News

Rail authority's new report draws criticism

Agency was forced to revise environmental document after Peninsula lawsuit; critics warn of further litigation

The agency charged with building California's high-speed rail system adopted a crucial environmental document for the rail line Thursday morning, despite calls from Peninsula critics that the new document is deeply flawed and could lead to litigation.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority had initially certified its program environmental impact report (EIR) for the Bay Area-to-Central Valley section of the voter-approved line in 2008. The agency was forced to de-certify and revise the document last year because of a court order prompted by a lawsuit from Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups.

The new document includes revisions to sections dealing with project description, vibration impacts and Union Pacific's opposition to sharing its corridor with the new high-speed-rail system. But it does nothing to dispel the concerns voiced by Peninsula cities about the ridership projections in the document.

Stuart Flashman, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the rail authority, said the coalition was disappointed in the revised document, which he said "raises more questions than it answers." The new document, for instance, does nothing to address widespread criticism of the rail authority's ridership projections. The rail authority used these projections to justify its selection of the Pacheco Pass in the Peninsula as the preferred alternative for the rail line, as opposed to the Altamont Pass in the East Bay, which the plaintiffs supported.

In June, the Institute of Transportation Studies at U.C. Berkeley found these projections to be flawed and unreliable, echoing earlier concerns from the the Palo Alto-based group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD).

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Palo Alto, which had filed a motion supporting Menlo Park and Atherton's suit, also asked the rail authority to take a fresh look at its ridership projections, a request that the new document doesn't address.

Flashman told the board of directors that by failing to reconsider the ridership numbers, the rail authority is opening itself up to fresh litigation.

"If you go ahead and certify this, you'll be ending up in court again and probably facing another adverse decision, which I think will be bad for the project," Flashman said.

Atherton Councilman Jerry Carlsen echoed Flashman's sentiments and urged the rail authority not to certify the new document, which he predicted "would further deepen the distrust of the authority."

"This will certainly be an area of further litigation if the document is approved as is," Carlsen said.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Palo Alto officials, meanwhile, submitted a letter to the rail authority stating that the new document fails to address the city's comments. Rob Braulik, the city's project manager for high-speed rail, asked the board not to certify the environmental document and to reanalyze the possibility of running the rail line along Altamont Pass.

Despite these concerns, the rail authority board of directors voted Thursday morning (in the second part of a two-day meeting) to certify the environmental document. In a statement, the rail authority said it responded to more than 3,700 comments from more than 500 agencies in the new EIR.

Curt Pringle, chairman of the rail authority's board of directors, called the board's decision to certify the document "another major step forward in making California the home of the nation's first high-speed rail network."

"Californians want this project done right, and that means a careful and thoughtful assessment of how to minimize environmental impacts while building a project that creates enormous opportunity for the people of the state," Pringle said in a statement.

Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Rail authority's new report draws criticism

Agency was forced to revise environmental document after Peninsula lawsuit; critics warn of further litigation

by / Palo Alto Online

Uploaded: Fri, Sep 3, 2010, 11:10 am

The agency charged with building California's high-speed rail system adopted a crucial environmental document for the rail line Thursday morning, despite calls from Peninsula critics that the new document is deeply flawed and could lead to litigation.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority had initially certified its program environmental impact report (EIR) for the Bay Area-to-Central Valley section of the voter-approved line in 2008. The agency was forced to de-certify and revise the document last year because of a court order prompted by a lawsuit from Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups.

The new document includes revisions to sections dealing with project description, vibration impacts and Union Pacific's opposition to sharing its corridor with the new high-speed-rail system. But it does nothing to dispel the concerns voiced by Peninsula cities about the ridership projections in the document.

Stuart Flashman, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the rail authority, said the coalition was disappointed in the revised document, which he said "raises more questions than it answers." The new document, for instance, does nothing to address widespread criticism of the rail authority's ridership projections. The rail authority used these projections to justify its selection of the Pacheco Pass in the Peninsula as the preferred alternative for the rail line, as opposed to the Altamont Pass in the East Bay, which the plaintiffs supported.

In June, the Institute of Transportation Studies at U.C. Berkeley found these projections to be flawed and unreliable, echoing earlier concerns from the the Palo Alto-based group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD).

Palo Alto, which had filed a motion supporting Menlo Park and Atherton's suit, also asked the rail authority to take a fresh look at its ridership projections, a request that the new document doesn't address.

Flashman told the board of directors that by failing to reconsider the ridership numbers, the rail authority is opening itself up to fresh litigation.

"If you go ahead and certify this, you'll be ending up in court again and probably facing another adverse decision, which I think will be bad for the project," Flashman said.

Atherton Councilman Jerry Carlsen echoed Flashman's sentiments and urged the rail authority not to certify the new document, which he predicted "would further deepen the distrust of the authority."

"This will certainly be an area of further litigation if the document is approved as is," Carlsen said.

Palo Alto officials, meanwhile, submitted a letter to the rail authority stating that the new document fails to address the city's comments. Rob Braulik, the city's project manager for high-speed rail, asked the board not to certify the environmental document and to reanalyze the possibility of running the rail line along Altamont Pass.

Despite these concerns, the rail authority board of directors voted Thursday morning (in the second part of a two-day meeting) to certify the environmental document. In a statement, the rail authority said it responded to more than 3,700 comments from more than 500 agencies in the new EIR.

Curt Pringle, chairman of the rail authority's board of directors, called the board's decision to certify the document "another major step forward in making California the home of the nation's first high-speed rail network."

"Californians want this project done right, and that means a careful and thoughtful assessment of how to minimize environmental impacts while building a project that creates enormous opportunity for the people of the state," Pringle said in a statement.

Comments

ben
Monta Loma
on Sep 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm
ben, Monta Loma
on Sep 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm

There is a problem with the ridership estimates and it is more than that the estimates are wrong. It is because the estimate is not based on a door-to-door transit system like Tokyo has to support the high-speed system. You have look at high-speed rail as an incomplete system that drops you off at the terminal and then you are on your own to get to your final destination. Getting to the high-speed terminal from your location is the same problem. You have to rely on poor or nonexistent public transportation.

High-speed rail works in Japan because the population is mainly crowed along a straight line on the west cost. Tokyo does not have any areas like Los Altos or Los Altos Hills to service with local transportation. If you look at a map of the private, semi private, and municipal transportation system, they has essential door to door service and they travel with very little baggage. (Next time you are at the airport, just take a look at the baggage that is carry on the airlines from here to LA. – or at the carousel.)

Check out the Tokyo transportation system map
Web Link
and you will see why high-speed rail works there and will not be very effective here.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.