Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 1:56 PM

Caltrain, rail agency accede to Palo Alto protest
New contract drops language specifying 'four-track' alignment, promises 'consideration' of Peninsula cities

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 2:27 pm

This just renews my faith in the people of Palo Alto, specifically thanks to Sara and the group of neighborhood associations and all the residents and officials from all parts of the city, that are coming together quickly and effectively to protect our wonderful town.

But really folks, this is just barely round 1. A huge struggle to protect Penisula and Palo Alto interests still lies ahead. We need your help.

PLEASE, if you have not gotten involved or up to speed yet in this important issue yet, please try to read some of the previous threads in Palo Alto Online, contact your neighborhood association, look at the city of Palo Alto website to read their 'scoping comments', find anyway you can to get up to speed on this. If you need help finding information ask here!

This is NOT just a problem that effects our neighbors along the tracks! An elevated high speed rail train thruogh this town would bring devastating impacts across the community - including miserable traffic, ruination of property values from 101 to El Camino, that will equate to ruination of school district, terrible noise impacts, terrible hits to our school sites, fields, parks, historic character, and so much more more. This is direct threat to the very nature and character and value of Palo Alto, and many of our neighborhing cities as well.

It is OK to support high speed rail in California conceptually, but to object to roughshod above ground implementation through the Peninsula!

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm

"The passed memorandum specifies that the "high-speed rail must be designed, constructed and operated in a manner fully consistent with the operational requirements of the Caltrain commuter rail rapid transit service and with consideration of the cities on the Peninsula through which the high-speed rail system will be constructed and operated."

I am very pleased to see Caltrain reworded their MOU in response to our City's request. This is a much better way to say that they still need 4 tracks through the Peninsula, which has been obvious all along. You just cannot operate a busy commuter rail and busy HSR system on two tracks without wrecking the operational efficiency of both Caltrain and the HSR system. But, with regard to the EIR process, this is much cleaner wording.

Posted by Morris Brown, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 2, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Having just come back from the PCJPB meeting, let me say I would characterize the wording change in the MOU as really being nothing more than political and without any real substance.

The CHSRA, from the very inception, and always has been since, needed 2 tracks to operate. That is HSR needs its own dedicated 2 track set on which to run. CalTrain needs it own 2 tracks for its operations, and to accommodate the UPRR freight operations. Thus you end up with a minimum of 4 tracks.

The MOU having said 4 tracks, raised a lot of concern in various communities, but it is reality; the change is just gong to try and sweep over this issue, by not specifically saying 4 tracks.

The combination of HSR and CalTrain in this corridor will need a minimum of 4 tracks period. Don't be fooled by the MOU, as adopted, not saying this fact.

I can't seriously believe than any Palo Alto official sees this wording change as being of any substance.

What indeed is a major issue, is the fact that inter-city passenger rights (as opposed to commuter passenger rights) on this SF to San Jose corridor do not belong to CalTrain. They still belong to the Union Pacific Railroad which certainly thus far has not indicated they are willing to abandon those rights. Now that is a real issue! However, the PCJPB is just saying we will deal with that problem later, rather than now.

This is the same kind of policy, which has placed the Authority with having to deal with in a lawsuit. The Authority certified an EIR, one factor being, they were going to use, and therefore studied, on the San Jose to Gilroy segment, the route using the present CalTrain corridor. This corridor is still owned by the UPRR and which the UPRR has made perfectly clear they are unwilling to abandon or share with the CHSRA and its HSR project.

Good thinking on the part of the Authority. Equally good thinking on the part of CalTrain, which by not securing the proper rights, before spending million doing EIRs and other studies, may well just be tossing money and time into the air.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Where is Theodore Judah when we need him?

Sure as hell not on the PA council.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm

I don't quite understand the significance of the MOU wording change, but I am more and more convinced that people like Resident are right about the draconian effects HSR would have on our town were it to be built above ground on the Caltrain ROW.

In another thread, an HSR supporter posted links to the Acela (East Coast HSR) train that other HSR people like to cite as a great example of what we can have here. I was shocked to find that the actuality of an elevated train structure was worse than I was imagining (and I have a very negative view of HSR.) It really is a huge wall that, if it were built along Alma, would divide our city in a shocking way.

Take a look and ask yourself if we can tolerate something like this here in town. Web Link

and Web Link

No matter how much you're in favor of HSR, you can't think this would not be devastating to our town.

Posted by Bruno, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

It definitely would be, those pictures are scary. That is why we need to work with the HSR and push for as little change as possible. It is unrealistic however to think that we can stop the building process all together. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton built homes right off of the track, a stones throw. Now it has come back to bite after residents just assumed things would stay the same forever.

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:19 pm

The Altamount Pass route vs. Pacheo is a "no brainer". I drove it yesterday. It is broad, not that much dirt to move, there is plenty of room for this boondoggle HSR to parallel 580 then I-5 IF it is really needed. THAT's where it should have gone. It was Ron Dirdon who wanted it in HIS San Jose - and not the people in beautiful Willow Glen. in San Jose. They are in just as much a mess as we are. The pass to be used should be an issue. Altamount would save mega millions. If the facts were really known and voters had another pass at this, I do,not think it would pass.. And it won't be built unless the bonds are sold. What investor would buy such California bonds?

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Maybe we can call it the "Great Wall of California". After all, it will go through the entire length of our state. :)

Posted by Jay, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Hooray! Let's hope that this is a sign that Caltrain intends to look after its own interests rather than being a slave to CHSRA.

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:49 pm

While I personally would love the Altamont route - facts are the Silicon Valley businesses will fight it tooth and nail. This includes companies whose HQs are in Palo Alto, btw. There needs to be a direct route between SF and SJ for silicon valley, it is a necessity. The SIlicon Valley Leadership consortium here they are

Web Link

Backed the pacheco route. The problem is the route, not San Jose vs. The east bay. I keep hearing this is not possible on freeways, but thats where HSR needs to go- on 101.

Posted by Jay Tulcok, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm

What Morris said.

One addendum: UP may indeed need its own track. The issue of how lightweight (non-FRA compliant under current system) trains are separated from freight has not been resolved in either time, distance or height. This may not be resolved for several years. If FRA declines or UP will not agree, that's a fifth track with some horizontal (crash buffer) separation. The R-O-W would need to be even wider if they cannot resolve that issue to the satisfaction of all parties.

Jay Tulock, Vacaville

Posted by Howard, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Anna posted links to a photo of a viaduct built in 1835. It is absurd to think that this bears any similarity to what the HSR will implement.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:34 pm

I wonder how many suburbs and school yards Judah chose to run his rr route directly through the middle of?

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:29 pm

"And it won't be built unless the bonds are sold. What investor would buy such California bonds?"

In the past week, investors bought $6.5 billion of California general obligation bonds, which was $2.5 billion more than the intended offering size. It would appear that California will actually have no problem selling the Prop 1A related $9.95 billion in bonds, since they will be identical paper.

Web Link

Posted by bikes2work, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Parent,

In this case the suburbs and school yards built themselves around an existing railroad right-of-way. Yes, this is an existing right-of-way that not so long ago used to run a lot of freight trains with numerous spurs in Palo Alto and our neighboring cities. Back when the Peninsula actually manufactured real things. Now we just manage software projects and design hardware to be written and built by third-world labor in countries with no regulations and even fewer human rights.

HSR is an opportunity for this area. Without it, Caltrain will never build all the grade crossings that we need. And we do need them. And they wouldn't be designed much differently with or without the extra tracks for HSR.

The EIR process for this project is only just beginning. The sky is not falling. Take a deep breath and realize that this is not an attack on us. It is an opportunity to breach the great divide that the Caltrain tracks have always been. HSR in California can work, and it can work well if we give it a chance.

The route is chosen. But the slate is clean and waiting for us to guide the design.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Vertical alignments? Yeah, right.

Web Link

Web Link

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:49 pm

@An Observer

"I keep hearing this is not possible on freeways, but thats where HSR needs to go- on 101."

101 would be a fine routing in theory, with a superior connection at SFO and similar service to SF and SJ. The problem with 101 is straightforward--the engineers cannot build HSR there for several reasons, which include:

1. The freeway's right of way is too narrow for any at-grade (that is ground level) solution most of the way between SF and SJ. Traffic lanes go from sound wall to sound wall in many places, with a narrow concrete barrier in between. It's typically about 5 times more expensive to build rail on a fully elevated structure than on the ground.

2. Elevated HSR tracks above 101 would have to go over existing freeway overpasses with clearances for trucks below both on the freeway and on the overpass. HSR on pillars that high (probably something like another 20-30 feet above the top of the overpass) is not feasible in an earthquake prone region for any significant linear distance.

3. Even if such an elevated structure could miraculously be designed with seismic integrity adequate to prevent a train from being flung onto the freeway below int he Big One, there is no room even for the footing of a support column on many stretches of 101. The barrier between northbound and southbound traffic is a classic "Jersey barrier", not much more than a couple feet wide. There is no way to bear the weight of the structure and the trains with such a narrow footing.

4. Even if this could be overcome by traffic lane narrowing, which is doubtful, the construction of HSR above 101, would certainly require closing multiple lanes of the freeway to traffic for safety reasons for many years. If anyone thought Palo Alto's NIMBYs had created a firestorm, imagine that one: closing 2-4 lanes on 101 for years.

Interstate 280 has many fundamental issues as well (like grade variations, curvature, proximity to watershed, etc.) that make it difficult or impossible as well. The Caltrain Corridor was not chosen out of some grand conspiracy to ruin our town. It was chosen for good engineering feasibility.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Although fundamentally I'm against the entire HSR proposition, for the sake of argument, I think Palo Alto council should suggest the option for HSR to route through Dumbarton bridge.

There is already an abandoned railway bridge parallel to Dumbarton. There must still exist right-of-way for the route.

If you look at Google map, the railway can be routed from Redwood City through this bridge and then go south to San Jose.

Since there is already an effort to extend BART to San Jose in East Bay, the same right-of-way can be leveraged to make room for HSR tracks.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:31 pm

@James Hoosac

The abandoned and burned out Dumbarton rail bridge does retain its existing rail right of way and has been discussed as a commuter train connection route to the East Bay for years. One issue is that the existing bridge is inadequate for HSR, meaning the construction of a replacement bridge would be necessary for HSR and such a bridge would need to be much higher-spanned to prevent a single sailboat from blocking HSR traffic (note the current bridge has a rotating central swing section, which has been welded open, to allow boat traffic through). Boats were there before the rails and have preferential right of way, so they would need to span over the channel like the car bridges do now. Building a new bridge there would involve clearances for the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge on the other side of it, the toxic mercury compounds in the Bay's mud from cinnabar mining, and the endangered California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse along the Bayshore.

Rafael at the CHSR Blog has suggested using a refurbished existing Dumbarton rail bridge to divert freight from the Peninsula, which is an intriguing idea.

Posted by WillowGlen resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 pm

Interesting post Andrew, but in the WIllow Glen area of San Jose which is liquefaction central for this region, HSR is planning at this time to build 2 pillared structures, 70' in the air, which descend over highway 87 and into Willow Glen, then continue at that height until they hop over 280 once again and continue with an aerial structure into Diridon. They are doing this 70' in the air disaster because the tracks in that area are curved and they want to straighten them out in the air. Designs like this are typical of this HSR authority and precisely why the public doesn't trust them. Even the San Jose Dept of Transportation is fighting for another route in the south bay now. So whatever this HSR agency says in regard to costs, feasibility etc. should be checked repeatedly by outside sources.

Posted by Jay, a resident of another community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 11:08 pm

Who burned the Dumbarton Bridge???? It wasn't just an accident; it was arson.

So the Dumbarton Bridge can be restored for freight trains but not HSR? Please, stop being silly and wasteful. There is hardly any boat traffic south of Dumbarton Bridge, and what's wrong with a simple drawbridge for the exceedingly rare large boat?

Think of all the benefits of connecting the East Bay directly to the Peninsula and Silicon Valley proper. That's an essential link in a genuinely regional rail system. The $7.5 Billion BART-to-San Jose is unnecessary with the Altamont Pass alignment. That's plenty in cost savings to rebuild the Dumbarton Bridge and a great deal more.

Pacheco Pass was opposed by the Sierra Club and every other environmental organization.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:28 am

@Jay

There are many good reasons to restore the Dumbarton rail bridge and I hope they eventually do so. The feasibility of routing HSR over it, however, is not good for the reasons detailed above. Freight trains are slow and run a few times a day down the Peninsula and could readily wait at a draw or swing bridge occasionally, if needed. Not so with HSR trains. Put them over a draw bridge and any joker with a sailboat could wreck HSR traffic flow for amusement. The bridge clearance is totally inadequate on that span. It is true that there is hardly any boat traffic that far south in the Bay, but the bridge would still need to be rebuilt for HSR to work properly.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:34 am

@WillowGlen

For a short stretch a 70 foot high span can safely be supported on properly designed pillars, though I share your skepticism that it will prove to be the best alignment once the EIR is done. The trouble on 101 is you would need to do that much of the way from SF to SJ due to the frequent freeway overpasses (several in each town for the length of the route). Furthermore, there is no room for 2 pillars on the 101 right of way in many places, complicating the engineering even more.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 4:01 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

"Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 7 hours ago

I wonder how many suburbs and school yards Judah chose to run his rr route directly through the middle of?"

Theodore Judah's tracks made the suburbs and school yards possible. This revulsion with the works of man that make society possible is one of the major defects of the liberal mindset.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:10 am

Japan, and Taiwan, have more earthquakes than Bay Area. But bridges, some very long, that run high speed rail are everywhere. It's ridiculous to say that we Americans don't have the engineering capability to build a bridge along side Dumbarton to run HSR.

I don't understand that Mr. Borgan, who seems to know a lot about the HSRs in Japan and Taiwan, fails to notice such factors.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:28 am

From HSR's perspective, route the rail through Dumbarton would also help in two areas:

1. It helps to reduce lawsuits and project delay.

2. It helps BART to San Jose and thus bring more political support.

Posted by bikes2work, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:23 am

And James, putting on the Dumbarton rail would also move Palo Alto's HSR problem to East Palo Alto. How's that for environmental justice?

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:30 am

@James Hoosac

"Japan, and Taiwan, have more earthquakes than Bay Area. But bridges, some very long, that run high speed rail are everywhere. It's ridiculous to say that we Americans don't have the engineering capability to build a bridge along side Dumbarton to run HSR."

That would be ridiculous to say, and I most certainly did not say that. Designing and building a new higher spanned rail bridge across the Bay at Dumbarton would be routine civil engineering. Getting it approved, in light of the environmental issues, would not be easy. My comments about elevated alignments that would not be feasible were with regard to the complexities of the 101 corridor, as is clear above, where there is no room for them.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:31 am

@bikes2work

Precisely, East Palo Alto is someone else's backyard.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:44 am

@ James Hoosac

"From HSR's perspective, route the rail through Dumbarton would also help in two areas:

1. It helps to reduce lawsuits and project delay.

2. It helps BART to San Jose and thus bring more political support."

Dumbarton would not likely reduce lawsuits, since the California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse are already listed endangered species, the wildlife preserve (for other migratory birds and endangered shorebirds like the Snowy Plover) is a *National* Wildlife Refuge--the first ever in an urban area. Any new construction of an upgraded bridge would also mean disturbing the mercury-laden Bay mud and sediments. Even the US Coast Guard or other maritime groups might sue if the they feared any negative impact to the old shipping channel, just for the precedent of it. Reduced lawsuits and project delay at Dumbarton is extremely unlikely.

Also, the BART right of way into San Jose has already been approved and actually badly complicates right of way access from the East Bayshore back into San Jose. Something could be worked out, but BART would almost certainly sue the CHSRA if their existing approved plans for their right of way were compromised. The BART route alone already includes a 2-track tunnel for BART under downtown San Jose expected to cost over $3 billion. HSR following that route from the East Bay would mean an additional 2-track bore, at roughly another $3 billion, assuming there was still enough room in other parts of the right of way to fit HSR, which I believe there is not. It is highly unlikely that it would bring "more political support".

Posted by j forte, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 10:32 am

well I was pleased with the wording changes in the MOU, because at least it seems to open up the conversation for alternatives. We'll see, of course, if that pans out.

Why doesn't HSR come to the terminus for CalTrain in San Jose, then connect w/an Express train on the existing CalTrain tracks bet. San Jose and San Francisco? It would only add maybe 10-15 minutes to the total trip, and at that point (in SJ) passengers could actually choose the Express or a Local if they wanted to stop somewhere else along the Peninsula.

It would make more sense, avoid the boondoggle of new tracks OR tunneling on the Peninsula, and still have the same effect of shortening travel bet. SF and LA...

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 10:59 am

@j forte

"Why doesn't HSR come to the terminus for CalTrain in San Jose, then connect w/an Express train on the existing CalTrain tracks bet. San Jose and San Francisco?"

This option will be studied in the Project EIR for HSR on the the Peninsula. It is legally called the "no build option", which is required by law to be studied in an EIR.

However, if HSR terminates at San Jose and passengers transfer to Caltrain at Diridon Station, then the amount of Caltrain traffic coming up the Peninsula would need to be massively increased to handle the millions of passengers that HSR will deliver into SJ from points south, many of whom would be SF or Millbrae/SFO bound. That means Caltrain would need to add at least one and likely 2 tracks (for passing locals) to their existing 2, remove at grade crossings, extend station platforms, and electrify their trains in order to accommodate the increased passenger load. Basically it is little different than what the HSR project entails, but without state or federal funding and delivering a slower HSR ride time that does not terminate in SF (which would violate existing State Law as written in Prop 1A).

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 11:27 am

Look, if tunneling is an "option", then route through Dumbarton bridge should also be an option that HSR ought to investigate. All the issues that Mr. Bogan raises may or may not be valid. HSR will have huge environmental impact for fish, birds and people along the 400+ miles it plans to run on. The dead sea south of Dumbarton should be among the least of the worries. If they are fearful of that, they might as well pack up and go home.

Our city council ought to suggest alternatives that minimizes the impact on our people. Besides, BART is significantly short of money. As the result BART to San Jose is a pipe dream. But with HSR sharing the cost of infrastructure BART may actually turn this pipe dream into reality.

Posted by Jeff Wolfeld, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 11:57 am

Back to the article, if I may?

I don't view the change in wording of the MOU as a major victory. It is a necessary one, though. The city of Palo Alto managed to prevent a particular design from being codified in a way that would have made it more difficult for alternatives to be properly considered. I applaud them and thank them for that.

One note about the article. It repeatedly refers to HSR and Caltrain as the two agencies which share the right of way. There isn't much mention of Union Pacific, which runs freight on the same tracks. If I understand what I've read elsewhere, UP has the right and willingness to prevent HSR from using some of that right of way. That said, I believe it may be possible for HSR to acquire those rights via eminent domain. There are bills circulating in the state legislature right now which may be designed to grease those skids. I have little experience reading bills and would be interested in others' opinions. See SB 53, SB 409, SB 455, AB 15, and AB 1374.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Union Pacific has no reason not to cooperate. HSR will run on the two new tracks and hence won't interfere with UP's freight trains. This line is not a critical or busy line for UP. And it's not to their benefit to piss off powerful state politicians.

Having said this it is obvious that UP would favor four-track over tunneling. I've never seen or heard of freight trains running in underground tunnels. The years of disruption to UP's operations during construction would also be significant.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Union Pacific has trackage rights for freight on the Caltrain Corridor from SF to SJ, but they do not own the right of way any more (it was sold to the three counties' PCJPB in the 1990s). Union Pacific's stated concern is mainly about being indemnified by the state from liability should there ever be an accident on the route involving a freight train and a HSR train. They also seek an explicit guarantee of continued access to hauling freight on the corridor after HSR is built, essentially maintaining their existing rights. Nothing complicated there.

From SJ to Gilroy, it is complicated since UP owns the right of way and does not want it to be shared with HSR trains. They want HSR to get their own right of way for that section, which could mean some eminent domain alongside the UP tracks, or it could mean an alternative alignment from SJ to Gilroy, such as the 101 corridor (which has ample room most of the way from SJ to Gilroy, unlike north of SJ).

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:25 pm

"Having said this it is obvious that UP would favor four-track over tunneling."

James is right that the freight operations on the Peninsula corridor badly complicate tunneling options. At least one tunnel would need to be much larger to accommodate future freight trains (which keep getting bigger) and would likely need extensive ventilation to remove the diesel fumes (unless electric-powered freight trains were mandated). Freight trains do regularly use tunnels, but usually short ones in more remote locations. A several mile long suburban tunnel for freight is not impossible, but would certainly add to the costs, which would be enormous in any case. One alternative would be to put 2 HSR tracks underground and leave Caltrain above ground with freight, but there are many other problems with that.

I happen to support fully studying the feasibility and costs of tunneled alignments in the EIR, but it would be neither easy nor inexpensive.

Posted by Morris Brown, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 3, 2009 at 1:09 pm

@ Andrew Bogan

Apparently you didn't listen at what went on at the meeting of the CalTrain board yesterday, and apparently the reporter doesn't understand the issue either.

The Union Pacific not only owns freight rights on the SF to San Jose CalTrain corridor, the also own inter city passenger rights on that corridor.

CalTrain does not own inter city passenger rights to their own corridor. They own the ground, they own commuter passenger rights, but not inter city passenger rights. Inter City passenger rights are what the High Speed Rail authority needs to run over this corridor.

So, unless the UPRR gives up, or sells these rights, HSR is not going to run on this corridor.

The CalTrain board knows this, but they simply say they have had successful negotiations with the UPRR before and expect they will be successful in gaining these rights.

Well this is hardly new news. Why haven't they been able to obtain these rights to date?

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm

I'd like to urge people ask officials from Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton to study the Dumbarton Bridge option.

That route will have the minimum impact on all of these cities. And if you look at Google Map, it's easy to see that the route will have minimum impact to east bay residential communities as well. The railway mostly passes through industrial areas of Newark, Fremont and Milpitas.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Don't forget the added time of routing over the Dumbarton for a HSR system that is purpose built for speed. When was the last time anyone driving from SF to SJ took the Dumbarton Bridge across the Bay and then 880 south to San Jose? Nobody does that because it is an inferior route. Try using Google Maps or a Garmin GPS to route you from SF to SJ, do they take you across the Dumbarton?

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:05 pm

@Morris Brown

UPRR wrote:

"The construction and operation of HSR in the San Francisco to San Jose right of way

must not cause increased operating costs or operating inefficiencies for Union Pacific. The Authority must assume Union Pacific's liability exposure and risk arising from current and future freight operations in the same corridor as the HSR. The Authority should fully study means to indemnify and insure Union Pacific against all such liability or risk, including liability to HSR patrons."

That sure sounds like Union Pacific does, in fact, anticipate HSR to operate alongside their existing right of ways and areas of trackage rights in the future. Why else would they need to be indemnified?

As I have said before, your insistence on UPRR being so important to HSR's design or to the Caltrain MOU is a red herring.

Posted by Make It Their Problem, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:22 pm

That's a good idea. Run it through East Palo Alto, those people don't even care about their property values. Not like WE do anyways, they can't relate. Besides THEIR city is already full of problems for the citizens, maybe they won't even notice if it's built. And Baylands Shmaylands. It's all about protecting us first.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Andrew,

I don't take the Dumbarton to San Jose, but I have to deal with traffic and bridge tolls. Yes, it's a deviation from a straight line--on the other hand, the rail line is going to head out to the Central Valley somehow so it seems to me that in terms of the overall structure, the Dumbarton alternative isn't terrible--those of us who want to use the HSR can get to Redwood City, which really wants a station and has the room for it and the rail would still connect San Jose and SF. For whatever reason, the CalTrain line goes through more business/light industrial areas north of Atherton than it does here.

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm

anything through EPA or through the east bay won't work. I don't think Palo Altans realize that people NORTH of any Altamont cut in would much prefer the peninsula route. And businesses want the peninsula route. San Franciscans want to get to San Jose to work at Intel, etc. EPA won't work on social justice grounds. If an alternate route were to be chosen it would need to be a freeway on the peninsula. So 101 won't work, fine, what about foothill expressway.

Posted by Leo, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm

I've got two questions:

1) Regarding putting the train on 101: Why would you put a multi-billion dollar project in a low-lying area which will likely flood in the near future? Also, the whole point of good public transit is having easy access to it. There's a reason most people don't live next to 101.

2) Why not put this "dividing wall" down the center of El Camino?

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm

To Observer, why business or anyone would insist on the peninsula route? There is no station. The train just passes and stops at San Jose. There is nothing for business to gain, and much to lose. Erecting a great wall from Atherton to San Jose does not make sense in terms of building cost, the environmental impact, and the economical impact, when compared to the easy route through Dumbarton.

As for the impact on East Palo Alto, it is still quite small, since the railway mostly passes on the edge of the city, where there is already heavy daily traffic on and off the Dumbarton bridge.

Posted by map it, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Andrew,

While you're mapping things, why don't you map SF-LA?

You would take Altamont, go down the 5, over the grapevine into LA. You definitely wouldn't go through SJ, across Pacheco, over to the 99 and then detour to Palmdale.

Posted by Annoyed, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm

And where does the HSR go from the "edge" of E.P.A.? Right straight through Menlo Park up Marsh Rd? Hey, better than through Palo Alto though right!

Posted by Annoyed, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm

I take Pacheco to L.A. all the time and I never ride through Palmdale.

You do not get to decide an alternate route! Jeez, how much power do our citizens think they have!?!

Posted by map it, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Annoyed,

Precisely.

Everything about this route is politically driven or driven by needs that are distinctly unrelated to getting people out of their cars or not on planes.

It does not bode well for the future success. The pro-HSR position is to be providing oversight to the Authority to make sure it has a chance of being successful.

Posted by John Wilson, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm

The UPRR issues are not a red herring.

FRA will run interference for UPRR. Freight trumps all else. They have nearly sovereign rights in the corridor, and nothing will happen unless they are satisfied.

The purpose of these "sales" of trackage, etc. are to indemnify UPRR against all liability.

An HSR accident in this corridor will have massive financial consequences, and UPRR will be indemnified against ALL loss.

It is very unlikely that FRA can permit freight operations in any corridor with HSR. Freight train schedules are flexible, and the operational and safety problems are not trivial.

UPRR will stand firm within their rights, as they should.

Posted by An Observer, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm

James Hoosac, for whatever reason the Silicon Valley Leadership Council here

Web Link

Were the ones who lobbied for this so hard. It really isn't that difficult to see why. Silicon Valley pretty much starts with SF in the north and ends with south san jose in the south. The east bay really isn't part of the equation. Of course some people are going to say that doesn't matter, company xyz is in Berkeley and abc is in Fremont, but for all intents and purposes Silicon Valley is on the peninsula and needs to be served by this train. Another thing I don't think will work is Palo Alto and Menlo Park forcing a route change. I don't think that will fly. I think the cities need to figure out a way to route this train through their towns in a less evasive way, similar to what Berkeley did with Bart in the 70s. They went underground but there are other options, take every flat freeway- not just 101, that goes through Palo Alto and evaluate if it is acceptable for this. How about the FRONTAGE ROADS, is there something that can be done there, old bayshore etc. Then in these locations investigate a half grade of 5' or something because there are no cars there, this will not destroy the skyline. That is the kind of thinking I think will be successful, to me discussing moving the route to the east bay a is a pipe dream.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Observer,

The frontage have the same issues as does the existing rail line--homes, parks, etc. on 'em.

That said, yes, there's a lot of reasons to create a peninsula route using the existing rail line.

Posted by Andrew Bogan, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 12:02 am

"While you're mapping things, why don't you map SF-LA?"

It is important to remember that a train, unlike a personal car, is intended to pick up additional passengers along its route. So it is important to direct, but also to connect the centers of highest population density. From SF to SJ, the Caltrain route meets this criteria. From Pacheco to LA, the I-5 corridor is largely devoid of population, while the 99 corridor is where all the Central Valley cities are located. The planned HSR route has been surprisingly well thought out if you include both of these criteria (directness and connecting population centers). Look at this population density map of California. The planned HSR route is roughly what one gets by connecting the red dots. Although the East Bay will likely need its own HSR spur someday:

Web Link

Posted by wary traveler, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 5:44 am

Andrew makes an exceptionally good point: trains are intended to pick up passengers along their route and therefore the best route is one which connects population centers. Look at this Web Link population density map of the Bay Area, which is the area in question. The route HSRA should have chosen - had their EIR process been based on reviewing facts objectively rather than being driven by egos and politics - would have connected the brightest and most numerous red dots, or population centers. It's call "Altamont Pass".

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 6:06 am

It's all about dirty politics (San Jose especially), and stealing grant money from grad students so Rod Diridon gets his station (fame and glory).

San Jose State and Stanford have civil engineers, urban designer and planning departments.

I can only assume that the local CA Universities wanted to stay away from Diridon, or would not give him the grant money and students he needed to exploit.

Harvard is so far away, they do not understand the corrupt politics of our area, so it was easy to pull them in.

Rod already broke one of the goal of CAHSR - create jobs in our state. Has Harvard moved to CA?

The hypocrisy of all this kills me!

Wary traveler, the Altamont pass route would have cost CAHSR less money, and saved time.

Let's complain about all of this to the CAHSR, our Senators, and the new transportation secretary. Check the yahoo site for more info.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 6:12 am

I forgot the link to the story in my above post. We are not helping the local students much. Next he will be importing Italian marble to match his Italian trains, then they will need Itailian artisians to put the finishing touches on....you'll see.

"Diridon Station To Be Focus of Harvard Design Group"

Web Link

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 8:04 am

I heard last night that one of the reason HSR chose Pacheco was that they were terrified by the Berkeley tree sitters at that time. Altamont is too close to where the tree sitters live, and therefore will likely induce severe protests. The committee was terrified that how much delay these few tree sitters have caused upon the UC Berkeley's construction schedule.

Posted by I Smell an HSR Funded Rat, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

Then it's high time to invite the Berkeley Tree Sitters to the proposed Peninsula HSR route.

Perhaps they could pitch their tents at El Palo Alto for a few decades.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 12:06 pm

New York Times has an article comparing costs of building subways in Guangzhou, the biggest city in South China, and NYC. The cost in Guangzhou is $100M/mile. At NYC is $2.4B/mile, or 24 times over Guangzhou.

Web Link

Similarly, China is building a HSR right now, at the cost of $70M/mile.

So at China price, the SF-LA HSR is $30B for 400+ miles. But we are not building it at China price. We have tree sitters and lawyers. We have fish, turtles, and birds to be taken care of. We have teamsters.

Let's say CA HSR is not 24 times over China price, not even 12 times over China price. Let's say it's just a mere 5 times over the China price. We end up paying $150B, way over the $40B estimate.

Posted by Morris Brown, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 5, 2009 at 11:28 am

Mr. Hoosac's comments regarding cost of construction are appropriate. The cost issue has been covered over lately, but during the Prop 1A campaign last fall, there was plenty of talk about cost, and the CHSRA is in total denial. They put up cost numbers, that no one who was following the project believed. $33 billion for the segment from SF to LA. Really! The 100 page report headed up by Joe Vranich, said 80 billion.

The low balled cost estimates were just part of the deceitful campaign waged by the Authority in order to get the voters of the state to approve this project.

I could go on and on, but only now is the public really beginning to understand the full implications of this project. They will spend several billion, I suppose, before it becomes quite apparent to the majority of the voters, what has been going on here. This happened in Florida with a HSR project some years ago. When the voters finally realized what was going on, they reversed their decision to approve the project.

You should contact Senator Simitian, who will be overseeing the project and weigh in with your objections.

Posted by agum, a resident of another community, on Apr 7, 2009 at 7:13 pm

"Let's say CA HSR is not 24 times over China price, not even 12 times over China price. Let's say it's just a mere 5 times over the China price. We end up paying $150B, way over the $40B estimate."

Excellent point James. Based on your estimates, pulled from somewhere, we should import Chinese workers. It worked very well the last time our country built any railroads. Don't worry, you won't ever have to see them, they'll be living in labor camps in the Central Valley.