Anti-HSR Extremism From the Palo Alto Daily Post
The Palo Alto Daily Post doesn’t believe in putting its content online, which may have made sense in 1997, I guess, but is anachronistic here in 2010. On the other hand, it does mean that their anti-HSR extremism hasn’t gotten as much notice and attention outside Palo Alto. Whether that’s good or bad, I don’t know.
Daily Post editor David Price, one of the hardcore anti-HSR NIMBYs, wrote an editorial yesterday that shows just how extreme the paper, and a small segment of the Peninsula NIMBYs, have become. As the HSR project continues to move forward with broad public support and political backing at the highest levels of state and federal government, with both business and labor groups strongly supportive, the Daily Post is left to gnash its teeth and propose the following extremist agenda for blocking the project. It has four elements, which I’ll discuss in turn.
Letters won’t stop the rail
If you want to stop high-speed rail, you have been told to spend the next month flooding Sacramento with e-mails and letters. The more letters we send, the greater the chance we will stop this train. Or so we are told.
Go ahead and write, if it makes you feel better. But our legislators and officials at the California High Speed Rail Authority are not going to read your letters. They’re going to hire a PR person to skim them over and provide a canned response. Your letters aren’t going to stop the powerful backers of this railroad (labor, engineering firms, land developers) from gutting the heart of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, San Mateo and Burlingame with a monster wider, louder and uglier than Caltrain.
Instead of writing letters, let’s take some serious steps to stop high-speed rail.
Or perhaps the problem is that the Peninsula NIMBYs were massively outvoted, both in their communities and in the state, in November 2008 and that politicians understand this and can place the letters from project opponents in context? There is still plenty of value in writing to politicians on this, especially since they don’t get many letters on the subject, but “stop this train” is not something that is going to fly in either Sacramento or Washington, DC. Prop 1A’s massage and Barack Obama’s election as president meant this train is indeed leaving the station.
So if letters aren’t going to work, according to the Daily Post, what will?
Go back to the ballot
Put the question back on the statewide ballot. A signature- gathering effort will cost about $500,000, and the election campaign could cost millions more. So this won’t be easy.
The campaign would have two themes:
*High-speed rail, at a cost of $43 billion, will take needed state funds away from other more important things like police, firefighting and schools.
*The public wasn’t told all of the facts about the rail before the 2008 election, and many of the “facts” at the time were greatly exaggerated, such as the projected ridership.
This may be one of the funniest things I’ve read all month.
High speed rail just isn’t going back to the ballot. The chances of this happening are zero. The Daily Post is actually lowballing the cost of a signature-gathering effort; it usually costs between $1 and $2 million to get the signatures necessary to put an initiative on the ballot. And unless they start tomorrow, there’s no chance of making the November 2010 ballot – the soonest a repeal could go before voters is the presidential primary ballot in February 2012. By that point the SF-SJ section will be well on its way toward construction. It will be practically, if not technically, too late by then to stop the train.
The public was indeed told “all the facts” in 2008, and in the midst of an economic meltdown and with full awareness of the state budget deficit, with the media full of claims that HSR would somehow take funds from schools and police (which it doesn’t), voters still said “yes” to Prop 1A. By 2012, when there may have been at least two years of slow but steady economic recovery, these HSR denier arguments will be even less valid and effective than in 2008.
Bring out the lawyers
The Palo Alto area has some of the world’s top lawyers and Stanford’s law school. We need to form an all-star legal dream team of hundreds of lawyers working on a pro bono basis to stand up to the army of lawyers the state has to push this project down our throats. These lawyers could be:
*Suing over every aspect of this project, and constantly demanding restraining orders and injunctions. The more litigating we do, the more likely we can stop this project in the courts. Environmental groups know how to do this better than anyone – let’s see if they’ll help us?*Going to bat for homeowners whose property the rail authority intends to seize through eminent domain. It’s important to act fast because once the state has decided to take a property, it’s gone, and the only issue at that point is how much money the homeowner will get.
Uh, don’t look now, but that strategy hasn’t exactly gone very well. Menlo Park and Atherton sued the Authority over the choice of Pacheco Pass and lost. They got lucky with two unrelated items in the EIR that the judge ruled needed to be revisited, and the revised EIR was recently approved by the Authority and is now out for public comment. There’s every reason to believe this one will be approved by the judge, and close this chapter of the debate. Menlo Park and Atherton will have spent taxpayers’ money and gotten nothing in return. One hopes they’ll be more cautious in the future.
Plus, threatening frivolous lawsuits without regard to their legal merit isn’t exactly a good thing to be advocating. It’s a sign of desperation.
Threaten their jobs
Let’s create a political action committee to raise money and defeat legislators who back this project. Knocking off one or two pro-train or “done right” lawmakers will have more impact than a million letters and e-mails.
Legislators and the rail authority don’t care how many letter we write. It’s a big joke to them. That’s why they’re telling us to write. It will distract us as they push their project through. But they will care if their jobs are threatened. Let’s hit them where it hurts.
Once again this is entirely wishful thinking. Palo Alto voters can influence exactly two seats in the Legislature: their Assembly district and their State Senate district. Even then that influence is limited – the 21st Assembly District will get a new representative this year, but HSR doesn’t appear to be a major factor in the Democratic primary. Former Palo Alto mayor Joe Simitian is the State Senator from the 11th District, but is termed out in 2012. The district is likely to look very different in 2012 after redistricting, so it is unlikely that Palo Alto will play the key role in deciding who holds this seat.
Beyond those two districts, Palo Alto HSR deniers will have NO impact whatsoever on the other 118 Assembly and Senate districts, and likely won’t have any impact on who holds the governor’s office (though current Atherton resident Meg Whitman could be something of a wild card, as her HSR views are so far unknown). There are a small handful of folks around the state also upset about this or that aspect of HSR, but there’s nothing anywhere close to a base of support for an anti-HSR organizing plan to influence state elections.
What all of these silly and desperate strategies require is money, and lots of it. Whether it’s going back to the ballot, paying the legal bills for the “sue early, sue often” strategy, or spending enough money to even be noticed in a campaign for the state legislature, these things require expenditures in the millions of dollars to have any hope of stopping HSR in its tracks.
Who would be willing to open their pockets to fund such an expensive effort? The whole point of stopping the trains, at least from the perspective of the Peninsula NIMBYs, is to preserve their property values so they never have to spend another dime of their own money on anything that might benefit society (including themselves). Would they actually step up fund this expensive strategy?
It looks pretty doubtful to me. If such a willingness to open the wallets existed, it would have already materialized in big funding for anti-HSR efforts. So far, however, that hasn’t happened, with HSR deniers relying on local governments like Menlo Park and Atherton to fund the legal attack on HSR.
This all seems like a fairly desperate “last stand” from the Daily Post. The preliminary Alternatives Analysis this week revealed a project that is proceeding forward as planned through what is always the most challenging part of a big infrastructure project. Most residents of the Peninsula are willing to engage the design process with an open mind, even if they are critical of different aspects of the project, even if they aren’t as fully supportive of HSR as someone like myself.
There’s still a long way to go before construction starts, and a lot of tricky issues to resolve. But if this is the best that the anti-HSR crowd can offer, then I’m feeling more confident we can resolve those issues and get this project under construction in a timely manner, just as the people of California expect and deserve.
Shorter Daily Post: let’s get Stanford’s law professors to work for us for free! And let’s get environmentalists to stop mass transit!
I guess they’ve never heard of the fact that to get an injunction you have to post a bond. For a project of this magnitude that bond would be VERY expensive.
I know someone closely involved with getting a measure on the ballot for the November 2010 election, and their budget is $2million just for collecting signatures and then raising another $10-$12 million for the campaign itself. $500K is not going to get them anywhere.
With regards to litigation, I’d be interested to see what they come up with. The original Menlo Park/Atherton et al litigation didn’t get them very much, and the Russell Peterson litigation is heading for a demurrer hearing on June 15. You can read the Authority’s demurrer here. In a nutshell, the Authority’s response to the Peterson litigation is that the litigation fails to state a cause of action and should be dismissed. Beyond a certain point, frivolous litigation can open attorneys to sanctions (see Orly Taitz) and so a sustained effort to delay through litigation is going to be hard to implement unless plaintiffs can come up with a better argument than “this is going to cost a lot of money and I don’t want it in my backyard.”
As a former journalist, I’m ashamed of the Post. I’m not sure how those guys can look themselves in the eyes.
James Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The Palo Alto Daily is locally recognized as a rag that cannot even bother to spell-check articles. Yet it is convenient for local advertisements. Unfortunately the Daily steals the advertisement revenue from the much better quality Palo Alto Weekly which is online.
Palo Alto Weekly
I’m sure you are aware of this, but not all of Palo Alto has this NIMBY mentality. As a downtown Palo Alto resident, not only am I excited about HSR connecting SF to LA, but I’m hoping they build the mid-Peninsula station in Palo Alto.
TomW Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Myabe you should write some letters to local newspapers and those who were elected to represent you informing them of that. I find supporters tend to be a lot quieter than opponents.
The Post’s entire business model is to stir the pot in order to draw readers into their advertisements, which is why they don’t publish on the web. I must admit it’s entertaining, and I will usually pick up the post before the daily news or the daily journal. People like snide, snarky and fun.
That being said, I don’t believe that the cities of Menlo Park or Atherton contributed even one dime to any lawsuit. They are plaintiffs, yes, but that is different than paying for lawyers.
Bianca Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
They may not have contributed to the legal fees, but without a doubt all the litigation was reviewed by their City Attorneys before joining in. Those may be staff positions but that does not mean that Menlo Park or Atherton didn’t spend any taxpayer money on the litigation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
And the city attorney has support staff who don’t work for free, and the photocopies that got passed around etc. It wasn’t cheap.
This is real “party of No” stuff – if you don’t have power, and the majority doesn’t agree with you, throw up every procedural obstacle you can think of.
Rumor time.
I heard that Katz, Pringle and others are pretty much taking over the California High Speed Rail Authority and will be steering the project in a different direction after Mehdi leaves, one that could result in big changes. You may see laws overturning some aspects of the project, such as eliminating Anaheim to LA, transforming Pacheco into Altamont, and maybe even terminating the route in San Jose to kowtow to local interests. The run time requirement would be relaxed, as some believe 2 hours and 40 minutes is simply not doable. This would happen even faster if Kopp drops dead.
It seems to be the opposite approach of the way Kopp has been running things, and each has their pros and cons. Of course, Kopp would like to see entire towns buldozed in order to get this thing built, but that results in dedicated tracks, 220 MPH trains, and city centers served, even if it’s more expensive than building a space elevator to Mars. The other approach is less costly, but may result in shared trackage, beet field stations, and a pussy staff that sucks the cock of every mayor from Palo Alto to Norwalk.
Either way the fireworks should be fun as this thing gets closer to reality. In both cases I take the firm stance that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. At the end of the day, California needs a better rail system.
Bianca Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I’ll grant that Pringle is running a different show now that he’s chair, but unless you have actual sources for those rumors, I’m not giving them any weight.
And, hey, stay classy there Spokker. Sheesh.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
They are rumors and gossip. I didn’t know I was supposed to cite them. Is MLA or Chicago preferable to you?
Perhaps the warning “Rumor time.” escaped you. That’s a pretty good indication that RUMORS ARE COMING.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Also, whether these rumors are truthful or not (and whether I agree with their premises or not), it’s possible that the people that hold such opinions have access to the ears of people like Art Leahy and Will Kempton.
And I also heard that Leahy is going to be a big factor in what happens to the project in Southern California. Metro has 30 years of Measure R money and may want to be a bigger player in this thing. Leahy mentioned the money it in his recent comments.
Bobierto Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
If you’re telling me that to visit my friends in Berkeley I would have to change to Caltrain in San Jose, and then change to BART in SF – I guess I’ll have to hope that SWA keeps flying to OAK. “Anything is better than nothing” is a great philosophy and worked for health care reform – but stopping in SJ is just crazy. But then I’m one of those people who won’t be parking in Victorville, either.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“but stopping in SJ is just crazy.”
I agree.
Bobierto Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
By the way, Chicago, please.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Okay I never cited a rumor before but here goes.
“TRAC People, Crazy. 2010. California High Speed Rail Rumors and Predictions. Los Angeles: University of Tinfoil Hats.
Additionally, the shared track alternative that some people want is four tracks that are technically shared between Amtrak, Metrolink, HSR *and* freight, but with freight primarily confined to two tracks, with minimal interaction.
I personally support the expanded shared track alternative, which would limit freight to three dedicated tracks, while Metrolink, Amtrak and HSR share two tracks, for a total of 5. Stations would have four tracks. The expanded shared track alternative would probably also need flyovers for when freight needs access to the South side of the right of way. Fullerton-Anaheim would still only need two tracks and freight could be relegated to late-night/early morning.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Bluebook
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
No, you’d be able to transfer to BART in San Jose and then spend an hour or two stopping every mile or so while the BART train toddles up the east side of the Bay. Didn’t you always want to take an hours long BART ride?
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
By then Caltrain will be paved over since it shut down years ago due to financial difficulties/confusion
Bobierto Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Years ago I commuted from Berkeley to Fremont, and painful as the 880 is, it was better than BART. I’m just sayin’. They should run express trains.
lyqwyd Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
yeah, I did the exact same thing and came to the exact same conclusion. And believe me, I tried as hard as I could to not have to drive on 880!
Joseph E Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
You could take the Capitol Corridor. San Jose to Berkeley in 1 hour 20 minutes (same time as driving, if you happen to live next to the Berkeley station). But yeah, that’s a long way on transit, even with a 37 mph average speed.
Seeing that BART from SF to Berkeley takes 24 minutes, and HSR from SJ to SF will take about 30 minutes, you are only saving about 35 minutes (If your destination is UC Berkeley) by going to SF instead of SJ on the train… assuming the Capitol Corridor ran every 15 minutes. Which it doesn’t.
But yeah, stopping in San Jose would be unbelievable stupid. I’m not buying your “rumors”, Spokker. I’m inclined to believe you are making them up yourself. ;-)
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I think you underestimate the lunacy of the TRAC crew.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
According to BART’s trip planner Downtown Berkeley to Fremont takes 48 minutes. It’s very likely that Fremont to San Jose is going to take a bit more than 12. The trip will take over an hour. Upgrade the Capitol Corridor to the middling speed HSR will be getting on the Peninsula. ( they’d have to do scary things like express past most of Oakland, which I’m sure will cause all the passengers who had their heart set on seeing Fruitvale before they died, disappointed.) and it’s going to be a much faster trip than changing to BART in San Jose.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
“I’m inclined to believe you are making them up yourself. ;-)”
I’m making up that some people want to see the train terminated in San Jose? That people are working right now to craft bills to terminate the project, much less pass laws changing it? Tons of people have expressed these things many, many times.
What I’m saying is that if certain interests succeed in chipping away at the project, such as changing routes to bypass city centers or switching alternatives to placate homeowners, it only increases the chance of Peninsula interests getting their way too.
Again, there are pros and cons to the different ways people approach this project. Run roughshod and you get things done, but piss off a lot of people. Play nice with land owners and mayors, you also get things done, but you end up with compromises.
There must be a delicate balance so that the project is actually built, but does not turn into another Acela.
But God forbid you are even perceived as saying anything negative around here. You’re a fucking insane, pathetic, piece of shit hivemind, Christ.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
The question still persists: Where exactly did you hear these rumors?
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I said it. People who share a similar mindset with that of TRAC.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
That’s pretty vague.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
They are just predictions, of what some advocates, professionals and politicians think is going to happen, and are working toward making happen.
If you don’t want to know what they think, then by all means, don’t read my posts. But they are working hard and are good at what they do.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Nono, what they think is interesting, I’m just curious to know who they are.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
It’s difficult to say, because different people have said different things, some of it publicly and some of it private. Also, no single person believes *all* of the things I posted here. It is a collection of thoughts from different people (some supporters, some in the opposition), including myself (though I don’t agree with all of it or even most of it).
So I can’t just throw out a name or two. But consider someone like Art Leahy, who has to be as diplomatic as possible, starting to throw his weight around. He could either be very helpful or very difficult when it comes to high speed rail in Los Angeles.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
There already bills out there, from people like Diane Harkey, trying to limit the project’s ability to spend the Prop 1A bond. However, it’s my understanding that any change to the project authorized by Prop 1A requires another vote, and I’m not sure that’s likely to even happen, not to mention get approved.
I also don’t believe this “bypassing city centers” business. Maybe Chowchilla/Madera, but not Merced or Fresno or Bakersfield, all of which have said they want downtown stations and are closer to getting them as the design and environmental review process continues.
In fact, the discussion about the Merced-Fresno segment would reinforce that point. Chowchilla and Madera may well get bypassed as they want, but another bypass route, A3, was abandoned because the Authority didn’t want to piss off farmers west of Madera. There is political logic in sticking as close as possible to existing rail corridors rather than creating an entirely new alignment.
Tony D. Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Rumor time.
The world’s gonna end in 2012!
By the way Spok, all of those “rumors” would be illegal under Prop. 1A; much like terminating HSR in San Jose would be.
Bianca Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Hey, were you at last Thursday’s board meeting too?
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
“You may see laws overturning some aspects of the project”
“You may see laws overturning some aspects of the project”
“You may see laws overturning some aspects of the project”
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
There are some big holes in these rumors. Some of these include:
1. Terminating in San José. It’s not just illegal, it’s politically suicidal. You don’t suddenly move to take away trains from serving the city the Speaker of the House represents. Pringle is not nuts.
2. Abandoning LA-Anaheim. Pringle is going to want something for his city, and the ARRA stimulus funds included LA-Anaheim and SF-SJ (yet another reason why terminating in San José is very unlikely). Pringle and the CHSRA board are looking to ease concerns in LA and Orange Counties, but not to abandon the route entirely.
3. Transforming Pacheco into Altamont. The Pacheco route has already been selected and the Authority went through the lawsuit and revising the EIR to deal with the judge’s ruling. I don’t see them suddenly shifting to Altamont. While each route was about equal in merit, there was definitely important political backing for Pacheco. That wasn’t why the route was chosen, but it will help ensure it remains chosen.
4. Beet field stations. Where, exactly? The cities in the Central Valley all want downtown stations, such as Merced. Pringle did vote to accept the preliminary AA that only carries forward downtown Merced as a station option in the Merced area, for example, so not only is this politically unlikely, but also practically unlikely.
5. Changing the system guidelines as laid out in Prop 1A requires going back to voters. That’s not easy, and I currently don’t see the legislature doing so.
I know you’re just the messenger, Spokker, so this isn’t a criticism of you, but I’d be very surprised if those things come to pass.
On the other hand, some of this makes sense – they’re already courting Art Leahy, although his role seems overstated. The Authority is already trying to play nicer with local governments, which is a welcome development in any case. But the rest of it strikes me as highly unlikely to come to pass.
California does need a better rail system, but voters approved a true bullet train system, and expect it to be built. The worst thing that could happen for California rail from a political perspective is voters getting annoyed that suddenly the pledge of European or Japanese style bullet trains is eroded and we get a faster and more useful Amtrak that’s still hobbled in important ways that limit the growth of ridership on trains in this state.
If Californians are going to support rail, they are going to need to see the HSR system built as promised. I don’t know that rail advocates around this state have really come to grips with that reality yet.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
1. Once again, it’s not illegal if you change the law. I know you are sticking to that point, and it’s a very clever thing to do, but any part of this project can be changed. Political suicide? Maybe, but crazier things have happened in politics, especially if the Authority loses the will to fight.
2. I believe that the vote on revisiting shared trackage may lead the way to an upgraded Surfliner/Metrolink with timed-transfers to high speed rail. What if people get to Pringle and convince him that “sparing” his city from high speed rail, that placating Republicans who feign devotion to cost effectiveness is the right thing to do, that existing services will be just fine? What then?
3. Again, anything can change.
4. I agree with serving the Central Valley well. An I-5 “racetrack” is not a priority for me (and something that I disagree on with many of the people generating these rumors), but if cost consciousness becomes the new creed, this is a very real possibility. A compromise may be beet field stations away from Central Valley cities that are less accessible. I think this possibility is where Clem has been heading in his posts. Apologies to him if I misinterpreted.
5. They really do want a re-vote.
“The worst thing that could happen for California rail from a political perspective is voters getting annoyed that suddenly the pledge of European or Japanese style bullet trains is eroded”
By changing the project, they believe they are delivering a European style bullet train.
But really, think of all the ways this could turn out. Which are terrible? Which are great? Upgraded Amtrak doesn’t sound so bad, especially if it only cost what an upgraded Amtrak would cost.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
1. I definitely do not claim to be an expert on CA constitutional law, but if I understand it correctly, the Constitution can only be changed through a constitutional amendment. If the general outline of HSR’s endpoints are defined in the Constitution, as they are through Prop 1A, then only a new ballot proposition can undo it. At this point I believe the most the Legislature can do is hold up sale of the bonds or completely defund the Authority.
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
“only a new ballot proposition can undo it.”
But that’s what some people want!
Look, I want a bullet train more than most people and would pave over as many white people’s houses as it takes, but I am not naive enough to believe that there is not massive (and more powerful than you give them credit for) opposition to this project as planned from NIMBYs, rail supporters and “supporters.”
The Leahy-Kempton letter and Leahy’s subsequent criticism may be a turning point in this project, for better or worse. That’s all I’m saying.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Then lets beat them up spokker!!! I could give U F@@K if nimbys dont like it..Robert here post this stuff then rips you if your to mean to these people…So what is the puropse of this???who cares build this and stop acting like PaloAlto on line
Spokker Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I want more than nothing else to drop a deuce in the Central Valley aboard a high speed train, but without a reliable cost-benefit analysis I fear it may be one of those wincing, tearful dumps that happens every so often.
The People of California didn’t vote for that.
Tony D. Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“But that’s what some people want!”
WHO CARES WHAT THEY WANT! We had a vote and supporters of this project won. And how does a letter mark some “turning point” in this project? Last I checked, we lived in a democracy, and a vast majority of voting Californians want HSR. That’s all I’m going to say on that as well.
Joey Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
I don’t believe that Proposition 1A modified the constitution (according to Wikipedia it now forms part of the Streets and Highways code). I’m pretty sure the legislature can modify it if they want (not that they will though).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Changing the law is not nearly as easy as your sources make it sound. Prop 1A isn’t in the state constitution, but if a second vote is required, that makes things very complicated and success if not at all assured, especially since that second vote would be asking voters to scale back the project. HSR opponents wouldn’t be interested since they don’t want it at all, and HSR supporters wouldn’t be interested either since it would be an abandonment of their promises.
You make an interesting point on #2. Some sort of shared tracks are OK, but the basic elements of HSR service have to be protected. It’s a case we’ll have to make rather consistently; HSR is not about upgrading existing service but is about building new and much better service that also helps upgrade existing service.
As to the Central Valley, they’re so far along on approvals for the Highway 99 corridor, and dependent on that ridership, that it would seem difficult at best to suddenly shift to the I-5 alignment. That sounds to me like wishful thinking from Tolmach, nothing more.
Moreover, all of these things involve abandoning the 4 elements of the project that got stimulus funds – SF-SJ, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, and LA-Anaheim. I can’t imagine the Authority leaving $2.25 billion on the table.
If there is a push to “dumb down” HSR, it’s going to encounter huge obstacles.
jim Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The stimulus funds could all be spent on Fresno-Bakersfield, if CHSRA asked. There’s no federal anchor for LA-Anaheim (or for SF-SJ, but I agree that terminating in SJ would be political suicide).
Once the Prop 1A money is all spent, though, I don’t see why CHSRA would still be bound by its conditions. While it’s spending the money, it has to do so in good faith, of course, but once the money is gone and the Authority is faced with the challenge of finishing the system with a combination of federal and private dollars and it can only get those dollars by relaxing some element of the design that was necessary to achieving a Prop 1A requirement, I don’t see that it’s precluded from such modification.
Peter Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“Prop 1A isn’t in the state constitution”
I stand corrected. Everything else seems to be, though.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I don’t think Spokker is so crazy. But I’d add that the rumors probably reflect Leahy, Kempton, Katz, and Pringle pretty well. All of them are Southern Californians and while the food fight on the Peninsula has been raging, the SoCal power brokers have likely been meeting and preparing for their stance on the issue.
1) The cities are naturally unhappy with the “top down” style of CHSRA. I’m sure Pringle & Co. would be happy to change that.
2) Abandon LA to Anaheim. If fares are high, why would anyone want this segment if it’s going to eat into the Surfliner? Optimizing that service would be a boon for rail transit in Southern California. Oh sure, people are going to point to time, but what advantage would HSR have if it lacks dedicated tracks on the spur to Anaheim?
3) The return of Altamont and the Central Valley. This could just be a cost issue. If the Board thinks it cheaper they may be content to explore these ideas…ad nauseam.
4) Beet field stations. Given that this is already the rule in plenty of California cities, I’m neither suprised nor excited if this happens.
5) Changing the law. Usually ballot propositions can be changed if they reflect the spirit of the law through the will of the voters.
Still, I think the real point is that Leahy n’ Company are fed up with being run over by Kopp n’ Friends. The solution is probably going to be worse than the affliction, but that is how these things go….
Spokker Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 12:44 am
The Surfliner makes its money on Santa Barbara to San Diego runs. It’s an entirely different service.
The point of a shared track alternative is to offer a one-seat ride to Anaheim without breaking the bank.
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
They could make the LA-Anaheim (or even Sylmar-Anaheim) “metrolink” line an electrified, non-compliant HSR-compatible line, then the “shared” 2HST+3FRA option is just 2HST/Metrolink Express + 3Metrolink/Surfliner/BNSF.
That might require a third track from Fullerton to Anaheim for the Surfliners and some passing tracks at the metrolink stations.
It would be a positive step forward for Metrolink as well and the direction they should be headed in anyway. While Caltrain being compatible with HSR is seemingly off the table, there’s still hope for metrolink. If you want to get real crazy they could go with noncompliant DMUs and run them all the way down to oceanside.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Er, um, ah, no.
The thing that people miss about the L.A. to Anaheim segment of HSR is that for years they have sough to triple track the rails between Union Station and Fullerton. Now understand, because that is also part of the vaunted BNSF “Southern Transcon” it is very hard to get additional capacity for Metrolink or the Surfliner because of the competition from freight.
Now, realize that this put the MTA in LA County in a difficult position. That’s because Metrolink is technically a contractor to the MTA and charges about $8 to travel the Anaheim to LA route. But because it was limited in adding capacity, it embraced the “Rail 2 Rail” program which allows Metrolink riders to take the Surfliner instead for routes that it covers. That sounds all good…but the Surfliner costs $11 to go from Union Station to Anaheim. Guess who covers the difference? The MTA. And guess who is now the operator for Metrolink in light of the Chatsworth crash? Yes it’s Amtrak. So Art Leahy and the MTA Board fork over serious coin to shuttle people for cheap between Anaheim and L.A. as it is.
Now the chance is that Metrolink and or Amtrak will lose capacity to make HSR viable. HSR isn’t going to be able to charge $11 or $8 for that LA to Anaheim leg. Moreover, Union Station is a hub for all of Metro’s rail service be it Metrolink or the subway. ARTIC is going to be interesting to watch, but it’s not the same league.
But seriously, is the rider who desperately wants the one seat ride willing to pay twice as much or more for that privilege, as opposed to waiting at Union Station for a connection. Given the subjective nature of ridership to Anaheim, I’m not sold.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
There is the alternative of Metrolink using HSR compliant equipment between Anaheim and Union Station. Surfliner either continues to run on the freight tracks – which should have more slots for ti because the Metrolink trains are on the HSR tracks. Or have everybody change to Metrolink or HSR at Anaheim. People, North Americans even, change trains all the time.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 12:40 am
It’s not a logistical problem…even though I’m sure BNSF could make it out to be. It’s as pure as Richard Mlynarik could say: there’s overlap with commuter rail and heavy rail here. There’s an amalgam of state agencies and local authorities running all of these things and no one really knows what the ultimately outcome is. Should the Capitol Corridor run to SJ if BART does too? Do we need CalTrain if there’s HSR to Transbay? Just how many stops in Southern California should there be? And what should we do with the San Joaquins after HSR service begins?
Tax dollars are already paying a subsidy to send people between Union Station and Anaheim. The question is how much more should they pay to get HSR service between those two points?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
So what you are saying is that all those commuter trains that go into Penn Station in New York are superfluous and everybody should be on Acela? Or Acela is superfluous and every body should be on some amalgam of MARC/SEPTA/NJTransit or better yet PATH should be extended all the way to Washington DC? That all the buses that run on parallel routes should be eliminated? Or that the trains are superfluous because there are parallel bus routes and everybody should just get on the bus?
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Yeah, in Berlin they should transfer from the ICE and all other DB services to the S-Bahn at Wannsee to get into the city, too. I like that idea. Or not.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Okay. Seriously.
From Washington Union Station to New Carrollton in Maryland you have three options.
1) Take WMATA at a cost of $2.45. (Requires transfers)
2) Take MARC at a cost of $4 on the same train
3) Take Amtrak for $15-$20
4) Take Acela for $30+
Obvoiusly, it’s pretty easy here for the various operators to cling to their price points. Plus, WMATA, MARC, and Amtrak are different jurisdictions, with source of revenue and so on and so on.
In LA County meanwhile, Metrolink is a contractor of the MTA. Their rail options currently do not overlap with Metrolink but Metrolink does currently overlap with a smaller section of the Surfliner. It just so happens that this is also the most congested part of the entire alignment. So now, MTA is paying Amtrak just to allow Metrolink customer to ride the Surfliner because it can’t get any more capacity on that route for Metrolink. Meanwhile, unless there is significant new capacity, HSR is going to cost the MTA more money as it will have to subsidize some Metrolink customers to take HSR instead potentially because it will be cheaper or easier than getting more capacity. But since HSR is going to cost probably $20-$40 to go from Anaheim to L.A….. that’s not exactly a deal when both Amtrak and Metrolink are closer to $10……
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
New Carrolton to Union Station is a very congested part of the NEC. Three different price ppints from two different operators all on the same tracks. What’s your point.
New York to Newark NJ is even more congested. NJTransit has local and express service between Newark and New York. Amtrak has regional and Acela service. Quarter of a million people a day use PATH. ( Not all of them at Newark but trains depart Newark every 3-5 minutes at peak ) NJTransit also has bus service along with Greyhound to the Port Authority bus terminal in Manhattan. ( and there’s probably a way to get from Union Station to New Carrollton by local bus, there’s also Greyhound) What’s your point?
Someday you’ll be able to get a one seat ride from Anaheim to San Francisco, Sacramento or Las Vegas. If it’s wildly popular there will still be excess capacity on the two tracks HSR uses. Why can’t Metrolink use the excess capacity?
Alon Levy Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Okay, so what you’re suggesting is to not keep the currently proposed situation of two incompatible track systems and break the bank on tunnels, but also ban Metrolink from serving stations between Anaheim and LAUS that aren’t Norwalk. Unless, of course, you want to escalate the budget even further by building underground station shells at every Metrolink station?
Spokker Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Also, the potential for Metrolink and Amtrak trains to use the Union Station run-through tracks is pretty great, and would negate the need for another set of run-through tracks.
Stub end stations can be kind of annoying sometimes.
Joey Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 12:51 am
You know, all the upper level tracks will be on high platforms, incompatible with the Surfliners. The runthrough tracks project will have to proceed in its current form, though hopefully they’ll at least coordinate it with the HSR alignment…
dejv Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 7:14 am
Surfliner will be stuck with low platforms forever?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Here’s another thought: why must CHSR have high level (> 760mm, or some equivalent in furlongs that they can work out using their steam-powered slide rules) platforms anyway? I mean, other than PBQD’s team being The Finest Transportation Planning Professionals on The Planet and the answer to everything being There Is No Alternative?
There are some good arguments (D O U B L E D E C K) for putting the doors closer to the ground.
Yes obviously it’s possible to build double deck high speed trains with >1m entry height, but it comes with drawbacks: greater space lost to interior stairs, very restricted wheelchair range, doors forced to be clustered unevenly towards car ends, etc.
There are some good arguments (T A L G O single deck, and EU TSI) for as high as 760mm as well.
There are indeed good arguments (I C E, A G V) for 1100-1250mm, but they aren’t overwhelming, and they need to be carefully considered in context and against trade offs — things that are guaranteed never to happen under any circumstance at CSHRA.
Speaking of plartform heights, much of the brilliant “justification” that the cretins at Caltrain/LTK Engineering Services use for their requirement that Caltrain and HSR can never ever ever ever ever share stations or platforms is that Caltrain “needs” to stay compatible with the 17 (count em, a grand total of 17) unpowered Bombardier passenger coaches it owns today. It’s perfectly willing to spend several hundred million dollars rebuilding every platform of every station to a 660mm existing-Bombardier height, and perfectly willing to waste five billion dollars building completely separate and incompatible stations for HSR that will benefit none of its passengers in any way, but it’s unwilling to even THINK (“thinking”? At the Peninsula Rail Program? Ho ho ho ho ho!) about maybe just maybe replacing $50 million worth of rolling stock that has excellent resale value.
Pure economic genius of a type that consistently characterizes the entire CHSRA and Caltrain consultant feeding frenzy. Maximize capital cost and and maximize operating cost! Win-win synergy from The World’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals.
BTW I agree with you that the existing Surfliner equipment shouldn’t dictate anything. It could all be sold for scrap and completely replaced for less than the rounding errors in the LA Union Station budget overruns.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Or they could go with Shinkansen standards and borrow a few Comets from agencies in the Northeast during the transistion….. Minor modifications makes them compatible with Shinkansen platforms and at the same time handle low platforms easily. . . or borrow a few Comets from Metrolink which has leased a few from Frontrunner who bought them used and cheap from NJTransit … or use Amfleets.. something…
dejv Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The only valid drawback of high-platform double-deck cars is restricted space for wheelchairs. The space taken by stairs is minimized when the door is at middle deck that is close to midway between upper and lower deck. When the door is at lower deck only, it seriously impedes passenger flow from upper deck. Actually, high-platform is the only viable way to design double-decker with high-throughput doors (Altéo).
If you want to see what is best for new system, forget Europe. Mainland Europe is stuck with a lot of backward compatibility, including tons of stops and stations with platform height in 200-840 mm range and since advent of low-floor rolling stock, it’s essentially impossible to raise platform more than one step above actual floor height without breaking compatibility with it. Low floor vehicles are heavier and more expensive than equal high-floor vehicles, but capital costs needed to eliminate need of them are very high and it wouldn’t be paid from the same account as vehicles.
The California’s case is totally different, there’s one obsolete standard and possibly one new standard, so upgrade path can be much easier. Just bring the old BiLevels to the shops, cut new high-platform door next to old ones with staircase (or reinstall old door above trucks in ex-NJT cars) and use them simultaneously during transition period – something you couldn’t do once you buy shiny new Flirts (Talents, Desiros, etc.) with life span of 40 years.
Talgo is nice, but it still can’t make distributed traction and they’re one of the kind (if I don’t cound Alstom’s and Kawasaki’s double-deckers). OTOH, you can buy high-floor HS trains from Alstom, Bombardier, Hitachi, Kawasaki and Siemens (and China).
There’s nice example how to make good system that doesn’t have to mined past mistakes – in Japan. They did some basic math and found out that by widening their existing loading gauge by 0.5 m gain the same number of extra passengers as by adding another deck for 2/3 of increase of cross section area and much less weight penalty. The same goes for platform height, track curvature next to platform, electrification system, distributed traction an so on.
Peter Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@ dejv
I like your idea of fitting new mid-level doors on the bi-levels. However, what is the possibility that this would work in light of the differing loading gauges?
How about transitioning by constructing new high platforms that permit the current Plate F (?) freight cars, using a temporary platform extension attached to the higher door, and then replacing the fleet with bi-level EMUs for which the new platforms were built?
AndyDuncan Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
@Peter: given that UIC loading gauge is narrower than both the Shinkanen and US passenger rail loading gauges, the “use some leftover NJ equipment” and “cut doors on the existing trains” would only work if the new trains, and new platforms were US Passenger loading gauge or wider. You’d have an ADA noncompliant gap for the transition, but that’s not a big deal.
Shinkansen/THSR/Chinese/Russian wide loading gauges would work, and also are wider than plate F. As much as I don’t want to be the guy in the middle seat in a 3+2 train for three hours, I think the wider loading gauge is the way to go.
One thing I’m curious about is whether the AGV can be widened without going over weight. The AGV’s axle loads are already on the high side, so going wide gauge may put them out of contention.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 2:49 am
The Chinese loading gauge is about 1.5 cm wider than the US freight loading gauge. Modifying either the trains or the tracks should be trivial: the wide track spacing in the US almost certainly means that widerning trains doesn’t involve more than shaving back the platforms by a few millimeters. It might even be possible to stretch the loading gauge 11 cm and allow unmodified Shinkansen trains to run.
Peter, mid-level doors on bilevels are rare. The RER uses them because it’s insanely overcrowded, at least by Western standards; it needs space for both quick boarding and alighting and for more passengers on the train, with some areas with forward-facing commuter-style seats.
dejv Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 8:00 am
@Peter, AndyDuncan:
A small clarification regarding UIC loading gauge: the cars have to fit within 3150 mm wide loading gauge in 250 m radius curve, so the car width can be anything between 2800 mm (Pendolinos) to 3120 (two-axle raibuses). So e.g. Spacium 3.O6 is actually wider than Multilevel.
My 2 cents of personal experience with UIC cars: 4+0 seating in old Bautzen car (with compartments and narrow ~600 mm corridor, so seat width is around 520 mm) isn’t much comfortable. On the other hand, 2825 mm wide open coaches with about the same aisle width and 2+2 seating feels pretty comfortable width-wise – with the same seat width. So if one wants to add another seat to be comfortable, it must be 550-600 mm wide. Swedes seem to get to the same conclusion, because their Reginas at 3450 mm are indeed 600 mm wider than 26m UIC cars (and 50 mm wider than Shinkansens). They also take advantage of european low platform height by narrowing the train towards the bottom, so the train is compatible with them.
IMO, the most restricting clearance is that of STRACNET. There are several ways how to cope with it
- on lines that are unlikely to carry military moves often, use removable cantilever slabs for platform edge. Allows virtually any platform height or rolling stock width (probably the best thing for SF peninsula with negligible strategic importance)
- build platforms at separate or gauntlet tracks. Allows any plaftorm height or vehicle width, too, but points raise operation costs
- build platform edge at 1000-1100 mm range, well below widest part of STRACNET clearance. It allows any carbody width but doesn’t allow level boarding with long-distance cars that are NEC-compatible. It’s no big deal IMO, because:
* cars for CA-only operations can be easily modified to conform such standard
* long distance cars aren’t mandated to provide level boarding, ’cause they’re nothing of “light rail, rapid rail and commuter rail” (citation from here)
* the height difference is just one step that doesn’t impede passenger flow nor poses major obstacle for strollers, elderly people etc.
* wheelchairs on such can be easily accomodated by simple hand-operated ramps like those on low-floor buses
In addition, the visible step allows wider platform-car gap at the same level of safety, because when people notice the step, they notice the gap as well.
- build 1220 mm high platforms at STRACNET-compatible distance. This would make necessary either 3500 mm wide carbodies at floor level or Mini-Shinkansen-style bridge
Note that BART adheres to NEC-like 3200 mm wide loading gauge with 1220 mm platforms, so adopting platforms of the same height (and those gap-bridges) allows even BART-heavy-rail compatibility.
It seems that Caltrans should have some department that would coordinate building brand-new high-speed system by CHSRA with modernizing existing systems of Caltrain, Metrolink and Amtrak California.
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 8:54 am
@ dejv
“It seems that Caltrans should have some department that would coordinate building brand-new high-speed system by CHSRA with modernizing existing systems of Caltrain, Metrolink and Amtrak California.”
God, I wish that they did something smart like that. But you would have to get the CPUC involved, as well, so that your standards are actually legal.
Joey Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The way things are going, most of California will be stuck with low platforms for the greater part of our lives. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see our entire rail system unified at a common (high) platform height, but we all know that smart people don’t make important decisions.
As said before… ths blog and blog posts like this one, just add fuel to the fire – it legitimizes the Palo Alto nimby argument.
In my opinion, it’s not worthy referencing the media on nimby stuff unless it is covered by the bigger papers.
Tony D. Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I agree Brandon!
We’re not hearing anything from the “Big Dogs”, i.e. City’s of SF, SJ, LA, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, because the NIMBY’s on the Peninsula are irrelevant in the big picture. You don’t see the Times, Chronicle, or Mercury reporting their nonsense because it’s, well, nonsense.
Peter Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Well, the Merc and all the other Media News Group papers report on NIMBY nonsense, because, well, I guess their owners are against HSR?
tomh Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I don’t know about that. Should we ignore the NIMBYs?
I bet they’ll be advocating bombings next.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Seems that way.
What did you expect from these people?? NOW lets get moving and show the rest of the state what these people are up to..Robert
Well, looks like they are to their last resorts in litigation and I do not think they will get much anywhere with signature gathering. If the courts side with precedence, then I think we should be good to go as long as we can get that San Bruno curve straightened out and use the right plan for the TTC station with the larger curve radii.
Anyway to make the vocal minority look like they got their heads up their butts?
Somebody who lives in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, etc should do as they did in Cheviot Hills and hand out these fliers:
“Don’t pay your Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association Dues! Your money will be wasted on frivolous lawsuits against the Expo Line…”
They also provide a very well written and concise fact sheet. See link:
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/04/cheviot_hills_expo_line_supporters_hit_back_at_naysayers.php
Peter Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I actually like that idea. Is CA4HSR planning any grass-roots stuff like that? Maybe renting a billboard on 101 in PA? Working on changing public opinion from the ground up versus from the top down? Not that there’s anything wrong with the top down approach…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Dunno about a billboard, but we’re talking about what can be done to build support for HSR on the Peninsula. Ideas are always welcome.
tomh Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Something like a billboard is probably a good idea since the average Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, etc. fence sitter is unlikely to frequent these types of blogs. Something with a catchy tagline (maybe mentioning gas prices or how quiet the new trains will be) and a link to a website URL would be good. That said, billboards are really expensive.
Has anyone read the comments on ballotpedia to Prop 1A? It looks like NIMBYs and deniers went through and essentially pruned and added whatever they wanted.
I agree with Brandon saying that you shouldn’t even be posting these blog posts that are just opposition arguments against two-bit hack newspapers that have no sway outside maybe a few thousand readers. Your blog probably gets more views than this worthless ink on paper garbage out of palo alto.
Let’s get more into the substance of the AA reports released by the authority, and these potenial investors from Asia and Europe.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I’ve heard and always respected this argument, from Brandon and others, even though I still don’t agree with it. My approach has always been, and likely will continue to be, to push back against some of these people with rapid response. It may give them attention, but I’ve always felt it’s more important to provide responses and talking points for supporters, even if it means some of these yahoos get more attention than they otherwise might.
I try to balance those posts with the more in-depth posts on planning, project design, and other elements.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
In my cynical world, I think the possibility of the NIMBY’s using you or this site is high. If they got little to zero feedback, their argument would resonate with a thud. Intead, their argument is good for a couple bounces.
I support a measured response…
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/04/the-trouble-with-high-speed-rail/ Well here is something to promote cause it is fairly true of why there is so much negative criticism is misinformation. The media back in 2008 took the best case scenario without considering that the planning of the project is still happening. As the planning stages go on, the project does change although has the same goals in mind. Spain I really see as the best example since Madrid is somewhat sprawled but I do believe better mass transit is needed and HSR will help push for that.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/12/BAT41CSF3I.DTL
Mostly the usual crap, though one weird bit about the 1A money going into other rail projects should HSR fall through. Maybe worth a read, maybe not. What bothers me is that big name newspapers like the Chronicle are printing this stuff.
jimsf Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 12:07 am
The chronicle is a shell of its former self. The reporting and worse, the writing, are worse than what you’d find at a high school newspaper. The goal is to print whatever will stir up a controversy each day, for controversy’s own sake. Usually this takes the form of articles written with little detailed information, little or no research, zero critical thinking or analysis, and healthy dose of the current news cycle’s buzz words. Our two SF papers our a joke. The Examiner has devolved into a right leaning mouthpiece for the republican party. they don’t even pretend to be objective. To say the Chron has become something akin to the National Enquirer would be an insult to the Enquirer. You could compare today’s Chron to US magazine or TMZ or something hosted by Leeza Gibbons.
The Daily Post is literally a print edition of Fox News for the local NIMBY set. Tawdry, stupid entertainment news, mixed with a generous dosage of anti-public transportation and sensationalized reporting on the supposed evils of local big government, and its the perfect mouthpiece for the PA/MP/Atherton set.
This why China is kicking our asses in HSR. They got it easy; gov’t decides on it, everyone just STFU and build without regard to environmental tolls, labor safety, cheap labor, just blaze down through and just get the train rolling full steam ahead.
Over here, we have people left and right slowing down the process, wasting time and money even before a shovel is put to ground. And by the time everything is laid to rest and finally able to get things started, things have changed so drastically, like material costs and new restrictions that we run out of funds to build anything.