Town Square

Post a New Topic

Caltrain wants high-speed rail to start locally

Original post made on Sep 14, 2010

Caltrain has joined a growing swell of Peninsula critics of California's proposed high-speed-rail system. But Caltrain isn't opposing the system; it wants it to start first on the Peninsula -- and to resurrect below-grade alternatives it believes are "achievable and constructible."

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 11:09 AM

Comments (4)

Posted by James, a resident of Castro City
on Sep 14, 2010 at 2:18 pm

I think CalTrain smells the $ running out quick for this and wants them to upgrade the CalTrain lines to electrical before the project dies.
Works for me.


Posted by Mark, a resident of Shoreline West
on Sep 14, 2010 at 3:35 pm

I agree that building a below-grade ("trenching") system is a good alternative to overhead on same-grade construction. In the UK you see the medium-speed express trains (about 100mph) passing through small towns below grade and are relatively quiet. The brick-lined walls below grade seem to act better than simple freeway-style soundwalls here because there's nothing for the sound to go through. Houses can be just above grade (usually on the other side of a frontage-road next to the trench) and you can't hear the trains when they pass. Also, at those speeds trains pass a house in about 5 seconds - before you know it. A bit different than the constant din of living next to a California freeway soundwall.


Posted by Seer, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 16, 2010 at 12:22 am

This is completely ridiculous: CalTrain, run by a conflict-of-interest CEO who also heads SamTrans, proposing ideas about how HSR should be implemented when they can't even manage their own finances?


Posted by R. Pollak, a resident of North Whisman
on Sep 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm

At-grade crossings are not viable at high speeds because of safety issues.

At grade, Japan's Shinkansen (120mph) noise level at 25 m (82 ft.) is 82 db(A), Intercity Express (Germany)at 200 mph is 92 dB(A).Noise generated by high speed trains is objectionable above ground. The only noise-reduction alternative is covered trench or tunnel.

There is documentation of reduced property values along high speed train right-of-ways.

To reduce noise level to acceptable levels, at grade, for speeds close to 200mph, one needs a 480 ft. corridor approximately.

I'd be worried if I was an Atherton resident living next to the proposed tracks.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Gourmet hot dogs, sausage food truck coming to the Peninsula
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,494 views

Allowing Unauthorized Immigrants to Learn and Earn Legally Will Help the Economy
By Steve Levy | 29 comments | 1,950 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 14 comments | 1,432 views

All This Arguing . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,204 views

The No Sweat Way to Bike to Work
By Janet Lafleur | 1 comment | 1,171 views