A California judge ruled yesterday that the environmental impact report (EIR) written for the California high-speed rail project is inadequate and must be done over. Shortly before the ruling, Quentin Kopp — a powerful politician who formerly chaired and still sits on the rail authority’s board — called the lawsuit “frivolous” and predicted that it would be thrown out.
But Judge Michael Kenny concluded (750KB pdf) that the high-speed rail proposal was too vague. As a result, the EIR contained “an inadequate discussion of the impacts of the Pacheco alignment alternative on surrounding businesses and residences which may be displaced, construction impacts on the Monterey Highway, and impacts on Union Pacific’s use of its right-of-way and spurs and consequently its freight operations.”
They improve circulation of blood, improve digestive health, increase immunity, and strengthen nerves, which is why they are considered as energy-packed food mainly because sildenafil in india of its unique pulp which has the right combination of nutrients and antioxidants, Dark chocolate tastes delicious and plays our friend when we are sad. Blepharitis may occur as a result of viagra free pills extended psoriatic arthritis. The repeated attacks of heart burning can be dangerous and may react adversely in order to impel you to encounter with the adverse effects like diarrhea, upset stomach, seizure, redness in the face, cold symptoms, runny nose, muscle pain, back pain, seizure, shortness of breath or irregular heart beat due to our negligence towards the proper safety measures. buy cialis in australia Although some may find it effective, some suffer from its recurrences, bringing troubles generic levitra to their life and decreasing their confidence in treatments.
The people who brought the suit objected to the noise and possible displacement of homes and businesses from constructing the rail line between San Francisco and San Jose and then to the Central Valley over Pacheco Pass (the blue lines on the above map). Their preference was an eastbay line between Oakland and San Jose and then over Altamont Pass (the purple route on the above map). The judge’s ruling means that the authority has to reevaluate this route.
A second lawsuit (which Kopp called “a joke”) argued that the state did not have the right to infringe upon Union Pacific’s right-of-way for its high-speed rail lines. Union Pacific has told the authority that it wants nothing to do with high-speed rail, but Kopp and others hold out a hope that the railroad will cooperate so the state won’t have to buy a lot of new right-of-way. I don’t know why a third private party needs to bring this lawsuit, except to argue that the state is wasting its money if it is counting on the railroad’s cooperation. In any case, some aspects of Judge Kenny’s ruling seem to support the second lawsuit as well.
Neither of these lawsuits is arguing that high-speed rail should not be built, though some of the people bringing them may feel that way. Challenging an EIR/EIS is a time-honored method for environmentalists to delay and eventually stop projects they don’t like. The legal requirements for an environmental impact report are so convoluted that it is virtually impossible to write one that is “adequate.” Perhaps, after getting a taste of their own medicine, more environmentalists will agree with the Antiplanner that laws like this should be repealed.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Neither of these lawsuits is arguing that high-speed rail should
> not be built, though some of the people bringing them may feel
> that way. Challenging an EIR/EIS is a time-honored method
> for environmentalists to delay and eventually stop projects
> they don’t like. The legal requirements for an environmental
> impact report are so convoluted that it is virtually impossible
> to write one that is “adequate.†Perhaps, after getting a taste
> of their own medicine, more environmentalists will agree with
> the Antiplanner that laws like this should be repealed.
As best as I can tell, lawsuits against transportation project EISs (or EIRs, as California calls them) are usually directed against highway projects only.
The law in question is usually the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), though there are others that can be used to stop or delay a project in the federal courts.
It is possible to write an EIS for a highway that will pass muster, as Maryland did for the Route 200 toll road project, the InterCounty Connector, but the documents end up being thousands of pages long, and they cost millions to prepare.
And even then, there were legal challenges by the Sierra Club and its allies that delayed construction start by about a year, though they were dismissed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and appeals of his ruling were ultimately dropped.
Antiplanner: “Perhaps, after getting a taste of their own medicine, more environmentalists will agree with the Antiplanner that laws like this should be repealed”
Except in this case, the environmentalists are a party to the lawsuit:
http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html
http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR_assets/Filing%20press%20release.pdf
The management of the CHSRA is so imperious and overbearing that they have even alienated their natural allies.
Perhaps, after getting a taste of their own medicine, more environmentalists will agree with the Antiplanner that laws like this should be repealed.
Riiiiight. Fewer environmental laws. Sure.
Nonetheless, neither of these passes deserves a HSR route. Both will suffer from both auto and more rail ROW.
DS
Hugh Jardonn said:
Except in this case, the environmentalists are a party to the lawsuit:
http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html
http://www.transdef.org/HSR/HSR_assets/Filing%20press%20release.pdf
THWM: Though this is an example of what’s called “constructive criticism”.
the VTA Watch blog has an interesting take on recent events at CHSRA:
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/hsra-unprofessionalism-for-all-to-see.html
Sure HSR will be nice.
Although, in 5 years in SJ (SF), I’ve never had a need or want to go to LA or Sac.
Also, I want a container for my “stuff”: leather & gold will be “nice”, but paper might do.
Will others pay for my upgrade, luxury & purported convenience?
Also, once a traveler gets to a destination, transport is still required.
How many traverse between CA UAs?
What % of all traveling is that?
The point is: insignificant reduction in congestion & fuel/emissions!
Hello!
What’s the capital cost?: $3,000/CA worker. Do the math, including interest on bonds & other. (Could be 50% more)
Case closed!
Very minimal rewards (for few, if not none). Huge expense (by all & others).