13 responses to “High-Cost Rail – Part 51 “A Fool’s Errand””

1. jennifer

   April 19, 2011

   They state the obvious– but it’s a start. If the statement is to be taken at face value, it also attempts to put the brakes on a prolonged battle in the form of “phased implementation,” that would give HSR any number of ways to spin the same project, but over a longer period.
   It would be nice to see some others take a similarly strong public stance, if for nothing else, just acknowledging that they do understand and agree that there are too many pitfalls for the Peninsula.

2. pat giorni

   April 19, 2011

   See today’s Patch: http://menlopark.patch.com/articles/video-california-legislators-want-high-speed-rail-done-right#video-5703337
   Simitian uses the word phased…Eschoo and Gordon use the word blended.
   None of these folks are out to kill HSR, but S advocates the stop at SJ and, between the lines, it could be implied that there would be a transfer to new improved electrified high speed Caltrain. It really is not a legislative problem to change the wording of 3034 if there is political will…but the Legislature would have to gamble that the public does not kill the project altogether after these past 3 years of mismanagement and lying from CHSRA.
   S’s call for stop-work on present EIR blends nicely into Caltrain’s new feasibility study proposal… http://www.caltrain.com/Page810.aspx … and puts to bed the stale Caltrain Electrification EIR which has not been dealt with for certification since it came to the JPB more than 6 mos ago.
   What I find of note in all this is the notice in Caltrain’s statement attributed to Marian Lee where Peninsula Rail Program is not mentioned and has morphed into another group. This has to be challenged, I think.
   Within the parameters of fulfilling the dream and concept of HSR, no one has had the stones to say kill it…all are looking for consensus of how to go forward with least impact on existing metro areas. No one envisioned how the valley would stand up to the Authority…and that is where concentrated efforts now must be to delay 2012 valley groundbreaking so that fed funds are revoked and extentions not made.
   One more point…S said no aerial, or viaducts. That does not mean undergrounding or trenches. It still leaves open the very real possibility of berms because electrified Caltrain must grade separate or all e-w motor traffic will come to a halt with proposed 8-10 trains in each direction per hour during peak commute. For a good example, see grade sep in Millbrae at Hillcrest. And no matter how it’s done, grade sep will need eminent domaine at intersections…it certainly did in San Carlos and Belmont.

3. JF

   April 19, 2011

   Speir, Lee, and Hill are waiting for their talking points from the Teachers and Nurses Unions, of course.

4. ACDC

   April 22, 2011

   Maybe we should ask San Francisco how they’re doing with the elevated freeways they have in the City. Last I heard they’ve torn down two (Central Freeway and Embarcadero) and are looking to tear down more. They’re doing it to… repair neighborhoods, eliminate blight, repair the urban fabric and restore human scale and landscaping. Why can’t we call their politicians to oppose elevated tracks in the Peninsula? What’s good for SF should be good enough for us.

5. Joe

   April 23, 2011

   Here’s the Mercury News’ Insider column comment on the announcement. I love the Insider and think (hope?) they are being a bit sarcastic here rather than truly confused. As Pat says, none of these politicos have the stones to just say “kill it altogether” right now, so this is the next best thing. Here’s the excerpt:
   Were we the only ones who had a hard time wrapping our heads around the high-speed rail pronouncement issued Monday by Rep. Anna Eshoo, Assemblyman Rich Gordon and state Sen. Joe Simitian?
   They want the California High-Speed Rail Authority to abandon plans for raised tracks along the Peninsula and commit to keeping the new bullet-train system within the existing Caltrain right of way.
   Since there’s basically no chance the cash-strapped authority is going to dig a deep tunnel or shallow trench for the tracks, that means high-speed rail, Caltrain and freight service would all operate on two tracks, except for a few areas where a third track allows trains to pass one another.
   How would that work, exactly? The authority didn’t get back to us by deadline Friday, but Bob Doty, the man who until January was in charge of implementing the high-speed line on the Peninsula, offered his perspective.
   Doty said that — assuming Caltrain is electrified — running all three lines on two tracks would be feasible, though coordinating train traffic would be difficult.
   Service would be greatly diminished, however. Instead of running 10 trains an hour between San Jose and San Francisco, which was the original plan, Doty estimated there would be room on the tracks for only about two high-speed trains per hour.

6. jennifer

   April 24, 2011

   As long as Doty and other consultants can milk this project, they will. There isn’t enough money around to construct and operate even the cheapest alignment alternative (aerial), but unfortunately there is probably enough money to end up payrolling these folks for a very long time– The longer they are able to convince a gullible public that HSR is a ‘done deal’ in California, whether phased or in some other iteration, the better it is for their pocketbooks.
   The latest Washington Post article for über-believers of HSR:
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/are_chinas_high_speed_trains_heading_off_the_rails/2011/04/22/AFHzaNWE_story?wprss=rss_homepage

7. jennifer

   April 24, 2011

   And another……..
   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24white

8. jennifer

   April 24, 2011

   And yet another, with humor…..
   http://www.wimp.com/vegetablemarket/

9. jennifer

   April 28, 2011

   Excerpts from K. Hamilton, Examiner.com:
   “It’s a Boondoggle,” says Senator Gaines
   Tuesday’s Senate Transportation Committee-
   …now headed by Senator Mark DeSaulnier was attentive, seemed genuinely engaged and no one left at the time of the vote for Senate Bill 517 sponsored by Senator Alan Lowenthal.
   This bill in short was asking for the replacement of all the High Speed Rail Authority Members with technical experts. The new group would report to the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, (BTH) and would remove the independent super agency status of the High Speed Rail Authority. It also provided for senate confirmation for any Gubernatorial Appointee. Lowenthal explained that the current authority had done their job which was to sell the project and now it was time for members with more professional expertise to take over.
   Unlike the Assembly group, the Senate Transportation leadership allowed every person to speak without a stated time frame. Southern California city of Pico Rivera and Atherton as well as the Preserve Our Heritage organization from the Central Valley, Planning and Conversation League (PCL), Community Coalition on High Speed Rail (CC-HSR), TRANSDEF, Rail Passengers Association of California and a surprise endorsement from the Sierra Club all spoke in favor of the bill.
   Those speaking against this bill were the High Speed Rail Authority and Californians for High Speed Rail. Jeff Barker, assistant Deputy Director for the agency, submitted a letter from the Authority board opposing the bill. Daniel Krause representing Californians for High Speed Rail, opposed it as written but added he supports some level of reform. He believed the change out of the entire board at one time would create a level of chaos and prevent exchange of institutional knowledge. In addition, he was opposed to the Senate approving all gubernatorial appointments.
   Vice-chair, Senator Ted Gaines did not vote for the bill simply because he opposed the project. He stated the project appeared to be a “huge waste of money and the market wasn’t showing the demand for the infrastructure in the state.”
   He advised he might have felt been differently if they looked at more profitable routes and investigated using rail at higher speeds on regular tracks which would cost far less than the proposed High Speed Rail. He worried about the project being a “Boondoggle” and afraid the people were sold a “Pig in a Poke” since the proposed expenses were dramatically increasing.
   Before closing Senator Lowenthal responded to some of the criticism. He told the committee regarding the comment that the chaos that might occur with a complete change out of the Authority Board per Californians for High Speed Rail testimony. “We have chaos now.” [] “ This Committee and the Budget sub-committee have repeatedly asked for ridership numbers that are accurate, we’ve asked for outside review, we’re going to have a select committee report on their own peer review that says there are serious problems with the way this agency is operating today. I hear Senator Huff who says this is a fledgling operation, I agree with him but I do not agree that waiting until any more damage is done is the correct way to go about it.” Lowenthal asked for an “accountable, transparent agency that is responsibility to the people of California.” The vote passed out the bill of committee, now it will be up for a vote by the legislature..
   For the next three weeks the budget will be the hot topic. We are assured in the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 there will be discussion of the budget for High Speed Rail and perhaps a face to face discussion of what CEO Van Ark thinks of the Simitian, Eshoo and Gordon plan for the peninsula.
   http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/california-high-speed-rail-bills-heard-it-s-a-boondoggle-says-sen-gaines

10. jennifer

    May 10, 2011

    Yet more waste:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/10/BANG1JE080.DTL&type=newsbayarea

11. Joe Pirate

    May 10, 2011

    I LOVE high speed rail! The faster the better!

12. jennifer

    May 10, 2011

    I hope you love paying for it, too.
    
    
    

13. Rich

    May 18, 2011

    WSJ: California’s Next Train Wreck
    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced last week that he plans to divert to California some $300 million in high-speed rail funds that Florida rejected. Nice timing. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office released a study last week warning the state legislature not to appropriate funds for the same project.
    The state legislature’s fiscal watchdog says California’s high-speed rail authority, which is responsible for planning and overseeing the project, has grossly underestimated the cost. The authority projects that the 500-mile bullet train between Anaheim and San Francisco will cost $43 billion. The analysts start at $67 billion, which they say will go higher if there are construction overruns in metropolitan areas. When are there not such overruns?
    Good luck finding that $67 billion. State taxpayers approved a $9 billion bond measure in November 2008 based on the authority’s assurance that the federal government and private investors would provide $30 billion in capital. The feds have only appropriated about $3.6 billion, and House Republicans aren’t about to subsidize any more. The authority also imagines that local agencies and businesses will chip in $15 billion, but the only people who want to invest in this California Dream are Democratic politicians.
    Then there’s the not-so-small issue of how the state will fund the choo-choo’s day-to-day operations. The authority pegs the initial operating cost at about $1 billion per year, if you choose to believe in miracles. If ridership falls short of the authority’s rosy forecasts, the train will need a subsidy, which the bond measure that voters approved prohibits.
    The authority nonetheless seems intent on charging full speed ahead before California legislators come to their senses and call the whole thing off. Construction on the first $5.5 billion segment between Borden and Corcoran is set to begin in the fall of 2012.
    Why Corcoran? To qualify for stimulus funds, the state had to agree to build the first segment in the Central Valley. The Obama Administration reasoned that building in rural areas would incur less political opposition. Even San Francisco Bay area liberals were up in arms about the rail’s intrusions on their upper-income tranquility. Farmers whose land is going to be ripped up by tracks don’t get the same hearing with Mr. LaHood.
    The Analyst’s Office is begging the rail authority to reconsider the location of the first segment. The report calls it a “big gamble” since ridership won’t be enough to operate the train without a giant subsidy. And if the state can’t come up with enough money to finish the route, a stand-alone segment in the Central Valley would literally be a train to nowhere and a big drain on taxpayers.
    After more or less making the case for stopping the project in its tracks, the analysts couldn’t bring themselves to recommend killing it. Instead, the report advises the legislature to strip the rail authority of decision-making powers and hand control to another government agency that’s supposedly more accountable and has more expertise. But playing bureaucratic musical chairs won’t redeem an irredeemable plan.
    Congress ought to tell Mr. LaHood to devote the $300 million to reducing the federal deficit. And California’s legislature had better pull the plug on the project before it blows up on taxpayers.