News

Tunnels dropped as Midpeninsula rail option

 

Deep tunnels and covered trenches have been dropped as alternatives for the Palo Alto/Midpeninsula portion of the state's high-speed-line under the latest plan from the California High Speed Rail Authority, officials disclosed today (Thursday).

The agency dropped the tunnel and cut-and-cover alternatives despite heavy lobbying on their behalf by Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Mountain View and other Midpeninsula cities.

A short tunnel under San Francisquito Creek is a possibility, the report indicates -- which would facilitate flood-control planning and possibly remove threats to the root system of the landmark El Palo Alto redwood tree.

The authority board is discussing design options for the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment of the line at its meeting today in San Francisco.

A new staff report lists just two design options for the Peninsula segment: one relies on at-grade and aerial structures and another includes tunnels at several portions of the segment. Tunneling is still an option for a stretch in San Francisco, in the Burlingame/Millbrae area and in Santa Clara.

But in Palo Alto, where city leaders and residents have long clamored for an underground tunnel, deep tunnels and covered trenches now appear to be off the table. The only design options recommended by staff engineers are a at-grade trains, aerial viaducts and open trenches, according to a staff summary made public at the meeting.

According to the Supplemental Alternative Analysis, the covered-trench alternative in the Palo Alto area is "impracticable due to major constructability issues" and presents significant ventilation and life safety problems.

A deep tunnel would "result in critical risks due to ground conditions, have major constructability issues, lengthy construction schedule and substantial cost features," the report said.

"Partially or completely covered trench or short-tunnel sections may be constructed to ameliorate either narrow right of way or environmental concerns" on the Peninsula segment, the report states.

"The San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto could be a location where a short tunnel underneath the creek would be necessary in order to not interfere with the creek's water flow," it states.

It says that in other sections, trenching would be designed "to not preclude future decking or coverage.

"This would allow cities to cover sections of the trench if they found it desirable and if it were acceptable by Caltrain and the Authority."

Covered sections of less than 600 feet could be added later "without requiring sophisticated fire/life safety systems," it said.

The new analysis also recommends a horizontal four-track configuration for the new rail system, with Caltrain operating on the outside two tracks and high-speed trains on the inside tracks. Earlier this year, the rail authority's engineers considered designs that stack two tracks over two tracks. Since then, they had determined that such a system would require considerable right-of-way acquisitions at locations where the horizontal tracks transition into stacked tracks.

Bob Doty, director of the Peninsula Rail Program, said the horizontal four-track alignment also gives the Caltrain and high-speed-rail systems more flexibility and more options for sharing stations and tracks. The Peninsula Rail Program, a partnership of the rail authority and Caltrain, is responsible for deigning the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment for the high-speed-rail system, which would ultimately stretch to Los Angeles.

The authority's board of directors approved the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis unanimously with little discussion. The board also heard from dozens of speakers, including union members and business leaders who said they support the controversial project, and elected officials and residents who criticized it.

Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline thanked the board for improving its communications with local leaders and said he supports trenches over freeways. Burligname Vice Mayor Terry Nagel asked the board to keep the locally popular covered-trench option on the table.

"We would like the below-grade options to be carried forward, including a trench that would be covered adjacent to homes and busineses," Nagel said. "We would then have something we can sell to our constituents instead of just doing damage control."

Doty said the new analysis doesn't eliminate options so much as "focus" them. He also indicated that the system's design could still change as engineering work continues.

"If these don't work, we may have to go to something else," Doty said.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Ol' Homeboy
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Why doesn't the California High Speed Rail Authority just be honest and say, "It's more money than we want to spend, so F... You!"


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Ol Homeboy asks: "Why doesn't the California High Speed Rail Authority just be honest and say, "It's more money than we want to spend, so F... You!""

That's what they did.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of another community
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm

I am going to vote Meg regardless but if she promises to do something to stop this distructive high speed rail she will win the election.


Like this comment
Posted by justice
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm

has the brady bunch and the stone pine lane gang shot themselves in the foot or don't they really give a hoot. If you've listened to what they say it's DELAY, DELAY, DELAY UNTIL HIGH SPEED RAIL GOES AWAY!


Like this comment
Posted by Mike McPherson
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm

This is very disheartening, and shows how disingenuous the CHSRA is. I was there this morning; their Supplemental Alternatives Analysis was not available on the website until AFTER the meeting commenced. That means the CHSRA BOD could not have reviewed the findings, or else the information was purposely withheld from the public. Almost all of the Peninsula representatives who spoke asked that trench or tunnel options continue to be considered; but the San Francisco politicians, who couldn't wait to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway and part of the Central Expressway to open up boulevards in their own city, are anxious for this project, and they don't care if we all have to live with aerial structures. VERY dirty politics.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm

HSR is so economically unfeasible that it will never happen. Unfortunately the funeral will be long, drawn out and very expensive.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

The cost of the HSR funeral could be reduced if Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton have the courage to vote against HSR as did the City of Orange. Their Resolution calls out the State for:

* Using eminent domain powers to cut through neighborhoods and business centers

* A viable finance plan to fund construction does not currently exist, and current plans lay out an unrealistic scenario.

* The State Auditor Report says, “The program risks significant delays without more well developed plans for obtaining or replacing federal funds.”

* The CHSRA ridership and revenue scenario for the CHSR has been inflated in order to continue to move this project forward with unachievable goals.

* Increasing fiscal costs to complete the project.

The Federal government will never provide funds for HSR IF a significant number of cities on the proposed right of way officially oppose the project.


Like this comment
Posted by R,Gordon
a resident of another community
on Aug 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm

Well, I hate to be the one to say I told you so, but the Peninsula and its homes are NOT on the "King's Highway"...........
Tunnelling was out of the question EVERYONE had Meg Whitman's money.
Incidentally, M.W., it is rumored, is going to have some legal problems involving BANK SIZED law suits involving her company and her campaign output is now approaching 120 million. Not a lot to some of us, but enough to keep her from winnng an election.
What have you all got against the HSR? Now is the time to buy one of those Historical Homes which cannot be touched by eminent domain laws.They ARE old and ugly and need work, but you need not look at the bullet trains when built.


Like this comment
Posted by Joseph E. Davis
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 5, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Nobody has the $10,000 per inch needed for tunneling. Of course, we don't have the $1000 per inch for HSR outside of a tunnel either.


Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:07 am

It was as good as built when Bush was out of office.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm

The following email was sent to the Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto City Councils.

************
Yesterday's HSRA announcement that they fully intend to destroy our communities with a surface alignment of HSR demonstrates that the HSRA neither has the funding to do this project right nor are they listening to our elected officials. I urge the Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto Councils to follow in the footsteps of Orange City and bring this economically unfeasible and socially destructive project to an end.

While I personally believe that HSR is so economically unfeasible that it will never happen, the funeral will be long, drawn out and very expensive. The cost of the HSR funeral could be reduced if Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton have the courage to vote against HSR as did the City of Orange.

The Orange City Resolution calls out the State for:
* Using eminent domain powers to cut through neighborhoods and business centers
* A viable finance plan to fund construction does not currently exist, and current plans lay out an unrealistic scenario.
* The State Auditor Report says, “The program risks significant delays without more well developed plans for obtaining or replacing federal funds.”
* The CHSRA ridership and revenue scenario for the CHSR has been inflated in order to continue to move this project forward with unachievable goals.
* Increasing fiscal costs to complete the project.

******************************************

In my opinion the Federal government will never provide funds for HSR IF a significant number of cities on the proposed right of way officially oppose the project.


Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Aug 6, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Peter, I do believe you are sincere and correct in your proposal of getting people to work in concert.
You KNOW they won't.
The plan is definitely something which I feel is inevitable and hope the really good people are not affected by it other than a superficial way.


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Aug 6, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Is it coincidence that Peter takes this position after Lee Duboc sends out a missive? First, where was Lee for the last three years? Thanks for playing. Watching Peter react to Lee's position is like watching a baby bird get a worm stuffed down its gullet by its mommy.

If it wasn't for Martin and Kathy and Morris and a huge list of residents along with Mayor Cline who has taken this on since 1A was dangling around, we would be in very bad shape.

Peter was nowhere to be found. Lee had her head in the sand.

Glad we don't have to have you standing for us.


Like this comment
Posted by May
a resident of another community
on Aug 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm

If I can vote, I'll definitely vote against HSR. I strongly believe the ridership will not bring enough income. This project needs to stop!


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 6, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Untruth states:"Is it coincidence that Peter takes this position after Lee Duboc sends out a missive"

Wrong - I have stated my position on HSR on this Forum long before Lee sent out her 5 August email.

The problem with Untruth is that he/she simply doesn't know the facts or, worse, chooses to lie about the facts.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 9, 2010 at 10:10 am

Let's wait for this - it will have to be underground!!

**************

China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train

High-speed rail just got a whole lot faster.

China is reportedly developing a high-speed train that will travel at 1,000 kilometers per hour, or approx. 621 miles per hour, through Maglev lines in airless tubes underground.

Researchers at the National Power Traction Laboratory of Southwest Jiaotong University reportedly told Beijing-based Legal Evening News that they were working on a prototype “vactrain” with an average speed of 500 to 600 kilometers per hour (approx. 311 to 373 miles per hour.)

The researchers say the technology could be in use within a decade. In the meantime, a smaller model train may be introduced in two or three years, they said.

The technology at the heart of the train is Maglev, short for magnetic levitation, technology. A concept that’s been around for more than 100 years, Maglev tech entails the suspension of a train via powerful magnets to remove the friction present at the rails of conventional trains.

The catch with maglev technology is that there’s still friction from the air rushing past the train as it hurtles down the tracks. To date, the fastest Maglev train managed about 361 miles per hour — not much faster than a conventional high-speed train.

But an airless tube — a vacuum — would remove that air drag, allowing for impressive speeds. (The trains themselves will contain pressurized air, just like an airplane.) A cheaper alternative to removing the air completely is to depressurize it, the researchers say.

Inventor and ET3 CEO Daryl Oster holds the U.S. patent for Evacuated Tube Transport, or ETT, technology. As you might expect, Oster has reportedly been working with Chinese researchers Shen Zhiyun, Zhang Yaoping and Wang Jiasu at the university on the concept.

The researchers say the train is cost-competitive with a traditional high-speed train because it has a smaller tunnel and requires less boring.

Here’s a rather rosy video about an existing maglev system in China, via the eagle-eyed folks at AltTransport:



The best use of such train technology? Transoceanic travel. One proposal by Channel Tunnel pioneer Frank Davidson and engineer Yoshihiro Kyonati entailed floating a tube above the ocean floor, anchored with cables.

Call it the Concorde 2.0: live in New York, work in London. Or travel from New York to Los Angeles in 45 minutes, according to Oster’s calculations.

A 2007 Worcester Polytechnic Institute report (.pdf) elaborates:

The Vactrain outweighs the current modes of transport in several ways, making it a ground-breaking idea. It has a clear edge over present airplanes, trains and automobiles as it causes no pollution and does not operate with gas or petroleum. Thus, while the present transportation would soon be in a sticky situation with the energy crises which the world is facing with dwindling resources of petroleum and gas, the Vactrain would emerge victorious. Moreover, the Vactrain is unaffected by any extremes in weather conditions. It has low maintenance costs as it employs the high-lifetime maglev technology, which also minimized wear due to friction. Additionally, it has low operation costs and 25% energy consumption when compared to aircrafts. Due to all these factors, the Vactrain triumphs over the current means not just in the future but even in present situations making it highly superior.

The Chinese aren’t the only ones working on a vactrain, by the way: according to the report, both the U.S. and Switzerland are developing similar technology.

Illustrations: ET3


Like this comment
Posted by tom h
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 9, 2010 at 1:01 pm

better than laying low how about laying on the tracks.
Just a joke.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm

California does not have the population density to support HSR as compared to France and Japan.

Here are their respective population densities:

California 235.68 people/sq/mi

Japan 873.077

France 1,716.743

Japan is over 3 times as dense and France is 7.5 times as dense as California. And both of their HSR systems are also substantially subsidized.


Like this comment
Posted by Roxie
a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Aug 9, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Peter,
Your propaganda is so lame.

California might have an overall density of 253.68, but let's consider where the rail is going:

Sacramento County: 1451 people per square mile
San Mateo County: 1601 people per square mile
Santa Clara County:1383 people per square mile
San Jose (City): 5517 people per square mile
Santa Cruz county: 575 people per square mile (still more that twice your number even with all those mountains)

California Coastline Counties overall: 721 people per square mile

La County: 2427
Los Angeles (City): 7876
San Diego County: 727 people per square mile
San Diego (City): 4028 people per square mile

And of course, my favorite
San Francisco County: 17,462 people per square mile,


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 8:06 am

Roxie - your logic is flawed.

It makes no difference how dense the nodes are if there is a long distance between the nodes with very low population densities. It still costs $1000 per inch to build HSR even in those areas where there are no potential users. Your data is a persuasive case for investing in local transit to serve the dense areas which you identified.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 8:27 am

Roxie's logic would suggest that the best HSR plan would be to link LA, Tokyo, Lagos and New York.


Like this comment
Posted by Joseph E. Davis
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm

As a result of the comprehensive looting and pillaging of the public coffers by public sector unions and their corrupt politician friends, California has nowhere near the $1,000 per inch required to build HSR.

As a result, some kind of crippled and useless (but face-saving) system will be produced, no doubt with a maximum of visual blight, after years of delays.

One really has to laugh...


Like this comment
Posted by Hank Lawrence
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Aug 10, 2010 at 12:42 pm

How about dropping the peninsula as an HSR option?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm

"Probably no country in the world is better suited to high-speed rail than Japan. From Greater Tokyo, one of the world's largest and densest metropolitan areas, rail lines travel to chains of other large, dense cities typically located 25 to 50 miles apart.

As of 1949, most rail lines in Japan were owned by Japanese National Railways (JNR), a government corporation. Although nationalized, JNR was not subsidized and had earned a profit, or at least broken even, every year until it began building high-speed rail lines. As of 1960, Japanese rail lines carried conventional trains at conventional speeds. In that year, autos accounted for just 5 percent of Japanese travel, while rails carried 77 percent.

Then construction began on the Shinkansen, the world's first high-speed rail system. The first bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka proved highly profitable, and it has carried more people than all other high-speed rail trains in the world combined.

Once this line was built, however, Japanese politicians demanded bullet trains for their own cities and prefectures. With one exception, all lines built since the first one have lost money. Japan's experience shows that once a nation starts building high-speed rail, political forces make it hard to stop. Despite the need for huge subsidies that Japan cannot afford, the nation's taxpayers are forced to pay for high-speed lines into the prefectures of every powerful politician in the country.

These and other political factors have driven up bullet train costs, and caused Japanese National Railways to switch from a profit-making venture, before 1964, to a money loser ever since. JNR raised passenger fares, but that only pushed more people off the trains and into automobiles. Total automobile travel surpassed rail travel in 1977 and has kept on growing. Between 1965 and 2005, per capita driving increased by more than 900 percent, while per capita rail travel increased only 19 percent.

By 1987, expansion of bullet-train services and other below-cost operations had swelled JNR's debt to more than $350 billion. That high debt load led to a financial crisis, which significantly contributed to the nation's economic woes of the last two decades. The government was forced to absorb JNR's debt and privatize the railways.

As of 2007, rail's share of Japanese passenger travel had declined to 29 percent, which may still be more than in any other country in the world. And the average Japanese person travels about 1,950 miles per year by train, which is definitely more than people in any other country. But only about 20 percent of those rail miles are by high-speed rail. Automobiles carry 60 percent of passenger travel, and the remainder is divided between bus and domestic air.

After adjusting for inflation, Japan has spent about the same amount of money per capita on high-speed rail as the United States has spent on the interstate highway system. Yet the returns to Japan's mobility from its investment are far smaller: the average American travels 10 times as many miles on the interstates as the average Japanese travels by high-speed rail.

A final interesting feature of the Japanese government's emphasis on passenger rail is that it has had a detrimental effect on freight rail. Rail carries only about 4 percent of Japanese freight, while highways carry 60 percent. By contrast, more than a third of freight goes by rail in the United States, while highways carry a little more than one-fourth.
European Experience

Europe's experience with high-speed rail provides another cautionary tale for the United States. As in Japan, high-speed rail in Europe is a money loser and it carries relatively few passengers. Italy introduced high-speed trains to Europe in 1978, and France followed with the Paris-Lyon train à grande vitesse (TGV) in 1981. Germany and other countries followed a few years after that.

France has been the European leader in high-speed rail. French trains carry 54 percent of Europe's high-speed rail passenger-miles, followed by Germany at 26 percent, and Italy at 10 percent. More than half of all rail travel in France is on high-speed trains, but in the overall European Union, nearly four out of five rail passengers still travel at conventional speeds.

When operating at high speeds, the French TGVs run on dedicated tracks. But TGV trains also operate on conventional tracks at normal speeds. In fact, while TGV trains may be seen throughout France, they only operate at high speeds between Paris and a few other cities. Germany's high-speed intercity express trains operate at their highest speeds only on selected routes, such as Berlin-Hamburg.

High-speed rail has done little to change European travel habits. In 1980, intercity rail accounted for 8.2 percent of passenger travel in the 15 countries in the European Union at the time. By 2000, the share in those countries had declined to 6.3 percent, and it has fallen further since then. Meanwhile, automobiles have modestly gained market share in recent decades. But the real challenge to high-speed rail has come from low-cost airlines. Thanks to deregulation of European airlines, the domestic airline share of passenger travel has more than doubled.

Because of the prominence of high-speed rail in France and Germany, rail has a higher share of passenger travel in those countries than in the rest of Europe. But the automobile's share of travel in both France and Germany is also higher than in the rest of Europe. The average French resident travels 7,600 miles per year by auto. By comparison, the average French resident travels about 400 miles per year on high-speed trains. In the European Union as a whole, the average is only about 100 miles per year. Rail's higher share in France and Germany comes at the expense of bus travel, not auto driving."
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 10, 2010 at 6:40 pm

What was the point of having HSR here again? Oh, that's right, it's publicly funded so it keeps a lot of union construction workers employed. Boondoggle.


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Aug 10, 2010 at 6:51 pm

Peter was nowhere to be found on this issue when 1A came along. No leadership, just cut and paste.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Truth - Yes, you may go outside and play.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:00 pm

and where were you truth? where were you?


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Here I was, on September 3rd, 2008, before the darn 1A vote when only Cline and Fergusson took any stand on this issue publicly.

"Posted by truth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm

These comments are nothing but lobbyist junkies paid to spam our forum. If you can prove your existence at the study session, I will be shocked. But I will keep a list handy for:

Dave

Thomas

Doug

Helen

Justin

Eric

None of you are arguing any merits of the the debate well at all. You both sound like you are stuck thumb sucking your own position too much to see the real world. HSR is not the greatest thing to happen by any means and it is not going to destroy our entire town.

But we should have a right to questions its merits and challenge our officials to answer questions directly without lobbyist forum hacks and bullies.

If you disagree with that -- your are nothing more than a fascist. And you are hence not worth any time at all.

I back by council's right to get answers and I credit them for having the fortitude to do it, knowing that the great liberal lions will bring down the house."


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Truth - your eloquence is simply overwhelming. Time to go back outside and play.


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Aug 10, 2010 at 11:21 pm

At least I was there, Peter, before and after and before election seasons. All I see from you is the same politicking we see all over the country. Opportunistic garbage at the right time to try to give your boy -- Ohtaki -- who was also nowhere to be found, a lift.

HSR has become popular for Republicans now so they come out with the same drivel. Watch how many of the candidates try to take some populist stand now after silence for all these years.

Go home Peter. Atherton is the name of the town. Where people like Jerry Carlsen and Jim Jantz were fighting HSR long before you decided it trendy.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 11, 2010 at 6:20 am

Truth - The Town Forum is a 'gathering place for sharing community information and opinion' not a place for you to childishly attack others. Source credibility is crucial when having an intelligent and informed discussion - you have managed to totally discredit only yourself.

Please rechannel your intellect and your energies to providing comments, facts and opinions on the issues rather than constantly attacking other posters.


Like this comment
Posted by Good Grief
a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

You gotta be kidding me... people move near the train tracks and then complain about noise from the trains?!? That is retarded. It is reminiscent of those geniuses who move near the airport and then complain about airplane noise. Anyone who does not like the sound of trains would do well not to move near the tracks.

I do live near the train tracks and look forward to the arrival of HSR. At least it will clear out the whining NIMBYs from the neighborhood.


Like this comment
Posted by Member Name
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm

I'm a little late to this game, but why don't they go along the tracks that are closer to the freeway, as opposed to right smack down the middle of our cities?


Like this comment
Posted by martin engel
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm

As you know, and as someone pointed out to me today, the current plan is to do four-track elevated from SF to Redwood City (at least wherever they can get away with it). And then, start again in Mt. View south with four-track elevated.

That means skipping over PAMPA (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton), leaving us the two tracks at-grade for the time being.

We who live in PAMPA should not breathe easy. Once they start construction north and south of us, that locks us in. We will be way past negotiating any other alternative route or alignment.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be a lawsuit about the Program-level EIS/EIR. There should be.

There should also be a lawsuit about Caltrain's electrification if they use ARRA and/or Prop. 1A funds.

With 2% gradient max., they can't just go up and down like a roller-coaster. Let's just say, they are saving us for last, when they will stick elevated to us. It's the cheapest way to go with all the cross streets.

Does the PCC understand that? Negotiation time is over. Accommodation time, 'let's-do-it-right' time is over. (Who do we expect to "do it right?" Pringle, Kopp, Diridon?)

Those of us in PAMPA should stop concerning ourselves about what we do and don't want for our own town, and pay attention to what they will do to the rest of the ROW. That's why is is absolutely critical for all the Peninsula corridor cities to stand together to reject the HSR on the Caltrain corridor.

All 17 corridor towns must create a 'rejection' Resolution: NO HSR ON THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR. People say those resolutions have no legal power. Wrong. They have a great deal of legal power in Sacramento with the Legislature.

Up to now, I've been saying this to deaf ears. To quote Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we surely will all hang separately."


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,386 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 926 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 238 views