Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 3:05 AM

Palo Alto digs in for train-tunnel battle
City joins new Peninsula consortium of cities, accusing Caltrain and high-speed rail agency of 'duplicity' relating to the tunneling alternative

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:08 am

The council was delusional in thinking we could ever get the train underground in the first place. This is mistake number 147. First mistake was supporting this without knowing or telling people the route was planned to go through Palo Alto with a 4 track lane and sky high walls.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:10 am

I support the council in fighting against HSR, but they really need to be open their eyes. I think they got the rude awakening this week. They have to fight tougher. An amicus brief is not enough.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:41 am

I am still waiting for Kishimoto and Klein to explain why they wrote the colleagues letter to the council supporting the measure and why they encouraged PA voters to support it without knowing all the facts.

Could it be that they had their green colored glasses on??

This is the problem with the greenies in PA--they do not think about the big picture.

Let's remember this when Kishimoto runs for State Assembly

Posted by Robert Cruickshank, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:56 am

The Palo Alto city council is a joke. Their statements here are dishonest and not anywhere close to reflecting reality. The council is upset that Caltrain and the CHSRA didn't rig the proposed MOU to ensure that a tunnel would be built. The council has no interest in a truly open process, and even worse, they have no interest in actually supporting what is right for passenger rail in this state from an operational standpoint. They want to undermine the entire system because of a concern over a handful of backyards.

I know that in the Palo Alto bubble folks don't always realize this, but the rest of California is not with you on this, and will oppose you if you try to destroy the HSR project. This willfully ignorant and misleading stance by the council is only going to ensure that the state and federal governments will have no interest at all in paying for your tunnel. You'll have to foot the bill yourself, or accept an above-grade structure.

That's the hard reality that city residents have not yet been willing to accept.

Posted by CC_Attendee, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:59 am

Kudos to Council Member Pat Burt who proved with his remarks last night that he really understands that the High Speed Rail Authority isn't playing nice - we need to take a strong stance to be sure that Palo Alto's voice is heard in this process.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:08 am

Kudos to Pat Burt?? Why?? Why did he join the rest of the council in asking voters in PA to support the HSR measure that was on the ballot in november? Was he also not aware of the facts?

Seems to me the council is covering up their ignorance and/or incompetence by acting outraged now. It is a little too late for that.

Posted by Andrew, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:19 am

Amy, everyone's property values have gone down since November. Also, I bet you were liking the "next to train" discount you received when you purchased that home.

Posted by Glen Kacher, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:35 am

At the time of the election, were the publicly available documents on HSR clear that there would be a raised track? If there were, isn't it clear that the coucil members that supported HSR then and for a tunnel now grossly negilgent? How could one support a 20 foot wall one month and against a few months later.

If any of these council members get reelected to any public office in the future it will be a travesty.

Posted by Against a tunnel, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:45 am

I am proud to say that I voted AGAINST high speed rail. I am now opposed to putting it in a tunnel underground - it's far too expensive and I don't want to pay for it. More importantly, I don't want my children and grand-children to have to pay for it either.

Posted by YouShouldKnow, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:00 am

Cobb said a primary responsibility of council members is to speak for and fight on behalf of residents when there is a threat.

That's rich. So tell me, whose responsibility is it to speak for and fight on behalf of residents when they are feeling threatened by the City Council? Or by the Utilities dept?

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:11 am

"Both the rail authority and the Peninsula Joint Powers Authority -- which oversees Caltrain -- are scheduled to vote on a memorandum of understanding Thursday that would designate a "four-track grade-separated" alignment along the Caltrain corridor as the configuration of the new train line."

"The proposed agreement contradicts the high-speed rail agency's repeated assertions that all options -- including deep underground tunnels -- would be carefully evaluated in the upcoming environmental impact review."

There is a persistent misunderstanding here. Nothing about 4 tracks has any impact on tunneling being studied in the EIR. The CHSRA has already agreed to study tunneling and they will do so. Whether that means 2 tracks underground and no change to the surface tracks or all 4 tracks underground with no tracks on the surface has yet to be determined, some study will be given to both of those as well as all other 4 track configurations. Please stop publishing inflammatory nonsense and get your facts straight.

A tunnel IS a "four-track grade-separated" alignment. Grade separation only means that no cars or pedestrians cross the tracks at the same level the train is at (i.e. at the same grade). It does not mean anything more. HSR clearly needs 4 tracks unless they close Caltrain, which nobody has ever suggested doing. Those tracks will not have dangerous at-grade crossings like Caltrain currently does since cars and pedestrians will cross above or below the tracks.

Posted by peninsula joe, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:27 am

Why is it that before prop 1a very narrowly passed the HSR authority embraced the grand central station in SF and vowed to consider any option on the peninsula.

After the initiative narrowly passed with the support of these communities were promises were made, backed off of that support.

The only chance any of us have against this is a State takeover of an incompetent group of snake oil salesman who have no understanding of transportation issues.

Are we really comfortable relying on Quinten Kopp to do this, can anyone say BART to SFO and ten years of litigation against outright forged ridership projections to get it built.

Posted by Clem, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:33 am

> At the time of the election, were the publicly available documents on HSR clear that there would be a raised track?

Technically, yes.

The regional (Bay Area - Central Valley) EIR/EIS, approved in July 2008, contains specific descriptions of four-track retained fill embankments through portions of Palo Alto, but you had to dig into the appendices (among thousands of pages of materials) to uncover them.

Refer to Volume 2, Appendix D, Page 5. Web Link

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "clear".

Posted by Evan, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:48 am

Tunneling isn't a cost-effective option. This isn't downtown San Francisco, we don't have the density to make it economically feasible to tunnel under the tracks -- not to mention the environmental damage that would cause.

High-speed rail is going to be great for California, and for Palo Alto, as will the electrification of Caltrain (one of the best by-products of high-speed rail on the peninsula).

Let's go with the flow, and accept this project -- working with the CAHSRA instead of against it. California, and Palo Alto, will be better for it.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:52 am

Bogan - There should be no predisposition in the MOU AT ALL about the final solution - the EIR isn't even started yet. As you well know, "NO BUILD", absolutely IS one of the options they must give full study in the Porject EIR. Yet the MOU puts forth a 4 track solution as a given parameter. Wrong.

Frankly, Im amazed that CHSRA already under legal fire for Program EIR shenanigans is willing to damage the validity of the fledgling Project EIR this way.

Cruik, by the way, since you're so interested in what PA city council has to say, you really should try to listen to the meetings instead of getting sound bites from the SJ Merc that aren't even CLOSE to the full story. I just can't wait till CHSRA gets their hands on PA's 65 point scoping letter.

You know what - you don't have a CLUE about what lies ahead. CHSRA's biggest miscalculation so far has been to try to bring this through the Peninsula, and ignore the people factor. And you're not doing much of a service to HSR's future in California, nor for your HSR followers, with your hard core disinformation campaign against cities you should be trying to work with. Its really beginning to wear on your credibility since you don't know what you're actually talking about, not bothering to get the full story. You're like one of those horses with flaps on his eyes, dedicated to moving in a completely straight line to the end point - or better yet, just like a completely inflexible train! How funny that a train geek is so much like a train -this is why they call it a 'single track' mind.

All Aboard! Next Stop: Repeal Measure 1A.

BTW, did anyone hear if they announced the outcome of their closed door session wrt to filing the amicus brief? That will be the real news of the night.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:54 am

Clem, but yet, Diridon said in November, No, the designs weren't know yet, still unknown, when asked point blank by the PA City Council. I'd say the U-tube video is pretty good evidence for PA's eventual day in court.

Posted by Don G., a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:56 am

Looks like voters remorse on prop 1A. I voted against it too especially with California's budget waaaay over-extended. I think it's a good idea, but the timing is not good economically. I also don't like the HSR changing the plan the last minute either if that is the case.

Posted by Floyd, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:58 am

I rode the TGV in France many years ago from Paris to Lyon. I don't recall racing through towns and villages at very high speed. Maximum speed seemed to be reserved for the unpopulated countryside.

I didn't vote for this HSR nor for the attempt about 30 years ago.

Maybe it will be in litigation long enough for me not to care.

Would anybody now wish they had voted no?

Wasn't the freeway program in San Franciso brought to a halt before it completely ruined the city?

Posted by Frank, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 11:07 am

Everyone wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die.

High Speed Rail is a good idea. I am sorry for anyone who has any personal inconvenience and looses any of their back yard although it is not clear how many people would be affected or by how much. Talk of demolishing everyone's home along the tracks or sky high walls is mindless hysteria.

Consider Oregon Expressway - if we had required it to be put into tunnels or not impact any homes we would not have it and we would have massive traffic on Embarcadero and other streets.

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 11:25 am

Glen Kacher wrote: "At the time of the election, were the publicly available documents on HSR clear that there would be a raised track?"

Actually, no -- not only was there no clear direction on the nature of any structure that might be built on the peninsula (or through Altamont Pass, for that matter), but the HSRA failed to produce the required business plan by September of last year, ahead of the election (that plan didn't surface until well after the election). California voters, well-intentioned though they may have been, were completely ignorant of any and all specifics relating to HSR yet still voted for it (which is but another damning strike against the initiative process).

I live in Menlo Park, and I was amazed at the number of my neighbors who voted for Prop 1A who, when told the trains may run on four tracks through the peninsula, responded with a blank stare and something like, "You mean to tell me these trains are going to go up and down the peninsula, alongside CalTrain!? That isn't possible, is it?" Honestly, the level of misinformation and ignorance swirling round this initiative was appalling, we're all left holding the bag, and the sheer number of dollars set to be wasted in the inevitable, interminable legal proceedings is just one of many travesties to come.

On a personal note, it has never been made clear to me why HSR, if it must be built now, can't run from San Jose to Los Angeles, with CalTrain feeding the planned transit hub in San Jose. Keep the two-track main line from San Jose to San Francisco and the whole issue of eminent domain seems to go away, though we must still wrangle with electrification and grade separations at some point. Is the perceived problem with this plan the fear that people bound for Los Angeles won't wish to change trains in San Jose? I don't buy into the notion that travel times between SF and LA must be under 3 hours or no one will ride the train (the swirl around ridership alone should have been enough to scuttle this train back in November). In any case, the position of the Union Pacific Railroad, (re)published a day or two ago, only heaps more uncertainty atop the HSR maelstrom, and the whole enterprise appears set to live solely in the courts for a decade, at least.

Mark

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:10 pm

The council was stupid enough to vote, unanimously, for Prop 1A. They didn't do their job. They didn't investigate. They didn't ask questions. They didn't raise doubts. It doesn't matter what the published document at that time says. It's their job to dig deep before they so enthusiastically endorsed the plan.

They should have all resigned to take some responsibility.

Now they want argue about tunneling. This is even more stupid. Sorry for being rude. Because I have to. Wake up! There is zero chance for tunneling. If tunneling in Palo Alto, it will be tunneling in Menlo Park and Atherton. Other cities will demand tunneling as well. Why should Palo Alto deserve special treatment and not Mountain View? not Sunnyvale? not Millbrae? And what about the suburbs in Los Angeles, and in other cities that HSR passes through? All of them will demand tunneling. Is that possible?

What are the council members thinking they are? Kings and Queens?

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:12 pm

This article about 1a from KQED-Quest before the election says HSR authority is looking at underground alternatives,

~~~The Rail Authority says it's working with communities to answer their concerns. For instance, it's possible that some of the high speed rail stations could go below ground on the Peninsula β€” and that they hope to build BOTH routes eventually. Right now, they say, the Pacheco Pass route is preferred, but they point out that it's a long way till the tracks go down and the train starts running, and there will be a lot to work out over the next decade.~~~

Seriously, is all of this legal? Maybe the approach should be to attach the proposition itself legally.

Web Link

Posted by a resident, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:26 pm

I think a lot of these comments are window dressing and nothing will change unless there is a REAL concerted effort by the public and the City Council to either stop the HSR at San Jose or tunnel it as it goes up the Peninsula. The City Council endorsed the Measure A---either they are incompetent or prevaricators. Both are bad. And what about the Palo Alto tree that is supposed to be around for another 300 years? Maybe this will be our "spotted owl". I understand that the HSR has been working on this since 1996. If we had known what the facts were at the election, I doubt Measure 1A would have passed.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:31 pm

I agree with Observer. We need legal representation that can attack measure 1A - massive voter fraud!

If Prop 8 can be challended in courts, why can't this?

Write letters to California state representatives ASAP! Measure 1A, under the CHSRA was completely a dishonest snake oil job.

Heck, I would even vote Republican for this. Who do we write to?

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Can anyone seriously recommend how to repeal Prop 1A? Seriously. There has been no serious discussion about this, no serious efforts to repeal, only talk talk talk.

Posted by concerned, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm

As someone who voted against the proposition, my concern was that information was incomplete and we didn't really know what we would be getting. Additionally, I have concerns about how data is used to intentionally confuse.

To argue that Palo Alto should just suck it up because other cities will ask for tunneling is ludicrous. OF COURSE OTHER CITIES SHOULD REQUIRE TUNNELING. Why would any city want this ugly wall and high speed train dividing their city?

It's interesting that little discussion has been made of the viability of this train regardless of how or where it is tracked. A 2.5 hour train ride to LA translates into about 5 hours when you count the inevitable security procedures, parking, boarding, unboarding, etc. Is it worth it? Will ridership really pay for costs? Will it cost more or less than flying? Currently, the Amtrak cost SF to LA is $54.00 booked in advance, and flying is $49.00 booked for the same advance date. If ridership doesn't cover costs, we can then talk about our children and grandchildren being stuck with a bill.

Finally, for the Mountain View folks commenting on property values --a number of real estate agencies will tell you that Palo Alto properties along Alma have taken a disproportionate dive in value since the high speed rail issues have been more public.

Posted by TC, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Many of us are focused on HSR as the problem. Even without HSR, Cal Train plans to expand service to about 18 trains at peak hours with or without grade seperations.They do not have the money to tunnel.

Lets use this opportunity with HSR to do it right and underground most of the line in cities that want it underground. Eventually we will need to come up with the marginal cost of undergrounding v/s the fully mitigated costs of the HSR/Cal train plan. One way to get close to fund the marginal costs is to sell the Air Rights above the tracks. There must be other mechanisms.

Some have argued that HSR should stop in San Jose and riders transfer to Cal Train. This would increase the number of trains. HSR Plans on 12 trains during peak hours. Would we want 25-30 Cal trains per peak hours on Grade or worse above grade?

LETS WORK WITH CHSRA AND DO IT RIGHT. I am confident that Palo Alto Staff and Council will do it right.

Posted by concerned, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:47 pm

TC -- I agree 100%! If tunneled, I think we all win. Those who want HSR (I dont') will get it, Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities will benefit from moving CalTrain underground, and we won't have to deal with increased train noise and pollution. BTW, HSR may be electric and less noisy, but the trains still stir up particulate matter that stays in the air we breath and settles on our houses and cars. Underground would be great!

Posted by menloparkarrogance, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Okay, found some information on how to repeal Measure 1A. Web Link

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:03 pm

If we can't even get a petition to repeal 1A, there's basically no hope left.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:09 pm

I should clarify my above statement. If we can't even get people energized enough to start a petition to repeal measure 1A, we're admitting defeat already - that not enough people care and that in fact the majority does want this high speed rail. How far are the cities willing to take the fight against HSR? Up to the Supreme Court?

It's very sad. I'm very upset about this.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Does the effort to repeal Measure 1A have to start with an initiative? Web Link

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:22 pm

TC wrote: "Some have argued that HSR should stop in San Jose and riders transfer to Cal Train. This would increase the number of trains. HSR Plans on 12 trains during peak hours. Would we want 25-30 Cal trains per peak hours on Grade or worse above grade?"

Not at all true and, in fact, we don't yet know how HSR service from LA to SJ would affect CalTrain service levels and schedules. CalTrain plans to expand their service regardless what happens with HSR, so one proposal would be to create schedules for both systems such that arrivals and departures are closely coordinated in San Jose. Should be relatively easy to do since there is no HSR schedule at present, and I think the net would be fewer trains plying the peninsula on (most importantly) a two-track main line, one that may not require the berm so many of us fear.

If it isn't clear, I'm opposed to HSR as currently routed (peninsula) and given the state of our economy (absolutely in the toilet), but if the thing is going to be built I, like most reasonable people, would prefer to see as little disruption as possible. HSR terminating in San Jose seems to go a long way in that regard.

Mark

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:35 pm

To TC and concerned,

While the tunneling/air rights option is very attractive (imagine a retail- and tree-laced pedestrian/bike path at current grade, with overpasses at motor vehicle intersections, stretching from Mountain View to Redwood city), picturing HSR, CalTrain, and the Union Pacific Railroad all sharing four or six tracks underground is nigh on impossible. I think the only hope would be if the UP were to abandon the peninsula right-of-way, at considerable cost to taxpayers, and that burden would be heaped upon the billions or tens of billions it might cost to build a tunnel. We can dream, but it truly seems to me that's all we're doing with the tunnel.

Mark

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Resident, I think you shouldn't get too sad too quickly. This is a relatively new opposition effort (about a month old), because not many people understood the implications of HSR when they voted. And most still don't. There's a large widespread education and outreach effort that needs to happen before people will sign petitions. Fact is, the information flow of truth about CHSR has been a trickle, but the Disinformation has been a river. Truth and fact have been buried almost to the point of no recovery. However, as we can see, we now have hoards of individuals now interested, and digging under every rock, and a concerted community organizational effort is now springing to life.

I'm confident we'll get to an effort to repeal of measure 1A, but that also takes a political effort - a full blown campaign. Which takes money and organization. We do have a few community members familiar with how to run campaigns and organizat politically. We need to tap that experience.

We could just jump in willy nilly and start gathering signatures, but that's just a drop in the bucket in terms of the needed effort. There needs to be community organization that reaches not only across neighbors of a single city (just now in formation stage), but it needs to reach across all the cities in the Peninsula, then it needs to reach across the state as well. (And by cities, that doesn't mean city councils - that means individuals, property owners, tax payers, voters). We'll need messaging, we need campaign saavy, advertising dollars, etc. So be somewhat patient. I believe the grass roots organization that need to make that effort happen is in formation stage.

In the meantime, the worst thing that could happen for the outright HSR opponents would be for CHSRA to figure out quickly that they've driven their train into a huge pit of quicksand, to change their route decision, and suddenly take it way east. Why? Because the political will for opposition and organization on this issue is probably centered along the peninsula. I doubt this issue would have even seen the light of day if they would have just chosen a different route that bypassed the Bay Area. So, they have (luckily, just the nick of time) fired up the natives on this one. And natives they now can fight.

If they take the route elsewhere much of the fire will fizzle (unless we can help get those communities engaged - some communities to the east will actually welcome HSR - but who knows they may expect tunnels too?!). So while I think we need to give this time to gel, I'd agree that we DO need to hurry up with this before CHSRA proponents wise up. We do need to strike while iron is hot, before they placate too many angry townfolk by taking it out of the line of fire.

The tunnel option was just a diversion tactic anyway - keep the HSR Peninsula supporters on ice just long enough to set the thing in irreversible motion - then OH by the way, tunnel is not feasible, but here's a great sound wall we can build you instead, and by that time - oops way too late to put forth any protests.

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:40 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I agree, Parent. I'm very concerned/afraid that CHSRA is trying to run this through very quickly so as to give residents very little chance or hope of organizing.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:47 pm

I've been wondering myself if the STate Attorney General should be contacted with the evidence that lies, missing required information (ie: missing business plan), and faulty EIR (lack of consideration of all information, lies from Diridon to city councils, etc), were at the basis of Measure 1A, and that the measure 1A law needs to be challenged in court on behalf of the people of the state. People of California can reasonably support HSR done properly, but they should not support a corrupt process for something so important and expensive.

Posted by Andrea, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 1:50 pm

The folks who live near the Cal Train tracks in the Willow Glen area of San Jose are just now beginning to see what impact the HSR will have on their neighborhoods. As residents in the impacted areas begin to wake up to what's in store for them, the outrage will grow. Anything we can do to spread the work quickly help when it comes time to repeal 1A. I'll bet there are towns all up and down the state which have no idea what kind of plans CHSR has in store for them. Spread the word however you can to friends, relatives, newspapers, homeowners groups, etc.

Posted by menloparkarrogance, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 2:31 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by P.A. Native, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 31, 2009 at 2:46 pm

I'm trying to think about the last recall election we had and how a small group of people reversed the will of the entire state. Anyone else remember how that turned out?

I'll tell you what saddens me. The fact that people on this board representing my hometown care more about their own selfish considerations than anything else. It all comes back to the money doesn't it? All this talk about our community is such a crock. Where is your support for the crime ridden neighborhood that shares the name of your city? Where is the community then? Is it because they're in a different county or is it their difference in net worth and cultures that make them unworthy of any support from Palo Alto citizens. It's pretty clear cut where our concerns lie.

I see the people on this board working themselves into a frenzy. I'm not sure they realize that they are effectively in a room full of people all dying to complain about the same thing. This doesn't make your case stronger, it only makes your group louder. The people of California voted this proposition in by more than 600,000 votes. That's a whole lot of minds to change and it's going to take much more than Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton to do it.

Posted by mszv, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Agree P.A. Native, but the thing to remember is that not everyone in Palo Alto is against the current HSR proposition. It is, however, hard to object, in the public space,because people ending up behaving in an ugly fashion towards you.

And, if you scratch the service, it's not just HSR. As far as I can tell, a number of the people next to the train tracks pretty much don't like any trains going through. Kind of makes you wonder.

Posted by Take a step back, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:28 pm

People (on both sides) need to stop assuming that the lawsuit represents a position for or against high speed rail. The lawsuit is about whether or not the High Speed Rail Authority followed the law or made a mockery of 40 years of environmental protection law. It is about whether the Authority needs to follow the law or is above the law.

The parties to the lawsuit include transit and environmental groups that are STRONGLY pro-HSR. The lawsuit is based on a comment letter that was signed by virtually every environmental group (all of whom are pro-HSR).

Before everyone rushes to judgment, I recommend that people spend some time familiarizing themselves with the issues. They are complex but very important.

The original comment letter and the lawsuit briefs themselves are all online.

Additionally, EVERY state environmental agency was making the same complaints as the lawsuit in their comments during the review process - also ignored.

Please - lets all get up to speed and then we can discuss the merits of the lawsuit.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

So, with united opposition you might stop high speed rail. That will NOT result in tracks removed and converted to bike paths, just low speed rail and continued slaughter at grade crossing [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] To paraphrase, sometimes tonstant weeder fwos up.

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm

PA native, prop 1A barely passed. Take out Norcal and it wouldn't have passed. It passed before the budget woes were known fully and before the economy was fully understood- but JUST BARELY.

If Prop1a came up for a vote again, I suspect it would go down.

Posted by Mike, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm

"I understand that the HSR has been working on this since 1996. If we had known what the facts were at the election, I doubt Measure 1A would have passed."

If planning had been underway since 1956 would that have been enough time for you to figure it out?

Posted by Ken, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm

I agree with An Observer.

If the CHSRA had done this in an up-front, respectable way rather than a political one, there would have been a lot more information provided so that all residents of California could have made a much more informed decision.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by P.A. Native, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 31, 2009 at 5:05 pm

@ Observer,

"PA native, prop 1A barely passed. Take out Norcal and it wouldn't have passed."

Well we can't take out Norcal can we? That's obviously not how it works. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by California Taxpayer, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 5:41 pm

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association currently is pursuing an appeal on a lawsuit regarding the misleading ballot language. Proposition 1A (2008) had a ballot description written by the same Legislature that placed it on the ballot. Allowing the proponents of a measure to also write the description is a recipe for abuse.

Now, we have Proposition 1A (2009) which promises us budget reform but the ballot summary fails to mention the little matter of a $16 billion tax increase. Again, the Legislature both placed it on the ballot and wrote the description itself to sway people to its side. The Howard Jarvis folks are suing over this as well.

If the people decide to pass a proposition, that's their decision, but they should at least have the chance to vote based on impartial information.

Posted by HSR advocate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:04 pm

The best comment here I've read is "Everyone wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die." You all need to realize that HSR is regarded as a great thing by the majority of California voters. That's why it passed! Yes, elevated tracks is going to be bad for a teensy, eensy minority of us, but it is a wonderful thing for the vast majority. Why can't you nay-sayers realize that?

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:44 pm

HSR Advocate wrote: "You all need to realize that HSR is regarded as a great thing by the majority of California voters. That's why it passed! Yes, elevated tracks is going to be bad for a teensy, eensy minority of us, but it is a wonderful thing for the vast majority. Why can't you nay-sayers realize that?"

Ask any ten registered California voters outside the Bay Area how HSR will be routed to San Francisco and I guarantee you ten of them will have no clue (see my earlier post on the matter). And the "teensy, eensy minority" you so cavalierly throw under the train amounts to hundreds, perhaps thousands of homeowners, the bulk of whom have their net worth tied up in their homes. The 52.6 "majority" knew not what it voted for in November, while the disposable minority who purchased homes near the tracks long before HSR was a glint in Ron Diridon's proud eye, that minority, with your approval, has a bullet train barreling down on their collective rectum. Do you truly not understand why people are so vehemently opposed to HSR? And what specific sacrifices will you be making for this train?

Mark

Posted by HSR advocate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:54 pm

To "Mark" -

I never claimed that it wouldn't be painful for those homeowners near the tracks. My point -- which you seem to be deliberately missing -- is that HSR is regarded as a tremendous benefit by the voters of California and thus the benefits to the many in our society must take precedence over the harm to a few.

As to your point that the voters really did not understand what they were voting for back in November, that is debatable. Shoot, you could make that exact same claim about any democratic election: Lincoln's election, Obama's election, LBJ's election, the civil rights act, whatever.....

Posted by R. McBean, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Dear Palo Alto:

What about "bought property next to one of the busiest passenger rail corridors in the nation" don't you understand?

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 7:30 pm

If Caltrain is the busiest passenger rail in the nation, then that bodes pretty poorly for HSR doesn't it? Caltrain is in a permanently subsidized state, despite the fact that they own their facilities free and clear (no debt). Obviously that "busiest rail corridor" is a bit of a misnomer. The busiest rail corridors are probably subways, bart and the like. That leaves the traditional rails, all of which are money losers so in that small group Caltrain may be the best, but thats not saying a lot now is it?

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 31, 2009 at 8:14 pm

R. McBean wrote: "What about 'bought property next to one of the busiest passenger rail corridors in the nation' don't you understand?"

Exactly the point: Most homeowners near the tracks aren't complaining (or haven't much of a right to complain) about the *existing* rail service. Is your contention that homeowners who bought more than a year ago should have known HSR was imminent? That they should have known the number of tracks and trains would double, that a monstrous berm next to their fence lines was a real possibility? This is hands-down the silliest notion I continue to hear in this discussion.

Flipped around, R. McBean, suppose you lived on a busy street and, in order to accommodate commuters who neither lived nor worked in your community, it was decreed that your street would be raised and widened to create an expressway, taking but a small portion of your yard and those of your neighbors; that the number of lanes would be doubled and the amount of traffic thereby increased by a factor of six. A sad occurrence for your neighborhood, to be sure, but a nod to the greater good. What? Do I hear rumblings of discontent? What about "bought property next to one of the busiest <infrastructure of choice> in the <locality of choice>" don't you understand? Happens all the time, I know, and people have a damned right to be upset when their hard-earned property is at stake.

Mark

Posted by Rajiv, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:01 pm

This is definitely a case of NIMBY and hypocracy. We love the idea high speed rail, yet have no desire to have it actually run through our town. Most of us voted for it. Palo Alto City Council supported it overwhelmingly. The route was plain as day in the proposition. It was clear that there would have to be grade separation and additional lanes for a train to run quickly enough to make it possible. I remember driving up Alma wondering where the land would come from, but there was very little opposition at the time. Even though we live close by, we voted knowing how valuable it would be for the whole community.

Now, we are going to spend money on lawyers to stop this. Staff time will be involved in preparing info for the legal team. The same Council member are up in arms over this because this is being "forced" down our throats. Same with all those Palo Altans, 60% of whom voted for this. Are these the same folks who were "forced" into negative amortization mortgages?

We are truly kidding ourselves. All the data was right there. We voted for it. We felt it would benefit our community and state. It would reduce carbon emissions, cut the need for short haul flights, and decrease pressure to increase roads. We even wanted one of the stops to be in Palo Alto - the true hub of Silicon Valley.

Let's stop the hypocrisy and find a way to make it work.

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm

I voted for the high speed rail and I like the route that takes it up the peninsula. I don't want our scarce City resources trying to stop it. We can't think we are "green" and then not want high speed rail in our neighborhood.

This will be good for Palo Alto, California, and the world!

Posted by Investigating_HSR, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Here's an article by a group called TRAC (Train Riders Association of California) They are a passenger train advocacy group.

the full article is at Web Link (see page 4)

Here's a part of the article that describes what happened just AFTER the election:

The HSRA did not release the report (Business Plan) until after the election, and it contains some surprises and some disappointments:

• Private investors will fund only a small part of expenses, expect the public to underwrite their risk, and make investments only after public money has built most of the project.

• Promised LA–SF 2 hour 38 minute travel times will not be delivered. Most trains will take longer than 3 hours, despite 220 mph top speeds.

• Ridership will be less than half the 117 million claimed by campaign

brochures.

• First phase revenue claims of $2.3 billion annually assume at least

$600 million of traffic diverted from Amtrak CA services, five times current Amtrak CA revenue.

• The Financial Plan apparently fails to identify the route selection and construction schedule; These are some of the most critical unresolved issues.

They go on to analyze these issues - it is a good read for people trying to understand what happened and why people are upset...

Posted by Mike, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 10:38 pm

I still can't believe a bunch of idiots voted for this to begin with, this will never break even and is going to waste a bunch of people's brain power/time in the process. If job creation is what people want, use the $9 bil+ for something else.

Posted by CAJobsWanted, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 11:19 pm

No I am not a Palo Alto resident.

I will say that once again the rich cities of the peninsula will forget about the needed jobs and delay, delay, delay this vital transporation link and job creator.

What part of "greater good" do you not understand?

Posted by Ted, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Just a couple of thoughts:

To those who say there was no way to possibly tell where HSR was going to run up the Peninsula....really? A train route from LA to San Francisco would obviously run up the Peninsula. And one would think that a TRAIN would run up the current TRAIN route that has been there since any one of us was born.

And to those who say go over the Altamont, that route just doesn't make sense. It would skip both San Jose and San Francisco...two of the top four most populated cities in the state. And what are riders going to do once they arrive in Oakland? Cram into already overcrowded BART trains to ride into the City, further increasing travel time.

As others have said, Caltrain is going to be electrified and grade separated in the future. The difference between two and four tracks is small...there will still be a need for overhead wires and a berm.

Plus, running HSR down the freeway will just cause massive traffic delays during construction, unnecessary costs, and even more lawsuits, etc.

And to those who say Southern California didn't vote for it...just a refresher: Southern California and Northern California make up a state called California. We are one state, who vote in the same elections...since we are one state.

And to those who cry boondoggle...every single passenger rail operation is subsidized. And let us not forget every single highway is subsidized. Passenger trains don't make money, buses don't make money, schools don't make money, police departments don't make money, highways don't make money. They are for the good of society.

So really Palo Alto, let's all take it down a notch. Yes, you should have a place at the table. Yes, your voice should be heard. Yes, you should work with the rail authority. But please, quit trying to kill the project. California wants it, now work with California to get it done right.

Posted by Jay Tulock, a resident of another community, on Apr 1, 2009 at 12:30 am

Andrea & Other Sane People ------

This is politics, this is war. The only objective is to win. And win we can. Repeal 1A. When Florida woke up, they repealed their high speed rail project, and California can and will do the same.

It is simple, all we have to do is place the repeal on the ballot. 47-48% voted no as I recall, in an election energized by young people voting for Obama and naive of costs and no opposition. With all the doubt, switching that 2-3% over the 50-50 line is easy! This time all the doubt will be heard by everyone via media (who love controversy) for free! All we have to do is start the petition and raise the money for the paid signature collectors.

It's very likely this is the cure to Diridon Kopp Moshed for not only Palo Alto, but for the entire state! This project will not happen with this group at the helm. The only question is do we spend a billion dollars first or do we kill this NOW and built something REAL with the billion saved (like 110-125 system like the midwest is building with the help of Obama).

The only object in politics and in war is to WIN. This is the way to win. Don't dabble in "trying to work with the Authority". What happened to those who tried to work with Hitler before WWII? No, I'm not comparing Kopp or Diridon to Hitler, but I am saying the strategy they use is the same -- lie to their victims who believe idealistically it is OK to work with tyrants and then run them over when they are weak.

Jay Tulock, Vacaville

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 3:21 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

So, Jay, if you win, what do you win? Talk about pyheric victories.

Posted by Clem, a resident of another community, on Apr 1, 2009 at 8:54 am

> hypocracy

@Rajiv, is that a new system of government? Doesn't sound very effective...

Posted by menloparkarrogance, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 10:36 am

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

PA may get there tunnel/trench but the HST is going forward. And has anyone ever thought of how Stanford would be think about not having a HRS station? and the loss of income that the city will gain from having a station?

Posted by Really!?!, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 am

Says Jay...

"What happened to those who tried to work with Hitler before WWII? No, I'm not comparing Kopp or Diridon to Hitler, but I am saying the strategy they use is the same -- lie to their victims who believe idealistically it is OK to work with tyrants and then run them over when they are weak."

So you ARE comparing them to Hitler by your own admission. I think you need to take a step back and think about what you're saying. Comparisons to Nazis and Hitler are WAY OVER USED in general. Don't be one of those people.

Posted by Godwin's Law, a resident of another community, on Apr 1, 2009 at 11:47 am

Jay, comparing the construction of a rail line to Hitler is wildly inappropriate and trivializes the tragedy and destructiveness of the Holocaust. That kind of hyperbole just makes people think your argument is weak. Care to try again?

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 11:59 am

You guys are too hard on Jay, and engaging in unnecessary moral grandstanding.

He was comparing those who wish to cooperate with CHSRA to Nazi collaborators BY ANALOGY. Moreover he specifically and peremptorily disclaimed equating Nazis and the CHSRA. (There is a big difference between comparing the TACTICS of two political actors and comparing the political actors themselves. Both Barack Obama and Richard Nixon used effective media strategies to reach the White House. But saying so does not compare or equate Obama and Nixon on anything other than their campaign methods.)

Perhaps he might have used a less volatile comparison, but his meaning and intent were clear. Those of you who are jumping on him now are only distracting from the debate on HSR going on here.

Posted by Really!?!, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Or is he distracting us?

Posted by Fair, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 1:34 pm

I think the whole point of the lawsuit is that Pacheco was chosen because CSHRA did NOT play fair and square.

Posted by Jay Tulock, a resident of another community, on Apr 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm

All--

No, I really think the Nazis may indeed bring their troops in through Pacheco Pass by train, which is why we should . . . no, April Fools.

Anna is right, Analogy. Really is right, I'm distracting ya'll. Goodwin is right in that the Hitler reference is overused, which is why I used it, because I really don't care what those who believe in the Diridon Kopp Moshed version of high speed rail think of what I say, so they can focus on that and I can get my message through to the rest of you which is 1) sue (good job PA) and 2) repeal 1A (pending).

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Jay Tulock, Vacaville

Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Jay, thanks for your insightful comments on this thread- appreciate the

effort on your part to increase understanding and awareness around this

issue- thanks for the free education!

Posted by TB, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Keep the HSR at surface level and tunnel the roads under it.

I want HSR, but I would not want to see a Great Wall, undergrounding the HSR would surely not be approved due to the imense cost. Tunneling the roads would be substantially cheaper.

Posted by Jarred, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Listening to the Palo Alto angst over HSR, the term "self-inflicted" comes to mind.

I voted against HSR with extreme prejudice. I can't imagine anyone in one's right mind having voted for it. To whit:

- CA has the worst budget imbalance and lowest credit rating of any state

- the HSR construction budget was grossly underestimated, perhaps by a factor of 3-4

- the HRS ridership was grossly overestimated

So, it was clearly a fiscal disaster coming when we could least afford it. What's not to like?

The fact that HSR will degrade the quality in life in Palo Alto is a minor detail in the big picture, albeit a crucial one for those affected.

Here's my suggestion: if a legislative measure proposes to take a large new chunk our money and spend it for us, your default position should be "absolutely not", and the proponents should have to overcome extreme skepticism on your part to get your vote. That way, you'd be less likely to be hoodwinked by an obvious lunacy like HSR.

Oh, and don't forget to make an appointment to have your GM (Government Motors) car serviced at the new DMV Repair Center:

Web Link