Palo Alto to Los Angeles in two hours and 21 minutes? With the new High-Speed Rail (HSR) up and running, the previous statement would become a reality, allowing Bay Area inhabitants to be able to travel to the Los Angeles area in less than three hours; one would pay no more than $60 and save approximately 300 pounds of carbon dioxide per trip. Nonetheless, do not be fooled by these numbers. Although saving time and going green appeals to many of us, we must consider the lengths that HSR will take to achieve these results.

California passed Proposition 1A last November, which authorized $9.95 billion in bond funds to plan and build the California High Speed Rail Project. The HSR project will be an 800-mile high-speed train system between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The proposed stations in the Bay Area are going to be located in San Francisco, Millbrae and San Jose, with another potential station in either Redwood City or Palo Alto.

One of the main issues with HSR in Palo Alto is the proposed elevated platform plan. Platforms would be built at least 15 to 20 feet above the ground for the HSR tracks, with an additional 15 feet of wire above the platforms. Not to mention, there will be additional sound walls to reduce sound created by HSR. These 20-feet grade-separated tracks are hideous. No longer would there be any bushes along Alma—all we would have is a 20-feet wall. Furthermore, the wall would divide our city forever. Inhabitants’ views would be completely obstructed by this eyesore. Unfortu

nately for Palo Alto High School (Paly), they will have to cope with more than just Caltrain being next to them, and Paly will also gain a pleasant view of the grade separated tracks from its football field. Also, if HSR chooses to build grade-separated tracks, students who bike and who cross the East Meadow and Alma or Charleston and Alma intersection to get to school would need to resort to using San Antonio Road or Oregon Expressway to get to school. Both of these intersections would have to be redone. After the intersections are finished, bikers and pedestrians will need to utilize underpasses similar to the one on Embarcadero or Oregon. No matter how HSR assures the public that the underpasses will be safe and secure, the thought of going through a dark underpass is always a bit daunting.

The most disturbing part of this whole ordeal is that the project seems to have made all the decisions already. It only asks for “residential input” to make it look like it listens to community members. The original memorandum of understanding stated that the “ultimate configuration of the Caltrain corridor will be a four track grade-separated high-speed rail system, with mixed-traffic from Caltrain commuter rail and the high-speed rail service.” Due to much protest, HSR officials decided to change the wording of the phrase to pacify residents.

However, the new sentence reads that, “ultimate configuration of the Caltrain corridor will consist of a multiple track, grade-separated high-speed rail system…” Can someone please explain the difference between four-track and multiple track? HSR thinks that it’s appeasing the public, but they’ve only deceived us. “Multiple track” includes having four tracks, since multiple simply means having more than two. HSR has just given itself more options by saying “multiple tracks” since it could mean two, four, six or eight tracks—something we definitely do not want.

Another crucial part of this statement is the phrase “grade-separated.” Although HSR said that it would consider all options (including tunneling and trenching), the statement released shows that HSR is adamant about constructing grade-separated tracks. There are physical and psychological effects tied to the elevated tracks. Palo Alto will permanently be divided by these 20-feet walls, which will act as a physical barrier separating our city into East and West. In the 1990s, a grade-separated track was built in San Carlos. According to an article in The Mercury News, the residents who live near the tracks find that their lives have changed drastically since then. In the article, Ben Fuller, group president of the Greater East San Carlos neighborhood, where the tracks run through, said that residents feel isolated from the city’s downtown because of the tracks. He also commented on how nearby sidewalks have been narrowed, making it difficult to walk through the area, and that noise and vibrations near the tracks have increased since they were elevated.

There are quite a few possible solutions to avoid building these elevated tracks in Palo Alto. The easiest solution would entail using the Altamont Pass, which would go through the East Bay and still end up in San Francisco. The main advocates for the Pacheco Pass, which runs through San Jose and up the Peninsula, are Silicon Valley business owners. They believe that HSR will help their business travel. However, looking at it from a time perspective, they should know that taking a Southwest flight from San Jose to Los Angeles takes roughly half as long to taking HSR.

Plus, the location of the San Jose station will be in Willow Glen, which is a highly residential area and not in the proximity of any large corporations. It makes no sense to build HSR using the Pacheco Pass since it only passes suburban areas in between San Francisco and San Jose. The people of suburbia are not likely to be frequent HSR riders. On the other hand, the Altamont Pass would run through many more urban areas and have a higher chance of increasing ridership. Building HSR along the Pacheco Pass is not necessary because people located along the Peninsula could still easily drive to a station in the East Bay within 30 minutes and take HSR down to Los Angeles. Compared to the usual six-hour drive, they would still be saving time and Mother Earth. If HSR is adamant about using the Pacheco Pass after considering all the pros and cons, it must consider tunneling. Though it’s complicated and more costly, it would indeed reduce visual pollution.

This is becoming more than a NIMBY (“Not in My Back Yard”) problem. HSR will affect all residents along the Peninsula. Though not all of our houses will be taken away for eminent domain, the grade-separated tracks drastically affect the lives of those who live in Palo Alto and beyond. HSR is bound to come to the Bay Area. Californians showed that their support for this green concept when they passed Prop 1A, but we need to ensure that the HSR officials are acting in our best interests and in Mother Earth’s best interests.

Bay Areans should not settle for the Pacheco Pass just because of a few politicians political interests. We need to make sure we let our opinions be known as the HSR officials make final decisions on the project. Attend city meetings, notify your neighborhood association, sign the petition online at http://www.geopetition.com/online/25328.html but most importantly educate yourself and others about the issue so that you don’t feel duped when it’s already too late.