The director of California's high-speed rail board on Wednesday defended his recommendation of the Pacheco Pass as the primary route for bullet trains to the San Francisco Bay area, saying it was more efficient and environmentally sound.
But several environmental group representatives criticized the proposal, and one predicted that selecting the Pacheco route could sink a nearly $10 billion bond measure scheduled to go before voters next year. That money would help pay for the first leg of a 700-mile rail system linking the state's major cities.
"The staff recommendation, if adopted by the board, will almost certainly lead to the defeat of the bond measure," said Stuart Flashman, an Oakland attorney representing several environmental and transportation groups.
"If you're going to have all of the statewide environmental groups campaigning against the ballot measure, it's not going to pass."
The nine-member board is recommending that the state build a $40 billion high-speed rail system that would have trains running as fast 200 mph. It would link Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, San Diego and Irvine.
A $9.9 billion bond measure that is on the November 2008 ballot would pay for about half the cost of a first link of that line, between the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas.
The board has generally settled on most of the route but has put off a decision on how to get through the coastal mountains from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area until next month. The debate over the options has become heated and has triggered comments from more than 400 people.
The board's staff, headed by executive director Mehdi Morshed, is suggesting dual routes.
One would follow Highway 152 through the Pacheco Pass then head north to San Jose and San Francisco, carrying the north-south traffic between Southern California and the Bay Area.
A second line, primarily for commuters and regional travelers, would follow Interstate 580 through the Altamont Pass, then split into two lines, one running to Oakland, the other going to San Jose.
But the Altamont route would be limited to slower regional trains that would make more frequent stops and reach speeds of only 125 mph.
Morshed told the board that using only the Altamont route would require an inefficient three-way split to reach Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco and necessitate construction of a new bridge across the bay.
He also said it would intrude into the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge - 30,000 acres of mudflats, marshes and vernal pools that were named after former Rep. Don Edwards.
A full-fledge, high-speed rail route through Altamont could trigger opposition from East Bay communities that oppose the multiple tracks that would be needed to handle both express and regional trains.
"Basically their sign is 'Do not disturb,"' Morshed told the board during a meeting at the Capitol.
But representatives of various environmental groups said the staff recommendation downplayed the environmental damage to wetlands and grasslands and the urban sprawl that could be created by a Pacheco route.
"I think the Pacheco supporters have done a better PR job, but that's no reason to pick that route," said Bill Allayaud, state legislative director for the Sierra Club.
Dana Cowell, deputy director of the San Joaquin Council of Governments, said the valley counties support an Altamont route because it would include the northern end of the valley in the first segment, between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
"We do not want to see the valley fragmented in terms of the decision made here," he said.
And Alan Miller, executive director of a group of rail enthusiasts, the Train Riders Association of California, questioned whether the Altamont line would ever be built once a Pacheco route was in place.
"The problem with the hybrid alignment proposal is that it's unfunded in an already unfunded project," he said.
Supporters of the Pacheco route said it would minimize environmental damage and provide the best travel time between Southern California and the Bay Area.
Morshed said his recommendation was based on "sound data" and accused critics of "cherry picking" their facts. He predicted that a staff recommendation calling for just a route through the Altamont Pass would have triggered twice as much opposition.
The board's chairman, former state Sen. Quentin Kopp asked the staff to provide more information about the environmental effects of the two potential routes before the board votes at its Dec. 19 meeting.
But he said he wouldn't be swayed by threats to oppose the bond measure if the board doesn't pick a particular route.
"If you start thinking in political terms, you will drive yourself to distraction," he said. "I'm too old for that."
