18 responses to “High Cost Rail – Part 4”

1. Anson

   March 16, 2010

   More (better) details from the SM Daily Journal:
   The council will concentrate its efforts in hiring a consultant for $100,000 to navigate tricky California Environmental Quality Act documents related to the project that may give the city added legal protection if the California High-Speed Rail Authority decides to elevate the trains in Burlingame.
   Another $60,000 is being set aside to hire another consultant to perform Alternatives Analysis review after the rail authority releases the document in April.
   To bring the community better into the fold, the city set aside another $25,000 for mailings to residents about key milestones in the high-speed rail process.
   Public Works Director Syed Murtuza, however, told the council that no matter how much money the council was willing to spend, there was no guarantee it would meet the city’s desired goal to have the trains be tunneled or trenched.
   Councilman Jerry Deal said he suspected the Draft Alternatives Analysis and eventually the Preferred Alternatives Analysis would indicate the trains will travel through town in an elevated option.
   The city scrapped plans to study the elevated option, ditched an idea to hire a political lobbyist and threw out a plan to conduct an economic analysis to evaluate impacts on property values and businesses near the Caltrain corridor tracks.

2. Jim

   March 16, 2010

   Well written. I think it should be stated that trenching will still destroy the heritage trees and facilitate the need to move both train stations. Also, why does San Francisco get tunneling for HSR? Why is it too expensive for B-game but not for the city? Elitism in play? Alluvial soil is ideal for tunneling. It may be expensive now but the whole HSR project is expensive. One last thing, the CAD showing a trenched HSR with parks above it is very misleading. Where’s the animation of Union Pacific Railroad?

3. Ron Fulderon

   March 16, 2010

   Which CAD image are you looking at?

4. Mr. Slate

   March 16, 2010

   From the Daily Journal:
   Letter: A poor investment
   March 16, 2010, 01:03 AM
   Editor,
   The article “Train fight could get costly” published in the March 15 edition of the Daily Journal on potential costs the Burlingame City Council is considering engaging in is simply appalling. The city has budget woes of up to $3 million for the present fiscal year and yet the council looks to take on a poor investment — spending good money after bad money already spent by several agencies. In 2009, Mayor Ann Keighran took the correct “turn” when she engaged in discussion with San Mateo and Millbrae, the boundary cities with which we have most in common. It would be smarter to stay on that course rather than taking the apparently adversarial course now being written about.
   In 1992-94, the city engaged in a comparable adversarial role with BART, re: its route to SFO. I take some of the blame for that bad move then for I was mayor one of those years. All Burlingame got out of that position was the boundary property along our valuable industrial Rollins Road being made into a BART carriage — storage lot and a few shrubs along California Drive. But Millbrae “cashed out” like a bandit, coming up with a chunk of change from the airport — that, together with STIP MONEY — enabled Millbrae to construct the beautiful Millbrae Avenue station for $24 million. And consider what that infrastructure did for Millbrae development now and in the future.
   About the only expenditure I see that would not be “burning up” money is an in-depth review of the environmental impact report by a respected analyst and an economic analysis of commercial properties affected.
   HSR is riddled with management holes, but we know that there is a determination — folly or otherwise — from Washington to Sacramento, to get an HSR project soon.
   Rosalie M. O’Mahony
   Burlingame
   The letter writer is the former mayor of Burlingame

5. Hillsider

   March 16, 2010

   What a purrrfect letter to show why I AM THRILLED that Rosalie O’Mahony is NOT ON THE CITY COUNCIL ANY MORE.
   The current council approved an indepth review of the enviro impact report which Rosalie apparently thinks is OK. So what is she complaining about? And why now. She does not seem to realize the Bart to SFO link is EXACTLY what I am worried about. A huge money loser.
   She can’t see past the nickels to see the Twenty Dollar Bills. Thank God enough people finally figured that out.

6. JROC

   March 16, 2010

   Holly-once again you are advocating for unbridled spending of limited resources. I guess we will pay for that when you repeal Prop. 13. Rosalie always stood for fiscally responsible government which is why I supported her for many years. The funny thing is the Council agreed with her and limited the proposed spending. Thanks again Rosalie for your many years of holding firm when the easy thing to do was spend.

7. jennifer

   March 17, 2010

   If BART had proposed an underground solution for their tracks in Burlingame, then we might not even be discussing this HSR pickle right now. About that she is correct, but beyond that, I’m sorry she is second guessing herself and her actions.
   That station and those enormous, monotonous TODs are simply overwhelming, even for El Camino Real. These have zero to do with the pedestrian, human-scale that we seek to exemplify in Burlingame. What eyesores! And by the way, they are not ‘affordable’ housing, either.
   I hope she read the paper yesterday to see that at least one of the items she supports (CEQA advisor) was approved. The second item (an economic analysis) was unfortunately only supported by Mayor Baylock, and Councilwoman Keighran, and thus was not approved. A third item, communications, was put on a shoe-string budget.
   So, I would not call this group fiscally irresponsible. They and a very devoted staff are trying the best they can to protect this town from plunder (yes, that’s what this is). Whether successful or not, I applaud and support their efforts.

8. Ron Fulderon

   March 17, 2010

   How much would it cost to get a state proposition on the ballot in November that would nullify the whole mess? And the followup; how much would it cost in political advertisements and the rest, for it to win?

9. jennifer

   March 17, 2010

   Well, I’ve heard 1 million and a lot of footwork to get it onto the ballot. Don’t know how to answer the second part of your query!
   Check this out (below). A lonely (albeit controversial) voice and an interesting bill. Hope the link works, since I’m virtually a computer illiterate…..
   _____________________
   Assemblymember Diane Harkey’s February newsletter. Harkey is the Dana Point Assm who authored AB 2121 which seems to pull the plug on HSR bond money as of January, 2011. She’s also the focus of multiple conflict-of-interest and ethics accusations. She does cite Reason Foundation, which may be enough for many HSR critics to distance themselves from her.
   http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/73/newsletter/02_10_18.htm?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600

10. dtn

    March 17, 2010

    The Daily Journal is reporting some stuff today from Millbrae
    Since high-speed train tracks will likely be buried in Millbrae, it is logical the tracks will also likely be buried in Burlingame and the northern part of San Mateo, said Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan last night.
    “You can’t have a roller coaster going from Millbrae to Burlingame,” Papan said.
    Draft alternatives from the rail authority indicate the tracks will have to buried at the Millbrae Caltrain station due to constraints of the surrounding properties, Papan said. The rail authority, however, has not officially released its Draft Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco-to-San Jose stretch of track. That document is due to be released April 8.
    The Millbrae Avenue overpass and BART station will prevent an elevated track and plans are drawn up for a huge underground high-speed rail station that Millbrae will one day host. The land around the current Caltrain station has been set aside by the city for major redevelopment.
    Papan made the statement in response to a woman passing out fliers at the library with pictures of trains traveling on elevated tracks in downtown Burlingame under the heading “The Berlingame Wall?”
    “Enough with the fear mongering,” Papan said.
    According to Gina everything is going to be alright and we should all just settle down. I feel better already.

11. jennifer

    March 17, 2010

    California Legislature—2009–10 regular session
    ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2121
    Introduced by Assembly Member Harkey
    February 18, 2010
    -An act to add Chapter 20.1 (commencing with Section 2704.30) to Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to high-speed rail.
    Legislative Counsel’s Digest
    AB 2121, as introduced, Harkey. High-speed rail.
    Existing law, the California High-Speed Rail Act, creates the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and implement a high-speed rail system in the state, with specified powers and duties. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, general election, provides for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related purposes. Article XVI of the
    California Constitution authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the people, to reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted.
    This bill would reduce the amount of general obligation debt authorized pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century to the amount contracted as of January 1, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, the amount of indebtedness authorized by Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2704) is hereby reduced to the amount contracted as of January 1, 2011, notwithstanding anything in that chapter to the contrary.

12. Jim

    March 18, 2010

    There was a CAD representation created by the HSR website and shown at the Lane Room a couple of months ago. I believe the group had the acronym CAARD (forgive me if I’m wrong). Alluvial soil is soft so tunneling 100 feet or so is not the enormous undertaking that HSR says it is. The English Channel (Chunnel) or even Montara mountain in Pacifica posed bigger challenges but engineers found away to tunnel through it. Will it cost more ti tunnel? Of course. But the whole project is ridiculously expensive. As for Papan, let’s just say she let the east side of Millbrae become a “no man’s land”. We cannot let that happen in Burlingame.

13. JROC

    March 18, 2010

    Ron-Your assumption is that the ballot measure to repeal Prop 1A would be approved and I am not so sure it would. I’m thinking that a measure to change the route saving millions, would be an easier sell. There were some strong groups behind the HSR and Statewide the project is not as unpopular as it is here.
    Jen-Do you think Burlingame should remain unchanged in the next 10 years. If not, what changes would you favor?

14. Ron Fulderon

    March 18, 2010

    I don’t really know what the current public thinking is about HSR. It did not pass by a wide majority back in 2008. At this point it would be possible to attack all the flaws in the promised project, of which there are many. Most of them are too complex for the average voter but it would not be hard to convey the stupidity of the project and the enormous expense in a state that is on the verge of bankruptcy. But yes, it would be up against the well funded unions and possibly even funds from the HSR project itself.
    The key would be to figure out how it fits into the campaign of one of the candidates running for governor. Obviously a democrat who by definition is beholden to the unions would never support a repeal. Would there be any political advantage to the republican candidate? I don’t know.
    My thought about a ballot initiative is only a thought, as I can not really think much about starting that ballot initiative but it sure seems to me like a better approach than trying to hold it back for environmental reasons, or because it’s unfair, or anything like that.
    Actually I would predict that the state and federal government will go broke before the project is completed anyway, and we can only hope that they won’t have built the East Berlingame wall before that happens.
    And I think I’ll answer the question to Jen-do that you ask: I’m completely in favor of growth in the downtown area that would raise the housing density near the current train station. But with lots of trains rushing by — and not stopping — it wouldn’t make for a very desirable place to live.

15. fred

    March 18, 2010

    An article in the Chronicle:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/13/financial/f043959S65.DTL
    Seems we’re borrowing money from China so that we can pay them to put high speed rail in…plus interest.

16. hillsider

    March 18, 2010

    Thanks. This part is interesting
    China produces high-speed trains using French, German and Japanese technology. Its manufacturers have developed a homegrown version but have yet to produce a commercial model.
    The Germans are Siemens who are hiring people in Sacramento. They claim they will build cars there, but do you want to bet it is only assembly?

17. Brian

    March 19, 2010

    I just spoke with Karlene Harvey at Burlingame Parks and Recreation. The only HSR inquiry they’ve had related to trees or land is about whether the little triangle “park” in front of Stacks is actually a “Park” (Yes, Cannon Park). None of the Eucalyptus in the city-owned Jules Francard Heritage grove, north of Burlingame Station up to a little past Oak Grove is inventoried so it’s just a bunch of trees that the city keeps up on city land. They have no maps or anything of the trees or land ownership. SF Water owns and maintains additional clusters of trees north of Oak Grove.

18. JROC

    March 20, 2010

    This is when you realize how many outside agencies have a hand in determining our future: HSR, SF Water Department, Caltrain/JPB/UP, BART, PG&E, Caltrans, SMUHSD, Burlingame School District, Peninsula Healthcare District, etc. We don’t exist in a vacuum and we have to work better with all of these to protect our future. This includes forming closer relationships with our neighboring Cities to have a stronger voice.