On August 8th, 2008, the cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, and a number of environmental and transit advocacy groups filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the CHSRA's July 9th 2008 certification of their Bay Area to Central Valley program EIR/EIS, for failing to properly meet the requirements of CEQA environmental review regulations. This lawsuit, often characterized as an act of peninsula NIMBYism, will be heard later this month in Sacramento Superior Court.10 interesting fact
- You can read all the legal briefs on the Sacramento Superior Court's document server. Select 2008 (the year the lawsuit was filed), and enter the case number 80000022, then hit the search button. This will dredge up all the latest documents; the original complaint is at the bottom of the list and is a must-read. The complaint outlines the basic claims made against the CHSRA's environmental review process, and describes the organizations who filed the lawsuit.
- The lawsuit does not seek to stop the HSR project. It broadly challenges the thoroughness of the Environmental Impact Report, and specifically the selection of the Pacheco pass alignment over the Altamont Pass alignment, which was the subject of nearly a decade of contentious debate.
- If the plaintiffs win and the EIR certification is overturned, the CHSRA would be required to re-open and amend their program EIR to address the deficiencies, and make a new alignment decision on the basis of the amended EIR before proceeding further.
- A new EIR decision could very well re-affirm the Pacheco Pass alignment. It would not necessarily result in the selection of Altamont Pass.
- The plaintiffs include grassroots transportation and rail advocacy groups who are strongly in favor of HSR, including TRANSDEF, Bay Rail Alliance, and the California Rail Foundation. This fact alone should explode the NIMBY stereotype that is often associated with this lawsuit. They want HSR but they want it done right, and their strong and united stance is noteworthy.
- While the town of Atherton has a clear motive to keep HSR entirely outside its boundaries, it's not so cut and dried for co-plaintiff Menlo Park. Under an Altamont scenario, the HSR tracks would still traverse the city, but through some less affluent neighborhoods of east Menlo Park.
- The city of Menlo Park's standing as a plaintiff was gravely undermined when it was ruled last March 27th that they did not properly submit their comments on the EIR. In an embarrassing breakdown of basic process, no records were kept of the city's submission of comments to the CHSRA, whether by fax or U.S. mail, and the CHSRA claimed never to have received them.
- The Palo Alto city council emphatically and unanimously supported HSR until Proposition 1A passed in November. After severe backlash against the project in Palo Alto as details of the project became better known, the city council reversed itself and voted to
joinsupport the lawsuit. While it was too late to become a plaintiff, the city filed an amicus curiae brief on May 1st, which is now available on the court's document server (see item 1). - Any response from the CHSRA to Palo Alto's brief is required to be made by May 15th. UPDATE 5/18: the CHSRA's response to Palo Alto's amicus curiae brief is now available on the court's document server (see item 1).
- The lawsuit is scheduled to be heard
and likely decidedby Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny on May 29th.
Posts
"10 interesting factoids about the lawsuit:"
ReplyDelete"Dictionary: fac·toid (făk'toid) pronunciation
n.
1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition"
Hehe.
So how much is the lawsuit going to add to the cost (which the opposition will no doubt point to as a charge of inefficiency and corruption) and how much will it delay the entire project (which the opposition will no doubt point to as a charge of inefficiency and corruption)?
TRANSDEF, Bay Rail Alliance, and the California Rail Foundation are trying to hijack California High Speed Rail, a proposed intercity rail system, to serve their regional interests. They had little success with Caltrans, ACE, Amtrak, and others in improving regional transit in the area and suddenly it falls on the CHSRA, whose primary goal task is to design and build a quick link between LA and San Francisco and provide better connections from the Central Valley to the rest of the state, to solve all of the Bay Area's rail woes.
ReplyDeleteWhy not jump on ACE's ass to improve service in that corridor? Why is the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains still running in the street in Oakland? What's with the circuitous route between Oakland and Martinez? Fix those things first. Improve those services first. But I've read the business plans for Amtrak California. Their most ambitious plans include starting a 3rd round trip between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles on the Surfliner. Exciting stuff.
I hope that bitter East Bay special interests, irrelevant activists and NIMBYs in disguise that glom onto the lawsuit and spout Altamont talking points don't delay or kill this project.
Lack of resources all around pits advocate against advocate and without a unified front the only people who lose out are all of us. It should be noted that the cost of the Iraq War could have probably paid for six or seven California high speed rail networks and then some.
Because HSRA has the money, much more money than any mainline rail service has EVER seen in the state. When you have programs starved of funding for so long, and a giant new program with lots of money, of course everyone tries to pile on and get a piece of the funding. You wouldn't have this problem if there were a steady stream of capital funding for rail. I also get the impression from the Altamont proponents that the main reason for Altamont is not benefit to HSR per se so much as commuter services that would be able to run on the HSR corridor, which is something that should be addressed by a more integrated planning process. Just look at France or Spain, where all high speed, intercity, and commuter rail are planned operated by one agency (SNCF or RENFE respectively), where in California we have a patchwork of agencies each with exclusive control of a tiny slice of the big transportation picture.
ReplyDeleteArcady: I'm all for collecting all these agencies under Amtrak. Maybe if New York had just one commuter rail agency instead of two and a half it would not need to waste so much money with the ARC cavern...
ReplyDelete"When you have programs starved of funding for so long, and a giant new program with lots of money, of course everyone tries to pile on and get a piece of the funding."
ReplyDeleteBingo. And when they don't get funding? Lawsuits.
Lawsuits because the selection process was biased. Lawsuits because the decision was environmentally unfriendly. Lawsuits because the decision was racist.
It all comes down to transit being starved of resources it deserves. At this stage in the game there should be at least a 50/50 match with highways. In fact there should be more money for rail in order to make up for the years of neglect, kind of like an affirmative action for passenger rail.
Maybe there would have already been a 150 MPH train on the Altamont corridor and we wouldn't see all this kvetching now.
@Spokker Bay Rail Alliance spends most of their time focused on Caltrain (though in part that's because Caltrain is the only large-scale commuter rail in the Bay Area). Technically Caltrain would benefit more from the Pacheco alignment than it would from the Altamont alignment.
ReplyDeleteThe Altamont advantages are really split between HSR and commuter rail. The ACE corridor obviously benefits tremendously. But HSR also benefits from the possibility of attractive SF-Sacramento service, which isn't really possible with Pacheco. The main operational cost is splitting trains between SF and SJ. How much of a disadvantage that is depends on what the eventual ridership turns out to be.
attractive SF-Sacramento service, which isn't really possible with Pacheco.
ReplyDeleteUsing Altamont San Jose becomes Mineola. Palo Alto becomes White Plains instead of Stamford or Greenwich. Instead it's going to be Philadelphia or New Haven. Or Baltimore or Wilmington or Trenton or Metropark or...
There's enough population between Sacramento and San Francisco to justify rapid rail or even HSR in it's own right.
Maybe if New York had just one commuter rail agency instead of two and a half it would not need to waste so much money with the ARC cavern...As former New Jerseyan.... ick. If there was one mega agency managing mass transit in metro NY, NJ would still be fighting and clawing to reelectrify the Morris and Essex branches. . . there would be no MidTown Direct and PATH probably would have been abandoned in the 60s. Why would the MTA spend money on New Jersey .
They'd all be fighting with the subway for funds.
The ARC tunnel isn't all that bad. Not that great but better than doing nothing. It moves all those commuters out of Penn. Station. . . onto the street where they are predicting pedestrian traffic jams all the way up to 37th Street....
Why would the MTA spend money on New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteBecause it would no longer be the MTA - it'd be a national rail agency. The reasons the MTA is anti-Jersey are that its board only represents New York and its New York State suburbs, and that as a state agency, it needs to beg for money from the state government. I for one would be glad to drop the pretense that the LIRR needs to be run by the same agency that runs the subway rather than the one that runs the NJT.
I for one would like to know who is paying for this lawsuite? How do these small groups afford legal
ReplyDeletework that must be very expensive.
And if/when they loose I hope CAHSR can go after them for its legal fees. Being a state agency they might not be able to.
The High Speed Rail Authority is defended by the attorney general's office.
ReplyDeleteit'd be a national rail agency.
ReplyDeleteAmtrak on steroids? Just what mass transit in metro New York needs. Have some yahoo Senator decide that those bagel eating latte sipping Noo Yawkers can just drive... Or St. Louis or Charlotte or Atlanta. . . great idea. It's been working so well with Amtrak. . .
Using Altamont San Jose becomes Mineola. Palo Alto becomes White Plains instead of Stamford or Greenwich. Instead it's going to be Philadelphia or New Haven. Or Baltimore or Wilmington or Trenton or Metropark or...Downtown San Jose IS a Mineola. Diridon station, which is 1 mile away from "downtown", isn't even a Mineola, let alone a Philadelphia. East Coasters utterly unfamiliar with the local geography might at least spend some time reading the EIR to familiarize with some of the following data:
ReplyDelete1. Compared to Pacheco, Altamont has faster and shorter distance between LA and SF.
2. The Altamont/Trivalley region has population equal to that of San Jose
3. Altamont would have provided higher frequency of service to San Jose.
4. Because San Jose becomes a terminus, it obviates the need for gargantuan transbay terminal.
There's enough population between Sacramento and San Francisco to justify rapid rail or even HSR in it's own right. That is hardly a reason to build completely duplicative infrastructure. And even if such a duplicate line could be built, where would you put it? Note that even if Capitol Corridor were upgraded, and even if every Nimby along the Capitol Corridor went along with such a plan, it still would not provide Sac-SF 49 min travel time possible with Altamont.
And even if such a duplicate line could be built, where would you put it? ...
ReplyDeleteI think he meant you'd put it through Altamont, precisely.
Thank you, Clem, for a straight-shooting look at our case. As you observed, this isn't about NIMBYism--it's about making sure that the HSR system will perform optimally for the benefit of all Californians. It can't do that if the EIR consultants bias their analysis to serve private interests.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Statement of Facts in our Opening Brief, where we lay out the dubious history of the CHSRA. Our position is clear: we don't believe the agency has the competence, the judgment or the ethics required for this assignment.
Your readers might find it easier to find the court papers, along with further explanatory materials, on our website, transdef.org They can also see what other issues we get involved in.
Two small corrections: The City of Palo Alto did not join our suit. They filed an amicus brief, which is quite helpful, but different from being a party. Also, we think a decision is more likely weeks after May 29th.
Well, to some extent it really is about NIMBYism, but NIMBYs are only a part of the coalition opposing the HSRA, and it also includes people with serious concerns about the way the HSRA has been running the planning process, and significant doubts about the Authority's ability to manage a large construction project. One thing that I find quite interesting is that, at least the impression I get is that most of these concerns have been coming from the Bay Area, and there almost no vocal advocacy either for or against from Southern California.
ReplyDeleteI think that even if the HSRA is in fact dissolved, it would make sense to put the high speed rail program under Caltrans' Division of Rail, and to completely re-think the way the construction priorities, focusing on incremental upgrades and the LA-Bakersfield section (which is the only one where incremental upgrades are impossible).
As Arcady points out, there is a mix of both NIMBY and non-NIMBY interests. Bay Rail Alliance et al I can believe are making arguments in good faith and believe Altamont to be superior for HSR. Atherton et al could not care less what the superior alignment is and simply want what they think is best for their own properties. In this case they just happen to be supporting what is arguably the right alignment for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteIf and when this lawsuit fails, I predict that you will see these unlikely allies begin to oppose each other. Bay Rail et al will, hopefully, accept reality and decide to engage the project in a constructive manner and lobby for optimal choices on the Caltrain/Pacheco corridor, even if it's not they're preferred corridor. Atherton et al will likely engage in further ridiculous shenanigans and lawsuits, arguing either for magic money from the skies to build a 40 mile tunnel or for absurly impractical alignments like 101 or 280. I suspect Bay Rail et al will want nothing to do with them at that point.
As Clem says, be sure to bring the popcorn.
Amtrak on steroids? Just what mass transit in metro New York needs. Have some yahoo Senator decide that those bagel eating latte sipping Noo Yawkers can just drive... Or St. Louis or Charlotte or Atlanta. . . great idea. It's been working so well with Amtrak. . .
ReplyDeleteHey, that's how things work in Germany and Britain.
@Transdef
ReplyDeleteYOU did not answer the Question? Where is the money coming from? And
how do you think going thru dense urban Livermoore then going thru the EastBay Hills and of course across or around the bay will be cheaper and easy? AS far as the nimbys unless your group plans on skipping SJ or SF there will be trains on the Caltrain ROW
I understand on paper why Altamont looks preferable to Pacheco in terms of alignments. But Altamont also comes with an enormous drawback in terms of cost- it requires crossing over the San Francisco Bay, which would be significantly more expensive.
ReplyDelete(Considering that the costs for rebuilding the eastern span of the Bay Bridge are at $6.2 billion at this point, a rough guess that a bay crossing would add $8 or $10 billion to the price tag seems reasonable.) That's real money. Would Altamont be worth that extra $10B?
I do not have a dog in this particular fight. I can understand the arguments for both alignments. It just seems that the added cost of Altamont is something that nobody seems to mention when discussing why Pacheco was chosen, and avoiding the added cost of a Bay crossing seems like a valid reason for preferring Pacheco.
Bianca: the cost estimates aren't really comparable, as the Bay Bridge crosses the bay at one of its widest parts, while the Dumbarton Bridge is at a much narrower spot. There's also a big difference between a 10-lane freeway and a 2-track railroad. The real problem with Altamont is getting from the bridge to Niles Canyon, and to a lesser extent crossing through Pleasanton. The Pacheco alignment has some uncertainty through San Jose, both north and south of the station, and the mountain crossing via Pacheco is more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAlon: In Germany, a significant part of the commuter rail networks are controlled by the state governments and contracted out to contractors other than DB. In Britain it's even more of a mess with a couple dozen different Train Operating Companies, but things like service planning are still largely functions of the local Passenger Transport Executive. London and Liverpool even directly control the contracts for some of their passenger rail service (London Overground Merseyrail). In Switzerland, the cantons often own and operate their own railroads, both narrow gauge and standard. A unitary national authority just wouldn't be responsive enough to local needs.
Downtown San Jose IS a Mineola. Diridon station, which is 1 mile away from "downtown", isn't even a Mineola, let alone a Philadelphia .
ReplyDeletePurely in terms of what train passes through and which train stops. Using the Altamont alternative put San Jose off on a branch line. A branch line that may never be built. A place where diesel service is good enough until they find the money to electrify. Phase "Caltrain to Redwood City is good enough, we don't have to electrify the line until 2075" kind of place. Mineola. White Plains. Allentown. Binghamton.
San Jose then becomes Plainfield NJ, where you get on a diesel train and change at Newark for electric service to either Penn. Station NY or the World Trade Center. Where you can't get to Philadelphia any more. Or Morristown where you can't get to Buffalo and Chicago anymore. Or White Plains where you can't get to Chatham and change to the Boston-Chicago trains anymore. Or Waterbury where you can't get to Hartford and Springfield anymore. . .
I've been in Mineola and San Jose. I was being kind to San Jose.
Compared to Pacheco, Altamont has faster and shorter distance between LA and SF.
The Altamont/Trivalley region has population equal to that of San Jose.
But it doesn't have Stanford University or Silicon Valley
Altamont would have provided higher frequency of service to San Jose.
Maybe in some distant future when they electrify the line to San Jose. Until then it's Plainfield or White Plains where you take commuter rail to place where there are long distance trains.
Because San Jose becomes a terminus, it obviates the need for gargantuan transbay terminal.If it becomes a terminus.
I think he meant you'd put it through Altamont, precisely.
Yes. Sacramento isn't all that far from San Francisco. Not unlike NYC to Philadelphia or NYC to New Haven. Rapid rail or whatever they are calling upgraded conventional trains this week, gets you between the two fast enough. Either over the existing Capitol Corridor route or the ACE route. It's cheaper, serves more people because there'd be local and express service... HSR between SF and Sacramento becomes "phase whenever-we-get-around-to-it" if ever.
It does leave people wandering around in Oakland. Tunnel to San Francisco would be nice but people in the Bay Area are so mesmerized by BART they have trouble imagining something notBART. Like a commuter rail system that reaches out to Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Stockton and San Jose, converges on Oakland and then uses a tunnel to serve San Francisco.
the Altamont alternative put San Jose off on a branch line. A branch line that may never be built ...
ReplyDelete@Adirondacker, are you kidding? Of course a branch would be built to the third largest city in the state with a population of over 1 million.
The logical first stage of stage-wide HSR construction should have been (and could have been) been San Jose to Fremont.
ReplyDeleteThink about it.
It would have been a win for everybody.
Well, almost everybody.
However, there were powerful forces at work (and no, not Evil San Francisco ones) to ensure that didn't happen.
What an enormous coincidence that the same people who are going to be first in line to score $8 billion of pure pork building a sole-source, globally-unique, redundant, unnecessary, technically-inappropriate, technically-obsoletele, contractor-captive, third-rail subway from San Jose to Fremont just happen to those who "studied" and "evaluated" northern California HSR. What an enormous coincidence that Quentin Kopp's actions in the 1990s resulted in $1.8 billion flowing to BART contractors, while setting back Bay Area transportation improvements by decades. What a shocking coindicence that Quentin Kopp's former staffer should have been placed as the chief political fixer at MTC, in charge of forcing through BART to Millbrae in the 1990s, and should, after an exhaustive global search, have been determined to be the very most qualified transportation planner in the world, and appionted to the MTC chief executive position to see MTC ram through BART to San Jose in the 2000s. (This same individual promised a $1 billion Bay Bridge retrofit, but continues to be paid and continues to direct policy while the bridge project budget sails past $6 billion. Quality management! Success breeds success!)
And how surprising that the City of San Jose, after spending decades filling in wetlands the length of Highway 237 and paying developers to plow under burrowing owls and whatever else they like, hollowing out its "downtown", turning its arterials into freeways, promoting massive sprawl development in the Coyote Valley, etc, should come over all environmentalist about the terrible, terrible dangers to wetlands outside of San Jose that would come from a rail tunnel. (Surely any day they'll come out against the Hetch Hetchy Bay Division Pipeline project that is placing a similar large tunnel within a few hundred yards of the where the horrible, horrible, horrible wetlands-devastating train line would have gone.)
It's all a big conspiracy, I know: a conspiracy to ensure that San Jose doesn't end up on a branch line.
(Do any of you foamers even have any idea what a branch line is, anyway? Or what downtown San Jose looks like, other than via Google street view?)
Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation for actions which demonstrably (well, perhaps not to Google tourists) have the highest costs and result in the fewest benefits is that somebody is getting rich. It's possible there are other explanations. But the remarkable hold of the BART designing-building duopoly over Bay Area transportation "planning" over the last 30 years is certainly something that would draw attention for its consistency, and consistent failure to deliver any project anywhere near promised budget or ridership.
Follow the money.
So basically, the reason SoCal doesn't seem to care much is that HSR is a project of the Bay Area transportation-politics establishment, aside from that one board member from Anaheim. LA County is busy building new subways and light rail, while the Inland Empire and Orange County continue to improve Metrolink. The prospects for land speculation, whether in the Inland Empire or the Antelope Valley, are looking dim right now, so HSR is not really a priority for any of the interests in SoCal.
ReplyDeleteOf course a branch would be built to the third largest city in the state with a population of over 1 million.
ReplyDeleteWhy? There would be perfectly good Caltrain service to Redwood City where you can change to HSR. No need for expensive electrification, the diesels so beloved by Palo Alto, Atherton et al. could continue to run. No worries about tunnels or building 4 tracks or stealing traffic away from Caltrain.
Allentown is Pennsylvania's third most populous metro area. How many passenger trains pass through there every day? If Wikipedia is right the last one departed 30 years ago. Service to Buffalo, Philadelphia and New York up until the late 50s or early 60s.
Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford CT all nearly have the same population. Hartford is the largest metro area in the state. Where do you want to catch a train to Boston or Philadelphia? Or would you rather be in Stamford instead of Hartford?
Long Island with a population that dwarfs the whole of the Bay Area, doesn't have an Amtrak station. Amtrak trains pass through on the busiest Amtrak corridor but they don't stop in Queens. Everyone goes to Penn Station in Manhattan.. well some of them go to New London CT.
San Jose would run the risk of being in Phase Never-Happens.
Adirondacker: "Rapid rail or whatever they are calling upgraded conventional trains this week, gets you between the two fast enough."
ReplyDeleteEmerging HSR or Regional HSR is what they call it ... depending on how much upgrading you do.
And, yes, there is absolutely zero need for a San Francisco to Sacramento Express HSR corridor in order to hit the sweet spot in terms of rail travel times.
With $900m state bonding authority set aside for "complementary improvements", and with the prospect of 4:1 federal matching funds if some of that money is allocated to Emerging/Regional HSR, it would seem to be a no-brainer to actually get serious about the so-called "commuter overlay" ... far more sensible than insisting on a broken Express HSR alignment because of the hopes of being a free-rider on the back of the Express HSR project.
With $900m state bonding authority set aside for "complementary improvements" [...]That pork was spoken for long ago: BART and the Muni Central Subway (both PBQD projects, as it happens) pretty much clean up in Northern California. It's not like the formula for allocating the "improvement" funding came out of thin air -- this was just an earmark by another name, tailored precisely to fund particular but not named pet projects, and sold to the gullible as HSR funding.
ReplyDeleteTo your point: Altamont (other than steam trains) isn't going to happen, sorry. Not until it is in somebody's interest to do so, which means perhaps when it can be done as a BART line. It is in the small fry's interest to get paid a few million to do "studies" (but don't study anything between Fremont and Redwood City -- that's Out of Scope!) that will be shelved. A little money gets spread around the consultancies, nothing fundamental is changed, and the big money continues to flow in the correct direction. Mission accomplished.
No worries about tunnels or building 4 tracks or stealing traffic away from Caltrain. The proposal would be to build tracks from Fremont to SJ on the eastern side of the bay, not the western side. Given that SJ interests were able to successfully route HSR over Pacheco, I doubt that they would fail to get a spur if we were to use the Altamont alignment.
ReplyDelete@Bianca As arcady noted, the cost of a Dumbarton crossing would be significantly less than $8 billion. Nevertheless, it would be a substantial expense, and I have no doubt that tunneling under the entire city of Fremont would also be a billion-plus dollar endeavor. The Fremont-SJ line would also be fairly expensive. Altamont proponents seem to gloss over all of these costs. I don't think there's a strong case to be made that Altamont would be much cheaper in terms of capital costs...only that it would provide operational benefits.
@Richard The problem with using "follow the money" as the sole explanation is that it doesn't explain the current choices of CHSRA. Why is Kopp bad-mouthing DTX? Why aren't they jumping at the possibility of building tunnels through towns up and down the Peninsula? These things would be incredibly enriching to the contractors. Why would CHSRA offer any opposition to them at all?
I have no doubt that money and contracts play some role in the choices, but they're clearly not the only factors at work. Sometimes the simplest explanation is too simple to explain the observed data.
Why is Kopp bad-mouthing DTX?Because it's not his project. Maybe renaming the station to "Quentin Kopp San Francisco Transbay Terminal" will make him shut up about it.
ReplyDeleteMike: apparently, said SJ interests believed that the only way they'd get good HSR service was with Pacheco, otherwise they'd have accepted Altamont with a spur.
ReplyDeleteThe proposal would be to build tracks from Fremont to SJ on the eastern side of the bay, not the western side.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't get you to San Francisco or Oakland. The first terminal is going to be in San Francisco or maybe Oakland. San Jose comes much later. Going to the Fremont or Redwood City HSR station is good enough for a very long time.
have no doubt that tunneling under the entire city of Fremont would also be a billion-plus dollar endeavor.
Why would they tunnel in Fremont? BART doesn't, ACE doesn't.
The Fremont-SJ line would also be fairly expensive.
Why would they build it? They could use the very expensive bridge and head south from there Caltrain already has very good tracks between the bridge and San Jose. Building SJ to Fremont makes sense in a broader picture, as part of commuter system in the Bay Area but not just for 8 trains a day to San Jose.
said SJ interests believed that the only way they'd get good HSR service was with Pacheco.
They would get service like Hartford gets with an Altamont alignment. With a Pacheco alignment they get service like Trenton gets. Unless the branch is never built in which case they get service like Allentown gets. .
Why? There would be perfectly good Caltrain service to Redwood City where you can change to HSR .
ReplyDeleteCaltrain? What's that? There would be perfectly good BART service to Fremont where you can change to HSR...
And that is the crux of the problem: modern rail systems are strictly verboten from Fremont down to San Jose because the corridor is being requisitioned for the BART to SJ uber-project. Nothing may cast a shadow over it or further inflate its already stratospheric cost per new rider.
These things would be incredibly enriching to the contractors. Why would CHSRA offer any opposition to them at all? ...
Because the whole finesse in this game is to inch up to the maximum funding capacity of the taxpayer without overstepping it because the project might not be built. It's a high-stakes, slow-motion game of brinkmanship that relies on the relatively short memory of the taxpaying electorate (see BART to SJ sales job.) The no-brainers you mentioned, especially peninsula tunnels, would result in a Tilt of the taxpayer pinball machine.
How's that for cynical?
Clem: you're begging the question here. The way you set yourself up, every decision by the HSRA that increases cost is evidence that it's in the pocket of cronies, and every decision that reduces cost is evidence that it's trying to hide the fact that it's in the pocket of cronies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the Bay Area every decision made by the local transit agencies is to maximize cost in order to make their developer and contractor buddies rich.
ReplyDeleteIn Los Angeles County every decision made by the local transit agency is meant to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos.
It's all a rich tapestry of greed and corruption, I know, I know.
All I know is that where I live every decision made by the local transit agency usually ends with widening a freeway.
Yes, spokker, there's a model of that decision making process.
ReplyDeleteThe argument presented by TRANSDEF is all about whether or not the process was flawless.
However, without the funds to go from central San Francisco under the Bay to central Oakland then down to San Jose and on to Southern California, or from central Oakland under the Bay to central San Francisco then down to San Jose and on to Southern California, there's no process under the sun that can deliver the "perfect" HSR alignment from Northern California to Southern California.
Of the two proposed, if the argument for San Francisco / Fremont / Los Angeles is the secondary benefits to commuter rail in Northern California, then the decision to try to redirect the existing preferred CHSRA alignment to cross-subsidize commuter rail from the SE Bay to San Francisco is not more or less political than the decision to plunder the Dumbarton rail bridge funds for BART.
Ew. If you have the funds for a new tube from SF to Oakland, then there's absolutely no reason to go via SJ and Pacheco. Just use Altamont and put a commuter line from Oakland to SJ. This represents a slight reduction in SoCal-to-NorCal travel, since Oakland and Berkeley are slightly less important as destinations than SJ and SV, and a large increase in NorCal-to-SoCal travel, since East Bay is far more important as an origin than South Bay.
ReplyDeleteAltamont was doomed because it had too many political enemies and its advocates were always somewhat clueless about the politics. It was always about sticking it to San Jose but there are many other issues at play.
ReplyDeleteHere is the list of the unspoken enemies and issues:
1) San Jose: this one is pretty clear, but the other unspoken issue was that Altamont would have moved large components of their economic base to the Tri-Valley or [gasp], Tracy. This would put jobs closer to homes, but hey isn't that a good thing from an environmental standpoint?
2) Fremont: they have put countless years and hundreds of millions of dollars into BART-related efforts. In fact, they will have upwards of 3 BART stations (1 more than the Mission District of SF). All their road and transit investment (often joined at the hip) is focused towards north-south travel: why easy-west important...they don't get it and it just sounds redundant and destructive to certain neighborhoods.
3) Transform/East Bay Smart Growth Mafia: This is another quiet enemy. See comment 1. So, if you give San Joaquin County $6 Billion of new rapid transit infrastructure, then "megacommuters" make out like bandits. Follow the lights but also follow the bulldozers because they would pretty much destroy all the farmland in between the patchwork of lights. Do the math, if it takes about 60 minutes to traverse from Stockton to Golden Triangle with Altamont, then let San Joaquin County, California = Nassau County, Long Island. There are already several train stations. FOLLOW THE LIGHTS, COMPLETE THE SPRAWL?
4) Pleasanton: Just forget it. Blinking funny is wrong in this town. Every single project since Hacienda gets sued and rarely happens. Ted Knight [Judge Smails] has got his eye on you from Castlewood in case you get too close to the 18th hole.
5) Niles Canyon Alliance: East Bay Regional Parks, Foamers, Fish Lovers, etc. If you want to straighten the existing track, move the foamers or build massive tunnels, bring your lawyers.
6) Capitol Corridor: It already exists, runs every hour more or less and gets better over time. But it's just not cool enough, it's kind of like a walkman when the rest of the world has iPods. Those cars are like so 1952...is that what this is about?
But at the end of the day, where does the water and power come into the core of the Bay Area from the Valley? Answer: Altamont.
@Alon - I suspect that "good" wasn't good enough in the eyes of SJ, but who knows.
ReplyDelete@Adirondacker - Under Altamont, trains access SF via the Dumbarton crossing and Caltrain corridor (which would be 4-tracked from Redwood City to SF). Trains access SJ via track on the east side of the Bay from Fremont to SJ. There are minimal to no improvements on Caltrain from Redwood City to SJ.
BART doesn't tunnel in Fremont because it was built on an existing railroad ROW (sound familiar?). HSR could try to follow the UP ROW from Sycamore St to Fremont Centerville, but the curves preceding and following that stretch are far too tight - you'd have to diverge from the ROW (i.e. tunnel). Realistically, the majority would have to be tunneled, and once you're underground for that long you're probably just going to stay underground.
@Clem - I agree with Alon here. At this point you've set up the hypothesis such that it's non-falsifiable. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it does mean that there is no empricial evidence that could ever prove or disprove it.
said SJ interests believed that the only way they'd get good HSR service was with Pacheco. For the benefit of East Coasters and other geographically-illiterate out-of-towners, Pacheco was never about "good" HSR service to San Jose.
ReplyDeletePacheco is all about bringing new transportation infrastructure to Coyote Valley, Los Banos, and other areas East and South of San Jose which are currently wilderness, greenbelt, and open space. Developers have long been after these areas, going back to the days when GOP ex-Congressman Richard Pombo tried getting Federal funding for a new superhighway.
Follow the money -- the campaign contributions, the make-up of the HSR Board, and the makeup of key California State Assembly and Senate Committees. Historically, large public works projects in California have always been about massive real estate schemes (and massive corruption).
Yeah, these groups aren't NIMBY...THEY'RE WORSE! Small special interests groups who didn't get their way with primary HSR routing into Bay Area, and who are now trying to use the courts to thwart the will of California voters.
ReplyDeleteProp. 1A passed with the Pacheco Pass being the primary route into the Bay Area. HSR will serve the Bay Area via Gilroy to San Francisco. Case closed!
Clem, you give to much credence to these special interests groups. They have been anti-BART, anti-Pacheco Pass and anti-San Jose since day one. Whether they own property in Tracy or Mountain House, whether they act secretly on behalf of NIMBY interests on the peninsula; these special interest groups have an agenda they're trying to push down our throats.
Didn't get my Altamont Pass alignment? No problem, just file a frivilous lawsuit...that'll show them! Can't wait for the Big Boys and Gals of San Jose and SVLG to get wind of this stupidity and selfishness. Bring it on!
Bikerider, what's geographically illiterate about thinking that if CAHSR is not listing Los Banos as even a possible station, like Visalia, then a station at Los Banos is unlikely to happen?
ReplyDeleteLet's drag BART into the discussion, why not. What benefit exactly does BART provide for the residents of Santa Clara County? I don't see very much. As a commuter line, it's going to allow residents of Fremont, Union City, and Hayward to commute to jobs in San Jose. The problem there is that it doesn't really hit the major employment areas, and even if it did, the office buildings are too dispersed for people to be able to walk from the train, so expect shuttles, a transfer penalty, and the resulting weak ridership. The line also does absolutely nothing for those in Pleasanton, Livermore, and beyond, as it's a very long detour to Bay Fair and they'll keep taking the ACE.
ReplyDeleteIn the other direction, it's going to be too slow to be useful for getting to SF, and the service will probably be an extension of the Richmond-Fremont line, because the VTA doesn't want to pay for the long trains you'd need to make effective use of transbay capacity. And I just don't see a big market of commuters going from the South Bay to Oakland to work.
Alon: if Los Banos really is that attractive to land speculators, I'm sure they'll have no problem funding the fairly small incremental cost of putting a station on the existing line.
ReplyDeleteWell, if they can fund the EIS and hearings, get their own lawyers to fight the Sierra Club lawsuit, and pay for construction, then maybe.
ReplyDeleteTony D
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are unaware of the workings of CEQA.
Lawsuits are explicitly the ONLY review for projects that have undergone environmental review. Particularly in cases like HSR where the public agency doing the project is the same one as the one that gets to sit in judgment, legal action is the check and balance in the situation.
In California, the law is very clear. It is not up to the voter to decide on things like Pacheco or Altamont- they may decide later if they want to fund them- but the decision between the two is supposed to be done on the environmental merits.
I don't disagree with most of the specific factoids Clem proposes, with the notable exception of #5:
ReplyDeleteThe plaintiffs include grassroots transportation and rail advocacy groups who are strongly in favor of HSR, including TRANSDEF, Bay Rail Alliance, and the California Rail Foundation. This fact alone should explode the NIMBY stereotype that is often associated with this lawsuit. They want HSR but they want it done right, and their strong and united stance is noteworthy.I am hard-pressed to see how TRANSDEF and the California Rail Foundation are "strongly in favor of HSR." The evidence contradicts that claim. TRANSDEF has thrown roadblocks at every turn to the project. They opposed Prop 1A. The "Cal Rail Foundation" is a paper organization, comprised of Richard Tolmach and two friends. Tolmach, like Stuart Flashman and TRANSDEF, have worked to undermine the HSR project at numerous turns, and Tolmach actively tried to prevent a Yes on Prop 1A endorsement by several key statewide advocacy organizations he is a part of.
The BayRail Alliance's participation in this lawsuit is an unfortunate step backward for an organization that has generally been supportive of Caltrain and HSR. If the lawsuit is successful it will damage both of those train systems. Of the groups Clem listed in factoid #5, only the BayRail Alliance can be said to be genuine HSR supporters.
Of course, the lawsuit itself does not come from a position of support for the project. It assumes that the Altamont Pass alignment is more important than the actual project - valuing the parts over the sum. The lawsuit didn't get enough media traction to undermine the passage of Prop 1A. But it still possesses the power to derail federal stimulus and cause the system to cost more money thanks to delays.
They have not been able to marshal a case as to why the Pacheco alignment is so flawed that it is worth risking the ability of the project to gain federal funding. If there were serious flaws to some aspect of the HSR proposal, then it would be worth stopping even at the cost of federal stimulus dollars. I do not see how the choice of Pacheco rises to that level. I have heard the arguments for Altamont over Pacheco, and they do not establish that the Pacheco alignment is inherently bad or that it would cause damage to the operations or viability of the HSR system.
Also, Anon @11:45 makes some excellent points about the numerous obstacles to the Altamont alignment. Part of me wonders if groups like TRANSDEF and Tolmach's coterie want Altamont chosen as a poison pill that will ensure the HSR line never enters the Bay Area.
@Robert,
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I am only familiar with Bay Rail Alliance, not the other organizations-- although I do sympathize with TRANSDEF's stance on BART projects. I initially felt the lawsuit was very ill-timed with respect to Prop 1A, but the CHSRA didn't really leave them much of a choice: CEQA law requires any challenge to occur within a given window after the EIR is certified. As Palo Alto would later find out, that window closed well before the November election, on a timetable of the CHSRA's own making.
As anon @20:29 points out, lawsuits are the only way to enforce CEQA law since the same agency that prepares the EIR then certifies the EIR and selects the preferred alternative. That may be a flaw of the CEQA process, but that's the process we've got. The CHSRA knows it, and has very good process people working to make HSR happen. I've heard Kopp banter with the Atherton city manager, expressing confidence that the matter would be swiftly dismissed.
I don't think this lawsuit has been given fair coverage in pro-HSR circles, and I'm very curious to see what the judge will make of it.
I'm not sure that we really have enough information to make an informed decision on Altamont vs. Pacheco. A huge part of the choice has to, in the end, come down to constructability, and there are definitely potentially significant obstacles, both physical and political, to both alignments. Unfortunately, I'm not sure HSRA has that information either, given that they don't seem to have done any detailed study of their alignments at all (at least not judging by the google map they released). I think to the extent that Tolmach et al have any valid point at all, it's that Altamont should be studied along with Pacheco, because Pacheco might have some fatal flaw that prevents it from being constructable, and the HSR would end up just being SF-SJ and LA-Anaheim.
ReplyDeleteRelatedly, isn't Tolmach a litigious fellow? I seem to recall Tolmach's group of rail advocates suing RailPAC. Ah yes, right here. So really I don't trust either side of this particular battle and agree with Southern California's stance of keeping quiet and staying out of the endless Bay Area political squabbling.
@ Clem, TRANSDEF -
ReplyDeletethe issue with Altamont isn't the general idea, it's that it is too often equated with constructing a new Dumbarton bridge/causeway, which immediately runs into several problems:
a) major construction near and even through the DENWR / saltmarsh harvest mouse habitat and,
b) two shipping lanes that need to be preserved.
Beyond that, the next problem is the lack of an obvious way to get from Newark to the Amador Valley at high speed.
UPRR has declined to offer Caltrain trackage rights between Newark and Fremont Shinn, where a new turnout would let Caltrain reach Union City BART. And that's for just six slow commuter trains a day each way. HSR needs to be built such that it can be used by about 100 high speed trains each way, every day.
Separately, some of the original Altamont studies included the WPML between there and Niles plus tracks in the hwy 262 median to reach SJ Diridon via the I-880. Only the latter remains available today.
---
Therefore, anyone still advocating Altamont needs to propose a modified route that is actually feasible.
OPTION 1:
Build a new dual track rail causeway across Dumbarton, through a portion of the DENWR (incl. saltmarsh harvest mouse habitat) plus a tunnel under both Union City (Thornton Ave + Quarry lakes) and the East Bay hills just to reach Bernal Ave in Pleasanton (aka NIMBY central).
Preserving the existing shipping lanes would be tricky, since a tall bridge would entail a significant track gradient, bascule sections would mess with the HSR timetable. Clem suggested using a lock to let ships pass under a new dual-track rail causeway. Alternatively, a lift lock could be used. Both approaches are usually only considered if there is a gravity-driven supply of water into the system, otherwise they're too expensive to operate.
A tunnel under the bay instead of a causeway would be possible, but add it all up and you're talking 20 miles of tunneling between the east end of Menlo Park and the west end of Pleasanton. Two active faults (Hayward and Calaveras) would have to be crossed underground.
There would probably be no intermodal with BART in the East Bay because the HSR alignment would cross the BART tracks deep underground and half-way between the existing Union City and Fremont BART stations.
An intermodal with Amtrak CC at Fremont Centerville might be feasible, since an HSR station under Thornton Ave/Fremont Blvd. would be just one block away. A ramp/elevator plus level tunnel, perhaps with moving walkways, would do the trick.
A turnoff onto the I-880 median would be nigh-on impossible to construct. However, it's far from clear that San Jose would accept being so far from the nearest HSR station (Fremont Centerville or Redwood City). That means OPTION 1 does not mean there wouldn't be any HSR tracks through Palo Alto, albeit with reduced traffic volume.
OPTION 2:
Run HSR tracks from SF to an underground South Bay station featuring run-through tracks located in Santa Clara, intermodal with Caltrain and the future BART extension through downtown San Jose. Keep SJ Diridon station as-is, continue HSR tracks up I-880. Dive into a second tunnel under hwy 262, which is really a city street. An intermodal station with BART would be valuable but require that the planned Warm Springs station be moved south by about a mile, nixing plans for a transit village.
Continue tunneling under the East Bay hills to Calaveras Rd., then head north to Sunol at grade. Cross hwy 84 on an aerial, then continue north-east toward Livermore airport via a series of tunnels through the interceding hills. Cross under Stanley Blvd, the UPRR tracks and the airport to reach the still-available I-580 median.
There are several small lakes between Stanley Blvd and the airport, not sure what they are used for (fresh water reserve?). The effort required to tunnel under them would be similar to that required for the Quarry lakes in OPTION 1.
Alternatively, the HSR tracks could run on an aerial over Stanley Blvd, the UPRR tracks and the airport, which would be sacrificed and turned into a parking lot. The freeway median would be reached via a flyover across the eastbound lanes.
Either way, an intermodal station with the planned BART extension to Livermore would be possible at El Charro Rd.
Tracks would essentially follow I-580, I-205 and hwy 120 to connect to the HSR alignment in the Central Valley. If BNSF is the only available ROW there, the connection would be near Escalon instead.
Based on CHSRA's analysis of San Jose-LA line haul times for Pacheco vs. Altamont-via-SJ Diridon (option #9), I reckon Altamont-via-Santa Clara would increase San Francisco-LA line haul times by just 8 minutes because run-through tracks eliminate the need to reverse direction.
On the upside, assuming a passenger terminal with integrated HSR station is built there, Castle Airport could be included in the trunk segment and serve both CV and the South/East Bay in phase I. Perhaps someday SJC could even be closed thanks to HSR. That would eliminate blight near SJ Diridon and elsewhere plus free up a huge patch of land that could be used for additional transit-oriented development and/or a huge city park.
Fog is a major problem at SFO and so is the lack of an AirTrain connection to Millbrae. Castle Airport only has one legacy runway but it is long and was hardened so B-52s could use it.
---
Conclusion:
Considering that realistic Altamont options entail as many or more complications than Pacheco, it's not clear that risking severe construction cost escalations related to legal delays is all that wise at this juncture.
I agree that Altamont would have certain advantages in terms of catchment area for the starter line and, that OPTIONS 1 and 2 deserve closer scrutiny if CHSRA cannot secure a ROW between SJ Diridon and Gilroy.
That was probably part of the reason CHSRA awarded AECOM a $70 million contract to study a rapid rail overlay through Altamont. HSR was never going to run much above 125mph west of Tracy anyhow.
Note that Pacheco shifts the Merced-Stockton section (~$1-2 billion) from phase 1 into phase 2.
---
Final note: equating Altamont with Dumbarton with no-HSR-through-Atherton-Menlo Park-Palo Alto is almost certainly wishful thinking. San Jose has an awful lot of political clout and it's not shy about using it.
If peninsula cities want to lock horns with SJ, that's their prerogative. CHSRA has plenty of work to do in the Central Valley and Southern California that could be prioritized.
Rafael:
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious you have a very special and hyper-active imagination. Whereas most would simply analyze the actual Altamont route alignment as specified in the EIR, you choose to invent not one, but two new ones. And then write page after page analyzing why neither is feasible.
"Assuming a passenger terminal with integrated HSR station is built there, Castle Airport could be included in the trunk segment and serve both CV and the South/East Bay in phase I. Perhaps someday SJC could even be closed thanks to HSR.
Oh my goodness....
@Anon at 20:29. That's not how CEQA works. Lawsuits are the only mechanism for ensuring that a thorough environmental review is conducted. There is, however, absolutely no stipulation in CEQA, explicit or implied, that "the decision between the two [alternatives]...be done on the environmental merits."
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of CEQA is to make sure that the public isn't fooled into thinking Alternative A has no environmental impacts when it actually does. As long as the environmental impacts are properly documented, however, there is nothing that prohibits the public or the government from choosing the more impactful of the two alternatives.
Clem is right, the resolution of this first lawsuit will be very interesting on two accounts. First, we will get to see whether CHSRA is as successful in court as Kopp et al claim they will be. Second, if they are anywhere near that successful, it will be interesting to see how Palo Alto et al react. Will they realize that the CEQA lawsuit strategy has a low probability of success and start making contingency plans to actually work with CHSRA to design a minimally obtrusive surface alignment? Or will they fail to see the writing on the wall and continue to bet all their chips on with a now-disproved strategy? Should be entertaining to watch!
bikerider said...
ReplyDelete"Rafael:
It is obvious you have a very special and hyper-active imagination."
You'd think so, but its actually just a normal imagination supported by source material on California rail alignments and supplemented with a linear induction motor.
@ bikerider -
ReplyDeletethe original route relied on UPRR and VTA ROWs through Fremont. That is not available even for a few measly Caltrains, never mind HSR. It was pure pie in the sky to begin with.
Perhaps it seemed feasible back when it was conceived ten years ago, but unless you intend for the state of California to exercise eminent domain against UPRR (good luck with that) or VTA (ditto), it's infeasible today.
Those filing lawsuits against CHSRA for choosing without articulating how trains would get from the eastern shore of the Bay through Union City/Fremont across to the Amador Valley are either blind to reality or really looking to just kill the entire project.
But go ahead, analyze the EIR documents to your heart's content...
@mike: might you have NEPA and CEQA confused? NEPA does allow the selection of the alternative with the most impact, as long as those impacts are studied and made explicit. On the other hand, I've read that CEQA is more picky-- which would explain why the lawsuit is only calling into question the CEQA EIR and not the NEPA EIS.
ReplyDeleteYou do have an excellent point that the environmental impact process does not generally require the project to mitigate all impacts. HSR impacts can, should be, and will be weighed against the greater good.
Rafael: the Pacheco alignment also relies on UPRR right of way to get out of San Jose, and they want to use it to Gilroy. So all UP-related problems are present there too. Mind you, CAHSR does not have a concrete alignment for Pacheco either.
ReplyDelete@Clem CEQA states "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." I agree that if Alternatives A & B are both equivalent in terms of economics, operations, etc., and if Alternative A clearly has less environmental impacts than Alternative B, then CEQA may require CHSRA to choose A over B. But that is totally different from claiming that the decision between the two alternatives must "be done on the environmental merits" - that claim totally ignores the "feasibility" condition.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting part is that, for Altamont vs Pacheco, one can actually make a coherent argument that the former is as economically feasible as the latter (though doing so probably requires one to claim a credit for eliminating BART to SJ). In contrast, there is absolutely no coherent argument that can be made for the Peninsula-tunnel alignment or the US-101 alignment or the I-280 alignment being economically feasible. So if they can't win the Altamont vs Pacheco lawsuit on CEQA grounds, then it's going to be virtually impossible to win the tunnel vs surface alignment lawsuit on CEQA grounds.
On May 7, the Caltrain JPB scheduled two public hearings on possible fare and service changes as well as to declare a fiscal emergency. Caltrain is facing a projected $10.1 million deficit for the next fiscal year which starts this July.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, the introduction of Baby Bullet service and other one-time measures managed to get Caltrain through several years of structural deficits, but it appears they've run out of one-time measures. However, raising fares and/or cutting service would be a dire hit to the positive momentum of the last several years.
BayRail Alliance believes that major changes are needed to address the structural deficits. Without major changes, Caltrain's plan to cut service and raise fares could be the beginning of a downward spiral.
BayRail Alliance 5-point plan:
- No elimination of weekend service
- No bicycle surcharge
- Establish airport parking
- Support dedicated funding
- Replace Caltrain JPB with an elected district
While some elements can be implemented by Caltrain in the short run, others will require changes in state law. Please support our effort by joining our Facebook group as we plan our actions in the next few months.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42679145898&ref=mf
The problem is that Caltrain is not the only transit agency facing difficulties. In my own backyard the OCTA is cutting service. LA Metro warns of fare hikes and service cuts soon. Agencies around the country are cutting back amidst the loss of tax revenue. Where do I, as an individual, put my limited resources? Probably on the transit agency I use most.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I think it makes more sense to unite together and lobby the state as a whole, not just for Caltrain or one agency, but for all of them, in order to achieve a dedicated funding source for mass transit. The loss of the state transit assistance fund or whatever it was called dealt a huge blow.
Of course, the entire state, the entire country even, is facing difficult times. Calling for no fare hikes and no service cuts may be seen as immature by those on the other side of the issue.
I simply don't know.
It would probably be more productive to support Transportation for America. They are fighting Congress to get some money for transit operations, not just capital projects.
ReplyDelete"The Transportation For America coalition joins with the Amalgamated Transit Union, the American Public Transportation Association, the New Starts Working Group, USPIRG, and many others in calling for the economic recovery package to include vital funding to keep these desperately-needed systems running.
Through calls and meetings from many of you, our allies, supporters, and the Transportation for America coalition, we were successful in getting $3 billion added to the transit funding in the House recovery package. Unfortunately, Congress did not keep the House’s higher amount of funding in the final conference, and any explicit money for transit operations was taken off the table."
That's where it is now, I think. I received an email recently from a transit advocacy group that had promising things to say about getting funding for operations in the stimulus. I think that's the most important thing right now.
@Andy - off topic, but I think a good place to start would be the overstaffing of train crews. I sometimes see 3 conductors on my commute, which is absurd since they no longer collect fares. Labor costs amount to 60% of Caltrain's operating budget and if Caltrain customers are going to take a shave, let it be shared: reduce some Amtrak redundancy, too!
ReplyDeleteResponse to Palo Alto's amicus curiae brief has now been posted on the court's server.
ReplyDeleteThe CHSRA amicably points out that Palo Alto was supportive of the program EIR, something which will no doubt be news to many Palo Alto residents.
My understanding is that the city was reasonably supportive largely because HSRA was making them various promises which as soon as they got the bond money, they completely forgot and the tone changed from accomodation to war.
ReplyDeleteWhat were those promises?
ReplyDelete