Today's High Speed Rail Authority meeting drew a standing room only crowd in San Jose to provide public comment and to review the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis that has just been released.
HSRA Board member Ron Diridion (3rd from left in the photo below) started things off on the wrong foot by claiming that the majority of the people in the room were for high speed rail. Since there were more than 500 people in the room, who knows how he would know that and the audience reaction was swift. His comments comparing HSR opposition to the opponents of the Golden Gate bridge project were way off-base since the history according to goldengatebridge.org noted "Strong opposition emerged from well-financed special interests, particularly ferry companies." The opposition to HSR is neither well-financed nor representing competing commercial interests like the airlines. Diridion did not appear to even listen to much of the public comment. Quentin Kopp gave the same impression after his late arrival.
Much of the public comment focussed on protecting neighborhoods from the Peninsula to the Gardner, North Willow Glen and Gregory Plaza sections of San Jose. Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock reminded the Board members of B'game's numerous residents, community center and high school that are east of the tracks as well as the proximity of the historic train station and the commercial districts. She reiterated the City's desire for the train to be underground to protect all of these constituents.
Burlingame had more than a dozen residents present including members of CBB, Don't Railroad Us and the newly formed HSR-PREP group who displayed signs outside the chambers asking for the build to be done right. In addition to the mayor, three local residents were able to speak in the jam-packed hour.
The "Alternatives Carried Forward" in Table S-1 of the document that was released indicate that an Aerial Viaduct, an Open Trench or a Covered Trench are being put forward for B'game. It appears the Berm approach (similar to Caltrain's section in San Carlos) has been ruled out along with At Grade and Deep Tunneling. The most disconcerting part of the report was the last paragraph:
The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report shows that is alternatives from San Francisco to San Jose were created from the most costly design options put together, the costs would be between four to five times what has been accounted for in the Business Plan or other previous estimates. Such high cost alternatives would be impracticable.
Translation: we don't think we can afford to do this right on the Peninsula.
Leave a Reply