tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post4327903313557382973..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Deputy AG Letter Supports CHSRA's Transbay PositionRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-78279510901017780782009-09-22T07:01:39.197-07:002009-09-22T07:01:39.197-07:00spence: ""Raiding" HSR funds to...(...spence: "<i>"Raiding" HSR funds to...(wait for it)...build a HSR station and connecting tunnel. How dare they! Those cooky SF libruls.</i>"<br /><br />If they were willing to do that, there'd be no controversy. Indeed, that is the simplest way to resolve the controversy - if they would agree to build an HSR tunnel and station.<br /><br />What they are trying to do at the moment is to raid HSR funds to build a Caltrain station and connecting tunnel while <b><i>calling it</i></b> an HSR tunnel and station.<br /><br />But the throughput capacity is not high enough and the physical design does not accommodate the majority of 220mph HSR train designs in use around the world today.<br /><br />TJPA is obviously trying to use political clout and corporate suit PR spin to sell a lie. They might succeed and they might fail, but if they succeed, both the State of California and the Federal Government will be on the hook for billions of dollars of unnecessary costs down the track, and getting poor performance for your and our money.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33742794168926760362009-09-21T16:22:20.396-07:002009-09-21T16:22:20.396-07:00BruceMcF said:
Yes, its very much a matter of &qu...BruceMcF said:<br /><br /><i>Yes, its very much a matter of "which phase 1". The train box was originally included in Phase 1, then they didn't have the money for it and it was removed (partly because of the postponing of a 2006 HSR proposition, <b>so it seems they have been planning to raid HSR funds to build the Caltrain station for a while now)</b>, and now they hope they can get the money and want to plop it back in.</i><br /><br />Imagine that! "Raiding" HSR funds to...(wait for it)...build a HSR station and connecting tunnel. How dare they! Those cooky SF libruls.<br /><br />+++++++<br /><br />@ Liquid, yes the $1.2 billion estimate for phase 1 of the TTC is for the building and the foundations (essentially everything except rail). Phase 2 is the tunnel and the below ground station (essentially only rail-related stuff). One of the reasons the TJPA divided up the two phases by mode (rail vs. bus) was to align funding sources with what they are paying for. <br /><br />However, due to engineering issues, it makes sense to at least excavate and prepare the train box before building a massive high rise over it, since doing the train box afterwards will be much more difficult and expensive.<br /><br />The TJPA has been trying to identify funding for the train box in order to move it back to Phase 1. The ARRA stimulus funds are seen as the most viable source of funding for the train box at this point, which brings us to where we are now. :)<br /><br />As a train-rider and SF resident, all I know is that rail at the new TTC would be brilliant, but if it never happens, then so be it. I lay the blame mostly with the CHSRA considering that the effort to bring rail to downtown SF has been aroudn for the CHSRA's entire existence and it wasn't until after Prop 1a passed that Kopp revealed that he had no intention of working with SF to fulfill this long-standing goal. What an ass.spencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826510485169541013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-65091180587400302682009-09-21T10:40:58.036-07:002009-09-21T10:40:58.036-07:00Anonymous said...
"@Brandon and Duncan:
The...Anonymous said... <br />"<i>@Brandon and Duncan:<br /><br />The whole pitch that Diridon and others, including Domonic Stheling, top dog on the EIR for the Bay area, is:<br /><br />The program level EIR chose Pacheco; no further study of Altamont will be done; the program level has excluded that route.</i>"<br /><br />Quite so, however, the project level has to decide whether there will be Peninsula station at Menlo Park or Atherton or Palo Alto or perhaps someplace that actually wants the HSR station. That would be at the project level - obviously you cannot finalize the choice of station location until you have first finalized the corridor that will be used.<br /><br />"<i>Kopp, says many times 4th and King is far enough --- now says Beale street shouuld be studied.</i>"<br /><br />Another example of a project level decision rather than a program level decision. Of course, whether what Kopp says ABOUT 4th and King being OK is in fact correct is debatable unless it goes to court and a case is decide yes or not - but clearly whether the train station is in the basement of the TBT or across the street, with, say, a people mover connecting the mezzanine to the HSR/Caltrain train station on one side and the BART at the other - that's a project level decision.<br /><br />That's <i>why</i> the TJPA is trying to get things locked in with their funding application - if they can not get money of their own now, they are negotiating from a weak position.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24953891347861451432009-09-20T20:55:10.611-07:002009-09-20T20:55:10.611-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52781678893519263982009-09-20T11:38:19.382-07:002009-09-20T11:38:19.382-07:00lyqwyd said...
"@rafael
Yeah, I read that tw...lyqwyd said...<br />"<i>@rafael<br /><br />Yeah, I read that two, but it's still not clear to me that phase 1 cost of $1.2 billion includes the train box.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, its very much a matter of "which phase 1". The train box was originally included in Phase 1, then they didn't have the money for it and it was removed (partly because of the postponing of a 2006 HSR proposition, so it seems they have been planning to raid HSR funds to build the Caltrain station for a while now), and now they hope they can get the money and want to plop it back in.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-45489645483182553972009-09-20T11:38:14.183-07:002009-09-20T11:38:14.183-07:00@Dan:
US Army Garrison Livorno at Camp Darby.
Sta...@Dan:<br />US Army Garrison Livorno at Camp Darby. <br />Stationed is not the right word, vacationed is more appropriate.We've Got No Money for Toysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-88605639947556908372009-09-20T09:01:49.307-07:002009-09-20T09:01:49.307-07:00The program level EIR chose Pacheco; no further st...<i>The program level EIR chose Pacheco; no further study of Altamont will be done; the program level has excluded that route.</i><br /><br />You don't get it. The program level EIR can't have excluded alternatives other than the TTC because the program level EIR didn't look at station placement alternatives.<br /><br />The program level EIR researched Altamont and properly excluded it.<br /><br />The project level EIR will choose an alternative for the SF terminus.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-21654208934783949622009-09-19T23:32:24.565-07:002009-09-19T23:32:24.565-07:00Anon,
Yes, I am aware of what Kopp or Diridon said...Anon,<br />Yes, I am aware of what Kopp or Diridon said about 4th & King... however, I interpreted that as politicking to bring attention to the TBT and nothing more. <br /><br />The fact is, 4th & King does not satisfy the letter of the law; AB 3034 or 1A. It is explicitly cited in AB 3034.<br /><br />The site that the Authority is having studied is adjoining the TBT... and satisfies AB 3034 if they put the terminals there.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-43897037913331074172009-09-19T21:26:06.696-07:002009-09-19T21:26:06.696-07:00Make no mistake..TBT is as bad as Kopp when it com...Make no mistake..TBT is as bad as Kopp when it come to SF city games.An ugly small rail station and a nice bus terminal..for what? real estate developers..IE .1200 foot office tower and $700,000 one bedroom condos..ITS too late now Kopp needs to stop or he will damage funding or goodwill for HSR<br />And I want to see HSR in SF by 2018<br />SO build the G@@D@@ TBT for better or worseYESon HSRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-92228571649310140702009-09-19T20:54:32.058-07:002009-09-19T20:54:32.058-07:00Sorry --- I apologize to Dominic Spaethling, vp of...Sorry --- I apologize to Dominic Spaethling, vp of Parson Brinkerhoff, for badly miss-spelling his name in the post above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-8328316469911042692009-09-19T20:52:24.169-07:002009-09-19T20:52:24.169-07:00@Brandon and Duncan:
The whole pitch that Diridon...@Brandon and Duncan:<br /><br />The whole pitch that Diridon and others, including Domonic Stheling, top dog on the EIR for the Bay area, is:<br /><br />The program level EIR chose Pacheco; no further study of Altamont will be done; the program level has excluded that route.<br /><br />Kopp, says many times 4th and King is far enough --- now says Beale street shouuld be studied.<br />Apparently you two are here reading or listening to only what is going on on this blog?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-27674561582331541292009-09-19T18:14:25.065-07:002009-09-19T18:14:25.065-07:00Anon at 3:38...
I suggest you read-up on the prop...Anon at 3:38...<br /><br />I suggest you read-up on the proposal. I am not speaking to 4th & King. But, to a location that IS IMMEDIATELY adjacent to the TBT. Hence, they share a boundary. Hence, the TBT footprint could be enlarged to include the area without taking any land between the two.<br /><br />It's very much unlike your example... apples to oranges.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-30385719277692542382009-09-19T18:12:19.325-07:002009-09-19T18:12:19.325-07:00But Palo Atlo isn't Cambria Heights. If I was ...<i>But Palo Atlo isn't Cambria Heights. If I was comparing Palo Alto to someplace in Queens I'd be thinking more like Little Neck or Bayside.</i><br /><br />Okay... Bayside and Little Neck are in CB 11, which has 5,000 people per km^2. And that includes Alley Park, which is 10% of the CB's land area. The reason I didn't bring CB 11 up is that it sits on the Port Washington Line. But in terms of demographics, it's just Menlo Park with worse weather.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-60084546467208318702009-09-19T17:07:50.365-07:002009-09-19T17:07:50.365-07:00@rafael
Yeah, I read that two, but it's still...@rafael<br /><br />Yeah, I read that two, but it's still not clear to me that phase 1 cost of $1.2 billion includes the train box. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-485-Rincon-Hill-Examiner~y2009m2d13-Federal-stimulus-dollars-may-help-fund-Transbay-Transit-Center-train-box" rel="nofollow">This article</a> describes the $1.2 billion required for phase 1 as "For the Transbay Terminal, Phase 1 is fully funded at roughly $1.2 billion. Phase 1 constructs the Transbay Transit Center including the shoring walls for eventual excavation for a train box to accommodate High Speed Rail and Caltrain".<br /><br />Note the last part about "shoring walls for <b><i>eventual</i></b> excavation for train box".<br /><br />The article seems to be from before they even decided to try and include the train box in phase 1.lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-14065517311971299302009-09-19T16:50:22.516-07:002009-09-19T16:50:22.516-07:00If the TJPA's alternatives analysis was thorou...If the TJPA's alternatives analysis was thorough and is still applicable to the CHSRA's project-level EIR, then they should be able to just cut and paste the whole damn thing and come to the same conclusion that the basement of the TTC is the best alternative.<br /><br />If it was not, then not only are they legally required to evaluate the unstudied or improperly rejected alternatives, they should study those because it's the right thing to do for the project.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-67893898905454189672009-09-19T16:44:07.038-07:002009-09-19T16:44:07.038-07:00And I think you're confused as to the scope of...And I think you're confused as to the scope of the Program and Project level EIRs. The purpose of the Program Level EIR was to determine large-scale routing decisions, like whether to route the train to Oakland or San Francisco, or whether to go over Altamont or Pacheco.<br /><br />The project level EIRs are the ones that concern more detailed decisions like exact station placement and configuration.<br /><br />The authority is under no less obligation to evaluate station placement alternatives in the project level EIR than the TJPA was in their EIR.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72985306639012944382009-09-19T16:38:08.979-07:002009-09-19T16:38:08.979-07:00The Authority, through Diridon and others, stated ...<i>The Authority, through Diridon and others, stated many times, the certification of the program level EIR, precluded any further study of Altamont --- Pacheco was the route, end of story.</i><br /><br />The program level EIR excluded it because it was thoroughly and even-handedly evaluated as a realistic alternative, and subsequently rejected (and the Judge agreed). So yes, the EIR properly excluded that alternative <i>after it had already been investigated</i>.<br /><br />I don't recall the CHSRA stating that they couldn't look at Altamont because 1A said they couldn't. In fact 1A explicitly gives them the leeway to do just that, should, say Pacheco turn out to be made of cotton candy.<br /><br />The CHSRA is required to evaluate alternatives for station placement. For example, the other half of the sentence you refer to in 1A is : "and Los Angeles Union Station".<br /><br />Does this mean that the train has to go to the existing Los Angeles Union Station with no modifications to the station? Of course not. In fact one of the alternatives that the CHSRA is looking at is moving the station to the east. There are lots of reasons why that's a good and bad idea, but the authority is at least required to look at it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-66827563571603546812009-09-19T16:21:05.753-07:002009-09-19T16:21:05.753-07:00@Andy duncan prints:
"By your logic, we coul...@Andy duncan prints:<br /><br /><i>"By your logic, we could sue the CHSRA for even looking at such an "illegal" alternative."</i><br /><br />That's not my logic, but rather the logic of the attorney representing the TBT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86488674657563508002009-09-19T16:18:53.405-07:002009-09-19T16:18:53.405-07:00@Andy duncan
This kind of nonsense goes on and on...@Andy duncan<br /><br />This kind of nonsense goes on and on.<br /><br />The Authority, through Diridon and others, stated many times, the certification of the program level EIR, precluded any further study of Altamont --- Pacheco was the route, end of story.<br /><br />Now the Authority, though its attorney, in this case the deputy AG of California, says, even though the program level EIR and AB-3034 say the TBT is the terminus, it is ok to study other alternatives. They want it both ways.<br /><br />With the lawsuit ruling now almost certain to result in de-certification of the program level EIR everything comes back on the table anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-29879230700893838632009-09-19T15:49:21.786-07:002009-09-19T15:49:21.786-07:00Sure to be challenged and most like challenged suc...<i> Sure to be challenged and most like challenged successfully.</i><br /><br />As the AG's letter states the CHSRA is <i>required</i> to look at alternatives. If they don't, they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit similar to the Atherton suit which accused the CHSRA of not evaluating the alternatives in good faith (an accusation that was, as you know, rejected by the judge).<br /><br /><br />As a rather extreme example, Prop 1A, I think we'll all agree, legally requires them to build a HSR system, and yet one of the things the CEQA requires them to study is the "no build" alternative.<br /><br />By your logic, we could sue the CHSRA for even looking at such an "illegal" alternative.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-90974196948100656392009-09-19T15:48:19.320-07:002009-09-19T15:48:19.320-07:00Rafael said...
"@ jim -
there is no need for...Rafael said...<br />"<i>@ jim -<br /><br />there is no need for more than six platforms, it's a myth stemming from CHSRA insistence on dwell times of 30-40 minutes.</i>"<br /><br />Of course there is. Caltrain's acquiescence in just locals running through to the TBT is because they don't have any way to fund what they need other than to get someone else to do it, so they have not choice but to hand over platforms they were originally slated to have.<br /><br />But that does not mean that two Caltrain platforms is desirable. It ought to be four, at least, with at least some of the Express routes running through to the TBT as well.<br /><br />That's how I arrived at eight ... the stacking of tracks into the TBT, easing of all turns to 200m or more, and the two express tracks through 4th and Townsend are the essential elements of providing for effective five minute headways for HSR, expanding Caltrain from two long platforms with trail tracks to four long platforms with central switchovers provides far more operational flexibility for a regional rail service than two platforms and the tail tracks can do.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62071828494568487202009-09-19T15:38:33.750-07:002009-09-19T15:38:33.750-07:00@Brandon
Quoting:
"The optional location to...@Brandon<br /><br />Quoting:<br /><br /><i>"The optional location to be studied is immediately adjacent to the TBT. Hence, it's AT the TBT. It therefore should satsify the parameters outlined by AB 3034."</i><br /><br />You sound just like Judge Kopp, who claimed the route from SJ to Gilroy, wasn't really meant to imply only the UP corridor, but for use in the EIR, rather a general possibility, and therefore the lawsuit had no merit. The Judge Kenney decided otherwise. <br /><br />Now you move the terminus from the TBT to 4th and King or Beale St. and that is supposed to be ok? Really! Another lawsuit? So again, the AG office writes up 4 pages saying all is ok. Sure to be challenged and most like challenged successfully.<br /><br />Its not my posting that is non-sense, and that's for sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31997239554747302172009-09-19T15:37:38.740-07:002009-09-19T15:37:38.740-07:00The density I figure for Eastern Queens is the ave...<em>The density I figure for Eastern Queens is the average for community board 13</em><br /><br />Yep, all those houses out there have driveways at the least if not garages. If you wanted to pick someplace in Queens that is stereotypical Queens single family neighborhood that's it. <br /><br />But Palo Atlo isn't Cambria Heights. If I was comparing Palo Alto to someplace in Queens I'd be thinking more like Little Neck or Bayside. Or Scarsdale NY 2,685/sq mile, Maplewood NJ 2393/sq mile or Lower Merion PA ( Bala Cynwyd ) or Millburn NJ 2,106/sq mile... versus Palo Alto's 2,475/sq mile. ... Well you can't really compare Millburn to Palo Alto. Millburn has had electric train service since 1931 on a railroad that was grade separated 100 years ago. And a mall where the anchor stores are Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom. <br /><br />How does San Mateo's density of 8,569/sq miles compare to Rosedale... <br /><br />It's Queens, they can try to tell themselves it's not but it's Queens or western Cook or lower Westchester or northern Union.. with palm trees and Spanish Colonial Revival instead of some other flavor of Colonial Revival with maples and oaks.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25383634406361840702009-09-19T14:58:03.854-07:002009-09-19T14:58:03.854-07:00@jim, definitely like the overall idea, and an aer...@jim, definitely like the overall idea, and an aerial covering that entire area probably would be cheaper than an underground tunnel just from transbay to BART.<br /><br />My one suggestion would be to have the connection go to Union Square via the Bloomingdales mall since that is already connected directly to Powell St. Station.lyqwydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13246339570684365095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-55072702563800517612009-09-19T14:56:23.036-07:002009-09-19T14:56:23.036-07:00new 2000 units projectnew 2000 units <a href="http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=129548&page=37" rel="nofollow">project</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com