I don’t need a caption for this one.
Well, I’ll describe it anyway. The pic above comes from the California High Speed Rail Authority’s community workshop presentation, held last Wednesday in San Jose (additional workshop preso). CHSRA has also released its update on the Bay Area-to-Central Valley segment called “Revised Draft EIR Program Material.” This option, which IMHO has the best chance of moving forward, has the train running in an aerial south of the ballpark and along I-280 and CA-87. One of the pics below has portion done up as a cable-stayed bridge with suspension towers. Can anyone identify which ballpark was lovingly placed next to the tracks?
None of the other pictures have a ballpark in it, but hey, it’s a start. But back to the the pic at the top. We see the new open air, elevated platform, plus a garage next to the arena. Additionally, the blocks between the ballpark and the arena have been developed. Based on funding and timelines, everything you see in the pic couldn’t be completed until 2025-2030. The ballpark and garage would come first, with BART construction holding up the commercial development. It’s also likely that the triangular area above the new development would also be built out, as Adobe is planning an expansion on those parcels.
This one’s the view from the Cahill Park neighborhood. Note how tall the structure is, it appears to dwarf the five-story Plant 51 loft/condo building on this side of the tracks. The next pic really shows the scale of the platform and aerial.
While there is much talk about going with a tunnel alignment (just like the advocacy on the Peninsula), such an option may prove to be cost-prohibitive. I can only hope that San Jose’s city fathers learn from the Bay Bridge debacle and stay away from adorning the aerial option. San Jose isn’t a place for distinctive bridges. Nothing would send a worse message than the city putting resources into designing aesthetic appeal into a bridge that can’t be used by cars, pedestrians, or bikes. The towers could violate the FAA’s height restrictions for SJC. The bridge wouldn’t even be visible from the ballpark’s seating bowl.
newballpark.org 
It’s ugly. It looks like those BART platforms that run out that way. The tunnel option would probably be the better option — and not just for aesthetic reasons.
Is there any indication on just how close that aerial is to the ballpark?
It depends on how the ballpark is situated, which is not certain. In the model I drew up, the back of the concourse is around 100 feet from the aerial as it passes south from the station. The final ballpark location could actually make it run closer.
ML—any idea how this alignment might affect the PG&E substation that is there?
The substation is going to be reconfigured, not relocated, so its footprint is not expected to be affected by whatever the final HSR alignment is.
Thx ML—assumed that it would need to grow to support HSR and was hoping that would require PG&E to move it to a different location—not sure I agree with you that SJ shouldn’t look to include some sort of iconic structure—great architecutre is what makes a city—and in this capacity SJ could surely step it up a bit—also—why should SF have the benefit of a tunnel and some great architecuture associated with its terminal and not SJ—the city of SF won’t be footing that bill–always been a pet peeve of mine—ever see a substation in SF—it isn’t the city that pays to hide those of us who pay our bills to PG&E–
I don’t have a problem with making the station distinctive, only the aerial. The station is 75 years old this year and is quite beautiful, albeit small – the original depot with its wings can fit inside a regulation hockey rink. The elevations shown don’t overwhelm or detract from the original depot as I and many others had feared (ex.: Soldier FIeld).
Development of the new Transbay Terminal above ground is expected to pay for the new station. While that may have been sound 5 years ago, it’s much more suspect now. There may be a plan to do something similar at Diridon with development of the six blocks, but that’s an iffy proposition at this point.
Relocation of the substation to the fire training site was ruled out due to flood concerns at nearby Los Gatos Creek. There really wasn’t anywhere else to put it.
So that’s exponentially closer than the tracks at SafeCo, yes? It’s exceptionally loud there, and I can imagine it be even louder
No, the train runs literally underneath the retracted roof.
It is kind of ugly. Hope they change the design. Anyway, by the time this thing ever comes to fruition, we’ll all be in our 90’s, in a seniors home, not able to get across the street, let alone in a HSR to LA.
Angels Stadium of Anaheim at Diridon?
As for the train station, I’d prefer a Galeria/European-style train shed structure that was half the height of those large steel flowers. Brick on the bottom, exposed steel and glass for the upper half.
Hey R.M., I kind of like that iconic bridge over 280/87, but that will never happen.
Not so sure a lengthy aerial structure is a great idea in earthquake country.
Drat, I never got an e-mail about when the HSR session was going to be. I know they said January was next, but then I didn’t hear anything after that. I enjoyed the last one and wanted to go.
Hey Marine, where do you get your info on the HSR community workshop dates? Ed: Email address scrubbed due to spam concerns.
deeze peoples try to fade me, but it is alright for 2night.
You can join the mailing list here. Make sure to select the segment you’re interested in as they’ll only send you updates relevant to the segments you choose.
Thanks for the info.
I’m trying to locate Diridon Station in this picture.
It seems to have been swallowed up by all the new construction.