They Get Letters
In advance of Thursday’s release of the draft Alternatives Analysis and in response to the recent recertification of the Bay Area-Central Valley EIR, Peninsula activists are beginning to organize their response. One group, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), has produced a a guide to writing effective EIR comments. It is a very useful and thorough guide, including sage advice on the importance of making factual statements and commenting on specific issues, instead of generalities.
Of course, it is clearly intended for project opponents and critics, as the guide seeks to avoid having authors say “I support the HSR project, but…” and focuses on ways to argue against above-grade implementations and implies, oddly, that HSR might increase traffic (a fully grade-separated corridor would significantly reduce traffic). [Note: CARRD says they were referring to the temporary impact on traffic flow of HSR construction.] One could use these guidelines to write comments supportive of the HSR project, and particularly in support of specific alternatives, and we’ll have more about how to do that in the coming days and weeks. Importantly, anyone can submit comments on this EIR; one does not have to be a Peninsula resident. This is a statewide project that all of us are paying for, and the opinions of someone living elsewhere in the state ought to count every bit as much as the comments of someone living near the Peninsula corridor.
In any event, the mobilization around EIR comments shows how important the upcoming Alternatives Analysis is being seen among HSR supporters and critics alike. Mike Rosenberg at the San Mateo County Times gives his take on the letter-writing campaign:
A letter-writing campaign is picking up steam in San Mateo, where residents are passing out one-page templates that already include citations, figures and background. All residents have to do is sign their names and addresses, check boxes on topics that concern them, such as property-takings through eminent domain or noise and vibration, and send the form to the rail authority.
These aren’t likely to be very informative comments, and most people being handed these one-page templates probably don’t have much in-depth views on these issues, instead reacting to outrage-generating things like “oh my god they’re going to take your house!” that are being implied in these template campaigns. To CARRD’s credit, they want individualized comments, which could actually be useful if that gets people to make a thoughtful engagement with the HSR project.
But the underlying situation on the Peninsula may not be conducive to an honest assessment of the alternatives. For over a year now several city councils and NIMBY groups have been actively spreading misinformation, such as claims that the Authority wants to build a Berlin Wall on the Peninsula. These misleading claims have seeped their way into the community, and there will be some residents who, instead of weighing the possible visual impacts against the significant traffic and safety benefits of above-grade tracks, will reject it out of hand owing to the months of criticism of the idea even before specific options were laid out by the Authority.
This week’s Alternatives Analysis should be an occasion for the Peninsula to finally be able to discuss specific and real options for the HSR corridor, taking the conversation out of the realm of the hyperbolic and into the realm of the sensible. Before people sit down to write their letters, let’s hope they take a detailed and open-minded look at the alternatives, and ask themselves whether they really believe that the Peninsula of the late 20th century can survive forever – or whether these alternatives offer ways to make the rail corridor safer, cut down on traffic, bring communities together while securing Caltrain’s future and providing energy independence.
I feel these people are just doing this to bog down the project and ultimately try to stop it. The same communities that opted out of the BART consortium years ago. Same old NIMBY communities!!
Missiondweller Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Agree. These are just delaying tactics. They should be told CAHSR is coming and we’d prefer they participated to determine how its implemented, but not if.
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Delaying tactics would be filing more baseless lawsuits, not participation in the project the way CEQA is supposed to work.
It’s a game that is played quite well by both sides: One side makes comments, the other side does their best to dismiss them, and then the first side possibly ends up suing.
CARRD is nothing more than the main Nimbys ..what ever spin that they “support” the project…LETS make this real clear…These people lie about what they are up too..STOP trying to baby them
Sara Armstrong Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 1:15 am
YesOnHSR – Please provide specific examples of how CARRD “lie[s] about what [we] are up to”. We value an open, fact-based discussion of the project and will correct any inaccuracies on our website and presentation materials. What we’re “up to” is encouraging a transparent, collaborative, reality based process. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the project are not “opposition”.
Robert – I believe you misconstrued the example comment on traffic impacts. The text says “traffic during construction” and is meant to serve as an example of how to provide more specific information rather than generalities. It does not state (or even imply) that a fully grade-separated, completed system will increase traffic. That said, if it is a distraction from the point, we’ll look at changing the example to something less worrisome.
EIR comments aren’t meant as a referendum on whether you support or oppose the project. (We already had one of those. We voted Yes.) It isn’t really helpful to the project teams to get a bunch of generalized content-free comments (positive or negative) because such statements are not really useful in eliminating alternatives or adding to the body of knowledge on which to base further studies, analyses, budgets, etc. The “Tips” are not directed toward project opponents, but to the general public, many of whom have never written an EIR comment and might appreciate suggestions on how to effectively express their concerns in a constructive way.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Totally agree with Sara: if someone’s going to call people “liars” there needs to be evidence offered to support such an extraordinary, and in my view fundamentally wrong, claim.
I updated the post to reflect that CARRD’s sample comment focused on the temporary traffic issues being caused by HSR construction.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
The word ‘”lie’ was was meant for the puropse of your group..SO your are for this project? Yes or NO?
You people are the same ones I have seen on TV and media here in the BayArea and at no point did you come across as anything but an opposition group..Maby thats the sound bite style of media but thats what came across to the entire Bay Area.. I even had someone at work mention it since they know Im a HSR backer. Your facts about this project are very negative and nowhere is any postive..ie grade seperations quite trains ects posted..Thats where the lie word ..thou maby tuff is what im talking about..I still belive that its not the purpose of CARRD to have HSR built in even a positive way ..but to kill It thru delays …hope Im wrong but I dont see it
Sara Armstrong Reply:
April 8th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Thank you for sharing your impressions and for your openness to having them corrected.
No. CARRD is NOT trying to kill the project. We come from a community focus, so much of our work is in understanding the impacts to communities and in encouraging folks to participate. Yes, we do talk about the benefits as well as impacts. We recognize the potential benefits of HSR and of public transportation more broadly.
You are right, it is easy in a sound bite driven culture to assume polarization where it doesn’t exist. In fact CARRD’s message isn’t all that “media friendly” in that we don’t advocate for a particular implementation solution, or for stopping the project. We aren’t the “opposing viewpoint” that unfortunately has become the substitute for rational analysis in our society. We’re all about *process*. It isn’t very sexy and typically doesn’t make a good “story”.
But that’s ok, because our objective isn’t to get quoted in the media. Our objective is to work in a collaborative way to achieve a project that meets our transportation goals while at the same time enhancing the communities through which it travels.
There are no easy answers or “silver bullets” here. This project is all about difficult trade-offs. It’s complicated. It’s hard work. But the old-school, confrontational, “you’re with us or against us” approach isn’t the most effective way to build consensus. Vilifying people because you take issue with (or misinterpret) a statement, or impute all sorts of malicious intent where it doesn’t exist, does not help to move us forward.
Next time we give a public presentation, I’d encourage you to attend so you can hear our message first hand. I’m working on getting more of our presentation materials posted on our website so you can have a look at the content. Feel free to email us suggestions and comments for how to make them better. :)
rafael Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 6:11 am
It’s perfectly legitimate for people to ask questions, raise concerns and even to oppose the project if they feel it would do them personally more harm than good. To its credit, CARRD is trying to improve the process by encouraging opponents to abandon scaremongering in favor of specific nuts-and-bolts practical issues.
It’s up to proponents to counter that by sending CHSRA comparable messages of support so they don’t cave just because Joe Schmoe of Atherton wrote them a sternly worded missive. That’s not to say CHSRA is doing everything right in the SF peninsula. In particular, its relationship with TJPA is afaik still strained and, it has done nothing to nip Caltrain’s quixotic CBOSS project in the bud.
Nadia Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Thanks Raphael for recognizing that we are trying to focus all of the energy behind the concerns into something useful.
I disagree slightly with what you wrote in that sending messages of support aren’t actually necessary. To help the project – supporters should do exactly what concerned residents are doing – explicitly disclose any issues that could come up and if possible, give ideas on how to mitigate them. This is what will give the best project.
EIR documents are like a full disclosure document that allows the Authority to get all the information they need so they can take everything into consideration and make informed decisions as they move forward in this process. “Messages of support” are great, but what helps is actually making sure we have everything on the table to make an informed decision.
@YesonHSR – As people on this blog often request – where is your PROOF that we have lied?
@ Robert – our example says “traffic during construction.” Clearly, there will come a point where each grade separation will be closed and traffic will reroute – yes – we assume this will cause increased traffic.
Do you disagree that there will be traffic during construction or or did you misread the text?
jimsf Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 8:06 am
The problem with issues such as “traffic during construction” is that this is just a part of living in an industrialized county. At some point in very recent history, we have gone from being reasonable people who understand that modern life comes with some inconveniences. suddenly every inconvenience becomes a reason to make a fuss and a list of demands rather than say, just leave a little earlier for work. It does get to the point where those of us who understand that you can’t build freeways, railroads, apartment buildings, subdivisions, or do regular maintenance on such things without some minor disruptions, begin to think the people who complain every little thing ar really just doing it for some ulterior motive, like holding up a project, or that they are just being a little ridiculous. One wonders if the same people start petitions each time PG&E closes a lane to put wires underground, or when the city repaves a street, or when 101 is widened. The sense of entitlement to not having ones life disrupted is way out of line and has become especially rampant in the last 20 years. Considering the jobless rate, and the fact that local communities are all strained economically, I would expect residents to flock that big cloud of construction dust with praises and adoration just to see men and women back to work and patronizing the local lunch counter. No, there is more going on here than just worry about traffic Nadia. Not too mention, all this worry about making the project right… there’s nothing wrong with it as it is. It still looks to me like by right you mean “make the rest of the state pay for you local perks so you don’t have to do your share.” Peoples sense of reality theses days is amazing skewed.
Joey Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Do you think this could be applied to San Francisco’s apparent aversion to cut-and-cover tunneling?
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Sure. Why not? If cut and cover is the best, most cost-effective solution, then we should go for it.
Nadia Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 10:29 am
@JimSF – Here is a link to the Scoping Comments put forth by the DOT regarding THEIR concerns about increased traffic.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090626165415_J2_ScopingComments_StateAgency_Rev_061209.pdf
There are a lot of positives to this project. We know that – it is why Californians voted yes – but there are negative impacts and temporary impacts that will occur too. Ignoring them only gives the opponents a reason to jump on their omission. Let’s all help flesh them out and mitigate what is appropriate.
I believe strongly that we should build the best project we can and the only way to do that is to not open up the project to the possibility of having people jump all over it for bad process. If we cut corners, they will take advantage of those errors and omissions and stop the project and then we’ll all lose.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Nailed it right on the head Jim!!!!
dejv Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 8:18 am
It’s perfectly possible to construct split-grade separation with only minor weekend closures if both ROWs are sufficiently wide to keep half of road lanes open and long enough temporary ramp to dip from crossing of active track under partially constructed bridge. It’s just more expensive and time-consuming.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
That’s the whole point. You should know ahead of time what the costs will be when making decisions.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 10:28 am
There will indeed be traffic during construction; it is a minor consideration that should not influence the overall discussion about a long-term piece of infrastructure. If people are proposing ways to handle those temporary traffic shifts, that would indeed be valuable, but the fact that there would be traffic impacts is not to me an important issue.
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Agreed. Construction in an urban environment almost always causes temporary traffic problems. It doesn’t mean the overall project shouldn’t be done. Look at the traffic nightmares that will happen when Dole Drive in SF is replaced and the new Bay Bridge eastern span is connected to the YBI tunnel (the Bay Bridge will be closed for weeks!). The traffic congestion during those projects will make the temporary traffic congestion during HSR grade separation rather enjoyable by comparison.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
It’s gonna be great for congestion in San Francisco though…. Unless you have to get on BART.
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Well I include BART and alternate bridges (most likely San Mateo Bridge) in the congestion the Bay Bridge closure will cause. Cross your fingers that Doyle Drive is finished before they close the Bay Bridge is closed!
Anyway, less traffic in SF on weekends is NOT a good things as that will hurt the city’s economy.
Meanwhile CARRD is worried about a few temporary road closures during HSR grade separation.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Additionally… a linear construction zone across roadways will be phased wheras sufficient access across construction zone will ALWAYS be available. In other words, it’s not like 5 crossings in a row will be closed for an extended period…. it would be phased.
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
It may also be possible to phase the construction of each grade separation so that, while traffic may be constricted in terms of lanes available, crossing access is maintained throughout construction.
Traffic during construction is considered short term and therefore not a significant impact. Anyone with a brain knows that the long term traffic will decrease from public transportation.
Our View: Taking a bullet for high-speed rail
dejv Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Nice!
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Well, the “hundreds of existing homes and businesses” is likely hyperbole.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Agreed. But the overall point they make is valid, one I’m surprised hasn’t been made before: Californians should not pay to gold-plate the HSR system just to appease NIMBY aesthetics.
We need to find the point of balance between an HSR implementation that allows for ridership growth and optimal service on the one hand, and cost efficiency on the other.
If the Peninsula NIMBYs are bringing their own funds to the table, then this discussion takes a very different, and in my mind more constructive, turn.
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Agreed. Though I have no problem with NIMBYs paying for those gold-plated aesthetics themselves if they so choose. Unfortunately, they want all of us to pay for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Yes… that’s why I think the NIMBYs are potentially right in Orange County but not the Peninsula. Two-tracking to Anaheim could work, and would be a massive money saver. Tunnels through suburbia would be a massive money waster.
whats the deal with this vegas train this isn’t desert express, and its not maglev. is this for real or some kind of investment scam?
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Quite frankly I’m shocked. Shocked that they have a new website that is somehow worse than their old website.
Last time around they were floating some sort of FRA-compliant service between Anaheim and LV on existing tracks. Certainly there’s not much keeping them from doing that. If they can do it in 5.5 hours for less than a plane ticket, they’ll probably get enough customers to fill 2-3 TPD each way on thursday, friday and sunday.
I’m skeptical they’ll be able to keep the costs down with trains only operating full a couple days a week. I also have no desire to be on a Rohypnol Train to vegas with a bunch of Hats ‘n Tats OC douchebags, but they should have a large enough target market without me.
jimsf Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 11:36 am
In a sign of support for an expanded long-distance network, two of President Obama’s nominees for Amtrak’s Board of Directors wrote Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) indicating they would press for refined cost estimates for restoring the Salt Lake City-Portland Pioneer.
If they are bringing back the Pioneer then they should bring back the Desert Wind too.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
I think Amtrak loses more than enough money on their existing long distance routes, no need to add to that pile of burning cash. LA-LV on a diesel train at 5-6 hours is about the limit for where, IMO, Amtrak should be running trains. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but the long distance Amtrak routes have become subsidized cruise lines for the elderly.
jimsf Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
That is a completely inaccurate assessment of long distance lines. Cruise lines for the elderly” huh? Have you even been on a train? These trains carry all walks of life. In some parts of the country, its the only service people have. International travelers to america are a big chunk too. Where do you get this “elderly” nonsense? The kids, college age etc, love it!. Don’t talk crazy.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Though maybe they can get some of the talgo trains back from the Cascades.
I think this line from the Cascades Wikipedia Page sums up the absurdity of the FRA “safety” regulations perfectly:
“The NPCU contains a cement weight to meet FRA weight requirements for collision safety.”
Because everything’s safer if you make it heavier! Strap a bag of quickcrete to your bumper, for safety!
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Don’t the Talgo cars use CEM?
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ooooh, sparkles! Futuristic bee-boop sound effects!
Please put me out of my misery…
jimsf Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 11:43 am
^^LOL
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 11:50 am
I’d go with some sort of investment scam. It’s trading at 19 cents a share right now. … but then most days nothing trades. On busy days thousands of shares exchange hands. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth.
Here is a good article that you might want to comment on Robert. It is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel for private financing coming from China.
bossyman15 Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
oh god I hope not.
Just France, Spain, or Japan please.
Eric M Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with getting money from China, or their technology. They are the only ones running an average speed higher than 200mph, closer to 220mph top speed. They got a start with their technology from Japan and Germany (ICE is nicer than the TGV by the way and can run above 200mph consistantly without any modifications).
Maxi Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
But China’s still too much of an unknown. Their HSR is too new to know their track record on safety, the quality of their equipment, and can they provide the quake-proof technology that Japan can? In the article it says so far they’ve built themselves as the quick and low cost competitors, but I’m not too confident in picking them for those qualities.
dejv Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
There are several reasons not to go with anything from China:
- first are safety and environmental issues. Chinese HSTs routinely run faster than they are approved for and they don’t mind any neighbourhood impacts as long as they can ignore or suppress any protests (link)
- second, it’s highly insecure to buy any technology without full documentation from not-exactly-friendly authoritarian country. You do anything wrong to them and the press the Big Red Button and your vital trains will go dead
- third, their experience very limited in terms of time. Their regular HS trains didn’t even complete second year of regular operation! Remember, Eschede disaster happened after ten years of regular operations… In comparison, SNCF, Alstom et al have 30 years of experience at 270 km/h, 20 years of 300 km/h and 10 years of 320 km/h (200 mph) operations.
- there’s a big chance that they underestimate something or somebody will “forget” to tell about some problem the same way that province officials “tune” the number of crimes to have better image at central government…
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
This is sort of like in the 1980s when the Japanese went on a buying spree of American real estate because the yen was so strong. Now the Chinese because they have such an “undervalued” currency want to sell train parts.
I’d be more concerned honestly with the presence of G.E. who has a huge presence in China already. If this is a way for G.E. to get out of developing and building those trains here in the US, then it’s a shameful idea indeed.
I’d be interested to see if the Chinese were willing to do a joint partnership with the US or send some of their engineers to the University of California. Hell Jerry Brown should call for the establishment of a High Speed Rail Institute at the UCs tomorrow at this rate….
For the life of me I don’t get why anyone in San Mateo would oppose above-grade HSR. CalTrain’s heavy and loud diesels lumber and vibrate right through downtown San Mateo, horns blaring and crossing arms ringing. It must be maddening. Above-grade HSR and electrified CalTrain would have none of those issues.
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
But the visual blight! And what about the children! And the puppies and kittens! Everyone likes puppies and kittens, right?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
It’s gonna make the cows go dry and stop the chickens from laying too!
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Well, if you watch the Siemens presentation at one of the Authority’s board meetings, the representative actually mentioned a NIMBY in Germany who was a horse breeder. He claimed that his horses would no longer reproduce if the high speed line was visible from his farm. He sued and had “experts” testify to that end. They settled by having DB agree to construct a trench. Now all that is visible is the pantograph of each train going past at 300 km/h.
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
So the site of an HSR train made the horses infertile? Riiight. LOL. And couldn’t they just plant some screening plants?
tomh Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
But was there already a noisy diesel train with horns and bells that went by that ranch in Germany?
Not much room for ranches along the ROW from SJ to SF. LOL.
jimsf Reply:
April 8th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Actually, I think it clearly states in the business plan that all puppies and kittens shall be subject to removal and prosecution resulting in incarceration and/or fines up to $1,000.
Addendum to Business Plan
And the AA reports for SF-SJ and Merced-Fresno should be up by tomorrow morning.
Peter Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Yeah, I was looking for those, but couldn’t find them yet.