<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Altamont Bypassed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/</link>
	<description>Transportation and urban planning in the San Francisco Bay Area</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:20:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Endorsements: Too many propositions &#171; FutureOakland</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-6165</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Endorsements: Too many propositions &#171; FutureOakland]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-6165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] alignment of this proposed bullet train has been explained very well at TransBay blog. Basically, at the request of the same San Jose developers that brought us BART-to-San Jose and VTA [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] alignment of this proposed bullet train has been explained very well at TransBay blog. Basically, at the request of the same San Jose developers that brought us BART-to-San Jose and VTA [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: November 2008 Election: Yes on Proposition 1A (High-Speed Rail) &#171; Transbay Blog</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-6161</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[November 2008 Election: Yes on Proposition 1A (High-Speed Rail) &#171; Transbay Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-6161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] centrally located downtown stations and for their Altamont advocacy, despite the Authority&#8217;s firmly implanted favor of the Pacheco alignment. But I disagree that stalling any further is the right solution. At some [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] centrally located downtown stations and for their Altamont advocacy, despite the Authority&#8217;s firmly implanted favor of the Pacheco alignment. But I disagree that stalling any further is the right solution. At some [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BART to San Jose (Volume 1): A Long-Expected Party &#171; Transbay Blog</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5967</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BART to San Jose (Volume 1): A Long-Expected Party &#171; Transbay Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] by Caltrain, ACE, and Amtrak at San Jose Diridon Station. Nor is it even enough that the favored Pacheco alignment for high-speed rail will bypass several million people in the East Bay and North Central Valley to ensure that each and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] by Caltrain, ACE, and Amtrak at San Jose Diridon Station. Nor is it even enough that the favored Pacheco alignment for high-speed rail will bypass several million people in the East Bay and North Central Valley to ensure that each and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From AB 3034 to November 4 &#171; Transbay Blog</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5598</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[From AB 3034 to November 4 &#171; Transbay Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] of entwined political and legal battles. The California High Speed Rail Authority&#8217;s largely politically-driven dismissal of the Altamont alignment and formal adoption of the Pacheco alignment &#8212; the latter of which has trains zooming through [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of entwined political and legal battles. The California High Speed Rail Authority&#8217;s largely politically-driven dismissal of the Altamont alignment and formal adoption of the Pacheco alignment &#8212; the latter of which has trains zooming through [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: High Speed Rail Interactive Map &#171; Transbay Blog</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5167</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[High Speed Rail Interactive Map &#171; Transbay Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 07:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] countryside, stopping in active, high-density downtown centers. Okay, okay: so the map does mark Pacheco as the default route, though at least with no Los Banos station &#8212; but it is still fun to play with. Give it a [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] countryside, stopping in active, high-density downtown centers. Okay, okay: so the map does mark Pacheco as the default route, though at least with no Los Banos station &#8212; but it is still fun to play with. Give it a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Surf</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5061</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Surf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well we will have to agree to disagree. I believe Pacheco is better and that Altamont was a very poor choice.  I agree with the authority, as well as the elected officials who support Pacheco, including Gavin Newsome.  In the end, Pacheco has won, I&#039;m quite happy about that, and think it is without a doubt the best choice.  Altamont was just a terrible idea, supported for the wrong reasons.  If Altamont had been chosen, it would have been severely misguided.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well we will have to agree to disagree. I believe Pacheco is better and that Altamont was a very poor choice.  I agree with the authority, as well as the elected officials who support Pacheco, including Gavin Newsome.  In the end, Pacheco has won, I&#8217;m quite happy about that, and think it is without a doubt the best choice.  Altamont was just a terrible idea, supported for the wrong reasons.  If Altamont had been chosen, it would have been severely misguided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5058</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5058</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surf, Pacheco also goes through wetlands, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. Altamont would add a few minutes to the trip, yes, but it would also provide better access to the system for millions more people. The notion that Altamont does not adequately serve SJ and cannot provide a high speed trip between SF and LA is quite simply not true. 

You may believe what you wish, of course, but I wouldn&#039;t be so quick to fully trust the Authority, as your words make it clear that you do. Quite correctly remarked above: read the EIR. There was an agenda to meet, and they were successful in casting the EIR so as to support that agenda.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surf, Pacheco also goes through wetlands, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. Altamont would add a few minutes to the trip, yes, but it would also provide better access to the system for millions more people. The notion that Altamont does not adequately serve SJ and cannot provide a high speed trip between SF and LA is quite simply not true. </p>
<p>You may believe what you wish, of course, but I wouldn&#8217;t be so quick to fully trust the Authority, as your words make it clear that you do. Quite correctly remarked above: read the EIR. There was an agenda to meet, and they were successful in casting the EIR so as to support that agenda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Surf</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5057</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Surf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-5057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are completely wrong on this.  Altamont would require the building of yet *another* bridge across the bay, destroy wetlands and add time to the trip.  The high speed rail authority is completely correct that the HSR line is for LONG DISTANCE travel, not local commuter travel, and that any train serving San Francisco can also serve San Jose.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are completely wrong on this.  Altamont would require the building of yet *another* bridge across the bay, destroy wetlands and add time to the trip.  The high speed rail authority is completely correct that the HSR line is for LONG DISTANCE travel, not local commuter travel, and that any train serving San Francisco can also serve San Jose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-4350</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-4350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a good discussion and an excellent blog!  I think the point Eric is making cannot be emphasized enough - if you are going to the astronomical expense of constructing a new, high-speed ROW, you want to take every advantage of it by diversifying services.  While the design must allow (and really cater to) a maximum speed train passing through non-stop once an hour or more in each direction with express service from the Bay Area to the LA area, you want to also maximize the utility of the line by filling the rest of the time with slightly slower trains with more stops serving other markets.  

While I&#039;ll readily acknowledge that Amtrak probably shouldn&#039;t be a model for anything, the Northeast Corridor is a good example of a corridor that tries to do this - it supports &quot;high speed&quot; Amtrak service making limited stops as well as slower Amtrak services and more localized services in commuter markets throughout the corridor, which actually carry a lot more people and operate a lot more trains.  

To me, it seems that the Altamont option is clearly superior; even if you ignore the more localized commuter markets, the lack of Bay Area-Sacramento service on the southern route alone should disqualify it.  I agree with others also in saying that a project of this magnitude is very rare, very unlikely to ever happen, and is one shot - it HAS to be done right from the beginning.  As for the issue of service, once the tracks are in place running enough service to satisfy everyone will be significantly easier than answering why many logical trips/routes are not possible.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good discussion and an excellent blog!  I think the point Eric is making cannot be emphasized enough &#8211; if you are going to the astronomical expense of constructing a new, high-speed ROW, you want to take every advantage of it by diversifying services.  While the design must allow (and really cater to) a maximum speed train passing through non-stop once an hour or more in each direction with express service from the Bay Area to the LA area, you want to also maximize the utility of the line by filling the rest of the time with slightly slower trains with more stops serving other markets.  </p>
<p>While I&#8217;ll readily acknowledge that Amtrak probably shouldn&#8217;t be a model for anything, the Northeast Corridor is a good example of a corridor that tries to do this &#8211; it supports &#8220;high speed&#8221; Amtrak service making limited stops as well as slower Amtrak services and more localized services in commuter markets throughout the corridor, which actually carry a lot more people and operate a lot more trains.  </p>
<p>To me, it seems that the Altamont option is clearly superior; even if you ignore the more localized commuter markets, the lack of Bay Area-Sacramento service on the southern route alone should disqualify it.  I agree with others also in saying that a project of this magnitude is very rare, very unlikely to ever happen, and is one shot &#8211; it HAS to be done right from the beginning.  As for the issue of service, once the tracks are in place running enough service to satisfy everyone will be significantly easier than answering why many logical trips/routes are not possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://transbayblog.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-3821</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://transbay.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/altamont-bypassed/#comment-3821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Reedman,

I think that perhaps the better question to ask is: why does the virtually uninhabited Pacheco Pass route need HSR? ACE doesn&#039;t serve its corridor adequately, and as mentioned in the post, HSR on Altamont would upgrade ACE, in addition to obviously doing much, much more. As for why Stockton needs HSR -- take a look at the population stats I put in an earlier comment. The north Central Valley is home to some two million people, all of whom would be given a circuitous route to the Bay Area through Pacheco. This is an important regional market where Altamont is superior to Pacheco, hands down. 


&lt;i&gt;HSR isn’t HS if it tries to stop every mile for a commuter dropoff/pickup.&lt;/i&gt;
This is an important point that I think a lot of Pacheco-supporters are missing, and it&#039;s crucial: not every train &lt;b&gt;will&lt;/b&gt; stop everywhere. World-class rail networks do not subscribe to BART&#039;s every-train-is-local model. With HSR, we can have quite a bit of service diversity, including both local and express trains. Building stations does not imply that every train will stop at every station. However, by placing stations in an already urbanized corridor, we increase the number of people who can easily access the system.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Reedman,</p>
<p>I think that perhaps the better question to ask is: why does the virtually uninhabited Pacheco Pass route need HSR? ACE doesn&#8217;t serve its corridor adequately, and as mentioned in the post, HSR on Altamont would upgrade ACE, in addition to obviously doing much, much more. As for why Stockton needs HSR &#8212; take a look at the population stats I put in an earlier comment. The north Central Valley is home to some two million people, all of whom would be given a circuitous route to the Bay Area through Pacheco. This is an important regional market where Altamont is superior to Pacheco, hands down. </p>
<p><i>HSR isn’t HS if it tries to stop every mile for a commuter dropoff/pickup.</i><br />
This is an important point that I think a lot of Pacheco-supporters are missing, and it&#8217;s crucial: not every train <b>will</b> stop everywhere. World-class rail networks do not subscribe to BART&#8217;s every-train-is-local model. With HSR, we can have quite a bit of service diversity, including both local and express trains. Building stations does not imply that every train will stop at every station. However, by placing stations in an already urbanized corridor, we increase the number of people who can easily access the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

