GGS Letter to CA High-Speed Rail Concerning Impacts for Gilroy
/San Jose to Merced Project Section
California High-Speed Rail Authority
100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: San Jose to Merced Draft EIR/EIS
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for soliciting our comments on your plans for developing High-Speed Rail in the Gilroy area. We do feel fortunate that a station is planned for Gilroy and that we have an excellent location for it. We are also very pleased to see that you have included our 2016 Urban Growth Boundary in your planning documents. Our comments will pertain to the City of Gilroy alignments. We note that CHSR has chosen Alternative 4, the Blended Option, as the preferred alternative. We too do have our preferences and concerns as follows:
We strongly prefer Alternative #1 staying as close as possible to the existing Union Pacific right of way and using the Viaduct in downtown Gilroy. Preserving our excellent agricultural land is of primary importance to our members and the community. This option uses the least amount of additional public and private land. Executive Summary, Section S.5.2.1 page S14.
Preservation of east-west traffic corridors is of critical importance in our linear city of Gilroy. There are now ten railroad crossings within our city limits. Of these, Buena Vista, Leavesley, IOOF, Sixth, Tenth and Luchessa are arterial streets, Lewis and Seventh are collectors. Luchessa and Tenth are both part of State Hwy 152 coming from Pacheco Pass and continuing to Watsonville. Luchessa is also the primary way to access St. Louise Hospital and Hwy 101 north and south. Because of this, the aerial alignment (viaduct) seems imperative to us. Executive Summary, Section S.5.2.1 page S14.
A related issue is the alignment of HSR tracks with Caltrain and Union Pacific tracks. For safety they should be on the same alignment, both horizontally and vertically. The cumulative effects of HSR trains plus Caltrain (4 round trips/day) and Amtrak (2/day) and UP freight trains must be addressed and mitigated. How many HSR trips per day will go through Gilroy? What will be the frequency of quad gates closing off Leavesley and Tenth Streets when trains are passing? This has the potential of causing severe congestion and impacting emergency response. The blended option may work in the beginning when there are fewer HSR trains, but it seems totally unworkable when there are many trains. Leavesley and Tenth Streets are heavily used, primary entrances to Gilroy, both part of Hwy. 152, two lanes in each direction. Blockage for more than a few minutes each hour will be unacceptable. Use of the viaduct is necessary here. Table 3.2-14, pp 3.2-56 & 57 & 60.
We are very concerned about both noise and vibration. The alignment places the train very close to businesses, schools and residences which will be adversely affected. Mitigation measures need to be adopted, especially if the at grade or embankment alignments are used. It is not sufficient to just say that because Gilroy already has Caltrain and UPRR additional noise will not need mitigation. Cumulative impacts must be addressed. The viaduct would be acceptable but underground tracks would be the best mitigation for all the issues described in #2, #3 and #4 here and should be considered.
Section 3.4, Table 3.4-16, Figure 3.4-21 and page 3.4-59.Our downtown consists almost entirely of historic buildings dating back to 1900 or earlier. It is a designated Historic District between 4th and 8th St., which includes Old City Hall and the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, both landmarks on the National Register of Historic Places which are on Monterey Street, close to the tracks. Mitigation measures protecting our historic assets from vibration and noise need to be adopted. Section 3.4.
We also strongly prefer the MOWF for Alternatives #1 and # 2 which is much closer to the City Limits and existing right of way for Union Pacific. The majority of the acreage it needs is within the Urban Growth Boundary and somewhat near other industrial uses. Executive Summary, Section S5.4, page S15.
We conclude by saying that a flexible approach for phases beyond the Blended Option will be needed. It will no doubt be several years before electrification to Gilroy is put in place and the Blended Option at grade will need further study for the future. At that time local traffic studies and the frequency of HSR trains should require that options other than “at grade” be considered.
Thank you for considering our opinions for alignments within the City of Gilroy.
Connie Rogers, Chair
Gilroy Growing Smarter
Sent via email to san.jose_merced@hsr.gov and US Mail