http://www.transdef.org/index.htmlWhat's Hot!eninfo@transdef.orgCopyright 2009 TRANSDEF2012-04-19T13:14:17-07:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:41:42 -0700info@transdef.orgHigh-Speed Rail2012-04-19T13:14:17-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/c8470ef3029a339cd3695b6c2635e640-51.html#unique-entry-id-51http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/c8470ef3029a339cd3695b6c2635e640-51.html#unique-entry-id-51On April 19, in accordance with writs issued by the Sacramento Superior Court in response to litigation by TRANSDEF and its allies, the CA High-Speed Rail Authority rescinded its previous certification of the 2010 Revised Final Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley portion of its HST project, and rescinded its approval of the Pacheco route.

After that action, the Board certified a Partially Revised Final Program EIR and adopted the Pacheco route. While the result was the same as its 2010 action, this time was different. Authority Board members went to great lengths to appear to seriously consider the Altamont route. This was a striking change from the arrogance of past Boards. Nonetheless, the outcome was the same: nothing has changed.

The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. The Board heard strong testimony from environmentalists as to the merits of the Altamont route. TRANSDEF provided this testimony, which criticized the EIR and called out the EIR preparers’ underhanded tricks:]]>info@transdef.orgHigh-Speed Rail2012-04-18T13:12:50-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/794497378311eab6e40b84ed7ba5ccfc-50.html#unique-entry-id-50http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/794497378311eab6e40b84ed7ba5ccfc-50.html#unique-entry-id-50On April 18, Budget Subcommittee #3 conducted a hearing on High-Speed Rail. Chairman Joe Simitian asked many pointed questions as to the viability of the proposed 130 mile Central Valley project. Compelling testimony from the Legislative Analysts’ Office cast strong doubts on assertions in the HSRA Business Plan that the Authority would be able to access cap and trade revenues as a backstop for 20+ billion in missing funding for its Initial Operating Section (IOS). Without a fully-funded IOS, opponents of the Central Valley project assert that the Authority cannot legally access Proposition 1A Bond funds. TRANSDEF provided the following testimony:]]>info@transdef.orgHigh-Speed Rail2012-04-02T21:29:18-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/6629be851d7b30409b39cb84941e36f1-49.html#unique-entry-id-49http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/6629be851d7b30409b39cb84941e36f1-49.html#unique-entry-id-49Yes, the High-Speed Rail Authority did listen to comments on the last Plan, and yes, they actually did add several desirable elements to the Plan, but in the end, it is still a bad joke: “The key initial operating segment from the Central Valley to the Los Angeles Basis is fully funded.” (p. 7-25) This seemingly good news is new since the last Business Plan. But the punchline is that the newly identified fund source is $20.2 billion from the feds! How fully funded is that, given the current Congress? The Governor claims he can use cap and trade revenues as a backstop, when the hoped-for funds don’t arrive. Good luck fighting off all the other interest groups trying to keep their programs alive in this time of budget austerity! Doesn’t sound to me like the IOS is funded...

A nastier joke is the commitment to using blended systems--sharing tracks with commuter railroads in the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area. This is commonsense policy--one which TRANSDEF fully supports, once the Authority has demonstrated that a train can travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco within the statutory 2 hours 40 minutes with a blended system. Perhaps this is a formality, but the validity of the Business Plan rests on it.

The major problem with the blended approach is that the ridership estimate assumes 9 trains per peak hour (p. ES-13) or the internally inconsistent 6 trains per peak hour (p. 5-12). The 9 trains/hour greatly exceeds the HSR capacity of Caltrain in blended mode and may be a typo, while Metrolink’s HSR capacity in blended mode is unknown. In other words, ridership and revenue, which are the foundation of a viable Business Plan, may be overstated, casting doubt on the claim that all ridership scenarios result in a positive cash flow (p. 7-5), so that no ridership subsidy is needed. Compare this to the analysis by financial professionals associated with CC-HSR.]]>info@transdef.orgClimate Change2012-03-28T22:59:25-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/88777b54def3363b2a3533960a52686a-48.html#unique-entry-id-48http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/88777b54def3363b2a3533960a52686a-48.html#unique-entry-id-48TRANSDEF, along with fellow litigants the Sierra Club and the California Nurses Association, prevailed in a challenge to Sonoma County’s approval of a new Sutter Hospital on the fringe of Santa Rosa. They challenged the Environmental Impact Report as being inadequate in mitigating greenhouse gases, because of the site being totally auto-dependent. After several hearings and appearances before a judge, the County agreed to require Sutter Hospital to provide a shuttle to the hospital from the nearest SMART rail station. Sutter will also provide free bus and train passes to its employees, in addition to other incentives for vanpooling and carpooling.

These may possibly be the first mitigations in California imposed specifically for GHG impacts. Check out the Press Democrat story. ]]>info@transdef.orgHigh-Speed Rail2012-03-29T22:52:02-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/13176490768fc19540bb1ee78262057a-47.html#unique-entry-id-47http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/13176490768fc19540bb1ee78262057a-47.html#unique-entry-id-47The Los Angeles Times has given excellent coverage to questions about the legality of the HSRA’s Central Valley project. TRANSDEF’s David Schonbrunn was interviewed in this article about the Governor’s attempt to get other environmental groups to go easy on this project.

Other HSR articles in the LA Times:

A detailed look into whether the blended system would comply with Proposition 1A.

Peter Calthorpe’s Vision California vs. right-wing defenders of the status quo.]]>info@transdef.orgHigh-Speed Rail2012-03-19T13:03:24-07:00http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/f7f215414a326afa5dddb0fc02e22ab8-44.html#unique-entry-id-44http://www.transdef.org/Blog/Whats_hot_files/f7f215414a326afa5dddb0fc02e22ab8-44.html#unique-entry-id-44A lively interview on KPFA’s Morning Mix where TRANSDEF’s David Schonbrunn details what’s wrong with the HSR project, and how to fix it. The program runs 12:00. ]]>