High-Speed Rail Sound-Off
Engineers discuss noise review process for California's largest public infrastructure project.
When the San Jose-to-Merced High-Speed Rail project is complete, it will blaze on elevated platforms at over 150 miles per hour, stopping in Gilroy.
Tuesday night, community members gathered at Gilroy High School to attend an open house about the project and hear the project's engineers discuss the review process. The presentation centered on sound mitigation, eliciting a mixed response and some skepticism from audience members.
The rapid speed of the trains will minimize the time they are heard, began engineer Areg Gharabegian.
“A train moving at a top speed of 220 miles per hour will only be heard for four seconds,” said Gharabegian. “By comparison, a 50-car freight train moving at 30 miles per hour can be heard for a minute.”
Furthermore, there will be sounds walls composed of recycled materials, he said. They will have absorptive barriers that eliminate noise. A “grade-separated system”—where transport axes operate at different heights to avoid disrupting the traffic flow—also bars the need for blaring horns.
Addressing an audience concern that animals such as horses will be spooked by the sound, Gharabegian said the team has no methodologies for determining how animals hear frequencies. Yet, in its evaluation, the team will be able to see “if horses are startled, or if birds fly out of their nests,” he said, and will take this into account in creating a safe route.
These sound issues and others, such as vibration and electromagnetic interference, are being studied, with the team measuring the average sound generated in decibels during the night and day. The project is in an environmental review phase, according to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, and a PowerPoint of the presentation will be available online by the end of this week.
Going the Distance
The San Jose to Merced section of the high-speed rail project spans 120 miles, with stops at San Jose’s Diridion Station, Gilroy and Merced. The current study of the train looks at an area starting in San Jose and then running south through Gilroy, east through the Pacheco Pass to Chowchilla, and then connecting with Merced and Fresno.
The construction will begin in the Central Valley because it’s the “core of the system,” said Gary Kelly, a regional manager for the project.
By 2035, the project is expected to generate 4,700 daily boardings in Gilroy, 7,600 in San Jose, and 5,300 in Merced, according to the rail authority.
Over the course of construction, the project is also projected to yield 112,000 construction-related jobs in the San Jose to Merced region. The final design is expected by 2013, with trains running by 2020.
Some audience members raised concerns that the project would suffer from low-ridership numbers, as other Bay Area public transit has.
Yet, “the high-speed rail is not equivalent to BART or CalTrain,” said Kelly, pointing out both the scope of the project and that it’s attracting private funding.
Local Carmen Patane attended the meeting and said the train—if built on the east side of Gilroy rather than downtown—could run 500 feet away from his home, cutting through his parcel of land. He’s attended all high-speed rail workshops to learn about the project, but remains opposed to it.
“I don’t believe in the ridership numbers,” said Patane, “and like most public projects, I feel that the cost will overrun the budget.”
The California High-Speed Rail Authority will hold another community workshop Wednesday at the Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center at 6 p.m.
Whazoo
6:30 pm on Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What "private funding" is being attracted? The only companies that are putting up anything at all are those that hope to be able to sell equipment (like the trains themselves ) at a large profit to this taxpayer funded monstrosity. All other private fund sources are demanding a revenue guarantee (in other words, a guaranteed profit) before they are wiling to invest. Since revenue guarantees are specifically banned by the wording of Prop 1A which grabbed the first $10 billion of taxpayer money, The rail authority is instead promising "ridership guarantees", which in reality is the same thing [Revenue = (ridership x fares)- (construction costs + operating costs)]. Since they've already had to lower their ridership projections at least twice, it's likely that the only way this equation can come out with positive revenue is to add in a generous portion of taxpayer subsides.
Rachel Stern
7:52 pm on Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thanks for your comment. As for the private funding, the Authority stated last week that it received 1,100 "Requests for Expression of Interest"--from equipment companies, but also high-speed rail companies around the world, engineering firms, and hundreds of small businesses. We would like to track what these partnerships are as they are narrowed down. For now, all those that have expressed interest are invited to an industry forum on April 12 in L.A. to learn about the process involved for forming a partnership. I don't know how you would prove that everyone of these companies is demanding a revenue guarantee, but if you have evidence of such, we'd be interested to see.
A CA Native
11:18 am on Thursday, March 31, 2011
Why are there so many "Doom & Gloom" people out there? Seems to me that the HUGE benefits far outweigh the possible downside.
I do not visit my friends in or beyond LA because the traffic is just too much to bear.
This Could Relieve The Traffic Congestion Some...
Have these "Doom & Gloom" people driven lately any of the roads in the SF Bay Area and beyond?
I have & it is just UGLY in "Rush Hour" AND "Rush Hour" has become 2-5 HOURS each workday!
IF these "Doom & Gloom" people have a BETTER IDEA ---LETS Hear IT!!
signed
A CA native, born here, taxed here.
A CA Native
11:18 am on Thursday, March 31, 2011
Why are there so many "Doom & Gloom" people out there? Seems to me that the HUGE benefits far outweigh the possible downside.
I do not visit my friends in or beyond LA because the traffic is just too much to bear.
This Could Relieve The Traffic Congestion Some...
Have these "Doom & Gloom" people driven lately any of the roads in the SF Bay Area and beyond?
I have & it is just UGLY in "Rush Hour" AND "Rush Hour" has become 2-5 HOURS each workday!
IF these "Doom & Gloom" people have a BETTER IDEA ---LETS Hear IT!!
signed
A CA native, born here, taxed here.
ken dufur
9:45 am on Monday, April 4, 2011
Why dont you let them take it thru your business or property that you have put millions into and 30 years and then see if you arnt a gloom and doomer, you are just another uninformed toy lover with no business sence . so my better idea is let the goverment take your business and land and livelyhood and putit thru your living room. Before you make another stupid statement on something, get educated which apparently your not on this subject
Jim S.
7:03 pm on Monday, April 4, 2011
Funny, around existing train lines I find that property prices go *UP* the closer you get to the train.
I pay 1.5x market rate of someplace 1/4 mile away so I can have a short walk from my home to the train.
The businesses in my neighborhood depend on the train for their livelihood -- the train brings professionals with good income (like myself) to live in the neighborhood, as well as people commuting to/from work, visitors, etc who stop by on the way to patronize their shops.
I wish I didn't have to pay so much for it, but I pay that 50% extra for the convenience factor (not having to get in my car while still having quick travel options), and I get the benefit of a nicer neighborhood in the process.
Nobody wants to live next to a diesel-fume-spewing freight train, but that's not what we're talking about. For some reason most train-opponents seem to envision giant, heavy, loud beasts or even 19th century steam engines (this is like envisioning a freeway as an army of 1900's smoke-belching putt-putt automobiles or 19th-century steam-powered automobiles (yes they existed, and they were lousy)).
The train, even if the fares are subsidized, will be a license to print money for the people lucky enough to have property near its service areas.
If your property is far from a station, encourage the development of local train service in the neighborhood that acts as a feeder to the high speed line.
Just offering my two cents.
Rachel Stern
12:03 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thanks for your comments. Jim, that's a good point, and one I haven't heard discussed much yet. Areas near trains tend to attract a lot of business, as well as out-of-towners who have easy access to that business. There could also be more, as you say, to/from commuters in the neighborhood. I'd imagine not many people working in, say, San Francisco would not want to live in Gilroy with a 2+ hour morning commute in traffic. But if that time dwindled to 40 minutes, that could certainly change.
Skeptic
1:21 pm on Saturday, April 9, 2011
Ms. Stern:
Not all those showing "Expressions of Interest" are wanting revenue guarantees. Many of those private companies are those wanting to sell stuff to the the rail system. They aren't putting money in, they're wanting the rail authority to give money to them. For the others, name a private company that has come forward with money they expect to invest and have increased through profits from the system and not from taxpayer subsidies (why not just send the tax money directly and eliminate the middleman?). Revenue guarantees? This has been documented in multiple places, but I'll simply refer you to the State Legislative Analyst's reports on this project.
Regarding your point about Gilroy to SF, then why not just extend BART, instead of doing all this?
CA native: You're right, traffic in LA stinks, but this system will do nothing to alleviate that. Once you get to LA, you've still got to get from the train station to where you're going.
Jim S.: Unless you happen to commute to LA each day, your comments about housing values don't apply in this case, and arguably if you lived close to this your value would plummet. That's one of the reasons the Peninsula as well as other cities want this thing underground. The diesel statement is a straw man. Opponents know it's electric. But anything this big at ground level, if it really moved at that speed is going to be LOUD! Not to mention all the noise, pollution and disruption from building it.