We look forward to seeing how public input was incorporated to the plan.

Given the media reports on apparent substantive changes, CARRD is recommending that the Authority consider issuing a second draft plan to give both the public and the Peer Review Group a chance to review the changes and offer their insights.  

We think it is prudent to take an extra month or two on a 100 year project to get this right.

See our letter to the board here. 

The full report is available at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-504.pdf

We recommend reading the long version (always!) as it provides much greater insight into the problems resulting from too many consultants and not enough staff that CARRD has been highlighting for years.

Also, don’t miss the NY Times piece called Room for Debate.

The NY Times poses the question: Does California need a high speed rail line, ultimately connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles? Can the state afford it?

There are 6 different perspectives, including CARRD’s. Be sure to read them all!

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/26/does-california-need-high-speed-rail

CARRD has written a letter to various agencies (Santa Clara VTA Board Members, LAFCO Board Members, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors) and the City of Gilroy leaders regarding the Gilroy station alternatives.

Our letter on this issue and supporting documents area available here.

At the VTA board meeting held on March 3rd, 2011, the board approved the programming of $150,000 in Local Program Reserve (LPR) funds for the City of Gilroy High Speed Train Station Comparative Visioning Project to analyze two completely unique station locations and alignments.

Per VTA’s staff report: “One station alternative is in a small city downtown core location with a mature roadway network, existing transportation services and built infrastructure. The other station alternative is in a rural agricultural area outside the city limits with no road network, infrastructure or supporting transit services.”

The alternative described by the Authority as the “East Gilroy Station” lies within an area known as the “Gilroy Ag Preserve” that is protected by an existing 20 year inter-jurisdictional agreement between LAFCO, the City of Gilroy and the County Board of Supervisors prohibiting development.

CARRD is requesting that the agencies review their policies and procedures and to work together to determine the viability of station alternatives for Gilroy.

For more information about the history of the Gilroy Ag Preserve see the following:

Greenbelt Alliance – http://greenbelt.org/resources/press/releases/2_2_02release_camp_gilroy660.html

Story from Gilroy Dispatch: Farmland fight in the making

Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter discussing the importance of the Ag preserve

*UPDATE:  March 18, 2011 LAFCO sends letter to City of Gilroy along with a copy of its policies.

LAFCO Comment Letter

LAFCO Policies Attachment

Report: Strategies to Balanced Planned Growth and Agricultural Viability in the areas south and east of Gilroy

*UPDATE: March 10, 2011 Committee for Green Foothills formally opposes East 101 station location.

Statement opposing a proposed eastern location for the Gilroy train station, Committee for Green Foothills

Things to note about the recommendation:

1) The price tag of $4.15 billion is up almost $1 billion from August.

2) A lot of the cost is to beef up the extensive viaduct structures to withstand the weight of the heavy locomotives currently used by the San Joaquin Amtrak service. This will cost several hundred million dollars and result in bulky structures bisecting Fresno and other communities. These expensive modifications are for “Plan B”, a loosely defined idea to use the tracks for Amtrak service, if this high speed rail construction is the only high speed rail construction. This seems contrary to the whole purpose of true high speed rail, which features very light weight trains and lower cost construction. It is worth noting that adding heavy rail to the Bay Bridge replacement was rejected because of the incremental cost. In that case, the rail infrastructure would have been definitely used and had high value.  Please see our brief report for more information, as well as a packet of the source documents we used.

3) The extra costs have escalated the price tag for current plans well above the current $43 billion estimate. How high exactly we don’t know. CEO Roelof van Ark is adamant that he will deliver the project for $43 billion and we get some hint as to the “value engineering” required to keep the overall cost down.   First, we see that the station in Fresno will be “bare bones” and only have two tracks through the station. Second, the criteria for selecting a segment included not building anything “north of the wye”.  The wye is the turnoff to the Bay Area. Building north of there never made any sense, given the route selected to get from the Central Valley to San Jose.

In both cases, there is little to no reason to go back and do either project until you have trains running on a very frequent basis between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

4) Supporters of a station and heavy maintenance facility in Merced, the only proposed station “north of the wye”, will no doubt be out in force. It is likely that the tracks to Merced will not be built until service is extended towards Sacramento as part of Phase 2 of the project. They are able to read the writing on the wall and are up in arms, feeling like they have nothing to show for their unwavering support for the project.

In addition, the environmental review work is being done in such a way that the route will need to be cleared all the way to Merced by this September.  Merced could be sitting in limbo for a decade or more, with approved plans but no building taking place.

5) The Authority’s plans are carefully constructed to meet the Federal government’s requirements for “independent utility”. The state bond money, which has been promised as a match for federal grants, has it own, different strings attached. The high speed rail legislation includes serious safeguards to make sure that state money only pays for  tracks that lead to self-supporting high speed rail service. The only way in which the current approach meets these criteria is under a very liberal definition of a “funding plan”. To actually run trains, you will need electrification, high speed rail system elements and a maintenance facility, none of which are included in the current proposal.  The Authority’s stance, laid out at the last board meeting, is that they just need to have a vision for where the additional money to pay for these items will come from, akin to the current funding plans in the business plans. The legislation has a lot of hoops in it, including certification by the board that the plan is achievable. The question of whether the legislative requirements are just hoops to jump through or potential stumbling blocks is an important one  and should be resolved sooner rather than later.

6) It is worthwhile noting that the corridor selection decision is the only substantive item up for discussion at the board meeting. In addition, there are no committee meetings. In fact, no committee meetings have been held since September. We are concerned about the way in which the board’s oversight and public’s involvement has narrowed over the last couple of months.

7) Finally, it will be interesting to see which board members show up for the meeting. Richard Katz won’t be there. He did the right thing and resolved the conflict of interest over his various public offices by resigning from the board. Curt Pringle is alone in the hot seat, trying to hold onto his spot until the issue becomes moot when his term as Anaheim mayor ends next month.

Board meeting Agenda – http://stateofcalifornia.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=31
Documents for the board meeting – http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/2010_December.aspx

The City of Palo Alto is hosting a community meeting on HSR on Thursday, April 1st at 7PM in City Council Chambers at 250 Hamilton Street. They will provide a background of the project, explain the timelines involved and review how to provide a public comment.

What: The project’s planners are seeking public input on which alternative(s) Fresno residents prefer for the High Speed Rail train’s path through the city of Fresno and other issues such as the location of a station. Representatives will be on hand to answer questions and listen to ideas.  For more information call Eric VonBerg at (559) 256-1458 or email eric_vonberg@urscorp.com .

Where: Dante Club 6176 North Grantland Avenue Fresno, CA

Resources

Official meeting postcard

Presentation from recent meeting in Fresno Part 1 and Part 2 Information on options, noise and parking. All options assume a 12 mile structure elevated about 60 feet high.

Mockup of Fresno High Speed Rail structure, courtesy of archop.org

Read the entire post and discussion at archop.org about current plans for Fresno station

Fresno Draft Rail Realignment (AKA as Freight Consolidation) Report (132 page PDF)

Note: we have requested presentation on the study that was made at the Fresno COG Rail Committee meeting on February 19, 2010

Website for “FastTrack Fresno County” – long term project to improve transit in Fresno County

Please send corrections and additions to info@calhsr.com.  WE ARE LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEER TO WRITE A SHORT REPORT ON THIS MEETING.

What:  The Burbank City Council will decide on a response to the proposals for a potential station location and High Speed Rail alignment made by consultants for the California High Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”). CHSRA made a presentation to the city council at a council workshop on February 2, 2010 and held a community workshop on February 24, 2010.

Where: Burbank City Hall , 275 E. Olive Avenue

Resources

Burbank City Council Agenda (item 10)

Staff memo advising City Council on current issues (great summary of what city sees as the potential benefits, impacts and concerns of the project)

News coverage of the Burbank City Council’s hopes and fears

News coverage of February 24th community workshop, with information on how Burbank residents can provide input to the city of Burbank

CHSRA Presentation made at February 2, 2010 Burbank City Council Workshop. Watch the presentation

What: View maps, learn more about tunneling technologies and talk with members of the project development team. Project staff will discuss the above and below ground alignment alternatives and design options for the south of Diridon Station area. Local, regional and community representatives will join High-Speed Rail Authority staff to respond to questions and discuss community issues

Where: Gardner Community Center
520 W. Virginia Street,  San Jose

When: Tuesday, March 2, 2010
6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m

Resources

Official meeting postcard (in English and Spanish)

Meeting announcement on North Willow Glen neighborhood website