News

High-speed rail analysis brings grade-separation anxiety to Palo Alto

City leaders argue rail authority places too much burden on local communities to address traffic impacts

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is preparing to approve later this month the final Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment of the proposed rail system. Courtesy California High-Speed Rail Authority.

As the California agency charged with building high-speed rail finalizes its plans for the Peninsula segment of its contentious system, Palo Alto officials are raising alarms about a feature that is conspicuously missing from the proposed design: grade separation.

City leaders have been raising concerns about the potential impacts of the high-speed rail system ever since late 2008, when voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line. Local sentiments turned sharply against the project shortly thereafter after the California High-Speed Rail Authority unveiled a four-track design that raised fears about local properties being seized to accommodate the new system and prompted Palo Alto City Council members to take an official stance against the project which they argued is neither financially viable nor particularly desirable.

The initial panic has abated over the past decade, as Palo Alto and neighboring cities successfully lobbied lawmakers and the rail authority to switch the design from a four-track alignment to a "blended system" in which Caltrain and high-speed rail share two tracks on the Peninsula. At the same time, the rail system became stymied by funding shortfalls and political roadblocks in Sacramento as its price tag jumped from an initial estimate of about $33 billion to more than $100 billion under the latest calculations.

Now, however, high-speed rail is back in the spotlight. In June, the state Legislature agreed to release $4.2 billion from the 2008 funding for the construction of the system and to appoint an inspector general to oversee the stalled project. The rail authority also released in June its final Environmental Impact Report for the segment between San Francisco and San Jose. Its board of directors is set to review and approve the document on Aug. 17 and 18.

The release of the environmental analysis comes at a pivotal time for the Palo Alto council, which is now finalizing its plans for grade separation — the realignment of rail crossings so that tracks would not intersect with local streets at three crossings: Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. This week, the council agreed to place on the November a business tax that would help fund grade separation, a project that is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take more than a decade to complete.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The high-speed rail project could conflict with these plans. The recently released environmental analysis evaluates two alternatives, both of which generally stick to the two-track "blended system" design. The main difference is that one of the alternatives also includes a 6-mile, four-track passing track between San Mateo and Redwood City, an aerial viaduct near the San Jose Diridon Station and a maintenance facility in Brisbane. The analysis concluded that the alternative without the passing tracks is the environmentally superior option, a conclusion that the city generally supports.

Palo Alto officials are concerned, however, that the analysis does not consider an alternative in which rail crossings are grade-separated. Instead, the analysis proposes to install four-quad gates at the rail crossings to prevent cars from entering the tracks when trains are passing. While this option would enhance safety, it would do little to alleviate local concerns about traffic jams that would occur around the rail crossings as Caltrain enhances train service and the high-speed system begins operations on the Peninsula.

Midpeninsula cities have various types of grade crossings, including ones that level the street (orange) and are separated from the street (green). There are also existing (yellow) and planned (blue) bike and pedestrian crossings. Map by Jamey Padojino.

A new report from the city's Office of Transportation takes issue with the rail authority's conclusion that traffic impacts relating to traffic circulation and emergency response are significant. The environmental analysis concluded that 41 out of 49 at-grade crossings between San Mateo and Palo Alto would operate at levels of service of "E" or "F" — the two lowest grades — in 2040 if high-speed rail is operating. It also found that 27 of these intersections would be affected by the rail project during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

Some of the worst delays would occur at intersections adjacent to the Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue in Palo Alto, which would experience increases of 187 seconds and 334 seconds, respectively, during the peak morning hours. Only the Brewster Avenue crossing in Redwood City would see a greater delay, with a projected 387-second increase at the Perry Street and Brewster Avenue intersection during the morning peak.

The environmental analysis also identifies numerous local intersections that are projected to have a low level of service even without the rail project but that would suffer further adverse impacts under either high-speed rail alternative. These include the intersections of El Camino and Sand Hill Road; Alma Street and Palo Alto Avenue; Churchill Avenue's intersections with Alma and Mariposa Avenue; and Park Boulevard's intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Palo Alto staff strongly disagrees with the rail authority's conclusion that the "significant and unavoidable" traffic impacts identified in the report cannot be mitigated, according to the new report. Specifically and significantly, it fails to consider the most obvious — albeit complex — way to curb traffic: separating tracks from roads, the city is arguing.

The subject of grade separation and its potential conflict with high-speed rail came up at recent meetings of the council's Rail Committee, which in June approved new guiding principles that take up the topic. The guiding principles, which the council is set to adopt this Monday, Aug. 8, state that Palo Alto believes that the California High-Speed Rail Authority "must coordinate with Caltrain as the lead agency and should fund the study and construction of any potential passing tracks and, if needed, grade separations or modifications to grade separations and should not commence service until they are complete."

Nadia Naik, who co-chaired a citizen panel that helped the city come up with grade-separation alternatives, proposed the principle at the committee's June 15 meeting.

"There is a weird scenario where we build a grade separation in the future and then high-speed rail comes along and decides they want to change something," Naik said.

In addition to ratifying the new Rail Committee guiding principles, the council is scheduled to approve a letter to the rail authority urging it to study an alternative that includes grade separation. The letter, which is signed by Mayor Pat Burt, asserts that grade separation "would reduce this identified significant and unavoidable impact to a less than significant level and therefore must be analyzed" and claims that the rail authority is unfairly burdening the city with the cost of analyzing the traffic impacts of the rail system.

"The City continues to assert that impacts to all elements combined, including vehicular, bike and pedestrian safety, delays, and emergency response warrants analysis of grade separation as an alternative to the proposed project or as mitigation," the letter states. "Proper analysis of the reasonably foreseeable future condition would only further demonstrate the need for a comprehensive plan to address the identified impacts such as grade separation."

Past entreaties by the city for the rail authority to study grade separation have failed to sway the state agency. When City Manager Ed Shikada asked the rail authority in 2020 to study grade separations, the state agency rebuffed the request with a statement that such options "considerably widen a rail project's footprint." The infrastructure that supports grade separation can extend well beyond the roadway crossing to accommodate the fact that changes in railway slope must be gradual, the rail authority stated.

"In other words, it may not be possible to construct only one grade separation in some areas, where close proximity of at-grade crossings means that constructing one grade separation would then require constructing multiple other grade separations," the rail authority's response states. "This can increase the cost of a grade-separated rail alignment. It can also increase the costs associated with right-of-way acquisitions, require additional infrastructure, and increase construction disruption."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

High-speed rail analysis brings grade-separation anxiety to Palo Alto

City leaders argue rail authority places too much burden on local communities to address traffic impacts

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Aug 3, 2022, 12:21 pm

As the California agency charged with building high-speed rail finalizes its plans for the Peninsula segment of its contentious system, Palo Alto officials are raising alarms about a feature that is conspicuously missing from the proposed design: grade separation.

City leaders have been raising concerns about the potential impacts of the high-speed rail system ever since late 2008, when voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line. Local sentiments turned sharply against the project shortly thereafter after the California High-Speed Rail Authority unveiled a four-track design that raised fears about local properties being seized to accommodate the new system and prompted Palo Alto City Council members to take an official stance against the project which they argued is neither financially viable nor particularly desirable.

The initial panic has abated over the past decade, as Palo Alto and neighboring cities successfully lobbied lawmakers and the rail authority to switch the design from a four-track alignment to a "blended system" in which Caltrain and high-speed rail share two tracks on the Peninsula. At the same time, the rail system became stymied by funding shortfalls and political roadblocks in Sacramento as its price tag jumped from an initial estimate of about $33 billion to more than $100 billion under the latest calculations.

Now, however, high-speed rail is back in the spotlight. In June, the state Legislature agreed to release $4.2 billion from the 2008 funding for the construction of the system and to appoint an inspector general to oversee the stalled project. The rail authority also released in June its final Environmental Impact Report for the segment between San Francisco and San Jose. Its board of directors is set to review and approve the document on Aug. 17 and 18.

The release of the environmental analysis comes at a pivotal time for the Palo Alto council, which is now finalizing its plans for grade separation — the realignment of rail crossings so that tracks would not intersect with local streets at three crossings: Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. This week, the council agreed to place on the November a business tax that would help fund grade separation, a project that is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take more than a decade to complete.

The high-speed rail project could conflict with these plans. The recently released environmental analysis evaluates two alternatives, both of which generally stick to the two-track "blended system" design. The main difference is that one of the alternatives also includes a 6-mile, four-track passing track between San Mateo and Redwood City, an aerial viaduct near the San Jose Diridon Station and a maintenance facility in Brisbane. The analysis concluded that the alternative without the passing tracks is the environmentally superior option, a conclusion that the city generally supports.

Palo Alto officials are concerned, however, that the analysis does not consider an alternative in which rail crossings are grade-separated. Instead, the analysis proposes to install four-quad gates at the rail crossings to prevent cars from entering the tracks when trains are passing. While this option would enhance safety, it would do little to alleviate local concerns about traffic jams that would occur around the rail crossings as Caltrain enhances train service and the high-speed system begins operations on the Peninsula.

A new report from the city's Office of Transportation takes issue with the rail authority's conclusion that traffic impacts relating to traffic circulation and emergency response are significant. The environmental analysis concluded that 41 out of 49 at-grade crossings between San Mateo and Palo Alto would operate at levels of service of "E" or "F" — the two lowest grades — in 2040 if high-speed rail is operating. It also found that 27 of these intersections would be affected by the rail project during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

Some of the worst delays would occur at intersections adjacent to the Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue in Palo Alto, which would experience increases of 187 seconds and 334 seconds, respectively, during the peak morning hours. Only the Brewster Avenue crossing in Redwood City would see a greater delay, with a projected 387-second increase at the Perry Street and Brewster Avenue intersection during the morning peak.

The environmental analysis also identifies numerous local intersections that are projected to have a low level of service even without the rail project but that would suffer further adverse impacts under either high-speed rail alternative. These include the intersections of El Camino and Sand Hill Road; Alma Street and Palo Alto Avenue; Churchill Avenue's intersections with Alma and Mariposa Avenue; and Park Boulevard's intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road.

Palo Alto staff strongly disagrees with the rail authority's conclusion that the "significant and unavoidable" traffic impacts identified in the report cannot be mitigated, according to the new report. Specifically and significantly, it fails to consider the most obvious — albeit complex — way to curb traffic: separating tracks from roads, the city is arguing.

The subject of grade separation and its potential conflict with high-speed rail came up at recent meetings of the council's Rail Committee, which in June approved new guiding principles that take up the topic. The guiding principles, which the council is set to adopt this Monday, Aug. 8, state that Palo Alto believes that the California High-Speed Rail Authority "must coordinate with Caltrain as the lead agency and should fund the study and construction of any potential passing tracks and, if needed, grade separations or modifications to grade separations and should not commence service until they are complete."

Nadia Naik, who co-chaired a citizen panel that helped the city come up with grade-separation alternatives, proposed the principle at the committee's June 15 meeting.

"There is a weird scenario where we build a grade separation in the future and then high-speed rail comes along and decides they want to change something," Naik said.

In addition to ratifying the new Rail Committee guiding principles, the council is scheduled to approve a letter to the rail authority urging it to study an alternative that includes grade separation. The letter, which is signed by Mayor Pat Burt, asserts that grade separation "would reduce this identified significant and unavoidable impact to a less than significant level and therefore must be analyzed" and claims that the rail authority is unfairly burdening the city with the cost of analyzing the traffic impacts of the rail system.

"The City continues to assert that impacts to all elements combined, including vehicular, bike and pedestrian safety, delays, and emergency response warrants analysis of grade separation as an alternative to the proposed project or as mitigation," the letter states. "Proper analysis of the reasonably foreseeable future condition would only further demonstrate the need for a comprehensive plan to address the identified impacts such as grade separation."

Past entreaties by the city for the rail authority to study grade separation have failed to sway the state agency. When City Manager Ed Shikada asked the rail authority in 2020 to study grade separations, the state agency rebuffed the request with a statement that such options "considerably widen a rail project's footprint." The infrastructure that supports grade separation can extend well beyond the roadway crossing to accommodate the fact that changes in railway slope must be gradual, the rail authority stated.

"In other words, it may not be possible to construct only one grade separation in some areas, where close proximity of at-grade crossings means that constructing one grade separation would then require constructing multiple other grade separations," the rail authority's response states. "This can increase the cost of a grade-separated rail alignment. It can also increase the costs associated with right-of-way acquisitions, require additional infrastructure, and increase construction disruption."

Comments

Mondoman
Registered user
Green Acres
on Aug 3, 2022 at 9:17 pm
Mondoman, Green Acres
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 9:17 pm

High speed rail trains will never appear in any significant number on the Peninsula, so the whole discussion is really intended to get yet another someone else to pay for Palo Alto's grade separation work.


anusree
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 4, 2022 at 8:24 am
anusree, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 8:24 am

The Case against High‐​Speed Rail
High‐​Speed Rail Is Too Expensive. ...
Dedicated Infrastructure Is Wasted Infrastructure. ...
It's an Energy Hog. ...
It's Slow. ...
It Doesn't Go Where You Want to Go. ...
It Won't Get Many People Out of Cars or Planes. ...
There Is No “Sweet Spot” ...
It Won't Help and May Hurt the Economy.


Consider Your Options.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:25 am
Consider Your Options. , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:25 am

As the state continues to bumble through its convoluted rail process, Caltrain is moving forward implementing electrification and increasing their train service now. Caltrain's project will require grade separation in a more near term to keep city street traffic moving. The possibility of longer term High Speed Rail (HSR) on the same corridor is a real planning problem because it requires different engineering specifications for grade separations that we won't know about until later. Our economy and communities depend on a functional transportation system now AND later.

Make a decision, Governor N. If you are not bringing HSR along the Caltrain corridor, please tell us. If you are going to move forward with HSR along the Peninsula Caltrain corridor, plan for it collaboratively with local communities and Caltrain now and incorporate funding for grade separations in the HSR project NOW, so Peninsula cities can plan for all possible scenarios and not waste billions on grade sep projects for Caltrain that will have to redone to accommodate HSR.

This is poorly conceived process that needs immediate attention. Fix it. Governor N, you are the chief executive. Pay attention to these enormously disruptive and astronomically expensive transportation problems your administration is creating through inattention. The buck stops on the governor's desk with this one. We are watching.


Art
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:34 am
Art, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:34 am

High-speed rail is too long overdue. Traveling to LA, SD, by air takes almost as much time as driving when considering door-to-door travel. Why do Europe, Asia, and even middle eastern countries have superior train services? The forces that choked train service in America 70 years ago (auto, rubber, oil) keep our communities looking like they are in a time warp. Our streets at train crossing are the same as they were 90 years ago. The west was built by grand-scale projects. Cross continental trains, the Hoover Dam, the GG bridge, and the California aqueduct made the west great. Why can't we build a 50-mile train track where train tracks already exist?


Citizen
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:42 am
Citizen, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:42 am

I have still never heard an adequate explanation for why the terminus for high speed rail is not San Jose instead of San Francisco. The Peninsula is densely populated and—although state lawmakers seem willfully ignorant of this fact—space limited and built out. This is not a Harry Potter novel where we can just make space out of nothing, despite Sacramento’s perennial belief to the contrary. The safety concerns around crossing impacts are catastrophes in the waiting from foreseeable events.

Money for rail on the peninsula is far better spent on improving the transportation system holistically, so that a terminus at San Jose could feed the region (East Bay and peninsula) more smoothly.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:43 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 11:43 am

Yesterday Newsom announced huge financial backing to Hollywood and the entertainment industry for movie and tv productions. It goes without saying that this industry brings money into CA coffers as well as providing jobs at all levels in the industry.

However, if CA has so much money and if it values transportation, then investing in transportation infrastructure should be a priority. Regardless whether HSR comes to the Peninsula, we already have the electrification of Caltrain. The work to electrify has been done and any type of grade separation is now going to be much more expensive due not only to the tracks but also the wires that are already in place.

It is ridiculous to expect each individual city to pay for this work. It is equally ridiculous to expect each indivdidual county to pay for this work.

This is a Bay Area regional benefit. At the very least it is the Bay Area as a region that will benefit from improved transit options. Newsom with his history of San Francisco politics understands our region from that alone.

If he can throw money at Hollywood, shouldn't he also be fighting for federal money as well as pushing money to basic infrastructure improvements such as this.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 4, 2022 at 12:23 pm
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 12:23 pm

“Yesterday Newsom announced huge financial backing to Hollywood and the entertainment industry for movie and tv productions” So Graven Growsome B’s Calif is financially backing Hollywood machine where gruesome violence is the name of the game. Where gun Co’s place thier wares everywhere. Glock, Smith & Wesson, etc. Like BIG tobacco was nixed from movies so should BIG Guns too. Meanwhile those earning $70,000 or less a year in hourly wages are living in near the edge and mass unhoused camps line our Bay Area streets living in deep squalor. Why? Our unhoused reality is a gross symptom of a much more sinister equation. Averting our eyes is no longer an option. Yet clicking, and downloading, uploading, Googling it all away (the Internet is hiding our head in the bay sands) . The medium the monster we’ve created. We are no longer in control. The algorithm and data worth billions of our every key stroke. We are giving ourselves away for “free. While the elite sell the con.


Save Palo Alto
Registered user
St. Claire Gardens
on Aug 4, 2022 at 1:52 pm
Save Palo Alto, St. Claire Gardens
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 1:52 pm

Palo Alto city government has no shame.

After leading opposition to the original peninsula HSR plan over grade separations and forcing the highly compromised “blended system”, Palo Alto is now complaining that HSR should pay for and build the grade separations?

You get what you asked for.

This is ridiculous hypocrisy, and exactly why HSR has struggled.

Uninformed opposition fighting every step of HSR. First it “we don’t want grade separation, it’s too ugly and will ruin the most beautiful Alma corridor”, then after realizing the unfortunate deaths and massive traffic congestion that result from dangerous grade crossings, now Palo Alto wants the HSR to pay for the very thing they had to compromise to remove from the plan.

If Palo Alto originally started working with HSR, rather than suing it at every chance, we likely would have more funding for the project with grade separation.

Also, if you didn’t catch my sarcasm, Alma is not beautiful, it is currently a wall that splits our city, and prevents people from walking between adjacent neighborhoods.

A partially elevated railway viaduct through Palo Alto is what the city now realizes it needs and can be part of an Alma improvement project. This can also add more pedestrian/bide crossings to Alma and the tracks, bringing our city together, and allowing our children to safely get to school.


mickie winkler
Registered user
University South
on Aug 4, 2022 at 2:21 pm
mickie winkler, University South
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 2:21 pm

Don't forget to remember the potentially decade-long impact of construction on local streets and on Alma. Almost every grade sep project has taken much longer than advertised.


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on Aug 4, 2022 at 5:52 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 5:52 pm

Two points. This article fails to mention the need for a 4th off-grade crossing --- where Alma crosses the tracks to join El Camino and Sand Hill Rd. Not improving this crossing would cause large traffic backup problems at University, Churchill, and maybe even Page Mill during rush hours, when the number of projected commuter trains and also the real volume of surface traffic both peak. Everyone would have to exit Alma to get on either El Camino Real or Middlefield and there probably also would cause a huge increase in diverted surface traffic in Old Palo Alto. And the folks who live there have huge political influence in PA, like it or not, and are determined to protect their quality of life, which includes non-local thru traffic. Aren't you, too???

This article also still assumes the highly economically and politically naive assumption that HSR will go past San Jose (or maybe even Gilroy) and up the Peninsula to SF anytime within our lifetimes. And also anywhere near Los Angeles too. These areas are densely populated and include large numbers of wealthy and/or politically powerful people and special interest groups. And they hold huge sway in Sacramento politics. Power and money talk, to paraphrase a famous saying.

So assuming that we forget the Idealistic Great HSR Myth, there still is are highly compelling reasons for FOUR (not three) below grade crossings in PA and one at Rengstorff in my MV, and two in Sunnyvale, and two (?) in Menlo Park. And that is the electrification of Caltrain, which political advocates say allows up to 100% the number of San Jose to SF commuter trains per day. Since political advocates always deliberately ask for more than is reasonable, I suspect that a 50% increase of longer electrified trains is a more reasonable projection. And that is coming soon.

So stop dithering and get a solid plan. "The lack of action is usually the worst possible option when action is necessary."


JR
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Aug 4, 2022 at 8:44 pm
JR, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 8:44 pm

The elevated freeway for trains is off the table, it is not an option as residents have repeatedly told you. It is reasonable to run the tracks underground, although the cost is high HSR is already wasting billions of dollars so surely they can spend a few dollars on a project that would actually improve quality of life. "Doing nothing" is also completely reasonable, far too often "projections" are false. So let's wait and see.


John Page
Registered user
another community
on Aug 5, 2022 at 11:21 am
John Page, another community
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 11:21 am

The issue with grade crossings has little to do with high speed trains. Just yesterday someone was killed on the Caltrain tracks and it is far from the first time. Regardless of what trains use the tracks these grade crossings are an absurd anachronism that should have been fixed years ago.

And 10 years to build a couple of bridges? Really??


William Hitchens
Registered user
Mountain View
on Aug 5, 2022 at 7:06 pm
William Hitchens, Mountain View
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 7:06 pm

@JR: The tracks will stay at grade because it is politically and financially impossible to do otherwise, both above ground and especially below ground. Trains need smooth, flat tracks. Autos, bikes, and pedestrians don't, so they can go under tracks, which is far more affordable and less intrusive than over tracks, also called "traffic overpasses". Got that? BTW, "at grade means in simple jargon "at ground level". For tracks in this case. Got that too? Not elevated, not "underground", but at their present level/grade. Got that?

"Doing nothing" is NOT VIABLE unless PA wants to get itself in a huge traffic jam along Alma once Caltrain is electrified and increases its rush hour trains by at least 50%. My city of MV is so busy turning MV into a high rise ghetto that they haven't even decided what to do at Rengstorff. A simple below grade traffic crossing would be the best option, but they are so obsessed with turning MV into an urban ghetto that they ---- what the hell, they're just another bunch of stupid politicians trying not to offend their voters.


Pat Markevitch
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 5, 2022 at 7:47 pm
Pat Markevitch, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 7:47 pm

It's long past time to kill this boondoggle. They keep pouring money into it and it hasn't even gotten to the hard part of the construction. It's more money in the politicians pockets.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 5, 2022 at 8:54 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 8:54 pm

This state would benefit greatly from a Legislature that wasn't so heavily one party. Debate is healthy. HSR, which is great in concept, should never have passed b/c the ballot measure was a concept void of critical details. Like cost. Palo Alto's part in this drama is complicated - and exacerbated by the sorry fact that the City has been talking about grade separation for years but not drawing to conclusions.

Two things to keep in mind: when Governor Pat Brown was leading this state, he was dealing with the equivalent of a blank slate. In the intervening decades, California has been super-developed. Everything is significantly more complicated now and Eminent Domain is a factor that no one wants to mention.

The concerns and criticisms mentioned by posters are valid. We have really screwed this up. One of the reasons for the high cost of HSR is the unrealistic estimates for taking prime agricultural land for the tracks between Bakersfield and Merced. Voters approved a concept, not a reality. Now, we need to assess economics and re-think who should be paying for this. Seems to me continuing office development should bear their fair share. Palo Alto's proposed business tax won't put a dent in this. Revenues are projected at $15M, and the intention is to split that 3 ways. An annual spend of $5M on what this city needs to do to prepare for and eventually support HSR is many multiples of that.


Samuel Jackson
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Aug 5, 2022 at 10:16 pm
Samuel Jackson, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 10:16 pm

Since so many people in Palo Alto complain about airplane noise, those same folks should come out and support the HSR program. There are many ways to mitigate the potential transportation impacts from changes in the use of the railway. Local policy could discourage car ownership, promote active and small-scale transportation, and promote more and denser housing so that more people could live closer to their work and thus reduce the number of commute trips.

Having successful and faster regional (and inter-regional) rail networks is a critical part of avoiding short-haul flights, as well as reducing the number of car trips, especially single-occupancy trips. Now, is HSR poised for success, given its other challenges? Complex question. But suggesting that the only way to address traffic impacts is with expensive concrete programs -- rather than policy and land-use designations -- is deeply shortsighted.


JR
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Aug 6, 2022 at 6:55 am
JR, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2022 at 6:55 am

HSR will not reduce noise in Palo Alto, it will only increase it. It is a fairy tale that HSR will reduce flight volume over Palo Alto. The majority of airplane noise in PA comes from SFO international flights which the City and County of San Francisco is (illegally) redirecting two counties over in order to keep their own skies and cities peaceful while Palo Alto noise reaches an excessive level.


resident3
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 6, 2022 at 9:00 am
resident3, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2022 at 9:00 am

@JR

"It is a fairy tale that HSR will reduce flight volume over Palo Alto."

As someone else posted, it takes policy to address traffic impacts and that makes Europe different. They make policy choices to disincentivize air travel and to continually improve rail infrastructure. For this reason, you may be right that flight volume will continue to grow. There's already more energy and federal regulatory supports going to flying cars and "unmanned" aviation products.

Federal policy is allowing certification of flying cars with propaganda that call these machines "silent" based on the FAA's "unique" definition of noise (not the kind people actually experience). The businesses that will profit from the public infrastructure needed for these products to function consider this "free" for them - as in how SFO uses Palo Alto as their arrivals infrastructure for airlines for free.

If the airplane noise issue has illustrated one thing, it's how provincial things are. People are happy to get a couple of million here and there for a museum or a bridge. Our policy makers are only as good as our expectations, culture, and what we allow to be used as truth.


mjh
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 6, 2022 at 1:16 pm
mjh, College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2022 at 1:16 pm

How is our local Sacramento representative, Mark Berman, representing us in the high speed rail debacle?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.