CHSRA To Revive Hanford West Bypass Option
Interesting news out of the California High Speed Rail Authority today, where they announced they would issue a revised Draft EIR in spring 2012 that would include study of the Hanford West bypass option, which had been scrapped last summer:
In response to stakeholder, agency, and public feedback on the high-speed train alignment that bypasses Hanford to the east, the Authority will re-introduce an alternative route, along with an alternative station location to serve the Kings/Tulare region along that portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield section. The Authority will also investigate improvements to the existing Fresno to Bakersfield alternatives. This step will also afford additional time to review the information contained in the current Fresno to Bakersfield Draft EIR/EIS….
The Hanford West Bypass alternative was identified in the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/EIS, and including this alternative is consistent with input from regulatory agencies.
Rather than issuing a Final EIR/EIS for the Fresno-to-Bakersfield section in January as previously scheduled, the Authority will now use the coming 5-6 months to further engineer the additional Hanford West Bypass route and new station alternative, conduct the additional environmental analyses needed, seek “value engineering” opportunities to reduce costs, and make other necessary revisions including those based on comments received through Oct. 13, 2011, after which a “Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS” will be issued for public comment.
Tim Sheehan at the Fresno Bee has more information on the Hanford West bypass:
The west-of-Hanford bypass was formally dropped from consideration last summer because engineers said it would have greater effects on sensitive wetlands, endangered species habitat and farmland than a route east of Hanford.
A west Hanford bypass would pass between the cities of Lemoore and Hanford, engineers added, discouraging infill development in the area.
“In addition, the Hanford West bypass would not provide a satisfactory location for a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station as it would not serve Visalia and Tulare as well as it would serve Hanford,” a June 2010 report states.
In recent months, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers urged the state rail authority to continue studying the west Hanford option.
At first glance, I am not exactly sure how this will address the concerns of farmers in Kings County about the project. It simply shifts the location further west, also impacting farms. While the CHSRA did not say that they are studying this because of the concerns raised by farmers, it is an obvious reason to revisit the alignment questions.
I don’t see any particular downside from studying Hanford West. I’m surprised that Visalia is open to it – the station would be even further away from them and on the other side of Hanford. But Visalia’s mayor was willing to give a supportive quote for the CHSRA’s press release:
“Visalia appreciates that the Authority recognizes the need to address concerns and ensure that we have the best possible range of alternatives for the High Speed Rail Project,” said Bob Link, Mayor of Visalia. “The City of Visalia remains dedicated to a station that will serve the entire region.”
The CHSRA claims this will not cause any delays to the project timeline, and I hope they are right. This seems worth studying on the merits, although I doubt it will resolve the political questions being raised in Kings County.
LA Times article on this subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-20111006,0,5158818.story
High-speed rail route to be revised
Officials will issue a new design next spring for the 114-mile segment from Fresno to Bakersfield, which encountered strong criticism.
With all the time gaps built into getting a certified CEQA EIR for the South of Fresno segment, and what Prop 1A demands for time elements, I don’t see how they can possibly not have a delay in the construction start. The Authority keeps talking about the 2017 deadline for expenditure of ARRA funds, but more to the point is the Sept 2012 deadline for start of construction which must be met.
Eric M Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
“I don’t see how they can possibly not have a delay in the construction start”
Well, if you listened to the comments people made to you in your previous posts, you would understand. But instead, you keep your anti-HSR blinders on.
Spokker Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:17 am
But how much is too much? At some point they are going to have to commit to a plan and fight the fight. You’re going to piss a lot of people off no matter what you do. If it’s going to get done you have to move forward. The same would be true for a good plan.
Eric M Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I agree
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:37 am
My personal guess is that they’re resurrecting this alignment in order to placate the federal agencies involved. These agencies were asking for the West Hanford Bypass to be maintained, after all.
political_incorrectness Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Exactly, you either piss people off or piss people off. In order to not worry about it, take the path of least resistance.
StevieB Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:16 am
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:44 am
You don’t go out and propose to build a segment, in this case the ICS from Borden to south of Corcoran, and not have a complete certified EIR for the total of what you propose to build. That’s all hard coded into Prop 1A.
The delay in getting a certified EIR for south of Fresno, certainty won’t meet deadlines that were laid down by van Ark himself back in March.
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 5:05 am
Earth to morris!
They’re not preparing an EIR for the ICS per se. They’re preparing two separate EIRs. One for Merced-Fresno, and one for Fresno-Bakersfield. The ICS just so happens to run over part of each of these segments. If they want to start construction on the ICS between Merced-Fresno, they don’t need the Fresno-Bakersfield EIR to do so.
Would it help in another language? Should I put it in German for you? Maybe Russian?
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 7:56 am
@peter
WRONG: Read Prop 1A why don’t you and many other CEQA findings.
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:10 am
Thank you Morris, I’ve actually studied CEQA (writing a paper on it right now). I do know what I’m talking about.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am
@Morris, I have read Prop 1A, and it requires that the Authority submit a “funding plan” for a “usable segment” (meaning a portion of a corridor that includes at least two stations) prior to receiving an appropriation of bond funds for construction. Prop 1A says *nothing* about the segments into which the Authority has split the statewide system for the purpose of completing project environmental analyses, and nothing about those project EIR/EIS documents themselves.
If the Authority wanted to start by constructing Merced-Fresno, they’d need to meet requirements of Prop 1A; state & federal environmental law; and ARRA/other federal funding requirements.
For Prop 1A, the only requirement that seems potentially touchy is the requirement that “one or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service.” This seems to suggest “right away,” so perhaps the segment needs to connect at both ends to tracks that the San Joaquin uses.
For EIR/EIS law, Peter clearly has substantial professional expertise in the field, so if you want to dismiss his analysis it’s incumbent upon you to be specific about where you think he’s in error.
As to the requirements attached to the federal funds, I have no opinion; perhaps someone else can explain if starting with a Merced-Fresno construction project would conform.
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:26 am
@Mike
From Prop 1A.
2704.08
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and
ready for high-speed train operation.
The ICS proposed lacks electrical power, PTC and other components needed for high-speed train operation
(K) The authority has completed all necessary project level
environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction.
This means all CEQA work to have been completed and certified, before construction can start.
The funding plan needs to be submitted 90 days minimum prior to start of construction so that the funds can be allocated. With the new delay of a suuplemental EIR until spring of 2012, andd 45 days and more to acquire public comment and certification, and only then be in a position
to issue a funding plan, there certainly doesn’t appear to be enough time for all of this to happen before Sept 2012, the deadline that must be meant for the ARRA funds to be freed.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:33 am
You and @peninsula keep clinging to the faint hope that lack of power and control means that 2704.08 H would not be satisfied. Do you have the legal opinion to back that assumption up?
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:41 am
@J. Wong
Yes
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:49 am
I know you’ve sued in the past (but it was thrown out for being “too early”). I assume you’re planning on suing again on the basis of 2704.08(H). We’ll have to see how receptive a judge will be to your legal arguments.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Sure, he has the legal opinion of his friend and neighbor Mike Brady. Private, confidential legal opinions are a dime a dozen. An opinion by Leg Counsel means a little something; an opinion by the AG means a little more. But in the end only the opinion of a judge matters, and as Peter and I explain below it’s likely that a judge would not agree with Morris’s lawyer.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:37 am
(K) is a gimme. Of course CEQA must be certified before construction. If the “usable segment” is Merced-Fresno, the delay in the Fresno-Bakersfield EIR is irrelevant.
(H) is more significant; I missed that one. But “suitable and ready” are not defined in Prop 1A, and I suspect that any court would defer to the Legislature if it were to approve the funding plan for a Merced-Fresno usable segment. Since Prop 1A does NOT require that HSR immediately begin rolling on a usable segment, the Legislature could find, and a court would likely agree, that the absence in the usable segment of those components (PTC; traction power) that are best installed in one statewide project at a later date, does not compromise being “suitable and ready.”
Elizabeth Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
All of these apply at the time of the submission of the funding plan.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
yes, but the *manner* in which they apply is subject to legislative and judicial interpretation.
thatbruce Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
As I’ve stated before, 2704.08(c)(2)(H) does not, to my mind, present a barrier towards the CAHSRA requesting Prop1A funds to match the offered Federal funds in building a non-powered section of track in the Central Valley. That’s conditional on the CAHSRA’s request being clear that a further request for Prop1A funding for the same segment will be sent at a later date, to cover the niceties such as overhead power, PTC and so forth to meet (H).
peninsula Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
K – ALL environment clearances for the Usable Segment, are required at the time that the funding plan is submitted requesting AB3034 bonds appropriation.
H- The Usable Segment is NOT merely Merced to Fresno.
For the correct definition of the Usable Segment per CHSRA see their August board materials:
“IOS-North: Extending from the northern end of the ICS to Merced and San Jose
IOS-South: Extending from the southern end of the ICS to the San Fernando Valley
Both of these would meet the definition of a usable segment and have the ICS as a common element. To preserve flexibility and optimize performance, the Authority intends to determine at a later time which of these two usable segments will advance first. The Funding Plan can be prepared to provide all required information for both.”
The USABLE SEGMENT then, per CHSRA is either
Merced to San Fernando Valley, or
Bakersfield to San Jose
(let that sink in….)
Additionally, the exact wording is ‘suitable and ready FOR HIGH SPEED TRAIN OPERATION’. HST is defined in AB3034:
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
Now, I’m pretty sure you can get a couple of the train nerds here to tell you whether they can build an HST system suitable and ready for sustained revenue operating speeds of 200 mile per hour without electrification and controls.
Additionally prerequisite for the Usable Segment at time of Funding Plan:
D – The sources of ALL funds to be invested in the corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds
G – Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan.
J. Wong – my argument is not “that lack of power and control means that 2704.08 H would not be satisfied.” To be clear, my argument is that CHSRA fails to meet ANY of the AB3034 spelled out prerequisites AT ALL for the funding plan for a Usable Segment.
ICS is NOT a term used AT ALL in AB3034.
That they are not intending to meet the prerequisites for a funding plan for a usable segment that will be complete usable and ready for HST operation is a small piece of the argument. More important is the fact that they will not have complete funding, complete environment clearance or a ridership that can support non-subsidized HST operation, for a complete Usable Segment (OR a completed usable segment suitable and ready for HST.)
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:41 am
I agree that the ICS is not in strict compliance with the requirements of 2704.08(H).
Nonetheless, I find it unlikely that the Legislature is going to deny funding for the project based on that requirement. When push comes to shove, legislators are unlikely to piss off their constituents by killing a project that already has substantial federal funding and will create jobs. Well, at least those legislators who aren’t from predominantly hard-core conservative districts.
Some people may try to sue to block the release of the funding, but the Sacramento Superior Court (the likely venue for such action) will be unlikely to play ball. They can be surprisingly practical.
CEQA work on the portion of the ICS located between Merced and Fresno WILL be completed. You still haven’t explained why environmental clearance for Fresno-Bakersfield is needed to start construction between Merced and Fresno. That’s the reason why they segmented the environmental review process, so that a delay in one section won’t delay the whole project.
As to the funding plan, you’re again assuming that a funding plan is needed for both the Merced-Fresno and Fresno-Bakersfield, when they are not starting construction on both segments simultaneously.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:47 am
And as I acknowledged above, I really have no idea exactly what ARRA requires in order formally meet the 2012 construction deadline. Surely they need not obligate 100% of the funds. It may well be sufficient that California begin construction on the project for which the federal funds were awarded. Beginning construction on a Merced-Fresno “usable segment” is also, from the perspective of ARRA, beginning construction on the larger ICS. (Does ARRA specifically require that NEPA be complete on the entire ICS before funding can be allocated? I don’t know.)
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
peninsula above wrote:
Now, I’m pretty sure you can get a couple of the train nerds here to tell you whether they can build an HST system suitable and ready for sustained revenue operating speeds of 200 mile per hour without electrification and controls.
Actually you can’t find a train set that is non-electrical capable of 200 MPH. But besides that, Prop 1A says the system must be powered by electricity.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Also, I’m wondering if construction can start with the Federal funds before release of 1A bond funds? Just curious.
morris brown Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:40 am
@J. Wong
That question was asked of the FRA and the answer was no; you can’t use federal funds alone.
“I don’t see how they can possibly not have a delay in the construction start”
Well, if you listened to the comments people made to you in your previous posts, you would understand. But instead, you keep your anti-HSR blinders on.
Eric M Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
ooops, duplicate. please delete
Guys, morris is throwing around his hot air, but the Fresno alignment is far from a sure thing. The lack of NIMBYism in Fresno, is quite frankly, worrying. We know NIMBYs exist. What are they waiting for? Are they going to drop a “nobody told us anything, lawsuit time” bomb next summer or what?
Surely the zoo is a wee bit concerned about the proposed route right…?
The kings county discussion is ongoing now, so stuff can be worked out in time for construction.
High speed rail means quicker trip to poor house
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/38/article/28064/
Editoria from the Manteca press which refutes so much of the PR the Authority has tried to convince the CV of the HSR project.
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 5:10 am
Right. The Manteca Bulletin. Truly the greatest in investigative journalism.
Donk Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 7:31 am
It really amazes me how passionate Morris is against this project. Sometimes you just have to let things go and move on with life.
Mike Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Well, the Caltrain tracks go by Morris’s home, so, like quite a few people, he’s taken a legitimate personal concern and blown it up into a passionate (if poorly informed) attack on all aspects of the project.
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:27 am
I wonder if Morris is planning on laying down in front of the bulldozers when they start construction in the Central Valley?
James Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Let me know so I can hitch a ride on the Vogon ship. You know, Prop and EIR text can be rather poetic.
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Where’s Arthur Dent to comment when you need him?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Looking for his towel
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:06 am
I wouldn’t dismiss the article as aggressively anti-HSR since the usual lies are absent from it. Still, it is superficial and lacks vision.
The journalist says HSR will kill jobs. This is inevitable since HSR is a game changer, but what counts is the jobs-created/jobs-lost ratio. It has been largely positive in France, why shouldn’t it be in California?
HSR can change a city for the better if city officials and business people team up to make the most of it. HSR is the fastest and most comfortable way to get somewhere. It does it well, but it does just
that. Cities must do their bit, too. Otherwise, nothing happens. It takes two to tango.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Yes, because by nothing and letting this Depression get worse while oil prices remain sky high we’re having such great success avoiding the poor house already…
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:03 am
HSR is not going to do anything about either the recession or oil prices. KeystoneXL is rather more likely to affect either of them.
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am
I wouldn’t expect much from KeystoneXL either. From energydigital:
However, while the project certainly looks good on paper economically, there are some other factors to consider. First off, 700,000 barrels of oil per day may seem like a lot, but Americans are currently using upward of around 20 million barrels per day. So Keystone XL would be bringing in roughly three to four percent of the oil the country demands. While that’s nothing to turn your nose up at, it is certainly not enough to sever U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which is one of the main arguments in favor of the oil sands pipeline. Not to mention, since oil is traded as a global commodity, it’s not likely the pipeline will actually drive down prices at the pump, because those prices are based on futures speculation these days. Oil sands oil has been making its way to market for years now, and will continue to do so with or without Keystone XL.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Oh, I don’t think it’ll do terribly much. Just more in those veins than HSR.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I don’t think it will do anything at all. It has to do with oil being a global commodity, bought and sold by global businesses.
What this means is that all the oil goes into the global marketplace, no matter where it is produced or used. Such a global marketplace means we compete or bid against the world for oil, even for our own, and even when our own is both produced and consumed here.
Rachel Maddow explains this better than I seem to be able to do, and is more entertaining as well:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×476906
A comment: This seems like the sort of thing we should be hearing from Mr. Obama, Mr. Van Ark, Mr. Brown, Mr. LaHood, and a host of other rail supporters, and not just for HSR, but for the whole alternative transportation spectrum that rail can be–and yet there is little heard about this. Does this suggest our leadership believes our fellow citizens may be unable to handle the truth, as portrayed by Jack Nicholson’s Col. Nathan R. Jessup in “A Few Good Men?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
What if that is what our leadership thinks–and what if they are right?
synonymouse Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Hsr projects won’t prevent a depression, which is probably a cyclical phenomenon, but if they add to a pattern of blowing large amounts of money on poorly conceived schemes that would be only part of the problem not of the solution.
Meantime powerful interests insist on a continuing huge military budget:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/06/will-our-military-soon-be-unable-to-prevent-world-war-iii/
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Again, this is not exactly a source of information I would trust.
Beta Magellan Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I think syn’s using it as an example of people wanting to keep our military budget unreasonably high, not as a ringing endorsement of what the article says.
synonymouse Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The US today is not the British Empire of the 19th century. We have to take a realistic look at how much of a global policeman we can take on.
The Fox article brings up the events that lead up to the guns of August 1914, which proved to be an absolute disaster for all parties and made WWII virtually inevitable. And a great part of the blame lies in the failure to integrate an ascendant Germany into a reasonably stable Europe. Sound familiar?
It is not easy – you can’t appease but you also have to accommodate changes in the balance of power. I for one am not interested in bankrolling a Pax Americana while we ignore a “balkan power keg” on our southern border.
synonymouse Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
should have read “balkan powder keg”
J. Wong Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:26 am
It actually doesn’t refute anything, just makes unsupported claims. They’re also forgetting that the maintenance facility will be situated in the Central Valley as well. Lots of permanent jobs from that.
synonymouse Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:30 am
This article take the the somewhat different and unusual tack, rather like Barstow’s position vis-a-vis the Desert Express, etc, that hsr will reduce traffic on I-5 and deprive local business of drop-in motorist spending. I don’t think there is much substance to this argument, but clearly this writer is opposed to both 99 and I-5 alignments. He wants the hsr dumped in favor of regional mass transit, somewhat like the Oakland Tribune pushing BART over the CHSRA.
The way to deal with this opposition is to dump neo 99 in favor of I-5, add Tejon and Sac, and in the process reduce the overall cost by a major factor. Let LA and SF regions pay for the starter, as they both benefit the most and can afford to fund it on their own.
I’m pretty sure that in the Fresno to Bakersfield EIR, option 17, which pencils out to just about $6.25 billion includes the Hanford ByPass and another bypass around Allensworth State Park…
What costs 51.5 million per mile, faces heavy environmentalist opposition, and is being broken into segments for construction? The SR 241 extension! Of course, as long as CAHSR doesn’t wind up with the same fate, thing would be good.
Skepticism in DC could derail high-speed trains for state
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/14096/highspeedrail
In depth appraisal of what is happening with HSR funding on the Federal level.
“It’s a setback,” said Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050, an initiative of the Regional Plan Association, an urban research and advocacy group, describing the current political climate as “hostile” to high-speed rail. But she said that doesn’t mean Obama’s vision for a national network is dead.
…
“Senate appropriators have done more than merely declare a temporary slowdown in the high-speed rail program,” Ken Orski, a transportation analyst who used to work for the Nixon and Ford administrations, recently wrote in his policy newsletter. “They have effectively given a vote of ‘no confidence’ to President Obama’s signature infrastructure initiative.”
Orksi said that the Senate’s meager sum, combined with the House’s defunding move, sends a “bipartisan signal that Congress has no appetite” for funding such a massive new program.
So for how many years is this ICS segment if built, going to be the only piece of tracks put down?
Peter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:56 am
We’re in it for the long haul. A couple of years from now, the public sentiment can easily swing back. Waiting for the entire project to be funded before starting any construction is stupid and unrealistic.
FYI, if anyone here is interested…
IEEE Spectrum & The IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section Present IEEE Spectrum Emerging Technology Forum Series:
Event 2: Reinventing Infrastructure for High Speed Rail
DATE: 24 Oct 2011
TIME: 5:30PM – 7:30PM Pacific Time (Doors open at 4:30PM for sign In)
Wine & Cheese reception will follow event.
LOCATION:
Computer History Museum, Hahn Auditorium
Mountain View, CA
(1401 N Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043)
IEEE Spectrum and the IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section present the second of this year’s series of emerging technology forums on technology invented in Silicon Valley offering new business opportunities and growth for Silicon Valley companies and EE’s.
On Monday October 24th, expert panelists representing industry & research will discuss the new generation of innovations that are building out new high speed rail projects around the world. The scale of transformation, the number of people involved, and the huge number of applications forced to consolidate to build out new rail infrastructure worldwide makes this an exciting topic for Bay Area IEEE Members.
Will Silicon Valley define the future direction of America’s greatest manufacturing industry? Register today to attend, and listen to our distinguished panel to find out.
This is a live event with a maximum attendance of 350 people, so sign up today!
For IEEE members who cannot attend in person this event will be available on demand by Oct 31st.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/webinar/1923070
Comments on HSR, including some on California, from the Infrastructurist:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/10/06/can-high-speed-rail-be-saved/#comments
Are they revisiting all the routing options they tossed out, or are they just taking a closer look at metro Lemoore? Moving the station farther and farther from Visalia seems like a bigger and bigger mistake to me.
I understand why the Union Pacific doesn’t want to be boxed in by Hwy 99 to its west, and by HSR tracks to its east, if that was the plan. That was given as the justification for a station near Hanford. Was an HSR easement just west of Hwy 99 considered? It seems to be mostly farmland. Having HSR occupying that strip will keep a lot of the dust and soot from the highway traffic from contaminating crops. It also eliminates the problem of cutting farmers’ fields in half. Caltrans widens highways all the time, which is the same thing, and people don’t get nearly as up-in-arms as they are over the HSR route by Hanford.