Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Peninsula residents skeptical about high-speed rail
State begins hearings on $45 billion project's potential impact on Peninsula

by Gennady Sheyner

The state agency charged with building a high-speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles has yet to convince Peninsula residents about the merits of having electric trains zip through their communities at 125 mph.

But for the past week, officials from the California High-Speed Rail Authority have been trying to quell fears with three "scoping sessions" on what should be included in an environment-impact study on the 800-mile project.

The first meeting, held last Thursday at the SamTrans headquarters in San Carlos, attracted nearly 150 residents, some of whom raised concerns about the cost, noise and traffic impacts of the project, which was approved by voters as Proposition 1A last Nov. 4.

The scoping session addressed only the stretch between San Francisco and San Jose. A second meeting was held in San Francisco Tuesday and a third was scheduled for Thursday in Santa Clara, after the Weekly went to press.

Dominic Spaethling, regional manager for the project, said at the first meeting that the new rail system would ultimately be quieter and safer than any system in place today. The trains would run on a four-track system, with two tracks being used by Caltrain and freight trains.

"We're talking about upgrading this to a point where the vibration is reduced, the noise is reduced," Spaethling said.

Plans call for Millbrae to serve as a stopping point between San Francisco and San Jose, with either Redwood City or Palo Alto also getting a station. However, the decision between the two won't be made for at least a year, officials said. Palo Alto city staff is evaluating potential impacts of a high-speed rail station downtown, and the city has not come out with an official stance.

Timothy Cobb, project engineer for the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment, said engineering will begin in February. It would likely take about six months to put together possible scenarios that could be presented to the officials from Palo Alto and Redwood City for consideration, he said.

"Before we do the engineering, we really won't know what is feasible," Cobb said.

The scoping sessions were part of the process of putting together the project's environmental-impact report (EIR). Residents were asked to submit written comments about issues they want to see addressed in the study. The authority expects to work on the analysis and engineering for the local route until 2011.

Cobb described the proposed system as "state of the art" and as a much-needed tool for bringing the United States in line with Europe, where such systems have been in place for more than 25 years. The trains would travel at speeds up to 220 miles per hour, delivering passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 38 minutes. Speeds on the Peninsula would be around 125 miles per hour, Cobb said.

Even though California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the system in November, it's not yet entirely clear where the rest of the funds for the $45 billion project would come from. The federal government is expected to provide another $10 billion to $12 billion and local and regional agencies are expected to contribute up to $3 billion. The rest would have to come from private sources.

Quentin L. Kopp, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said 28 private companies, including Goldman Sachs, had previously expressed interest in investing in the project.

But he said it's not clear what effect the worsening economy would have on private contributions.

Kopp said the authority's consultant and management group are now reaching out to potential investors to gauge their current level of interest.

Yoriko Kishimoto, a member of Palo Alto City Council, attended the meeting and asked authority officials about potential parking facilities at the proposed stations. Kopp said the agency has yet to resolve that question, though the answers may lie with the host cities.

"I think in the end it will probably be up to each city," Kopp said. "We may make a recommendation, but I don't personally believe in usurping local authority."

Residents also have until March 6 to submit written comments on the scope of the environmental review for the Peninsula segment of the project. Comments should be sent to Dan Leavitt, deputy director, attention San Francisco to San Jose, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L St., Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814, or e-mailed to comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line "San Francisco to San Jose HST."

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be e-mailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Posted by letha dilauro, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 10:44 am

We have lived in PA in the same house along the tracks for 37 years. I voted for it, but it was presented as taking the home of resident by eminent domain. (figured on the average of 800 mile home value: approx $194,000 an acre)

I do not understand why the City Council would recommend voting for the high speed rail. I makes me wonder who interest the City Council is represents. I do not feel that they have represented my interest or my neighbors.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 11:14 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

They are not talking about sending Sherman's army through a peaceful city, smashing everything before them. The railroad is already there, and has been longer than any of the critics. What is proposed is modernization of an existing facility, a modernization that will remove diesel smoke from the local environment and halt the slaughter at grade crossings, whether it meets schedules and riders as predicted.

What I fear most about the criticism is that it will lead to frivolous expenditures to buy off the critics, the aesthetic ransom that has seen recent infrastructure jobs costing 5 to 20 times the cost of a utilitarian structure. To this engineer's eyes, nothing is uglier than bolt-on beauty. Nothing is more obscene than concealing utilitarian behind pantaloons.

Posted by Jack Castaneda, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Why are you not reporting on the facts? This proposition was poorly written and misleading and the city should be fighting for a revote. Where in this prop does it say that the High Speed Rail (HSR) will go through 50 miles of thoughtfully planned suburban communities on the Peninsula? Where does it say that government will need to acquire private property of families along the Peninsula and throughout the entire state of California to build it? Where does it say that this project will devalue citizens homes surrounding the route in an already depressed real estate market?

Where does it state that Cal Train has already completed 35% of an existing project to electrify the current rails by 2015; ten years prior to the planned completion of the HSR project? Building the HSR up the Peninsula would be redone dent and incur unnecessary costs for California tax payers? Why not consider acquiring the land Consolidated Freight under eminent domain in the east bay? There are 4 tracks already in place that travel through industrial parts of the East Bay. There are so many other options that would not disrupt suburban communities and take property of Peninsula citizens.

The government plans to purchase property at $194,000 an acre. This equates to approximately $100,000 per home through planned communities on the 800 miles on the route from San Diego to Sacramento and San Francisco. I personally don’t know where I can purchase a single family home in California for this price. We should be outraged as citizens that this plan was deceiving. We as California voters will be personally responsible for impacting families financially and unearthing their lives with the current plan. Wouldn’t you like to revote on the proposition with all the facts?

I personally would like to see green transportation but let's be diligent and ensure we build this right. Not on the backs of other citizens. There are plenty other route options including connecting to existing transportation systems.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Jack, did you read my letter before you posted? You and most critics write as if there were no rails there now and that the entire right of way had to be acquired.

Posted by Asha Albuquerque, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Mar 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Hi. I'm doing an article on the effects of the high speed rail in the Verde, a newsmagazine at Paly. If any commenters could email me at aalbuquerque10@paly.net, or be willing to talk, I would greatly appreciate it.

Posted by Rick, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Isn't the city in the process of buying property at about $8,000,000 an acre for the new proposed Police Building? This property is right along the tracks, I believe, and part of this property may have to be acquired by the HSR authority.

This price should be the basis for all property along the line. It would come out to about $1,000,000 for a lot on which the houses are built.

I think an upgraded Cal Train system could cover all transit requirments on the peninsula, at least for the next 15 to 20 years.

San Franscisco is a "built-out city". The population has been stable for a long time. Some how they are projecting over 30 million people will want to come and go to S.F. and L.A. in the next few years. CRAZY.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm

It is a waste of money and a load of pork,companies are drastically cutting back on travel and using IT to fill the gap.

Cisco, for example, uses HD video to avoid travel even for top executive meetings. HP has a competing product and there is lots of good software for remote meetings through the net

The technology has evolved dramatically in the last few years.

Business travel will continue to decline even when the economy recovers.

As for non business travel you can fly from SFO to LAX for $39 on South West, the light rail connection to down town LA costs $1.25.

That is $40.25 total SFO to downtown LA in 1hr 45 mins, the high speed rail will have to charge hundred of dollars for the same trip, it will be much slower and no one will use it.

Posted by Americans can be backwards at times, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:31 pm

If HSR was such a bad idea, why is it so successful in Europe (and elsewhere) on distances about equivalent to the distance between SF to LA ?

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Because in Europe the towns were built in the era of horses and walking vs cars, the distances are much smaller and the population density is greater in Europe.

Also they are socialist governments so people have no choice.

Ever got a train in the UK, they are twice the price of the rest of Europe and they break down when the leaves fall on the tracks in the Fall.

In Japan HSR makes sense, here it is a waste of money and a pork project.

$39 from SFO to LAX on SW airlines is much cheaper and faster than driving or HSR.

There are no customers for HSR and never will be.It is dead in the water

Posted by Americans can be backwards at times, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Sharon. You did not even read my post properly. I thought you were more thorough than that.

The distance between SF and LA is completely COMPARABLE to the distance between European cities connected by the high speed train.

For example Paris is connected by TGV (or HSR) to Lyon, 244 miles away, and Marseille, 411 miles away. Los Angeles is about 350 miles away from San Francisco.

So, you argument that distance are "much smaller" in Europe does not apply in this case. As a matter of fact, HSR makes the most sense on such distances as a good alternative to airplane travel.

Posted by palo alto isn't paris, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 10:30 pm

I have taken trains all over Europe, including TGV. As I recall, it did not go through backyards! In Lyons and in Paris we could take public transit all over town. Same is true all over Europe. Moreover, the transit systems are all well-integrated -- bus, train, subway, airport -- unlike the Bay Area, where all the transit agencies are competing with one another.

There are very few cities in the US that have decent transit systems. Los Angeles isn't one of them, nor is San Jose or Palo Alto. You simply can't compare the U.S. to Europe!

On the other hand, I recently traveled in South America, where very few trains are in service, and there's no high speed rail at all. Most people travel between cities via bus. Much more flexible than trains, no need for trains or huge (unwise) investment in infrastructure that will be obsolete before it's finished!

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2009 at 10:41 pm

you missed my point, the distance between user residence and the stations in Europe are much less than here.

the only HSR system for CA is, maybe, one down highway 5 from Sacramento to LA. But face it, IT has made most flesh to flesh meeting redundant, even MD and surgeons can do visits by remote these days. Railroads are a 19th century solution.

The current base price of $40.25 from SFO to Union Station in LA in 1.45 hrs by existing plane and light rail cannot be beat.

The fact is no one will use the proposed HSR and it is a backward looking technology.

It made sense in Japan but will be a white elephant here, it is a dead duck.