joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jul 4, 2009 14:50:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 6, 2009 15:02:54 GMT -8
well, one way to look at this mess is, this increases the chances that the first construction would be further south. say, between Los Angeles and Anaheim or even in the Central Valley.
I know that's what I would do if I were in charge, and the new leader of CAHSR is a Southern Californian, so....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 7, 2009 9:28:10 GMT -8
So they want to eliminate a stop in San Jose for the Silicon Valley? Sigh... |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 7, 2009 13:25:12 GMT -8
So they want to eliminate a stop in San Jose for the Silicon Valley? Sigh... Judging from the articles that I've seen, and from the comments to those articles, these appear, at first glance to be your standard-issue NIMBYs. Of course, there are several different kinds of NIMBY involved. Some are opposed to rail just on general principles. Some say they want it "built right", meaning underground, or in a trench. Just like the anti-Expo folks of Cheviot Hills, some want it built on a different route, which is where this whole business about Altamont and skipping San Jose comes in. Oddly, Altamont does have its advantages. For one thing, you'd be using an existing corridor and there are still environmental concerns about Pacheco Pass. Add to that the potential possibility that Altamont might lead the trains away from the Peninsula cities... and well, you've got the perfect literal and figurative "diversionary" tactic for the NIMBYs. Of course, that would leave San Jose out of the loop, which is ridiculous because San Jose and Silicon Valley is still one of the state's major economic engines. So... who's interested in building a train from L.A. to San Jose? |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 7, 2009 15:01:56 GMT -8
There were several Altamont routings studied. It doesn't necessarily mean you miss San Jose, but service is split between San Jose and San Francisco. One routing has the train heading through Altamont and over the Dumbarton bridge to get to the peninsula, missing Palo Alto and Menlo Park but impacting the rest of the Peninsula. Theoretically, you could still use Pacheco via San Jose and miss the Peninsula entirely, terminating trains in Oakland I guess. www.flickr.com/photos/54568662@N00/2186027203/sizes/o/Anyway, see for yourself. If the route is opened up to be studied again I'm guess all those alignments will be looked at once more. One thing I am confident of is that a new bay crossing will not be built, so getting to SF via Oakland is probably out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2009 15:32:06 GMT -8
There is no example of NIMBYism as vicious as in the "golden state" of California anywhere else in the world. This state deserves nothing. They should let California's ever-growing deep misery multiply ten times every passing decade.
This is also a great example of how democracy fails. Human beings are created with the sole purpose to screw one another and the mother nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 7, 2009 15:45:28 GMT -8
There seem to be two big camps here. There are those who live on the Peninsula who want the train to be built anywhere but there, and those who want HSR to serve regional transit needs in the East Bay and support Altamont. Their goals overlap.
But it's not like Altamont is a walk in the park. If Altamont becomes the preferred alignment you'll have opposition in Livermore, Fremont and Pleasanton. There are environmental concerns with Altamont as well as Pacheco. There's wetlands and wildlife refuges. On Altamont you have the Hayward and Calaveras faults. There are tunnels just like Pacheco. It's not like the ACE ROW is conducive to HSR. That thing will have to be straightened out.
San Jose is the third largest city in California and it deserves to be a part of the main line without a split in Fremont between SF and SJ. Remember, service is going to be split between Sacramento and the Bay Area in the future too. I don't know if Oakland is still on the table, but that would require yet another split.
The only thing I am sure of is that ALL parties are self-interested, including myself and including you, them, whoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 7, 2009 16:35:34 GMT -8
I could be wrong, but this Altamont/Pacheco thing is nothing new, and methinks that the Pacheco route is what we'll see, despite the opposition (just as we saw with the Expo Line analogy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2009 17:02:39 GMT -8
I could be wrong, but this Altamont/Pacheco thing is nothing new, and methinks that the Pacheco route is what we'll see, despite the opposition (just as we saw with the Expo Line analogy). You mean the "diversion" is not really a route diversion but a diversion to divert the NIMBY attention, just like the Expo diversion around Cheviot Hills was?  |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 7, 2009 20:56:23 GMT -8
Well, I think that the Altamont idea, despite its having merits, will (when it's all said and done) just not occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 7, 2009 23:15:15 GMT -8
I could be wrong, but this Altamont/Pacheco thing is nothing new, and methinks that the Pacheco route is what we'll see, despite the opposition (just as we saw with the Expo Line analogy). Actually, you are probably wrong. The Altamont route exists and can be upgraded to provide Higher Speed Rail Service pretty swiftly. The Pacheco Pass would connect about 110 miles from San Jose to Chow Chilla. This is pure virgin territory with no rail operator or a rail corridor. Someone is going to have to come up with $12-20 Billion to build this first time line. Building with the tunnels is probably 5 to 10 years. Are the tax payers going to finance this Virgin Corridor? Would a private venture take on the risk with a decade of construction loans and a risky payback over 20 to 40 years? All I can say is get out your pencils and green visors and start doing the math. Would you, as a steward of public funds risk the whole CA High Speed Rail Bond on one segment? A segment that has hardly any ridership potential? There is no freight traffic on this corridor. And, be aware that Union Pacific controls / owns the corridor between San Jose and Gilroy. If UP doesn't want to share or sell any Right of Way along this corridor, the Property Takes will also be in the Billions. As you may have read, the High Speed Rail Board finally got some Adult Supervision, so perhaps many of the stupid and wasteful things that the High Speed Rail Staff has been proposing will be nipped in the bud. Let's take for example the building of a maintenance facility in Madera. That's the middle of the route. Shop Bases are built at terminal points on railroads around the world. Without an operator of the service, who knows what the equipment will be and the configuration? The operator would figure out the most cost effective location of a base and should figure out what the base should consist of. That's not the way the HSR Authority has been planning things. Are any of you aware of the stub end BART terminal, rather than through service? Are you aware that a $100 million segment from SFO to Millbrae has been abandoned? This stupid idea of building parallel routes from San Bruno to Millbrae was done by some of the same folks over at High Speed Rail. Gang, when you find a rail operator that is going to finance and run High Speed Trains from San Jose to Chow Chilla, let me know. I've always wanted to see tooth fairy dust. This would be my only chance. A few closing questions. A non existent service might start with trains hourly or two-hourly or 4-hourly. Would you blow all your money building a 12 to 20 track terminal in downtown San Francisco or a Billion Dollar Station in San Jose? You should remember that nobody at High Speed Rail has industry experience, as they were all staff to elected officials. Rail industry professional staff has completely different ideas on how to make incremental improvements rather then blowing the whole wad on a few Orphan Project. This isn't a Lionel Train set, it is rail with Risk and Investment and the payback is dubious at best for many decades. |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 28, 2009 21:47:28 GMT -8
Bart is about the only person making any good points about Altamont. The folks at Let's Do It Right certainly don't have a clue. Their faulty logic leads me to believe that for them doing HSR right is not doing it at all. Here's why. "Building a high speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles through the Pacheco Pass would also destroy several communities along the Peninsula including Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View by:" Okay, so let me get this straight. It's NOT okay to ruin the communities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View, but it's okay to ruin the communities north of them? Or maybe it just says something about what these people think of the more northernly portion of the Peninsula who aren't as affluent as they are. Let's do it right? It sounds like some of the rank and file behind this site think that doing it right is it going through someone else's neighborhood. "REMEMBER: THE CITY YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN!" And there lies the fatal flaw in their reasoning. If this thing is so awful that cities must be saved from it, why would ANYONE along the Altamont corridor want it in their backyard? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to start their own anti-HSR site? That's why this campaign is not about doing it right, but killing the project outright. It's so transparent. TRANSDEF wants high speed rail, so why are they aligning themselves with an organization that is saying that it will destroy communities? How does this help them get it through Altamont and the East Bay? The East Bay resident is thinking... holy crap, I don't want this thing coming over here! |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 28, 2009 23:28:57 GMT -8
Be sure to read Robert Cruickshank's Sunday post, The Multi-Pronged Attack on California HSR. A quote: Environmentalists have made a deal with the devil (so to speak) and allied with people who are fundamentally opposed to high speed rail. ... They are jeopardizing the viability of the project as a whole, are placing a parochial and small concern above the concept, and are enabling anti-environment, anti-rail arguments in order to achieve their goals. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 29, 2009 5:29:18 GMT -8
I agree with Darrell. There are truly merits with the Altamont plan, but there's a reason why the other route was chosen by those who studied both the Pacheco and Altamont routes.
No conspiracies here--just studies, and some will agree with and disagree with those studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 29, 2009 10:56:53 GMT -8
We need both Pacheco and Altamont to get the both local and higher speed express service need for the statewide system both corridors and both styles of operation.
Altamont has merit but it will make the operations of the system so convoluted with little stubs all over the place in the North California area as the first MOS phase that it makes it sense to go with the direct route from SF to LA via San Jose (that will save a number of taxpayer $$$ for a silly BART to San Jose extension that could go for more useful projects such as upgrading Altamont to higher speed operation and building the Sacramento/Merced section but hey let's not have rational logic get in the way of irrational emotional temper-tantrums).
This part of my struggles for leaving an organization that placed the NoCal issue that is severely holding hostage the needs and merits in SoCal and the rest of the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 29, 2009 11:36:35 GMT -8
A few closing questions. A non existent service might start with trains hourly or two-hourly or 4-hourly. Would you blow all your money building a 12 to 20 track terminal in downtown San Francisco or a Billion Dollar Station in San Jose? You should remember that nobody at High Speed Rail has industry experience, as they were all staff to elected officials. Rail industry professional staff has completely different ideas on how to make incremental improvements rather then blowing the whole wad on a few Orphan Project. This isn't a Lionel Train set, it is rail with Risk and Investment and the payback is dubious at best for many decades. I agree with the need to keep those guys accountable one of the reasons I voted yes on it because if the measure fails those bums would have made a really nice profit without any blowback now it's approved their feet can be held to the fire. The issue I see with Altamont plan San Jose really explodes as the second Multi-billion dollar terminal because it is no longer a pass through station but a TERMINAL station so think of San Francisco multiplied and there are hidden operational and capital costs that aren't factored in. One such factor is that now because of this poor non-direct connection to San Francisco/Bay Area, BART to San Jose starts becoming to look like a nice looking project now that would syphon $6-7 billion dollars, money that could go to upgrade Altamont and build the Sacramento-Merced segments. Another factor is does Altamont even have the available right-of-way room to hold 4 tracks through these populated areas? For both commuter and higher speed "express" service? |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 29, 2009 11:50:27 GMT -8
Our local struggles with NIMBYs and/or ideologues cloaked as "Neighbors for Smart Rail" and "Fix Expo" shine a lot of light on the purpose of "Let's Do It Right". I especially find accusations of real estate developer conspiracies at Los Banos ridiculous. HSR or not, who wants to live in Los Banos?? After over 40 years of being served by I-5 it is still nothing more than a few motels and gas stations by the freeway in the middle of the hot, empty western San Joaquin Valley. How many people would pay $1,400 a month ($35 x 2 x 20; assuming proportional to LA-SF for $100) to commute an hour to San Francisco from Los Banos, or $800 for a half-hour to San Jose? I just don't see many people at the socioeconomic level who would pay this wanting to live in Los Banos, any more than they would commute from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Not to mention that the FEIS explicitly rules out any stop in Los Banos, including noting the speed benefit of fewer stops. I just cannot see Los Banos as significant in CA HSR's route decision for Pacheco. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 26, 2009 22:39:08 GMT -8
Robert Cruickshank's California High Speed Rail Blog had this summary of the court's decision (and the full text): Initial Ruling in Atherton v. CHSRA
As I wait here in Menlo Park for the HSR town hall to get underway, we have a ruling in the frivolous lawsuit Menlo Park, Atherton, and the PCL filed against the CHSRA. It's a mixed bag for everyone - the judge ruled that most of the Federal EIR on the Pacheco alignment was sound and that most of the petitioners' claims about it were "without merit."
But there were three specific points that the judge DID rule had merit:
1. EIR claim that vibration from tracks can be mitigated to a "less than significant level" is "not supported by substantial evidence"
2. EIR inadequately described land use impacts from HSR (though the judge did throw out the arguments that HSR would produce sprawl)
3. EIR needed to have been "recirculated" based on Union Pacific's refusal to share ROW in the San Jose-Gilroy corridor area.
The outcome is that the "writ of mandate" the petitioners sought is granted. In practice this is likely to mean the EIR will have to be revisited to consider the three points above. Other points that the court rejected, including the argument that US-101 and I-280 needed to be considered, or that Altamont itself needs to be reconsidered, do not appear to be reopened by this ruling. PCL's press release seems to broadly overstate the court's decision: Court Supports Claims that the High Speed Rail Authority's Environmental Review is Faulty
Sacramento - Today Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny issued a decision supporting contentions by the Planning and Conservation League and other plaintiffs that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) did not adequately study the potential impacts before choosing the Pacheco Pass route into the Bay Area from the Central Valley. This decision means the choice to build the train along the Pacheco Pass route will be rescinded and the impacts and alternatives thoroughly studied.
Tina Andolina, Legislative Director for the Planning and Conservation League said, "We hope Authority will get right to work on a thorough and comprehensive review. The public supports high speed rail but wants it done right since we simply can't afford to throw $10 billion at a project that is done haphazardly."
In July of 2008 the HSRA approved the Bay Area Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and selected the Pacheco Pass route despite clear evidence that an alternative route along the Altamont Pass route would have fewer environmental and community impacts, serve more riders, and likely cost less. The Planning and Conservation League, along with Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund and the California Rail Foundation filed the lawsuit to overturn the EIR route decision. The Town of Atherton and City of Menlo Park later joined the lawsuit.
Judge Kenny found the EIR inadequate on several fronts. Specifically, he found that the project description of the alignment of the HSR tracks between San Jose and Gilroy was inadequate and that the EIR failed to address the Union Pacific Railroad's refusal to make its right-of-way available for High-Speed Rail. Further Judge Kenny found that the EIR was not specific enough regarding the potential impacts various routes would have on surrounding businesses and homes which may be displaced, the Monterey Highway or Union Pacific's use of its right-of-way.
"We are confident that once the Authority completes a fair and objective review they will decide that the Altamont Pass route is the best choice for California," said Andolina. "We get one shot to do this project right. In this case, we have to measure twice to cut once." |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 27, 2009 17:39:56 GMT -8
It sounds like the Peninsula interests won a couple of battles and lost a bunch more.
|
|
