Commentary and Analysis of Residential Real Estate, Homes & Communities. Representing clients in Buying & Selling Fine Properties.
Showing posts with label California high-speed rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California high-speed rail. Show all posts
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Peninsula Cities Face Uphill Battle in Trying to Join Forces over High-speed Rail
Source: By Mike Rosenberg, mrosenberg@bayareanewsgroup.com
Tired of being a national "laughingstock" on high-speed rail, a splintered group of San Mateo County cities is joining to form a lobbying effort they hope will put them on equal footing with San Francisco and San Jose.
San Mateo, Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and South San Francisco have already banded together to form the San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership. Officials in Belmont and the county supervisors have also expressed interest, while other cities are set to discuss joining the effort.
The officials behind the idea think the county's 12 cities along the Caltrain line can relay their concerns about California high-speed rail to the state and federal governments more easily as a unified group. The problem is that many of the cities -- even the ones that have joined -- don't necessarily agree on many aspects of the massive project, which could run along the Caltrain line later this decade.
While leaders in Burlingame are fighting to slow down the project, for instance, their neighbors in Millbrae are pushing for the rail line to come to town as quickly as possible.
Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel, one of the group's founders, acknowledged they may not be able to get every city along the tracks to join or agree on many controversial areas. But she argues the cities are helpless by themselves.
Nagel said the seeds of the group's founding were planted in a fall meeting between officials from several Peninsula cities and
"They basically told us we're not going to get any money for high-speed rail or transportation because all our cities do is fight," Nagel said. "One of them said we were the laughingstock of Washington, D.C., because of our constant bickering. They were saying cities have to work it out."
Extra federal funding is key because cities fear they will have to pony up for local parts of the project, such as rail crossings, and will almost certainly need more money to bury the tracks underground, as several cities want.
The cities say they also have had virtually no luck pleading their case with the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The authority declined to even study -- let alone implement -- a key part of the project local cities want, namely tunneled tracks.
Some cities simply may not fit in a larger coalition, however. Atherton and Menlo Park, for example, have sued the state to reverse its decision to run the high-speed railroad along the Caltrain line, but the new partnership group is pushing to "accept" the route.
"Our voice can get lost, when we join with all the (San Mateo County) cities," Menlo Park Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said at a meeting this week to discuss the new group.
Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline added that the group "doesn't make sense."
"It's another overlapping group of talking heads," Cline said. Nonetheless, he said Menlo Park's full council will vote on whether to join the group.
Yet there is some common ground. San Mateo Public Works Director Larry Patterson recently asked San Mateo County cities for a list of their high-speed rail concerns, and he found each jurisdiction's problems fell into five categories: track alignment, adjacent property impacts, land use and economics, traffic and construction.
Patterson, who is leading the coordination between cities, said one goal of the group is to make peace between the various cities, a process that is typically difficult regardless of the issue.
"But we need to find a way to do that," Patterson said. "We don't want to be lost in the shuffle. I think we make the task much more difficult if we try to do it as individual cities."
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Menlo Park to Hire High-speed-rail Lobbyist
Source: Sean Howell, Almanac Staff
The city of Menlo Park has hired a lobbyist to make the city's case to Sacramento when it comes to the California high-speed-rail project, and has devoted $200,000 for the upcoming fiscal year to rail issues.
The expenditures highlight the importance of the issue to city officials, as Menlo Park strains to balance its budget following the economic recession. The upcoming year will be a particularly crucial one for the rail system, with a decision pending on how high-speed trains would make their way through the city.
Ravi Mehta, the lobbyist in the city's employ, also advocates for Palo Alto on the issue. He works on a retainer of $5,000 per month, plus expenses. Mehta will represent the city to the rail agency board and to legislators, and will report to city officials on new developments, according to Mayor Rich Cline.
"It's not really equitable," Cline said. "The High-Speed Rail Authority has the ability to call a public hearing pretty much whenever they want. ... We have to schedule who's going to Sacramento, and most of the time it ends up being a resident. It's a great disadvantage for the city."
City officials spend a lot of time drafting and revising letters to the rail agency that end up going "straight into a file" once they reach Sacramento, Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said, adding that the city needs an advocate who's present at the meetings if it wants to be heard.
Fergusson sits on the city's high-speed rail subcommittee with Cline, who chairs a regional advocacy group made up of representatives from five Peninsula cities. Cline estimates that he spends 15 to 20 hours per week in his role on the committee, almost as much time as he devotes to other city business issues.
Part of the city's rail-related budget will go to hire experts who will help to interpret technical documents released by the rail agency. It's scheduled to publish an analysis in April of how the Caltrain corridor would accommodate high-speed trains.
The city of Menlo Park has hired a lobbyist to make the city's case to Sacramento when it comes to the California high-speed-rail project, and has devoted $200,000 for the upcoming fiscal year to rail issues.
The expenditures highlight the importance of the issue to city officials, as Menlo Park strains to balance its budget following the economic recession. The upcoming year will be a particularly crucial one for the rail system, with a decision pending on how high-speed trains would make their way through the city.
Ravi Mehta, the lobbyist in the city's employ, also advocates for Palo Alto on the issue. He works on a retainer of $5,000 per month, plus expenses. Mehta will represent the city to the rail agency board and to legislators, and will report to city officials on new developments, according to Mayor Rich Cline.
"It's not really equitable," Cline said. "The High-Speed Rail Authority has the ability to call a public hearing pretty much whenever they want. ... We have to schedule who's going to Sacramento, and most of the time it ends up being a resident. It's a great disadvantage for the city."
City officials spend a lot of time drafting and revising letters to the rail agency that end up going "straight into a file" once they reach Sacramento, Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said, adding that the city needs an advocate who's present at the meetings if it wants to be heard.
Fergusson sits on the city's high-speed rail subcommittee with Cline, who chairs a regional advocacy group made up of representatives from five Peninsula cities. Cline estimates that he spends 15 to 20 hours per week in his role on the committee, almost as much time as he devotes to other city business issues.
Part of the city's rail-related budget will go to hire experts who will help to interpret technical documents released by the rail agency. It's scheduled to publish an analysis in April of how the Caltrain corridor would accommodate high-speed trains.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Are you concerned about what High Speed Rail will look like in our city?

Do you want to see what designs they are considering?
Please join us on Tuesday, February 9th from 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm in Council Chambers at Palo Alto Civic Center (250 Hamilton Avenue) for a preview of the Alternatives Analysis for the High Speed Rail Project.
Representatives from the California High Speed Rail Authority will present a preview of the design alternatives that are being studied for the high speed train that is planned on the CalTrain right of way. We have been told there will be engineers on hand to answer technical questions.
There will be a period for public comment and each speaker will have 2 minutes. This meeting will be video taped and made available on the city's website for those who can't attend.
The Alternatives Analysis will officially be presented to the Board of Directors for the High Speed Rail Authority on March 4th. From that point on, the public will have 30 days to provide any official comments to the alternatives presented. We are hoping that the deadline for comments will be extended - but we are not sure, so please plan ahead.
It is very important that citizens get involved in the process and offer their feedback. If you do not comment, under the law your silence means you agree with the plans put forth 100%.
Please note, if you have comments for the High Speed Rail Authority, you will need to turn those in in writing in order for them to be part of the official record.
If you'd like additional information about this presentation, please contact Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager at steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org or 650-329-2354.
For more information, please see the City's website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/living/news/details.asp?NewsID=1223&TargetID=4
If you have not yet seen the conceptual video that the Authority put out for Palo Alto, please see: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.asp?s=alma-street.
Other sources of information:
Official California High Speed Rail website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Peninsula Cities Consortium: http://www.peninsularail.com/
CARRD - Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design: http://www.calhsr.com/
Hope to see you there!
Nadia Naik
Co-Founder
CARRD
Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design
nadianaik@carrdnet.org
Please join us on Tuesday, February 9th from 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm in Council Chambers at Palo Alto Civic Center (250 Hamilton Avenue) for a preview of the Alternatives Analysis for the High Speed Rail Project.
Representatives from the California High Speed Rail Authority will present a preview of the design alternatives that are being studied for the high speed train that is planned on the CalTrain right of way. We have been told there will be engineers on hand to answer technical questions.
There will be a period for public comment and each speaker will have 2 minutes. This meeting will be video taped and made available on the city's website for those who can't attend.
The Alternatives Analysis will officially be presented to the Board of Directors for the High Speed Rail Authority on March 4th. From that point on, the public will have 30 days to provide any official comments to the alternatives presented. We are hoping that the deadline for comments will be extended - but we are not sure, so please plan ahead.
It is very important that citizens get involved in the process and offer their feedback. If you do not comment, under the law your silence means you agree with the plans put forth 100%.
Please note, if you have comments for the High Speed Rail Authority, you will need to turn those in in writing in order for them to be part of the official record.
If you'd like additional information about this presentation, please contact Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager at steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org or 650-329-2354.
For more information, please see the City's website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/living/news/details.asp?NewsID=1223&TargetID=4
If you have not yet seen the conceptual video that the Authority put out for Palo Alto, please see: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.asp?s=alma-street.
Other sources of information:
Official California High Speed Rail website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Peninsula Cities Consortium: http://www.peninsularail.com/
CARRD - Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design: http://www.calhsr.com/
Hope to see you there!
Nadia Naik
Co-Founder
CARRD
Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design
nadianaik@carrdnet.org
Friday, January 29, 2010
California Gets $2.25B in Stimulus for High Speed Rail
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois are among the big winners of $8 billion in grants announced Thursday by the White House – the start of what some Democrats tout as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era.
President Barack Obama announced the awards during a town hall meeting in Tampa, Fla. – a follow-up to Wednesday's State of the Union address that focused on getting Americans back to work. Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants, which are funded by the economic recovery act enacted last year.
Obama said focusing on building 21st century infrastructure projects is an important element of the country's economic recovery.
"It creates jobs immediately and it lays the foundation for a vibrant economy in the future," Obama said.
Though the administration bills the program as "high-speed rail," most U.S. projects won't reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California's trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Source: Exerpted from the Associated Press via Huffington Post
President Barack Obama announced the awards during a town hall meeting in Tampa, Fla. – a follow-up to Wednesday's State of the Union address that focused on getting Americans back to work. Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants, which are funded by the economic recovery act enacted last year.
Obama said focusing on building 21st century infrastructure projects is an important element of the country's economic recovery.
"It creates jobs immediately and it lays the foundation for a vibrant economy in the future," Obama said.
Though the administration bills the program as "high-speed rail," most U.S. projects won't reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California's trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Source: Exerpted from the Associated Press via Huffington Post
Friday, October 23, 2009
NIMBY Won’t Stop California High-Speed Rail
Source: WIRED: Zach RosenbergDemocracy, it has been said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. We’re seeing that in California, where resistance to a planned high-speed rail line is mounting in three affluent cities. A vocal, and influential, grassroots movement has sprung up to reroute the line around the San Francisco Bay Area communities or have it run underground.
There is tremendous support — not to mention a concrete plan and $10 billion to get the project started — for a high-speed line linking San Francisco and Los Angeles. But disgruntled residents of Menlo Park, Atherton and Palo Alto could make things very difficult. The cities are home to some of the Bay Area’s wealthiest residents, and they’re suing. Their NIMBY opposition could turn the project into a mind-bogglingly expensive and impractical boondoggle.
This issue goes beyond the Bay Area and California, because other proposed high-speed lines almost certainly will face similar opposition. The plaintiffs simply do not want the trains running through their neighborhoods, and such views are not unique to California. The Obama Administration set aside $8 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail and our next transportation spending bill could include as much as $50 billion for it.
As high-speed rail becomes a national reality, planners of potential lines can expect fierce resistance in the courts and intense local political pressure.
The California resistance comes from communities that voted heavily in favor of Prop. 1A, the 2008 ballot initiative that allowed the state to issue bonds worth about $10 billion, or roughly one-quarter the total cost of the project. The measure passed with 52 percent of the vote. Gov. Schwarzenegger has sought another $4.7 billion of the $8 billion set aside in the stimulus package. Forty states are pitching projects — some 272 applications in all — totaling $105 billion.
California’s project is well into the planning process, and the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park have joined some environmental groups in suing the California High-Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain. They’re the two major bureaucratic forces behind the project. The suit alleges two things: first, an improper environmental assessment; second, infringing on Union Pacific’s track ownership.
The first issue is relatively straightforward — the plaintiffs argue studies of the environmental impact the project would have on their communities weren’t handled correctly and therefore underestimate the noise, vibration, displacement and other problems the line would create. Much of this was settled in an earlier lawsuit, but the judge sided with Atherton on a few minor issues, allowing for further suits.
The second point requires a little history: Southern Pacific once owned the tracks California hopes to retrofit for high-speed trains. In 1991, Southern Pacific, which became part of Union Pacific in 1996, sold the tracks to Caltrain for use as commuter tracks, but it retained the exclusive right to use them for freight and to hire an operator for intercity trains. The latest suit claims Caltrain lacks the authority to allow intercity high-speed trains on the tracks because Caltrain is dealing with the High-Speed Rail Authority, not Union Pacific. Union Pacific, which has been happy to allow high speed rail as long as it can still haul freight on the lines, seems puzzled by the lawsuit.
Assuming the plaintiffs aren’t actually outraged at the creek displacement or wholly overlooked violation of California contract law, this appears to be, at its heart, a case of NIMBYism. The plaintiffs worry about the noise, vibration, increased traffic and loss of privacy — and decreased property values — high-speed rail might bring. They also argue that no one involved in the project adequately or honestly studied alternatives, which, in fairness, is true. These are legitimate issues.
So the proposed solutions are to reroute the rail line or run it through underground tunnels (or both). The proposed reroute might require passengers to stop at an Amtrak station and transfer to Amtrak. Burying the line would be extremely expensive, while rerouting and burying it makes it more expensive and impractical.
Huge projects like this always inflame passions and incite litigation. It is a usual and occasionally necessary part of the process. But California’s high-speed rail line, which is currently the country’s best shot at a credible and useful high-speed intercity train, will be built one way or another.
Labels:
atherton,
California high-speed rail,
menlo park,
NIMBY,
palo alto,
WIRED
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Town Hall Meeting on the High-speed Rail Issue
Senator Joe Simitian and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo invite you to attend a Town hall Meeting on High Speed Rail.
This from Joe "I'll be joining Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for a town hall meeting on California's high-speed rail project. If you'd like to learn more or get a question answered, I hope you'll attend.
"WHAT: Town Hall Meeting on High-Speed Rail hosted by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
(State Senator Joe Simitian will also be there.)
WHEN: Saturday, July 25 at 2:00 PM
WHERE: Menlo Park City Council Chambers, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA
Live webcast athttps://mail.apr.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://eshoo.house.gov/ and a video will be available soon afterwards at https://mail.apr.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.senatorsimitian.com/. This town hall is open to the public, and no RSVP is necessary.
For more information, call (650) 688-6384 or (408) 277-9460.
This from Joe "I'll be joining Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for a town hall meeting on California's high-speed rail project. If you'd like to learn more or get a question answered, I hope you'll attend.
"WHAT: Town Hall Meeting on High-Speed Rail hosted by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
(State Senator Joe Simitian will also be there.)
WHEN: Saturday, July 25 at 2:00 PM
WHERE: Menlo Park City Council Chambers, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA
Live webcast at
For more information, call (650) 688-6384 or (408) 277-9460.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Atherton Meet Focuses on High-speed Rail
Source: by Andrea Gemmet Almanac Staff
If it's a hot topic in town, chances are that the Atherton Civic Interest League is working on it. The group's annual meeting, at 7 p.m. on Thursday, May 28, will feature a panel of experts discussing high-speed rail.
The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the Jennings Pavilion in Holbrook-Palmer Park, 150 Watkins Ave. in Atherton. Atherton officials, and many of the town's residents, have grave worries about the local effects of the state plan to run high-speed trains along the Caltrain corridor that bisects the town. If the high-speed rail line can't be rerouted to avoid the town, Atherton officials would rather have the train run through a trench or tunnel, instead of on an elevated berm.
The scheduled speakers at the meeting are: Mike Garvey and John Litvinger, public outreach consultants working for the California High Speed Rail Authority; John Townsend, executive vice president of Hatch Mott Macdonald, a leading tunnel-engineering and construction firm; Duncan Jones, Atherton's public works director; Gary Patton, attorney and former director of the Planning and Conservation League; and Jim McFall, who will present a digital model of elevated high-speed rail tracks going through Palo Alto.
The meeting kicks off with a roll call and election of new ACIL officers, followed by presentations from the speakers and a half-hour Q&A with the audience. The Atherton Civic Interest League, open to all residents, is a nonprofit organization that aims to improve the quality of life in Atherton and assure effective town governance. It was founded in 1946.
If it's a hot topic in town, chances are that the Atherton Civic Interest League is working on it. The group's annual meeting, at 7 p.m. on Thursday, May 28, will feature a panel of experts discussing high-speed rail.
The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the Jennings Pavilion in Holbrook-Palmer Park, 150 Watkins Ave. in Atherton. Atherton officials, and many of the town's residents, have grave worries about the local effects of the state plan to run high-speed trains along the Caltrain corridor that bisects the town. If the high-speed rail line can't be rerouted to avoid the town, Atherton officials would rather have the train run through a trench or tunnel, instead of on an elevated berm.
The scheduled speakers at the meeting are: Mike Garvey and John Litvinger, public outreach consultants working for the California High Speed Rail Authority; John Townsend, executive vice president of Hatch Mott Macdonald, a leading tunnel-engineering and construction firm; Duncan Jones, Atherton's public works director; Gary Patton, attorney and former director of the Planning and Conservation League; and Jim McFall, who will present a digital model of elevated high-speed rail tracks going through Palo Alto.
The meeting kicks off with a roll call and election of new ACIL officers, followed by presentations from the speakers and a half-hour Q&A with the audience. The Atherton Civic Interest League, open to all residents, is a nonprofit organization that aims to improve the quality of life in Atherton and assure effective town governance. It was founded in 1946.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Towns Look to Influence High-speed Rail Design
Source: by Sean Howell Almanac Staff
As the agency that oversees the high-speed rail project begins to plan how high-speed trains will pass through the Peninsula, local cities and towns are trying to figure out how best to get the agency's ear.
Seeking strength in numbers, Menlo Park and Atherton have signed an agreement to formalize an ad hoc group that has been meeting weekly to discuss issues related to the project. A majority of council members say the cities will have more sway if they work together to lobby the High-Speed Rail Authority, and that they will be better able to share resources and ideas.
Rail agency plans
The main question in the minds of local officials has been, and continues to be: In designing the rail, will officials pay attention to how it will affect local communities?
Rail officials have said repeatedly that they plan to work with local jurisdictions throughout the process, though local officials have said they're skeptical that the agency will do more than state law requires. At an April 30 meeting, a state Senate subcommittee that included Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) expressed concern over the rail agency's outreach efforts, holding off on granting the agency its next wave of funding until it showed a better program for "outreach and oversight.
"The rail agency has laid out a plan to meet quarterly between May 2009 and April 2011 with "working groups" from Peninsula counties and agencies.
Mike Garvey, a former San Carlos city manager who's heading up outreach efforts in San Mateo County for the engineering company contracted to design the rail line, said he's sympathetic to the concerns of local residents.
"The (environmental review) process is a formal, ritualized process," he said. "Some people had the impression that that specific, fixed process would be the only opportunity for comment, and it's not. This will be an ongoing, informal attempt to involve grassroots organization, and to hear from every community.
"In convincing local officials that the rail agency is serious about working with local communities, Mr. Garvey has his work cut out for him. Count Menlo Park Councilman Rich Cline among the skeptics.
"Our point is that there needs to be a dialogue. We need to work together to plan this thing successfully," Mr. Cline said. "The work group (plan) doesn't necessarily make it better, because we have to see that there's a proper input and reaction process.
"Mr. Cline characterizes the rail authority as an organization that's still oriented toward promotion of the concept of high-speed rail, rather than the logistics of how trains will pass through the state. He has joined a rising number of people calling for a restructuring of the organization.
The rail agency expects to issue a draft of its analysis of the various design possibilities in January 2010, according to Mr. Garvey. He said it's too early to say whether that report will identify a preferred configuration.
The agency plans to make portions of its analysis available to the public throughout the course of its analysis in the coming months, according to Mr. Garvey. He said he doesn't yet know exactly how that information will be presented, but that "everyone will have access to it.
Local strategy
The group of Peninsula jurisdictions, dubbed the "Coalition of Cities," would include one council member from each constituent jurisdiction. In addition to Menlo Park and Atherton, the ad hoc group has included representatives from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Burlingame, and Sunnyvale.
The group is separate from the "working groups" set up by the rail agency. That group is divided along county lines.
The coalition of cities would likely only take positions on broad issues that affect most of the member communities, Menlo Park council members say.
Menlo Park Councilman John Boyle said he supports the cities working together, but fears that formalizing the group would clog an already complicated bureaucratic process. The rail agency is legally required to listen to each city throughout its design process, he said. And if the group takes a stance on an issue that Menlo Park opposes, the city runs the risk of having its position misinterpreted in the press.
In an interview, Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said she thinks a "formalized communication strategy" would make it easier, not harder, for news outlets to interpret the stance taken by Peninsula cities.
Peninsula counties would seem to have built-in leverage with the rail agency, because they own the Caltrain corridor. The agency will negotiate to lease the corridor from the joint powers board that oversees it, in order to run trains along it. But some local officials think the board is more focused on securing benefits for the Caltrain system than it is on the impacts to the communities along the rail line.
Mr. Boyle disputed the notion that the board's interests are by definition inimical to those of the jurisdictions it represents.
"They are responsible to their member cities," he said of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board at a recent council meeting. "I think they would represent our interests, if we asked them to."
INFORMATION
As part of its outreach efforts, the High-Speed Rail Authority has set up a hotline for people to get general information on the project: 510-597-8640. For questions specific to San Mateo County, call outreach coordinator Mike Garvey at 596-9047, or e-mail him at garveycgs@yahoo.com. The project's Web site is cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.
As the agency that oversees the high-speed rail project begins to plan how high-speed trains will pass through the Peninsula, local cities and towns are trying to figure out how best to get the agency's ear.
Seeking strength in numbers, Menlo Park and Atherton have signed an agreement to formalize an ad hoc group that has been meeting weekly to discuss issues related to the project. A majority of council members say the cities will have more sway if they work together to lobby the High-Speed Rail Authority, and that they will be better able to share resources and ideas.
Rail agency plans
The main question in the minds of local officials has been, and continues to be: In designing the rail, will officials pay attention to how it will affect local communities?
Rail officials have said repeatedly that they plan to work with local jurisdictions throughout the process, though local officials have said they're skeptical that the agency will do more than state law requires. At an April 30 meeting, a state Senate subcommittee that included Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) expressed concern over the rail agency's outreach efforts, holding off on granting the agency its next wave of funding until it showed a better program for "outreach and oversight.
"The rail agency has laid out a plan to meet quarterly between May 2009 and April 2011 with "working groups" from Peninsula counties and agencies.
Mike Garvey, a former San Carlos city manager who's heading up outreach efforts in San Mateo County for the engineering company contracted to design the rail line, said he's sympathetic to the concerns of local residents.
"The (environmental review) process is a formal, ritualized process," he said. "Some people had the impression that that specific, fixed process would be the only opportunity for comment, and it's not. This will be an ongoing, informal attempt to involve grassroots organization, and to hear from every community.
"In convincing local officials that the rail agency is serious about working with local communities, Mr. Garvey has his work cut out for him. Count Menlo Park Councilman Rich Cline among the skeptics.
"Our point is that there needs to be a dialogue. We need to work together to plan this thing successfully," Mr. Cline said. "The work group (plan) doesn't necessarily make it better, because we have to see that there's a proper input and reaction process.
"Mr. Cline characterizes the rail authority as an organization that's still oriented toward promotion of the concept of high-speed rail, rather than the logistics of how trains will pass through the state. He has joined a rising number of people calling for a restructuring of the organization.
The rail agency expects to issue a draft of its analysis of the various design possibilities in January 2010, according to Mr. Garvey. He said it's too early to say whether that report will identify a preferred configuration.
The agency plans to make portions of its analysis available to the public throughout the course of its analysis in the coming months, according to Mr. Garvey. He said he doesn't yet know exactly how that information will be presented, but that "everyone will have access to it.
Local strategy
The group of Peninsula jurisdictions, dubbed the "Coalition of Cities," would include one council member from each constituent jurisdiction. In addition to Menlo Park and Atherton, the ad hoc group has included representatives from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Burlingame, and Sunnyvale.
The group is separate from the "working groups" set up by the rail agency. That group is divided along county lines.
The coalition of cities would likely only take positions on broad issues that affect most of the member communities, Menlo Park council members say.
Menlo Park Councilman John Boyle said he supports the cities working together, but fears that formalizing the group would clog an already complicated bureaucratic process. The rail agency is legally required to listen to each city throughout its design process, he said. And if the group takes a stance on an issue that Menlo Park opposes, the city runs the risk of having its position misinterpreted in the press.
In an interview, Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said she thinks a "formalized communication strategy" would make it easier, not harder, for news outlets to interpret the stance taken by Peninsula cities.
Peninsula counties would seem to have built-in leverage with the rail agency, because they own the Caltrain corridor. The agency will negotiate to lease the corridor from the joint powers board that oversees it, in order to run trains along it. But some local officials think the board is more focused on securing benefits for the Caltrain system than it is on the impacts to the communities along the rail line.
Mr. Boyle disputed the notion that the board's interests are by definition inimical to those of the jurisdictions it represents.
"They are responsible to their member cities," he said of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board at a recent council meeting. "I think they would represent our interests, if we asked them to."
INFORMATION
As part of its outreach efforts, the High-Speed Rail Authority has set up a hotline for people to get general information on the project: 510-597-8640. For questions specific to San Mateo County, call outreach coordinator Mike Garvey at 596-9047, or e-mail him at garveycgs@yahoo.com. The project's Web site is cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Editorial: High-speed Rail Still Makes Sense
Mercury News Editorial
The idea of high-speed rail whisking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours was irresistible to California voters in November. In Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, approval of the $9.95 billion bond measure ran over 60 percent. But opposition since has grown on the Peninsula, where the image of swift, clean travel is giving way to that of fast trains zooming past backyards. It's as if folks are saying: Wait. You mean it's coming here?
Yes, it is. And that is a very good thing for travelers, for the Silicon Valley economy and for the environment. Communities need to be focusing on how to build it the best way possible, not how to stop it.
The route to San Francisco through Pacheco Pass and San Jose was chosen over East Bay alternatives last year after a lengthy, contentious and very public process. Public officials who claim not to have known this are either disingenuous or were asleep at the switch. San Jose and some other communities lobbied hard to be on the route: High-speed rail will be another incentive for companies to locate and grow here instead of fleeing to cheaper, less-congested places.
That said, nobody expected the details to be easy to work out. The trains won't go above 125 miles per hour in this corridor — a crawl compared with 220 in the Central Valley — but running them along the Caltrain right of way presents challenges, especially as they pass through neighborhoods.
A number of communities have concerns. But cities such as San Jose and Sunnyvale are taking a positive approach to solving them, while Menlo Park, Atherton and now Palo Alto have turned to litigation.
The trains could run at ground level, in a tunnel, elevated on a concrete platform, or a combination of the above. These ideas and many more contributed by the public in recent months will be studied for the Environmental Impact Report. This will be a massive document, although the High Speed Rail Authority has agreed to report back periodically instead of delivering it all at once with a thud. The big decisions are years away.
Each choice has trade-offs. Tunneling up the whole Peninsula sounds dandy, for instance, but a tunnel that long and deep is likely to disrupt the underground flow of water. It also could mean Caltrain remains forever diesel, spewing tons of pollutants into Peninsula air. Stimulus money to electrify the corridor is a possibility, but only if it's part of an above ground high-speed rail plan.
The United States is behind its competitors in developing high-speed rail, which is extremely safe and popular. Other states are planning lines, including one through Austin, a major economic competitor to Silicon Valley.
As to Peninsula cities and residents hoping to make the Bay Area line go away, we have one word to say: BART.
Five decades ago, San Mateo County rejected bringing BART south and destroyed forever the opportunity for high-speed commuter rail to ring the bay. Is anyone proud of that today?
Voters were right in November. High-speed rail is the right thing to do for future generations. We can make it work.
The idea of high-speed rail whisking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours was irresistible to California voters in November. In Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, approval of the $9.95 billion bond measure ran over 60 percent. But opposition since has grown on the Peninsula, where the image of swift, clean travel is giving way to that of fast trains zooming past backyards. It's as if folks are saying: Wait. You mean it's coming here?
Yes, it is. And that is a very good thing for travelers, for the Silicon Valley economy and for the environment. Communities need to be focusing on how to build it the best way possible, not how to stop it.
The route to San Francisco through Pacheco Pass and San Jose was chosen over East Bay alternatives last year after a lengthy, contentious and very public process. Public officials who claim not to have known this are either disingenuous or were asleep at the switch. San Jose and some other communities lobbied hard to be on the route: High-speed rail will be another incentive for companies to locate and grow here instead of fleeing to cheaper, less-congested places.
That said, nobody expected the details to be easy to work out. The trains won't go above 125 miles per hour in this corridor — a crawl compared with 220 in the Central Valley — but running them along the Caltrain right of way presents challenges, especially as they pass through neighborhoods.
A number of communities have concerns. But cities such as San Jose and Sunnyvale are taking a positive approach to solving them, while Menlo Park, Atherton and now Palo Alto have turned to litigation.
The trains could run at ground level, in a tunnel, elevated on a concrete platform, or a combination of the above. These ideas and many more contributed by the public in recent months will be studied for the Environmental Impact Report. This will be a massive document, although the High Speed Rail Authority has agreed to report back periodically instead of delivering it all at once with a thud. The big decisions are years away.
Each choice has trade-offs. Tunneling up the whole Peninsula sounds dandy, for instance, but a tunnel that long and deep is likely to disrupt the underground flow of water. It also could mean Caltrain remains forever diesel, spewing tons of pollutants into Peninsula air. Stimulus money to electrify the corridor is a possibility, but only if it's part of an above ground high-speed rail plan.
The United States is behind its competitors in developing high-speed rail, which is extremely safe and popular. Other states are planning lines, including one through Austin, a major economic competitor to Silicon Valley.
As to Peninsula cities and residents hoping to make the Bay Area line go away, we have one word to say: BART.
Five decades ago, San Mateo County rejected bringing BART south and destroyed forever the opportunity for high-speed commuter rail to ring the bay. Is anyone proud of that today?
Voters were right in November. High-speed rail is the right thing to do for future generations. We can make it work.
Monday, April 6, 2009
California High-speed Rail Project Timeline
Joshua Melvin
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 04/02/2009
1982 — The California state Assembly passes a bill authorizing the sale of $1.12 billion in bonds for the construction of a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Diego.
1984 — Due to lack of funding as well as opposition from environmental groups and local governments, the bullet train project is abandoned.
1993 — The Intercity High Speed Rail Commission is created to look into building a high-speed rail line between Northern and Southern California.
1996 — The California High Speed Rail Authority is created and put in charge of planning, constructing and operating a high-speed train system.
2007 — Two possible train routes through the Bay Area are considered. The rail authority's board of directors votes to send the train down the Peninsula rather than through the East Bay.
Nov. 4, 2008 — Fifty-two percent of California voters approve the issuing of $9.96 billion in bonds to build a portion of the 800-mile high-speed rail line.
April 6, 2009 — The deadline for public comment on what should be included in the project's environmental impact study.
2011 — Construction on the high-speed rail line is slated to begin.
2020 — Train service is projected to begin.
SOURCES: Reuters, California High Speed Rail Authority Web site
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 04/02/2009
1982 — The California state Assembly passes a bill authorizing the sale of $1.12 billion in bonds for the construction of a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Diego.
1984 — Due to lack of funding as well as opposition from environmental groups and local governments, the bullet train project is abandoned.
1993 — The Intercity High Speed Rail Commission is created to look into building a high-speed rail line between Northern and Southern California.
1996 — The California High Speed Rail Authority is created and put in charge of planning, constructing and operating a high-speed train system.
2007 — Two possible train routes through the Bay Area are considered. The rail authority's board of directors votes to send the train down the Peninsula rather than through the East Bay.
Nov. 4, 2008 — Fifty-two percent of California voters approve the issuing of $9.96 billion in bonds to build a portion of the 800-mile high-speed rail line.
April 6, 2009 — The deadline for public comment on what should be included in the project's environmental impact study.
2011 — Construction on the high-speed rail line is slated to begin.
2020 — Train service is projected to begin.
SOURCES: Reuters, California High Speed Rail Authority Web site
Monday, March 30, 2009
High Speed Rail Update
The Palo Alto City Council met last Monday, March 2, to discuss the proposed High Speed Rail system. Many residents, including many Southgate neighbors, attended and expressed concerns about the planned elevated track system (see conceptual sketch below). Current plans by the High Speed Rail Authority call for an elevated track structure with concrete walls, 15-21 feet above the ground and 75 feet wide, with overhead electrical wires in the existing Caltrain right-of-way, with trains running at 120 MPH, every 2-3 minutes (at peak times.)
The City of Palo Alto has information on its website, at: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1223&TargetID=268.
You are also encouraged to send your comments and concerns (which will be responded to in the current environmental review process) to the state Authority at: comments@hsr.ca.gov. Please make sure to send your comments before the April 6, 2009 deadline.
The Palo Alto City Council met last Monday, March 2, to discuss the proposed High Speed Rail system. Many residents, including many Southgate neighbors, attended and expressed concerns about the planned elevated track system (see conceptual sketch below). Current plans by the High Speed Rail Authority call for an elevated track structure with concrete walls, 15-21 feet above the ground and 75 feet wide, with overhead electrical wires in the existing Caltrain right-of-way, with trains running at 120 MPH, every 2-3 minutes (at peak times.)
The City of Palo Alto has information on its website, at: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1223&TargetID=268.
You are also encouraged to send your comments and concerns (which will be responded to in the current environmental review process) to the state Authority at: comments@hsr.ca.gov. Please make sure to send your comments before the April 6, 2009 deadline.
City Expands List of High-speed-rail Concerns

California High-speed-rail update --
by Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Online Staff
A century-old bridge, a row of "storybook" houses on Mariposa Avenue and the famous El Palo Alto redwood tree could all be imperiled by a proposed high-speed train system, according to a new city report.
These are three of eight historic sites that staff and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) said could be adversely impacted by the proposed rail line, which California voters approved in November.
The HRB discussed the rail line's potential impact on these sites during a Wednesday morning meeting. The board agreed to integrate its concerns into a letter the city plans to send to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency charged with building the new system.
Cities and the public have until April 6 to submit questions and concerns that will be included in a comprehensive environmental-impact review of the Peninsula segment of the rail project.
The city's "scoping comments" to the authority list issues the city wants the agency to explore in upcoming Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of the 800-mile line.
The list has been swelling in recent weeks, as residents, City Council members and commissioners have come forth with a myriad of fears and anxieties over the controversial project.
A draft letter, presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday night, included 47 items the city wants the rail authority to explore in its analysis, including the rail line's impacts on traffic, vegetation, the San Francisquito Creek and air quality.
And that's before the planning commission began contributing its own comments.
Both the council and the commissions said the agency should seriously consider the rail line's impacts on El Palo Alto. The draft of the city's letter notes that the tree is 1,100-years-old and that it has a life expectancy of 300 more years.
The tree -- the oldest living California Historic Landmark -- stands close to the Caltrain corridor, through which the agency plans to run high-speed trains at speeds of 125 mph.
"The tree is healthier today than it was 100 years ago," city Arborist Dave Dockter said. "It does, however, hang in a delicate balance.
"Because the rail authority is more than a year away from deciding whether the rail line would go underground or overhead, city officials don't know how the project could impact El Palo Alto or any of the other local historic sites.
But officials said they want to make sure the authority thoroughly explores these possible impacts before it chooses its preferred design.
Dennis Backlund, the city's historic preservation planner, and the HRB also pointed to seven other historic sites that could be impacted by the project: the steel railroad bridge next to El Palo Alto that dates back to 1902; the University Avenue and Embarcadero underpasses (built in 1941 and 1936, respectively); the downtown Caltrain depot, the Mariposa Avenue section of the Southgate neighborhood; a home at 3905 Park Avenue (built around 1905); and the "Hostess House" (designed in 1918 as part of the U.S. Army's Camp Fremont and currently housing MacArthur Park Restaurant) adjacent to the University Avenue Caltrain depot.
On Mariposa Avenue, the rail would threaten a row of storybook-style homes quaint, Tudor-style houses that date back to the 1920s. The rail line passes by these houses and could cut into their yards if the right of way were expanded.
HRB member Beth Bunnenberg said the entire Southgate neighborhood should be looked at as a historical site, not just the Mariposa Avenue stretch near the tracks.
"Southgate, I think, is an extremely important area," Bunnenberg said. "You don't just talk about one street, or one side of the street, being affected.
"Whatever change happens to the pieces along the railroad will affect also all of the district," she said. "The district has context.
"The board unanimously agreed to ask the rail authority to study the proposed rail line's potential impact on these historic sites.
The planning commission, meanwhile, had its own suggestions. At a Wednesday night meeting, commissioners offered a host of comments for the agency to consider in the EIR, including the rail system's potential impact on utilities, aquifers, noise and urban sprawl.
Commissioner Arthur Keller proposed a detailed plan for the line: a combination of trenching and tunneling that ascends around Redwood City.
Commissioner Lee Lippert argued in favor of sending the rail line underground.The city has to submit its comments to the rail authority by April 6. The rail authority expects to complete the EIR by summer or fall of 2010.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Bay Area Road and Transit Projects Could Get $1.5 Billion or More From Federal Stimulus
For Bay Area transportation officials, getting their hands on the first wave of $495 million in federal stimulus cash was the easy part.
Now they are trying to scoop up at least $1 billion more.
A delegation of transit and elected officials just wrapped up a whirlwind tour of Washington, D.C., to drum up support for projects in the Bay Area. The U.S. Department of Transportation, which will have broad discretion over where to direct many millions of dollars in stimulus cash, has yet to issue guidelines so cities can apply for money.
Federal discretion
A third pot of money comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Bay Area is seeking at least $450 million for an underground train station at San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal and for Doyle Drive. The region could get even more money once the federal Department of Transportation issues guidelines to determine what projects can apply.
To help coordinate the Bay Area’s efforts, authorities are rushing to put together a regional plan to maximize the amount of federal stimulus cash that flows to the area. Led by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the plan is expected to show where the Bay Area could best spend the money. The plan likely will emphasize projects that are ready to start within two years and focus on the region’s infrastructure needs, land use goals and economic development strategy.
The Bay Area does not have much time to put its plan together. Pressed by federal demands for quick action, first drafts are due April 1 and final drafts by June 1.
In a separate effort, backers of California’s planned bullet train have begun a lobbying effort to snare as much as possible of the $8 billion in stimulus cash aimed at high speed rail. California’s proposed train, which would lay 800 miles of track linking San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego, does not meet the “shovel ready” definition because construction likely won’t begin until 2012 at the earliest. But the state has the only voter-approved project, giving supporters reason to think that the $40 billion project will get at least a portion of the high speed rail money.
“I think we’re better positioned than any other high speed rail undertaken in the country,” said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Still, it is difficult to know precisely how well the state’s bullet train is positioned because the U.S. Secretary of Transportation has yet to issue guidelines he will use in deciding which projects to fund. Those parameters are due April 18.
California voters approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project last year. But the train will need significant private investor and federal money. Kopp joined other prominent members of the state’s high speed rail authoritylike David Crane, a top economic adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and transportation veteran Rod Diridon Sr. to urge federal transportation officials to direct money to the project.
Source: exerpted from the San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young
Now they are trying to scoop up at least $1 billion more.
A delegation of transit and elected officials just wrapped up a whirlwind tour of Washington, D.C., to drum up support for projects in the Bay Area. The U.S. Department of Transportation, which will have broad discretion over where to direct many millions of dollars in stimulus cash, has yet to issue guidelines so cities can apply for money.
Federal discretion
A third pot of money comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Bay Area is seeking at least $450 million for an underground train station at San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal and for Doyle Drive. The region could get even more money once the federal Department of Transportation issues guidelines to determine what projects can apply.
To help coordinate the Bay Area’s efforts, authorities are rushing to put together a regional plan to maximize the amount of federal stimulus cash that flows to the area. Led by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the plan is expected to show where the Bay Area could best spend the money. The plan likely will emphasize projects that are ready to start within two years and focus on the region’s infrastructure needs, land use goals and economic development strategy.
The Bay Area does not have much time to put its plan together. Pressed by federal demands for quick action, first drafts are due April 1 and final drafts by June 1.
In a separate effort, backers of California’s planned bullet train have begun a lobbying effort to snare as much as possible of the $8 billion in stimulus cash aimed at high speed rail. California’s proposed train, which would lay 800 miles of track linking San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego, does not meet the “shovel ready” definition because construction likely won’t begin until 2012 at the earliest. But the state has the only voter-approved project, giving supporters reason to think that the $40 billion project will get at least a portion of the high speed rail money.
“I think we’re better positioned than any other high speed rail undertaken in the country,” said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Still, it is difficult to know precisely how well the state’s bullet train is positioned because the U.S. Secretary of Transportation has yet to issue guidelines he will use in deciding which projects to fund. Those parameters are due April 18.
California voters approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project last year. But the train will need significant private investor and federal money. Kopp joined other prominent members of the state’s high speed rail authoritylike David Crane, a top economic adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and transportation veteran Rod Diridon Sr. to urge federal transportation officials to direct money to the project.
Source: exerpted from the San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Palo Alto Officials Want Study of High-speed Train Tunnel
Source: By Will Oremus,
Daily News Staff Writer
State high-speed rail officials should give just as much study to running their tracks underground as above-ground, Palo Alto officials said Wednesday. But they noted that both alignments come with problems.
The city's planning and transportation commission signed off on a letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority that urges a close look at the planned Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line's impact on the residential neighborhoods it might divide. If approved by the city council, it will stand as the city's official input as the authority prepares a required environmental report that will set the stage for final decisions about the tracks' design.
The letter makes it clear the city will not be satisfied with a report that justifies elevated tracks along the Caltrain corridor while glossing over the pros and cons of alternatives. Among those alternatives are not only a rail tunnel but a plan that would cut off high-speed service in San Jose, forcing riders to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco.
Though the majority of Palo Alto voters backed the rail plan on the November ballot, it came as news to many that the trains might need to run atop a 20-foot-high concrete platform to avoid dangerous conflicts with cross streets. Word of a "Berlin Wall" dividing the city and of people losing their yards and homes to eminent domain have sparked a local backlash against the project in recent months.
Many in the city still support the train in concept but are grasping for ways to fit it into a narrow rail corridor that bisects quiet neighborhoods. The first paragraph of the city's draft letter asks that the study "provide a complete analysis of all linear rail corridor elevation options, including at-grade, elevated or depressed including open trench and tunneling."
It goes on, "All options, particularly the tunneling option, should be evaluated to the same level of detail as the elevated track proposal."
That doesn't mean the city considers a tunnel a miracle solution, however. Planning Commissioner Samir Tuma asked that city staff remove the clause "particularly the tunneling option," saying that it's not yet clear that would be the best alternative to raised tracks.
Most opposition to a tunnel so far has focused on the cost, which is presumed to be astronomical. But Commissioner Karen Holman agreed it may not be the answer even if the city can afford it. She said she often tells members of the public, "Don't fall in love with the below-grade scenario. There are all manner of potential impacts to that, and many are the same as above-grade."
Specifically, Holman said, construction of a tunnel or trench could disrupt the lives of those who live nearby and require the state to take people's property. Beyond that, it could pose problems related to underground water, including a toxic plume and an aquifer that serves as an emergency drinking-water supply.
Given that, Commissioner Daniel Garber wondered if the city should ask for more study of keeping the tracks at ground level. That would likely require closure of several cross streets, however, a possibility other commissioners were not interested in considering.
The overriding sentiment was captured by Commissioner Arthur Keller near the end of the four-hour-long session. "There is no completely satisfactory solution to this," he said. "All of the alternatives will have drawbacks. The question is which of the drawbacks are better than others, which of the drawbacks we can live with. And the ones can we live with, the ones Caltrain can live with and the ones high-speed rail can live with might not all be the same."
The Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to discuss and finalize the letter at a meeting on March 30. The high-speed rail authority's environmental study is legally required to address all official comments received before April 6.
Daily News Staff Writer
State high-speed rail officials should give just as much study to running their tracks underground as above-ground, Palo Alto officials said Wednesday. But they noted that both alignments come with problems.
The city's planning and transportation commission signed off on a letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority that urges a close look at the planned Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line's impact on the residential neighborhoods it might divide. If approved by the city council, it will stand as the city's official input as the authority prepares a required environmental report that will set the stage for final decisions about the tracks' design.
The letter makes it clear the city will not be satisfied with a report that justifies elevated tracks along the Caltrain corridor while glossing over the pros and cons of alternatives. Among those alternatives are not only a rail tunnel but a plan that would cut off high-speed service in San Jose, forcing riders to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco.
Though the majority of Palo Alto voters backed the rail plan on the November ballot, it came as news to many that the trains might need to run atop a 20-foot-high concrete platform to avoid dangerous conflicts with cross streets. Word of a "Berlin Wall" dividing the city and of people losing their yards and homes to eminent domain have sparked a local backlash against the project in recent months.
Many in the city still support the train in concept but are grasping for ways to fit it into a narrow rail corridor that bisects quiet neighborhoods. The first paragraph of the city's draft letter asks that the study "provide a complete analysis of all linear rail corridor elevation options, including at-grade, elevated or depressed including open trench and tunneling."
It goes on, "All options, particularly the tunneling option, should be evaluated to the same level of detail as the elevated track proposal."
That doesn't mean the city considers a tunnel a miracle solution, however. Planning Commissioner Samir Tuma asked that city staff remove the clause "particularly the tunneling option," saying that it's not yet clear that would be the best alternative to raised tracks.
Most opposition to a tunnel so far has focused on the cost, which is presumed to be astronomical. But Commissioner Karen Holman agreed it may not be the answer even if the city can afford it. She said she often tells members of the public, "Don't fall in love with the below-grade scenario. There are all manner of potential impacts to that, and many are the same as above-grade."
Specifically, Holman said, construction of a tunnel or trench could disrupt the lives of those who live nearby and require the state to take people's property. Beyond that, it could pose problems related to underground water, including a toxic plume and an aquifer that serves as an emergency drinking-water supply.
Given that, Commissioner Daniel Garber wondered if the city should ask for more study of keeping the tracks at ground level. That would likely require closure of several cross streets, however, a possibility other commissioners were not interested in considering.
The overriding sentiment was captured by Commissioner Arthur Keller near the end of the four-hour-long session. "There is no completely satisfactory solution to this," he said. "All of the alternatives will have drawbacks. The question is which of the drawbacks are better than others, which of the drawbacks we can live with. And the ones can we live with, the ones Caltrain can live with and the ones high-speed rail can live with might not all be the same."
The Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to discuss and finalize the letter at a meeting on March 30. The high-speed rail authority's environmental study is legally required to address all official comments received before April 6.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
High-speed-rail Agency Strapped for Cash
Source: exerpted from Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Online Staff
Rail authority looks for a state loan for 800-mile high-speed-train line
Just months after California voters approved the sale of $9.95 billion in bonds to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the agency in charge of the project says it's running out of funds and is banking on a state loan to keep the work on track.
So far, several contractors have already halted their engineering work on the 800-mile rail line, which the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to build and operate by 2020, rail authority officials said last week. According to a report issued last month by the state treasurer's office, the high-speed rail project had about $4.2 million in unpaid bills for work already performed.
Given the tight fiscal situation, the agency's Executive Director Mehdi Morshed said the agency will have to "do the responsible thing and stop work" if it doesn't receive state funds in the next few months, according to an Associated Press report.
"If we do not have any money for the next few months, we can't in good conscience ask people to keep working," Morshed said, according to the AP.
But Judge Quentin L. Kopp, chairman of the agency's board of directors, said this week he expects the project to overcome the temporary financial setback and meet the agency's projected timeline. Though he acknowledged that some contractors stopped working because of the funding shortage, he said he expects the rail authority to soon get an injection of funds from the state's infrastructure fund, which is managed by the Pooled Money Investment Board.
"Only a few contractors slowed their work," Kopp told the Palo Alto Weekly. "Many contractors are continuing to work, on the promise that they will be paid as soon as the treasurer derives proceeds from the Pool Money Investment Fund or we get some other type of financing."
The treasurer's office has placed the high-speed rail project on a list of infrastructure projects that could get a state loan, even if the bulk of the infrastructure fund remains frozen. The loan would then be repaid with proceeds from the $9.95 billion in bonds, which have not yet been sold. But the board has yet to release the money for any of the projects on the list.
The rail authority is banking on a mix of federal funds, private investments, bond money and contributions from local agencies to finance the $45 billion rail line, which would allow passenger trains to reach speeds of 220 mph and travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes.
The San Francisco-to-San Jose section would cut through the Peninsula along the Caltrain corridor. Rail officials are expected to begin putting together an Environmental Impact Review for this section. The document is expected to analyze the various track alternatives for the train (elevated, underground or trenched) and consider locations for rail stations.
The project has stirred controversy in Palo Alto and neighboring cities, some of whose residents are concerned that the Rail Authority will take their properties by eminent domain to make room for new railroad tracks.
Rail officials have consistently warned that delays would add major costs to the rail project. Rod Diridon, who sits on the rail authority's board of directors, told the Palo Alto City Council on March 2 that delays could cost the authority about $2 billion per year.
"When you're talking about a $40 billion project, if you lose a year you lose $2 billion worth of buying power," Diridon said.
Rail authority looks for a state loan for 800-mile high-speed-train line
Just months after California voters approved the sale of $9.95 billion in bonds to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the agency in charge of the project says it's running out of funds and is banking on a state loan to keep the work on track.
So far, several contractors have already halted their engineering work on the 800-mile rail line, which the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to build and operate by 2020, rail authority officials said last week. According to a report issued last month by the state treasurer's office, the high-speed rail project had about $4.2 million in unpaid bills for work already performed.
Given the tight fiscal situation, the agency's Executive Director Mehdi Morshed said the agency will have to "do the responsible thing and stop work" if it doesn't receive state funds in the next few months, according to an Associated Press report.
"If we do not have any money for the next few months, we can't in good conscience ask people to keep working," Morshed said, according to the AP.
But Judge Quentin L. Kopp, chairman of the agency's board of directors, said this week he expects the project to overcome the temporary financial setback and meet the agency's projected timeline. Though he acknowledged that some contractors stopped working because of the funding shortage, he said he expects the rail authority to soon get an injection of funds from the state's infrastructure fund, which is managed by the Pooled Money Investment Board.
"Only a few contractors slowed their work," Kopp told the Palo Alto Weekly. "Many contractors are continuing to work, on the promise that they will be paid as soon as the treasurer derives proceeds from the Pool Money Investment Fund or we get some other type of financing."
The treasurer's office has placed the high-speed rail project on a list of infrastructure projects that could get a state loan, even if the bulk of the infrastructure fund remains frozen. The loan would then be repaid with proceeds from the $9.95 billion in bonds, which have not yet been sold. But the board has yet to release the money for any of the projects on the list.
The rail authority is banking on a mix of federal funds, private investments, bond money and contributions from local agencies to finance the $45 billion rail line, which would allow passenger trains to reach speeds of 220 mph and travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes.
The San Francisco-to-San Jose section would cut through the Peninsula along the Caltrain corridor. Rail officials are expected to begin putting together an Environmental Impact Review for this section. The document is expected to analyze the various track alternatives for the train (elevated, underground or trenched) and consider locations for rail stations.
The project has stirred controversy in Palo Alto and neighboring cities, some of whose residents are concerned that the Rail Authority will take their properties by eminent domain to make room for new railroad tracks.
Rail officials have consistently warned that delays would add major costs to the rail project. Rod Diridon, who sits on the rail authority's board of directors, told the Palo Alto City Council on March 2 that delays could cost the authority about $2 billion per year.
"When you're talking about a $40 billion project, if you lose a year you lose $2 billion worth of buying power," Diridon said.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mountain View Asks to be Considered for High-speed Rail Station
Source: exerpted from the Daily News Group
Mountain View will ask state high-speed rail officials to consider building a station in Mountain View instead of Palo Alto or Redwood City, the city council decided at a meeting Tuesday.
Like other cities, Mountain View is submitting comments to the California High Speed Rail Authority outlining the city's concerns and suggestions regarding high-speed rail designs before the engineering process begins. Council members said they weren't sure Tuesday if they wanted a high-speed rail station in Mountain View, but this was the only chance to at least have the possibility studied.
"I think we owe it to future generations to at least study the concept," Council Member Mike Kasperzak said. "We're not asking for a station, we're asking to be studied."
In its comments, the city also urges the rail authority to pay particular attention to Mountain View's two at-grade rail crossings at Castro Street, right at the edge of downtown, and Rengstorff Avenue, near the community center, senior center and other major public facilities. The city is asking the authority to study all possible alternatives at these intersections, ranging from putting the tracks underground to elevating them to, in the case of Castro Street, closing off the street.
The Caltrain corridor also already bisects the city, and the city's comments ask the authority to ensure that high-speed rail doesn't "further divide the community with barriers such as berms, elevated structures, catenaries, fences and walls."
Mountain View will ask state high-speed rail officials to consider building a station in Mountain View instead of Palo Alto or Redwood City, the city council decided at a meeting Tuesday.
Like other cities, Mountain View is submitting comments to the California High Speed Rail Authority outlining the city's concerns and suggestions regarding high-speed rail designs before the engineering process begins. Council members said they weren't sure Tuesday if they wanted a high-speed rail station in Mountain View, but this was the only chance to at least have the possibility studied.
"I think we owe it to future generations to at least study the concept," Council Member Mike Kasperzak said. "We're not asking for a station, we're asking to be studied."
In its comments, the city also urges the rail authority to pay particular attention to Mountain View's two at-grade rail crossings at Castro Street, right at the edge of downtown, and Rengstorff Avenue, near the community center, senior center and other major public facilities. The city is asking the authority to study all possible alternatives at these intersections, ranging from putting the tracks underground to elevating them to, in the case of Castro Street, closing off the street.
The Caltrain corridor also already bisects the city, and the city's comments ask the authority to ensure that high-speed rail doesn't "further divide the community with barriers such as berms, elevated structures, catenaries, fences and walls."
Labels:
California high-speed rail,
Caltrain,
Mountain View
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Public Invited to High-speed Rail Meeting
The California High-Speed Rail Authority will hold an informational meeting Wednesday (March 4) on the San Francisco to San Jose leg of the project.
The meeting will run from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Redwood Room of the Veterans Memorial Center at 1455 Madison Ave. in Redwood City.
Source: Almanac Online
The meeting will run from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Redwood Room of the Veterans Memorial Center at 1455 Madison Ave. in Redwood City.
Source: Almanac Online
Labels:
Almanac,
California high-speed rail,
Public,
Redwood City
Bury the rails, say local officials
Source: The Almanac, serving Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside
Bury the rails, say local officials
If high speed rail must come, run it underground, they say
By Sean Howell
When it comes to deciding how high-speed trains will shoot up the Peninsula, officials in Atherton and Menlo Park have pretty much one request: put them underground, and out of sight.
Their first preference, of course, is that the trains not come through their communities at all. The cities have joined a pending lawsuit to contest the project, contending that the High-Speed Rail Authority's decision to shoot the trains along the Caltrain corridor - rather than through Altamont Pass in the East Bay - was premature.
But if trains must come up the Peninsula, local officials and residents would like to see them run in a tunnel or trench, rather than at ground level or along a raised berm. Both communities are in the process of drafting letters to the rail authority, outlining the environmental considerations that should be taken into account as the project moves through the planning phases.
In its letter, the town of Atherton outlines the possibility of a trench that would begin at Fifth Avenue in Redwood City and terminate at San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto, sending the train below ground level as it passes through Atherton and Menlo Park. The trench would be open-air for most of the route, but could be covered in some areas, Atherton officials say - such as near Atherton's park and town offices, or by Menlo Park's entire downtown area.
The project, with an estimated total price tag of $40 billion, promises to bring commuters from Los Angeles to San Francisco in roughly two and a half hours. High-speed trains could be zooming up the Peninsula at 125 miles per hour as early as 2014.
Atherton and Menlo Park officials argue that routing the rail line through a trench or a tunnel would reduce noise, and would keep out of sight the trains and the electrical lines that will be installed to guide them. (The lines are similar to those that conduct San Francisco's buses.)
In Atherton's letter, Public Works Director Duncan Jones makes the case that fewer trees would need to be torn out if the trains run below ground level, because the canopy wouldn't have to be cleared to make way for the high electrical lines. "An amazing number of trees need to be removed in electrification projects," said Mr. Jones, refuting the rail authority's suggestion that it might be able to avoid removing any trees.
In its letter, Menlo Park notes that a trench or tunnel would make it easer for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as wildlife, to cross the tracks. City officials maintain that a raised alignment would divide the city.
Digging a trench or a tunnel is widely assumed to be more expensive than building a berm, but Atherton and Menlo Park officials both argue that that might not be the case - especially because raising and widening the tracks might require the purchase of additional property, a costly proposition on the Peninsula. The potential loss in value to nearby properties, and the potential financial losses to local businesses during construction, should also be factored into any cost estimate, local officials argue.
And the state would have to purchase "air rights" along the corridor if it the rail authority opts to raise the tracks, Menlo Park officials note.
Rail officials have highlighted the benefits to local communities of grade separations, which would allow streets to pass over or under the rail line at local intersections. The grade separations would ease congestion, and trains wouldn't have to announce their arrival with a whistle, officials say.
But in its letter, Menlo Park wonders whether grade separations and additional tracks would also mean that the rail line would be used for freight.
INFORMATION
• The California High-Speed Rail Authority will hold an informational meeting Wednesday, March 4, on the San Francisco to San Jose leg of the high-speed rail project. The meeting will run from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Redwood Room of the Veterans Memorial Center at 1455 Madison Ave. in Redwood City.
• People have until April 6 to submit comment on the environmental considerations that should be taken into account in planning the local leg of the high-speed rail project. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to comments@hsr.ca.gov (with the subject line "San Francisco to San Jose HST"). Comments can be mailed to: Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: San Francisco to San Jose HST Project, EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L St., Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• The project's Web site is www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.
Bury the rails, say local officials
If high speed rail must come, run it underground, they say
By Sean Howell
When it comes to deciding how high-speed trains will shoot up the Peninsula, officials in Atherton and Menlo Park have pretty much one request: put them underground, and out of sight.
Their first preference, of course, is that the trains not come through their communities at all. The cities have joined a pending lawsuit to contest the project, contending that the High-Speed Rail Authority's decision to shoot the trains along the Caltrain corridor - rather than through Altamont Pass in the East Bay - was premature.
But if trains must come up the Peninsula, local officials and residents would like to see them run in a tunnel or trench, rather than at ground level or along a raised berm. Both communities are in the process of drafting letters to the rail authority, outlining the environmental considerations that should be taken into account as the project moves through the planning phases.
In its letter, the town of Atherton outlines the possibility of a trench that would begin at Fifth Avenue in Redwood City and terminate at San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto, sending the train below ground level as it passes through Atherton and Menlo Park. The trench would be open-air for most of the route, but could be covered in some areas, Atherton officials say - such as near Atherton's park and town offices, or by Menlo Park's entire downtown area.
The project, with an estimated total price tag of $40 billion, promises to bring commuters from Los Angeles to San Francisco in roughly two and a half hours. High-speed trains could be zooming up the Peninsula at 125 miles per hour as early as 2014.
Atherton and Menlo Park officials argue that routing the rail line through a trench or a tunnel would reduce noise, and would keep out of sight the trains and the electrical lines that will be installed to guide them. (The lines are similar to those that conduct San Francisco's buses.)
In Atherton's letter, Public Works Director Duncan Jones makes the case that fewer trees would need to be torn out if the trains run below ground level, because the canopy wouldn't have to be cleared to make way for the high electrical lines. "An amazing number of trees need to be removed in electrification projects," said Mr. Jones, refuting the rail authority's suggestion that it might be able to avoid removing any trees.
In its letter, Menlo Park notes that a trench or tunnel would make it easer for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as wildlife, to cross the tracks. City officials maintain that a raised alignment would divide the city.
Digging a trench or a tunnel is widely assumed to be more expensive than building a berm, but Atherton and Menlo Park officials both argue that that might not be the case - especially because raising and widening the tracks might require the purchase of additional property, a costly proposition on the Peninsula. The potential loss in value to nearby properties, and the potential financial losses to local businesses during construction, should also be factored into any cost estimate, local officials argue.
And the state would have to purchase "air rights" along the corridor if it the rail authority opts to raise the tracks, Menlo Park officials note.
Rail officials have highlighted the benefits to local communities of grade separations, which would allow streets to pass over or under the rail line at local intersections. The grade separations would ease congestion, and trains wouldn't have to announce their arrival with a whistle, officials say.
But in its letter, Menlo Park wonders whether grade separations and additional tracks would also mean that the rail line would be used for freight.
INFORMATION
• The California High-Speed Rail Authority will hold an informational meeting Wednesday, March 4, on the San Francisco to San Jose leg of the high-speed rail project. The meeting will run from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Redwood Room of the Veterans Memorial Center at 1455 Madison Ave. in Redwood City.
• People have until April 6 to submit comment on the environmental considerations that should be taken into account in planning the local leg of the high-speed rail project. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to comments@hsr.ca.gov (with the subject line "San Francisco to San Jose HST"). Comments can be mailed to: Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: San Francisco to San Jose HST Project, EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L St., Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• The project's Web site is www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Lawsuit: State Ignored Cities' Concerns on High-speed Rail
By Mike Rosenberg
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 02/19/2009
The California High Speed Rail Authority ignored Menlo Park's comment letter that outlined how their proposed bullet trains would force Peninsula homeowners to lose their property, according to opening arguments filed Thursday in the city's lawsuit against the state.
The claim was part of the 44-page argument brief filed in Sacramento County Court on Thursday on behalf of Menlo Park, Atherton and four other groups that are jointly suing the authority, which is in charge of the proposed state high-speed rail project.
The brief, filed in August by Oakland-based attorney Stuart Flashman, was submitted on the basis that authority officials violated state environmental law when they chose the plan to run the train through the Peninsula.
The rail authority will respond to the initial argument, and Flashman will respond with a counter-argument. A judge will decide to either dismiss the claims or order the authority to redo its lengthy and costly environmental planning, which would set the project back and may change the rail's route.
The plaintiffs argued the trains should be sent through the Altamont Pass in the East Bay rather than the Pacheco Pass on the Peninsula, which the authority selected as its route last July. Peninsula cities such as Menlo Park and Atherton are concerned that property owners close to the rail line would lose their property through eminent domain to make way for the new tracks.
The most significant claim in the brief was that the authority never received Menlo Park's comments that were made before the Pacheco Pass route was approved. State environmental law requires government bodies to review comments from cities and residents before a planning decision of this kind is made.
Flashman wrote that the city successfully sent the authority a letter via fax, and that the authority received it, but at some point it "went astray."
"At any rate, the letter did not appear in the (planning document) and was never responded to," Flashman wrote. "Consequently, the Authority's Board (of Directors) was never made aware of the city's concerns."
The brief also said the authority failed to take into account the cost of eminent domain purchases on the Peninsula before choosing the Pacheco Pass alignment, which the plaintiffs claimed the authority was biased toward.
Deputy Attorney General Danae Aitchison, who is representing the authority in the case, said Thursday she received the brief but couldn't comment since she hadn't read it yet. Authority Deputy Director Dan Leavitt did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source: The Palo Alto Daily
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 02/19/2009
The California High Speed Rail Authority ignored Menlo Park's comment letter that outlined how their proposed bullet trains would force Peninsula homeowners to lose their property, according to opening arguments filed Thursday in the city's lawsuit against the state.
The claim was part of the 44-page argument brief filed in Sacramento County Court on Thursday on behalf of Menlo Park, Atherton and four other groups that are jointly suing the authority, which is in charge of the proposed state high-speed rail project.
The brief, filed in August by Oakland-based attorney Stuart Flashman, was submitted on the basis that authority officials violated state environmental law when they chose the plan to run the train through the Peninsula.
The rail authority will respond to the initial argument, and Flashman will respond with a counter-argument. A judge will decide to either dismiss the claims or order the authority to redo its lengthy and costly environmental planning, which would set the project back and may change the rail's route.
The plaintiffs argued the trains should be sent through the Altamont Pass in the East Bay rather than the Pacheco Pass on the Peninsula, which the authority selected as its route last July. Peninsula cities such as Menlo Park and Atherton are concerned that property owners close to the rail line would lose their property through eminent domain to make way for the new tracks.
The most significant claim in the brief was that the authority never received Menlo Park's comments that were made before the Pacheco Pass route was approved. State environmental law requires government bodies to review comments from cities and residents before a planning decision of this kind is made.
Flashman wrote that the city successfully sent the authority a letter via fax, and that the authority received it, but at some point it "went astray."
"At any rate, the letter did not appear in the (planning document) and was never responded to," Flashman wrote. "Consequently, the Authority's Board (of Directors) was never made aware of the city's concerns."
The brief also said the authority failed to take into account the cost of eminent domain purchases on the Peninsula before choosing the Pacheco Pass alignment, which the plaintiffs claimed the authority was biased toward.
Deputy Attorney General Danae Aitchison, who is representing the authority in the case, said Thursday she received the brief but couldn't comment since she hadn't read it yet. Authority Deputy Director Dan Leavitt did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source: The Palo Alto Daily
Labels:
California high-speed rail,
menlo park
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

