High-speed rail opposition picks up speed
By: Will Reisman
April 30, 2009
 |
| ‘A great idea, if done properly’: Palo Alto City Council member Larry Klein stands at the Caltrain crossing at Churchill and Alma streets, pointing out homes that would have to be moved for high-speed rail. (Mike Koozmin/Special to The Examiner) |
They backed the funding of high-speed rail, but as plans emerge for the system, Peninsula residents are starting to question the fine print beneath that historic decision.
Just six months ago, a strong majority of Peninsula voters — 61 percent — supported a statewide measure to pledge $9.95 billion for the development of a high-speed rail system in California.
The promise of the $45 billion project is a state-of-the-art train that will whisk passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes. The proposed system is projected to carry 94 million passengers annually by the year 2030, according to the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Next month, a lawsuit challenging the rail system’s planned routing between Fresno and San Francisco will go before a Sacramento judge.
Menlo Park and Atherton are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Earlier this month, Palo Alto voted to back the lawsuit by filing a friend-of-the-court brief that outlines its shared objection to the project and preference that it run through the East Bay instead.
The high-speed rail route in the Peninsula will follow existing commuter train tracks, according to an agreement Caltrain approved with the California High Speed Rail Authority on April 2. Specific details on whether the high-speed train would run above, below or next to Caltrain won’t be clarified for another 9 to 12 months, but it is certain that the existing trackway that Caltrain uses between San Francisco and San Jose would have to be expanded greatly. The trackway for high-speed rail would also have to be either raised or lowered to prevent any crossings with streets.
The possibility of towering retaining walls and elevated platforms creating barriers in communities is what pushed the cities to pursue a lawsuit against the state’s high-speed rail agency. Several rail watchdogs, including the Palo Alto-based Bay Rail Alliance, are also plaintiffs.
“The more we’ve gotten into it, the more we think the procedures determining the route were flawed,” Palo Alto City Council member Larry Klein said. “We think high-speed rail is a great idea, if done properly.”
If the lawsuit — which asks that the court rescind the decision to move the route through the Peninsula in order to conduct further environmental review — is successful, it would be disastrous for the progress of high-speed rail, according to Ron Diridon, chairman of the CHSRA.
“This would set the timetable back two to three years for high-speed rail, and probably cost another $3 million,” he said. “We wouldn’t be eligible for federal stimulus funds, and we wouldn’t be able to spend the state bond money until the study was completed.”
In addition to the cities that are party to the lawsuit, other communities and officials on the Peninsula have expressed concern about the possible negative effects of the high-speed rail route.
“When the bond issue passed in November everyone here was real excited,” said Redwood City Mayor Rosanne Foust. “But like they say, the devil is in the details, and when it became clear that this could be a reality, we realized there needed to be a whole lot of community dialogue to discuss how this would affect our city.”
State Assemblyman Jerry Hill said the key issue for Peninsula cities is ensuring that high-speed rail doesn’t create a divide.
“You want to avoid creating a scar down the middle of the community,” Hill said. “We want to be real careful that there is no
socio-geographic distinction to being on one side of the tracks.”
Some Peninsula cities want the system to run underground, an alternative that would likely be more expensive, according to Tony Daniels, project manager for the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Syed Murtuza, Burlingame’s public works director, said elevated train tracks would decrease property values of nearby homes, and the constant whirring of trains could be seen as a nuisance.
“It’s questionable if the county’s residents knew enough information about the high-speed rail before they voted,” Murtuza said.
Menlo Park resident Martin Engel has been an outspoken critic of plans for high-speed rail.
“Our home values will absolutely plummet with the prospect of 200 trains a day going by outside,” he said. “While we speculate about what could happen, they’re not telling us anything about what their plans are.”
To such criticism, Diridon counters that the California High Speed Rail Authority held countless public meetings with the Peninsula before the November vote. He said community concerns are currently being carefully weighed.
The development of high-speed rail in California would bring countless benefits to the state, Diridon said. The system would decrease noise and air pollution from cars and airplanes, bring jobs and free the state from reliability on foreign oil.
Many rail-route decisions remain to be made
On April 2, Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority entered into a memorandum of understanding to work together on bringing the proposed rail system through the Peninsula.
Entering into a right-of-way agreement with Caltrain prevents the High Speed Rail Authority from having to buy costly — and rare — tracts of undeveloped land in the Peninsula, according to Christine Dunn, spokeswoman for Caltrain.
In turn, Caltrain is expected to get funding revenue from the high speed rail agency that would benefit capital improvement projects, notably the electrification of Caltrain’s trackway, Dunn said.
While the two sides are working toward the right-of-way agreement, nothing is set in stone yet, said CHSRA board member Rod Diridon. If the rail authority’s environmental review studies indicate that underground tunnels would be the best route for the system, then a contract agreement with Caltrain would likely be unnecessary, he said.
Peninsula stations undecided
The plans for California’s high speed rail system include a maximum of 22 stations spread across the state.
A station in Millbrae — home to existing BART and Caltrain stops — is likely; a second planned depot on the Peninsula is still up for grabs, according to Diridon.
Officials are considering a stop in either Redwood City or Palo Alto — if either city wants it.
“They have to show interest and enthusiasm in rezoning and infrastructure issues that would be necessary to house a station,” said Diridon.
Palo Alto, however, joined a lawsuit earlier this month that questions whether the high-speed rail authority made the right decision in choosing the Peninsula instead of the East Bay for the system’s path.
Redwood City mayor Rosanne Foust said her community needs more information before it is willing to consider the idea of hosting a stop on the high-speed rail route.
“Overall for the state, high-speed rail brings tremendous opportunities, but what would the benefits be for a stop in Redwood City?” Foust asked. “We don’t know yet if this would be an economic advantage.”
Funding flows from federal, state sources
A $9.95 billion bond approved by California voters in November, along with $3 billion to $4 billion potentially coming in federal stimulus funds, is helping move the state’s $45 billion project along its track.
The first phase of the project, which will incrementally build up high-speed rail corridors to eventually connect Los Angeles with San Francisco, is projected to cost about $33 billion, according to Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama announced $8 billion in federal stimulus funds would be dedicated to high-speed rail. No region in the country has a plan as advanced as California’s, so the state is hoping to get somewhere between $2.9 billion and $3.9 billion of that funding, Kopp said.
The federal government will release criteria for the funding this summer, according to Kopp.
The state’s high-speed-rail agency is also counting on $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion to come from private equity, Kopp said. Federal grants should amount to between $12 billion to $16 billion, and local and regional funding is projected to be $2 billion to $3 billion.
“We feel very confident about our funding approach,” Kopp said.
Rapid Transit
Projected travel times for journeys on the proposed high-speed rail system:
- Burbank to San Francisco: Under 2 hours 35 minutes
- San Jose to Los Angeles: 2 hours 21 minutes
- Sacramento to Los Angeles: 2 hours 17 minutes
- S.F. to San Jose: 30 minutes
- Riverside to Los Angeles: 33 minutes
- Bakersfield to Los Angeles: Less than 1 hour
- Ontario to San Diego: Less than 1 hour
- Fresno to San Francisco Airport: Just over an hour
Source: California High Speed Rail Authority
California express
Details of the proposed statewide high-speed rail system:
800
Miles of proposed system
88-117 million
Passengers projected annually for the entire system by 2030
160,000
Construction-related jobs projected to plan, design and build the system
Source: California High Speed Rail Authority
wreisman@sfexaminer.com
