.

If a delay happens, then I do hope that everyone can come together to figure out a solution that, above all, provides for the best passenger rail service, because that’s what matters most. Oil prices keep rising, so there is some urgency to getting these details resolved.

Mike Rosenberg reports that CHSRA CEO Roelof van Ark has told Burlingame officials that if they want below-grade tracks, they’ll have to pay for it:

“This letter that we got from (California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark) basically says in bold words that, if we want a trench, we’re going to have to pay for it,” Burlingame Vice Mayor Jerry Deal said.

Van Ark sent the city the letter Dec. 28, after Mayor Terry Nagel asked him to clarify comments he reportedly made in the Gilroy area saying the state could not afford to build the tracks underground.

Van Ark said in his letter that the state has “an obligation to deliver to California citizens” a project that includes “careful considerations of the cost of each section in light of the entire system.” The $43 billion project is already facing a funding shortfall of $30 billion, even before adding in potential extra costs of underground tracks on the Peninsula.

“The authority encourages these municipalities (that want below-ground tracks) to explore alternate means of funding the cost difference of placing the alignment below-grade,” he wrote.

I quibble with Rosenberg’s choice of phrase here – “facing a funding shortfall of $30 billion?” Huh? I know Rosenberg understands how transportation funding works, and that a project is proposed and then funded – and often funded in parts. A “shortfall” only emerges when the funding cannot be found or has been exhausted to build the project as planned. That’s not the case right now, and I don’t know why Rosenberg is using the framing of HSR opponents on this.

In any case, the story is pretty clear: van Ark understands that his obligation is to the taxpayers of California, to build the project they expected at a reasonable budget. Not every city can get gold-plated infrastructure – in case Burlingame hasn’t noticed, Congress isn’t going to be giving out much new HSR funding for the next 2 years, and the state of California isn’t likely to do so either.

So instead of telling Burlingame “no trench for you” van Ark is saying “I’m more than happy to build you a trench, but you need to fund it.” I don’t see anything illegitimate or unfair about that. If Burlingame believes their property values will rise because of a trench, then it makes sense for them to fund that on their own.

They instead expect the rest of the state to essentially subsidize their property values. I cannot emphasize enough how absurd and out-of-touch that view is. At a time when property values have crashed hard in other parts of the state, why on earth would anyone in Riverside or Stockton or San Diego or East LA believe that Burlingame property owners deserve state aid to maintain their land values?

Burlingame leaders are threatening to throw a big temper tantrum over this:

The Burlingame City Council plans to consider a stronger stance against the project at its next meeting Jan. 18. The council has retained an outside attorney and may consider joining other Peninsula cities in a lawsuit against the state. It could also adopt a resolution opposing the project or take some other action.

“I think we need to return to common sense here and re-evaluate this whole project,” Nagel said….

“I think there are an increasing number of very clear signals that the authority has no intention of putting it underground,” Councilman Michael Brownrigg said. “I just don’t believe them anymore, that they’re really taking this seriously.”

Guess what, Michael? They’re not. And they shouldn’t. Burlingame has no reason at all to expect the rest of the state to pay for their gold-plated infrastructure, especially when Burlingame refuses to bring some of their own money to the table. Again, if Burlingame were to agree to find local funding, then I’d be all in favor of finding some way to cut a deal on this matter. But Burlingame has no justification, none at all, for demanding everyone else in California fund their trench – especially when funding for schools and health care services are in serious jeopardy of being cut.

Of course, this is all much ado about nothing. Burlingame’s fears about what would happen if an above-grade alignment were chosen are not based in reality. Across the bay, the small town of Albany has maintained high property values nearly 40 years after the construction of the BART aerial through the middle of town. And Rockridge has become one of the most prosperous and desirable neighborhoods in not just Oakland, but the entire East Bay even with a massive freeway viaduct running through it. Albany and Rockridge have adapted well. Surely Burlingame can do so as well, and with easier traffic flows and no more loud horns, property values in the city will rise, even near the aerial structure.

High speed rail in California is going to happen – and it will include the Peninsula as a way to access San Francisco. Burlingame is going about this entirely the wrong way – they can’t stop HSR, as much as they might delude themselves into thinking they can. And they’re never, ever going to convince the rest of the state to pay for their desired structures. If the Burlingame city council were to have taken a less adversarial approach, building public support for both the project in order to build support for funding a trench or tunnel, then they’d be in a better position to actually receive that desired infrastructure.

That path is still open to them. If not, Burlingame will get an aerial viaduct. There will be screaming and hollering, predictions of the apocalypse, and then a few years after it’s built…people will stop noticing it’s even there, as they instead notice the increase in their property values. And as even Burlingame residents ride the bullet trains around California, they’ll wonder what all the fuss was ever about.

And here’s the letter (click here to download):

Roelof Van Ark Letter to Burlingame

The boss of the California high-speed train project had a clear message to cities on the Peninsula on Friday: The state’s bullet trains won’t run through a tunnel or covered trench in the region.

In a two-hour meeting with California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark at San Mateo City Hall, the bullet train executive told officials from San Mateo, Burlingame and Millbrae that the covered trenches were not possible for anything other than very short stretches of track, city leaders who attended the meeting said.

The reason? Freight trains that currently run along the line can’t be closed off from the surface because they need ventilation.

The tunnels in many cases would cost billions of dollars for just a few miles and were several times more expensive than the above-ground options. But state officials had said that if the cities could raise the money, they could get the below-ground tracks they wanted.

The needs of freight rail users have gotten lost in the shuffle over the last several months as Peninsula cities demanded a long tunnel – which for numerous reasons isn’t workable for today’s freight rail operators. This isn’t a new issue, of course – at the September 2009 Palo Alto HSR teach-in Greg Greenway of the Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group told the audience that existing operating capacity had to be preserved so that Peninsula businesses currently depending on freight rail aren’t cut off – something Union Pacific has been saying about HSR more broadly (not just on the Peninsula). Freight trains are used to short tunnels, but nothing quite like the miles-long tunnel that has been discussed by many Peninsula cities.

Some Peninsula leaders called for “new ideas”:

Another attendee at the meeting, Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan — whose city is in favor of the project and will get a bullet train stop — said cities still might be able to get covered trenches if some new ideas are put forward.

“You have to understand that freight is going through (the Peninsula) right now,” Papan said. “If we can keep that above ground and a high-speed rail in a covered trench, there are alternatives.”

This is worth exploring, but has its own challenges – keeping freight rail at the surface might not provide improvements or benefits to the communities since they would not be able to recapture the surface ROW for development (whether as parks or as something else). And if they can’t recapture that surface ROW, then the Peninsula cities are going to have an extremely difficult time funding construction of a tunnel anyway, unless local taxpayers are just going to foot the bill directly. Still, it can’t hurt to examine the concept.

Van Ark also pointed out that the Peninsula cities’ lack of consistency has hurt efforts to provide a regional solution:

Another issue the officials said van Ark raised in the meeting was the lack of a consistent stance among Peninsula cities.

“We came out of this meeting with the hope that we’ll bring more cities on board, and we’ll be pursuing that actively,” Papan said.

Even between the “tri-cities” of Burlingame, Millbrae and San Mateo, there are plenty of disagreements. And the cities that have sued — Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton — have created an ever bigger divide in the region, he said, according to officials who were there.

This is undoubtedly true. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton have made it very difficult to provide any kind of regional consensus due to their elected leaders’ negativity about the project. By ignoring their constituents’ ongoing support for the project and preferring anti-HSR resolutions and lawsuits to more constructive solutions, they’ve only made it less likely that a regional solution can be achieved.

The Draft EIR is due in December – a milestone that will help clarify significantly the possible vertical alignment for the HSR project. Let’s hope that Peninsula city leaders are able to work more constructively to produce a solution their constituents can accept.

Three options will be the focus of further study. All leave the Transbay Terminal in a covered trench to the Fourth and King streets Caltrain station, then travel at ground level to South San Francisco.

– One option relies almost entirely on ground-level and elevated structures – either earthen berms or concrete or steel viaducts – to travel from San Francisco to San Jose.

– Another option uses ground-level and elevated rails until Atherton, then mixes ground level, elevated, trench and tunnel designs on the southern part of the Peninsula with tracks placed in open trenches in stretches through parts of Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View.

– A variation of the second option would place tracks in a long trench stretching from Atherton to Sunnyvale.

(UPDATE: Mike Rosenberg’s Mercury News article has a very good graphic showing the different options.)

The Supplemental AA report noted that the long tunnel would not only be extremely costly to build, but has two other problems that contradict the expressed desires of those in the community that spoke out:

• It would be difficult to build the tunnel while maintaining existing Caltrain operations

• It would be difficult to build the tunnel without an expanded right of way at the transitions into and out of the tunnel, requiring more property takes than the public would likely support.

As the article indicated, a tunnel could still happen in the southern Peninsula area, including Palo Alto – and if the public expresses a desire for a tunnel and is willing to accept Caltrain disruption and more property takes, a longer tunnel could be back on the table.

That would still require it to be funded. Here, the Peninsula Cities Coalition would do well to help their own case and stop attacking the HSR project and instead work collaboratively and constructively to ensure HSR is funded by Congress. When PCC member cities such as Atherton or Menlo Park sue the Authority and play up claims that the ridership numbers are flawed, it does not help the cause of getting more HSR funding from Congress, which the Peninsula cities will need to construct their desired designs.

The fact that aerial structures are still on the table will likely revive discredited claims that it would be a “Berlin Wall” that would “divide” communities, a claim that does not acknowledge the fact that Peninsula cities are already “divided” by the existing tracks, whether they’re at grade or above grade, and that an aerial solution would actually help reunite these communities by making the rail corridor more permeable and safer.

Of course, some of these cities already have built their own aerial structures and haven’t suffered as a result, with San Carlos being a high-profile example. Clem reminds us of another example from San Mateo:

The elevated structure spans across several blocks of San Mateo, like a gash through the heart of downtown. Its 67-foot width casts vast shadows onto downtown shoppers, like a freeway overpass, although women and children seem to pass underneath without being attacked. The concrete structure, strangely free of graffiti, provides a full 16 feet of free clearance underneath it for trucks. Three stories up above, the side walls of the elevated bridges loom a full 25 feet over the street. To add insult to this injury, metallic poles tower another 18 feet above the structure, bringing its overall height to an incredible 43 feet!

If you know San Mateo, you might have guessed this describes the Central Parking Garage, a structure with presence, visual impact, and context-sensitivity resembling the elevated, four-track high-speed rail corridor that residents fear.

There are examples of aerial passenger rail structures that are integrated well into their communities and have spurred growth and activity. We highlighted several in March 2009. Unfortunately, there still remains a bias in the US against aerial structures, equating them with blight.

One of these biased sources is, once again, the folks from KALW News, who for some reason that I cannot quite understand, have been given a platform at the SF Chronicle’s website on their Bay Area Transit blog. This is despite the fact that these reporters appear to not have much familiarity with the HSR project, or with the years of accumulated knowledge built up by the transit blogging community, and despite the fact that other writers for the Chronicle’s Bay Area Transit blog, such as Greg Dewar and Matthew Roth, have far more experience, knowledge and insight on Bay Area transit issues.

Today’s post by Casey Miner is a great example. Miner, who apparently had little understanding or familiarity with the HSR project until very recently, had this reaction to the Peninsula Supplemental AA report:

As anyone who’s lived near an elevated BART station knows, the noise, vibration and general aesthetics of those kinds of tracks aren’t always the greatest. And they can indeed wreck a neighborhood—just look at what happened to West Oakland’s 7th Street.

This is quite ridiculous, to claim that West Oakland’s 7th Street was “wrecked” by BART. As Miner may not know, the true damage was done by the Cypress Street viaduct, which collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It also didn’t help that West Oakland suffered 40 straight years of economic dislocation, brought on not by freeways or BART (in fact, BART was welcomed by local residents as a bringer of jobs and access to other employment centers around the region) but by state and federal economic policies that starved the community of jobs and other economic resources. I’ve studied Oakland history, and am very familiar with the work of others that have done the same, and no historian has yet claimed that BART was what “wrecked” West Oakland.

In fact, one can see places where BART aerial structures haven’t “wrecked” a community – Albany is a pretty good example – and places where it may even have helped, with Fruitvale being another example.

But that error is minor compared to Miner’s next statement:

But what seemed more salient to me was a comparison to this country’s last big infrastructure project: the interstate highway system.

The dream of futuristic highways soaring over the land led many cities to build freeways right through the middle of neighborhoods. By the time people started to rethink those ideas the damage had been done. It’s only now that some groups are gaining traction in their efforts to take down sections of freeway and re-unify the areas they divided. The push to tear down part of Interstate 280 is the latest local example.

It’s been a long time since we built BART and the freeways, and it may be that engineers are able to solve some of the problems with aerial tracks. I’ll be looking into those issues in the coming weeks and will let you know what I find.

This is a totally inappropriate comparison for several reasons, all of which indicate Miner’s basic lack of understanding of transportation issues and therefore call into question her fitness to write the Bay Area Transit blog for SFGate.com:

1. The Peninsula HSR project is entirely unlike the Interstate projects because, unlike those projects, the HSR project will not be built on a new alignment. The tracks already act as a barrier. An aerial structure would, in practice, not be all that different, except things would be safer and more permeable to vehicles and pedestrians. This is totally unlike a freeway project, however, because the HSR project isn’t being blasted through a neighborhood on a totally new alignment.

2. Rail corridors behave very differently for communities than freeways. This is especially true for the Peninsula corridor, which was built up around the tracks. Downtowns and urban development patterns emerged around rail stations, which is totally and completely different from most freeways, which ignored existing development patterns and blasted through them, causing disruption. Whether the Peninsula rail corridor is aerial, at-grade, or in a trench/tunnel, it would still act to bring the community together through its stations, whereas a freeway does not bring community development activities toward it by its very nature.

Miner then compounds her already-flawed post by not showing any understanding of the backstory between the CHSRA and Peninsula HSR opponents:

People’s reactions to the plans weren’t only about the engineering. They also revealed a deeper mistrust of the Authority board’s motives. Several objected to the fact that the plans had not appeared on the Authority’s website until some time after the meeting started, when they had been promised to the public earlier. And when the time came to vote on the staff recommendations, Authority board member Rod Diridon sparked yells of disbelief when he declared that “the board doesn’t have an entrenched position.” It seems clear that some trust issues will need to be ironed out if this project is going to move forward effectively. The board seemed to acknowledge this fact, even making a point of asking that all information be posted online in a timely manner. But there’s still a long way to go.

Miner basically assumes that the critics and “yells of disbelief” are authentic displays of community anger, when in fact they are calculated statements by known project opponents designed to discredit the Authority and its work by giving the inaccurate appearance of a lack of community support.

In other words, it’s exactly the same thing as the teabaggers who disrupted town halls across the country a year ago.

I really do not understand why KALW News has such a prominent perch at SFGate.com when their reporting is so consistently flawed on the HSR project, including Nathanael Johnson’s notoriously biased HSR report that failed to interview a single HSR project supporter.

Miner, Johnson and the KALW News folks appear to suffer from what I would call the “Tracy Wood problem” after the notoriously anti-HSR biased reporter for the Voice of OC. Like Wood, the KALW News folks don’t appear to have very much knowledge of transit issues at all, especially HSR. But they are attuned to the idea that government sometimes screws up and sometimes doesn’t listen to the public. So they walk into the HSR issue, see a bunch of HSR critics complaining about this and that, and suddenly believe they’ve found some huge story about a flawed government agency.

In reality, they’ve found no such thing. But like Donny from The Big Lebowski, they’re like someone who walks into the room in the middle of a movie: they have no frame of reference. Lacking an understanding of transit issues or the HSR project and its critics, they misinterpret what they see without even doing the basic due diligence that once was taught as standard practice in journalism school.

The HSR project remains popular around the state, and thank god for reporters like the SF Chronicle’s Michael Cabanatuan who understand the HSR project and the debate around it, and who can provide fact-based, neutral reporting that is useful. The KALW News folks could learn a thing or two from that model.

Five cities on the San Francisco Peninsula called today for suspending planning for the state’s high-speed train project until vexing environmental and economic issues are resolved.

The demand by the Peninsula Cities Consortium – Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Burlingame and Belmont – follows a report by the University of California’s Institute of Transportation Studies that’s highly critical of the High-Speed Rail Authority’s projections of ridership on the proposed bullet train that would link Northern and Southern California.

I am shocked, shocked to hear that the PCC would seize on the flawed Berkeley ITS report to use to justify their demand to stop the HSR project.

Seriously, this move should be no surprise to anyone following the project. PCC members, including Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt and Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, have been using an unrepresentative planning process to ignore the widespread public support in their communities for HSR and advance their own anti-HSR agenda. Pat Burt called for project planning to be suspended all the way back in January.

The cost of this move would be enormous. Despite the fact that the cost of both borrowing and construction are at their lowest in decades, and despite high unemployment on the Peninsula, and despite the availability of federal stimulus funds, and despite the need to provide sustainable, affordable passenger rail service to promote economic recovery, the PCC apparently believes that everyone can afford to not build the HSR project until it is done exactly the way the PCC wants – which is apparently “not at all.”

This is made worse by the fact that the PCC statement is based on flawed principles:

In a statement issued July 6, the five cities – Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont and Burlingame – announce, “High speed rail should be built right or not at all. By ‘right,’ we mean that the rail line should integrate into our communities without harming their current livability. The best design and community values, rather than finances, should determine the alignment.”

In other words, these cities, among California’s wealthiest, are saying they want the rest of the state to pay for their gold-plated trains. Although the current plans do call for the tracks to be integrated into the community and enhance livability by reducing traffic, reducing noise, and reducing the number of suicides and deaths along the tracks, the PCC has been taken over by a small and unrepresentative group of homeowners who are convinced, against the available evidence, that the HSR project will undermine their property values. These NIMBYs believe it is the job of everyone in California to subsidize their already-considerable property values.

Unfortunately, the PCC takes a disingenuous approach to the issue of planning and cost:

PCC Chair Richard Cline, mayor of Menlo Park, explained that the five cities are concerned that key problems with the project may not be resolved because of the intense pressure being exerted by the Authority’s desire to qualify for federal stimulus funding. Construction needs to begin on the project by September 2012 and finish by September 2017 in order for California to qualify for a $2.25 federal grant.

There’s no argument that there are some issues that need to be resolved, and CA4HSR has identified several of them. But those can be addressed without undermining the project in this fashion.

“Common sense is absent from the high speed rail discussion. Right now the Authority plans to select a final alignment and release its draft environmental impact report by December of this year under an extremely rushed project schedule that is dictated solely by the desire for federal funds,” Cline said.

This is not true. There is plenty of common sense in the HSR discussion. But the PCC has shown a systematic desire to undermine that common sense in the interests of slowing or stopping a project they don’t like. The project schedule is not “extremely rushed” – it is a sensible and standard timeline used across the state. Federal funds are important – without them the trains cannot be built, and the Peninsula will continue to stagnate in the depths of a recession.

He added, “The project is suffering from an enormous credibility problem, due to its widely criticized business plan, faulty ridership numbers and the absence of funding to carry out the project statewide – let alone offer realistic alternatives for the section planned on the Peninsula. There also is no stated plan for paying to operate high speed rail once it is built, and we fear local taxpayers may be left holding the bag.”

This is also untrue. It is as if Cline called someone a liar and then told the press “that person has been accused of lying.” The ridership numbers are not faulty – the Berkeley ITS report did not say that – and there is a stated plan for paying to operate HSR once it is built. Cline may not agree with the business plan, just as he may not agree with the project, but his disagreement alone does not invalidate either the plan or the project.

As to “local taxpayers left holding the bag,” Cline instead seems to believe that Californians as a whole should be paying for the gold-plated system that his city wants. This does not strike me as appropriate.

Cline explained, “Our cities have been frustrated with the Authority’s inability to answer questions and a contradictory message that we should select the alternative we most prefer while, at the same time, being told by board members that our cities will have to pay for anything other than the cheapest alternative.”

That is not a contradictory message. It is consistent – if the cities prefer a more costly alternative, they should pay for it – and it is also realistic considering the need to exercise fiscal responsibility on this project.

Instead, the five PCC cities say high speed rail should be part of a comprehensive regional public transit plan and that the California High Speed Rail Authority should:

* Provide a valid business and financial plan that supports the full range of alternatives proposed and satisfies the requirements of the state Legislative Analyst’s Office

This is already under way.

Demonstrate to state leaders that the plan will not require operating subsidies from local taxpayers in the future

This has already been demonstrated.

Provide ridership studies to support the project that are validated by an independent peer review body that is responsible to the state Legislature

Next time, let’s select a peer review body that is not headed by a known project critic, shall we?

Increase and enhance local Caltrain service and improve Caltrain infrastructure as a condition of using the Caltrain corridor

This definitely needs to happen, but it has been inherent in the proposal all along. The PCC could help by brokering meetings between CHSRA and Caltrain staff. Instead they appear to prefer sniping from the sidelines.

In the statement, the five cities also ask that local communities be empowered in the decision-making process by giving transportation goals and community goals equal weight, and by affirming that the best design with the least impact on communities, rather than finances, will determine the alignment chosen for each section of the rail line.

But who defines “community goals”? A small and unrepresentative group of NIMBYs? These nebulous “community goals” cannot be allowed to undermine a statewide project of this importance. And unless these cities plan to pay for the project, they cannot seriously expect the state of California or anyone else living in it to agree that cost should be no object.

They ask for sufficient time to evaluate proposed alternatives and environmental impacts and to carry out the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) community consensus-building process. While high speed rail officials have endorsed using CSS for the Peninsula section of the project, Cline noted, “CSS is not working. The sped-up timeline for the project has short-circuited and compromised this very thorough eight-step process.”

From my perspective, the PCC has not been willing to participate in CSS in a truly open and engaging fashion. Their frequent statements against the project undermine the spirit of CSS.

The cities also ask for funding that “will allow the full range of alternatives to be considered without expecting local cities to contribute substantially to the cost” and request reimbursement for city expenses related to evaluation of project proposals.

Again, the PCC – which includes some of the state’s richest cities – wants everyone else to pay their bills.

Cline credited the PCC for calling attention to many of the problems with high speed rail that the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state Auditor’s Office and numerous state legislators are now focusing on. “Congresswoman Anna Eshoo said it well in a recent editorial,” Cline noted, “when she said, “The High Speed Rail Authority has to hit the reset button, improve its reputation and assuage Peninsula residents, who have every reason to fear that this project will be a nightmare.”

In fact, the PCC is the source of many of these claims that have been regurgitated without question by these offices and individuals. So it’s disingenuous for the PCC to cite those as independent validators when the PCC itself has generated much of what those “validators” have said.

Once again, we see the PCC acting in an inappropriate manner, unrepresentative of their constituents who still support HSR, and willing to undermine the project and saddle everyone else in California with the costs of either their gold-plated preference, or the cost of delaying the project, or the cost of not having HSR at all.

To be clear, I’m not opposed to a tunnel, never have been. But we’ve never seen any clear business plan for how it will be paid for come from the PCC. In fact, while the PCC is levying charges at the HSR project, those charges can be turned right around on the PCC:

• If cost is to be no object, how will costs above the current budget be paid? Where is the financing plan for this?

• If federal stimulus money is abandoned as the PCC proposes, how will that funding gap be closed?

• What is their justification for making the rest of California pay for the preferences of five of California’s richest cities?

• Can the PCC specify “community values” that are to be used in the planning?

• Will the PCC support a truly inclusive community outreach process, or will they continue with their unrepresentative and exclusive process?

It is very unfortunate that the PCC has chosen to take the path of obstruction, when a path of collaboration remains open to them. But then, the path of obstruction is the one you’d expect a group that has never really supported HSR to take.

Introduction
One of the decisions that CHSRA has yet to make is whether there should be an HSR station between Millbrae/SFO and San Jose Diridon and if so, where it should be sited. The candidates under consideration are Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View. We last posted on this still-open issue of the Mid-Peninsula Station in February 2009. The present post seeks to revisit that in an updated context.

The station ought to serve two functions: first, it should make HSR service more accessible to residents of the mid-peninsula itself, without forcing them to drive long distances or use Caltrain to connect. The area is not as densely populated as the East Bay, but median household incomes tend to be somewhat higher. Still-single Silicon Valley worker bees tend to have more disposable income, so they may want to take HSR trips more often. Last not least, a mid-peninsula station may simply be the price CHSRA may have to pay for securing environmental approval to construct any new tracks at all in this section of the PCJPB corridor.

The second function should be reasonably convenient access for residents of the central East Bay (Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Newark) via the Dumbarton road bridge (CA-84). Note that prior to the recession, the bridge was severely congested westbound during morning and eastbound during afternoon rush hour. US-101 was similarly congested, so effective connecting bus transit needs to avoid these traffic jams during rush hour.

If/when the BART extension to Santa Clara is completed, residents of the central East Bay will have the additional option of boarding southbound trains at San Jose Diridon. Of course, Amtrak Capitol Corridor and ACE trains already provide connections, though they are not as frequent nor as punctual as BART.

Dumbarton Rail
Back in 2000, San Mateo county voters approved a sales tax hike to fund capital investments for passenger rail service between Union City and Redwood City via the Dumbarton Rail corridor. The wooden single-track rail bridge – built in 1910 and definitely not up to modern seismic code – as well as its approaches are SMCTA property. However, the western trestle of the bridge burnt down in a 1998 fire that the local fire chief called “suspicious”. The remaining part of the bridge also contains two steel swing sections across shipping lanes that are only lightly used these days. These sections are currently welded in the open position and would be replaced by bascule sections. The approaches on both sides run either through or very close to the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, a bird sanctuary that is also home to at least one endangered species, the salt marsh harvest mouse. In addition, the Bay mud is still contaminated with methyl mercury from cinnabar mining during the Gold Rush days. Disturbing the mud releases this highly toxic material back into the food web of the DENWR, so all construction activity is subject to additional safeguards and scrutiny. After the bridge is rehabilitated, SMCTA plans to use it for just six Caltrain round trips per day. They do not include any freight, Amtrak or ACE service.

The Dumbarton Rail project has been postponed, because San Mateo county had earlier “borrowed” $145 million in MTC funds from BART’s WSX (Fremont Warm Springs eXtension) project to get the extension to SFO and Millbrae built. BART euphemistically lists the balance of $54 million as “SFO Extension Surplus Revenue” on its project web site. The truth is that there will be a second deferment when SMCTA next gets a chance to reprogram scarce funds.

Just to be 100% clear on this: even if/when the existing Dumbarton rail bridge is actually rehabilitated, it will be totally unsuitable for HSR service because it supports just a single track and is not grade separated against the shipping lanes. Also, the connection to UPRR’s Centerville right of way in Newark features a kink. The freight railroad has indicated it is in no mood to offer Caltrain trackage rights for even six trains a day, given that Amtrak Capitol Corridor and ACE trains already use it. It has also refused to sell any part of that right of way to CHSRA.

Basically, anyone still advocating that CHSRA run its starter line through Altamont needs to understand that this would imply the construction of an expensive brand-new tall dual-track bridge or else a tunnel across a narrow but environmentally sensitive portion of the Bay, plus a tunnel across part of Union City, (e.g. under Decoto Rd) for an intermodal with BART, given that system is elevated in the area. The Hayward fault would have to be crossed below grade. Additional tunnels would be needed just to reach the town of Pleasanton, where HSR is no more welcome than it is in Atherton.

Ergo, the objective for Dumbarton rail is not HSR but very limited diesel-based Caltrain-branded commuter rail service. The upshot of the low service frequency is that it would be a weak HSR feeder at best. Perhaps one day, it could be supplemented with a new ACE route from Stockton to Millbrae/SFO and SF 4th & King, but no such plans exist today.

Caltrain Ridership
Another factor that could be considered in selecting between the candidates is current Caltrain ridership. Palo Alto is the second busiest station, with Mountain View a close third and Redwood City sixth. However, this would be misleading as the reasons people board at those stations today are immaterial to their effectiveness as HSR feeders. If anything, stations that are already busy would have to deal with a double whammy of connecting road traffic and demand for parking from regional commuters plus long-distance passengers during peak periods.

Local Population
The number of residents in each candidate city is also immaterial, as the primary connecting transportation corridors run northwest-southeast, i.e. between cities. With the notable exception of tony Atherton, the mid-peninsula is anyhow a contiguous conurbation.

Physical Requirements
The mid-peninsula station should feature four full-length platform tracks accessed via two island platforms. Ideally, HSR and Caltrain would harmonize platform heights above top of rail such that either service could use any of the platform tracks. Rock bottom minimum ROW requirements at the station itself would be 4 * 15′ + 2 * 20′ = 100′. In practice, at least 120′ may be needed during the construction phase. Needless to say, construction costs would be much higher if the station had to be built underground, especially if CHSRA and PCJPB continue to insist on preserving freight rail service.

There should be space for adequate for-fee parking within easy walking distance of the platforms, plus appropriate access road capacity. Where free parking is currently offered by nearby shopping malls or merchants, special measures such as validation might be needed to keep HSR customers from abusing it to avoid fees. Curbside parking spots on city streets could also be abused, unless they are metered.

In addition, there should be enough room for connecting kiss+ride, taxi, heavy/light rail, bus and bicycle infrastructure beyond Caltrain and park+ride. If a walkable neighborhood (e.g. pedestrian downtown or transit-oriented development) can be implemented near the station, so much the better. However, that is not essential for generating HSR ridership in the mid-peninsula.

Station construction will generate more construction nuisance than the grade separation and quad tracking works.

Candidate #1: Redwood City
Pro: Cautiously positive stance toward HSR by city council, elevated alignment might be acceptable. Would be served by Dumbarton rail, if it is ever actually implemented. Good regional access via US-101 and El Camino Real and central East Bay (via Dumbarton road bridge and Bayshore Expressway plus city streets).

Con: Lies half-way between SF and San Jose, such that HSR station spacing in the peninsula would be uneven. Only moderately convenient access from I-280 via Woodside Rd (CA-84) and Edgewood Rd. Significant traffic impacts on El Camino Real and Broadway. Psychologically, Atherton is usually considered the north end of Silicon Valley, though that is subject to change.

The following map sketches a possible HSR station layout in the context of the Caltrain Firebird concept. Note the very limited space available for for-fee parking. The Sequoia Station shopping mall and free parking are located immediately next to the existing Caltrain station. There is also a large high school nearby, which would be impacted during construction.

View Redwood City mid-peninsula station in a larger map

Candidate #2: Palo Alto University Ave.
Pro: Good access via Central Expressway, El Camino Real and I-280 via Sand Hill Rd. Home of Stanford University, which could generate substantial HSR ridership. Extensive bicycle infrastructure. Potential for pedestrian zone along University Ave. if traffic is re-routed to parallel streets. Oldest, most established town in the mid-peninsula. Psychological heart of Silicon Valley’s VC-funded start-up culture, though not its center of employment.

Con: Constrained capacity on University Ave and Embarcadero Rd for connection to Dumbarton road bridge and US-101. Oregon Expressway significantly further south. Very limited space for for-fee parking near downtown parking, unless Stanford University permits construction on its land west of El Camino Real. Large nearby shopping mall with free parking. Nearby high school, hospital and high-end residential districts would be impacted by station construction over-and-above quad tracking.

Note that the El Palo Alto tree will anyhow require special attention during quad-track design and construction. Regardless of whether HSR trains stop in Palo Alto, it will also likely be necessary to reconfigure the University/Alma interchange to free up room for additional tracks on the overpass – unless those additional tracks end up in expensive bored tunnels.

Most importantly: City council has flip-flopped on HSR, is now close to asking for/demanding a tunnel. The town’s “planning process” is infamous for its extreme sensitivity to all manner of NIMBY objections and, associated delays. These reasons alone make Palo Alto arguably the least dependable and most contentious of the three candidates at this moment, so I have not bothered to create a map.

Candidate #3: Mountain View
Pro: City explicitly asked to be studied as a station candidate. Located roughly as close to San Jose as Millbrae is to SF. Excellent access potential via US-101, CA-85, CA-237, I-280, Central Expressway, W. Evelyn and El Camino Real. Existing VTA light rail service into Silicon Valley’s “Golden Triangle”, albeit on single track. Potential for pedestrian zone to boost revenue for restaurants and cafes along Castro St. if traffic is re-routed. Significant bicycle infrastructure along Stevens Creek between Sleeper Ave and Shoreline Park and along Dana St toward Sunnyvale.

Con: Fairly close to San Jose, therefore limited incremental ridership potential. Fairly distant from western end of Dumbarton bridge. Slow but reliable rush hour bus route via Shoreline business park feasible along frontage road east of US-101 if bike lanes on the bridge are usurped during peak periods. City has asked for grade separation via trenches, apparently oblivious to cost, the hydrological hazards of the Permanente and Stevens creeks and, to the lack of lateral space for quad tracking in the section between the 85 and 237 freeways – the overpass support columns are in the way!

This lateral constraint makes Clem Tillier’s suggestion for a vertical split grade separation (Focus on Mountain View) at Castro St nigh-on impossible in a quad track context. The single platform of the existing, lightly used Evelyn VTA light rail station is the cherry on top in this context.

Below is a map showing one possible implementation for an at-grade HSR station in Mountain View, based on the Caltrain Firebird concept. Note that it is located between Shoreline and Castro to provide sufficient space for southbound Caltrains to reach line speed before the heavy rail corridor narrows to two tracks at 85. If CHSRA insists on quad tracks all the way, there will either be impacts on the busy frontage roads or, one regular and two freeway overpasses will have to be remodeled or, the new tracks will have to be stacked in tunnel, possibly diving under Stevens Creek.

View Mountain View mid-peninsula station in a larger map

With an at-grade concept for the rails, Moffett Blvd would be connected to Hope St via an S-shaped two-lane underpass. This would permit a new pedestrian zone along Castro and some side streets, forcing vehicular traffic around downtown. Merchants often fear this would lead to a loss of business, but in Mountain View, there are already parking lots behind downtown commercial buildings plus pedestrian alleys.

A single traffic lane each way would be preserved on Hope St between Villa St and a relocated two-way W Evelyn Ave, enabling access to the bus plaza and station for traffic hailing from El Camino Real / Los Altos.

The concept shown would segregate traffic headed into downtown from traffic headed for the station, with through vehicles encouraged to use Shoreline Blvd, Whisman or Grant Rd/237 instead. In particular, easy connections between the new underpass and W Evelyn are deliberately absent. The existing convenient connection between Castro and Central Expy would also be lost, motorists would have to use Shoreline Blvd or Whisman/237 plus W Evelyn instead.

A second underpass between Castro St and Stierlin Rd would be reserved for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Side passages would provide grade-separated access to all train platforms incl. VTA light rail, plus a bus plaza on W Evelyn, new bus sidings on Central Expressway and a new bicycle parking/rental/sale/repair facility. The existing Caltrain parking lot could be converted into a new city park or else, used for transit-oriented development. Unfortunately, the presence of the new Moffett/Hope underpass plus existing overhead power lines mean that the district north-east of Central and south-east of Moffett would not enjoy fully grade-separated pedestrian access. Residents would have to make do with the existing cross walk at Moffett to reach the pedestrian underpass.

In addition, the city police department would be relocated into the upper floors of a new building that would house the station facilities on the ground floor. That would free up a large block for a couple of for-fee multi-story car parks. A smaller existing structure serving the downtown merchants currently offers free parking.

Note that a decision to stick with at-grade rail in Mountain View would favor a split or underpass grade separation for Rengstorff Ave. According to Clem Tillier, the existing overpass at San Antonio Rd is not up to seismic code. Vertical clearance for bi-level trains plus OCS is impaired, though it may be possible to work around that. The station platforms may need to be moved north or south, well clear of the overpass, unless it is torn down and replaced by either a split grade or an underpass separation.

Alternative: No Mid-Peninsula Station
AB3034 imposes a 24 station limit on the California HSR network, though it’s not clear if that applies only to the use of prop 1A bonds for constructing those stations or, permanently. If CHSRA cannot identify a station site that will deliver significant incremental HSR ridership at reasonable cost and environmental impacts, it could yet decide against all three candidates. Note that the requested Kings/Tulare county station east of Hanford is currently #25 or #26, so CHSRA will need to cut stations elsewhere if state legislators or a judge force it to comply with the letter of the law.

Conclusion
Of the three candidates, Mountain View appears the most promising in terms of station access from multiple directions. It would not serve central East Bay cities particularly well, but then again, neither would the others. Traffic impacts could be mitigated, indeed the downtown area could be made more attractive via a new pedestrian zone and city park.

Assuming CHSRA sticks with its preference for Pacheco Pass, four tracks will be needed at all three candidate stations, whether or not they are picked. This is true of both the official plan and the Caltrain Firebird scenario. However, the ancillary effort required to make road, transit and bicycle access to any mid-peninsula HSR station work well is substantial and would impose additional construction nuisance on the host city.

Finally, while CHSRA is definitely responsible for funding vehicular and pedestrian grade separations plus station platforms, it is not on the hook for changes to local roads, pedestrian zones, parks, construction of multi-story car parks or connecting transit, other than compensating for impacts on their lateral and vertical location. Each of the candidate cities will have to decide if it really wants to remain in the running at all by comparing economic and other development opportunities and risks with and without an HSR station.

Notice
The City of Mountain View expects to finalize its formal comments on CHSRA’s Alignment Alternatives during a council meeting on Tuesday 22 June. Grade separation strategy should not be chosen independently of site selection for the mid-peninsula HSR station or of space constraints related to quad tracking in the 85-237 section. The meeting is open to the general public.

City Council Meeting on Alternative Analysis
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Council Meeting: 6:30pm
Council Chambers
500 Castro Street

While community input is both an important and welcome piece of the process for building high speed rail, it is simply inappropriate and unfair for these cities to consider demanding so much power while leaving the rest of us with the cost.

The proposed “core message” was discussed at yesterday’s PCC meeting. I only have it in .jpg form – Page 1 and Page 2 – but I’ve included the key points below, with my commentary following.

Suggested Core Message for PCC

Cities belonging to the Peninsula Cities Consortium believe that high speed rail should be built right – or not at all. By “right,” we mean that the rail line should integrate into our communities without disrupting their current livability, according to criteria determined by each city that includes a collaborative process with their neighboring cities.

This is entirely inappropriate. It is not for the PCC to decide whether high speed rail will be built. That decision was made by the people of California at the November 2008 election, and only the people of California can undo that decision. The PCC cities do not, and should not, have the power of life or death over the HSR project.

Further, the notion that their support is contingent upon “livability” is a very vague and, in my mind, flawed metric. One person’s notion of livability is different from another’s. Some Peninsula residents believe a city dependent on oil, choked with traffic, and with an extremely dangerous at-grade railroad that kills dozens of people each year is “livable.” Others believe a city that is more walkable, not dependent on oil, with robust transportation options and a grade-separated railroad that does not pose a danger to residents is far more “livable” than the current situation. For the PCC to implicitly embrace the former definition without public discussion is to arrogate to themselves a power they do not deserve to have.

After setting out that initial statement, the PCC goes on to propose the following specific principles:

We believe that the California High Speed Rail Authority should abide by these principles:

• Provide a valid business plan and financial plan to support the project
• Provide valid ridership studies to support the project

Here, as with “livability,” “valid” is in the eye of the beholder. So far the CHSRA has produced business plans and ridership studies that many, including myself, believe to be valid. Further, you cannot guarantee any ridership model – they are projections that by their very nature come with less than 100% certainty. However, that fact can and probably will be used by the PCC to pronounce any business/financial/ridership plan as “invalid.”

• Increase and enhance local Caltrain service and improve Caltrain infrastructure as a condition of using the Caltrain corridor

This bullet point suggests to me that whoever wrote this particular item has not been following the HSR project very closely, if at all. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the actual situation on the ground.

From what I can tell, the CHSRA absolutely wants to increase and enhance local Caltrain service and improve Caltrain infrastructure. It is Caltrain, not the CHSRA, that is not playing along here. Further, if the HSR project is to improve Caltrain service, that is going to likely require a four-track fully electrified and grade-separated solution that the PCC seems to oppose. So this bullet point is fundamentally inconsistent with the PCC’s apparent desire to prevent such infrastructure from being built.

• Fill all positions on the Peer Review Committee, ensure members review all items detailed in AB 3034, and provide them a budget and a staff to do their job

Does the PCC still oppose the bills in the state legislature that would fund additional staff for the CHSRA? Would the PCC still see a Peer Review Committee as legitimate if they considered all the evidence and pronounced the CHSRA’s current plans as valid and reliable?

• Affirm that design rather than finances, will determine the alignment chosen for each section of the rail line and that the design alternatives balance transportation goals and community values and goals equally

This is unacceptable and illegitimate. The PCC has no place telling the rest of California – and the rest of the country – that they must pay more money to provide the gold-plated infrastructure that PCC members desire. The PCC needs to be willing to put up their own funding if they are going to be making this kind of demand – and no such funding is mentioned anywhere in the proposed document. In fact, as you’ll see in a moment, they expressly say any local cost contribution demand will be cause for them to oppose HSR.

Further, we see again the arrogation to themselves of defining what “community values” are. Most residents of these communities want grade-separated high speed rail. But they’re unrepresented by the PCC, which seems little more than an institution designed to impose a uniform aesthetic standard than a collaborative project to design a good railroad.

• Empower community leaders to be an integral part of the decision-making process regarding the final alternatives

This where they are demanding veto power, something they have no right to demand. Community members and community leaders already are an integral part of the design process. They are being consulted and will continue to be consulted. However, it is not for them to decide the final alternatives. Because this is a statewide project, it must be a decision made by the representatives of the people of California – or in this case, the representatives of those representatives, the members of the board of the CHSRA.

The CHSRA is almost certainly going to place great weight on what the communities want, but cannot make that the sole determination. They have a responsibility to deliver the best project for an affordable price, a responsibility the PCC proposes to ignore if they adopt these principles.

• Secure funding that will allow the full range of alternatives to be considered without expecting local cities to contribute to the cost

In other words, they want people in Redding, San Bernardino, South-Central LA, and Santa Barbara to pay for their tunnel, even though a perfectly workable and much more affordable alternative exists. This is ridiculous and should not be given any serious consideration.

Further, if the PCC really wants to secure funding, they can start by stopping their talking down of the HSR project. Have PCC members signed the Four Billion for HSR message? Have they lobbied our Congressional delegation to approve the $50 billion for HSR in the new Transportation Bill? Or have they been dismissing the federal stimulus and criticizing the HSR project?

• Provide funding to allow cities to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback

• Provide funding to allow cities to engage community members and accurately capture their concerns and suggestions

This is not appropriate for the CHSRA to fund. If the cities want to hire experts, they must do so at their own expense. The PCC has been doing that for some time now, and clearly they can afford to do that instead of spend that money keeping other services open. Further, it sounds like the PCC wants a poll of their constituents? Why not do that themselves?

• Clearly define the points at which the public can influence the process, the deadlines for comments and the decision-making process

This has already been done.

• Allow adequate time (a minimum of 90 days) to fully involve the public in Alternatives Analysis and EIR discussions, and conduct these reviews at separate times

The current time allotted is more than sufficient to allow for all of this.

• If Context Sensitive Solutions is employed, allow sufficient time to carry out this very thorough eight-step process and explain how this work will be integrated into the high speed rail plan

And how does the PCC propose to make up for the loss of stimulus funding for the corridor if this means the project can’t make the September 2012 deadline?

• Answer questions from community members promptly and accurately, and post these answers on a website where others can read the answers

That’s what the EIR process is for. Responses to comments and questions are posted online when the EIR is completed. So far, from what I can tell, the CHSRA has been very responsive to community requests for information.

• Provide for realistic renderings of what the various alternatives will look like in each community and sound/vibration simulations that accurately reflect their impact

This demand should not even be considered until the PCC permanently abandons any “Berlin Wall” framing of an above-grade solution. Of course, the way this demand is written indicates that the only renderings and simulations that will be deemed “realistic” and “accurate” are those that meet their preconceived notions.

• Treat community members with respect and refrain from labeling them

I don’t even known what this is about – I’ve never seen CHSRA officials treat community members with anything but respect. Perhaps they’re thinking of me and this blog, but if that’s the case, they should say so. Besides, my labeling of many of the HSR critics as “NIMBYs” seems to be proven by the list of demands made here.

The proposed “core message” document closes with this:

Until these principals [sic] are in place, we believe high speed rail should be put on hold.

Overall this is a very unfortunate and disappointing proposal, one I hope the PCC rejects in its entirety as being entirely inappropriate for the project and for the PCC.

The PCC itself serves a valuable role in mobilizing community input on the HSR project. That input is not only welcome, it’s necessary to an effective project.

But the PCC appears to have lost sight of what constructive engagement with the HSR project looks like. Under the influence of the NIMBY tendency on the Peninsula, the PCC seems to be considering eschewing a collaborative approach to the project. They seem to forget that successful planning requires compromise, not a list of “our way or the highway” demands.

It is my hope that the PCC scraps this document in its entirety, and instead focuses on the Alignment Alternatives before it, offering their feedback and constructive solutions as to how the Peninsula Rail Corridor should be improved for the benefit of all Californians – including, but not limited to, their own constituents.

From Highway 87 to Diridon station, the route could either follow the Caltrain tracks, follow Highway 87 with aerial stands to Diridon, follow Highway 87 with a deep tunnel to Diridon, or build a shallow tunnel north of the Caltrain tracks in the Gardner neighborhood.

San Jose transportation officials had requested further study of the shallow tunnel option, which would be 80 feet deep rather than 140 feet deep, and it could potentially save time and money in construction. A deep tunnel and underground station at Diridon would cost roughly $3 billion, and a shallow tunnel and station would cost roughly $1.3 billion and would require BART to change the depth of its planned station at Diridon. Officials have said similar tunnels have been built without demolishing homes above ground.

You can see more on this at the CHSRA website, where detailed maps of the SJ-Merced alignments have been posted, including the Diridon Station area. Here’s what the maps show at the station:

Legend: d is Deep Tunnel, g is Shallow Tunnel, b is Highway 280/87 alignment, a is Caltrain alignment.

More from the Mercury News article:

Residents at the Gardner center on May 5 had mixed reactions to the four routes, which were displayed on easels and along the walls. Several dozen people looked at the maps, asked leaders questions and submitted written comments.

“Once this station is built it’s really going to be a hub for the Bay Area,” said Willow Glen resident Richard Tretten. “But I think an aerial route would divide San Jose. People would ask, ‘What side of the tracks do you live on?’” Tretten said.

While I can understand that, it’s also to me just not a significant consideration. Why? Because San Jose is already divided by any number of freeways, rail lines, rivers, and other features. In fact, most cities in California are divided that way. If Willow Glen has survived being pushed up against the I-280/CA-87 interchange and with the UPRR Coast Line, dating to 1904, on the other side of it, then an aerial structure that follows and existing ROW would not really make much difference to the community’s integration and/or access to the rest of the city. In fact, none of these options really change the situation on the ground for Willow Glen, at least in terms of ROW.

Gardner resident John Francis said the Caltrain option should be eliminated because his neighborhood is already has noise and vibration from the Caltrain line, Interstate 280, Highway 87, and the flight path of Mineta San Jose International Airport.

“We put in our dues,” Francis said. “We want the line to go right through Los Gatos and Saratoga and Los Altos, and when they’re impacted they’ll understand,” Francis said.

As someone who lives under the flight path for the Monterey Peninsula Airport I can empathize. But the HSR trains won’t make much difference – they’ll be quieter than the planes, but could potentially reduce the number of flights. Overall it’s unlikely to make the situation worse.

Of course, Francis should be pleased to know that HSR crosses the class divides – Los Gatos, Saratoga and Los Altos aren’t on the route, but Atherton and Menlo Park are. Nobody’s getting off the hook here, as Californians ask neighbors of a diverse range of backgrounds to see the benefits of building high speed rail in their communities.

The CHSRA also has some more maps on the other parts of the SJ-Merced route, including the Monterey Highway corridor, Morgan Hill to Gilroy, over the Pacheco Pass, and across the San Joaquin Valley floor. We’ll have more discussion on those parts soon.

The plans to build a high speed rail line near the Los Angeles River and through Cypress and Glassell Park has drawn opposition from river advocates, including Councilman Ed Reyes. So, after several years of lobbying federal officials and state railway builders, engineers involved in with the California High-Speed Rail Authority Line are looking at possibly shifting the rail line away from the river. Instead, after leaving Union Station, the train, under one scenario, would travel through a tunnel underneath the state parking now taking shape near Chinatown, Dodger Stadium and Elysian Park before emerging on the other side of the river, Reyes said today. “They are going to very careful how they come up the river way,” Reyes said at a luncheon hosted by the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum. “At Union Station, they are going look at going underground … under the Cornfield, under Dodger Stadium, under Elysian Park and pop up on the other side of the 2 Freeway or at Taylor Yard” near Cypress Park.

This appears to be a situation where the CHSRA is willing to examine the proposal as part of their alternatives analysis in order to keep the LA City Council happy, but isn’t necessarily set on actually doing this tunnel. As with other tunnel proposals, this too seems worth examining in full.

Of course, funding is also going to have to be part of that examination. HSR skeptics and critics who have been pushing the flawed State Auditor report are about to discover that report is going to rebound on them. Because of that report, it’s much more likely that things like a tunnel are going to have to have a clear source of funding identified if they are to be carried forward. Whether it’s an LA City Councilmember or a Palo Alto NIMBY, anyone who thinks they can just call for a tunnel without explaining how they’ll pay for it is going to have difficulty being taken seriously, especially by the Legislature, in the future.

Whether the LA tunnel idea will ever get to that level of seriousness is unclear:

The tunnel proposal remains just that, and no decision has been made on what the final route will be. The council office itself has not decided whether it would support the new route under Elysian Park, said Jill Sourial, the council office’s point person on Los Angeles River issues. Reyes just wanted other alternatives than the 100-foot-wide trenches and massive bridges the rail authority had been proposing, Sourial said. “Give us some reasonable alternative to just the straightest line between points A and B,” she said.

It seems to me that what’s going on here is the LA Council needs to be able to tell the folks living near the LA River – whose concerns are typically overblown – that other options were explored and that the LA River route really is the best, cheapest option for the people of California and their high speed train system.

Going back to the Auditor report for a moment, it shows a rather important double-standard that is still used by too many officials in Sacramento. The Authority is unfairly excoriated because Congress hasn’t yet delivered the long-term funding source (and because the Auditor chose to ignore the many signs that federal funding is coming), but NIMBYs and others who want to drive up the project’s cost are given a pass. If the Authority was going to be blamed for things outside its control, then why didn’t the Auditor look at the full range of factors that could pull the HSR project apart?