High Cost Rail – Part 55 4 Tracks, 2 Tracks, No Tracks!

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

High Cost Rail – Part 55 4 Tracks, 2 Tracks, No Tracks!

July 13, 2011

The Times is rehashing some news that the insiders have known for about a week regarding the Peninsula section of the ridiculous high-cost rail system

CEO Roelof van Ark said he has directed the California High-Speed Rail Authority's planners "to reduce their activities on the Peninsula to a minimum" and cease further work on a draft environmental-impact report. No new work will be started "until clarity is reached on the selected way forward for San Francisco to San Jose," van Ark said in a statement.

That's the least the "Authority" can do given it has no real plan for anything at this point and various State agencies are calling their bluff weekly. But my favorite description comes from one of the Central Valley critics who is coming up to speed faster than a high-speed engine. He writes

Would you have voted the same way if you were told in 2008 that the CHSRA never intended to run the rail alignment along I-5 or completely along Hwy-99?

What would you say if they told you that they never did proper studies of those routes?

If they had told the voters these things, Proposition-1A would have read something like:
“We want the tax-payers to borrow unlimited amounts of money to do whatever we want to do, no matter how much damage it will cause and want you to believe us when we tell you whatever polling says will get your vote. Disregard that we can in no way deliver what we say we are going to do because we are missing 75-percent of the money (without any interest payments factored) that we need to give you the completed project.”

That's calling it like it is and the folks in the Central Valley are getting it together more each day! Welcome to the tussle!

Posted in High Speed Rail

One response to “High Cost Rail – Part 55 4 Tracks, 2 Tracks, No Tracks!”

pat giorni

July 21, 2011

This in today’s Patch:
http://burlingame.patch.com/articles/residents-speak-out-on-high-speed-rail?ncid=M255#newsletter_signup_panel_dialog
Residents Speak Out on High Speed Rail
Following the Burlingame City Council’s release of a set of principles on high speed rail, residents turned up at Monday’s meeting to fight back.
Burlingame City Council members released a statement of principles regarding high speed rail last week, they aimed to create a cohesive voice for discussing high speed rail with various groups and organizations, said Mayor Terry Nagel.
However, many residents saw the document as an affront to their efforts against current high speed rail plans and a dismissal of community opinion regarding the rail. They made their thoughts heard at Monday’s council meeting.
“I’m…left wondering if this document was prepared by the same city that took time to assess residents’ opinions for several months last spring,” said resident Jennifer Pfaff. “I wonder what has changed.”
Burlingame officials, who have stood strong in their stance against high speed rail as planned, have questioned the validity of ridership studies, business plans, the environmental impact report (EIR), route choice and a four-track system.
They have stressed the importance of an underground option, even erecting story poles in October to demonstrate how an elevated structure would affect the town. However, no underground option is mentioned in the new document, in what residents called a glaring omission.
“You already had a very firm, very clear, very no-nonsense statement, and you had a very clear point of view, and that was only to accept an underground solution,” said resident Russ Cohen while addressing the council. “[The omission] will undoubtedly come back to haunt you and haunt this community.”
Residents saw gaps in the new document and community opinion, as well as previously stated City Council positions. They accused the council of using the document to appease surrounding cities—namely San Mateo and Millbrae—that have been more accepting of high speed rail, as well as certain legislators.
“It’s pretty clear what the purpose of this document is: to be all things to all parties except our citizens,” said Ted Crocker, Burlingame resident. “The new high speed rail statement of principles can only serve one purpose, and that is to please others.”
Additionally, residents said some of the principles, such as stating no downtown businesses should be negatively impacted by construction or completion of high speed rail, are unrealistic. Also, they said others could be worked around, such as requiring mitigation to impacts on noise, vibration, historic sites and more, which, as Councilmember Jerry Deal pointed out, could mean tearing down historic eucalyptus trees and replacing them with a row of short, young trees.
After hearing the complaints of the citizens, some Councilmembers were quick to push blame away from themselves, saying they disagreed with the statement of principles, as well.
“I would say that if somebody on the council wants to use this as their principles, they’re more than welcome to,” said Deal after apologizing for not responding to the document earlier. “I’m not going to support them as my principles.”
Councilmember Ann Keighran said she was against the principles since they excluded a cut and cover option. Furthermore, she said she saw them as compromising to save Caltrain, which she doesn’t see as Burlingame’s responsibility.
However, Councilmember Cathy Baylock acknowledged fault in keeping residents, especially those who are well informed on high speed rail, out of the discussion.
“I think us in a vacuum [making a list] up here is wrong,” she said. “I think it’s really important that the people on the ground are part of that document.”
She said creating this type of document is difficult because council members are conflicted as to their goals regarding high speed rail, but they must take a singular stand when talking to other cities and state officials, as Mayor Nagel mentioned earlier.
“The simple goal of these principles was to put on paper something that could be a guiding policy for our council members, especially those who are going to different meetings talking about high speed rail issues,” said Nagel. “So we all know where we stand and we can defer to these principles when we’re trying to make statements on behalf of the city.”

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.