California's high-speed rail system should not stop in Palo Alto as it speeds between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the City Council agreed Monday night.
Citing a wide range of reasons -- including increased traffic, a stringent parking requirement, questionable ridership projections and flaws in the proposed station design -- the council voted unanimously Monday to take a position against a local rail station.
Along with Mountain View and Redwood City, the California High-Speed Rail Authority had chosen Palo Alto as one of three possible cities in the Midpeninsula that could host a station for the voter-approved rail line. The majority of the Mountain View has expressed its opposition to putting such a station in its downtown.
The Palo Alto council agreed Monday that the city shouldn't have anything to do a rail station. Council members compared bringing a high-speed rail station to Palo Alto to building a regional airport in the middle of the city. The council took its vote days after its High-Speed Rail Committee unanimously rejected the station idea.
The rail authority indicated that the community with a rail station would need to build 3,000 parking spots for train riders without three miles of the station, including 1,000 spots next to the station. Staff estimated it would cost about $150 million to meet this requirement.
The authority is considering building a rail stop at the historic University Avenue Caltrain station, though officials indicated that they would consider the California Avenue station if the city expressed an interest.
The council agreed Monday that neither city site could accommodate the massive project. Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa said Monday that a rail station "just doesn't make sense for the city."
"We just don't have the streets or the capacity to consider doing this either at California Avenue or University Avenue," Espinosa said.
Other council members had different concerns. Yiaway Yeh said he was worried that a local rail station would bring high-speed rail into competition with Caltrain. Gail Price cited the ongoing controversy over the rail authority's ridership numbers and underscored the council's lack of confidence in the authority. Mayor Pat Burt noted that even the supposedly "at grade" design for the tracks at the station calls for the tracks to be raised by nine to 10 feet.
"It's a new definition of 'at grade,'" Burt quipped. "Berm is the new at grade."
Councilman Greg Scharff said a rail station would also be environmentally detrimental because it would bring thousands of additional cars to the city every day. This is ironic, he noted, given that a major reason for high-speed rail is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and help the environment.
"Frankly, having a Midpeninsula station does none of those things," Scharff said. "Having a Midpeninsula station is an environmentally bad decision."
Comments
Stierlin Estates
on Oct 26, 2010 at 4:05 pm
on Oct 26, 2010 at 4:05 pm
$150M for 3000 parking spaces? How can it possibly cost that much?
Monta Loma
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm
you would be surprised how expensive "free parking" is.
Web Link
Rex Manor
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:54 pm
on Oct 26, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Any decision against HSR is a right one. Hooray PA. Hooray MV.
But the article (at least the online version) sure needs some editing. Here's one example: "The majority of the Mountain View has expressed its opposition to putting such a station in its downtown."
Shoreline West
on Oct 27, 2010 at 12:12 am
on Oct 27, 2010 at 12:12 am
All you NIMBY's need to get a life! Do you have any idea how many jobs would be created? Or how much revenue the city would get every year? Not to mention the connection with the future development of Moffett Field.
HSR is coming to our neighborhoods, MV is the most logical spot for a station with it's highways, Caltrain and light rail connection.
MV also has the lots than can be used for parking structures near the station.
Gemello
on Oct 27, 2010 at 12:41 am
on Oct 27, 2010 at 12:41 am
Those who vote no on a station will be whining when the line goes into operation and their town is bypassed. Then again, this is nothing new for Palo Alto, which will stop at nothing to prevent the free flow of traffic. After all, for nearly 30 years, the only major thoroughfare from Hwy 280 to downtown PA ended in a shopping center parking lot. When they finished extending it to El Camino (we're talking about Sand Hill Road of course) they couldn't help themselves and prevented it from connecting to downtown by keeping people from driving across El Camino onto Alma! In their zeal to keep the riffraff out of their elitist heaven, they also have managed to turn it into a penitentiary.
Blossom Valley
on Oct 27, 2010 at 9:46 am
on Oct 27, 2010 at 9:46 am
I can't wait to NOT ride HSR
Old Mountain View
on Oct 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm
on Oct 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Solution: Review the 2008 voter proposition for high speed rail. Whichever town had the highest % support for the project gets to have the station in their town. That is fairness.
Something tells me it will be Palo Alto, because it is full of people who love the idea of other people riding public transportation, but hate the idea of actually riding it themselves.
another community
on Jan 15, 2011 at 2:14 am
on Jan 15, 2011 at 2:14 am
Are residents of Palo Alto and Mountain View this selfish? Mass transit is desperately needed throughout the Bay Area, but you think it doesn't need to come to Palo Alto? Your own residents could use the station, and cut down on your own driving, but of course you all can more than afford the cost of gasoline, no matter how high it goes. Shame on you!
The Crossings
on Sep 25, 2017 at 6:08 pm
on Sep 25, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?