|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 11:05 AM
Palo Alto to fight high-speed-rail 'betrayal' bills
Proposed bills could allow controversial project to bypass environmental regulations
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
Palo Alto is girding for battle against proposed legislation that could make the California high speed rail project exempt from environmental regulations.
"There is great concern that this is a real betrayal of the commitments made to this city and this council and the communities up and down the Peninsula," Mayor Pat Burt said during a Palo Alto City Council discussion Monday night.
He cited statements made by officials from both the state and the California High-Speed Rail Authority -- even as the authority was quietly working on legislation to nullify the review requirements.
The city has hired consultants and a lobbyist to help it obtain and analyze information relating to the project, currently estimated at $43 billion. The initial line would stretch from San Francisco to Los Angeles and pass through Palo Alto along the Caltrain tracks, prompting creation of a five-city Peninsula Cities Consortium.
One of the city's goals would be to oppose a series of state bills that exempt the project from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city officials said at a Monday night discussion of the project.
Several council members said they were concerned about the prospect of the controversial rail project being exempted from CEQA, which mandates detailed environmental reviews and public hearings for major projects. Over the past year, Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities used the CEQA process to send comments to the Rail Authority and challenge the agency's decisions.
Burt, who represents the city on the consortium, said the CEQA review is the cities' primary avenue for communicating with the Rail Authority. Burt said a number of state officials have referred to CEQA as the "principal way in which our concerns will be protected."
The proposed bills would exempt "critical infrastructure projects" from review. The bills would enable the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select projects to be exempted from environmental review.
Burt said that would undermine the few legal protections communities currently have against the rail authority.
Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa said the new CEQA exemption bills are the most interesting new development pertaining to the rail project.
Palo Alto recently hired Ravi Mehta of Capitol Advocates to lobby for the city on high speed rail issues in Sacramento. City staff is working with Mehta to "oppose any legislation which would diminish or circumvent the current protection or in any way create exemptions from CEQA and court review for major infrastructure projects each year, including but not limited to the California High-Speed Rail Authority," according to a city staff report.
Palo Alto and its neighbors on the Peninsula have aggressively used the environmental review process to challenge the authority's plans and assumptions. City officials have been reviewing recent reports from the authority and attending public hearings on the project.
The authority recently revised its program Environmental Impact Report -- a comprehensive, 1,200-plus-page analysis mandated by CEQA -- because of a lawsuit from Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups. The authority completed the report in July 2008, but had to de-certify it last year after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled that there are flaws in the analysis
On Monday, Palo Alto officials said they intend to send the authority a fresh list of concerns about the environmental review, including criticism of the agency's recently released ridership and revenue projections, which showed sharply lower ridership estimates and substantially higher fares than earlier reports.
Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie said the EIR for the project "is not based on sound financial analysis and therefore makes it difficult to ascertain what the options are." Emslie is scheduled to bring the list of comments back to the council April 12. The comment period for the revised EIR ends April 26.
Nadia Naik, co-founder of the local rail watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), urged local residents to comment on the revised EIR. She said the entire document, not just the revised sections, is subject to public comments. Naik also pointed out that some of the Rail Authority's most controversial decisions, including its choice of the Pacheco Pass over the Altamont Pass as its preferred Peninsula route, were based on the program EIR.
"Now is your chance to get in there and make comments that you would've made back in the day if you had awareness of it," Naik said.
The city also plans to submit a separate list of comments on the "alternatives analysis" that the authority is scheduled to release next month. The analysis evaluates various design options for the Peninsula segment, including at-grade tracks, elevated tracks, trenched tracks and deep tunneling.
But even though the analysis won't be out for at least three weeks, several council members said the city should lobby the authority for underground tunnels. Council members Greg Scharff and Nancy Shepherd both said the city should firmly oppose any plan to build an elevated rail line and demand tunnels. Councilwoman Karen Holman urged her colleagues to avoid committing to any design options until a fuller analysis is available.
"It's premature because we don't have the EIR," Holman said. "We don't know what any of the impacts are." Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2010 at 7:23 pm Palo Alto seems to have a good plan for getting the high speed rail built underground in their city. I think Mountain View should work to make sure that we do not end up with the left overs which would be a rail system above grade or at grade. We need a tunnel or a cut and fill system through Mountain View. So far the city leaders remind me of a deer in the headlights, ie do nothing until the design is fixed after which will be too late.
The real solution to High Speed Rail is to have a new election to kill this project, air craft are much faster and will not cost the state $42B plus overruns plus interest.
Rodger
|
|
Posted by Political Insider, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2010 at 7:37 pm Pure nonsense. There is nothing wrong with at grade. It's obviously done all over the world. None of the people in PA are experts on trains so why do you think they know how to design something.
|
|
Posted by NeHi, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2010 at 8:32 pm Sounds like this article is about "permission or forgiveness".
We lived a couple of years less than 200m from the S.P. tracks. When the freight trains passed, we suspended conversation. When the jets from Moffett took off, we involuntarily ducked as well. We thought of it as a minor inconvenience; hey, they were there first.
Now, near the tracks, we have a population along the 145 year old right-of-way that have lived nearby for a more than a generation with little more than CalTrain's noise. Quantitatively, how much more noise and visual pollution should people be required to tolerate?
Electrification of the railroad should reduce noise levels and allow power regeneration on braking, both good things. How fast do we need to go??
|
|
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 5:45 am Political Insider is right - if these towns want HSR underground let them pay for it. Thats what the East Bay did when BART was built. Why should everybody in Calif pay for the wealthiest towns in the state to delay the project and increase costs. If they want it in a special way, pay for it. Or move it to the East Bay! These exclusive towns seem to live OK with Caltran at-grade. More NIMBY whining from the state's wealthiest communities.
|
|
Posted by Reality Slap, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 6:11 am Nobody ever talks about what happens when the trains hit SF.
Oh goodie, now we get to do a Uturn and go back down to where we just were.
HSR up the peninsula to a dead end is a joke and an utter waste of money.
|
|
Posted by Political Insider, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Mar 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm When the trains hit SF, the ride ends just as it does with Caltrain commuters. There is no Uturn and the HSR trains are on a timed schedule to return to LA . Far fewer runs than Caltrain.
|
|
Posted by Richard, a resident of another community, on Mar 26, 2010 at 4:41 am The thought of running the trail below is out of the question. It would triple the cost at the very least. I has ridden high speed trains around the world, and they are very quiet.....we are not talking deisel freight trains here folks.
|
|
Posted by Jane, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm We're not talking about just the noise of the trains. I think noise is a smaller issue.
From Community Coalition on High speed rail:
"What are the impacts of the various vertical alignments?
Because of the frequency of trains (one approximately every 2 minutes during peak hours, see below), any at or above grade alignment will have an enormous impact. There will be noise, vibration and air turbulence as trains pass through. Visually, the least intrusive element will be the 4’ sound wall.... 25’ catenary poles, carrying the wires that supply power to the train..."
There is significant environmental impact to build a long tall wall next to people's houses. There are actually many people living right next to the tracks.
If it were you, you will not want to see a huge construction project next to your house, cutting down trees, digging holes, creating debris and noise either.
Not many people take trains anyway. What a waste of money!
Wish the money can be spent on local schools instead to hire back the teachers.
|
|
Posted by Lance, a resident of another community, on May 31, 2010 at 11:45 pm The cost estimate is a joke it will cost billions more than the original estimate and no one will be riding the highspeed train. A simple fact is that it is much cheaper and quicker to fly or drive. The same distance that the train will travel in from SF to LA in 3 hours can be driven in 5-6 and just as if flying upon arrival you would have to rent a car and pay to park a car at the station. The cost of riding the train and convenience of having and driving your own car out ways the few hours saved in travel time.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
