High Speed Rail - Working for a Solution

Group's letter to state reveals rift over high-speed rail plan By Mike Rosenberg, mediaNews A letter drafted to reflect the solidarity of Peninsula cities worried about the potential harm a proposed California high-speed rail line could inflict on their neighborhoods is instead exposing a widening rift. The one-page letter was written by the Consortium of Peninsula Rail Cities, an ad hoc group of concerned elected officials representing communities along the Caltrain corridor who fear being silenced during planning of the high-speed train project. The consortium is urging as many local cities as possible to sign its "mayors' letter," which asks the state to, among other things, consider cutting off the new rail line at San Jose. It also is asking the cities to formally join the consortium by endorsing legal documents that would allow it to negotiate with the rail authority as a unified front. But some cities in favor of the train have made it clear they want nothing to do with the group, some of whose members have tried to strike down the project. Other cities that haven't yet staked a position will decide by the end of the month whether to join the consortium or rely on their own resources and Caltrain board representatives in negotiating with the rail authority. The negotiation process has heated up as the authority accepts comments through April 6 from cities, groups and residents on the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment of the rail line. After that date the authority will launch an extensive environmental planning process. The consortium's letter asks the authority to consider whisking its bullet trains through the Peninsula via tunnels, below-grade trenches and other nondisruptive options. The letter also requests the authority to evaluate a "hybrid" option in which the high-speed rail line would end at San Jose and become a Caltrain "baby bullet" express line north to San Francisco. It also argues for more Caltrain commute-time service as part of the local train agency's agreement with the authority to share the track right-of-way. Backers of the group argue a united front would give cities a major voice in negotiating with the state, which they contend has ignored their concerns. So far, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton seem poised to sign the letter and lead the group through negotiations. Mountain View and South San Francisco have signaled they appear ready to jump on board. But opponents such as San Mateo and Redwood City fear being linked with cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton, whose leaders oppose the train plan. Menlo Park and Atherton have sued the state to stop the rail from going through the Peninsula. "Why would high-speed rail be open to an agreement with two cities that have filed a lawsuit against their ability to do what they're supposed to do?," Redwood City Mayor Rosanne Foust asked. San Mateo Deputy Mayor John Lee agreed. "I'm not going to go to a group that says, 'I hate high-speed rail,' " he said.

- Written by Fiona

Comments

[Joanne]

Burlingame has been curiously silent, hasn't it? Yet, we clearly have as much to lose by this HSR as Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton.
The comment from the Redwood City mayor is laughable -- sometimes it is the lawsuits that force you to negotiate, Ms. Foust. One need only look as far as Redwood City's downtown plan. (The plan was thrown out by a judge and will now force Redwood City to negotiate with those whose views they previously ignored). Lawsuits give motivation to negotiate - especially to those groups, like CSHSRA, that were content to ram their ideas through the planning process.

I hope our more rational and hard working councilmembers are working towards a solution that is constructive and productive and will work for Burlingame AND improve our public transit system

[Joanne]

What solution would that be? Wouldn't it be nice if those hard working council members shared their views publicly -- so they could learn whether they do, indeed, represent their constituents?

Looks to me like the consortium described in the above article is the one that has a constructive, productive solution that will work for Burlingame and improve our public transit system: Stop the high speed in San Jose and transfer to an already-existing CalTrain baby bullet (rather than have two rail systems going up the same line). What's not to like?

Palo Alto officials urge consideration of various high-speed rail options
By Will Oremus, San Mateo County Times

State high-speed rail officials should give just as much study to running their tracks underground as aboveground, Palo Alto officials said, though they noted that both alignments come with problems.

The city's Planning and Transportation Commission signed off Wednesday on a letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority that urges a close look at the planned Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line's impact on the residential neighborhoods it might divide.

If approved by the City Council, it will stand as the city's official input as the authority prepares a required environmental report that will set the stage for final decisions about the tracks' design and placement.

The letter makes it clear the city will not be satisfied with a report that justifies elevated tracks along the Caltrain corridor while glossing over the pros and cons of alternatives. Among those alternatives are not only a rail tunnel but a plan that would cut off high-speed service in San Jose, forcing riders to transfer to Caltrain to reach San Francisco.

Though the majority of Palo Alto voters backed the rail plan on the November ballot, it came as news to many that the trains might need to run atop a 20-foot-high concrete platform to avoid dangerous conflicts with cross streets. Rumors of a "Berlin Wall" dividing the city and of people losing their yards and homes to eminent domain have sparked a local backlash against the project in recent months.

Many in the city still support the train in concept but are grasping for ways to fit it into a narrow rail corridor that bisects quiet neighborhoods. The first paragraph of the city's draft letter asks that the study "provide a complete analysis of all linear rail corridor elevation options, including at-grade, elevated or depressed, including open trench and tunneling."

It goes on, "All options, particularly the tunneling option, should be evaluated to the same level of detail as the elevated track proposal."

That doesn't mean the city considers a tunnel a miracle solution, however. Planning Commissioner Samir Tuma asked that city staff remove the clause "particularly the tunneling option," saying that it's not yet clear that would be the best alternative to raised tracks.

Most opposition to a tunnel so far has focused on the cost, which is presumed to be astronomical. But Commissioner Karen Holman agreed it may not be the answer even if the city can afford it. She said she often tells members of the public, "Don't fall in love with the below-grade scenario," because there are "all manner of potential impacts to that, and many are the same as above-grade."

Specifically, Holman said, construction of a tunnel or trench could disrupt the lives of those who live nearby and require the state to take people's property. Beyond that, it could pose problems related to underground water, including an aquifer that serves as an emergency drinking-water supply.

Given that, Commissioner Daniel Garber wondered if the city should ask for more study of keeping the tracks at ground level. That, however, would likely require closure of several cross streets, a possibility other commissioners were not interested in considering.

The overriding sentiment was captured by Commissioner Arthur Keller near the end of the four-hour session.

"There is no completely satisfactory solution to this," he said. "All of the alternatives will have drawbacks. The question is which of the drawbacks are better than others, which of the drawbacks we can live with. And the ones we can live with, the ones Caltrain can live with and the ones high-speed rail can live with might not all be the same."

The Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to discuss and finalize the letter at a meeting on March 30. The high-speed rail authority's environmental study is legally required to address all official comments received before April 6.

[Michelle]

I am against this train for the same reason Palo Alto is against it. And Tunneling won't work either, that takes just as much eminent domain as the embankments. The only solution is to run this one 101. And please heed this warning city council, anybody who supports this boondoggle will be out next election. Prop1a was a scam intended to promote san jose and that is all.

You know, Michelle, members of the Burlingame City Council are your neighbors. We are people trying to do the best we can for Burlingame in addition to juggling families and jobs. We have been very vocal in demanding answers and information about what high speed rail will mean for Burlingame. We had representatives answer questions at a recent council meeting, and Councilmember Jerry Deal is attending regular meetings with councilmembers from other cities who are working to make sure citizen input is an integral part of the planning for this enormous project. We have sent very strong comments to the High Speed Rail Authority, asking for numerous mitigation measures.

But our council is composed of only five people. In order to make your voice heard, I strongly suggest that you send your comments and ideas about high speed rail to the HSR Authority so that they can be considered during the drafting of the environmental impact report and the actual plan.

It is VERY early in the process. There is no plan to react to yet, and public opinion can help shape the plan. We will do our best to notify you of all future developments and opportunities for public input. To make sure you are aware of them, you should sign up to receive the city's free e-newsletter at www.burlingame.org/signup. You can also sign up for my free monthly newsletter about city news at: http://www.terrynagel.com/lists/?p=subscribe

Send your comments and ideas about high speed rail by April 6 to Mr. Dan Leavitt, San Francisco to San Jose HST, California High Speed Authority, 925 L St., Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814 or email comments@hsr.ca.gov with San Francisco to San Jose? in the subject line.

[Joanne]

Are the comments that our city council sent to the High Speed Rail authority available on the city's website? If not, then perhaps Councilwoman Nagel, or someone else, could reprint them here.

I think there is a sense, reflected by Michelle's comment above, that our city has not taken a stand against the HSR and the negative impacts that it is bound to have on the Burlingame community. So, if that is inaccurate it would be great to know how the city council is protecting Burlingame from the potential negative impact that the HSR could bring in various forms (e.g. destruction or relocation of our historic train station, destruction of eucalyptus grove along tracks, eminent domain of nearby property owners, sound of 200 mph trains every 7 minutes, a cement berm or a deep tunnel dividing the town, etc.)

Terry, would it be possible to have a speaker now or perhaps further down the (train) line to give those of us who have an open mind more information on the different options? I know some Burlingame community groups have had this opportunity?

Thank you Councilmember Nagel for giving us some constructive ways we can get our voice heard to the people who will take opinions to the table - it is certainly more constructive and productive than the Burlingame Voice!

[Joanne]

I think everyone knows that he or she can individually write the HSR authority at comments@hsr.ca.gov -- this address has been put forth many times on this blog, in newspaper columns and elsewhere.

The question raised here is what position-- if any -- is our city council taking, either as a group or individually, regarding HSR through Burlingame.

Whether their position is constructive, destructive, productive or nonproductive, I think most residents would like to know what their position is. One gets the impression that local leaders are fearful to speak out with any sort of opinion because there is some sort of "group think" being imposed upon them by party officials holding higher office.

The city has a page devoted to High Speed Rail here:
https://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=1334

You can read Burlingame's first round of comments by clicking on the link near the bottom that says "Read the city's comments here." Our council is going to be sending a second letter prior to April 6. It would be a good idea to cc any comments you send to the HSR Authority to the council at council@burlingame.org.

By the way, I have heard of three different proposals for scheduling more meetings with the public in our county. Rest assured the Burlingame City Council and lots of other council members understand the importance of opening up the process to the public.

One more thought: Back in 1991, San Mateo County rescued the train by advancing what amounted to $85 million in 2007 dollars (the last time I checked the value) toward the purchase of the rail corridor. Yet that loan has never been repaid. These were public dollars. It seems to me that the public should obtain the full value of that loan in added improvements to the corridor in San Mateo County.

[Joanne]

Thank you, Terry.

This debate should have happened long ago. The route should have been Altamont all along ending in Oakland next to the airport. This could become a huge transportation hub and could be connected to SFO by water, to Bart to the whole Bay Area. Why did everyone wait this long to get all fired up. I have posted messages about this long ago and no one was interested. This is the biggest issue that will face Burlingame in the next 20 years. Our City will be changed forever with whatever grade separation they end up with. Was City council Ok with this or did they not know? What a shame!!