As expected, the California High-Speed Rail Authority reaffirmed
its decision to send bullet trains shooting over Pacheco Pass and
through Gilroy, forgoing an alternate route over the Altamont
Pass.
As expected, the California High-Speed Rail Authority reaffirmed its decision to send bullet trains shooting over Pacheco Pass and through Gilroy, forgoing an alternate route over the Altamont Pass.
Expected to begin full operations in 2020, the $45-billion, 800-mile system is slated to have routes from Sacramento to San Diego and to the Bay Area with a stop in Gilroy, transporting passengers at speeds of up to 220 mph.
With seven of the nine members voting at a meeting held Wednesday and Thursday in Sacramento, the rail authority unanimously approved the Revised Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Bay Area to Central Valley portion of the state’s high-speed rail system.
The board originally approved the EIR in 2008 but took a second look to comply with a judge’s ruling in response to a lawsuit brought by the cities of Atherton, Menlo Park and several environmental groups challenging the rail authority’s decision to run bullet trains over Pacheco Pass and up the Peninsula instead of over Altamont Pass and through the East Bay.
“This was us showing our compliance,” said Rachel Wall, spokeswoman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “This was just revising a document that was final in 2008.”
Thursday morning’s vote came after consideration of more than 3,700 comments from more than 500 agencies, local governments and members of the public, Wall said.
Although the City of Gilroy was not able to send a representative in person to the Sacramento meeting, City Administrator Tom Haglund said his staff raised its concerns in writing to the Authority back in April.
Some of the concerns included the alignment of the bullet train tracks in Gilroy – options include a downtown Gilroy alignment or one east of U.S. 101 – traffic and construction impacts and the effect of the trains’ noise and vibrations as they careen through Gilroy.
The rail authority acknowledged each of the city’s concerns, but the real work will come during the project-level planning, Haglund said.
“The program EIR is a preliminary document,” he said. “Where it’s really important and critical is in the next EIR, where we dissect piece by piece and part by part what high-speed rail means to Gilroy.”
The rail authority will continue to hold community outreach meetings as the project progresses and expects to have a project-level draft EIR for the San Jose to Merced section, by way of Gilroy, by the summer of 2011, Wall said. That EIR will help answer some of the questions residents may feel they are still in the dark about, Wall said.
Authority Chairman Curt Pringle lauded the rail authority’s vote as a major step forward for the project.
“Californians want this project done right, and that means a careful and thoughtful assessment of how to minimize environmental impacts while building a project that creates enormous opportunity for the people of our state,” Pringle said.
The words “careful” and “thoughtful” aren’t likely the first two that come to mind when Gilroy resident Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo describes the planning of the state’s high-speed rail system.
“It’s concerning on every level,” said Sheets-Saucedo, who has organized numerous community awareness and outreach meetings. “It’s all about pushing through this process in a very hasty and, quite frankly, irresponsible manner.”
Although the vote fulfills the judge’s request and allows the rail authority to continue a process that was already taking place – working on project-level plans for the different links that will make up the Bay Area to Central Valley portion of railway – Sheets-Saucedo saw the vote not as a formality, but as a green light allowing the rail authority to spend “millions upon millions” more on a poorly-planned project.
Running bullet trains through Gilroy will change the face of the city, starting with the possibility of a 6,600-space parking garage, said Sheets-Saucedo, who echoed the same sentiments many residents have expressed by questioning the rail authority’s ridership figures.
“Everything about the system and the way it’s designed is triggered by ridership figures,” she said. “Here in quiet Gilroy, we’re going to have ridership figures that require 6,600 parking spaces? That’s absurd.”
The Revised Final Program EIR did not adequately address these ridership issues, Sheets-Saucedo said.
The lawsuit brought by Atherton and Menlo Park raised similar issues. The plaintiffs contended the project’s environmental impact report failed to provide sufficient detail on the Pacheco alignment. The report described an alignment along existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks between Gilroy and San Jose. However, Union Pacific has informed the rail authority that it has no intention of sharing its right-of-way.
According to the EIR, the rail authority is continuing its talks with Union Pacific. If they reach a stalemate, the rail authority has pointed out how the railroad’s denial of access to its rights-of-way has little effect on the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. The lack of availability could significantly impact the feasibility of other sections, according to the EIR.
Though he’s looking forward to receiving answers to concerns expressed by many residents, Haglund said he realizes that the project is still in its early stages.
“I think of the program-level EIR as looking at high-speed rail at 100,000 feet,” he said. “The project-level EIR is on the ground. This project is still an infant in the cradle.”
