|
|
|
Uploaded: Monday, October 12, 2009, 10:33 PM
Court ruling gives boost to high-speed rail
Sacramento County judge rules High-Speed Rail Authority can continue work despite flaws in environmental review
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
Design work can proceed on the planned Peninsula segment of high-speed rail despite flaws in the environmental analysis of the overall project, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge has ruled.
The ruling Friday by Judge Michael Kenny is a setback for a coalition of opponents of the rail plan and of the Peninsula segment. The coalition includes Menlo Park and Atherton and environmental groups. They had hoped Kenny would send the California High Speed Rail Authority back to redo the environmental studies and halt design work on segments, such as the Peninsula segment.
The ruling means the rail authority -- charged with building the 800-mile line between San Francisco and Los Angeles -- can continue studying design alternatives for the Bay Area section of the line.
California voters approved $9.95 billion to provide seed funds for the $40-billion-plus rail line in the Nov. 3 election.
The coalition had sued the rail authority, arguing that the agency was hasty in approving Pacheco Pass as its preferred alternative for the Bay Area segment of the line.
The coalition argued that the line should pass through the East Bay via the Altamont Pass. It also argued that the authority failed to describe the project adequately when it approved the broader environmental report that identified Pacheco Pass as the preferred alternative.
Kenny agreed in August that the authority failed to describe fully some sections of the line, specifically the segment between San Jose and Merced. Kenny also ruled that the authority failed to consider Union Pacific's opposition to sharing its right-of-way with high-speed rail and ordered the authority to revise those sections of the environmental impact report.
But on Friday Kenny ruled that the authority could make the revisions while still proceeding with design and engineering work on specific segments, including the San Francisco-to-San Jose and the San Jose-to-Merced segments.
The coalition had requested a stay of all of rail authority's activities that depended on the broader environmental review.
Stuart Flashman, the coalition's attorney, called Kenny's decision "unfortunate" and said he will discuss the possibility with his clients of appealing the decision. Flashman had argued that the authority should be required to make the necessary adjustments to the broader program-level document before it could proceed with design and environmental work the specific segments.
Flashman also said the authority has a $35 million budget over the next year for work on the two segments between San Francisco and Merced. If rail officials were allowed to proceed with work on these segments without first revising the environmental clearance for the system as a whole it would be nearly impossible for them to later revisit their decisions on the Bay Area stretch of the line.
"Respondent has made it abundantly clear that the one reason it wishes to continue project-level studies and activities is precisely so that it can continue to build momentum for its improperly-approved Pacheco Pass alignment," Flashman wrote in his request for a stay.
"However, the more that momentum builds, the more unlikely it will become that Respondent will alter its choice, even if an alternate choice might ultimately have less environmental impact."
But the rail authority successfully argued that any work stoppage would greatly delay the entire project and threaten the agency's ability to land billions of dollars in federal funds.
Anthony Daniels, program director for the authority, argued in a declaration that halting work on one segment of the rail line would slow down work in other segments. He said a half-year delay is likely to increase costs by more than $700 million.
"Work stoppage in one section of the high-speed train system cannot be viewed in isolation as only affecting the particular section subject to stoppage," Daniels wrote. "The entire system is interrelated. ... A work stoppage in the San Francisco-to-San Jose and the "San Jose-to-Merced sections of the system will hamper the type of system-wide planning and design efforts needed and will cause a slowdown in all of the other sections between Anaheim and San Francisco."
Daniels also said the state plans to apply for $4.58 billion in federal funding from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Delaying the project could jeopardize the state's ability for complete the necessary environmental documents related to the application by early fall of 2011, as required by the federal act.
Tim Cobb, who is working with the rail authority on the Peninsula segment, said halting the project would be particularly difficult for the small companies and subcontractors involved in its design. Cobb wrote in a declaration that his company, HNTB, has subcontracts with 15 different firms to work on high-speed rail and expects to have 160 employees assigned to the project within the next two months.
"My experience is that smaller subcontractors that HNTB works with typically have a more difficult time absorbing the costs of a work stoppage than larger firms," Cobb wrote. "I therefore believe it would be highly likely that a multi-month work stoppage would result in a greater hardship for these subcontractors, especially the very small single-person firms that may not have other projects to work on."
Kenny ruled that because the rail authority is still in the design phase (as opposed to actual construction), it could fulfill its obligations to revise the broader environmental report without halting any of its ongoing studies. According to minutes from Friday's hearing, the court ruled that staying project-level activities is "not appropriate" pursuant to state law.
"The actions for which a stay is being requested are studies with no potential for adverse change or alterations to the physical environment," Kenny ruled, according to the minutes.
"Additionally, the Court concludes that such studies do not create such momentum that respondent Authority would be unable to comply with its CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) obligations as previously determined by this court.
"Accordingly, petitioners' request that the writ to be issued include a stay is denied."
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Say No to Palo Alto !!!!, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 2:34 am At least someone knows how to crush the "Palo Alto Process".
The only people who don't get it is the 'so called do-gooders' of Palo Alto.
Just Say No To Palo Alto.
|
|
Posted by GOOD!!, a resident of another community, on Oct 13, 2009 at 6:08 am About time ..and where is all the Nimbys and there lies and "horror tales about HSR
|
|
Posted by Evan, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:20 am Thank goodness somebody has the best interest of California and Palo Alto at heart. High speed rail will be great for Palo Alto, the region and the state, despite what a very vocal, very small minority would like everyone to think.
I'm for a safer, greener, more connected, quieter, more transit-friendly Palo Alto. I'm for high speed rail.
|
|
Posted by against HSR along Caltrain corridor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:52 am Evan,
How exactly will HSR be great for Palo Alto? How will it connect Palo Alto? And how will it make P.A. more transit friendly? It will just whizz through P.A. P.A.'s public transit system is very limited. We have no buses going to the Caltrains stations. If we were to build it, who will pay for it? This whole project will coat about 50 Billion, or more.And that does not include new buses to connect to it. Do we really need it for that amount of money? Caltrain has decreased its number of trains as they do not have the ridership. HSR will not suddenly have enough riders.
|
|
Posted by Jay Tulock, a resident of another community, on Oct 13, 2009 at 11:31 am A sad day for the people of California.
Jay Tulock, Vacaville000
|
|
Posted by Jarrett, a resident of Mountain View, on Oct 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm @ against HSR along caltrain
HSR will help connect Palo Alto to the rest of the state via fast, frequent and safe train service. Caltrain service frequency and reliability will also be improved, providing better local transit service. In addition, pedestrian and vehicle circulation and safety will be improved with complete-grade separations via tunnel, trench, or fill! These improved connections will undoubtedly improve transit and make Palo Alto more transit friendly.
To correct you on a few things:
Palo Alto has many buses that serve the Caltrain Station! VTA's frequent 22 and 522 Rapid serve the station along with the 35, and the Dumbarton Express. Also, multiple lines of Stanford's free Marguerite shuttle serve the station with frequent service. In addition, there is a enclosed bike station that is heavily used within the Caltrain station.
Caltrain recently eliminated 8 midday trains because of the state budget shortfall. State Transit Assistence funds were eliminated, so Caltrain did not have the money to operate the midday service. While ridership has decreased recently, this is due to the economy. Overall, Caltrain has increased ridership nearly 50% since the implementation of Baby Bullet express service in 2004.
While some trains will whizz by Palo Alto on express runs, many trains will stop there if Rail Authority chooses PA for the mid-peninsula HSR stop.
Your city is very lucky to have so many transit options! If Palo Alto hosts the mid-peninsula HSR stop, the city will have even better transit connectivity. However, if Palo Alto doesn't want anything to do with the HSR stop, I will be more than happy to board in Mountain View. Closer to home!
|
|
Posted by P.A. Native, a resident of Mountain View, on Oct 13, 2009 at 1:30 pm Amen!
|
|
Posted by JW, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm The HSR discussion always seems to result into an all-or-nothing scenario. What is wrong with stopping in San Jose and letting the existing CalTrain system serve San Jose to San Francisco? Is the 15 minutes difference in arrival time that significant? Doesn't the ability to access the train at many locations rather than just a few outweigh that? Isn't the huge cost savings by eliminating the most costly section of the HSR path well worth giving the idea some strong consideration? If the high speed rail project turns out to be the success that many hope for, then the San Jose to San Francisco section can always be added later.
|
|
Posted by Frustrated, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 2:22 pm HSR is so poorly planned, they really have no idea what the ridership will be. Their business plan is so flawed, it's difficult to know where to begin. Has ANYONE at our local paper read the business plan?
We are unlikely to get a station in Palo Alto. WHERE would it go? An HSR station will need ground transport connections, parking, baggage claim, etc. --All of the amenities that cross-state travelers need and expect from an airport (because SFO and San Jose Airport will be their primary competition). We don't have a place in Palo Alto that can accomodate a station of that size.
Dreams about tunneling are just that...dreams. Who owns the land that the tracks will be built on? Not Palo Alto! WHERE will the city capture the revenue needed to cover the additional costs of tunneling that won't be covered by the state or federal governments?
Assuming grade separation will be done at all intersections, how will they maintain all turning movements for local traffic at these intersections? (they will need to build ramps that will require houses on BOTH sides of the tracks and Alma to be removed.) Draft engineering plans for grade separations at these intersections exist with Caltrain. Caltrain engineers drew up these plans years ago. I have seen them. Local newspapers, do your homework! Do your job! HSR will tell you they haven't gotten to that level of detail, but the work has been done by another body. The problems and advantages of grade separation at these intersections have been explored in depth. Please REPORT on this in DEPTH.
I went to the HSR "open house" last week. What a pathetic event. I'm sure they will use it as an example of their "excellent" outreach. They ONE map of the Palo Alto section of the project that was so small, I could obscure my entire neighobhood by putting my thumb over it. The engineers present could not (or would not) give me straight answers about turning movements at grade separated intersections. They know the answer as well as I do. They are relying on the ignorance of the public about transportation issues to carry this forward as it did in the last election.
WHEN will our local newspapers investigate some of these important questions? Stop reporting on what the HSR SAYS and do some investigative journalism.
I can't think of another project that will be more important to this community, and our local papers are doing an absolutely TERRIBLE job reporting on it. There is an opporutnity to do a really extraordinary in-depth, multi-issue story here. You are missing it!
|
|
Posted by Jarrett, a resident of Mountain View, on Oct 13, 2009 at 5:38 pm JW:
Under Proposition 1A, the train is required to make a run between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and LA Union Station in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Terminating in San Jose would violate the station endpoint and the travel time requirements. Hypothetically speaking, I think it's fair to say it would take longer than 2 hours and 55 minutes with a transfer to Caltrain at San Jose. This is considering a Baby Bullet Caltrain takes just under 1 hour from San Jose to San Francisco. Local trains take 1 hour and 20 minutes. Therefore, a forced transfer at San Jose would add more like 35-45 minutes to HSR trip time. This assumes the transfers are meticulously timed too! If there aren't timed transfers, or only local service is available travel time could easily push an extra hour. I think this would be a major turn off for people traveling to San Francisco. As for more stops, the shared High Speed/ Caltrain alignment gives you the best of both worlds. Passengers traveling to SF get an express journey to their destination, while passengers traveling to local peninsula cities can transfer to a quicker, more frequent Caltrain at San Jose. The through route gives more options for more types of trips. This means more ridership.
|
|
Posted by Teddie, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm What great news. This will be a great message to our children and to the future of California.
|
|
Posted by jim h., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 9:10 pm the message being, "sorry that your parks, roads and schools are the worst in the country, but look how fast you can get to Disneyland! Also, due to the increased debt burden, sales taxes will be increasing to 15% as well as an increase in business, property and personal income tax to cover the shortfall. Thanks for supporting HSR"
|
|
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:47 pm Let's see. SF has a forty year legacy of favoring their neighborhoods over regional transportation. I'd visit Napa a lot more often if 280 connected through... Can we have a regional discussion for a change?
Web Link
|
|
Posted by MeMe, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:10 am Here come the HSR shills.
"Flaws" in the environmental review? More like bald-faced omissions designed to trick the naive, gullible California voter into approving $10 million in debt in a moribund economy. They deliberately covered up the lack of a deal to use the UPRR right of way between Gilroy and San Jose to snooker voters last November.
Say, has anyone seen so much as a sample timetable for HSR, one of the most basic elements of operating a railroad? Does anyone actually believe their ridership projections?
All of the above is my opinion.
|
|
Posted by MeMe, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:27 am << a forced transfer at San Jose would add more like 35-45 minutes to HSR trip time >>
Millions of people live in poverty in this country, yet heaven FORBID we should inconvenience the HSR traveler by delaying him 35 - 45 minutes. If he's in such a dad-burned hurry he should have flown.
|
|
Posted by B Minkin, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 8:00 am The reality is that regardless of whether we like it or whether it is realistic, the voters did give them the authority to build the train. The important thing now is to make it as good as we can for us (not easy because they do not really need to listen to us). The cities on the peninsula should be working together to push the rail planners as effectively as possible.
The public affairs people at the open house said that a stop in either of Palo Alto, Mountain View, or Redwood City is not a certainty, just an alternative being explored. The train may have stops only at SF, Millbrae, and SJ. Jarrett, you are such a booster of the rail plan that you must know this already -- are you one of those contracted with CHSRA to do outreach?
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 9:04 am Evan,
Your Crescent Park home will gain in value while prices plummet along the Caltrain corridor...so please stop bashing the NIMBYists. Your financial incentive makes you no less biased.
|
|
Posted by Future Dumb Kids of CA, a resident of Menlo Park, on Oct 14, 2009 at 2:10 pm Great - We'll have a fancy train that nobody really "needs".
And all the money to build "The Train That Nobody Needs" will get sucked right out of the CA State education funds to pay for it. Schools will suffer accordingly, and then we'll have an entire generation of under-educated kids. It will be those same kids who will be paying taxes and funding our Social Security when we're old. Without a great education, they'll be too dumb for any decent jobs, and will therefore pay less taxes, and use more government services.
But hey, all those under-educated kids can stand around and watch "The Train That Nobody Needs" whoosh by.
We spend our public funds in some really stupid ways - and the HSR project is one of them.
|
|
Posted by Gern Blanston, a resident of Menlo Park, on Oct 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm JW wrote: "The HSR discussion always seems to result into an all-or-nothing scenario. What is wrong with stopping in San Jose and letting the existing CalTrain system serve San Jose to San Francisco?..."
This is something I've been proposing on forums and blogs for well more than a year now, and the response from HSR supporters is always an unequivocal, "That would be the death of HSR -- you'd kill ridership before the train ever got rolling!" Which is an interesting claim, given the *absolute* paucity of real data these same proponents can offer round any other facet of HSR. The ridership projections put forward by the Authority are so completely mired in fantasy that they would be humorous were not billions of tax-payer dollars at stake with this project.
Reason.org: Web Link
Video 1: Web Link
Video 2: Web Link
Video 3: Web Link
Jarrett points out that Prop 1A requires a direct SF connection and transit times not to exceed 2 hours and 40 minutes. But as the first source linked above points out:
"Among the unreal estimates is that the trains will connect San Francisco with Los Angeles in 2 hours and 42 minutes. For that to occur, the trains would have to operate at an average speed of 197 mph, a feat that has yet to be accomplished anywhere in the world. That combined with routing problems means the trip is likely to take an hour longer."
Clearly, the project requirements need to change, need to suffer a reality check, before real money is spent attempting to build what probably can't be built (as currently scoped).
Gern
|
|
Posted by JAYT, a resident of another community, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:36 pm IT cant be built cheap because of people of the type that live in PaloAlto!!!!!
You world revolves around you people..to far away and your scared..OO they dont like me!!! WELL most of the BayArea HATES you..why?...yourselfs..this Issue is the perfect example,You live next to a railroad that provides transit for people at a low cost..yet its LOUD and the horns..never mind that HSR is nothing more than rebuilding this railroad..but NO!!!I am Right AND you are not listening to MEEE!!! now save your town before even more people hate you..
|
|
Posted by Jarrett, a resident of Mountain View, on Oct 15, 2009 at 3:03 am Glen,
You're setting a double standard in your post. You complain that HSR supporters lack data, yet your argument lacks data since Joseph Vranich provides no insignt for his hyperbole. In the spirit of data, I have numbered my references to make for easy reading.
I read the arguments that Vranich made and I especially take issue with his travel time estimates. Vranich starts with a strawman by inventing 197mph as the required average speed to travel between SF Transbay and LA Union Station in 2h 42m. Using very simple calculations, the train actually needs a 164mph average speed. This assumes 2h and 38m travel time and 432 miles between stations (1).
Vranich continues to argue that the CAHSR travel times are not rooted in reality and you seem to agree with him. However, lets compare the proposed CAHSR timetable to Japan Rail’s Shinkansen timetable. The CAHSR timetable is hypothetical, and the JR one is executed daily. They are very similar! Here it goes: According to CAHSR’s website and statewide EIR, the rail distance between SF Transbay and LA’s Norwalk Station is 445 miles. On JR’s Tokaido-Sanyo Shinkansen, Tokyo and Okayama are about 455 miles apart (2). JR’s fastest scheduled express is the Nozomi and it makes the 455 mile run in 3h 13m with 6 intermediate stops. CAHSR has a very similar train in their hypothetical timetable that makes 6 intermediate stops and takes 2h 58m (3). Considering CAHSR will cruise at 220mph versus 186mph on the Shinkansen, and will be less serpentine, I think the proposed travel times are very realistic plus or minus a few minutes.
Even though Vranich’s average speed argument is made of straw, he does have a point about technological feasibility. While no train operates with the 164mph average speed required by CAHSR, China Rail High-Speed operates a 74mile line at a 217mph top speed which is what CAHSR intends to operate at. The CRH train makes the 74 mile run in 30 minutes, which means 148mph average speed (4). Despite what Vranich says I don’t think it’s unrealistic for CAHSR to bump up the average speed on the express runs considering there will be huge expanses of 220mph running through the Central Valley. Although, it will be very challenging to design a right of way to facilitate this. The engineers must work to shave every possible minute from the alignment.
(1)From the Statewide EIR: Web Link
(2)Web Link
(3)Draft timetable p14:
Web Link
(4)Web Link
|
|
Posted by wary traveler, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:13 am 1. If Caltrain were to race HSR nonstop from SJ to SF in 2025 after both got built out as per their plans, Caltrain would lose by only 3 minutes.
2. The CHSRA's current estimated cost for the SJ to SF segment is about $4.3 billion.
That’s a lot of billions for a few minutes reduction in travel time!
The travel time assumes non-stop service for each, making this an apples to apples comparison. You could argue that Caltrain doesn't provide non-stop service, however that's a limiting assumption based on today's Caltrain schedule. Schedules can be modified, and they don't require figuring out in advance which cities will be rebuilding their stations for HSTs.
As for costs, the $4.3 billion is merely today's estimate. It doesn't include HSR stations and their infrastructure or cost escalations. The 3 minute time difference is fixed; the $4.3 billion price tag is a minimum starting point.
|
|
|
| |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
