High speed rail's collision course
The California High Speed Rail Authority will convene tomorrow in Sacramento and could decide on the system's Bay Area track alignment, but Chairman Quentin Kopp tells the Guardian that they probably won't be able to make that crucial decision yet. That's because powerful advocates for the Pacheco Pass alignment and those who favor Altamount Pass are each firmly entrenched in their respective positions and threatening to derail the already difficult project if they don't get their way.
"People will either come to their senses or there won't be any high speed rail in California until the next century," said Kopp, who created the project as a legislator back in the mid-'90s. "If people want to be destructive instead of constructive, people can try to sink this project."
High speed rail, which would take passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two and a half hours at far lower financial and environmental costs than traveling by car or air, already faced problems with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly delayed a $10 billion bond measure now set for fall of 2008. And now, even its supporters are threatening to jump ship over the Bay Area alignment.
The Sierra Club and other environmentalists have teamed up with Central Valley officials to support the Altamont Pass route, which would lessen car traffic through that congested corridor and possibly have fewer environmental hurdles, but most San Francisco and South Bay politicos favor the Pacheco Pass route, which is cheaper and easier to bring the trains up the peninsula to the Transbay Terminal in downtown SF.
CHSRA executive director Mehdi Morshed tried to split the baby last month by recommending the Pacheco alignment but including a simultaneous effort to create another rail line (possibly a BART line) through the Altamount to allow Central Valley residents to access the system without getting into their cars. Not only would that increase costs and make the whole project a tougher sell with Schwarzenegger and other conservatives, but it didn't seem to satisfy the two alignment camps.
Both sides have rattled their political sabers and threatened everything from lawsuits to withdrawn support and funding if they don't get their way. The most recent threat came from a group of South Bay members of Congress led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who wrote a letter threatening to block federal funding for the project if the CHSRA selects the Altamount option.
Kopp, a judge and veteran lawmaker, is trying to find some way forward, but says that he doesn't see his board being able to choose between the routes until its February meeting at the earliest, maybe even March. But the discussion tomorrow is likely to be interesting nonetheless, as Kopp's colleagues stake out their positions and the board and staff prepare formal responses to everyone's comments and search for the light at the end of the tunnel.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
Where the hell is "Altamount"? Get an editor.
The Pacheco lobby has the position of, effectively, "Ooh ooh look at us we're a big city just like San Francisco!" Their entire platform rests on the idea that every train bound for SF must stop in SJ.
There is no sensible reason to build the Pacheco route. The travel time to LA is about the same either way, and the cost is about the same both ways, but the Altamont route serves a million more people and cuts an hour off the trip from SF to Sacramento. That should be a strong enough case for anyone.
Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker | December 18, 2007 08:50 PM
People of California should resolve this important issue based on the future supply of oil.
It will decrease rapidly. So while you are arguing on the route, oil resources in the world are steadily shrinking. Then, 20 tears later, average people cannot buy gas because it will be too expensive.
So you have to stop and think to find out the best. I would suggest to built two routes that are argued about.
In a long run, construction of the two would be appreciated by the next generations.
I am not living in your state. But I an advocate to high speed train system.
Posted by Hitoshi Maruyama, Ph.D | December 19, 2007 08:47 AM
The problem with bringing HSR into the Bay Area is that unless significant investment is made in land acquisition and appropriate grade separation, the trains will run at BART/CalTrain speed here, making the "last mile" as arduous as the entire trip from the south.
HSR is an integrated system, not a line, and everything has to be in place for it to function optimally. In France and Germany, the TGV and ICE trains always slow down to normal speeds when entering urban areas and not only is grade separated but there is fencing to seal off the trackways from interlopers.
What is really needed and what HSR can bring is a new transbay tube connecting OAK and SFO airports. Whether or not one could run BART trains with their wide gauge on the same tracks with HSR, as is proposed in at least one of the network alternatives remains to be seen.
Another alternative would be to have a high speed loop system ringing the bay where the HSR could come in over Altamont and connect. That might involve adding new express tracks to BART and replacing CalTrain with BART on the peninsula.
Otherwise, what's the point off getting from LA to Oakland or SJ in 2.5 hr and having it take another hour or 30 min to get to SF?
My only request (Art In Transit?) is that when going over Altamont pass, that the trains play a recording of the Rolling Stones performing "Sympathy for the Devil" at the Altamont Pop Festival where hippiedom died one night and Mick Jagger, in seeing a bloody melee going on before him as the Hell's Angels provide "security," quiets the band (Keith Richard doesn't quite get this and continues playing until Mick shuts him down) and Mick admonishes everyone "Hey, people, sisters and brothers, brothers and sisters, that means everybody, just cool out, will you cool out, everybody, i know, everybody be cool now, c'mon, alright, how we doing over there? alright?" "We always, something very funny happens when we start that number."
What's been puzzlin' y'all is the nature of my game.
-marc
Posted by marc | December 19, 2007 09:51 AM
Update: The California High Speed Rail Authority essentially chose the Pacheco Pass option yesterday -- simply by doing nothing. Staff is preparing the EIR with Pacheco as the least environmentally harmful option, something it will continue to do unless directed otherwise by the board. "So we will proceed forward and complete the report with Pacheco Pass as the preferred alignment," CHSRA executive director Mehdi Morshed told me. Final approval of the EIR is expected March 5 and then its on to the November bond measure. Read next week's paper for more or check back here for updates.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | December 20, 2007 03:58 PM
I can think of some good reasons why this is OK just of the top of my head. First, not everyone is going to San Francisco. So Oakland, San Jose, or some point San Jose and San Francisco will actually be the final destination for a number of riders.
Second, it's still faster than driving and, presumably, cheaper than flying. And if you're in SF it takes a half hour to get to the airport anyhow.
Posted by Jeromo T. Watson | October 14, 2008 11:23 AM