|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When the high-speed rail line comes through Palo Alto at speeds of 125 mph, the trains could run at-grade, completely underground or on elevated tracks, California High-Speed Rail Authority officials announced Wednesday evening.
All three alignments remain legitimate options, according to the Authority’s most detailed plans to date for the San Francisco-to-San Jose high-speed corridor, which were unveiled at the SamTrans headquarters in San Carlos. View rail plan (PDF)
In two options, tracks in Palo Alto could run at-grade or completely underground in a tunnel or open trench from the Menlo Park border south to Adobe Creek. If at-grade, two tracks would be added next to existing Caltrain railroads.
At no point would the rail line intersection traffic intersections, the plans showed. So three roadways — Churchill, East Meadow and Charleston — would be lowered beneath the tracks, similar to Embarcadero Road, if trains run at street level.
In the third option, elevated tracks would cover two stretches: from Homer Avenue south to a point past Churchill Avenue, and from East Meadow Drive to Adobe Creek. The tracks would either be on aerial viaducts resembling freeway passes or on filled berms.
The line could transition from below ground to above grade from section to section, though engineers hope to keep the tracks as level as possible to allow trains to move at a consistent speed.
“We don’t want a rollercoaster,” Project Engineer Timothy Cobb said.
Cobb said no option was more likely at this point.
“What we’re presenting here tonight is just the first cut at the alternatives in the design options for the Caltrain corridor,” Dominic Spaethling, regional manager for the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment, said.
Besides Palo Alto and Redwood City, the Authority is now considering Mountain View as a potential fourth high-speed station in the region. Stations are already confirmed at San Francisco, Millbrae and San Jose.
Some cities along the corridor received only one proposed alignment and would not have their track elevation altered. In those areas, two more tracks would be built instead alongside existing Caltrain tracks. Those sections include: railroads from Bayshore to South San Francisco Caltrain stations; San Bruno; Belmont to San Carlos; and southern Sunnyvale to northern Santa Clara.
As a next step, rail officials will compare design options using evaluative measures such as land use, construction feasibility and neighborhood impacts. Those comparisons will be published in a draft Alternatives Analysis report in December.
However, the Rail Authority will only select the actual track alignment in early 2011, and construction on this segment of the $40 billion project will start in late 2012.
More than 100 people provided feedback and questioned rail consultants at Wednesday’s open house.
“We’re trying to keep this project as transparent as possible,” said Mike Garvey, a public outreach consultant for the authority.
“At least now we have some options to act on,” said Palo Alto City Councilman Pat Burt, who attended the meeting. Burt said evaluation of neighborhood impacts remained insufficient.
Sara Armstrong, one of the leaders of resident group “Citizens Advocating Reasonable Rail Design,” left the meeting saying she was more informed than she previously had been.
“It’s great to be able to talk to the engineers, though nothing is definitive,” Armstrong said.
City residents have long opposed an elevated option, which they say would further divide the city and pose noise concerns. On the other hand, an underground option bears significantly higher costs.
“They are considering a reasonable range of alternatives,” said Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioner Arthur Keller. “Hopefully, they will not remove any alternative from further study that is popular to the citizenry.”
The authority will conduct two more “Alternative Analysis” workshops: on Oct. 9, 6 p.m. at the Sunnyvale Recreation Center, 550 E. Remington Drive, Sunnyvale, and Oct. 13, 6 p.m., at the Milton Marks Conference Center, 455 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco.
The whole concept of a high speed train in a state that has a $50B deficit is preposterous! What are you people thinking (smoking if you’re on Olive Ave)? If you want to be more European move to Europe already.
The plan shows the Alma crossing (just south of San Francisquito Creek) remaining at grade. Will that crossing also be under-grounded, like Churchill, E. Meadow and Charleston?
I wish someone would explain to me why billions of dollars are going to be spent on a high speed rail project when local transit agencies are cutting service. Every local transit agency is in such bad shape economically. It is outrageous that this project is still going forward. At a time when everyone- private citizens, cities and the state are all finding ways to reduce expenses why is this project still moving forward? College students can barely afford tuition and things are only going to get worse but a project like this one which seems to have little relevance at all in today’s economic times is still moving ahead. It’s outrageous!
If the alignment of several stretches of track are fixed, and there will not be many elevation tranitions, are all of these options, particularly the tunnel/trench option, really still viable? The implication is that there would need to be quite a long transition to go from a tunnelled section of track up to an elevated section of track.
I’m so glad I voted against this preposterously expensive boondoggle. All you people who voted in favor of it deserve what you get.
I think that when people say that California “can’t afford this” they forget to realize that this is an infrastructure upgrade that is desperately needed. It isn’t a hobby project but something that will help revive the economy upon completion, and if we start it in 2020 or whenever it will be that much longer before we can collect.
I too am at a loss to understand why this high-speed train will in any way benefit the peninsula towns it will run through. A total and absolute WASTE of money that could be better spent. Shame on the people who thought this one up. If they are not actually smoking, they must be either extraordinarily dense, or have some other agenda we don’t hear about.
We absolutely deserve what we get. That’s why people here in Mtn. View are pushing for a HSR station on Castro St. If you’re so against it, don’t ride it. If you do decide to ride, you should do so with a t-shirt on that says, “I never supported HSR.”. That way, when you start to talk about how cool it is, we can all roll our eyes at you collectively.
Many of you talk about the expensive price tag high-speed rail comes with. But the fact is it’s HALF the cost of building new airport runways and expanding freeways just to meet the same demand HSR can handle. And the Peninsula cities WILL benefit buy having the option to travel across the entire state without the need to fly or drive. If you’re so against high-speed rail being built in California, too bad. The voters of California decided they wanted this system last November.
To all those folks who don’t see any benefit to this project, think about this. What if the tracks were entirely underground and all the land used for the Caltrain lines could be reclaimed? No more train noise and a huge new swath of land could become parks, offices and homes. The sale of the “air rights” above the underground tracks would help offset the cost of tunneling. It would be a huge improvement in noise reduction, traffic flow and the beauty of our community.
Cisco just announced today they have paid $2.7 B for a company to build out their telepresence products and service which dramatically reduce the need for business travel.
HSR is a 19 and 20th century technology.
New technology like Ciscos Telepresence is new technology, it is green technology, it increases productivity and dramatically reduces business travel costs.http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns669/networking_solutions_solution_segment_home.html
HSR a boondoggle, a waste of money, environmentally harmful and very few people, just the retired and indigent, would use it.
HSR is dead in the water and sinking fast
“just the retired and indigent, would use it.”
Spoken like a true self righteous Palo Altan. Sharon! I didn’t even see that it was you until replying. I should have known.
I can’t wait to use that Cisco Telepresence to go to a Giants/Dodgers game. Or maybe I could use it to go to Disneyland. I bet it’s just like being there!
As always in the United States, a lot of people who stand
to make a lot of money on this project are pushing it
on everyone else and have paid off the politicians
to support it. Like an idiot, I voted for it but only
because the description of what it would do and where
it would run was misleading..
Has anyone started a petition for an initiative to undo this mistake, now that many people recognize that we must somehow pay for projects and programs in Caulifonya?
The best high speed rail system in the US is the one between Philadelphia and New York. This has two HUGE population clusters to support it (and it still has financial difficulties). The CA one doesn’t have such clusters. The NY-Philly line has very few stops which means it actually IS a high speed line. From the article above, it seems the CA one will have lots of stops. Like the BART airport line (which the “Voters” approved), this will become a waste of money. Let’s face it. Most voters are stupid–Bush, Jr., now Obama. Come on…
“Giants/Dodgers game. Or maybe I could use it to go to Disneyland”
If wants to subsidize transportation by bus form SF BA thats fine with us, most people watch sports on ESPN if they are not local.
The argument that we should spend billions of dollars to subsidize an antiquated transport mode for widows, orphans, grandparents and indigents is absurd.
HSR makes negative economic and environmental sense, it is like suggesting we abandon e mail for Wells Fargo horse delivered mail.
Check out the Cisco and HP solutions to business travel, they are the present and the future because they save the environment, increase productivity and boost peoples work life balance– and save lots of money.
This does indeed have financial disaster written all over it. But the votes have decided, and we know they have never made a mistake.
if there are so many stops, how is it a high speed train? what is this high speed train made of? besides noises, what else side effects does it have? if it is magnetic type, what side effects will it have even it is underground?
“All high speed rail options still on the table?”
NO!
The discussion, which I did not attend, reviewed alternatives for a really bad idea.
The alternative not on the table at this particular meeting was killing this whole project. Because it is a bad idea, no matter how it is done.
I wonder how that option would have been reviewed by those doing the presenting and those in the audience providing input.
“… it is a bad idea, no matter how it is done.”
Bingo, Paul. Exactly!
How about we get Chambers, CEO Cisco and Hurd, CEO HP to talk to the voters in PA about just how useless, outdated and environmentaly toxic HSR really is?
They have done the math, environmental, social and economic.
Silicon Valley has the solution to environmental and social issues regarding remote work, let us get to work with Ciscos and HPs solutions, not the old world, tired polluting solutions put forward by HSR.
HRS it is a soviet solution looking for a problem, we in California are beyond that.
HSR is dead like Wells Fargo was dead after rail in the 19c, remember we invented the internet AFTER the luddites committed to the outdated HSR
I would like to respond to the financial objection to the HSR project in general. Specifically, in response to “WTF, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood:
“The whole concept of a high speed train in a state that has a $50B deficit is preposterous! What are you people thinking (smoking if you’re on Olive Ave)? If you want to be more European move to Europe already.”
I can’t respond to the ‘Olive Ave’ reference – perhaps someone could explain it to me, but I just learned this fact as I just read it in the local paper: The Prop 1A, 2008 $10 billion funds can only be spent as matching funds, which means that they must have undergone additional review for the (presumably) federal funds to be applied to the project.
Finally, WTF, if we were to apply your “go live in Europe philosophy” to some other hot topics, the only way the U.S. would get decent healthcare is if “we all moved to Europe”. I prescribe to the philosophy that if its good enough for France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Britain, Korea, Japan, and China, it should be good enough for the U.S., particularly California!”
I agree with “GoHSR”. Plus, An elevated track can be designed aesthetically. Who would want to be in an underground tunnel like a mole? I am strongly against adding the rails to existing surface Cal Train tracks because of the danger at the crossings. We have already had an increase in suicides along those tracks.
Wow, all of you people sound pretty damn desperate to stop this project. I’m sorry, but the people of California voted for this thing to happen whether you like it or not. There are those of us willing to move into the future with a clean, sustainable mode of transportation, while the rest of you seem to come up with absurd solutions with no proof to back up your points. I suggest you all educate yourselves on what this project is and how it’ll serve the future needs of Californians. The arguments you people come up with are completely ridiculous filled with false assumptions. If you’re going to attempt fighting this project, at least come up with viable excuses why this project is a technology of the past.
By the way “frequent shopper”, there’s no need to worry about accidents at crossings. Even if the new tracks are built next to the existing Caltrain tracks, they’d still be completely grade-separated and fenced off to prevent collisions from occuring and so forth. Besides, I doubt they’d want to take any chances of a train hitting a truck while going at 125 mph.
I want to mention here that I am a Palo Alto resident who is for HSR and I would love to have its peninsula stop be in Palo Alto (which would have the added benefit of a HSR speed much below 125 mph for a large segment of its trip through Palo Alto, by the way).
But, thanks to you all, we’ll probably end up with HSR anyway and its station in Redwood City where it is wanted unlike here…
Greetings from the next town south. Reading through the comments, both anti- and pro- HSR, it seems there are quite a few misconceptions out there.
*Acela, the Amtrak attempt at HSR, isn’t particularly viable because it doesn’t travel on dedicated alignment–so, it’s capable of 150 mph, but only averages 80 between NY and DC. And, it’s done with old overhead catenaries from the turn of the 20th century. CA HSR will be dedicated, capable of 220 mph, and will go that speed through much of its trip, and all new. A better example is the TGV in France.
*Environmental soundness: Does anyone have any idea how many flights there are a day between the 3 Bay Area airports and the LA basin’s 5 airports? Lots. Each spewing carbon dioxide and pollution. One train can eliminate 3-4 flights, and do it faster downtown to downtown. Granted–the real question for electric trains is how is the electricity generated? If it’s done cleanly, there’s a huge environmental advantage–ifnot, there’s still an improvement over planes or cars, but not as much.
* Waste of money–perhaps, in some opinions, but aren’t roads a waste of money too? Airports? Dredging of the bay to allow ships in? All government subsidized. Yet I think we can agree all vital to our economy. Shouldn’t moving people between the population centers of the state (including the ever-growing Central Valley) be important as well?
I see HSR as a way for California to take the lead on building a real, sustainable infrastructure. The technology isn’t pie in the sky–it’s real and it exists. The US and California have been beholden to the almighty oil and auto companies for too long–we need to do something drastic to kick start the state’s economy and reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. HSR is a darn good start.
>Does anyone have any idea how many flights there are a day
>between the 3 Bay Area airports and the LA basin’s 5 airports?
On Aug 26, 2009 I looked up all the flights from the Bay Area to Los Angeles basin. There were 80 flights on that day (probably a similar number going the reverse direction). The average one-way fare was $137; the minimum fare was $70 and the maximum fare was $324.
In Feb 2008 I also did the following calculations: assume that the $38 billion high-speed rail line cost (a 2008 number but does bring up the issue of cost creep) provides us 10,000 person-trips per day for 40 years (365 days a year) – 50 trains carrying 200 people each or a train every 30 minutes each way for 12+ hours every day of the year. That means each trip costs $260 for just the road bed and rolling stock – no operating, maintenance, inflation or financing costs included.
Note that we could “give” each train rider a “free” airline ticket that would include a free trip back to the starting point and still “save” money. How about using your car? It’s 350 miles from SJC to LAX (via Pacheco Pass). At 50 cents per mile the trip costs $175. Again we could “save” $85 by paying for “free” auto trips.
The comparative economics of HSR need a very close look before spending this kind of money.
people in palo alto and other surrounding communities does not want this because it will bring people and conjest the area..who cares if people are in the wings to make money, stop the jelous acts…
If anything, this project will help relieve congestion in the Peninsula cities, by eliminating grade-crossings with trains. This allows for much faster movements on both rail and roads.
Elevate the high speed rail high above Palo Alto all along the Caltrain tracks and let ‘er rip as fast as possible from San Jose to San Francisco without any stop other than at Millbrae!
To bass2444: One thing you’re forgetting in your calculations–what is the cost of upkeep of the roads/airports and the other infrastructure to support them? And don’t forget–the reason these may be ‘cheaper’ is because we’ve already paid for the original roads, airports and the like–we took the plunge on these things earlier on, probably to just as much debate.
Also, this doesn’t include the societal costs of pollution, global warming, and supporting oppressive governments who we’re friends with just because they have oil.
Let’s end & begin HSR in San Jose where passengers could change to or from the current bullet, express trains along the peninsula or BART to the East Bay?
We were totally hoodwinked by the supporters of this project. I voted for it, and instantly regretted it once the plans for four elevated tracks were presented, initially as a fait accompli. Why weren’t these plans shown to the voters prior to the election? Why didn’t the city council alert us to the controversy at that time? Unfortunately that’s all water under the bridge now.
Given that the project will happen, I’m disappointed that from being the only planned peninsula stop, we now have Mountain View and RWC as competitors. We need to focus on getting the tracks underground and getting the station back because efforts to derail the project will backfire.
Some of the arguments I’ve seen here are mind-boggling. This isn’t a spending decision that is being made in a vacuum. It’s a not a question of “Shall we spend $40 billion on HSR, or not spend it?”
If we don’t spend, we’ll spend a heck of a lot more on expanding highways, airports and you (and your children, and their children) will waste a lot more time getting around this state and will breathe more polluted air.
Thank goodness, high speed rail is happening. And to my surprise, the high speed rail authority actually seems to be willing to considering tunneling in some parts of the Peninsula. How about instead of trying to destroy this terrific, terrific project you spend the time focusing on trying to make sure this has the most positive impact possible on the Peninsula.
It’s not a question of whether this will benefit the Peninsula. It will. It’s just a question of how much benefit it will bring, and that’s going to be shaped by these conversations and decisions over the next few months and years.
Yes, you can say HSR would provide benefits to the peninsula, but there are also detriments. What is the NET effect? Some people win, some people lose. All the arguments I hear are “for the greater good”. Greater good is in the eye of the beholder.
Regarding highways to L.A., 99 percent of the traffic (by weight) is trucking. And the truckers pay the entire cost of the roads and then some. Can someone correct my perception that moving freight is much bigger economic and environmental issue than moving passengers, and HSR is a red herring?
And why should Millbrea have an HSR stop? Or any city between San Jose and SF? I thought Caltrain was supposed to handle the local service.
Evan,
We could use the support of Crescent Park residents on tunnelling. You might feel differently about it if the right of way went along the San Francisquito Creek in your own backyard.
“Ask not what California can do for you. Ask what you can do for California!”
Reply to Evan and MVflyer who had similar concerns:
>If we don’t spend, we’ll spend a heck of a lot more on expanding highways, airports and you … will waste a lot more time getting around this state and will breathe more polluted air. …and… what is the cost of upkeep of the roads/airports and the other infrastructure to support them? <
Yes current transportation infrastructure is a sunk cost (except for the bonds we are still paying off). But I have not seen any discussion that California will stop (or slow) spending on roads or airports and transfer that money to HSR – they will be needed and used independent of HSR. Airports and roads have independent user funding (such as gate charges and gas tax) and powerful lobbies to keep building and maintaining.
As to pollution: where is all that electric power coming from to run HSR? Our electric generation and transmission grid are maxed out. I haven’t heard of any nuclear plants being constructed (cost one of those babies out) or new transmission lines as part of HSR costs. Coal/gas fired plants have pollution problems unless we build them in neighboring states and shift the pollution to someone else.
As to the job creation issue: building airports and roads makes jobs just like building HSR and these will not be eliminated with HSR.
I don’t see any free lunch here – just hard trade-offs that need to make economic sense that so far eludes me.
Thu Sep 10, 12:09 PM, BEIJING (AFP) – China plans to build 42 high-speed railway lines by 2012 in a massive system overhaul that is part of efforts to spur economic growth amid the global downturn, state media have reported.
China hopes to have added 13,000 kilometres (8,060 miles) of fast lines to its massive rail network in three years, the China News Service said Wednesday, citing Zhang Shuguang, deputy chief engineer at the railways ministry.
The tracks would be capable of handling trains running at up to 350 kilometres per hour, the report cited Zhang as telling a science conference in the southwestern city of Chongqing.
The country would then have four north-south and four east-west high-speed rail arteries across its vast territory, the report said.
Construction on the third east-west artery has already started and will link up with the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail line, which is due to become operational next year, in the eastern city of Nanjing, it said.
The new tracks would mean the travel time from Beijing to the central hub city of Wuhan would be more than halved to around four hours, it added.
The country has developed a “major breakthrough” that will enable high-speed trains to run on both fast and normal-speed tracks, Zhang said, according to Wednesday’s Chongqing Times.
“China has the most advanced high-speed rail technology in the world,” Zhang said, adding the country’s fast rail network would have the capacity to carry 7 billion passengers a year between 2011 and 2012.
A train that can travel at 500 kilometres per hour will be tested at the end of 2010, he said, according to other local media reports.
Beijing has said it will invest at least two trillion yuan (293 billion dollars) in railway construction over the next three years, as it struggles to boost its export-dependent economy.
China’s railway network is already one of the most extensive in the world, but it has come under pressure as the nation’s economic boom has given many of the country’s 1.3 billion people more opportunity to travel.
By the end of this year, China will have a total of 86,000 kilometres of railway lines, second only to the United States, officials have said.
The nation aims to have 120,000 kilometres of track laid down by 2020, they said.
Why should we waste $billions on HSR, a communist and socialist attempt to solve human communication and relation issues?
Cisco and HP have green, cost effective, high tech solutions to these issues that dramatically improve peoples work life balance.
HSR advocates forget that information technology has led to then end of communist/socialist industrial era systems like HSR.
The human connection problem has been solved by IT, HSR is irrelevant.
HS freight has a number of solutions, sea, air, road, rail or remote manufacturing.
HSR solves non of the freight issues.
HSR is old , tired, outdated and will never be built unless we become a communist regime– it does not make rational sense.
@ Sharon
I’m sorry, but sense when do you have to become a communist country to build HSR? I don’t see that in the rule book anywhere. As for your little Cisco and HP thing, that’ll never catch on in the real world. Companies and businesses still highly prefer to have everyone together in one room for meetings, not virtually. And why are we spending $45 billion on a statewide HSR system? So we don’t have to spend $80 billion on expanded airports and freeways just to meet the same demand. Obviously we were willing to spend hundreds of billions back in the 50s and 60s to build the interstate highway system. Now it’s time to spend billions to build an interstate HSR system. As I said before, if you’re going to argue against this project, at least come up with valid explanations to back up your points instead of coming up with absurd statements like only socialist and communists countries build HSR systems. If and when you have valid proof to back up your ridiculous statements, I’ll be all ears.
I was a staunch HSR opponent. I voted no on Prop 1A. But after my recent trip to China, I changed my mind. I saw this monumental railway bridge across Yangtze River at Nanjing. 6 miles. 6 lanes. 2 for subways, 2 for HSR and 2 for freight trains. Capable to support high speed train up to 15000 tons passing through at 200 miles per hour. The Chinese built it in just a couple of years.
Folks, we need to start doing something, fast. Let’s just treat HSR as the Apollo project. Otherwise I’m afraid we are going to be a second class country in a generation or two.
What if the wall enclosing the right of way were designed with alternating acoustical passageways, so that half the sound power was shifted out of phase?
HSR $108 roundtrip SF to LA, 380 miles each way. Yeah right! Its 410 miles Paris to Marseille and the roundtrip 2nd class ticket is $292 plus $30 for seat reservations (check out the EuroRail site). London to Paris 215 miles, roundtrip 2nd class full fare $582 and discount fares average when available $200 plus $12 premier train fee. Someone needs to redo their math at HSR. It’s always nice to fudge/lie about the facts to get your way. Politicians do it when they’re running for office all the time and Diridon and Kopp are masters at fudging and half-truths, just old school politicians who want their names in lights. They could care less about the true needs of the state’s citizens. The only folks who are going to benefit are the ones who own the land on the rail route and those who build it – friends of D&K? Oh and don’t forget the HSR will need security akin to airport security – the Paris London train requires arriving at least 30 min early for security each direction.
Better that we spend the $40 billion plus dollars on education pre-school thru college. Our education systems is currently one of the worst in the nation. Improving our ed system will go much further in improving the economics and quality of life in California. And that improvement will last much longer than a few thousand short-term rail jobs that only help a small portion of the states present and future businesses and employees. Our health system could use some money also.
Pres Obama please refuse the stimulus money for Calif HSR and instead put into our education system where it is really needed and will do the most good for the most people!
HSR is old, dirty technology. The new tech of Cisco and HP have the solutions to business travel which are green,cheap,fast, and support work life balance for women.
NSR is a solution without a market,
@ Sharon
Again, do you have any proof Cisco’s technology is going to succeed? People have been researching this technology for years and it’s still gotten nowhere. And what makes you think only business people would use HSR? There are families and friends who are split between SF and LA who currently use airplanes between these two cities. Look at how many flights there are daily between the Bay Area and Metrolpolitan LA.