HSR Deniers Spreading Lies In Advance of Today’s CHSRA Board Meeting
At today’s California High Speed Rail Authority board meeting (watch it live at 10AM) the board will vote to rescind its certification of the Bay Area to Central Valley EIR document, as required by Judge Michael Kenny in the Atherton v. CHSRA case.
This does NOT reopen the issue of whether the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass will be used as the main HSR route between SF and LA. Pacheco is still the choice. As the ruling in the case made very clear, the issue is fairly narrow: UPRR won’t let CHSRA use its ROW, as we’ve known since at least mid-2008, so the EIR has to account for that, as well as some noise and vibration issues.
Every other claim brought against the CHSRA by the plaintiffs was rejected, including their core arguments about the flaws of the Pacheco Pass route. The overwhelming majority of the EIR was upheld as valid, and the plaintiffs essentially got lucky that the judge did find these two issues. The judge has ruled that planning may go ahead for the route, and CHSRA claims this will not adversely affect their federal stimulus applications, since this segment (San José to Merced) was not included in their recent application for $4.7 billion in federal funds.
Unsurprisingly, HSR deniers – those people who persist in spreading claims about HSR that have long ago been debunked – are trying to seize the rescinding of the EIR as an opportunity to spread their lies to the public. They want to claim that the Pacheco Pass route choice itself is being rescinded – which it isn’t – and are trying to get other false or inaccurate anti-HSR statements into the media. This effort is led by Richard Tolmach of the Cal Rail Foundation, who put out this press release yesterday that is full of nonsense that I’m going to debunk here.
Claim: “On Thursday, December 3, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board is expected to rescind its 2008 selection of the Pacheco Pass alignment as the route for the high-speed rail connection from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. It will also rescind its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report that supported that decision. These actions were ordered by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny, who determined the Environmental Impact Report to be inadequate.”
FALSE. The CHSRA will NOT be rescinding the selection of the Pacheco Pass alignment. They will be temporarily rescinding the EIR, but there have been no indications whatsoever that they are going to change the alignment choice. Further, Tolmach is not correct, Judge Kenny did NOT order CHSRA to rescind its choice of the Pacheco route.
Claim: “At the Press Availability, Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation, will provide an update on how the Authority’s project has been so badly bungled that, despite the expenditure of over $250 million to date, there is still no feasible project on the horizon. Problems and complexities are proliferating, rather than being resolved:”
FALSE. Of course there is a feasible project on the horizon, a project that is shovel-ready and merely awaiting federal HSR funds. Problems aren’t “proliferating” – they’re merely getting more coverage. And as the specific details of project implementation are hammered out, more people raise concerns. But those aren’t “problems,” those are a part of every single project that gets built, large or small. Tolmach is trying to spin a normal process that is proceeding as planned as somehow flawed.
Claim: “The Union Pacific Railroad has filed a CPUC challenge to the electrification of the Caltrain tracks, making it doubtful that high-speed trains can get to San Francisco.”
MISSTATED and FALSE. Tolmach is claiming UPRR is opposing electrification, period. That’s not true. The CPUC challenge was to a specific implementation of the electrification. And as Clem explained, Caltrain withdrew the application and UPRR has proposed a schedule to resolve concerns so the electrification application can go ahead. There is NOTHING about this that inherently jeopardizes the route to downtown San Francisco.
Claim: “The Authority needs to find a new route between San Jose and Gilroy, because the Court found the route identified by the Authority had inadequate space for tracks.”
INACCURATE. The Authority needs to find a new alignment for the tracks between San José and Gilroy, not a new route. Those are different. The route remains generally the same, but the Authority is still studying different alignments – specific locations – in this area, in order to comply with the judge’s order.
Claim: “Detours through Mojave and Pacheco Pass make the route 90 miles longer than Interstate 5, force much higher train speeds, and put into question whether the $50 to $100 billion high-speed rail project will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
FALSE. Here is where Tolmach starts throwing every other attack he has on HSR into the mix. Those route choices are NOT “detours” – in fact, Pacheco is a more direct route from SF to LA. Mojave is less direct than the Grapevine, but this is a feature, not a bug. As we explained, HSR should go where the people are – the Altamont alignment would have bypassed San José* and the Grapevine bypasses the Antelope Valley. The route choices Tolmach criticizes would actually reduce more greenhouse gases, since more people would be able to ride it. Finally, higher speeds are the whole point of *high speed* rail!
*UPDATE: This deserves a clarification. The Altamont alignment proposals would in fact bypass San José on the mainline from SF to LA. San José would be served by a spur. That would mean much less service to SJ and inefficient service to SJ. I didn’t intend to imply that SJ would be cut out entirely.
Claim: “These detours also undermine the financial viability of the project by increasing operating costs.”
FALSE. These route choices, which aren’t “detours,” enhance the financial viability of the project by bringing more riders on board who will pay the operating costs. Those costs, by the way, are trivial – you don’t need more on-board staff to serve Palmdale, and the thousands of more riders would more than make up the difference. Finally, the cost of the extra tunnelling through the I-5 corridor along the Grapevine route would be significantly higher than the cost of the Tehachapi route.
Claim: “The Authority plans to operate its trains at 220 mph through an alarming number of cities, including Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Madera, Fresno, Corcoran, Shafter, Bakersfield, Lancaster and Palmdale. Cities are starting to demand changes in the route, to avoid the significant noise impacts.”
MISSTATED. In cities like Fresno, Bakersfield, Lancaster and Palmdale it is highly unlikely the trains would continuously operate at 220mph, because they will need to slow and accelerate for station stops. Tolmach is lying about Morgan Hill and Gilroy, as you can see here – trains there wouldn’t exceed 150 mph. In ALL places, noise and vibration will be managed and dampened so that even if there would be 220mph, locals wouldn’t notice it. These are issues that are being worked out through the local planning process, and aren’t cause for alarm as Tolmach argues.
Claim: “Projects submitted by the Authority for federal stimulus funding are not shovel-ready, because environmental reviews and engineering work cannot be completed in time.”
FALSE. There is no evidence at all that the environmental reviews and engineering work can’t be completed in time. While that possibility always exists in the abstract, Tolmach asserts it as truth, and he has no basis for doing so.
Claim: “The projects that were submitted for federal stimulus funding will not create a viable system, but will instead be disconnected islands, without any independent utility.”
FALSE. Tolmach is contradicting himself here. After he just got done saying the segment planning won’t be done in time to qualify for stimulus, he then criticizes those segments that were chosen because they will be done in time. The segments are disconnected, but that was always going to happen as part of construction phasing. Once construction is under way, we’ll get funding to complete the segments to link the system together. Once again, Tolmach is taking a normal situation and making it sound like a crisis, which it’s not.
Claim: “After 10 years, the Authority has still not produced a business plan acceptable to the Legislature nor a ridership and revenue analysis acceptable to investment banks.”
FALSE. The Authority has produced a perfectly acceptable business plan. The only ones in the Legislature who don’t find it acceptable are longtime opponents of HSR like Senators Roy Ashburn and Alan Lowenthal. Investment banks had also pronounced the analysis acceptable, although the previous lead investment bank, Lehman Brothers, collapsed for entirely unrelated reasons in the 2008 financial crisis. Other investment banks and corporations still have interest in HSR, and if any of them have pronounced the plan unacceptable, they haven’t taken it public, and so Tolmach once again is making a claim he can’t prove.
We’ll see if any of Tolmach’s lies make their way into the media. Let’s hope they don’t, but if they do, let’s also hope that the media does its job and reports them as false, starting with the rebuttals we’ve given here today.
also from cahsra twitter.
http://twitter.com/cahsra/statuses/6289530581
this tweet supports your rebuttals.
I believe that Tolmach is spreading around a map of the CAHSR alignment that points out Ten Fatal Flaws and claims that the project is not shovel ready.
Two of the fatal flaws is flat out opposition to HSR. I don’t think opposition by itself is a fatal flaw. Many rail projects are opposed by homeowners who live near the tracks. The double tracking of Metrolink down here in Santa Ana was opposed, and that is the kind of project these guys want. Does that mean improvements to LOSSAN are “fatal flaws?”
Peninsula litigation is also presented as a fatal flaw. I think that even their 110 MPH plans would generate lawsuits. I think that Altamont would generate lawsuits. A project as large as this is a target for litigation whether it’s good or bad. I don’t think homeowners will suddenly embrace LOSSAN improvements because to them, improvements equals more trains, and more trains equal more noise. That doesn’t make LOSSAN improvements a bad thing.
Another fatal flaw is the section to Palmdale, a 3,600 foot grade, certification loss, lack of wiring defeat testing goal (I must confess I have no idea what that is), and no service to Sacramento for decades. I’d say these are certainly challenges, some more than others, but certainly none are “fatal.”
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Which is Tolmach’s MO – take typical challenges any big project faces and call them “fatal flaws” in big bold type.
His implication is that any project that isn’t perfect and effortless should be stopped immediately and never contemplated again.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Unless it’s a project he likes.
Rafael Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Is Tolmach’s opposition based on a general rejection of HSR or is he merely acting out because he wasn’t asked to participate in its planning?
CHSRA does still need to show how they’re going to keep the noise down in population centers, especially in the SF peninsula and in some CV/AV towns. But it’s early days yet. Afaik, none of these communities has negotiated specific noise targets yet, so there’s nothing for engineers to get their teeth into yet. An Italian-style direttissima concept for the CV with long detour tracks into downtown areas is unaffordable because FRA rules prevent HSR trains from running on legacy tracks at reduced speed.
CHSRA also still needs to staff up so it can rein in its consultants, who have something of a vested interest in baking cost overruns into the design at the project-level planning stage. The California legislature needs to make cost escalation containment an explicit objective for CHSRA, with the threat of heads rolling if it isn’t achieved (and rewards if it is, you always need carrots as well as sticks). It’s very easy to waste literally billions on unnecessary belts and suspenders at the present critical stage, just because Joe Schmoe in Babbitsville makes scientific-sounding claims about specific environmental impacts without any hard data (or even demanding that CHSRA produce any).
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I read some of his newsletters, and he used to be all in favor of HSR. Then the decision was made to go with Pacheco, and he apparently went loony.
Spokker Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Tolmach also has a big problem with the segment to Palmdale. He says that the train should go over the Grapevine and follow I-5 all the way up.
He is also concerned over orphan segments. Many in his circle believe that there will be tracks built, with no trains to run on them.
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
$10 says Tolmach was responsible for the bulk of the anonymous comments to that effect on the blogger site.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Wouldn’t have surprised me. One thing I always regretted about Blogger was the inability to look at IP addresses of comments.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I can totally see him going to the library and using different computers and usernames. He’s that manic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Nah, all you have to do is log on to an anonomyser which alters you IP address…
Spokker Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I agree. Challenges, yes. Fatal flaws, not so much.
Tolmach and others will say that residents should not be subjected to trains traveling at 125-220 MPH. If their plan of 110 MPH diesel Surfliners gets off the ground (Which I wholehearted support), I am confident that residents living near LOSSAN aren’t exactly going to embrace them. I wonder if he’ll declare it a fatal flaw.
Crap. I missed the part where they rescinded the Program EIR. Anything interested said?
The Authority just rescinded the certification of the EIR of the SF to Merced section. There is now no certified route to get from the Bay Area to the Central valley and beyond.
This should put down what have been expressed in this blog that this lawsuit with without merit or substance. Its your tax dollars at work here. Its time the Authority start doing work that is legal and not ending up in court and losing such lawsuits, which BTW, not only cost taxpayers funds for attorneys but for the attoneys of the plaintiffs.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Almost every single one of the claims in the lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs were found to be without merit. The judge only found two smaller parts of the EIR needed to be revised, which they will be.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Yawn. That is so old-hat. Do you see anyone in favor of the project, including anyone on the Board, looking or sounding worried about the rescission?
Tony D. Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@morris brown
“There is now no certified route to get from the Bay Area to the Central Valley and beyond.” But there will be Morris, and soon. MB, didn’t you read Roberts excellent post!? THIS WAS NOT A VICTORY FOR YOU AND YOUR PATHETIC MOVEMENT! Get that through your thick skull! And again, the taxpayers of this state want HSR and they’re going to get it. I for one am not worried about yours and Tolmach’s BS!
Dan S. Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Not so fast, Tony! Your volume is as unnecessary as your whine! ;-)
Unlike Tolmach, Morris again makes a valid point, but I don’t mind accusing him of exaggeration! True, the lawsuit had some merit, even though most of it was thrown out. Still, the effect of the lawsuit is probably not that big. I think we all know that a project of this size really can’t get finished without lots of legal “entanglements.” Many more lawsuits are surely on the horizon, wouldn’t everyone agree? I prefer to think of these as “legal challenges” that help steer this massive vessel clear of “procedural impediments!”
Perfectly fine for CAHSR to spend our tax $$$ on lawsuit defense and even specification re-do’s. Part of the process. Morris, did you know your country routinely violates the UN Charter in flagrant disregard for international law? OMG! The government is breaking laws!
Again, majority public sentiment might have a shot at putting this project on the back-burner (maybe), but not a handful of lawsuits. Lawsuits are healthy. What is that saying about sunlight being the best disinfectant? This lawsuit is forcing CAHSR to improve its planning documents. That’s good.
(Std. Dennis Miller Disclaimer applies.)
Ouch, Kopp just spanked Mehdi.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Sorry, I meant Pringle.
Interesting: Councilman Ed Reyes on LA is asking (“demanding”) that CHSRA study a third station alternative for the LA Union station location. In the alternatives analysis, a station above the existing tracks at LAUS and a new station along the river were studied, the river station was excluded. Reyes’ proposed location would be between those two, along Vignes street.
While it’s a bit late to start proposing alternatives, I think the proposed station location might work, but I’m not sure what it gains over the Union Station Aerial. The line would avoid some of the impact south of the station, where an aerial is currently planned, but I don’t see how it would avoid any of the impact north of the station without taking out the prison. Vignes also curves, though I don’t know what the radius is or if it would allow the trains to park at the platforms within the ADA 3″ gap.
Joey Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
It looks questionable to me. There are a lot of medium-height buildings directly north of that location, and difference between the impacts directly south is minimal. Plus, LAUS has a lot more room.
Bixnix Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I think Reyes has something that deserves to be considered. As I understand the article you linked, he’s proposing placing the tracks just east and southeast of the MTA tower which is currently occupied by an LAUS parking lot and Vignes street. Vignes street would have to be closed. New platforms would be constructed where the parking lot is just west of Vignes.
This would save the considerable cost of stacking tracks on the west side of LAUS. The property take on the north side (west side of Vignes) is mostly one-story commercial buildings – that should be um, inexpensive. And the 101 crossover would be 3-400 feet closer to the LA River, reducing the property take on the south side of the 101 and straightening the path.
Problems – if the area between gateway plaza and the 101 has been developed, that would be bad. Also, how to deal with the corner of the MTA tower that sticks out to Chavez/Vignes – it’s probably difficult and/or expensive to “cut it off” to make way for the tracks. You could try to curve awkwardly around it, over what appears to currently be an underground parking entrance between Chavez/Lyon/Vignes.
Wow, the Chowchilla Water District guy is MAD. Crayons! Crayons!
It continues to baffle me that these people continue to demand the more expensive with fewer potential riders Grapevine route in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”
Did anyone else notice that the San Jose – Merced alignment alternative did not mention the 87/85 alignment? I’m guessing some staffer simply forgot to include it.
Hmm … this is interesting. The alignments for the San-José-Central Valley have been narrowed considerably. Most notably: There are two options currently being considered for the area south of Diridon – the 87/280 alignment, and the current ROW, presumably four-tracked (as the three track option was eliminated). The Morgan Hill station option has been eliminated. In terms of track alignments, 101 is still under consideration, as is the east of UPRR/Monterey Highway alignment. Part of it could be on an areal.
Peter Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
They mentioned that an alignment that does not go through downtown Gilroy could cause problems with necessitating a shuttle transfer between Caltrain and HSR, assuming that Caltrain (or other rail service) extends to Hollister, Salinas, and Monterey.
Joey Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Indeed. I would much prefer a downtown station, which, BTW, is the preferred option, but East Gilroy is still on the table.
Rafael Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
CHSRA prefers it but the locals are still thinking it through. There will be lots of trains that run through Gilroy at high speed. A location east of downtown wouldn’t be intermodal with Caltrain, but at this point the extension to Salinas is not yet a done deal – though TAMC is working diligently toward that end. No connecting rail service is currently planned for Hollister or (afaik) Santa Cruz. It could still happen, but only if someone ponies up a significant amount of cash to maintain the tracks to passenger rail grade. UPRR isn’t going to do it for free.
Tony D. Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Living in Gilroy, I’ll take either a downtown or east of downtown option. If a HSR alignment were to go east 101 with a station near Leavesley/Gilroy Outlets, perhaps 1) Caltrain could go along with it, removing the service entirely from the UPRR row, 2) consolidating/building a new Morgan Hill/San Martin Caltrain station along the 101 row and 3) study a spur line between an east Gilroy station and UPRR just south of Gilroy for future Salinas/Monterey service.
Joey Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
But it’s so much simpler to just put the station downtown…
Tony D. Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Agreed Joey, a station downtown would be much easier. Just thinking outside the box.
Clem Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
> A location east of downtown wouldn’t be intermodal with Caltrain
Um, time out guys, why would HSR need to be “intermodal” with Caltrain in Gilroy? To go from where to where? Palmdale to Morgan Hill? Forget about it. These kinds of minuscule markets aren’t worth (1) blighting Gilroy with a loud, 120+ foot wide HSR installation and (2) building many more grade separations than would be necessary in agricultural land east of 101, (3) limiting speeds to less than 220 mph, and (4) imposing a restrictive curve radius in order to hook into downtown.
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I agree. Gilroy should be by the freeway and out of the downtown as there is likely to be many express and limiteds that will not stop there.
Joey Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 6:39 am
There’s still the question of future rail services to Salinas (likely CalTrain), Monterey, etc. There are no concrete plans now, but it’s impossible to tell what will/won’t eventually get funding at this point.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am
There are indeed concrete plans, but they have been put on hold for the time being. Caltrain and the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) had been very close to signing an agreement to provide daily service to Salinas when Caltrain pulled back due to budget problems. The concept and plans are still very much alive, if not quite as close to fruition as they used to be. TAMC is also looking at a possible Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas, and there’s still the plans to revive the Coast Daylight from SF to LA via the Coast Line, and in the future that could conceivably be scheduled to provide a cross-platform transfer to HSR at Gilroy.
Santa Cruz County is also nearing an agreement to purchase the tracks from UPRR from Davenport to Pajaro, with the aim of instituting passenger rail service. That could easily be extended to serve the HSR station at Gilroy as well.
So it definitely seems valuable for HSR to be intermodal with other passenger rail systems at Gilroy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
If they moved the HSR tracks why would Caltrain and Amtrak or whatever operator goes through Gilroy, remain on the old alignment. Not that they should move any of it out of downtown but if you are building greenfield tracks take everything else along with HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Because the HSR alignment would be two-tracked, and slower trains would hold faster trains up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Why wouldn’t those same local trains hold up traffic on two tracked alignment downtown? If and if they are building a greenfield station out on 101 why would they put in only two tracks. They could go for two island platforms and four tracks. Or get really crazy and put in two island platforms with two express tracks for a total of six tracks through the station.
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The two-track alignment between San Jose and Gilroy, not the track alignment at the Gilroy station, would cause slower trains to hold up faster ones.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Why would anyone build six tracks? For HSR, the standard is two, with four at the stations, to allow express trains to overtake local trains. This assumes all trains travel at the same top speed – otherwise, the line needs to be four-tracked throughout, which costs much more.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Why not 6 tracks at the station since everyone seems to think that Gilroy to San Jose will suddenly have as much traffic as Tokyo and Osaka?
Two tracks downtown for “conventional” trains and two tracks out east of 101 for HSR adds up to four tracks if I’m doing my arithmetic correctly.
In their wildest dreams there will be 10 passenger trains an hour in 2050. A train traveling at 200KPH/125MPH will a bit more than 12 miles away with 6 minute headways. It will travel over the 30 miles of track between Morgan Hill and Gilroy in approximately 15 minutes. A strategically placed passing siding – maybe even build a station for Caltrain there instead of passing sidings they should be able to get by with two tracks for a very long time.
Tolmach seriously needs to get a life. It’s quite immature and pathetic in what he’s doing.
Item 11 on the Board’s Agenda today was a slide show to inform the board of various conditions in AB-3034 / Prop 1A, that have to met, including certain restrictions on funding of construction.
I wrote back in Sept. on this issue, alerting the Authority that the proposed stimulus funding applications were not meeting Prop 1A conditions to use bond money for matching any stimulus money awarded. The Authority went ahead and did not alter the applications. I never received any response to my letter.
On Monday, NOv 30th, I again wrote the Authority raising the same issues, which fall precisely into the category on which Agenda item 11 was focusing.
Although my letter was acknowledged by Morshed and sent to all the board members, no mention of it was made at the meeting today. I have posted the letter at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23635316/Sletter-to-Chsra-Nov-30-2009
I guess I should not be surprised by not getting any responses. After all, the Authority has ignored other conditions in Prop 1A (no business plan by Oct 1 of 2008), Kopp trying to ignore the TBT as the required terminus in SF. The only way thus far that has gotten the Authority’s attention is the Atherton, Menlo Park lawsuit, which although stated as being ‘frivolous” , ‘without merit’ , was not deemed as such by the court; thus the de-certification of the SF to Merced EIR today.
I have posted my Nov. 30th letter at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23635316/Sletter-to-Chsra-Nov-30-2009
I’ll be awaiting comments which are sure to come, and maybe even provoke a column from Robert.
morris brown Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
I don’t understand why this comment is not being posted.
morris
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Sorry, it got stuck in the moderation queue. The default was any comment with 2 or more links is held for moderation as an anti-spam measure. I’ve changed that to 5 or more.
morris brown Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Thanks Robert
morris
Your reader should be interested in reading the public letter just released from Stuart Flashman, explaining the legal implications resulting from the courts ruling in the Menlo Park, Atherton lawsuit.
Mr Flashman was the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. More meat to chew on Robert.
Joey Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Well it does little to mention it without providing a link…
morris brown Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I was sure I added the link — sorry the letter is at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23647856/Memo-to-Clients-And-the-Public
Joey Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Hmm. Well, everything in there seems more or less correct, though it seems to emphasize the legal possibility of certain things happening vs the actual probability of them happening. True, the EIR must be revised and opened up for comments again, but that is likely to change very little. I think we both know that CHSRA will stick with Pacheco, and they have already started updating their own documents to reflect the UPRR issue. Also, the letter mentions the possibility of a completely new EIR, which CHSRA has stated it has no intention of doing.
Too late Robert. KTVU Channel 2 took it hook line and sinker and reported this without asking any questions.
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Has anyone from here responded to them yet?
The Overhead Wire Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I looked on the website and the 5pm version was MUCH better than the 10pm version. Not sure why they were so different.
Robert, you do yourself no favors in debunking Tolmach when you state that Altamont would bypass San Jose. That’s at least as false as any falsehood that Tolmach supposedly advances.
matt Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 12:27 am
How does it not bypass San Jose? San Jose would have been on the main-line, then with alamont it is on the spur. Clarify?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 12:40 am
If they ever build a spur. It would be Phase II or II or IV or Never. Caltrain to the Mid Peninsula Station or Caltrain East or Bart to Fremont would be good enough for a very long time.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 7:22 am
What matt said.
I will admit to not being as clear as I should have, but my point was that SJ wouldn’t be on the mainline, and would therefore be getting less service. It’s also unclear how SJ-SF service would have worked with an Altamont alignment, and since Altamont wouldn’t necessarily provide the complete grade separations needed on the Caltrain corridor, it’s not certain that SJ-SF would get the upgrades it needs.
Rafael Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:19 am
The political decision in November of 2008 was that San Jose would be part of phase I, even if AB3034(2008) does not spell that out in legal terms. I don’t think that city would accept relegation to a later phase. Even a switch to Altamont-via-Dumbarton or even to Altamont-via-Santa-Clara would only be politically viable if CHSRA point blank cannot secure a right of way down to Gilroy. Elections have to have consequences, otherwise the whole project will unravel.
Altamont does bypass san jose. It may still serve it in some fashion, but it still bypasses it by a long way creating the need for a spur, or some other connection.
Here’s an opinion title in today’s SJ Mercury which best sums up the sentiment coming out of Brown, Tolmach: “Don’t let the facts get in way of your opinion.” Seriously, CAHSRA states that Pacheco Pass will still be the main entry into Bay Area, yet Tolmach still goes on to claim that the Authority will be forced to drop the Pacheco Pass alignment. Wow! Seriously, does Tolmach own serious acreage out in Tracy or what? By the way, no facts presented to back up his claim (oh well).
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:49 am
The Chronicle had an article stating that the route is in “limbo.” They at least did mention that the Authority isn’t planning on redoing everything, but one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs (not Flashman) stated that such things should not be “rushed.”
Peter Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
People at my work have been buying the line from the Merc and the Chron. Because the newspapers know best!
jimsf Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
People are so programmed to believe and accept the negative and completely untrusting of the positive.
AS we are seeing across the board, the new strategy for those who do not have much power to change things, is to simply try to stop or slow things down. The days of being able to concede and move on with dignity are apparently gone.
Cruickshank,
For someone who is so utterly certain about his opinions, you sure don’t know much. Your very first assertion of FALSE is completely wrong. Apparently you don’t understand the legal significance of the Resolution that was rescinded. That 2008 Resolution adopted the selection of the Pacheco Alignment, on the basis of findings supported by the FEIR. As far as the law is concerned, all of that is now past history. While the preferences of individual Authority members have not been rescinded by this vote, someone as outspoken as you on HSR and on history ought to know that, at this time, there is no route selected.
When a route finally IS selected in the future, it will have to be justified by the entirety of the record. If this issue has to be re-litigated, you can be sure that the Court is not going to have the same record in front of it. Therefore, you have no basis upon which to assume that the recent Court’s holding will be applicable to a future decision.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 3:36 am
I stand by what I wrote. The “no route selected” is a technicality that does not reflect reality, and you are misleading the public by suggesting Pacheco is somehow in doubt. It isn’t. And the judge found no merit to ANY of your claims about Pacheco itself being a flawed choice – the UPRR ROW issue would have existed along the Altamont alignment as well.
Of course, what you are saying here is that you’re going to go right back to court once the revised EIR is adopted. On what basis? I’m assuming Judge Kenny will still be handling this case. If so, then it seems highly unlikely that you’re going to get him to reverse himself in dismissing your claims about the rest of the EIR. If it goes to another judge for an entirely new review, then you’re essentially judge shopping in hopes someone will give you what you want.
At what point will HSR opponents like you be satisfied and stop trying to kill this project?
Californians need to organize to ensure this project moves forward as planned, and that people who are quite satisfied with the status quo, despite all the economic and environmental damage it causes, aren’t able to stop the project out of spite.
In keeping with the spirit of journalism, it would be good for you to stop characterizing people that challenge the HSRA as HSR opponents. We have always been supporters of HSR. We very much want to see a viable system built. That’s 100% of the motivation for what we do.
We are, however, opponents of the HSRA. The HSRA will never be able to deliver a viable system. We are more than convinced that hack politicians cannot be trusted to make decisions that are in the public interest. Their consultants are not objective–their work just supports whatever decisions the politicians have made.
As far as I can tell, your standard for objectivity is: If Quentin said it, it must be true!
Robert Cruickshank, lapdog to the powerful
Spokker Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Who knew that creating a high speed rail network would be so hard? Golly, this Pacheco route sure is a mess! Better build this darn thing on the Altamont corridor where the suburban homeowners living in low-density subdivisions are just crazy fer trains!
Lord knows not having Pleasanton (pop: ~63,000) and Livermore (pop: ~73,000) and Tracy (pop: ~82,000) on board in phase 1 is going to break this project. Follow the lights, indeed, no matter how dim they are. Even the suburbs of Anaheim and Norwak have higher population densities than all three by a wide margin.
I’m not particularly happy about Gilroy having a station and I think LA-San Diego would make a better starter line. I better call my attorney before this HSR destroys the country and we are all eating Bic Macs with chopsticks.
Bianca Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:41 am
You want to see High Speed Rail built, but you are opponents of the Authority tasked with doing exactly that? Mmmmmmkay. Can you provide an example of a major infrastructure project in this country that did not include the involvement of politicians? If you really want High Speed Rail built in California, politicians are a part of the process, full stop. I´m not saying that is the ideal, I´m saying that´s just the way it is.
Saying that you want a high speed rail system built in California without the involvement of politicians, be they hacks or no, is like saying you want a unicorn that farts rainbows and poops diamonds. Sounds lovely. But the people of California have voted, and want this project to move forward, and shouldn´t have to wait for your idealized notions of how things should be done.
Spokker Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Here’s some Real Talk. The CHSRA, for all of their downsides, has achieved what no other organization could achieve in California, achieved really what was their primary goal up to November 2008, the passed a bond measure that would get the HSR effort in California started. For that they deserve all accolades and appreciation.
The LA-SF I-5 Grapevine route is certainly something I would support. But who wouldn’t support it? The rest of the state. Like it or not, this project is contingent on broad political support. Look at the voting for Prop 1A. With the exception of Orange County, every county with a phase 1 station voted yes on the bond measure. Perhaps having the Inland-Empire, San Diego and Sacramento in phase 2 caused them to vote no in lesser numbers than they would have.
In either case, the CHSRA can’t just propose a route that benefits the Bay Area and LA. The rest of the state is going to tell them to piss off and both areas can’t fund it alone. Like it or lump it, the process that is happening now is likely the only way it’ll happen in California.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Actually, you don’t want a viable system built. You are willing to jeopardize the federal funding we desperately need to get this underway through your lawsuits and delaying tactics. We have a chance to actually get HSR for California, but you prefer to undermine that chance at every available opportunity. Therefore, we merely draw the logical conclusions from your actions.
There are other, more constructive ways to help provide citizen oversight and accountability that the CHSRA, as with any other arm of government, needs. I’m not supportive of everything the CHSRA says or does, but I am willing to both provide feedback and constructive criticism when warranted, but also work with them to build a project this state desperately needs.
Do you have any other plan to build HSR in California? Any other strategy for winning federal funding? Since it looks as if you do not, you’re merely falling into the trap of assuming there’s nothing wrong with the status quo, that we don’t actually have to build HSR right now, that we can wait another 30 years until a project comes along that meets every single one of your purist standards.
Peter Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Yes, you and others will be submitting new comments on the Altamont v. Pacheco issue. Those comments will be analyzed and the end result will be the same. They can use the same data they used the first time plus whatever they’ve developed since then. Given that they now in fact do have viable alternatives they can in fact use to discuss the transition between San Jose and Gilroy (note they discussed them at the last meeting), and they can easily discuss the measures available for high-speed trains to reduce noise and vibration as mitigation, there’s no reason why the EIR can’t be completed quickly.
I have no doubt that you and many others will be submitting comments to the EIR, explaining why the Board is misguided and should choose Altamont. Those letters will be summarized, analyzed, and categorically shot down in the EIR’s analysis. The only thing that could save you is if they don’t do their jobs well enough and miss an aspect of a letter.
Watch the offensive language. Moderation is active here.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
YOU dont live here..SO you dont know what We are fighting
Joey Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Here as in where? I’m not from San José, but SF isn’t that far away…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Note: Joey’s comment was in response to a comment by YesonHSR. I meant to edit it to show the comment had been expunged via moderation, but accidentally hit the “Delete” button. In the future, I’ll edit the comment to show it had been rejected for offensive content, rather than just deleting it.