A Word About This Site

Important Note: This site is designed to be a one stop shopping place for information relevant to the HSR project, the potential impacts to our communities and how to participate in the process. Since this is an all volunteer effort, a lack of funding relegates us to using the freeby sites. With no perfect fit available, this site is being treated like a hybrid blog/website. Like a blog, it is not stagnant, but like a website, information is categorized. Therefore one should not treat it as a blog by always looking for only the latest entry, yet periodically refer back to older posts for updated information. To make it easier, HSR-PREP has a newsletter designed to be used in conjunction with this site. If you wish to be notified of new information appearing on the site, it is recommended that you sign up for the HSR-PREP Newsletter. Another way is to create an RSS link on your homepage.

Spread the word. Be informed. Get involved.

Spread the word. Be informed. Get involved. If you have any issues at all with the high speed rail project as it exists, if you say and do nothing, it means you agree 100%. We are all busy in our lives. This cannot be used as an excuse later. If you have issues, you must participate in the process or forever hold your peace. Call, email or write your legislators. It takes 15 minutes using their websites. Participate in the public input opportunities with the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA). But don't wait.
Spread the word. Be informed. Get involved.

Pacheco vs. Altamont Pass Route

Why was the once favored Altamont Pass Route suddenly changed to the Pacheco Pass route?

Justification is provided by the HSRA authority on their website here.

But many still question this decision. Among those are the California Rail Foundation (CRF), the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) and TRANSDEF that have challenged this decision in a lawsuit. This article written for the Sacramento Bee in 2004 highlights much of the background and arguments associated with this hot topic as they were known then. More recently, CRF, PCL and TRANSDEF hired French firm Setec Ferroviaire to study the routes to see which one made the most sense. In a news release, the report titled "Evaluation of an Alignment for the California High-Speed Rail Project Bay Area to Central Valley Segment" concludes that the Altamont Pass should still be the preferred route - the basis for the lawsuit.

Worthwhile reading on the topic can be found in Richard Trainors "Paradise Lost" found in the HSR History section of this site.

Much of this decision hinges on the ridership numbers, which were peer reviewed by UC Berkeley in June 2010 at the request of the legislature. UC Berkeley's findings draw into question the validity of the HSRA's choice to switch from the Altamont to the Pacheco Pass.

Kathy Hamilton wrote a multi-part article for the Examiner following the findings of the UC Berkeley review above. The third part in that series, an interview with Elizabeth Alexis of CARRD who first pointed out the issues, and Professor Samer Madanat from UC Berkeley, deals with the Altamont versus Pacheco Pass issue. See the link to Kathy's other HSR articles in the side bar under "Media".