California High Speed Rail - Page 6

dachacon · February 14th, 2009, 10:23 PM

Infoman · February 15th, 2009, 07:02 AM

So how many subway station's does L.A. County have total?
The East Coast has large plan's for extra rail!!!

davsot · February 15th, 2009, 07:24 AM

yea is their a la subway thread hiding around here... I'd like to learn more about their subway..

dachacon · February 15th, 2009, 09:13 AM

here's the link for the transit thread for LA county. drop by and give us your input

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441314

i dont know what expansion projects are planned for the east coast apart from the 2nd Ave subway. here in la there are 2 Light Rail lines under construction, with about 3 more expected to get started by 2015. as far as subways we have 2 lines that have about 15 stations in total. (the subways the red, and purple lines on the map on the first page.) there are plans to extend the purple line to Santa Monica but its being pushed back due to funding issues, and will not open till 2036 at a cost of $7 Billion.

davsot · February 15th, 2009, 09:31 PM

My impressions before visiting the thread: I had read that it was one of the only subway systems in the US without gates, a feature which I really like.

After going to the thread: Looks extensive! Then I was reminded they were talking about enhancing security... I agree with adding some people to help in case of an emergency and have no problems with cameras, but add GATES, please don't do iiittt....

dachacon · February 16th, 2009, 11:36 PM

yeah we don't have gates on any of our train stations. in my opinion it makes the stations more open and inviting, but starting this year there gonna install gates to prevent fare jumpers.
in regards to the rail map it is extensive but when you look at a scaled map of Los Angeles you see that the rail actually doesn't extend or cover much of the city, or county. major expansion is needed and underway. so check back in 5 years and you'll see a difference.

davsot · February 17th, 2009, 03:47 AM

i like the openness. Just do what they do in Europe. Put casually-dressed ticket-people to check if everyone has tickets and whoever doesn't gets fined and there you have a new revenue stream. Instead of spending money on gates use it on new subway lines!

Not lashing out at you guys btw.

dachacon · February 17th, 2009, 08:14 AM

no worries. the sheriff does that right now, along with security. but the transit authority did a study and found that it would not be cost effective to have a sheriff at every station asking people for there passes. they figured to put security gates and have the sheriff work on something else.

MetropolisMayorII · February 18th, 2009, 07:20 PM

High speed rail skeptics win time extension

By Will Oremus

San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 02/18/2009 08:01:04 AM PST

Responding to a growing chorus of calls for more public input, California high-speed rail officials on Tuesday agreed to extend by a month the environmental planning process for the San Jose-to-San Francisco portion of the line. Residents and officials worried about the 125-mile-per-hour trains' impact on Peninsula neighborhoods will now have until April 6 to lodge their comments, concerns and suggestions as to what the environmental analysis should take into account.

The move came on a day when more than 100 Palo Alto residents packed a school board conference room for a question-and-answer session about the project. Dozens signed a petition stating they were "unequivocally opposed to elevation of the tracks in residential neighborhoods" and calling for a popular vote to ratify the California High Speed Rail Authority's plans for the Caltrain corridor. A few called for Palo Alto to join neighboring cities Menlo Park and Atherton in a lawsuit challenging the authority's decision to run the tracks up the Peninsula rather than through the East Bay.

Though Peninsula voters generally favored the $40 billion Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project in a November bond measure, anxiety is growing among those close to the Caltrain tracks, fueled by rumors of eminent domain takings and 40-foot-high electrical lines. Some are pushing for the rail authority to put the tracks underground, others for the line to stop in San Jose, forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco.

The authority, meanwhile, is trying to reassure residents that it will listen to them before making any final decisions. Dan Leavitt, deputy director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, said the current comment period is only the first of several on the path to eventual approval of the environmental documents. He said the authority will use the extension to sponsor additional information meetings in several cities.

"The Peninsula has always been pretty supportive of this notion" of high-speed rail, Leavitt said. "The key is they want to make sure it's done in a way that benefits their communities, and we believe it will."

The extension came in response to a formal request from Palo Alto Mayor Peter Drekmeier. He was echoing calls for more time from Council Member Yoriko Kishimoto and officials in other cities.

Kishimoto said she was pleased with the authority's decision. "I think it shows they're being responsive to public concerns. It will definitely help us with putting together a more comprehensive response" to the authority's request for input on the scope of the upcoming environmental study. "Staff is going to be scrambling to put together a fairly detailed technical response, involving everything from public works to utilities. I'm sure all the cities face that same challenge."

In fact, Atherton this week is submitting a 28-page letter detailing its concerns, including a request to send the tracks through an underground tunnel rather than lifting them above residential cross streets. High-speed rail has been the subject of contentious meetings there and in Menlo Park since early last year, a time when it hardly registered on the radar of officials and residents in Palo Alto.

In many other cities, there is still no controversy. A presentation by high-speed rail officials at a Burlingame City Council meeting Tuesday drew little comment from either residents or council members.

Palo Alto, along with Redwood City, faces an additional question beyond how to integrate high-speed trains with the residential neighborhoods: whether to compete for one of two potential Peninsula stops on the line. Millbrae, with its proximity to San Francisco International Airport, is a shoo-in for the other stop.

Some at Tuesday's meeting expressed reservations at the prospect of a major station in Palo Alto, which could require an 800-car parking garage and serve as a focal point for high-density development. Sara Armstrong, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, worried a Palo Alto station could endanger El Palo Alto, the historic redwood tree that gave the city its name.

Leavitt said that while it's good for residents to help shape the design of the line, they shouldn't forget that it presents benefits as well as challenges. It will reduce air pollution and traffic, make the Caltrain line more safe by eliminating crossings, and be quieter than Caltrain's diesel-powered trains. "I think that's why, if you look at the vote on high-speed rail, the Peninsula was one of the most positive in the state," he said.

The next high-speed rail meeting in Palo Alto will be on Feb. 26 at Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road.

dachacon · February 19th, 2009, 02:08 AM

watch out the NIMBY's are at it again!!!!

davsot · February 19th, 2009, 03:59 AM

nooooooooooooo. Don't you see??? It's all a conspiracy!!!

Is the top speed officially set at 125 MPH? Couldn't we try going a little higher? PLease?

arturo · February 19th, 2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davsot

nooooooooooooo. Don't you see??? It's all a conspiracy!!!

Is the top speed officially set at 125 MPH? Couldn't we try going a little higher? PLease?

125MPH will be the max on the Peninsula and probably all other urban areas.

bluesbrother42fs · February 20th, 2009, 08:23 AM

WOW! Stop the line @ San Jose and then FORCE THEM TO TRANSFER TO A SLOWER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE URBAN CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA!?

Those NIMBY's are so ridiculous. But that's okay, San Jose will be the definite transportation hub of the bay area very soon.

JoshuaSantos · February 20th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Now if only we could get a baseball stadium placed right next to that transportation center to keep the shark tank company....

But I digress, to heck with those NIMBYs. We all make some sacrifices for the greater good and this isn't really that big of a sacrifice to ask for. The trains will be much quieter and removed from the flow of traffic.

MetropolisMayorII · February 20th, 2009, 10:06 AM

A wise man once said, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

...or the rich.

davsot · February 21st, 2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arturo

125MPH will be the max on the Peninsula and probably all other urban areas.

I'm sorry but that's just depressing. In EU, that's the minimum required to be classified as HSR. I wanted to 300 km/h (186 m/h), but it's okay, you win some you lose some.

We can make 'em faster later on, right?

krudmonk · February 21st, 2009, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davsot

I'm sorry but that's just depressing. In EU, that's the minimum required to be classified as HSR. I wanted to 300 km/h (186 m/h), but it's okay, you win some you lose some.

We can make 'em faster later on, right?

Uh, a large majority of the length is through rural areas. Relax.

davsot · February 21st, 2009, 09:05 PM

An article by the NYT says that the train will go up to 220 MPH.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us...l.html?_r=1&hp

JoshuaSantos · February 21st, 2009, 09:33 PM

After Gilroy, the route becomes very rural and there should be minimal speed restrictions. I think the 220 MPH limit is more because of technology limitations... it would have been really nice to see this done using Maglev.

davsot · February 22nd, 2009, 08:46 AM

But to convince Republicans that MagLev is necessary? I mean California was spearheading this with their own funding and if it weren't for the stimulus bill, the process would have been frozen. I mean, I was surprised Schwarzenegger hadn't asked Bush for money before for the project and it was hard enough convincing Rep. Senators that LA/LV was a good idea. I mean yeah I guess MagLev would've been interesting.

It's all up to the East Coast now!

February 15th, 2009, 07:02 AM	#102
Infoman /BMOREBOY Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Greenville Posts: 2,957 Likes (Received): 5	So how many subway station's does L.A. County have total? The East Coast has large plan's for extra rail!!! __________________ -Infoman/BMOREBOY

February 18th, 2009, 07:20 PM	#109
MetropolisMayorII Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: The Capital of Silicon Valley Posts: 44 Likes (Received): 0	UGHHHHHH!!!! High speed rail skeptics win time extension By Will Oremus San Jose Mercury News Posted: 02/18/2009 08:01:04 AM PST Responding to a growing chorus of calls for more public input, California high-speed rail officials on Tuesday agreed to extend by a month the environmental planning process for the San Jose-to-San Francisco portion of the line. Residents and officials worried about the 125-mile-per-hour trains' impact on Peninsula neighborhoods will now have until April 6 to lodge their comments, concerns and suggestions as to what the environmental analysis should take into account. The move came on a day when more than 100 Palo Alto residents packed a school board conference room for a question-and-answer session about the project. Dozens signed a petition stating they were "unequivocally opposed to elevation of the tracks in residential neighborhoods" and calling for a popular vote to ratify the California High Speed Rail Authority's plans for the Caltrain corridor. A few called for Palo Alto to join neighboring cities Menlo Park and Atherton in a lawsuit challenging the authority's decision to run the tracks up the Peninsula rather than through the East Bay. Though Peninsula voters generally favored the $40 billion Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project in a November bond measure, anxiety is growing among those close to the Caltrain tracks, fueled by rumors of eminent domain takings and 40-foot-high electrical lines. Some are pushing for the rail authority to put the tracks underground, others for the line to stop in San Jose, forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco. The authority, meanwhile, is trying to reassure residents that it will listen to them before making any final decisions. Dan Leavitt, deputy director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, said the current comment period is only the first of several on the path to eventual approval of the environmental documents. He said the authority will use the extension to sponsor additional information meetings in several cities. "The Peninsula has always been pretty supportive of this notion" of high-speed rail, Leavitt said. "The key is they want to make sure it's done in a way that benefits their communities, and we believe it will." The extension came in response to a formal request from Palo Alto Mayor Peter Drekmeier. He was echoing calls for more time from Council Member Yoriko Kishimoto and officials in other cities. Kishimoto said she was pleased with the authority's decision. "I think it shows they're being responsive to public concerns. It will definitely help us with putting together a more comprehensive response" to the authority's request for input on the scope of the upcoming environmental study. "Staff is going to be scrambling to put together a fairly detailed technical response, involving everything from public works to utilities. I'm sure all the cities face that same challenge." In fact, Atherton this week is submitting a 28-page letter detailing its concerns, including a request to send the tracks through an underground tunnel rather than lifting them above residential cross streets. High-speed rail has been the subject of contentious meetings there and in Menlo Park since early last year, a time when it hardly registered on the radar of officials and residents in Palo Alto. In many other cities, there is still no controversy. A presentation by high-speed rail officials at a Burlingame City Council meeting Tuesday drew little comment from either residents or council members. Palo Alto, along with Redwood City, faces an additional question beyond how to integrate high-speed trains with the residential neighborhoods: whether to compete for one of two potential Peninsula stops on the line. Millbrae, with its proximity to San Francisco International Airport, is a shoo-in for the other stop. Some at Tuesday's meeting expressed reservations at the prospect of a major station in Palo Alto, which could require an 800-car parking garage and serve as a focal point for high-density development. Sara Armstrong, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, worried a Palo Alto station could endanger El Palo Alto, the historic redwood tree that gave the city its name. Leavitt said that while it's good for residents to help shape the design of the line, they shouldn't forget that it presents benefits as well as challenges. It will reduce air pollution and traffic, make the Caltrain line more safe by eliminating crossings, and be quieter than Caltrain's diesel-powered trains. "I think that's why, if you look at the vote on high-speed rail, the Peninsula was one of the most positive in the state," he said. The next high-speed rail meeting in Palo Alto will be on Feb. 26 at Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road.

February 20th, 2009, 08:23 AM	#113
bluesbrother42fs Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 122 Likes (Received): 0	LOL WOW! Stop the line @ San Jose and then FORCE THEM TO TRANSFER TO A SLOWER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE URBAN CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA!? Those NIMBY's are so ridiculous. But that's okay, San Jose will be the definite transportation hub of the bay area very soon.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 14th, 2009, 10:23 PM	#101
dachacon Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 789 Likes (Received): 0

February 15th, 2009, 07:24 AM	#103
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	yea is their a la subway thread hiding around here... I'd like to learn more about their subway..

February 15th, 2009, 09:13 AM	#104
dachacon Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 789 Likes (Received): 0	here's the link for the transit thread for LA county. drop by and give us your input http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441314 i dont know what expansion projects are planned for the east coast apart from the 2nd Ave subway. here in la there are 2 Light Rail lines under construction, with about 3 more expected to get started by 2015. as far as subways we have 2 lines that have about 15 stations in total. (the subways the red, and purple lines on the map on the first page.) there are plans to extend the purple line to Santa Monica but its being pushed back due to funding issues, and will not open till 2036 at a cost of $7 Billion.

February 15th, 2009, 09:31 PM	#105
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	My impressions before visiting the thread: I had read that it was one of the only subway systems in the US without gates, a feature which I really like. After going to the thread: Looks extensive! Then I was reminded they were talking about enhancing security... I agree with adding some people to help in case of an emergency and have no problems with cameras, but add GATES, please don't do iiittt....

February 16th, 2009, 11:36 PM	#106
dachacon Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 789 Likes (Received): 0	yeah we don't have gates on any of our train stations. in my opinion it makes the stations more open and inviting, but starting this year there gonna install gates to prevent fare jumpers. in regards to the rail map it is extensive but when you look at a scaled map of Los Angeles you see that the rail actually doesn't extend or cover much of the city, or county. major expansion is needed and underway. so check back in 5 years and you'll see a difference.

February 17th, 2009, 03:47 AM	#107
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	i like the openness. Just do what they do in Europe. Put casually-dressed ticket-people to check if everyone has tickets and whoever doesn't gets fined and there you have a new revenue stream. Instead of spending money on gates use it on new subway lines! Not lashing out at you guys btw.

February 17th, 2009, 08:14 AM	#108
dachacon Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 789 Likes (Received): 0	no worries. the sheriff does that right now, along with security. but the transit authority did a study and found that it would not be cost effective to have a sheriff at every station asking people for there passes. they figured to put security gates and have the sheriff work on something else.

February 19th, 2009, 02:08 AM	#110
dachacon Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 789 Likes (Received): 0	watch out the NIMBY's are at it again!!!!

February 19th, 2009, 03:59 AM	#111
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	nooooooooooooo. Don't you see??? It's all a conspiracy!!! Is the top speed officially set at 125 MPH? Couldn't we try going a little higher? PLease?

February 20th, 2009, 08:47 AM	#114
JoshuaSantos thesanjoseblog.com Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Jose Posts: 481 Likes (Received): 3	Now if only we could get a baseball stadium placed right next to that transportation center to keep the shark tank company.... But I digress, to heck with those NIMBYs. We all make some sacrifices for the greater good and this isn't really that big of a sacrifice to ask for. The trains will be much quieter and removed from the flow of traffic.

February 20th, 2009, 10:06 AM	#115
MetropolisMayorII Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: The Capital of Silicon Valley Posts: 44 Likes (Received): 0	A wise man once said, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." ...or the rich.

February 21st, 2009, 09:05 PM	#118
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	An article by the NYT says that the train will go up to 220 MPH. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us...l.html?_r=1&hp

February 21st, 2009, 09:33 PM	#119
JoshuaSantos thesanjoseblog.com Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Jose Posts: 481 Likes (Received): 3	After Gilroy, the route becomes very rural and there should be minimal speed restrictions. I think the 220 MPH limit is more because of technology limitations... it would have been really nice to see this done using Maglev.

February 22nd, 2009, 08:46 AM	#120
davsot Perro que ladra no muerde Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,263 Likes (Received): 2	But to convince Republicans that MagLev is necessary? I mean California was spearheading this with their own funding and if it weren't for the stimulus bill, the process would have been frozen. I mean, I was surprised Schwarzenegger hadn't asked Bush for money before for the project and it was hard enough convincing Rep. Senators that LA/LV was a good idea. I mean yeah I guess MagLev would've been interesting. It's all up to the East Coast now!