|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The agency charged with building California’s high-speed rail system adopted a crucial environmental document for the rail line Thursday morning, despite calls from Peninsula critics that the new document is deeply flawed and could lead to litigation.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority had initially certified its program environmental impact report (EIR) for the Bay Area-to-Central Valley section of the voter-approved line in 2008. The agency was forced to de-certify and revise the document last year because of a court order prompted by a lawsuit from Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups.
The new document includes revisions to sections dealing with project description, vibration impacts and Union Pacific’s opposition to sharing its corridor with the new high-speed-rail system. But it does nothing to dispel the concerns voiced by Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities about the ridership projections in the document.
Stuart Flashman, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the rail authority, said the coalition was disappointed in the revised document, which he said “raises more questions than it answers.” The new document, for instance, does nothing to address widespread criticism of the rail authority’s ridership projections. The rail authority used these projections to justify its selection of the Pacheco Pass in the Peninsula as the preferred alternative for the rail line, as opposed to the Altamont Pass in the East Bay, which the plaintiffs supported.
In June, the Institute of Transportation Studies at U.C. Berkeley found these projections to be flawed and unreliable, echoing earlier concerns from the the Palo Alto-based group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD).
Palo Alto, which had filed a motion supporting Menlo Park and Atherton’s suit, also asked the rail authority to take a fresh look at its ridership projections, a request that the new document doesn’t address.
Flashman told the board of directors that by failing to reconsider the ridership numbers, the rail authority is opening itself up to fresh litigation.
“If you go ahead and certify this, you’ll be ending up in court again and probably facing another adverse decision, which I think will be bad for the project,” Flashman said.
Atherton Councilman Jerry Carlsen echoed Flashman’s sentiments and urged the rail authority not to certify the new document, which he predicted “would further deepen the distrust of the authority.”
“This will certainly be an area of further litigation if the document is approved as is,” Carlsen said.
Palo Alto officials, meanwhile, submitted a letter to the rail authority stating that the new document fails to address the city’s comments. Rob Braulik, the city’s project manager for high-speed rail, asked the board not to certify the environmental document and to reanalyze the possibility of running the rail line along Altamont Pass.
Despite these concerns, the rail authority board of directors voted Thursday morning (in the second part of a two-day meeting) to certify the environmental document. In a statement, the rail authority said it responded to more than 3,700 comments from more than 500 agencies in the new EIR.
Curt Pringle, chairman of the rail authority’s board of directors, called the board’s decision to certify the document “another major step forward in making California the home of the nation’s first high-speed rail network.”
“Californians want this project done right, and that means a careful and thoughtful assessment of how to minimize environmental impacts while building a project that creates enormous opportunity for the people of the state,” Pringle said in a statement.
Another lawsuit will probably result in another dismissal. The result will be a minor delay in this major transportation improvement.
Reporting should be neutral and in my opinion the reporting on HSR by the Palo Alto Weekly is anything but neutral. It emphasizes local opposition to the project and highlights what they think is wrong with the project. Little coverage is given to any other point of view and I think that’s shameful.
@”Note”, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood.
A newspaper should print a news story when something newsworthy happens, e.g., when city representatives express more and more anger at the CHSRA and threaten more lawsuits. What would you like the PA Weekly to do, write an extensive story full of juicy quotes when CHSRA’s “board of directors” routinely follow Diridon’s lead and “certify” the latest environmental impact document (as if they ever seriously debated it and passed it in a close vote)? There’s a decent quote in the article from Pringle’s pseudo statement — probably written by Olgivy, CHSRA’s PR agency funded by our tax dollars. What more could the author do? Interview Rod Diridon or Quinton Kopp and ask them what they think of the move they’re orchestrating? The Weekly’s focus should be on what’s happening locally in this attempted naked power play masquerading as a panacea for many of society’s ills.
Good someone also points out what game Paloalto online or may I add Gennady Sheyner is always salting and slanting
And then there is the of course “truth” from the local Nimbys and deniers and teabagger types that all is a lie and anyone posting postive is of course “working” for CAHSR !!!
I say go girl. Let’s get this done. I will stop flying to LA.and take rail instead. Can’t wait.
I’d like to know what newspaper doesn’t have a slant. The Wall Street Journal makes a strong effort, but the PAWeekly is no different than any other paper…this one leans left on political issues of all kinds…no surprise here. Its Palo Alto. Nothing neutral will ever be printed. Just like the SFChron, NY TImes to. Left left left.
It seems easy for the pro-train nimby audience to make remarks about what happens in someone else’s backyard. This is a matter that affects people who live here. Now that we understand the destruction this HSR could have on our community, its benefit to the train hobbyist does not justify its construction.
“Nimbys and deniers and teabagger types”
In Palo Alto? You really are from out of town, aren’t you.
Thank you for your comment T. Tierney, you speak for me, too. I think if we looked at the URL’s of those posting (and the Weekly makes no promise of anonymity in its terms), we’d get the real picture.
A lot of outsiders trying to pose as Palo Alto residents to talk up the one version of HSR that threatens Palo Alto? THAT would be news. How bout it, Weekly?
Nimbys from Atherton/PA/menlo are all over the media/web with antiHSR storys and made up facts..so dont play that victim game again..whats good for the goose is good for the gander..this is a state wide project and not some little condo builder your groups usually push around..If you people thinking your going to ruin HSR just because PA demands so ..go get a big cup of coffee!! PS I come thru PA on CAltrain all the time to Stanford
Anyhoo, back to the subject at hand … why does the City of Palo Alto think that it can re-litigate on issues that the court has already dismissed and on which the court has ruled that there is no cause to reconsider based on new information? The Program EIR was deemed deficient in a limited number of areas (vibration; Union Pacific ROW) and CHSRA says that its new document addresses those areas … I suppose PA could litigate based on a claim that the new EIR does not adequately address those issues. But claims about ridership projections etc, the court has already rejected those and rejected pleas to reconsider based on “new” information.
“Nimbys from Atherton/PA/menlo are all over the media/web with antiHSR storys and made up facts”
What’s your angle that you are so set on smearing hardworking people all along this Peninsula, in order to defend a specific route on a small leg of the HSR route across the entire state?
In case I might be able to breach your fog of smug self-interest, people in this area support high speed rail. They mostly voted for it. They would like it to be done in a way that improves the transportation SYSTEM. Shoving this project right through the heart of their communities is not a necessary aspect of creating high speed rail for California.
THE QUESTION IS, WHY IS HSR ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA A COMPLETELY WORTHLESS BAD IDEA UNLESS IT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH (RATHER THAN NEXT TO, FOR EXAMPLE) OUR COMMUNITIES ON THIS LAST, SMALL LEG?
The title “Rail authority’s new report draws criticism” is certainly redundant – as if the HSR could say anything that would not draw criticism from someone.
As for those who think that those who oppose their view are from “out of town” (I believe there were comments implying this from both sides). I really think those in other towns will debate this in their local paper or perhaps in larger forums.
Personally I support HRS. I live a few hundred feet from the tracks and I think grade level (with the cross streets put under the tracks) or the tracks in a trench (which might mean bringing Oregon Expressway up to grade) is the best solution. I also believe the HSR improvements will help Caltrain run quieter and pollute less and the traffic jams around the tracks during rush hour will be much better after the streets do not cross the tracks.
I think talk of a “Berlin Wall” or of reduced property values are ridiculous. Electric trains are quieter and no cross streets means they do not blow their horns unless something is in their way. I think if we got a station here it would improve our property values as a whole new class of resident would consider living here.
But I do believe those who oppose it have valid view points and dismissing someone as “out of town” does not help.
“The title “Rail authority’s new report draws criticism” is certainly redundant – as if the HSR could say anything that would not draw criticism from someone.”
@ Frank,
The article goes on to describe the specific criticism — just because you don’t like that criticism doesn’t make it right for you to dismiss those views as invalid. Sure, there’s critics for anything anyone does is public. It doesn’t invalidate the VALID criticisms that were made of the rail authority’s report, the subject of the article (with appropriate headline).
I’d be okay with a covered trench (even open some places). I think a lot of people would. Go back and read the previous discussions.
And go back and look at where people are from while your at it. A lot of mean-spirited insults have been hurled at Palo Altans from people outside of Palo Alto. Most of the proponents of doing HSR without regard to how it would affect Palo Alto or other Peninsula communities are from elsewhere.
For awhile in these discussions, a whole lot of posters sounding exactly like those from “another community” were claiming to be from Palo Alto. Nobody would have problems with their being from out-of-town if they weren’t spouting stereotypes, insults, and promising to impose a narrow view of what they want on us without bothering to know what’s here.
I’m like you. I support HSR. Like our City Counsel, I want it done in a way that makes it a resource rather than a burden.
BABIES..the twain wont wuinin your little world..cry babie “parent” is one that if it was your neighbor you would want to spray a garden house in their face because they would always be bitching and whinning about something
The current configuration demonstrates no attempt to mitigate the extreme harm that this project would cause to our community.
The Palo Alto Voices are not “NIMBY”, but simply call for the HSR Authority to do it right. Very reasonable.
Being against a third-world design for what had previously been advertised as a World-Class project, is not anti-HSR.
To falsely label the correct citizen protect as NIMBY and Anti-HSR is an unethical deception that simply needs to end.
Do it right or don’t do it at all. The plan is not right, so the HSR Authority has forced us into an inexcapable conclusion. Give us a World-class plan that respects the communities and you will find all kinds of support for the greater good.
Respectfully,
Tim Gray
I don’t think Palo Alto has yet taken a position on the subject. Certain residents of Palo Alto have, but I don’t believe the City has.
NO….A NIMBY is a correct term…deal with it!! you dont want it so its of course .. WAAAAAA bad..A gold plated expo park tunnel to replace a railroad older anyone alive is not “doing it right” A clean quite safe grade seperated railroad at grade is!! ..Read the demands
MUST be a tunnel or covered trench..BS..its fine a grade behind a decorative fence with plants..just like 100s of cites nicer than PA and Menlopark worldwide
“Extreme Harm”? Improving the tracks, switching to quieter trains, eliminating the grade level crossings (where the accidents happen). How is any of that harmful at all?
Running more trains? Perhaps, but quieter and less diesel soot from all trains – mitigates that.
Let’s keep the discussion real. There are some issues here but “Extreme Harm” is just not on the table.
HSR plain and simple:
This will be the nail that truly ruins this state for generations to come.
Besides ruining the lifes of many now!
But, who cares, as long as the “Selfish Me-Me-Me” persons get to LA quicker.
Those who want it for these selfish reasons need to stop and think of others.
Amazing and outrageous that people are willing to create this much damage to get to somewhere a few hours earlier by train! Are we at the bottom of the selfish pit? Yes!
Maybe we should just re-route it through all the towns and backyards of the people who really want it to run. Hmmm, I see a change in tune.
I wish it were possible to say something here that might move the discussion into more reasonable territory but I can see that both sides are entrenched in their positions. Disappointing to see adults behave with so little grace and no sense of obligation to our state and its citizens to collaborate in finding the best solution for the most people.
Frank of Ventura neighborhood. I sincerely hope you will carefully reconsider your opinion about bringing Oregon Expressway to grade. Consider what this would mean. Alma Expressway and Oregon Expressway would then intersect, requiring a signal that would stop through traffic, creating significant delays on BOTH crosstown expressways. This is a monumentally BAD idea for local traffic. It would push very high volumes of expressway auto traffic to other streets not designed to carry high volumes.
HSR across the state might work. However, I don’t think it can be extended down the Peninsula as proposed. It would be better to improve Peninsula local Caltrain service to connect better to HSR in SJ. That would solve two problems–bring better local service to the Peninsula (rather than reducing local trains and undermining local auto routes) as the current HSR Peninsula plan would do)and give people connections to HSR when they need it.
Babies!!!! your paper cant have your lies and fake facts disputed!!! so they remove them!!!
I can’t help wondering how many posters are in the employ of Ogilvy, the HSR PR agency, which is getting 9 million taxpayer dollars to tell “the truth” about HSR.
Employing bloggers to spread “the truth” is a common PR tactic.
PS Pat..see comment above!!! what a laugh!! yes anyone for HSR works for the big bad CAHSR!! I did not know I was employed by them?? when are medical centers being put aboard trains?
“the truth”—- please read the post more carefully. All that was said was “wonder how many” are employed by th PR firm, which is not the same as suggesting that all supporters are employees of the PR firm. Interesting,though, that it appears that a pretty large number of supporters don’t live in or near a community most affected negatively by HSR (whether through eminent domain, substantial increase in neighborhood traffic, or unsightly construction, or other effects of the rail).
frank, check with the realtors — property values along the corridor are definitely down and the homes are much harder to sell.
PA Weekly is now in a neighborhood directly impacted by imaginary HSR ‘negatives’. That explains the Weekly’s bias in this matter. In fact, Weekly principals own the building that might suffer property value loss (if it hasn’t already) due to HSR myths. Hmmmmm….
Suggesting, implying or wondering that some posters are shills for HSR is circumstantial ad hominem and discredits your posts. You would do better to attack their arguments.
I don’t think the article was particularly slanted – the Chron’s take was similar: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/03/BAI91F7CUS.DTL
In all the comments, most debated the merits vs. demerits of HSR, with particular attention to running it up peninsula. However, the article was foremost about the certification of the EIR, with secondary attention on whether HSR Authority listened to Peninsula (and other) opponents. Lost in ‘our’ debate here, and also I would have to say in the article, is the chronology of the issue, especially in regards to recent court ruling, which is strange because Gennady had recently written about it:
“Judge won’t reopen high-speed-rail challenge
Court rejects Peninsula coalition’s bid to reopen the case to force rail authority to revise ridership numbers”
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=18005&e=y
A key paragraph in article: “The new document includes revisions to sections dealing with project description, vibration impacts and Union Pacific’s opposition to sharing its corridor with the new high-speed-rail system. But it does nothing to dispel the concerns voiced by Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities about the ridership projections in the document.”
When the EIR was decertified last fall by court due to litigation, the issues where it failed were the ones noted above, and ridership was NOT one of them. I would have liked to have seen Gennady mention his earlier article discussing the judge’s dismissal of the ridership complaint, if I read Gennady’s 8/23 article correctly (“Kenny wrote in his ruling that the coalition failed to demonstrate that the new evidence would have led to a different ruling a year ago. He faulted the plaintiffs for not discovering the flaws in the ridership model before last year’s ruling and also wrote that the coalition had not exhausted all of its legal avenues.”)
@thedistorter (self-baptised as “the truth”),
Predictably, you resort to gross hyperbole. No one here who is opposed to or concerned about HSR has ever said that “anyone” in favor of HSR works for “the big bad CAHSR [sic].” What some have said, quite plausibly, is that it is curious that a high percentage of the people making assertive and aggressive pro-HSR posts seem to be “residents of another community.” If you don’t think that some of these folks could be plants of Ogilvy, CHSRA’s multi-million dollar, tax payer-fundedPR firm, then you are blissfully innocent of the deviousness of contemporary PR campaigns, some of which are spiritual cousins of Lee Atwater-like political dirty tricks campaigns. I apologize for introducing complexity into the discussion; it’s so much easier to make crude generalizations and to distort what one’s opponents have actually claimed, creating straw men that a sharp grammar school kid could knock down.
I tried to put the EIR certification response by PA and other Peninsula cities and HSR opponents into context in my Planetizen posting:
HSR Opponents Vow To Continue Litigation:
Contention over how California’s high speed rail train from Los Angeles should access the Bay Area appears to be the dispute that won’t go away. Having just lost their case in court only 2 weeks ago, approval of the Pacheco Pass may continue (the court case)
http://www.planetizen.com/node/45851
The article summarized is the Chrons’ while an earlier PA Online article is included in the body.