Today (Tuesday, September 14th), the San Jose CA city council will commence consideration of HSR though the city. Above-ground (60 feet) tracking would take about 3-5 years to build, but a more desirable (noise-wise) tunnel would take about 7 years and cost five times more to build. Here is the URL:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/14/san-jose-takes-up-high-speed-rail-debate/
60 ft. above the ground ? What are they planning on having to go over - all the buildings in downtown ? 20 to 25 ft. would be enough to clear vehicle traffic on the roads below and to allow a generous amount for the supporting structure - so what are the additional 35 to 40 vertical feet for ? There must be more to this story than meets the eye - or is stated in that little squib in the paper.
I’d not be surprised if the locals voted to spend a lot more of someone else’s money to put it into the tunnel instead of aboveground. But with recent advances in noise-supression of the tie or rail pads and Direct Fixation fasteners - plus rubber inserts in the rail wheels or under the treads, etc. - a lot more can be done to reduce the noise at the source than our experience woudl indicate. Additionally, the aboveground portions could likely also be enclosed with vertical sound walls and a roof of some kind to totally contain the noise, for a mere fraction of what the tunneling would cost . . . [{(-_-)}]
Here is a little more detail on the subject, as reported by a local San Jose newspaper, with an artist’s conceptual illustration showing tracks that certainly appear to be about 60 feet above ground (and what seem to be three-story buildings):
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16067171
Wow !
I thought the communities further up the peninsula were the bigger issue with this?
This entire situation is dumb. They’re getting hung up on how to build the line through SoCal and the Bay area when the should be getting going on the part in between. A line with stations on the outskirts with 110MPH connections with CalTrain and MetroLink would be a lot cheaper and not require all this fighting.
Thank you. That’s a far more informative - and as I expected, somewhat troubling - article about the local political dynamics, on the merits of which I express no opinion.
From the map, it appears that the 60 ft. high bridge would occur at only 1 location - to get over Rt. 87 near the bottom of the map.
As for that ‘artists’s conception’ - dream on, unless you can get H-P to fund it . . . [:-^] I’ll leave it to others to fill in the obvious criticisms and weaknesses that it suggests. [sigh]
For a lot better incite into the circus going on here (and a lot more detail than any sane person should really want to have), the following blog provides a reasonably sensible overview of what is being discussed and remarkably good commentary on practicality.