Doing Something About Traffic Gridlock

Today the cars and trucks that use I-580 and I-680 creep through the Tri Valley Area at slow speeds for many hours of the day.   Unless something is done, this frustrating situation, which already wastes a colossal amount of everyone's time, will gradually get worse.

There's a way out and it's not by widening the freeways, which would only encourage more auto-commuting. 

The most cost-effective and environmentally benign way of cleaning up the I-580/I-680 commuter mess is with commuter trains.  Not ordinary trains....fast trains, patterned after those operating in Europe and Japan and running along tracks roughly parallel to I-580 and I-680. 

There may be an opportunity to actually get these trains.  As part of the planned California high-speed rail (HSR) system, the California High Speed Rail Authority has been considering two alternative ways of bringing high speed inter-city trains from Southern California into the Bay Area.  The first is the Altamont Alternative.  The Altamont Alternative would serve the Tri-Valley area directly.  It would route 220-mph trains from Southern California, and eventually also from Sacramento via the Altamont Pass, Tri-Valley and Fremont into San Jose and separately into San Francisco.  With this alternative it would be possible to incorporate a separate 125-mph system of commuter trains from the Stockton/Tracy area using the same right-of-way, same tracks and same stations.  With this alternative the auto-commuters currently fighting their way along Highways I-580 and I-680 would have a real choice of travel mode.

The second HSR alternative would route the high-speed trains through the Pacheco Pass, fifty miles to the south of the Tri-Valley.  Pacheco promoters claim their proposal would provide for the eventual construction of a separate commuter rail service through the Tri-Valley.  Don't be fooled by this.  Under the Pacheco Alternative there would be no money for commuter trains.  At an estimated $42 billion, the cost of the California HSR System is already skyhigh.  There are no plans for, or even any talk of raising the additional $5 to $6 billion it would take to build a separate Altamont commuter rail system.

And don't be fooled by the scare tactics being used by Pacheco backers to frighten Tri-Valley residents into relinquishing their opportunity for congestion relief.  These backers claim that with the Altamont HSR Alternative "there would be four to six tracks through built-up urban areas".  In fact, up to six tracks would be needed only at train stations.  For most of the route there would be two tracks for passenger trains and two for freight trains.  Pacheco promoters also claim that "the trackway would be elevated".  Also not true.  Except for a possible freeway crossing point, there is no need for elevated tracks anywhere in the Tri-Valley.

The Altamont Alternative would provide both HSR service from Southern California and fast regional service from the northern part of the Central Valley through the Tri-Valley to San Jose, San Francisco and other Bay Area destinations.  The Pacheco Alternative would provide HSR service from Southern California through Los Banos and the Pacheco Pass wilderness to San Jose, but no regional travel benefits.

On December 19, 2007 the California High Speed Rail Authority gave its tentative blessing to the Pacheco Alternative, thereby ignoring Altamont's significant transportation and environmental advantages.  If this short-sighted decision is allowed to stand, it would deny California a once-in-a-thousand-year opportunity to address both its statewide travel needs and the growing Tri-Valley congestion nightmare.  This would be a major loss for Northern California.

GPC