Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transportation. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
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
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Peninsula Cities Want Say in High-speed Rail Plans
By Will Oremus
Palo Alto Daily News Staff Writer
As plans for a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco chug along, residents and officials in Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities are quickly joining forces in hopes of influencing the design.
They've been jolted to action by word that the Caltrain tracks that run through their neighborhoods may have to be elevated, expanded and flanked by 15-foot-high walls to accommodate 125-mile-per-hour trains zipping by every few minutes. Many are saying they'd rather see the tracks go underground.
In Palo Alto's Southgate neighborhood, where many homes back up to the tracks, there's talk of eminent domain and loss of property value. After an informational meeting last week drew almost 50 people, they're holding a second meeting tonight and planning a march on City Hall on March 2 to draw attention to their plight.
Meanwhile, mayors and staff from several cities have begun meeting each Friday to share notes and talk strategy. They've asked state high-speed rail officials to extend a period of public input on what should be studied in the environmental analysis, and they're working on a formal request that a tunnel be included among the alternatives. If the tracks must be elevated, they're pushing for a more attractive scheme than simply slapping concrete walls on each side.
While leaders in two cities, Menlo Park and Atherton, have formally opposed the project and joined a lawsuit against it, others are actually enthusiastic about
the rail line. What they have in common, said Palo Alto City Council Member Yoriko Kishimoto, is a desire not to be left out of the planning process.
"We want a place at the table in negotiating with the high-speed rail authority," Kishimoto said. "It doesn't make sense to have all of our dozens of cities negotiating separately."
Similarly, the Southgate residents are split on the merits of high-speed rail but seemingly united in their concern over its impact on their neighborhood.
Gil Woolley, whose Mariposa Avenue home is among those that abuts the tracks, said he believes California needs the rail line. He said he understood when he moved there that the tracks might not always stay at ground level.
Still, he said, "I think it's going to be ugly. It's going to really affect the value of the houses along here."
Cecilia Lancaster, who lives several doors down, said she helped organize the march now because it was starting to feel like residents' voices might be drowned out as the project gained momentum. She said she's less worried about losing her home to eminent domain than watching its value evaporate because of the train tracks towering over it. Like many neighbors, she's now pushing for the trains to run underground.
That could be far more costly than elevated tracks, and state officials have indicated cities that want a tunnel may have to pay the difference themselves. Lancaster said she understands that, but feels the cities need to at least look into the possibility.
The residents will meet tonight at 7 at the Palo Alto Unified School District offices, 25 Churchill Ave., Palo Alto. The march is scheduled for 6 p.m. on March 2 at Lytton Plaza, to precede a Palo Alto City Council meeting on the high-speed rail plans.
The California High Speed Rail Authority is also sponsoring a meeting at 7 p.m on Feb. 26 at Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto.
Palo Alto Daily News Staff Writer
As plans for a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco chug along, residents and officials in Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities are quickly joining forces in hopes of influencing the design.
They've been jolted to action by word that the Caltrain tracks that run through their neighborhoods may have to be elevated, expanded and flanked by 15-foot-high walls to accommodate 125-mile-per-hour trains zipping by every few minutes. Many are saying they'd rather see the tracks go underground.
In Palo Alto's Southgate neighborhood, where many homes back up to the tracks, there's talk of eminent domain and loss of property value. After an informational meeting last week drew almost 50 people, they're holding a second meeting tonight and planning a march on City Hall on March 2 to draw attention to their plight.
Meanwhile, mayors and staff from several cities have begun meeting each Friday to share notes and talk strategy. They've asked state high-speed rail officials to extend a period of public input on what should be studied in the environmental analysis, and they're working on a formal request that a tunnel be included among the alternatives. If the tracks must be elevated, they're pushing for a more attractive scheme than simply slapping concrete walls on each side.
While leaders in two cities, Menlo Park and Atherton, have formally opposed the project and joined a lawsuit against it, others are actually enthusiastic about
the rail line. What they have in common, said Palo Alto City Council Member Yoriko Kishimoto, is a desire not to be left out of the planning process.
"We want a place at the table in negotiating with the high-speed rail authority," Kishimoto said. "It doesn't make sense to have all of our dozens of cities negotiating separately."
Similarly, the Southgate residents are split on the merits of high-speed rail but seemingly united in their concern over its impact on their neighborhood.
Gil Woolley, whose Mariposa Avenue home is among those that abuts the tracks, said he believes California needs the rail line. He said he understood when he moved there that the tracks might not always stay at ground level.
Still, he said, "I think it's going to be ugly. It's going to really affect the value of the houses along here."
Cecilia Lancaster, who lives several doors down, said she helped organize the march now because it was starting to feel like residents' voices might be drowned out as the project gained momentum. She said she's less worried about losing her home to eminent domain than watching its value evaporate because of the train tracks towering over it. Like many neighbors, she's now pushing for the trains to run underground.
That could be far more costly than elevated tracks, and state officials have indicated cities that want a tunnel may have to pay the difference themselves. Lancaster said she understands that, but feels the cities need to at least look into the possibility.
The residents will meet tonight at 7 at the Palo Alto Unified School District offices, 25 Churchill Ave., Palo Alto. The march is scheduled for 6 p.m. on March 2 at Lytton Plaza, to precede a Palo Alto City Council meeting on the high-speed rail plans.
The California High Speed Rail Authority is also sponsoring a meeting at 7 p.m on Feb. 26 at Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Palo Alto Residents Worry About Bullet Train
Source: Bay Area News Group
Until recently, the notion of a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco seemed far off to Tom D'Arezzo, a high-tech product manager who lives in Palo Alto's Southgate neighborhood. He knew it was on the November statewide ballot, but wasn't sure of the specifics.
Now that the $10 billion bond measure has passed, however, the project's full impact is beginning to hit home — almost literally. Like his neighbors on Mariposa Street, D'Arezzo has a yard that backs up to a portion of the Caltrain tracks that might have to be widened to accommodate the high-speed electric trains.
D'Arezzo now fears he could lose up to 10 feet of his property to eminent domain. But he's been frustrated in his attempts to find out for sure. Rail officials will neither confirm nor rule out the possibility, repeating a mantra that is beginning to irritate some Peninsula residents even though it's meant to soothe them: "It's early in the process."
Groundbreaking on the planned $40 million line is years away. The California High Speed Rail Authority is in the first stages of public outreach, holding "scoping meetings" in the Bay Area to get residents' thoughts on what should be studied in the environmental reports.
But D'Arezzo, and a handful of leaders in mid-Peninsula cities, worry that by the time they get the detailed information they would need to participate in the decision-making process, the big decisions will
have already been made.
It's that fear that prompted Menlo Park and Atherton's city councils to formally oppose the rail line, joining a lawsuit against the authority for its 2007 vote to run the trains up the Caltrain tracks rather than through the East Bay. Meanwhile, leaders in more transit-heavy cities such as Palo Alto and Redwood City have generally endorsed the alignment, whether officially or tacitly.
Now those cities are starting to take notice of the way the 125-mph trains might alter their landscapes. For one thing, safety regulations will require the tracks to pass either over or under every cross street, meaning either dozens of new overpasses or a pricey tunnel through a fully built-out suburban region.
Yoriko Kishimoto, a Palo Alto city councilwoman who last year led a resolution to support high-speed rail, is taking charge of an effort to get local cities and residents more involved in the planning process. In a meeting Monday with state Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, she and other council members asked whether he could help them extend the public comment period for the environmental scoping, which is scheduled to end March 6.
Kishimoto has also met with council members in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton and Mountain View about working together to negotiate more effectively with the rail authority.
"It's going to be a transformational project," she said, "and we have a choice whether it's going to transform the community for better or worse. It's up to us to take control of the situation."
Quentin Kopp, chairman of the high-speed rail authority, said those fretting about high-speed rail's impacts on local neighborhoods are getting ahead of themselves.
"The engineering is far from complete," he said. "People should not apprehend eminent domain until at least that part (of the design) which applies to Palo Alto or Redwood City is complete."
If some cities are interested in tunneling, he added, they should submit a proposal before the current comment period ends.
Until recently, the notion of a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco seemed far off to Tom D'Arezzo, a high-tech product manager who lives in Palo Alto's Southgate neighborhood. He knew it was on the November statewide ballot, but wasn't sure of the specifics.
Now that the $10 billion bond measure has passed, however, the project's full impact is beginning to hit home — almost literally. Like his neighbors on Mariposa Street, D'Arezzo has a yard that backs up to a portion of the Caltrain tracks that might have to be widened to accommodate the high-speed electric trains.
D'Arezzo now fears he could lose up to 10 feet of his property to eminent domain. But he's been frustrated in his attempts to find out for sure. Rail officials will neither confirm nor rule out the possibility, repeating a mantra that is beginning to irritate some Peninsula residents even though it's meant to soothe them: "It's early in the process."
Groundbreaking on the planned $40 million line is years away. The California High Speed Rail Authority is in the first stages of public outreach, holding "scoping meetings" in the Bay Area to get residents' thoughts on what should be studied in the environmental reports.
But D'Arezzo, and a handful of leaders in mid-Peninsula cities, worry that by the time they get the detailed information they would need to participate in the decision-making process, the big decisions will
have already been made.
It's that fear that prompted Menlo Park and Atherton's city councils to formally oppose the rail line, joining a lawsuit against the authority for its 2007 vote to run the trains up the Caltrain tracks rather than through the East Bay. Meanwhile, leaders in more transit-heavy cities such as Palo Alto and Redwood City have generally endorsed the alignment, whether officially or tacitly.
Now those cities are starting to take notice of the way the 125-mph trains might alter their landscapes. For one thing, safety regulations will require the tracks to pass either over or under every cross street, meaning either dozens of new overpasses or a pricey tunnel through a fully built-out suburban region.
Yoriko Kishimoto, a Palo Alto city councilwoman who last year led a resolution to support high-speed rail, is taking charge of an effort to get local cities and residents more involved in the planning process. In a meeting Monday with state Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, she and other council members asked whether he could help them extend the public comment period for the environmental scoping, which is scheduled to end March 6.
Kishimoto has also met with council members in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton and Mountain View about working together to negotiate more effectively with the rail authority.
"It's going to be a transformational project," she said, "and we have a choice whether it's going to transform the community for better or worse. It's up to us to take control of the situation."
Quentin Kopp, chairman of the high-speed rail authority, said those fretting about high-speed rail's impacts on local neighborhoods are getting ahead of themselves.
"The engineering is far from complete," he said. "People should not apprehend eminent domain until at least that part (of the design) which applies to Palo Alto or Redwood City is complete."
If some cities are interested in tunneling, he added, they should submit a proposal before the current comment period ends.
Monday, February 9, 2009
What Are the Benefits of High-Speed Trains?
There has been a lot of controversy regarding the Proposed High-Speed Train that will one day go right through areas of Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Will this effect your property values? Should you consider relocating away from the proposed route? What will be the pros and cons for homeowners in the mid-Peninsula?
Obviously this will make travel to Los Angeles much quicker and less expensive. Will the train be obnoxiously loud? Will you be able to see it from your home? Is it an overall plus or a minus for the community? Most important -- Is your investment safe?
Why High-Speed Trains?
California's population is growing rapidly and our economy needs a jumpstart. Unless we find new transportation solutions, traffic will only get worse and airport delays will continue to increase, hindering the economy and eroding California’s quality of life. To serve the same number of travelers as the high-speed train system, California would have to build nearly 3,000 lane-miles of freeway plus five airport runways and 90 departure gates by 2020. With a price tag of at least twice what it would cost to implement the high-speed train system and having much higher environmental impacts. What’s more, the proposed high-speed train system will provide lower passenger costs than for travel by automobile or air for the same city-to-city markets.
California's planned 220 mph high-speed train system will cost less than half as much as building more freeway lanes and airport runways and will increase mobility while cutting air pollution and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition to relieving traffic congestion by keeping cars off the roads, the system will eliminate traffic delays at existing at-grade railroad crossings by replacing crossings with overpasses or underpasses. And by moving people and goods quicker and cheaper than we do now, the system will boost our productivity to new heights. When it comes to safety, studies have shown that high-speed trains will reduce the number of traffic accidents on our roads and highways.
What are the benefits of high-speed trains?
Benefits of the California High-Speed Train System:
Carrying up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030, with the capacity to also carry high-value, lightweight freight.
Meeting the need for a safe and reliable mode of travel at less than half the cost of building more freeways and airport runways and would link the major metropolitan areas of the state and deliver predictable, consistent travel times sustainable over time.
Will not require an operating subsidy.
Serving tourist and leisure travel, business travel and long-distance commuters over a variety of long, intermediate and relatively short-distance trips (such as Los Angeles to Anaheim, Palmdale, Riverside, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento and the Bay Area).
Sharing rail alignments throughout much of the system will improve joint facilities benefiting safety and operations of existing freight, commuter and conventional passenger rail services.
Providing quick, competitive travel times between California’s major intercity markets.
Providing door-to-door travel times for longer distance intercity markets that would be comparable to air transportation, and less than one-half as long as automobile travel times.
Providing considerably quicker travel times for intermediate intercity trips than either air or automobile transportation, and bringing frequent high-speed train service to many parts of the state that are not well served by air transportation.
Providing lower passenger costs than for travel by automobile or air for the same intercity markets.
Providing a new intercity, interregional and regional passenger mode—the high-speed train— which would improve mobility, connectivity and accessibility to other existing transit modes and airports compared to the other alternatives.
Improving the travel options available in the Central Valley and other areas of the state with limited bus, rail and air service for intercity trips.
Providing transportation options in cases of extreme events, such as adverse weather or petroleum shortages.
Providing a predominantly separate transportation system that would be less susceptible to many factors influencing reliability such as capacity constraints, congestion and incidents that disrupt service.
Providing superior on-time reliability.
Providing a lower accident and fatality rate than automobile travel. Will avoid over 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries and property damage when compared to exclusive reliance on highways.
Offering greater opportunities to expand service and capacity with minimal expansion of infrastructure.
Adding capacity to the state’s transportation infrastructure and reducing traffic on certain intercity highways and around airports to the extent that intercity trips are diverted to the high-speed train system.
Eliminating traffic delays at existing at-grade crossings where the high-speed train system would provide grade separation.
Using train technology proven to be the safest, most reliable form of transportation known through extensive regular revenue service in Europe and Asia.
Expanding airports and highways to meet the intercity travel demands of 2020 would cost two-to-three times more than building the high-speed train system.
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority
Obviously this will make travel to Los Angeles much quicker and less expensive. Will the train be obnoxiously loud? Will you be able to see it from your home? Is it an overall plus or a minus for the community? Most important -- Is your investment safe?
Why High-Speed Trains?
California's population is growing rapidly and our economy needs a jumpstart. Unless we find new transportation solutions, traffic will only get worse and airport delays will continue to increase, hindering the economy and eroding California’s quality of life. To serve the same number of travelers as the high-speed train system, California would have to build nearly 3,000 lane-miles of freeway plus five airport runways and 90 departure gates by 2020. With a price tag of at least twice what it would cost to implement the high-speed train system and having much higher environmental impacts. What’s more, the proposed high-speed train system will provide lower passenger costs than for travel by automobile or air for the same city-to-city markets.
California's planned 220 mph high-speed train system will cost less than half as much as building more freeway lanes and airport runways and will increase mobility while cutting air pollution and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition to relieving traffic congestion by keeping cars off the roads, the system will eliminate traffic delays at existing at-grade railroad crossings by replacing crossings with overpasses or underpasses. And by moving people and goods quicker and cheaper than we do now, the system will boost our productivity to new heights. When it comes to safety, studies have shown that high-speed trains will reduce the number of traffic accidents on our roads and highways.
What are the benefits of high-speed trains?
Benefits of the California High-Speed Train System:
Carrying up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030, with the capacity to also carry high-value, lightweight freight.
Meeting the need for a safe and reliable mode of travel at less than half the cost of building more freeways and airport runways and would link the major metropolitan areas of the state and deliver predictable, consistent travel times sustainable over time.
Will not require an operating subsidy.
Serving tourist and leisure travel, business travel and long-distance commuters over a variety of long, intermediate and relatively short-distance trips (such as Los Angeles to Anaheim, Palmdale, Riverside, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento and the Bay Area).
Sharing rail alignments throughout much of the system will improve joint facilities benefiting safety and operations of existing freight, commuter and conventional passenger rail services.
Providing quick, competitive travel times between California’s major intercity markets.
Providing door-to-door travel times for longer distance intercity markets that would be comparable to air transportation, and less than one-half as long as automobile travel times.
Providing considerably quicker travel times for intermediate intercity trips than either air or automobile transportation, and bringing frequent high-speed train service to many parts of the state that are not well served by air transportation.
Providing lower passenger costs than for travel by automobile or air for the same intercity markets.
Providing a new intercity, interregional and regional passenger mode—the high-speed train— which would improve mobility, connectivity and accessibility to other existing transit modes and airports compared to the other alternatives.
Improving the travel options available in the Central Valley and other areas of the state with limited bus, rail and air service for intercity trips.
Providing transportation options in cases of extreme events, such as adverse weather or petroleum shortages.
Providing a predominantly separate transportation system that would be less susceptible to many factors influencing reliability such as capacity constraints, congestion and incidents that disrupt service.
Providing superior on-time reliability.
Providing a lower accident and fatality rate than automobile travel. Will avoid over 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries and property damage when compared to exclusive reliance on highways.
Offering greater opportunities to expand service and capacity with minimal expansion of infrastructure.
Adding capacity to the state’s transportation infrastructure and reducing traffic on certain intercity highways and around airports to the extent that intercity trips are diverted to the high-speed train system.
Eliminating traffic delays at existing at-grade crossings where the high-speed train system would provide grade separation.
Using train technology proven to be the safest, most reliable form of transportation known through extensive regular revenue service in Europe and Asia.
Expanding airports and highways to meet the intercity travel demands of 2020 would cost two-to-three times more than building the high-speed train system.
Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)