Why can't they just build the line flat and close the Churchill Avenue crossing altogether (replacing it with a footbridge or foot tunnel)? Save even more money that way.
Palo Alto seriously needs to cut its selfish acts. To take down an important piece of infrastructure for the entire State of California because of self-interests is truly what exemplifies this. Moreover, they want the entire state to pay for an underground route by masking with the slogan "let's do it right." How about "you'll do it right by paying, and we'll build it correctly." NIMBY folks seem to have never gotten out of their cars.
Caltrain, which has thousands of riders every day up and down the Peninsula, does not support itself. Why does anyone think that HSR will pay for itself?
here is an idea just don't bother going all the way to san fransisco and start on the construction and end at San Jose, and when they get enough monney then they can continue the rest off the way to san fransisco and it will give them opportunity to save up for the tunnel structure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Those of you shouting NIMBY and claiming HSR will save California should understand that no one is claiming HSR will even pay for itself. HSR is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that CA taxpayers will be paying for for decades.
A boondoggle is BART to OAC for a $6 buck ride versus the current $3. A boondoggle is BART to San Jose. For the same price, you can complete the San Fran-San Jose segment and more for HSR. That would be more than enough for Caltrain to Oakland or Richmond!
the freeway dessign for the high speed rail would be cheaper than Tunnels under the cities. beside these train are much quieter than Diessle freight and amtrak because they won't be honking any more, nor rumbleing pass towns, the only sound you hear is the whistlely air as it pass by.
I understand that you are concerned of the effects that this railway will have on your community however, exaggerated videos like this one are blatant acts of NIMBYism that will hurt California in the long run. We are facing a huge budget deficit right now and we can't afford to raise the cost of this project with unnecessary tunneling or detours. I hope more peninsula residents will be able to understand this point of view.
The elevated structure doesn't have to look like that at all. It can have arches, which makes it look nice and allows people to walk under. HSR doesn't have to look like a freeway.
This animation is WAY TOO OVER-DRAMATIC. The CAHSR Authority proposes structures that are 15 feet high. This animation shows it being 28 feet high, 87% HIGHER THAN PROPOSED. Lso, note the incorrectly dense cantenary placement pole spacing. If Palo Alto wants to put this thing underground, then they can pay for it themselves, especially how there being drama queens in how it'll look. Way too over-dramatic.
In Redwood City, they've proposed putting shop fronts under the tracks. From the street, you just see shops, until you look up and see a train going quietly by. There are plenty of precedents for this, so it is totally feasible. In residential parts of Palo Alto, the buildings below can be residences instead of shops. This would be a lot cheaper than tunneling, plus the cost would be offset by the single-story development. Plants on trellises can screen views of electric wires above.
The number of support poles in this video is about 4-5 times too many. According to page 4 of Caltrain's electrification presentation the support poles are spaced about 150-200 feet apart. Using the football field in the video as reference, you'll see poles installed at equivalent of approx every 45 feet.
I applaud the effort; but the video is disingenuous. It illustrates the proposal devoid of any character. The town lacks character too.
A more balance approach should include trees and vegetation; perhaps ivy or sculpted walls. An arch over the roadway would be appropriate.
As long as there is audio in the video, why not illustrate current at-grade noise of Caltrain or freight trains and compare to the very quick whoosh of a high speed train (at no greater than 125mph).
Good video. The support poles are spaced too closely though and lack of landscaping provides an incomplete picture.
Would you be able to draw up the other three conditions so we can get a look at an apples-to-apples comparison? (existing, tunnel, at grade with underground crossings)
no, we don't need noise-dampening with the High Speed Rail. The HSR will be quiter than the current train: it will have electric motors so no roaring diesel engines, and the tracks will be grade-separated so no bells and horns at each intersection.
I think it is still needed. Around Palo Alto, there are residential areas that is only 20~30 yards away; but like you said, if they are already surviving the diesel engine noises, whom am I to argue to spend more money on walls. I do know in Taiwan, they have walls along the track.
I'd just like to echo Spokker. You really put a lot of effort into this video, and it really gives a much better perspective on the impact of this.
However, I do think it's lacking total perspective, as all landscaping is absent, as are the buildings nearby (minus on Mariposa), which makes it look much more like the only structure in town. It will, in reality, fit in more than that.
That being said, being a Palo Alto resident and high-speed rail supporter, I really appreciate your effort.
Why can't they just build the line flat and close the Churchill Avenue crossing altogether (replacing it with a footbridge or foot tunnel)? Save even more money that way.
seprishere 3 months ago
Palo Alto seriously needs to cut its selfish acts. To take down an important piece of infrastructure for the entire State of California because of self-interests is truly what exemplifies this. Moreover, they want the entire state to pay for an underground route by masking with the slogan "let's do it right." How about "you'll do it right by paying, and we'll build it correctly." NIMBY folks seem to have never gotten out of their cars.
Atsuke 1 year ago
Caltrain, which has thousands of riders every day up and down the Peninsula, does not support itself. Why does anyone think that HSR will pay for itself?
dpw1461 1 year ago
here is an idea just don't bother going all the way to san fransisco and start on the construction and end at San Jose, and when they get enough monney then they can continue the rest off the way to san fransisco and it will give them opportunity to save up for the tunnel structure.
sideslide23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Those of you shouting NIMBY and claiming HSR will save California should understand that no one is claiming HSR will even pay for itself. HSR is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that CA taxpayers will be paying for for decades.
dpw1461 2 years ago
A boondoggle is BART to OAC for a $6 buck ride versus the current $3. A boondoggle is BART to San Jose. For the same price, you can complete the San Fran-San Jose segment and more for HSR. That would be more than enough for Caltrain to Oakland or Richmond!
mugshotesp 2 years ago 3
@dpw1461 All other high speed rail systems in the world pay for themselves. I fail to see how California's won't.
gibb1991 1 year ago
the freeway dessign for the high speed rail would be cheaper than Tunnels under the cities. beside these train are much quieter than Diessle freight and amtrak because they won't be honking any more, nor rumbleing pass towns, the only sound you hear is the whistlely air as it pass by.
sideslide23 2 years ago
I understand that you are concerned of the effects that this railway will have on your community however, exaggerated videos like this one are blatant acts of NIMBYism that will hurt California in the long run. We are facing a huge budget deficit right now and we can't afford to raise the cost of this project with unnecessary tunneling or detours. I hope more peninsula residents will be able to understand this point of view.
blackjack48 2 years ago 5
The elevated structure doesn't have to look like that at all. It can have arches, which makes it look nice and allows people to walk under. HSR doesn't have to look like a freeway.
jpthedp 2 years ago 9
Notice how this guy ONLY shows the elevated structuure and nothing else around it, which would hide this structure in real life.
poseidoncambria 2 years ago 2
This animation is WAY TOO OVER-DRAMATIC. The CAHSR Authority proposes structures that are 15 feet high. This animation shows it being 28 feet high, 87% HIGHER THAN PROPOSED. Lso, note the incorrectly dense cantenary placement pole spacing. If Palo Alto wants to put this thing underground, then they can pay for it themselves, especially how there being drama queens in how it'll look. Way too over-dramatic.
poseidoncambria 2 years ago 8
In Redwood City, they've proposed putting shop fronts under the tracks. From the street, you just see shops, until you look up and see a train going quietly by. There are plenty of precedents for this, so it is totally feasible. In residential parts of Palo Alto, the buildings below can be residences instead of shops. This would be a lot cheaper than tunneling, plus the cost would be offset by the single-story development. Plants on trellises can screen views of electric wires above.
cedricdlb 2 years ago 6
The number of support poles in this video is about 4-5 times too many. According to page 4 of Caltrain's electrification presentation the support poles are spaced about 150-200 feet apart. Using the football field in the video as reference, you'll see poles installed at equivalent of approx every 45 feet.
crazyvag 2 years ago 5
I applaud the effort; but the video is disingenuous. It illustrates the proposal devoid of any character. The town lacks character too.
A more balance approach should include trees and vegetation; perhaps ivy or sculpted walls. An arch over the roadway would be appropriate.
As long as there is audio in the video, why not illustrate current at-grade noise of Caltrain or freight trains and compare to the very quick whoosh of a high speed train (at no greater than 125mph).
bmfarley 2 years ago 4
Good video. The support poles are spaced too closely though and lack of landscaping provides an incomplete picture.
Would you be able to draw up the other three conditions so we can get a look at an apples-to-apples comparison? (existing, tunnel, at grade with underground crossings)
Palal12 2 years ago
Don't we need noise-dampening wall along the entire elevated structure?
merakhagen 2 years ago
no, we don't need noise-dampening with the High Speed Rail. The HSR will be quiter than the current train: it will have electric motors so no roaring diesel engines, and the tracks will be grade-separated so no bells and horns at each intersection.
cedricdlb 2 years ago 4
I think it is still needed. Around Palo Alto, there are residential areas that is only 20~30 yards away; but like you said, if they are already surviving the diesel engine noises, whom am I to argue to spend more money on walls. I do know in Taiwan, they have walls along the track.
merakhagen 2 years ago
yes they should put in sound barriers whare there passing schools business houses, and hotels,
sideslide23 2 years ago
I'd just like to echo Spokker. You really put a lot of effort into this video, and it really gives a much better perspective on the impact of this.
However, I do think it's lacking total perspective, as all landscaping is absent, as are the buildings nearby (minus on Mariposa), which makes it look much more like the only structure in town. It will, in reality, fit in more than that.
That being said, being a Palo Alto resident and high-speed rail supporter, I really appreciate your effort.
egoldin 2 years ago
As a high speed rail supporter I just wanted to say that I think the video is very cool, even if we are on two different sides of the issue.
I tip my hat to anyone who would go through the trouble to make such an animation, though I think more can be done to beautify the route.
Spokker 2 years ago
The model was made using Sketchup software
jmcfall3 2 years ago
What did you use for doing the renders?
mugshotesp 2 years ago