California High Speed Rail

[krudmonk]

HIGH SPEED

not HIGH FREQUENCY OF STOPS

[arturo]

Originally Posted by phattonez

Remember, CASHR will be built for long distance and can also work as commuter rail. That is why there are so many stops in the urban areas.

HSR is not intended to be communter rail! We have regional commuter lines whose use we should encourage by promoting electrification of those lines. HSR's function, however, is to connect the state's MAJOR urban areas: The Bay Area, the LA area, Orange County, San Diego and Sacramento. Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton are bonuses. The population and the power centers of the Bay Area (SJ and SF) want Pacheco for a reason.

Another purpose of HSR is to reduce air traffic: is more air traffic to SoCal coming from SJC/SFO or SAC/STOCKTON? Yeah, exactly.

[phattonez]

You guys still don't realize that Altamont is actually FASTER than Pacheco from SF to LA.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by phattonez

You guys still don't realize that Altamont is actually FASTER than Pacheco from SF to LA.

Yes, by about five minutes. But it is slower to San Jose by about ten minutes. The Altamont line, however, means LESS overall trains into ALL Bay Area cities. As I've said before, Altamont splits the main rail line into two (SF/SJ and OAK) or three (SF, SJ, OAK) lines, meaning less overall service for all three cities.

Of course, the calculated times do not take into account all of the proposed stations along the Altamont Alignment either. The Pacheco Alignment would have TWO stations maximum (Los Baños, Gilroy), though most likely just one in Gilroy.

Trust me phatonnez, I live in the Bay Area, I think I know what's best for us. You worry about your part, we'll worry about ours.

[phattonez]

I'm just glad that my part is set.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by assafoz

I herd the biggest problem is not the bay area allignment but geeting it out of the LA basin.

technically yes, but politically the alignment up here is proving more heated.

[arturo]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7457634

Bullet train route via San Jose picks up speed
AGENCY STAFF RECOMMENDS GOING THROUGH SILICON VALLEY
SACRAMENTO - The state agency that wants to link Northern and Southern California with 220 mph passenger trains will propose today to route the line through San Jose instead of the East Bay. The move could significantly benefit not only South Bay travelers, but the local economy - if or when it's ever built.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's staff recommendation culminates two years of study and intense lobbying from various transportation, business and environmental interest groups. The report will be presented to the agency's board of directors, who will then take at least one month before voting.

[YohIMhER]

i agree they should built the train where the people are. it's not like san jose doesn't have a stop for Altamont, it will probably be like 50% sj, 50% sf. but if we go for Pacheco, people in stockton and would get 0%, i reckon that would really suck for people living in that area. i for one think there shouldn't be a station in oakland because bart is already readily accessible in the city with sf only few stops away.

but i bet Pacheco alignment will prevail, it's a political wrestling after all, and south bay generally has a louder voice in the government. in the end, it's not about how many people will be benefited, it's about WHO will be benefited, just another case of exploiting the poors. as the saying goes, the poorer will get poorer while the rich will get richer.

[krudmonk]

People in Stockton can still get to Southern California by HSR. They just can't use it for everyday commuting. That's not the goal here.

[phattonez]

Then the goal should be short commute times right? Well dontcahno, travel times through Altamont between SF and LA are faster.

[metropolismayor]

Bullet train route via San Jose picks up speed
AGENCY STAFF RECOMMENDS GOING THROUGH SILICON VALLEY
By Edwin Garcia
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
Article Launched: 11/14/2007 01:33:13 AM PST

SACRAMENTO - The state agency that wants to link Northern and Southern California with 220 mph passenger trains will propose today to route the line through San Jose instead of the East Bay. The move could significantly benefit not only South Bay travelers, but the local economy - if or when it's ever built.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's staff recommendation culminates two years of study and intense lobbying from various transportation, business and environmental interest groups. The report will be presented to the agency's board of directors, who will then take at least one month before voting.

South Bay political and business leaders lobbied for the route from Anaheim to San Jose, which would take trains over Pacheco Pass instead of the other route being considered, across Altamont Pass, which would require a new bridge be built over the bay.

"We're delighted with the staff's recommendations," said Laura Stuchinsky, director of transportation and land use for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. "It's been the strategy that we advocated all along that we need for the best route for high-speed, frequent, efficient service between Northern and Southern California."

The Altamont route has been favored by environmental organizations, and some transportation advocacy groups, in part because it would better serve growing commuter cities such as Tracy.

Pacheco Pass proponents, however, envisioned the rail system as more of a
long-distance line, not a commuter train.

Funding for the rail system, expected to cost about $40 billion, is somewhat uncertain. A nearly $10 billion bond to start the project is scheduled for the November 2008 ballot. If voters statewide approve the bond measure, and federal and private funding is obtained, rail authority officials expect the trains to be running by 2018 at the earliest.

The route being recommended would start in Anaheim, travel through Los Angeles and into the Central Valley, and split at the northern edge of Madera County - one line would stop in Gilroy, San Jose, possibly Palo Alto or Redwood City, a station near San Francisco International Airport, and end in downtown San Francisco. The other route would continue through the Central Valley into Sacramento.

The recommendation was made after four months of public hearings and extensive environmental analyses.

Rail authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed said the Pacheco Pass route was chosen because it best fits the agency's objective of "moving people from Southern California and the Central Valley as quickly as possible into the San Francisco Bay Area."

The Altamont route has considerable limitations, because a bridge would have to be built to carry trains from the East Bay into the Peninsula and South Bay.

"These alternatives would have the greatest potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and have high capital costs and constructability issues," the recommendation states. In order to build through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the recommendation states, would require "extensive coordination" with a number of state and federal agencies.

Another reason Pacheco Pass is favored, Morshed said, is because the Altamont route faces opposition from residents of Pleasanton, Livermore and other communities.

By coming up from the south, every train would stop in San Jose en route to San Francisco. If it traveled
over the Altamont, the bullet train would be a spur line with fewer stops.

Sierra Club of California and other pro-environment groups were disappointed with the recommendation, saying the Pacheco Pass route appears to be more environmentally damaging.

Pacheco Pass includes more than 100,000 acres of wetlands on the western side of the Coastal range, said Bill Allayaud, state director of Sierra Club California, who called the state's environmental reports premature. "I think they're just underplaying the value of these wetlands."

The leader of a rail advocacy group that has pushed for the Altamont route said Pacheco Pass makes little sense because it goes through an area that is sparsely populated.

"Altamont will better serve the Bay Area as a whole, it goes through the area where the people are, it follows the population spine of California," Alan C. Miller said, "and therefore will allow people to concentrate between transportation corridors along established population and transportation corridors."

Although the rail authority's staff report recommends Pacheco Pass, it also pledged to help improve the Altamont Commuter Express, which runs between Stockton and San Jose and "has great potential for serving long-distance commuters."

Rail authority board members could vote on the recommendation on or after their Dec. 19 meeting.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by phattonez

Then the goal should be short commute times right? Well dontcahno, travel times through Altamont between SF and LA are faster.

Well it's not for us, and we're the only ones that matter.

[phattonez]

Huh?

[YohIMhER]

we will see the end result, practicality vs. favoritism, Altamont Pass vs. Pacheco Pass. i bet favoritism will win.

[krudmonk]

Again, why is Altamont "practical?" Bogged down by more commuter stops? Less frequent service to major cities? Crossing Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge? Building another bridge or tunnel to serve San Francisco? You're right, those are all great ideas.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by YohIMhER

i agree they should built the train where the people are.

agreed, and the people are in the South Bay

Originally Posted by YohIMhER

it's not like san jose doesn't have a stop for Altamont, it will probably be like 50% sj, 50% sf. but if we go for Pacheco, people in stockton and would get 0%, i reckon that would really suck for people living in that area.

As pointed out, Stockton will be connected to the HSR line the second phase that adds Sacramento (they may even be built simultaneously). And Stockton already has a commuter line, it's called the Altamont Commuter Express. HSR is not meant for local commutes to get you to work in the morning; it's meant to substitute/compliment flights from the Bay and Sac to SoCal.

Originally Posted by YohIMhER

i for one think there shouldn't be a station in oakland because bart is already readily accessible in the city with sf only few stops away.

Oakland needs a station: it is the hub of the East Bay economy. And again, part of the purpose of HSR is to reduce air traffic congestion and OAK is expected to get busier.

Originally Posted by YohIMhER

but i bet Pacheco alignment will prevail, it's a political wrestling after all, and south bay generally has a louder voice in the government. in the end, it's not about how many people will be benefited, it's about WHO will be benefited, just another case of exploiting the poors. as the saying goes, the poorer will get poorer while the rich will get richer.

Yes, it's surely politcal to put more trains where more people and money are. Hmmm.

[phattonez]

There are more people along Altamont.

CAHSR will be used as commuter rail in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and San Diego. It is the express trains which will bypass flights.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by phattonez

There are more people along Altamont.

CAHSR will be used as commuter rail in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and San Diego. It is the express trains which will bypass flights.

Altamont is a long stretch of nothing. There will be service at both ends, just not in the middle. Figure it out. Nobody's being neglected. They just can't use it to commute the short distance from the Central Valley to the Bay Area.

[YohIMhER]

altamont is more practical because of (1) it serves more people, (2) it can serve both as a commuter line and long-distance line by skipping stops, whilst Pacheco can only serve as a long-distance line, less versatility, (3) more revenue can be generated through the use of commuters, (4) it connects to the major cities like san jose, san francisco as well as the commuter's community, it's more multifaceted than Pacheco which excludes commuters community. (5) Altamont has favored by environmental group because it has less impact to the environment.

those are the direct impacts. basically, the main difference is that Altamont include commuter's communities and Pacheco doesn't while both cover major cities. The essence of public transportation such as this california high speed rail is not merely a substitution for air travel, it is set out to reduce pollution which, hope you already know, is also produced by congested traffic on commuter highways, not just airplanes, as well as achieving oil-dependence which, hope you already know, is hindered by congested highway.

i understand where you guys are coming from, since you live in south bay it's only natural for you to be biased toward Pacheco alignment. but i have the same interest as you, i live in san francisco, both routes doesn't make that much of a difference to me, i am also a weekend resident of pleasanton, and it's my interest to not see a bullet train flying pass my house. I am just being logical here, and hope you guys do too.

[krudmonk]

High Speed Rail should not be bogged down by commuters. That's why we have Altamont Commuter Express (the name says it all). Frequency of trips from major cities is cut down by Altamont and its spurs. Furthermore, pollution from sprawl should be eliminated at the source: SPRAWL. Not everyone who buys a McMansion in Tracy is going to use HSR anyway. Why should the urban areas pay to put band-aids on bullet wounds?