Pros and Cons of HSR in Merced
Have a listen to the Merced Sun-Star’s recent “Off the 99″ podcast which explores “the pros and cons of high speed rail” with guests Daniel Krause and Brian Stanke of Californians For High Speed Rail. The podcast also interviews David Mills of IBEW Local 684, and Kole Upton, an HSR opponent. Daniel and Brian did a great job discussing the project.
Well the CHSRA is making even more enemies in the Central Valley. Now Bakersfield is not happy.
City’s reaction to rail report is harshly critical
http://www.bakersfield.com/blogs/city_beat/x710585457/Citys-reaction-to-rail-report-is-harshly-critical
City staffers this week blasted a draft environmental review of the state’s high-speed rail project.
The criticism essentially previews Bakersfield’s official response to the 3,300 page document.
Complaints listed in a new administrative report target what City Manager Alan Tandy called an “irresponsible” failure by the review to discuss potential mitigation efforts for the rail line, if it is built here.
The HSR workshop of the Bakersfield council can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXs9-5s6N3U
Public comment can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsbzIN2rRps
joe Reply:
September 17th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
The city admins report’s tone is, by this article, an outlier.
datacruncher Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Per this article linked below from September 2010, other local agencies such as Kern County wanted the tracks to pass north of Bakersfield with a station near the county-owned Meadows Field airport passenger terminal. But the city of Bakersfield wanted the benefits of a downtown station, now the city is concerned about what has to happen to get the line downtown?
“Eight years ago, when high-speed rail was just another $40 billion idea, Kern County officials pushed for building the Bakersfield passenger station near Meadows Field. But city officials hated the idea, so they lobbied hard to have the station located downtown in order to maximize the economic benefits the station promised.”
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x49332870/No-resolution-in-sight-on-high-speed-rail-route
Tony d. Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I’ll tell yah what Morris; no matter how much dirt you can dig up “against” HSR, it still has many more supporters, “friends” than enemies. But keep trying if you must.
Howard Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
If there are too many unresolved issues in the City of Bakersfield then why not stop at the city limit and instead spend the money going closer to Merced, like going through Madera (and get rid of this Borden “nowhere” issue)? Why not use the next round of funding for going all the way through Bakersfield with a station?
Peter Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
We are stopping at the city limits of Bakersfield.
Those types of issues have to be resolved now, though, no matter whether the section into Bakersfield is started next year or next decade. This is because the Authority is trying to complete environmental clearance on the entire route, not just for the Initial Construction Segment.
joe Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
How about that yummy maintenance facility?
The Bakersfield’s City Administrator, is that an elected position? He’s the outlier.
Bret Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The City of Bakersfield is having issues because in their previous meetings with the HSRA, none of the proposed mitigating factors for the many issues they presented were included in the Draft EIR/EIS. Because none of the mitigation was included, and because of the short review period, the City is disappointed in how the process is taking place. The HMF is not as big an issue with the City of Bakersfield (although they are also supportive of it’s location in Kern) because the proposed locations in Kern County are in the cities of Shafter and Wasco, so the HMF is a bigger prize with those cities and with the County of Kern as a whole. While the City of Bakersfield will realize indirect benefits from the HMF, it is less of an issue in their mind with their concerns being on the ongoing projects in the redevelopment of downtown, current/future freeway projects, and other issues that were not mitigated in the EIR/EIS. Also, since the EIR/EIS stops in the middle of town, there is no way to really discuss the impacts that will happen in East Bakersfield until the next EIR/EIS is available. Trying to weigh in on an option that stops half way through your city without knowing how it fully impacts the remainder of your city is a difficult task.
And as for the City Manager, it is an appointed position, not an elected position. The Mayor is more of a figurehead than an administrator in Bakersfield; the City Manager handles the day-to-day operations.
Peter Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
What mitigation measures did Bakersfield suggest that weren’t adopted?
Bret Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I don’t know all the specifics as I don’t work for the City, but in a combined meeting they expressed concern with the proposed freeway system(s) that are either in the works or are being planned, the location of a switching station (I think) that would displace the city’s corporation yard (I may have that wording a bit off), and some other things. I didn’t take detailed notes, and since I haven’t read the full EIR/EIS, I can’t comment as to the validity of their claims, but I know that’s at least part of their concerns….espcially the fact that they don’t know what will happen in East Bakersfield until the next EIR/EIS comes out.
Nadia Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I watched the Bakersfield City Council meeting and there are a lot of major buildings in the City that will be impacted such as the Acquatic Center, the Arena/Convention Center, the Police Station (command center I think he said), a new apartment area that was designed as TOD, the Corporation Yard for the city where they handle fleet services, solid waste, a large City garage, part of Mercy Hospital, etc. All of these were mentioned during the presentation given by Mr. Tandy (City Manager) and Mr. Eggert. OF the council members, only 4 of the 7 spoke and 3 asked very concerned questions. The Vice Mayor asked if maybe they should include a comment asking for a different station location.
Here is an articled describing the meeting: http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/bakersfield-hsr-workshop-shows-grave-issues-and-project-flaws
Here’s the video of the council meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXs9-5s6N3U
Note: After you click on the link and after the line below appears indicating the minute markers (mm) all you do is slide the bar and move it to the approximate place you are interested in listening to.
Here are some key video bites:
City Manager Alan Tandy: A well done critical overview of the project from the beginning of the video to the 6:25 mm.
City Planning Director Jim Eggert: Summary slide of impacts to hundreds of homes and businesses, in the footprint of the train, but recognizing there will be far more impacts around the tracks. (mm 23:30 to 26) His entire presentation runs from about (mm 6:30 to 26) and it shows the impact of the project on the entire city.
Exchange between Council Member Jacquie Sullivan and City Manager Alan Tandy about train frequency and what kind of influence the city will have in changing elements of the project. (mm: 29.04 to around the 33)
Council Member Rudy Salas, Vice Mayor David Couch exchange with city attorney and staff about when they can expect answers and the possibility of changes to station location. (mm 36.28 to 40:27)
Vice Mayor David Couch’s warning about staying on good terms with the HSR Authority while taking care of the city. (mm: 41: 03 to 41:49)
Couch’s warning: “This is a project that is going to happen or it’s not but we don’t have the luxury of hoping it doesn’t happen because I think you’ve got a High Speed authority board and a staff that’s been tasked to get the job done and they’re going to get it done. So your challenge is going to be to project (sic) the city as best you can [] but at the same time stay on good terms with them,” since the city needs their cooperation on other projects.
See public commentary about the project and hear Alan Scott from Citizens for California High Speed Rail Accountability comment about the project. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsbzIN2rRps
joe Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Gilroy funded an envisioning project do address the very issues in Bakersfield.
http://www.gilroyhighspeedtrain.org
Mayor Pinheiro issued the same warning as Couch to naysayers that want to pretend doing nothing is a strategy.
The City recognized that if the station goes in at Caltrain as they want, most of the businesses will change and also buildings, even new ones, will be replaced by the private sector reacting to the station and foot/car traffic.
When some draft output maps – mostly crayon colorings of possible land-use – were shown – the city tasked the city planner to identify the places available for impact, under developed or available spaces.
Howard Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The Fresno to Bakersfield segment EIR has to disclose all potential impacts of both alignments on that section now to finish the EIR, and allow construction, but if the first construction segment stops north of State Route 58, where the two Bakersfield alignments diverge, then the City of Bakersfield does not have to make a decision on which alignment alternative they prefer and the CHSRA does not need to decide on which alignment alternative they will chose until after the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment EIR is published.
Off topic: TCA wants to spend $106.25 million per mile to extend the 241 toll road, claims 17,000 jobs would result. As I noted on my blog, TCA is making HSR look pretty darn good with that. That’s not the first time that pro-241 extension arguments have made high speed rail look good either.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 12:54 am
Extending the toll road is going to just extend the OC sprawl blanket and put more pressure on already over capacity roadways. Even if you extended it all the way to I-5, what are you going to do? A mega-merge? Also, I believe Forest Service has already put a wrench in that plan.
joe Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 11:49 am
A no compete clause. WTF?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
All of them have those clauses, OCTA bought out the 91 Express because of how stretched those were (road widening for the interchanges for the 241 or 133, iirc, were in violation of the “no compete clause”). I don’t think this would be terribly bad though, I suspect that would only affect Irvine south through San Clemente, which is mostly an area you can’t expand much without extreme expense anyhow.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
All of them? 91 is the only one.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“Hi there! We’re capitalists with a pile of money! We’d like to give it to you out of the goodness of our own hearts, and if somehow our multi-decadal investment is rendered worthless by readily forseeable actions which our counter-party takes, well too bad for us! Where do we sign?”
Handy quick reference guide: if “adirondacker12800″ states something, it’s wrong.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Where’s all the other privately financed highways in the US? I’d settle for one or two that aren’t a bridge or a tunnel.
jim Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The contract with Fluor for the HOT lanes on I-95 in Virginia contains non-compete clauses which, for example, ban the widening of Route 1.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Yeah like anybody in their right mind, after considering the eminent domain issues, will be considering widening Route 1
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
73, 133, 241, and 261.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
They are about as private as the New Jersey Turnpike or the New York State Thruway or the Pennsylvania Turnpike or….
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Which is relevant how? 125 was entirely a private affair before bankruptcy anyhow.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
An entirely private affair partly funded with loans from the USDOT. What were the interest rates? The bonds they floated, were they tax exempt? Opened and promptly headed towards bankruptcy.
Smells suspiciously like people who didn’t want to tax themselves for road work finagled a way to stifiy their free market fantasies to scam a new road.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
More like “the road opened several years late and into a recession while the expected traffic from housing developments didn’t develop due to said recession.”
Alon Levy Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Does the non-compete clause include transit expansion? I believe the 91 clause did.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I would be surprised if it did. 241 left open median space for a rail line and CAHSR and Caltrans studied (but rejected) using it as a route for LOSSAN expansion and upgrades (bypassing the need for tunnels in San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente).