Court Rules Again Against HSRA
The court found that the project’s Revised Environmental Impact Report had failed to discuss significant impacts, failed to consider information from the Authority’s parallel project-level studies, and failed to recirculate the document for public comments.
For the second time, the Court ordered the Authority to rescind its approvals selecting the Pacheco Pass alignment and its certification of the associated Revised Final Environmental Impact Report.
Gary Patton, co-counsel, stated that "The court's decision tells the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it can't keep ignoring the public's right to participate. The court's decision in the Atherton II case says that the Authority failed in its duty to recirculate the CEQA document to get public comments, and this was a violation of the law.”
Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation, declared that “Twice in a row, the Authority ignored the requirements of environmental law. The Judge found they still have not done a proper study.”
Stuart Flashman, lead counsel, stated that “In rejecting the EIR, the Court has upheld the principle that significant project impacts cannot be swept under the rug for later consideration, after the key decisions have already been made.”
Because the EIR challenge was divided procedurally into two parts, there are two decisions: Atherton I and Atherton II. Read More...
RTP Submission by TAM
TRANSDEF’s Comments to the
Transportation Authority of Marin
Regional Transportation Plan Discussion, 10-27-11
You have the authority to set a very
new direction for transportation in this county. But
you would never know it by reading the staff report.
Judging by the report, this agenda item appears to be
just another routine item.
The whole point of this agenda item last month had been
to ask you what weight to give to each of the RTP
candidate priority criteria. But that focus has been
buried. It isn't at all clear what you are expected to
do with this item. If you had been properly briefed by
staff, you would recognize this item as the ultimate
transportation policy setting discussion.
In my view, this is yet another in a long history of
presentations shaped to maintain the status quo. TAM's
predecessor agency had an ugly practice of keeping
decision makers in the dark, so as to have staff
positions rubber-stamped.
Testimony on Central Subway
Testimony Before the S. F. Supes
Audit Comm.
10/27/11 Hearing on Civil Grand Jury Report on Central
Subway
Supervisors,
We are transit advocates, working primarily at the
regional and statewide level. We have opposed the
Central Subway for years, because instead of being a
well- designed cost-effective transportation project,
it is primarily a political payoff.
The Grand Jury deserves the thanks of all San
Franciscans for their willingness to dive into an
incredibly dense thicket of details and their courage
to call a spade a spade. Their report is a proud
addition to the long tradition of speaking truth to
power.
The fundamental project design problems raised in the
report are so serious that they necessitate a response
from the Board on recommendations 16 - 20, even though
you weren't specifically asked to. If the Board ignores
these recommendations, it will send a strong message of
“hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”
As Mr. Reskin, the MTA head said, the questions about
this project were asked and answered. However, the
answers were so steeped in politics as to be worthless.
The Grand Jury is telling your Board that the Emperor
has no clothes. Future generations will remember you as
the Board members that ignored their message and put
Muni into an extended fiscal crisis.
Reply Briefs Filed in HSR Round 2
Joint Policy Committee Blinks
“coordinate the development and drafting of major planning documents prepared by ABAG, MTC, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, including reviewing and commenting on major interim work products and the final draft comments prior to action by ABAG, MTC, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.”
In its last three meetings, the JPC has walked away from the responsibility to coordinate the development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), with its associated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and has decided to focus instead on regional resilience and economic development. While these two subject areas certainly need the attention of the JPC, it appears that this new focus is the result of MTC not wanting the JPC involved in the RTP. Whereas the JPC was created to foster interagency cooperation, this recent move seems to be a classic turf fight--a curious one in which no one is willing to talk about it.
Given this silence and denial, TRANSDEF’s President David Schonbrunn stepped in and spoke about MTC’s decision on committed projects (See Massive Counter-Attack, next blog entry), calling upon the JPC to assert the interests of the region, which were abandoned by MTC, which would rather play politics with transportation dollars. He was gaveled down at precisely 3 minutes by JPC Chair Tom Bates, cutting off the last paragraph of his prepared remarks. See Read More for the complete comments. Read More...
Massive Counter-Attack Ends Brief Spring at MTC
The problem with this is that local solutions do not work when aggregated together at the regional scale. Local transportation plans assume that their residents will travel largely by automobile. However, when these residents leave their respective counties, it has not been possible to furnish adequate regional infrastructure. The extremely high cost of widening existing highways, along with the lack of physical space to do so without even more expensive condemnation of existing residences and businesses, has resulted in massive congestion throughout the region. Read More...