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 Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) will have its biweekly meeting to address issues related to the California High Speed Rail project. PCC Agenda 4/2/2010

Where: Council Chambers City of Atherton 91 Ashfield Rd.

Resources
PCC Website

Peninsula Rail Program Website (contains useful links to agreements with California High Speed Rail and context sensitive solutions)

Letter requesting extension for comment period for alternatives analysis for San Francisco – San Jose segment

Letter Requesting 30 day extension on Draft Program Level EIR

What: The Palo Alto City Council Subcommittee will meet to discuss how to implement Context Sensitive Solutions for the California High Speed Rail project (agenda).

Where: Palo Alto City Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA

What:  Opportunity to have your say about the vision for the 500 acres in the  San Jose Diridon Station Area, home of a planned station for the California High Speed Rail project.  On Saturday, March 27, 2010, community members are invited to join the planning team from the City of San José for a Diridon Station Area Plan Alternative Analysis Workshop. The second in a series of community workshops for the Station Area Plan, participants will be involved in hands-on activities to identify preferred land use and station options for the Diridon Station Area Plan. More information.

Where:  San Jose City Hall,  Wing Rooms 118-120 200 East Santa Clara St., near the corner of S. Fourth and E. San Carlos streets. Free parking will be available at the Fourth and San Fernando streets garage.  Try google maps new transit functionality or 511.org for public transit options.

News Coverage

San Jose Mercury News

Resources

Do you have a California High Speed Rail related event you want publicized? Do you have great links to share? Send them to info@calhsr.com

What: The Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) will have its biweekly meeting to address issues related to the California High Speed Rail project. The Peninsula Rail Project (a joint venture between the California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain) will preview the “toolkit”, a way to allow stakeholders to participate in design decisions

Where: Council Chambers City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA

Resources

PCC Website

PCC Agenda March 19, 2010

Peninsula Rail Program Website (contains useful links to agreements with California High Speed Rail and context sensitive solutions)

What: RailPAC, an advocacy group for rail passenger service in California and Nevada, and NARP, the National Association of Rail Passengers, will hold an all day meeting in Los Angeles. There will be several high speed rail panels. There is a $40 charge for members/ $50 non-members  Meeting registration and information

Where:  MTA Board Room at Gateway Center, located behind Los Angeles Union Station

PROGRAM Subject to change without notice

9:00 AM – Registration and badge pick up (Coffee and pastry service)

9:30 AM – Welcome:  L.A. City Council Member Tom LaBonge

9:45 AM – Opening Address:  Hon. Ara Najarian, Chairman, Metro Board

10:00 AM – High Speed Rail:  The Builders

• Talgo USA
• Siemens
• Desert Xpress, Tom Stone (invited)

11:00 AM – High Speed Rail: How to spend the first billion dollars.

• Mike McGinley, TRAC Board and RailPAC member
• Erin Steva, CALPIRG
• Darell Clarke, Sierra Club, Los Angeles Transportation Committee
• Dan Krause, Californians for High Speed Rail
• Jarard Wright, Transit Coalition
• Paul Dyson, RailPAC
• Questions and opinions

12.00 PM – Lunch (Box lunch in cafeteria)

• Platform exhibit at Union Station subject to availability

1:00 PM – The National System

• Steven Gardner -  Amtrak VP
  (Brian Rosenwald, confirmed back up)

2:00 PM – California State Rail Program

• Bill Bronte – Chief, Division of Rail

2:30 PM – LOSSAN and Southern California Commuter Service

• Art Brown (invited)
• Keith Millhouse

3:30 PM – Passenger Rail Advocacy – Where do we go from here?

• George Chilson, retiring NARP President

4:00 PM – Members comments and discussion

5:00 PM – Adjourn

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.

Original meeting notice (WITH PREVIEW)

The March meeting of the Califorina High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was largely uneventful and shorter than some recent marathon sessions. There were no angry farmers from the Central Valley and a lot of discussion has gotten pushed off to committee meetings held the day prior to the main board meeting.  Several big reports on route selection that were originally scheduled for the meeting got pushed off. A potentially hot topic, the justification of revenue guarantees, got scant mention, although a Business Plan addendum was promised for next month’s board meeting.

Vision California
There was a pretty presentation from Peter Calthorpe about the benefits of smart growth. Calthorpe is doing a project for the High Speed Rail Authority called “Vision California”. The only issue, pointed out by a number of board members, is the results of the study may not be available before most of the big decisions are made.

Audit
The State Department of Audits has been conducting an audit on the CHSRA, the first one to be conducted in its history and one requested by Senators Lowenthal and Huff at a hearing in May 2009 (PDF link, see page 17) . The Authority announced they are going to get the results on April 12th and they will have 5 days to respond, after which it will be released the public.

New Program Environmental Impact Review
The revised Program Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for the Bay Area to the Central Valley (the one they originally completed in 2008 but had to decertify in 2009 under a court order because it was deemed “inadequate”) will be posted online tonight although the official 45 day comment period won’t start until March 11.

We haven’t seen the document yet but it was suggested that only very minor changes will be made.

They announced a public hearing on April 7th in San Jose. The board meetings and committee meetings will also be held in San Jose, with the board meeting on April 8th (this is a change from the previously announced April date).

We complained that everything about the process the HSRA has proposed is the the bare minimum.  For instance, even people who live next to the train tracks won’t necessarily be noticed.

In response, board member Quentin Kopp asked the Authority’s lawyer (a member of the attorney general’s office) if their course of action met the letter of the law. She said, yes it did – so far.

Once again, we are back to the letter vs the spirit of the law. The success or failure of High Speed Rail in California hinges critically on the support and confidence of the public and these antics don’t help.

Farewell to Mehdi
The last part of the meeting was dedicated to thanking executive director Mehdi Morshed for his service. Mr. Morshed is retiring at the end of the month and this was his last board meeting. Along with deputies Dan Leavitt and Carrie Pourvahidi,  Morshed was at times the entirety of the CHSRA.

Speaking of Carrie P, she got the nod as interim director while the search continues for a permanent CEO.

Carrie Pourvahidi joined the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) in 1998 as the Chief Fiscal Officer. In 2001, Carrie became one of two Deputy Director’s for the Authority. She is currently in charge of directing the work of the Program Management Team as well as the preliminary engineering and environmental efforts currently underway in the three regions stretching from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

Carrie comes to this position with experience in transportation finance having held positions at Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the Department of Transportation. She is also directing development of the Financing Plan for the entire high-speed train program.

An interview with Carrie Pourvahidi

CARRD welcomes and encourages submissions from members of the public. Our current editorial policy (subject to change if circumstances warrant) is to publish items as-is, so the usual caveats apply. If you would like to submit a report or correct anything you see on our site, just email us at info@calhsr.com.

Original meeting notice

History Director of Public Works Larry Patterson stated the “City has been very proactive” giving an abbreviated overview of what the city has done from 1994 through 2009, much of which, until recently, has been focused on Caltrain grade separation and transit oriented developments (TOD) along the tracks.  It is acknowledged that this work is helpful in developing a plan for HSR.  Director Patterson pointed to more recent, ongoing participation in the HSR in the form of the Policy Working Group (PWG), Technical Working Group (TWG) and interaction with rail program staff, including the recent bus tour with the HSRA Chair, Curt Pringle and staff.  The City firmly supports Prop 1a.   
 
CSS.  The City of San Mateo rolled out Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) with a CSS public workshop to follow on March 17 at the Main Library.  (Ed. Note: the City only just added HSR information to the City website in February.)  Mr. Patterson outlined how CSS input could take place and how the information should flow in an iterative process from public workshop to council review to the TWG/PWG groups to the Peninsula Rail Program (PRP) folks and back around to new workshops, and so on.  Stake holders were identified.  Council member Brandt Grutte, also the council’s HSR contact, urged concerned people to get involved early, but requested they commit to the process long term.  Director Patterson expressed a concern shared with several members of the council that without HSR, there is not a clear funding mechanism to accomplish grade separation.  (Ed Note. Is it any clearer with HSR?)  However council also agreed there are two big issues surrounding HSR; the aggressive schedule and the budget constraints, and acknowledged the lack of real detail thus far.  Council Member Jack Mathews noted it took 5 years for the 2nd phase grade separation study for Caltrain versus 60 days (I think I heard him right, but you get the idea) for HSR.  This lead to the next concern of whether or not San Mateo has some assurance the CHSRA will be sensitive to San Mateo’s concerns?  Will they be reimbursed for such things as loss of business, relocation of business, costs of streets, etc.?  The City does recognize the benefits of a potential reduced impact to their downtown with grade separation, especially if run below grade (i.e. air rights), and the need for electrification of Caltrain.  But Council Member Mathews asked, “Is the community comfortable with what they [CHSRA] have come up with?”
 
Strategy.  San Mateo’s present (and past) strategy is to operate independent of the other cities of the Peninsula.  Council Member David Lim, a trial lawyer, said in his profession it is thought that “Louder is not better.”  Joining the lawsuit is not a good idea.  For now San Mateo will be doing their work quietly and collaboratively with the CHSRA.  He said Burlingame will not be able to work collaboratively with the CHSRA (inferring due to membership in the Peninsula Cities Coalition (PCC)), and because of that will need to spend excess money to defend its position while possibly closing a library and fire station to do so.  He does not want San Mateo to go down that road.  San Mateo plans to wine and dine, call, get to know the CHSRA board members in an effort to make their position heard.  They also noted the need to be visible and heard with the legislators.  In order to carry any weight, they need to build relationships in Sacramento.  Council member Lim said they need to “lobby hard”.
 
Guests.HSR reps Mike Garvey and Bruce Fukuji were present but only Bruce spoke briefly.
 
Mayor’s remarks.Seeming to acknowledge that public outreach hasn’t been what it should, Mayor Lee reassured the public that they “didn’t just open the can today.”  He further stated Asia & Europe have been there a long time.  It’s time to join the world.”  He noted the sheer scale of this project including the number of grade separations (crossings) just between SF and SJ.  He said San Mateo is the largest city on the Peninsula – next to Daly City, but Daly City is not involved – with three stations and 96K people.  Therefore he thinks they should have more input than smaller towns.  Right now Caltrain runs 90 trains/day and is at capacity.  With electrification they can run a lot more.  He is concerned about timing.  45 Days for a scoping period is not enough time for a large city such as San Mateo to respond.  He asked how is it funded?  What is private funding?  Bruce Fukuji, while admittedly not working on the business model, took a stab at explaining that the revenue generated from the system to attract private investors is estimated at something like “$1B per year, not including capital costs.”  (Ed Note: Would it operate at a loss with capital costs included, thus not comply with the law as it then requires public subsidy?)  The mayor was insistent that the HSR has to go below grade downtown.  He ended with the confident thought that he sees no reason why any one of the council members should not be able to pick up the phone and have a conversation with any member of the rail board.
 
Public comment (pardon the name mistakes). 
Ted Crocker reminded the council that the CHSRA Board is not legally held to CSS, he pointed out efforts in Sacramento to push through CEQA exemption legislation that could be used on projects like HSR and wondered if San Mateo had considered engaging a lobbyist to stay on top of such legislation, and he recommended the City join the PCC while pointing out that that the lawsuit and the PCC are separate from each other. Rick Bonia, a Rep of Carpenters Union supports HSR as viable option.  Marshall (?) Supports HSR, has experience with Shinkansen, but says quit waiting for HSR to come to SM with details.  Dillon Sweeney urges taking a strong stance in favor of tunneling and don’t be in a rush to be conciliatory.  Ben Toy said a lot, including asking San Mateo to request clarification on the transition lengths from above ground to underground.  Mike Agena wondered why the City has not invited any experts from Japan and the like and supports a tunnel.  David (?) mentioned something, I’m not sure – he was nervous – about operate Caltrain & Freight at the same time…construction complicated and HSRA doesn’t know how to do it; so much money was spent on San Carlos and Belmont and Vice Mayor Omar Ahmad says grade separation works so tunneling is not necessary.
 
Council final remarks.
BG said there is a limited window of opportunity.  JM said we are looking out for our city.  DL said he recommends CSS, and was wondering how soon is the $2.25B stimulus money going to be allocated?  What do we have that is shovel ready?  There should be an “all hands on deck” to make sure San Mateo gets all they can.  JL mentioned meetings with Yee and Hill this month.  RR reiterated the City is doing everything they can and recommends CSS.  The Mayor again, “It’s going to happen anyway.  Let’s do it right!”  Several council members cringed at this last remark.

CARRD welcomes and encourages submissions from members of the public. Our current editorial policy (subject to change if circumstances warrant) is to publish items as-is, so the usual caveats apply. If you would like to submit a report or correct anything you see on our site, just email us at info@calhsr.com.

What: The Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) will have its biweekly meeting to address issues related to the California High Speed Rail project.

Where: Council Chambers City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA

Resources

PCC Website (peninsularail.com)

March 5, 2010 Meeting Agenda

February 19, 2010 Draft Minutes