Comments on: shot in the arm for bullet train thru Altamont

By: Guy Span

Guy Span — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:27:34 +0000

The Pacheco Pass alternative cuts right through the heart of the last central valley undeveloped wetlands. It also brings the potential of new development to a fairly remote area.

While the Altamont alignment wanders through a nature preserve, environmentalists believe this can be mitigated. Further HSR will impact development, where its aligned, and the impact in developed communities would appear to be less. Indeed the Altamont will speed ACE commuters and shorten the time to Sacramento.

San Jose bitterly opposes the Altamont and foolishly prefers a Gilroy/Pacheco alignment. In Fairness, San Jose, its surrounding communities and Gilroy would be by-passed. But we gain all those Central Valley Towns that will be by-passed by a Pacheco Route.

What this squabbling means is that all the powerful environmental groups oppose Pacheco Pass and will work to Kill it. If the Altamont had been selected Santa Clara and surrounding counties including San Francisco would have worked to kill it.

This simply means that the short-sighted dogfight in our back yard will ensure that the HSR Bond Measure will never pass through either the Altamont or Pacheco. It’s dead, but it’s just not burried.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:07:13 +0000

Reedman, there are environmental arguments to be made on both sides, but I can see why those groups went against Pacheco. I think the tipping factor was the idea that running the thing through a busy corridor, where it could potentially take cars off the road, was better than running it through a now-quiet corridor. Even if they cross their hearts and hope to die that there won’t be a station in the Pacheco Corridor itself, the ability to drive to Gilroy and be in San Francisco in 40 minutes would be a powerful incentive to develop the area between. I don’t think that’s a good reason to not build new transit, i.e., similar arguments made against BART’s Pittsburg/Bay Point line, but “follow the lights” (where development already exists) is a pretty persuasive slogan.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:25:20 +0000

The Sierra Club, Audubon California, the Nature Conservancy, California State Parks Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Planning and Conservation League came out today saying they would only support the Altamont HSR route (essentially telling all politicians that there is no alternative that allows you to be considered an environmentalist).

By: Hayden K.

Hayden K. — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:55:04 +0000

Transitplan,

Would you expand on your citation of the MTC’s regional transportation plan as providing an alternative to a NorCal-SoCal (LA-SF-Sac) high-speed train system? The plan’s focus seems to be appropriately regional in nature (given MTC’s mandate)–but perhaps I missed an important chapter.

By: miked

miked — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:36:48 +0000

I don’t think HSR will bring a rapid link from the bay area to Sacramento. The preference for Pacheco Pass will slow down the building of a more efficient corridor.

I would be interested to know if there is a way to accelerate Capitol Corridor trains to make them substantially faster than driving between the Bay Area and Sacramento. Maybe electrification or some express tracks to avoid freight trains? I would expect this service to see lots of use b/c Sacramento to the Bay Area is in that in-between distance that is too close to fly but driving is still difficult and long. It is the perfect distance for substantial rail transit.

By: Jeff Colantuono

Jeff Colantuono — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:29:25 +0000

will there be an express train between the bay area and sacramento?

thanks

By: Transitplans

Transitplans — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:21:33 +0000

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/tech_report.htm

There is a cheapie alternative to expensive trains. Read on.

By: miked

miked — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:41:35 +0000

I think the larger issue in France is that other unions join the strike. I knew a foreign exchange student in Paris during the Spring 2006 strikes- the Paris Metro on strike just meant less frequent, which was fine b/c so many people went on strike in solidarity that there were more open seats on the trains than on a usual day (meaning there were open seats, since there are no open seats on normal Paris metro commutes).

It’s tough to imagine major public sector strikes in California. Anyway, I think we could use a little more union power.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:27:26 +0000

One of the dangers of trying to have a more “train based”
transportation system is being played-out in France right now.
The lack of alternatives to taking the train means that the
striking civil servants have a lot of leverage, sufficient to essentially
dictate terms-and-conditions to the country’s president. And
since other unions are sympathetic, the air controllers, natural
gas, and electric workers are joining in. France’s economy is about
the size of California’s, and it is presently loosing about 0.5 billion
dollars PER DAY due to the work stoppage.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:12:10 +0000

The way to sell HSR is to get it working between the Bay Area and Sacramento. Once the Bay Area legislative delegation gets used to riding it every day, then there might be the political will to expand the system.

Also, SF and Sac are too close to fly (airport takes too long), but far enough that a train can save substantial time over a car.

This route could also serve the valley to bay commuters, bringing in substantial revenue.