tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post3767953418634867628..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Thoughts from the Menlo Park Town HallRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-73239465932667548802009-08-29T11:29:55.842-07:002009-08-29T11:29:55.842-07:00@ BAR
People at Caltrain have told me that a tunn...@ BAR<br /><br />People at Caltrain have told me that a tunnel will probably be cut-and-cover, requiring additional eminent domain to purchase new right-of-ways for Caltrain while the tunnel is being excavated.<br /><br />As a geotechnical engineer who has worked on several lawsuits, I can tell trackside homeowners that a tunnel (especially a bored tunnel in these soil conditions) poses a much greater danger of impacting your home value than an above-ground solution. I have seen several cases where major structural problems have resulted from minor subsidence problems, especially in private homes.<br /><br />If I lived next to the tracks, the last thing I would want is a tunnel.N. Dienznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-40676983018929227092009-08-29T11:26:47.154-07:002009-08-29T11:26:47.154-07:00@BAR
we don't really care if or how a tunnel ...@BAR<br /><br />we don't really care if or how a tunnel is created through PA, we are just trying to prepare you for some of the risks involved, it's not quite as simple as you believe.<br /><br />Boring a tunnel is very expensive, if you want that, get ready for your property/ sales taxes to go up a lot. And your house might <a href="http://www.rainiervalleypost.com/?p=8011" rel="nofollow">fall into a sinkhole</a> during, or after, construction.<br /><br />If it's a cut and cover trench it requires greater width than an at, or above, grade solution. It would also take longer to complete, get ready for lots of construction noise.<br /><br />If PA still wants a tunnel, you guys can pay for it, we don't mind.lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20984206955824711152009-08-29T10:56:14.962-07:002009-08-29T10:56:14.962-07:00No Observer, it's still the law. Prop 1A requi...No Observer, it's still the law. Prop 1A requires SF as the terminus, this ruling has no change.<br /><br />The ruling confirmed that a bay crossing was dropped as being too expensive and environmentally hazardous.<br /><br />If you think the ruling is going to result in a different alignment, or even a serious delay, be prepared for an unpleasant surprise.lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-47035407060844458422009-08-29T08:16:20.755-07:002009-08-29T08:16:20.755-07:00matt and all,
So in other words you are not disput...matt and all,<br />So in other words you are not disputing that they will use the MOLE, which leaves the terrain above the tunnel intact except for the portals into it- but your claim is that with an above ground birm you don't even need the 2 portals? LOL!<br /><br />The point is that if you listen to Morshed he makes it sound like they are going to do a <b>cut and cover</b> tunnel. Thats what most audience members are thinking when he says tunneling requires emminent domain. Not portal holes for the mole. As far as the residual takings necessary to build the thing, those are more necessary with an above ground solution because you need to deal with shoo fly tracks and all of that, construction work areas adjacent to 70ft ROWs that barely can fit the tracks, there is no place to build them. So tunneling is a far less invasive emminent domain approach, obviously, despite the takings at the 2 mole portals.Bay Area Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807091317788242756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36012195482916781692009-08-28T14:00:45.505-07:002009-08-28T14:00:45.505-07:00You mean like invalidated EIR that has invalidated...<i>You mean like invalidated EIR that has invalidated measure 1A?</i><br /><br />The EIR has not been invalidated, even if it had, it wouldn't invalidate 1A. Until the judge renders a decision on remediation, it's all speculation, but there's nothing to indicate that the whole EIR is going to get rejected due to either the UPRR ROW issue or the typo about noise.<br /><br /><i>which is in approximately 50% of the 'prefered' route - which all of a sudden makes the alternatives CHEAP by comparison.</i><br /><br />It's also approximately 50% of the 'alternate' route. So you save nothing be re-evaluating Altamont, and all the other problems are still there (like a bridge through a protected wetland) and the peninsula north of dunbarton.<br /><br /><i>because pacheco becomes WAY too expensive, once they properly account for all costs.</i><br /><br />Running along the foothills and skipping the gilroy station would actually be cheaper and faster (it was in fact one of the original studied routes), so they could do that though it would reduce ridership. In a worst case scenario to keep the Gilroy station and they are somehow unable to buy the farmland next to the UPRR ROW through the area, they'll have to extend the viaduct that is already planned through the the towns of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, which would require easements but not straight ROW takes. <br /><br /><i>I'm talking about CHSRA suddenly having a face saving reason now to voluntarily reopen the alternatives for consideration</i><br /><br />There's nothing in this ruling to support that. In fact, the ruling supports the Pacheco alignment on every single one of the counts where the judge ruled for CAHSR, and the ones where the judge ruled against CAHSR would still be applicable to an Altamont alignment.<br /><br />Seriously, save your breath for the fight you have in front of you. This one's over. It's going down the Caltrain ROWUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-17250657891537158212009-08-28T13:36:26.440-07:002009-08-28T13:36:26.440-07:002) Concern that the property values will be affect...<i>2) Concern that the property values will be affected.</i><br /><br />Why do HSR opponents insist on a uniform assumption that property values will fall if HSR is built on the Peninsula? Every major study of HSR in Asia and Europe has shown the opposite effect: average property values increase (significantly) in cities with HSR stations. Obviously, a few properties may be negatively impacted (probably very few), but the overall effect on Peninsula real estate values is almost certain to be strongly positive based on more than 4 decades of data across half a dozen countries. <br /><br />What would happen to Peninsula property values if Interstate 280 or SFO were permanently closed? Efficient transportation (by car, rail, or air) is valuable and that value is reflected in property prices.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64984162672677591802009-08-28T13:22:14.466-07:002009-08-28T13:22:14.466-07:00In about 3 years someone with the best interests o...<i>In about 3 years someone with the best interests of the Peninsula in mind will come along with a new plan for Caltrain upgrade - like a light rail solution....we'll all buy electric cars, convert 50% of all roadways to small commuter vehicle lanes</i><br /><br />Interesting vision. I will bet you any amount of money that in the year 2020: (a) Caltrain will not be running LRVs (light rail vehicles) and (b) 101 will not contain four lanes dedicated to "small [electric] commuter vehicles" and four lanes dedicated to all other vehicles. Seriously, any amount of money.<br /><br /><i>Save your anger for the Alternatives Analysis, I'm sure you're going to find something in there to get pissed about.</i><br /><br />QFT.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28462799218562626352009-08-28T13:18:18.228-07:002009-08-28T13:18:18.228-07:00Andyduncan "new information" - You mean ...Andyduncan "new information" - You mean like invalidated EIR that has invalidated measure 1A? Or you mean like chsra failing to account for the purchse or lease of row from UPRR - thereby having submitted garbage operating financials which, when counted, will not result in a fully unsubsidized system? You mean like chsra failing to properly account for land use impacts (and mitigations) properly where uprr operates, which is in approximately 50% of the 'prefered' route - which all of a sudden makes the alternatives CHEAP by comparison.<br /><br />Besides, I'm not talking about forcing them in court - I'm talking about CHSRA suddenly having a face saving reason now to voluntarily reopen the alternatives for consideration, because pacheco becomes WAY too expensive, once they properly account for all costs.<br /><br />Iqy - its the law. The law is invalid now that the eir is garbage. That's the next legal challenge.<br /><br />Clem - convenience is all relative isn't it? In that scenario, what are you comparing it to? (It a local only commute, no longer trying to look like an alternative to air travel, cheap, easy access, easier and faster than the auto commute, walkable on both ends, no baggage messiness, no need to build long term parking, rental car mega travel hub centers, no need to wholesale remodel towns, keeping within two track - so no need to demolish neighbors, mega sound wall structures, cutting down trees, etc etc etc. Sounds pretty convenient to me - and yuo still get to read the paper and save the environment on your 45 minute trip into the city.Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-26673055241026973372009-08-28T11:00:39.301-07:002009-08-28T11:00:39.301-07:00Wrong, you can because it's law. Prop 1A says ...<i>Wrong, you can because it's law. Prop 1A says LA to SF. The court said Dumbarton, 101, & 280 were all discarded for legitemate reasons (AKA too expensive).</i><br /><br />It's going to be incredibly difficult to get another case filed with regards to the routing choice. Any sane judge is going to look at this decision and throw out challenges regarding routing unless those challenges can bring up new information, like some sort of Enron-like phone call between Kopp and Diridon talking about how they're going to screw the grandmas on the Peninsula.<br /><br />Barring that, it's going down the Peninsula. People along the route need to start focusing their efforts on making sure that it's done in a way that minimizes the impact on the region and provides the best solution for future growth.<br /><br />Save your anger for the Alternatives Analysis, I'm sure you're going to find something in there to get pissed about.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-35117287540775589072009-08-28T10:46:36.691-07:002009-08-28T10:46:36.691-07:00SLOWER and very very convenient to get from SF to ...<i>SLOWER and very very convenient to get from SF to SJ</i><br /><br />Funny!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72491835478373191842009-08-28T10:44:43.111-07:002009-08-28T10:44:43.111-07:00Observer said:
"If you start with the twin p...Observer said:<br /><br /><i>"If you start with the twin premises that the HSR line needs to terminate in San Francisco and that a new bay crossing is out of the question"<br /><br />a) You can't start with either of these premises.</i><br /><br />Wrong, you can because it's law. Prop 1A says LA to SF. The court said Dumbarton, 101, & 280 were all discarded for legitemate reasons (AKA too expensive).lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-21520753743850256762009-08-28T10:34:16.163-07:002009-08-28T10:34:16.163-07:00Mike - right. I don't care if human developme...Mike - right. I don't care if human development in and around the Peninsula caltrain row is the 'fault' of father christmas, Elija, or the tooth fairy. WHY its here, or who got here first is completely irrelevent. Fact remains, its here, its too close to the row and high speed trains have no business getting shoved through this kind of development. You can't reverse time -damage done, and the trains are NOT going through here.<br /><br />Take a look at the reality in these towns - what are they doing to manage traffic problems in the neighborhoods - they're SLOWING TRAFFIC DOWN - by design! Thats right, they're not making it faster and easier to move traffic through, they are reducing major thorough fares to one lane from two , they are widening sidewalks and bike lands, and adding more signals (see Charleston and Oregon). <br /><br />You think all these 'threats' about HSR leaving and taking their funding with them actually scares anyone on the Peninsula? Hilarious.<br /><br />Here's how its REALLY going to go down. CHSRA will find it so difficult and expensive to pursue the caltrain route that they'll leave. (This of course, they've been warned about repeatedly for more than a year now). Caltrain will piss and moan and raise fares. People will still take the Caltrain. And in about 3 years someone with the best interests of the Peninsula in mind will come along with a new plan for Caltrain upgrade - like a light rail solution, that will be quieter, cleaner, safer, and SLOWER and very very convenient to get from SF to SJ and points in between. IN the meantime, we'll all buy electric cars, convert 50% of all roadways to small commuter vehicle lanes, and Those who want a novelty ride to disneyland will go to the eastbay to catch an hsr ride once or twice in their lifetimes. And we all live happily every after. The End.observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-11579299415061522092009-08-28T10:09:14.327-07:002009-08-28T10:09:14.327-07:00"If you start with the twin premises that the..."If you start with the twin premises that the HSR line needs to terminate in San Francisco and that a new bay crossing is out of the question"<br /><br />a) You can't start with either of these premises. <br /><br />There's not a reason in the world that HSR can't terminite at SFO, in SJ or in Oakland - which would solve a HECK of a lot of problems. Nor is there a reason that a new bay crossing is out of the question... <br /><br />The first thing that's needed is adequate and complete cost comparisons between all the options - which we don't yet have. For example, CHSRA waved away the 101 route due to high costs of overpasses - really? HIgh cost compared only to incomplete analyis on the Peninsula caltrain row - invalid. They ruled out high cost of double track Dumbarton crossing due to high cost - again, really? High cost compared to incomplete analysis on teh Peninsula caltrain row - Invalid!<br /><br />They need to go back and revisit their starting assumptions. <br /><br />BTW don't worry that measure 1A states Transbay terminal - measure 1A is invalide now too. Lets go back to the drawing board and do it right, shall we?<br /><br />But here we get to the REAL truth of the matter:<br />"CHSRA picked this corridor in 2005" EXACTLY! THANK YOU. <br /><br />That's interesting because they CLAIM they didn't approve their EIR until 2008. Again, now we're getting to the TRUTH, aren't we.Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46059645949096298712009-08-28T10:07:14.659-07:002009-08-28T10:07:14.659-07:00The reality is CHSRA is shoving a high speed train...<i>The reality is CHSRA is shoving a high speed train through where it has no business being shoved</i><br /><br />Rafael said that other countries would never have allowed development abutting the Caltrain ROW anyway, and you agreed with him. By your own admission, any undesirable interactions here are the fault of the Peninsula towns and have nothing to do with the CHSRA.<br /><br /><i>There is no way this elevated scheme can be mitigated.</i><br /><br />Fortunately the court disagrees with you, so it's no longer relevant what any of us thinks on that particular issue.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72842057685830121372009-08-28T08:28:29.068-07:002009-08-28T08:28:29.068-07:00It was a deceptive scam
Or how about, since the r...<i>It was a deceptive scam</i><br /><br />Or how about, since the route choice was being litigated, they included both Pacheco and Altamont in Prop 1A in order to cover all their bases?<br /><br />All this "Altamont overlay" stuff is basic risk mitigation. After the risk goes away, expect the Altamont stuff to be retired.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75993017916144850902009-08-28T08:07:44.977-07:002009-08-28T08:07:44.977-07:00@ BAR -
tunneling does mean greater land takings ...@ BAR -<br /><br />tunneling does mean greater land takings overall, because tunnels have to be constructed.<br /><br />Two tunnel tracks for HSR only would keep Caltrain and UPRR at grade: bells, horns and traffic jams forever.<br /><br />Four-track subway tunnels require thick walls and thick center columns in addition to the space for the tracks. Additional space is needed for temporary shoofly tracks so Caltrain and UPRR can keep operating during the construction period.<br /><br />Boring tunnels through relatively soft and wet sedimentary rock also has footprint issues. For starters, there are large construction sites at both portals for removing the spoil, the bentonite slurry plant needed to stabilize the cutting face and, temporary storage of the pre-fabricated ring segments needed to stabilize the tunnel behind the cutting face. <i>You</i> may not care about all that as long as its happening "somewhere else" but CHSRA doesn't have that luxury.<br /><br />Boring outside the ROW is possible once the bores are deep enough. By default, you'd need a single two-track bore for Caltrain+UPRR and two individual bores for HSR (to avoid aerodynamic instability at high speed). There needs to be quite a bit of space in-between these three tubes, so there are land impacts between the tunnel portals and the points at which the tunnels are deep enough. Given that UPRR trains are gradient-challenged, those transitions would be rather long. A further complication is that Caltrain and UPRR need to keep operating during construction, so at least one active track through or around the construction site at each portal would be required.<br /><br />A single bore large enough to accommodate two levels of two tracks each would be much, much more expensive.<br /><br />In addition, boring tunnels underneath active railroad tracks is much tricker than doing it under a road. Even minimal subsidence could render the tracks too dangerous to use. Subsidence under nearby frontage roads or buildings could also be a disaster. Subsidence risk depends on the geology, it's worst if there are pockets of soft mud or water that the TBM could strike. This isn't a ROW width issue per se, but it is a risk that would have to be quantified and managed.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63142053887767143052009-08-28T07:37:47.787-07:002009-08-28T07:37:47.787-07:00@ anon @ 9:51pm -
of course allowing railroads to...@ anon @ 9:51pm -<br /><br />of course allowing railroads to languish for so long and paving over vast tracts of land with freeway lanes is ultimately why it's now so difficult to implement HSR. That much is patently obvious to everyone, not stating it before wasn't some diabolical conspiracy.<br /><br />If you start with the twin premises that the HSR line needs to terminate in San Francisco and that a new bay crossing is out of the question, then the Caltrain corridor is basically the only place you can realistically put the tracks - in spite of the issues that raises for the communities in-between. This isn't news, CHSRA picked this corridor in 2005.<br /><br />There was plenty of discussion over the past few years about the new bay crossing (bridge/tunnel at Dumbarton, 2nd transbay tube) but the assumption that trains would need to reach SF at all was never seriously challenged, even though CHSRA did analyze alternatives such as SJ+Oakland only.<br /><br />SF peninsula towns did not get organized until way too late in the process, so now they're resorting to litigation that may well delay the project and jack up costs for state and federal taxpayers, but won't stop it. Big projects like this have a lot of inertia, they take a lot of time to pick up speed. But once they do, it's also very difficult to slow them down again or get them to change course, never mind bring them to a halt.<br /><br />Besides, as Rob Doty (Caltrain chief engineer and HSR liason) pointed out at the town hall meeting, Caltrain needs to electrify and expand or it will go out of business before long. Full grade separation would not be absolutely necessary for Caltrain alone, but doubling the number of trains without it would virtually shut down any remaining cross roads during rush hour.<br /><br />It is a fiction to believe that no project means no change. Essentially, either you accept Caltrain + HSR on fully elevated tracks or before long, there won't be any passenger or freight rail service at all in the peninsula - putting a lot more cars and trucks on the already congested roads.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-67138716886276942112009-08-28T01:44:58.688-07:002009-08-28T01:44:58.688-07:00There is no way this elevated scheme can be mitiga...<i> There is no way this elevated scheme can be mitigated. All elevateds are inherently "brutalist","unless they are visually set off at considerable distances, like bridges. At least BART is honest about it; it dosn't even try to play the mitigatation nonsense game. BART trains are so ugly that fully-clad wraparound advertising would be an aesthetic improvement. I light-heartedly suggest adverts for Trojans or Viagra. Would help to defray those ATU 100k+ compensation packages.<br /><br /> I guess the Peninsula people will need to promulgate "teaparties" to get heard in the face of all the contractor payola.<br /><br /> August 27, 2009 9:59 PM<br />Blogger Bay Area Resident said...<br /><br />If Morshed said tunnels take more emminent domain takings than elevateds then he is an idiot (but we knew that). According to the Diridon committees in San Jose, they are going to use "the mole" for tunnelling and its an entirely underground undertaking with far less impact than something above ground.</i><br /><br />Sorry dude, but you are the idiot. Most of the current ROW is sufficient for four tracks. The tunnel will require some permament takings at both portals, as well large temporary takings for the TBM staging areas.<br /><br />But that explanation won't fulfill your fantasies of a vast HSR conspiracy.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06621524688754424783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-91171401125789880622009-08-28T01:10:52.292-07:002009-08-28T01:10:52.292-07:00So which is the better choice for a station. PA o...So which is the better choice for a station. PA or RWC?<br />PA has that nice development plan but RWC could do the same thing. Of course if the the station is in Pa it means the trains will be slowing down to stop there so they won't even be running at 125, they'll be running between 0-60.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46355955335390174182009-08-27T23:11:57.591-07:002009-08-27T23:11:57.591-07:00other countries never allowed encroachment of high...<em>other countries never allowed encroachment of high-end residential property anywhere near their railroad ROW in the first place</em><br /><br />The Peninsula is a string of railroad 'burbs, just like railroad suburbs all over the world. People pay premium prices to be near the tracks, it's where the stations are.Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70279407699654397952009-08-27T22:21:21.088-07:002009-08-27T22:21:21.088-07:00BAR,
You're the one that's to much. Now, ...BAR,<br />You're the one that's to much. Now, out of desperation, you're making shit up to fit your Martian-view!<br />How many times must it be stated that the route was known way before Nov 08!<br />Oh well...HA HA!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-55707846402523496412009-08-27T22:13:22.262-07:002009-08-27T22:13:22.262-07:00@BAR
again your right, they could just do a two t...@BAR<br /><br />again your right, they could just do a two track tunnel and leave caltrain and freight as-is. It would still cost PA an arm and a leg, but at least you would still have grade crossings and horns!lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-66760844288867616742009-08-27T22:11:41.605-07:002009-08-27T22:11:41.605-07:00Anon 951,
The railroad has been running the spine ...Anon 951,<br />The railroad has been running the spine of the Peninsula for over a hundred fricken years!<br />HSR and electrified Caltrain are improvements to this railroad! Stop acting as if a rail line is falling out of the sky right on top of some pristine utopia!<br />Idiots!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4753980126645811812009-08-27T22:10:03.965-07:002009-08-27T22:10:03.965-07:00@BAR
you are right, we tricked you. In the words ...@BAR<br /><br />you are right, we tricked you. In the words of Nelson:<br /><br />"HA HA!"lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-61738304939580299052009-08-27T22:06:39.042-07:002009-08-27T22:06:39.042-07:00If Morshed said tunnels take more emminent domain ...If Morshed said tunnels take more emminent domain takings than elevateds then he is an idiot (but we knew that). According to the Diridon committees in San Jose, they are going to use "the mole" for tunnelling and its an entirely underground undertaking with far less impact than something above ground.Bay Area Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807091317788242756noreply@blogger.com