tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post3956582627959750613..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: The Berlin Wall EffectClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86538920753014860162009-04-12T18:58:00.000-07:002009-04-12T18:58:00.000-07:00Andrew Bogan said..."In Palo Alto's case, ..."I un...Andrew Bogan said...<BR/>"<I>In Palo Alto's case, ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>I understand the localization of the concern, but the strategy of HSR opponents to generate support for "Tunnel or Nothing" is by no means restricted to Palo Alto.<BR/><BR/>"<I>you are correct that a lot of development above the existing tracks would occur if they did all end up underground, but it would be attractively architected 3-4 story condo buildings and office buildings for technology businesses and the lawyers and venture capitalists that service and fund them. Office rents in the strip of Palo Alto near the downtown station</I>" ...<BR/><BR/>And now you have lost track of the back yards being protected ... "Underground or Nothing" is not a tunnel <B><I>only</I></B> in the vicinity of the downtown station, its a tunnel wherever there is a neighborhood with a cul-de-sac with residential property in proximity to the track that objects to the aesthetics of actually the connection to the outside world that their town's continued economic vitality depends upon.<BR/><BR/>... "<I>Taco Bell will remain over on El Camino Real,</I> ...<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=El+Camino+Real,+Palo+Alto,+California&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,56.601563&ie=UTF8&ll=37.450545,-122.17476&spn=0.004438,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.450767,-122.17542&panoid=UeoUEb3I6lAL6r3C9E0R2w&cbp=12,34.327958087793455,,0,5" REL="nofollow">there's Burgess and Alma, nice suburban street, nice park</A> and hey, convenient location too ... <A HREF="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=El+Camino+Real,+Palo+Alto,+California&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,56.601563&ie=UTF8&ll=37.449676,-122.175833&spn=0.001993,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.449578,-122.175683&panoid=1I_Hu9tuiERxOSuryTVzcw&cbp=11,22.056899862752413,,0,5" REL="nofollow">there's the neighbors across the street once the tunnel goes through</A> ... ah, yes, I guess that's <B><I>El Camino Real</I></B>.<BR/><BR/>Burgess Park and Alma is better off with a wall with some greenery, an embankment on top if possible to keep the height of the wall less imposing, and even better a split grade separation if possible (working out which option can go where involves taking fairly this steel thread through lots of existing grade separation needles).BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78863490621061789972009-04-12T09:51:00.000-07:002009-04-12T09:51:00.000-07:00"Truly, the hypocrisy of these people knows no bou..."<I>Truly, the hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Stereotyping is dangerous in a grass roots advocacy campaign, since it often leads the side with an interest in <I>avoiding and reversing</I> polarization to play into the hands of the side with the interest in <I>exploiting and amplifying</I> polarization.<BR/><BR/>So make that, the hypocrisy of <B><I>some of</I></B> these people knows no bounds. Opponents of the HSR as such are opposing one form of access to and from their community ... for direct HSR opponents, there is no hypocrisy in being against pedestrian and bike access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people, against bus service access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people, and against Caltrain access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people.<BR/><BR/>Operating alongside the HSR system will be a substantial boon to the Caltrain system, so people opposed to access as such may be being entirely consistent. Despicable, sure ... but not hypocritical.<BR/><BR/>The people opposing a reduction in level crossing barriers on the basis of the barrier created by removing a barrier, and whole also support removal of a bike access in order to increase the barriers might be hypocrites.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, for someone whose position is that they oppose the reduction of level crossing barriers because reducing level crossing barriers is an increase in barriers, it seems more likely they are simply extremely confused, and inconsistency is just a symptom of extreme confusion.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-84856097067015150892009-04-11T15:13:00.000-07:002009-04-11T15:13:00.000-07:00[Sarcasm]Not to worry, the good folk of Menlo Park...[Sarcasm]<BR/><BR/>Not to worry, the good folk of Menlo Park actually <B>like</B> Berlin Walls. That is why they are rallying to rip out the only dedicated pedestrian/bike crossing over 101 in the entire city, maximizing the isolation between the eastern section of the city and the western section:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12095885?nclick_check=1" REL="nofollow">http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12095885?nclick_check=1</A><BR/><BR/>That's no doubt why they also oppose grade separations. Separations <B>improve</B> connectivity between the two sides of the corridor, which is a <B>bad</B> thing, because it might allow "undesirables" to access your neighborhood.<BR/><BR/>[/Sarcasm]<BR/><BR/>Truly, the hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91264288246126476582009-04-11T08:53:00.000-07:002009-04-11T08:53:00.000-07:00The issue is that the ROW in Mountain View doesn't...<I>The issue is that the ROW in Mountain View doesn't appear wide enough for 5 tracks, let alone 6 - especially at the CA-85 overpass. Keeping all three services at grade does not look feasible to me.</I><BR/><BR/>There is plenty of space under the overpass, once you wrap your head around the notion that nine(!) automobile lanes (plus shoulders, plus wide medians) is overkill for any current and future traffic volumes in that location.<BR/><BR/>But like I said, I fully expect the most expensive grade separation solution to be chosen so as to not impact cars in any way (i.e. massive automobile subsidy).bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91674744677288313342009-04-11T07:24:00.000-07:002009-04-11T07:24:00.000-07:00Rafael said..."Plus, stretching out the station cr...Rafael said...<BR/>"<I>Plus, stretching out the station creates long walking distances for passengers transferring to another service, unless you throw in moving walkways.</I>"<BR/><BR/>That depends on whether the platform connection is relatively short. In services where there is flexibility in choosing which end of the train to ride, pulling transfer passengers to one end of the Caltrain service and local passenger to the opposite end may sometimes be a good thing, reducing effective platform congestion.<BR/><BR/>However, if I understand the proposal correctly, that does not apply here ... (northbound) Caltrain head to LRT tail, and (southbound) LRT head to Caltrain tail, with Caltrain primary local access and Caltrain/LRT transfer on the same ends.<BR/><BR/>If LRT passengers are less likely to need to park, maybe there could be a parking access toward the southern end of the Caltrain platforms.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62925389853669607872009-04-11T07:15:00.000-07:002009-04-11T07:15:00.000-07:00Bianca said: "If the water table issue is an argum...Bianca said: "<I>If the water table issue is an argument against keeping the train at grade and running an underpass under the train, isn't it also an argument against anything deeper than a shallow trench?</I>"<BR/><BR/>It depends in part whether breaking the flow of water is itself a trouble, or just water incursion. A deep trench extending below the water table is a pain, with higher construction costs and possible ongoing higher operating costs for sumping.<BR/><BR/>A deep trench breaking an underground flow is moving toward the "off the table" set of options.<BR/><BR/>Avoiding the whole issue reduces the set of grade separations to full elevated (road or rail) and split grade, with a floor on the depression determined by the height of the water table.<BR/><BR/>Of course, a 14 foot high rail overpass gives much more opportunities for cutting the height of an embankment past suburban neighborhoods in the vicinity than a 20 foot high rail overpass.<BR/><BR/>Also, if the community prefers lower to higher, there is always the possibility of simply putting in lower overpasses, allowing for car, bike and pedestrian traffic but not large trucks.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, some neighborhoods may feel that sheltering the trans-thoroughfare vicinity of that overpass from large trucks is a <I>good</I> thing. And course, drop the motor vehicle clearance to 8 foot, and you get even more flexibility in terms of lowering embankments, lowering or eliminating infill walls, raising trenches (much of the noise is immediately above the track, so a three foot trench might also make a fine sound barrier as well, if the wall texturing is done correctly).<BR/><BR/>And when transitioning between rail at different heights or depths relative to grade, the longer the transition is stretched out, the less roller coaster effect ... when there is an existing grade path under a road overpass at one point, and a strong case for keeping the road at grade and putting the rail underneath at another point, the split grade in the frame as one option for a grade separation between the two is a shallow rail trench. Between a full height rail overpass and a rail crossing at grade, the split grade options that enter into the frame are the partial rail elevations (embankment, infill, or viaduct).<BR/><BR/>In the process of bringing out the maximum diversity of options in order to maximize the chances of community support solidifying behind one of the <I>viable</I> choices, the extreme options define the envelope but it may well be one of the options lying inside the envelope that can attract the greatest community support.<BR/><BR/>And pragmatically, that is the name of the game ... the reason the dedicated HSR opponents are sheltering with "Tunnels or Nothing", even though their real position is "Nothing", is to find the largest possible coalition.<BR/><BR/>So the focus has to be on finding <I>viable</I> options that whittle down the "or nothing" side among those who are not in fact opposed in principle to the HSR, or to it passing somewhere through their town.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-67248903628431660302009-04-11T06:57:00.000-07:002009-04-11T06:57:00.000-07:00@ bikerider -the issue is that the ROW in Mountain...@ bikerider -<BR/><BR/>the issue is that the ROW in Mountain View doesn't appear wide enough for 5 tracks, let alone 6 - especially at the CA-85 overpass. Keeping all three services at grade does not look feasible to me.<BR/><BR/>Moving the heavy rail station and associated platforms just north of Castro would ease the problem, but probably not by enough. A side platforms needs 10-12 feet, an island 20-25. Plus, stretching out the station creates long walking distances fir passengers transferring to another service, unless you throw in moving walkways.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44195720246695057082009-04-11T03:38:00.000-07:002009-04-11T03:38:00.000-07:00Anonymous said..."I suggest CHSRA start adding up ...Anonymous said...<BR/>"<I>I suggest CHSRA start adding up the massive costs of choosing this route, and comparing it to alternatives, such as placing the HSR on existing freeway corridors.</I>"<BR/><BR/>If Anonymous thinks adding an adjective "massive" is a winning argument, no wonder he or she is so unsure of the quality of his or her argument that he or she decided against posting under a pseudonym.<BR/><BR/>The benefits of the Caltrain corridor are also massive, when considering the ridership that the HSR line will attract.<BR/><BR/>And unlike the costs of upgrading the Caltrain corridor, which are going to be a one-off cost and then done, the benefits of putting the HSR line on the Caltrain corridor are going to continue over time.<BR/><BR/>We already have an economy that was running a long term unsustainable trade deficit because taking action against our oil addiction was unthinkable.<BR/><BR/>With the Peninsula station on the Caltrain corridor, every connecting Caltrain service is a collector while going to the Peninsula station and a distributor while going away, added on top of being a collector/distributer at San Jose, SFO and SF downtown.<BR/><BR/>Experience has shown that once the HSR is in service, serving as a convenient connection to the HSR is a valuable thing. So having the Peninsula station on the Caltrain corridor means more frequent Caltrain services with more capacity. And frequency attracts ridership on its own account ... this is the virtuous circle of a dedicated transport corridor experiencing growth in patronage, the flip side of the vicious circle of a line in decline.<BR/><BR/>And once Caltrain is electrified, that is thousands of trips per day that can be made independent of fossil fuels by upgrading the supply to the grid, without requiring one additional cent to be spent on the transport system itself.<BR/><BR/>The Caltrain corridor was chosen based on cost/benefit consideration under present conditions. But when you bear in mind that the present conditions it was chosen under were completely unsustainable on a long term basis, and that the benefits of the Caltrain corridor option increase substantially under any sustainable alternative scenario, "present conditions" was a worst case for the Caltrain corridor, and it still ended up with the best cost/benefit.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-22551177657570505642009-04-11T03:11:00.000-07:002009-04-11T03:11:00.000-07:00Quoth I "Obviously a tunnel likely rules out a sta...Quoth I "<I>Obviously a tunnel likely rules out a station</I>"<BR/><BR/>"<I>Not so. An underground station is perfectly feasible and a couple of freight trains late at night are not relevant, since the diesel exhaust can either be ventilated out of the station or eliminated by requiring electric freight trains on the route. There is very little freight traffic on these tracks and it is more likely to decrease than to increase in the future, despite what Union Pacific claims.</I>"<BR/><BR/>But ACE has had a longstanding goal of a service over Dumbarton and up the Caltrain corridor toward SF.<BR/><BR/>Regarding ventilation, unless its equivalent to the air flow in an open trench, I'm skeptical ... I've driven on underground bypasses, and sure, if it was not ventilated people would be dying like flies, but even ventilated, you get a headache.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-12137084122939800992009-04-11T02:58:00.000-07:002009-04-11T02:58:00.000-07:00Andrew Bogan: "What is not welcome is fear mongeri...Andrew Bogan: "<I>What is not welcome is fear mongering tactics that stray from the facts.</I>"<BR/><BR/>And that is the key. I don't worry particularly much about the intent behind the writing of nonsense or misleading statements ... someone can as easily be sincere, either being underinformed or having been misled by one of the BS peddlers, as being one of the BS peddler themselves. Indeed, if the BS peddlers are effective, they are quickly outnumbered by those who have been successfully misled.<BR/><BR/>If the statement is nonsense, like 30 minutes SJ/SF attracting no increment of demand compared to 45 minutes SJ/SF, which will attract no increment of demand compared to the current rail trip time ... its nonsense. Working out the sincerity or insincerity of the person repeating the nonsense is not something I think I can do.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85171264545806159732009-04-10T22:05:00.000-07:002009-04-10T22:05:00.000-07:00In MV, a raised station makes a lot more sense: th...<I>In MV, a raised station makes a lot more sense: there's plenty of room for it. I'll do a Focus On: about it at some point; Richard M. has a slick concept where light rail ducks under the 4 tracks and terminates on the transit plaza at the head of Castro st. The VTA light rail station takes up far too much valuable real estate for the few tens of millions it would cost to reconfigure. (chump change as you say!)</I><BR/><BR/>Any amount of money (let alone $10's of millions) spent on VTA light rail is a waste, and can't believe Richard M. actually suggested this.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I don't see any cost-benefit in either aerial or trench solution at Mountain View, so here is what I would propose:<BR/><BR/>1. Leave the tracks and platforms at-grade. Close off the Castro/Central intersection (more on this below).<BR/><BR/>2. Move the station "north" a bit so that it is directly at the end of Castro Street. By eliminating the intersection, some space can be reclaimed (so that LRT platforms can fit too).<BR/><BR/>3. Design the station so that it is <B>not</B> a fortress -- cafes and shops along Castro should not be isolated from the rest of the station.<BR/><BR/>4. The merchants will demand cars have access to Castro from Central Exwy. However, (if memory serves) there is a rather large surface parking lot just on the other corner of that intersection. I normally oppose such things, but put a parking structure at that corner (you know the CHSRA is going to build lots of garages anyway) which can be used by both train passengers and visitors to Castro St. A ped overcrossing can provide access from the garage to a mezzanine level in the station.<BR/><BR/>5. For anyone that _really_ thinks there is a need for cars to drive over the tracks there, may I point out that Shoreline Blvd is just 3 blocks away.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know it will never happen. CHSRA is destined to pick the most expensive grade-separation solution imaginable.bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56287034097427635972009-04-10T20:16:00.000-07:002009-04-10T20:16:00.000-07:00There's plenty of access to the SF to SJ segment:-...There's plenty of access to the SF to SJ segment:<BR/><BR/>-Oakland/Berkeley/West Contra Costa to Transbay via AC or BART = 15 to 30 minutes + Muni Bus/Metro 15 to 30 minutes<BR/>-Capitol Corridor Service every hour to San Jose and perhaps BART to San Jose every 15 minutes<BR/>-Millbrae/SFO: BART connection and near 280/380/101 (Marin Airporter Bus?)<BR/>-Transbay also has lots of walk-on traffic and cabs<BR/><BR/>Besides that, those two stations are pretty starved for access...it's like they're an airport or something...all tucked away next to the bay somewhere far far away. ;)<BR/><BR/>Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View (???) are more or less local stations and the ridership corresponds with that fact. <BR/><BR/>Class 2 intercity trains (regional high speed rail trains) would be pretty similar to most commuter rail prices. Long distance tickets, especially on 1st class trains is a different story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-2387409794241853512009-04-10T19:04:00.000-07:002009-04-10T19:04:00.000-07:00There is a pedestrian undercrossing of Central Exp...There is a pedestrian undercrossing of Central Expressway planned as a condition of the 600 new approved housing units that will be built east of San Antonio station. If you move the station, it's not really TOD anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57006104114591953872009-04-10T18:24:00.000-07:002009-04-10T18:24:00.000-07:00@PA_MarcherNot everyone is truly a NIMBY - there a...@PA_Marcher<BR/><BR/><I>Not everyone is truly a NIMBY - there are many who like the concept, but hate the current proposal. Can we come up for a creative term for them that isn't insulting (like HSR deniers)?</I><BR/><BR/>In general, I have always tried to use NIMBY in a very literal sense, with any positive or negative connotation left up to the reader. As I have said before, I have a great deal of respect for people caring deeply about their own property--it is only sensible. My issue is with those sincere and deeply held concerns being channeled in an obstructionist way to block a major state-wide infrastructure project based on narrow, selfish interest (which the impact on one's own backyard clearly is). To the extent that people who live on or near the tracks can get involved in a constructive way to mitigate the impacts of the project, that is great. I, too, sent lots of comments to CHSRA over the past month to try to optimize the scope of their upcoming EIR/EIS. I do support HSR, but that does not mean I want it implemented poorly through Palo Alto. <BR/><BR/>My own motivation to comment on a lot of the blogs recently has been to focus people (supporters and <I>hesitaters</I> alike) on the relevant facts. I know Clem has the same goal in mind and has put in vastly more thought and effort than I have. <BR/><BR/><I>This may sound a bit "Kumbaya" but really - let's try to be inclusive, not exclusive.....</I><BR/><BR/>From what I have seen, factually accurate input in favor or against HSR has been quite welcome on the relevant blogs' comment boards. Everyone has concerns about some aspects of the project. What is not welcome is fear mongering tactics that stray from the facts. Sadly, such nonsense has been widespread in recent weeks. One clear step toward a more inclusive situation would be to see more of the HSR <I>hesitaters</I> insisting that their peers stick to the facts.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40610352472983338392009-04-10T17:50:00.000-07:002009-04-10T17:50:00.000-07:00How else can "put the HSR underground and rebuild ...<EM>How else can "put the HSR underground and rebuild the platform on top" be read?</EM><BR/><BR/>Many ways. I was creating an elevation view looking north or south from the middle of the two current tracks, that tells me how wide things are. An elevation view looking east on San Antonio Circle towards Showers wouldn't be my choice, that tells me how long things are and that there are two levels but doesn't tell me how many tracks there are or if there is one platform or two. Viewing it that way the HSR tracks are under Showers Dr. I was working with the assumption that the overpass is worth saving. If it's obsolete, and going to be torn down anyway, why worry about it? If they are going to redo the overpass it can be designed so there are no supports between the western curb of Showers Drive and the eastern curb of Central Expressway. That would be a bit extreme but it could be done. <BR/><BR/><BR/>If I'm standing on the street above a typical Manhattan subway station, a local stop with four tracks and two side platforms, the platforms are under the sidewalk and the tracks are under the street. Look at it from the center of the express tracks and the street is above the tracks and the sidewalk is above the platforms. If I'm standing exactly between the two curbs I'm above the station but I'm not above the platforms. May not be correct if you were to take out a tape measure but it conveys the concept. But that's only for a typical local stop with four tracks. <BR/><BR/>The stations along Central Park West are arranged differently. All of them are local stops. Everything is on the west side of the street. The Uptown platform is under the sidewalk and the Downtown platform is under that. The Uptown local tracks are under the lane where cars park ( Legally, NYers double park and triple park ) The downtown local tracks are under that. The Uptown express tracks are under the west most lane of traffic and the Downtown express tracks are under that. So if you were standing on the sidewalk and it became transparent you would be looking down at the Uptown platform. If the Uptown platform became transparent you would be looking down at the Downtown platform. All of the street and the sidewalk is above all of the subway. But I wouldn't describe my point of view from the Downtown platform as being below the Uptown express tracks. It's below the Uptown platform. <BR/><BR/>All of the subway is under the street. All of the Uptown "side" is above all of the Downtown "side"<BR/>But the Downtown Express tracks aren't under the Uptown Platform, they are under the Uptown express tracks. Again it may not be accurate if you were using a tape measure but it conveys the concept. <BR/><BR/>If standing between the HSR tracks, the Caltrain tracks are above. Beyond the walls of the tunnel there is dirt. The platforms are above dirt. Same as they are now. The edge of the platform is over the wall, it probably extends a bit out over the HSR ballast but not the rail. The edge is in the general vicinity of the wall. But that doesn't make the whole platform over the HSR tracks, that still leaves them over dirt. With Caltrain tracks at street level there is dirt under Showers Dr. and Central Expressway. <BR/><BR/><EM>impossible to achieve with four tracks at the same level plus platforms for two of them.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree. Unless you want to rip down the overpass and take lanes from the parallel streets there isn't enough room for four tracks and two side platforms. Why do the platforms need to be there? Go a few blocks north or a few blocks south and there seems to be enough space for four tracks and two side platforms. In the constrained space of the overpass there would be four tracks and no platforms. <BR/><BR/>No matter what gets done the existing platforms are not going to survive construction of whatever gets built. I don't see a compelling reason to have platforms right there. Move the south end of the platform to Alma and Ferne or the north end of the platform to Alma and Mayfield and it kinda sorta maybe looks like there's enough space for four tracks and two side platforms. <BR/>Or if you are rebuilding the overpass shift Central Expressway's southbound lanes a bit to the east and get rid of the median. You can squeeze in bit more railroad. Looking at the satellite views it appears that every round trip involves a walk down to Mayfield to use the pedestrian underpass. Putting the station south of Mayfield would be a wash for everyone when you consider their roundtrip. <BR/><BR/>Again, just looking at rough guesstimates of what's going on from the satellite views. There might be cheaper and better solutions than stacking tracks above or below each other. <BR/><BR/>Go a little bit farther south to Rengstorff and the first question that comes to my mind is do you have enough length between there and San Antonio to return to street level. I dunno, I'm a not a foamer who can pull things like how many feet you have to travel to get one foot higher out of my cache of peculiar information. Same thing when you go north to Charleston. And we're talking about 25 feet give or take a few between top of rail for Caltrain and top of rail for HSR. <BR/><BR/><EM>PCJPB rail service remains in regular operation</EM> <BR/><BR/>To me that means the line will still carry passengers, it doesn't mean all passengers will get to all stations all the time by train. <BR/><BR/>Someone has to ask the PCJPB what "regular operation" means. It may mean single track operation off peak. It may mean that there's only bus service around the construction zone. It's not a train but it is operation.Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86380340950890354522009-04-10T15:29:00.000-07:002009-04-10T15:29:00.000-07:00@ BiancaI think "Resident" is right - the scale is...@ Bianca<BR/><BR/>I think "Resident" is right - the scale is the issue. Plus, understand that there haven't been any widely distributed scaled models for people to see. <BR/><BR/>In essence, Jim McFall's model is the first real look at HSR's idea of what this would look like going through Palo Alto. Obviously it is easy for people to yell "not that!" - but the average person just doesn't have a "feasible" option - either because of price or engineering, etc. <BR/><BR/>Robert and Clem's blogs have come up with lots of ideas and pictures - but people generally have a hard time applying those models to their neighborhood. Some people have a good imagination for these things - but most do not. <BR/><BR/>I personally think the city should invest money in putting together some feasible alternatives. At the last Peninsula Cities Consortium meeting, the idea of having a sort of design competition was floated around - so architects, urban planners, etc. could help come up with the best ideas. <BR/><BR/>These types of models could really help win the public over - probably not everyone - but at least more than with the plan HSR has proposed.PA_Marchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7155536670973446012009-04-10T14:12:00.000-07:002009-04-10T14:12:00.000-07:00Pardon me, 146 years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Pardon me, 146 years.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute<BR/><BR/>johnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59548910499855040702009-04-10T14:09:00.000-07:002009-04-10T14:09:00.000-07:00"HSR belongs on freeway corridors. Its absolutely ..."HSR belongs on freeway corridors. Its absolutely ridiculous that CHSRA is trying to thread this through backyards, school yard, residential streets."<BR/><BR/>No, they are trying to thread this through a corridor that has supported train service every day for the past 148 years.<BR/><BR/>john<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_and_San_Jose_Rail_RoadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62069758540348568372009-04-10T13:01:00.000-07:002009-04-10T13:01:00.000-07:00Bianca, your wrong, and your not listening if you ...Bianca, your wrong, and your not listening if you think residents oppose grade separations. However, all grade separations are not created equal. Ask yourself what they are actually opposing. An underpass or overpass over a 2 wide track (without catenary overhead) is quite a different animal than one over a 75ft wide 4-wide track with catenary overhead. Widths and depths and the huge approaches for the much larger in scope HSR/Caltrain combo, and the concrete structures created by such are as unacceptable as solid walls for the trains. <BR/><BR/>The consideration is not just for the crossing, but for the impacts on the streets, sidewalks bikepaths, homes, driveways, etc on the perpendicular cross streets. <BR/><BR/>A proper study of the whole neighborhood , including SCALE, will be required for each and every grade separated crossing - CHSRA and many supporters completely oversimply the issues. For example, over or undercrossings at Churchill would be completely infeasible due to the proximity of historic homes on the both sides of the tracks along churchill, you'd be shutting down people's driveways to create underpasses, and on the west side of tracks on Churchill, Paly high school driveway encroachment, plus encroachment on their fields. The issue of grade separated crossing is again, one of SCALE, and inappropriate choice of location given that this is a dense neighborhood area. <BR/><BR/>HSR belongs on freeway corridors. Its absolutely ridiculous that CHSRA is trying to thread this through backyards, school yard, residential streets.Residentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39029176954897598082009-04-10T11:36:00.000-07:002009-04-10T11:36:00.000-07:00water table problems are a reason for split grade ...<I>water table problems are a reason for split grade rather than a full underpass.</I><BR/><BR/>If the water table issue is an argument against keeping the train at grade and running an underpass under the train, isn't it also an argument against anything deeper than a shallow trench? <BR/><BR/>Also, I've asked this before, but perhaps <B>PA_Marcher</B> can answer this for me. What is the thinking behind opposing grade separation? Having trains, cars, bikes and pedestrians all crossing at the same grade is a recipe for tragedy. There have been other comments on this blog and others from some Palo Alto residents who categorically oppose grade separations, regardless of HSR, and I don't understand it. People express enormous concern at the impact a raised railroad would have on Paly. And the implication is that they are cheerfully letting their kids cross those tracks at grade to get back and forth to school. It seems like a cognitive disconnect to me, so if someone can explain that, I'd really be interested to understand it.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-13414535615150770332009-04-10T09:12:00.000-07:002009-04-10T09:12:00.000-07:00"Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs..."Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs are pretty content with how things are along the Caltrain right of way today, but changes frighten them."<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I think most Palo Altans don't realize the implications of Caltrain's Electrification Plan. They think things can remain at grade. Of course, they can for a while, but as you know - once those barriers come down more often because of increased frequency and longer trains, it will be a nightmare. Not to mention the safety concerns you've pointed out.<BR/><BR/>People are just waking up to what the implications of HSR and Caltrain electrification. It is my understanding that now that Caltrain is involved, there will be much greater outreach to educate the public on what the implications will be and to allow them to participate in the process of offering solutions. Let's not kid ourselves, it will take more than shrubs. <BR/><BR/>Let's continue to use this blog and it's commentary to help people get on board (pardon the pun). <BR/><BR/>I think the "NIMBY" reaction is the gut reaction to any huge change. People are naturally resistant to change. If HSR supporters can get past labeling every person who initially reacts negatively NIMBY and really help change peoples minds by using great ideas and some persuasiveness - you have a much greater chance for success. <BR/><BR/>I'm hopeful this can happen. Kudos to Clem and others for trying to stick to the issues and help offer ideas. <BR/><BR/>Not everyone is truly a NIMBY - there are many who like the concept, but hate the current proposal. Can we come up for a creative term for them that isn't insulting (like HSR deniers)?<BR/><BR/>This may sound a bit "Kumbaya" but really - let's try to be inclusive, not exclusive.....PA_Marchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85995261961955096762009-04-10T08:48:00.000-07:002009-04-10T08:48:00.000-07:00Rafel,The CHSRA already signed this agreement:"It ...Rafel,<BR/>The CHSRA already signed this agreement:<BR/><BR/>"It is recognized that construction of the high speed rail system will have to take place while PCJPB rail service remains in regular operation. The customers of the PCJPB must continue to be served throughout the high speed rail construction program."<BR/><BR/>Pretty cut and dried. Are you suggeting now that CHSRA abandon the MOU? Or that they are a bunch of two faced liars?<BR/><BR/>I suggest CHSRA start adding up the massive costs of choosing this route, and comparing it to alternatives, such as placing the HSR on existing freeway corridors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45367870365203203942009-04-10T08:23:00.000-07:002009-04-10T08:23:00.000-07:00then a stack of double track with the Caltrain tra...<I>then a stack of double track with the Caltrain track on top ... at its current level ... with platforms at the same place ... would seem to be the same station footprint</I><BR/><BR/>@Rafael: there is nothing sacred about the current station footprint. Stay tuned.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78942703475630485642009-04-10T07:09:00.000-07:002009-04-10T07:09:00.000-07:00@ Clem -in the context a $33 billion project, $10 ...@ Clem -<BR/><BR/>in the context a $33 billion project, $10 million <I>is</I> chump change. That doesn't mean it should be thrown out of the window.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your focus on Mountain View, especially to your solution for keeping VTA light rail at grade with both Caltrain and HSR running in-between Rod Diridon's pride and joy and the CA-85 overpass. Not to mention the North Shoreline overpass, if UPRR traffic limits the gradient.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63264088224722248222009-04-09T23:38:00.000-07:002009-04-09T23:38:00.000-07:00Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs ...Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs are pretty content with how things are along the Caltrain right of way today, but changes frighten them. <BR/><BR/>To the extent that is actually true, perhaps all we need to do is emphasize the safety improvements of at-grade crossings; ensure that lots of new trees, shrubs, and climbing vines get planted alongside the right of way; and provide an accurate noise study to show that replacing loud diesel trains with a 96-110 dB whistle with electric rolling stock will not be much louder than it currently is (it may even be <I>quieter</I>). No tunnels, no vitrines, nothing complicated besides a large landscaping bill.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.com