News Subscribe  to Our Newsletter Sign  up for Email Updates CGF  In the News Press  Inquiries Past  Articles Calendar			State high-speed rail system held up by flawed environmental report Revised report  to study impacts of all potential routes by Kathy Switky As the French and Japanese bullet trains have shown,  high-speed rail can provide an attractive alternative to expanded airports  and polluting aircraft. Like  these trains, California's proposed 700-mile high-speed rail system (to  be built over the next 11 years) would allow commuters to travel between  San Francisco and Los Angeles at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. While the proposed rail system may offer clean transportation, it will create new environmental impacts. CGF is asking for a complete and fair study of these impacts before a decision is made about whether and where to build the rail. We are working to ensure that studies of the potential routes for the high-speed rail provide a thorough analysis that allows for an environmentally sound decision. Evaluation must include all routes and all impacts The High-Speed Rail Authority, the state agency charged with oversight, must weigh the logistical and political practicalities of each particular route, along with the environmental impacts, before the project moves forward.  The Authority earlier this year released a 2,300  page Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). By law, the DEIR is required  to analyze all feasible route alternatives, and consider all permanent  negative environmental impacts. Draft EIR omits one potential route The DEIR for the high-speed rail project is seriously flawed and stands on weak legal ground. It studied only two Bay Area routes, omitting a third alternative. One of the routes studied generally follows Highway  152, and the second runs south of Mount Hamilton through Henry Coe State  Park. One of the routes proposed for the high-speed  rail would run south of Mount Hamilton and through Henry Coe State Park  (above).  The third route crosses Altamont Pass, and is favored  by some environmentalists. Because the Altamont route would access San  Jose on a spur line, rather than a main route, it is opposed by San Jose  politicians and business people - which appears to be the reason it was  excluded from the report. Incomplete report fails to address all impacts Not only did the DEIR exclude the Altamont route from consideration, it  also failed to address the significant and permanent negative environmental  consequences of the routes that were analyzed. The resulting incomplete  and misleading analysis means that the DEIR as a legal document does not  do its job - and makes it difficult for citizens to analyze and compare  the consequences of the various proposed routes. CGF asks for revision and complete environmental  analysis While a number of environmental, citizen and business groups have already  spoken up in opposition to various proposed routes, CGF has not yet endorsed  any of the potential routes for the rail line. Before we do so, we want  a complete DEIR that will allow us to consider and compare the environmental  costs of each of the proposed routes. The public, as well as the High-Speed Rail Authority,  requires accurate, detailed and complete information to determine whether  the benefit is worth the cost. Focusing on the need for a complete and balanced  analysis of the environmental impacts, Committee for Green Foothills asked  the High-Speed Rail Authority to circulate a revised DEIR that considers  all of the potential routes and their impacts. Responding to our action  alert, many CGF members joined us in asking the Authority to provide a  full analysis of our options so that we can make the best decision about  which route to support. Rail Authority backtracks, adds Altamont to analysis In late September, the High-Speed Rail Authority acceded to our request  and decided to expand the study to include the potential route crossing  Altamont Pass. This analysis is expected to take another year. It is unclear at this point whether other deficiencies  in the DEIR will be fixed. CGF views this as a necessary step in making  an accurate determination of whether the project's benefit is worth its  cost. We will continue to ask the Rail Authority to make  other amendments to the DEIR so that it complies with state regulations  and provides the information necessary to make an environmentally sound  decision on this project. Published November 2004 in Green  Footnotes. Page last updated November 4, 2004 .

	Photos by Cait Hutnik, www.lightofmorn.com