train, train, go away, leave wildlands alone we say...

-
Court Rules Against Super-train Route

From the PCL: On Thursday 12/3/2009, the California High Speed Rail Authority rescinded its poor route choice for the Central Valley-Bay Area segment of the state's proposed high-speed train network. This decision means that the Authority will re-evaluate other potential routes into the Bay Area that would have fewer negative environmental effects and less impact on nearby communities. Last year the Planning and Conservation League, along with BayRail Alliance, California Rail Foundation, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, and the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park filed a lawsuit challenging the Authority's decision to route the train through the Pacheco Pass and along the Peninsula to San Francisco . The group noted that the Authority had not adequately reviewed the project and failed to sufficiently consider other routes for the Central Valley-Bay Area segment. The courts agreed and sent the Authority back to the drawing board to do it right. Today's decision is good news for high speed rail. First, by building the train to ensure minimal impacts to the environment and local communities, the Authority can stem the growing tide of opposition - increasing the chances that the project will actually be built. Second, by exploring the full range of alternative approaches at the outset, the Authority will save substantial time and money in the long run - again improving the project's likelihood of success. However, Thursday's decision will only be meaningful if the Authority conducts a real review and commits to choosing the most effective route. To date, the Authority's leadership has been more motivated by political pressure than sound public policy. We hope yesterday's announcement finally puts high speed rail development on the right track.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/04/BAHR1AUL1F.DTL

(12-04) 04:00 PST Sacramento - -- Efforts to link the Bay Area and the Central Valley by high-speed rail pulled onto a bureaucratic siding Thursday as the High Speed Rail Authority rescinded its approval of an environmental study for that section of the bullet train.
The unanimous rescission of the 2008 approval, which identified the Pacheco Pass as the preferred route, was in response to an August court ruling that the environmental document was partially inadequate. Parts of it will need to be redone. But how long it will take to fix the study, and move forward with the choice of an alignment between San Jose and Merced, is a matter of controversy. Rail authority officials say it should take a few months - at most. But an attorney representing an environmental group, which joined with Atherton and Menlo Park in filing the suit, says the study shouldn't be rushed. "It's very clear to us that you need to understand that there may be environmental impacts, impacts on habitat and growth impacts that could be avoided if you did things differently," said Gary Patton, special counsel for the Planning and Conservation League, which joined in filing the suit. Patton estimated it could take as long as a year to reconsider the study properly; and any rushed study, he said, would likely lead the sides back to court. The groups involved in the lawsuit objected to the authority's selection of Pacheco Pass over Altamont Pass as the gateway to the Bay Area, and still consider it a superior choice, Patton said outside the meeting. He said the groups want the authority to completely reconsider their decision, which could steer them toward Altamont.

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/11/hsr-should-go-where-people-are.html

mentions Tejon Ranch--in relation to the Super-train project

Will State Supertrain encourage more sprawl?

-
Groups and Cities Sue Over CA Supertrain Route

from http://hsr-letsdoitright.com/lawsuit.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12753216

In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, which authorized the state to issue almost $10 billion dollars in bonds to support a new High Speed Rail system for California. Whether you voted for the train or not, here are several problems with the current plans that haven’t gotten too much public attention:


The route chosen by the California High Speed Rail Authority uses the Pacheco Pass (blue on the map) as the entrance to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Altamont Pass (yellow on the map) is the alternative that makes the most sense from both an environmental and transportation perspective. The Altamont Route would have the least impact on wildlife and natural resources, and would put the new rail facilities in areas where the maximum ridership could be developed – including access to Sacramento and Stockton.

Unless strong and certain measures are put in place to protect agricultural and natural resource lands, building a major new transportation corridor through the Central Valley could actually spread suburban sprawl.

--Support the Lawsuit--

The Planning and Conservation League (PCL), the California Rail Foundation (CRF), the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) and the Bay Rail Alliance have joined the Town of Atherton and the City of Menlo Park in a lawsuit challenging the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA).

What is the lawsuit?

The suit charges that the CHSRA’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the current peninsula route violates a California law requiring that projects follow the least environmentally harmful path and that the EIR has several faulty and missing points of information. It demands that the EIR be redone to an appropriately rigorous standard.

See the Press Release http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR_assets/Filing%20press%20release.pdf

and the Lawsuit. http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR_assets/HSRA%20Petition.pdf

What will winning do?

Winning would oblige the CHSRA to reconsider the Altamont Pass route, which would connect the East Bay with Caltrain in Redwood City via a rebuilt Dumbarton rail bridge. This route was previously favored by the predecessor body to the CHSRA, and many believe it has significant environmental and ridership advantages. Whether the lawsuit wins or loses (to be determined in May), it will provide important leverage in negotiations with the rail authority as our local cities seek to mitigate the adverse impact of rail developments.

The plaintiffs:
http://www.transdef.org/

http://www.calrailfoundation.org/Home.html

http://www.bayrailalliance.org/

http://www.pcl.org/

The State's Website:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Elevated rail gets boost from L.A. School Board...

-
Citing student safety, L.A. school board opposes Expo Line rail route

June 24, 2009

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/citing-student-safety-school-board-opposes-expo-line-rail-route.html

Citing safety concerns for students, the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District unanimously decided to oppose the design of the Expo Light Rail Line, which would pass at street level near Overland Avenue and Charnock Road elementary schools.

Board members said they would not support the Expo Line unless the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority could eliminate all the safety hazards of operating light-rail trains near schools. They also directed the district's superintendent to exhaust all legal options while trying to resolve the Expo Line's safety issues.

The board resolution relates to the second phase of the project, which would run from Culver City to Santa Monica. Phase 1 from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City has already generated considerable controversy about street-level crossings near schools. That segment is under construction.

The resolution notes that MTA's Blue Line from Long Beach to Los Angeles, which has street-level crossings, has become the nation's deadliest light-rail line. It also states that the Expo Line should not be built near the two schools because it could violate the district's 128-foot distance requirement for active rail lines.

-
Debate Over L.A.'s Newest Light Rail Line Shows Need for Elevated Instead of Street Level Design

To our readers:
One of the shortsighted decisions our local (Los Angeles County) transportation agency has made over the years is to buy up a few hundred miles of unused railroad tracks, and then spend most of itsr budget on building a subway. With most of the money spent underground, the MTA then pleads poverty when it designs the the other rail lines, and sticks to ground-level rail. What's wrong with that, you may ask? With the latest proposal for West L.A., called the Exposition Line, we'll have trains coming every five minutes, crossing a system of heavily gridlocked streets and creating even more gridlock for cars and danger for cars and pedestrians. This problem could be solved if the MTA simply spent a little more money and elevated the rail line. The benefit of this is we could use the several miles long by 100 foot wide strip for a linear park, we wouldn't have the added surface traffic gridlock from street blockage by trains, and we wouldn't have to worry about children getting hit by passing trains.

An EIR was released this month for the western portion of the Exposition light rail project:

http://buildexpo.org/phase2_overview.php

Please right comment letters demanding an all elevated project! Friday March 13th is the deadline to submit comments.

Elevated Rail works great in the SF Bay area! It can work here, too.

Apparently, a lot of the canidates for the City Council seat for this area agree...
-------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-expo-candidates20-2009feb20,0,770358.story

2/20/2009 L.A. Times

The main difference is how strongly they view the need for the train to avoid street crossings along the right-of-way. Each said they believe money can be found to build underpasses, but none could identify a particular funding source.

Here is a summary of their views:

--Adeena Bleich: The fiscal conservative in her believes that the existing right-of-way should be used, but she would want to look at the costs closely to see if Venice-Sepulveda might make more sense. Bleich said that if the train uses the right-of-way, she could support street-level crossings only if "they can show the traffic impacts were low enough but, more importantly, if they can ensure that there's absolutely no way someone would be injured."

--Ron Galperin: His preference would be to use the existing right-of-way because the route appears to be the most cost-effective alternative that he believes would get the most people out of their cars. Galperin said he believes the train may have to go under or over some streets. "What I plan to do is walk each and every one of these intersections with neighbors," he said. "I think when you're on the ground . . . you get a better sense of how to do it and how to do it right."

--Paul Koretz: He prefers the Venice-Sepulveda route and could support the use of the right-of-way only if the train goes under key north-south arteries such as Overland Avenue and Sepulveda. "I would fight the line itself if all the crossings are at-grade -- I think that would be too dangerous and disruptive to traffic," Koretz said. "I would be happy to see it below grade all the way through, but the key is the crossings."

--Robert Schwartz: Unless other numbers surface, he agrees with a recent environmental impact report that says building the train on the right-of-way would cost less, require less construction and have a lesser effect on traffic. Schwartz said he would want to review safety issues before deciding whether street-level crossings could be built along the right-of-way. "I would certainly voice my opinion if I thought it was a mistake," he said. "We don't want to tragically lose people."

--Robyn Ritter Simon: She supports the use of the existing right-of-way, most notably because it would cost less and result in fewer parcels having to be purchased than building along Venice and Sepulveda. "Just because I want it to go down the right-of-way, there are conditions that I have," Ritter Simon said. In her view, the street crossings at Sepulveda and Overland absolutely must be separated because of traffic and safety concerns.

--David Vahedi: He believes that the Venice-Sepulveda route would put the train closer to more residents and potential passengers. If the right-of-way is used, Vahedi said, the train must go under Overland and Sepulveda and probably Westwood Boulevard.

-

Why We Favor Elevated Light-Rail Transit Over Subways...

In response to a recent letter-writer to the L.A. Times (1/12/2009) advocating more subways across L.A., it’s not NIMBYism to want the most bang for our bucks. “Patient deliberation” is especially important now in the planning of our rail transit systems because all of our local, state and federal governments teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Subways are not the only solution to traffic jams—just the most expensive. If we are ever going to construct a system to actually compete with smog-belching cars and buses, and get commuters off the roads, we can’t spend all the cash on a few miles of subways. Subways make sense in the most congested routes, where geography and density of development have made all other options impossible. But now that taxpayers made the first step to fund more rail transit in L.A. in November, it is up to our elected officials to spend it wisely. The alternative, elevated light rail, will carry more passengers many timesmore miles than more subways. Elevated light rail can use the median of existing wide streets, or when abandoned industrial rail corridors are used, the land below can be community green space that can be parkland and sites to capture and clean urban storm runoff. Elevated rail solves the problem of car crashes with trains at busy intersections, and we won’t have to worry about school children being at risk from trains at street level.

As urban planners continually tell us, Los Angeles needs to build “up” since this city has run out of land. We hear of plans for more high-rises on Wilshire Blvd., yet an elevated rail there would mar the view? Los Angeles is a beautiful city, and commuters have a right to see it, and not be relegated to an underground transit system.

--Rex Frankel, the editor
------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-monday12-2009jan12,0,5852456,full.story
Letter to the L.A Times: The need for a comprehensive subway system in Los Angeles far outweighs the legal requirement for community input and environmental impact analysis. Our city cannot afford to waste decades debating where to lay the tracks. We deserve to have transit projects started immediately and completed on the scale of years, not generations. The hardships endured by commuters here are enough to justify the declaration of a state of emergency, which will expedite the construction of projects paid for by Measure R funds. The time for patient deliberation and NIMBYism is over.--Makan Mohageg

-
SF Bay Area Voters Go Green in a Big Way!

VOTERS SUPPORT GREEN TRANSPORTATION, LAND CONSERVATION

11/5/2008
http://greenbelt.org

Great news! On November 4, Bay Area residents overwhelmingly voted to invest in green
transportation and to protect farmland and natural areas. Greenbelt Alliance, with your support, worked hard to pass these six key measures.

California, once the heartland for the automobile, is bringing back its trains. Voters said yes to building a high-speed train, the first in the nation, and to bringing passenger train service from Cloverdale to Larkspur to relieve unrelenting congestion in the North Bay.

Another important victory is the protection of almost 1 million acres in Solano and Napa counties. And Measure WW passed, which will renew funding to create and improve East Bay parks, and preserve open space at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Here are the big wins for the Bay Area's open spaces and vibrant places:

GREEN TRANSPORTATION WINS!
**Proposition 1A (52.3%) authorizes a high-speed train to be built from San Francisco and
Sacramento to San Diego.
**Measure Q (69.5%) brings the SMART train and bike trail to Sonoma and Marin.
**Measure VV (71.5%) provides funding for AC Transit to help preserve affordable public
transportation.

OPEN SPACE VICTORIES!
**Solano's Measure T (69.6%) guides growth into existing cities and protects 440,000
acres of agricultural and natural areas.
**Measure P (63.7%) protects 540,000 acres of Napa County farmland and watersheds.
**Measure WW (71.5%) creates parks, builds trails, and restores ecological areas in the East Bay.

Thanks for helping to make these victories possible; they will lead the Bay Area to a
more sustainable, self-sufficient future.

-----
November Ballot Measure Will Ask Californians to Fund on $9 Billion State High-speed Train

Will the supertrain mean an end to air flight congestion between L.A. and the Bay area? Will it lead to more urban growth at the less-expensive cities along the rail route? There are both pro's and con's with this plan and, so far, the major environmental groups haven't come out in support of it.

The backers of the project claim they are part of a coalition that includes environmental groups, but their website doesn't list them.

http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/newsletter/

---------------------

North Coast Railroad Reality Check

http://humboldtbaykeeper.org

Hearing on Wednesday, August 29

The North Coast Railroad Authority is holding a public scoping hearing in preparation for an Environmental Impact Report on restoring rail service from Willits south to Lombard. Wait a second – NCRA already requested funding for rail all the way north to Samoa. Aren’t they supposed to include the whole project, including Humboldt County? The answer is yes – and we plan to raise this concern at the scoping hearing in a few weeks. Join us for the hearing – we’re planning a carpool caravan to Santa Rosa:

Railroad Scoping Hearing
Wednesday, August 29th, 7:00-9:00pm
Santa Rosa City Hall
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa

You can also send us your comments on the proposed railway project and we’ll bring them to Santa Rosa for you. Talking points are below – or contact us for more information at 268-0664 or email Pete.

Talking Points for Railroad Scoping Hearing
* Economic feasibility for the defined rail project depends upon the full stretch from Lombard to Samoa – how can we evaluate the impacts of half a project?
* Funding has been requested for the full project – so why is the environmental study only addressing half the project?
* NCRA has been inconsistent in its statements about the timeline for the project. What criteria will be used to determine the accuracy of planning and timing for this project?

------------------------------
California Supertrain Progress is Slow

http://www.calcoast.org/news/cpr0070201.html
STEVE WIEGAND

High-speed train's near standstill

Sacramento Bee, February 1, 2007

In 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger was starring in "The Last Action Hero." California politicians, meanwhile, were creating a commission to ponder the prospect of building an environmentally sound, cost-efficient, up-and-down-the-state high-speed rail system.

Now it's 2007. Arnold Schwarzenegger is starring in "Governor."And after 14 years, $30 million, two oversight panels, a couple of postponed bond votes and a whole bunch of planning, the dream of a high-speed rail system in California is on the verge of being slowly but inexorably starved to death.

"It's very frustrating," said Quentin Kopp, who is chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The authority was created in 1996, after a predecessor commission decided a passenger train system within the state did indeed make sense economically, environmentally and technologically.

What's frustrating Kopp is the bread-and-water budget for the authority that the Schwarzenegger administration has proposed for the budget year that starts July 1.

The rail folks have asked for about $104 million. Most of it would be used to pay for design and engineering plans and to purchase rights of way for a system that supporters say would zip along at speeds of up to 220 mph, carry up to 68 million passengers a year and require no taxpayer subsidies to operate.

But the proposed budget the guv trotted out Jan. 10 contains a bit over $1 million for the authority -- or just enough for it to pay a small staff and the rent on an office across the street from the Capitol.

That's the bureaucratic equivalent of treading water, at a time when the project at long last is ready to begin picking up steam.

At an authority meeting Monday, for example, trustees unanimously approved $298.4 million in long-term engineering contracts for Sacramento-to-Fresno, Fresno-to-Palmdale and L.A.-to-San Diego segments. But there is only $2.5 million in the current fiscal year's budget to begin paying for them.

Even $104 million is chump change for a project that could take a decade to finish and cost $37 billion in state and federal funds.

A $10 billion bond proposal that would give the project its first serious money -- and has already been postponed twice in the past three years -- is scheduled for next year.

But the guv wants to postpone the vote again, so it doesn't interfere with the $29 billion bond package he's proposing for the same ballot.

Rail board members and staff are politely apoplectic at the thought of more delay.

"That (proposal) is obnoxious," said trustee Rod Diridon, who with Kopp has been a leading advocate of rail systems for several decades. "We gave in 2004, we went along in 2006. It's our turn now."

To ensure that, however, the bullet train boosters will need to enlist sizable support in a Legislature that is replete with rookie members who are new to the debate.

And politicians being politicians, it's tough to rally support for a project that will not be completed until well after they leave office.

As Kopp put it, "They might be there for the groundbreaking, but not too many will be there for the ribbon-cutting."

That includes the guv, who clearly wants to leave a lasting legacy to the state, but who, like others before him, can't seem to resist quick fixes that will earn applause now instead of appreciation later.

So why not just put the whole idea out of its misery rather than throw it a million-dollar budget crumb? Because someday California may wish it had a high-speed rail system, like France or China or Mexico. And not even a "Last Action" hero wants to have his fingerprints on the budget gun that killed it.