Will the PCC Try To Repeal Prop 1A?
Note: Scroll down to see two important updates to this post.
There’s an interesting agenda item to be discussed at Friday’s Peninsula Cities Consortium meeting – scroll down to Item #7:
I don’t know who requested this item be placed on the agenda, though that would be interesting to know. It is worth discussing here on the blog, if only for the PCC members to understand how very unlikely it is that changing or repealing Prop 1A can be achieved.
Here’s why. First, it is virtually impossible for a repeal of Prop 1A to be placed on the November 2010 ballot. Not only is the cost of gathering the necessary signatures likely to be at least $2 million, but they’ll have to work really quickly – the Secretary of State’s office indicates the last day to file signatures with county election officials is…Friday, April 16. Same day as the PCC meeting.
That leaves the state legislature, which could place an initiative on the November ballot to change or repeal Prop 1A. A repeal is highly unlikely to happen, unless the California legislature wants to piss off Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and President Barack Obama.
What about a change? It’s possible, but not very likely. What exactly would the change be? Cutting out the SF-San José portion would incur the wrath of Speaker Pelosi, so that’ll never pass the legislature. Cutting out the LA-Anaheim portion? Not when it’s one of the four segments to qualify for stimulus funds. Legislators and members of Congress will be loath to support cutting that either, as it would jeopardize stimulus funds and make them all look bad for sending stimulus funds to a segment that then gets deleted.
What about changing the mandated 2:40 running time between SF and LA? What about changing the number of stations, or the route alignment? This causes massive political complications – reopening the number of stations will raise the ire of the Sierra Club, which backed Prop 1A in 2008 because of the pledge to limit the stations to 24, ensuring no Los Banos station would be built. Changing the route alignment blows up any number of existing EIRs, delays the construction timeline significantly, risks stimulus funds, and would generate an angry reaction from the likely targets of such a move, the Highway 99 corridor cities. And changing the mandated 2:40 time (that’s in hours and minutes, in case anyone wasn’t clear) between SF and LA would rightly cause a public backlash against a dumbed-down HSR system.
It’s not at all clear that any changes would stand a chance of clearing the legislature to make it onto the ballot. Once on the ballot, it’s even less clear whether voters would go for it. The changes the PCC would seek would undermine the HSR project significantly, devastating potential ridership and jeopardizing the project’s ability to cover its operating costs. A train from San José to Los Angeles with a stop in Tracy and Santa Clarita isn’t exactly going to generate a lot of voter interest or support. I could easily see such a ballot proposition going down in flames.
The PCC tries to claim it’s not opposed to high speed rail. We’d like to take them at their word. Doing so requires the PCC to accept the will of the voters as expressed in the November 2008 election: Californians want this system built as planned. It’s perfectly legitimate for the PCC to organize and offer its input to the CHSRA as the project is planned in their communities. But it makes no sense for them to start talking about trying to reverse the outcome of 2008.
PCC members would do well to heed the warning shot fired by Southern California newspapers recently, painting PCC members’ efforts as wanting to “take the price over the moon.” Californians have a financial stake in this as well, and won’t stand for a few Peninsula cities unnecessarily driving up the cost of HSR for everyone else.
There are numerous political and practical reasons that should suggests the PCC quickly dismiss the notion of even examining changing or repealing Prop 1A at this Friday’s meeting. What’s done is done. Californians have demonstrated they want HSR built, including on the Peninsula rail corridor. The PCC would be better off focusing on the recently released Alternatives Analysis and considering their preferences and response to that document.
UPDATE: It has emerged that the PCC will be discussing this because one Morris Brown has asked them to do so. The PCC put out an amended agenda that clarified the nature of the Prop 1A discussion:
Citizen Request to establish a PCC subcommittee to explore changing or revoking Prop 1A
Morris Brown’s letter includes the Palo Alto Daily Post’s article calling for an all-out fight against HSR, which clearly inspired him to ask this to be placed on the agenda.
It’s still not clear to me why the PCC would even be willing to consider this proposal merely because Morris Brown asked for it. As I explained above, this is a non-starter for the PCC, which has better things to do with their time. Let’s hope the PCC rejects this proposal and moves on to more constructive work.
UPDATE 2: Mike Rosenberg looked at this issue and got some quotes from Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline suggesting this wasn’t likely to go anywhere:
Such an endeavor would be difficult and time-consuming, and local officials and residents should instead strive to make sure the project is done right, rather than not at all, said Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, who heads the group that will consider the idea….
Personally, although he is willing to allow his colleagues on the consortium to discuss the idea, Cline does not see the value in trying to nullify the bond.
“We have to continue to look at how to form this thing when it comes rather than look at ways to undermine it,” said Cline, who was an opponent of Proposition 1A. “That’s always been my position; I am respectful of elections.”
My own view is that it was a mistake to even put this on the agenda. If the PCC wanted to describe the ways Prop 1A impacts HSR planning, that would have been fine, but placing this on the agenda – even as a citizen request – gives the appearance that the PCC believes repealing Prop 1A is a concept worth examining.It’s good to see that Cline does not believe it is worth examining, and let’s hope he and the other PCC members continue to focus the organization on more constructive work.
As I understand it, Prop 1A requires that the HSR line run through the Peninsula, since it defines an LA-SJ required time. If that requirement were dropped, then the Peninsula cities could claim that CHSRA needs to study an East Bay alignment, at least delaying, and possibly avoiding, an alignment through their communities.
It’s not clear to me that a proposition dropping the requirement to serve San Jose would necessarily go down in flames.
rafael Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:50 am
AB3034(2008), the legislation enacted by the passage of prop 1A(2008), is more convoluted than that.
While the bill defines a San Francisco – San Jose – Fresno “corridor”, it only requires that “usable sections” of suitable corridors actually be constructed. If CHSRA cannot actually secure a suitable right of way in a given section, then obviously that section of the initial plans isn’t usable – specified line haul times notwithstanding.
My reading of AB3034 is that CHSRA can study San Jose – Oakland if it wants to but the legislature would not be permitted to appropriate bonds for construction if doing so would imperil or delay the starter line, defined as SF Transbay Terminal – LA – Anaheim (note that San Jose isn’t explicitly included). Since a second transbay tube crossing would be prohibitively expensive, the practical upshot is that any East Bay alignment would terminate in Oakland – which means the very idea is basically DOA until and unless CHSRA concludes it simply cannot secure a ROW up the peninsula. Right now, there is no reason for it to draw that conclusion.
jim Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Rafael,
Thank you for the link. I see I had misunderstood what I had heard of 2704.09(b)(1), (3) & (4).
But you’re not thinking like a NIMBY (I realize that that’s a compliment). What a Peninsula NIMBY wants is an innocuous-looking modification to the legislation which nonetheless can be deployed to force the Authority into another round of studies. Delay is the name of the game. Create another two or three year delay.
A NIMBY would also ask whether a second transbay tube would really be prohibitively expensive. More expensive than tunneling through the Peninsula cities?
two routes through BFD
While it may only cut the frequency of HSR though Burlingame — a key member of the PCC — but the other PCC principals (Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton) all want the originally (and arguably superior) Altamont Pass route. This route serves both San Jose via an east bay route and SF via a Dumbarton-to-Redwood Junction route by splitting in the Fremont area. It also conveniently ameliorates that SF Transbay capacity issue since it means less HSR trains need to run up Caltrain’s Peninsula route from Redwood Junction to SF. It means HSR bypasses Palo Alto and Atherton while still skirting the edge of eastern Menlo Park and it also makes Redwood City the obvious and sole mid-Peninsula station site option. Sierra Club, bay-focused environmental groups and transit advocacy groups all favored Altamont via the existing disused historic Dumbarton Rail corridor across the Bay vs. Pacheco. The rail transit advocacy groups all realized that for the slight cost of slightly longer SJ-LA trip timings, there were big advantages to Altamont. Significantly, a much shorter and faster route for the Bay Area – Sacramento market as well as less overall HSR system route miles at full build-out and the entire population along the super-clogged Altamont corridor gets HSR service in Phase I. Also, of course, the whole hyper-sprawl-inducing specter of Gilroy/Coyote Valley and Los Banos stations is avoided.
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 9:28 am
But switching now means we get to rehash the same NIMBY bs we’ve been dealing with PAMPA now all over again, but with different players: Fremont, Livermore, Pleasanton, etc. More lawsuits, more delays, and less likelihood of anything ever being built.
Not only is there a limit on the number of stations to contend with, but Prop 1A specifically states that there shall be no station between Gilroy and Merced. There will be no sprawl caused by HSR in Los Banos. Gilroy may (note the “may”) experience some sprawl, but will more likely become more dense, because that is what happens around major train stations as has been proven over and over around the world.
The Sierra Club dropped its objections to Pacheco after the station number limit and the express denial of a station between Gilroy and Merced were added. Most non-Bay-Area-focused environmental groups agreed that Pacheco was better. I’m not sure what the other groups’ objections were to Pacheco vs. Altamont.
However, Robert has said it before, and I agree: Elections have consequences, and at some point a decision has to be made.
jim Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 10:07 am
No. The NIMBYs don’t want Altamont. They don’t want HSR running through their communities (unless, perhaps, it’s tunneled where they can’t see it). They don’t want HSR along the Caltrain RoW.
Now that CHSRA has chosen Pacheco, you will hear NIMBYs say they would be happy with Altamont. But they don’t mean that. What they do mean is tat they’d like to see the Pacheco/Altamont fight restart because if it did, it would delay HSR. Delay is their friend. If HSR is delayed, there are all sorts of possibilities: a new governor might cancel it, a new legislature might refuse to authorize the bonds, a new federal administration might be less enamoured of HSR. The purpose of NIMBY lawsuits is not necessarily to win; it’s to delay.
Revisiting the Pacheco/Altamont decision is a bad idea. The die is cast. Get the EISs over with as fast as possible and start building.
jim Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
And, as if to prove my point, downthread the addiction treatment rodent can be seen praising Altamont. Does anyone doubt that, if the Authority had selected Altamont, he (she?) would be talking up Pacheco?
tomh Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Wouldn’t the split (one to SF and the other to SJ) that the Altamont pass route would require result in higher annual operating costs?
thatbruce Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
If the HSR operator was required to operate services in such a manner, yes. In such a scenario, it would be a lot easier for them to point passengers at interchanges at Fremont (ACE) or mid-peninsular (Caltrain/Successor) in order to get to SJ. Better off running through SJ in the first instance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Egads man don’t you realize that San Jose is the mostest importantest place in the Bay Area? How could they put off bringing HSR to the cargo cult train station in San Jose? They would never put off bringing HSR to San Jose to phase 2 or phase 3 or phase we’ll get around to it someday until then take Caltrain or ACE….
tomh Reply:
April 15th, 2010 at 10:26 am
As much as I am not totally a fan of SJ, I understand the reality that SJ is a major economic and population center of the Bay Area. It’s the center of Silicon Valley and is the Bay Area’s largest city in terms of population. And it would be a major source of HSR ridership. Any attempt to exclude SJ (via Altamont Pass and not including a split to SJ) or to exclude SF (to terminate in SJ), would have a negative impact on ridership numbers.
Anyway, the route that makes the most sense in terms of ridership numbers and operating costs is the current proposed route.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 10:27 am
No.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Especially if the HSR trains never go to San Jose and you have to take Caltrain or ACE or Capitol Corridor or whatever to a station in Fremont.
Here’s what one Orange County city thinks of the train: http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/city-of-orange-votes-to-kills-hsr-wake-up-fullerton-city-council-now/
Spokker Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I argued with a city of orange councilman about hsr once. Very angry guy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I had a minor brain freeze and had an image of a whole city filled with councilmen who had used cheap bronzer giving them the same hue as certain leaders in the US House….
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
By a 2-1-1 vote, no less. Sounds like true unanimity on the board.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Orange has been governed by the far-right for many, many years. I would not be surprised if my hometown, Tustin, took a similar vote. Those views are not at all reflective of the population, which is usually not very engaged in city politics and includes a huge number of passenger rail and HSR supporters.
Consider the distinct possibility that the Altamont alternative enjoys deeper support and less opposition overall than Pacheco. This certainly will be in the minds of the politicians who will ultimately decide the fate of the hsr.
Joey Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
And do you really think this would still be the case had Altamont been chosen? That somehow, going through the mid peninsula is the end of the world but that going through Fremont. Pleasanton. and Livermore isn’t?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
ah but the East Bay is well… the East Bay. Can’t compare it to the Navel of the Universe that is the Peninsula.
@Robert … you wondered “I don’t know who requested this item be placed on the agenda, though that would be interesting to know.”
In today’s Palo Alto Daily Post. There is a letter to the editor from Morris Brown (one of Menlo Park’s Stone Pine Lane gang), explaining that he has asked the PCC to form a new committee:
Letter: Call for cities to try to change or revoke HSR Prop 1A
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
They may have ulterior motives. It gives them a chance to have learned study explaining in detail why all the proposals to delay or defeat HSR are all spurious. That way they can say “our study concluded you are full of it, stop annoying us so we can move onto reality based interaction with the Authority”
Yes, I do. Altamont was likely the politically easier of the two alternatives but Kopp and Diridon, San Jose centric, succeeded in imposihg their bias on the scheme.
And there is always the remote possibility that a judge might resolve to nullify parts or all of Prop 1A out of frustraton with its highly specific and restrictive provisos. There is no wiggle room for modiifications that might prove necessary.
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
There’s also a remote possibility that I may get struck by lightning. That doesn’t mean that I will though.
And which judge, based on which lawsuit, would overturn portions of Prop 1A?
[And yes, I realize I'm breaking my own rule re feeding a troll. This is a novel argument to me, though]
I wouldn’t be surprized if there weren’t lawyers, possibly some working for legislators, who are tackling how to legally modify Prop 1A at this very moment.
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
That still does not answer my question, though. Of course there are probably lawyers looking into that right now. However, you still haven’t said which lawsuit (and which cause of action) would cause a judge to overturn portion of Prop 1A.
(Could you maybe use the “reply” button at the bottom of a comment?)
You are greatly underestimating the depth of opposition to the berm scheme on the Peninsula. What Morris Brown is saying will ring true with many residents.
You are asking for a bitter, bitter fight that will persist for years, just like the San Francisco freeway revolt.
Peter Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Did you read the Alternatives Analysis? The berm has been knocked out in residential and commercial areas. You’re behind the times.
And you still haven’t answered my question. You’ve just come up with a new unfounded (this time, literally) statement.
tomh Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
synonymouse – You should click on the “Reply” link after the comment to which you want to reply, like I just did to yours. There’s no need to start new threads when replying to people.
lyqwyd Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
hey synonymouse, try clicking the “Reply” link
Tony D. Reply:
April 14th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Hey Mouse! Better yet, just go back to sleep on that rocker of yours, and wake up when you have something else better to do, like eat, go to the restroom, etc.
Is it done yet?
Imagine if they succeed. Ten years from now when gas will be $5+ a gallon, what highways we do have are choked and you have to undergo a five hour long body cavity search/catscan/polygraph just to look in the general direction of a commercial jetliner, that virtually no one will be able to afford anyways, boy will they then look stupid.
Ahh, who am I kidding? They look stupid and petty NOW!
Bob L. Reply:
April 15th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
$5+ a gallon a decade from now, I would say it would be more like $20 a gallon the way we are now wasting it. While we let our infrastructures collapse, other countries are spending hundreds of billion dollars improving theirs, but we cannot afford it as we are rapidly collapsing to third world status, but we do have our iPODs and our iPADs to play with and we will not miss one moment of Wood’s latest adventure.
Delays, delays.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/station-244108-rail-high.html
“California High-Speed Rail Authority representatives said the project’s environmental impact report will be delayed until next year to help the agency deal with concerns from cities along the bullet train’s proposed path.”
Delayed from May 2010 to January 2011.