Is the Senate Transportation Committee “Adversarial” to HSR?
Bob Balgenorth, president of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, has a powerful op-ed in the Capitol Weekly, one of the leading publications in California politics, leveling some strong criticisms of the State Senate Transportation Committee for their “adversarial tone” toward the HSR project. I’ve noticed this tone as well, and it’s quite an unfortunate development. Here’s what Balgenorth has to say:
While the Legislature certainly has an important role in overseeing California’s high-speed rail project, those of us who see the great benefits of high-speed rail to California can’t help but feel dismayed at the adversarial tone the Senate Transportation Committee has taken toward the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
With 30 percent and growing unemployment in the construction trades, our members need the Legislature to be doing all it can to support this project – the largest and most complex public infrastructure project in the nation. Instead, it appears as though some are simply setting this project up for failure.
I can’t speak for Balgenorth, but by “setting this project up for failure” I think he is referring to recent State Senate hearings where some Senators have questioned the Authority’s work and threatened the Authority’s funding – jeopardizing the project and the Authority’s ability to address areas of concern. The Senate Transportation Committee is obligated by the passage of Prop 1A to see to it that HSR is built in an effective and efficient way, and while the committee has oversight power, there seems to be a tendency to focus on the oversight and leave behind their mandate to help ensure the project is indeed built.
Balgenorth’s concerns seem focused on the issue of funding for Authority operations:
What the high-speed rail project needs is for the Legislature, administration and Authority to work together cooperatively – as other states are doing – and come up with solutions to the issues identified in the LAO and state auditor’s report. Issues, by the way, that could be addressed in large part if this committee and the Governor’s office would let the Authority hire enough people to do the job…and do it right.
The project is beginning the transition from planning to implementation, and it is critical that the Authority have the resources and support to be able to properly manage a project of this size and scope. If the Legislature does not, they will be the ones putting this project at risk.
High-speed rail…done right. Isn’t that what we’re all supposed to want?
It is exactly what we all want. And the Senate Transportation Committee should want it too, particularly as a core element of this state’s economic recovery. While the HSR planning process hasn’t been perfect, much of that stems from the fact that the Authority’s funding was so inconsistent and small over the years that they weren’t able to properly oversee parts of the project, as identified by the State Auditor. The Senate Transportation Committee needs to support the Authority’s requests for more staff to get this project done the right way, instead of paying attention to HSR critics who want to undermine the project.
Given the state budget and economic crisis, it would seem to make sense for the Senate Transportation Committee to be strongly supportive of and helpful to the HSR project. The Legislature doesn’t need to appropriate new money – voters already approved a $10 billion bond, which gets leveraged by federal and private money to build a system that generates hundreds of thousands of jobs – and in turn, a lot of new tax revenue for the state treasury. It defies logic that anyone in the State Senate would resist this gift.
One doesn’t want to overstate the case here. HSR still has many friends on the Senate Transportation Committee. But more needs to be done. As the fear, uncertainty, and doubt campaign against HSR gathers steam, the Senate Transportation Committee should take a strong stance in support of the project, and show the people of California they won’t be bullied by project opponents into abandoning one of the most vital pieces of infrastructure being considered for our state at this time.
I’m glad this topic has finally come up. With all of the criticisms coming from the Senate Transportation Committee, this article highlights an important concept that while constructive criticism is important, working with the recipient of said criticism to address and alleviate the original problem is just as important. Case in point: Sens. Simitian and Lowenthal. These two have been “supportive” of HSR, yet it seems as though they are also the most vocal critics and have threatened to take away funding if problems are not fixed. They complain about questions not being answered, the lack of detail, not being engaged enough with the public, etc. Well, the Authority staff is pretty small, so getting everything done in record time to their specification might be difficult. Perhaps the Senators should allow the Authority to hire more staff. Another thing: if they are concerned about the planning process and the inability for UP to cooperate with HSR, why not craft a law that would explicitly allow for HSR to be built on state-owned lands or alongside highways that might be adjacent to active privately-owned rail corridors? I’m sure that they could use their position as lawmakers to make the planning process much easier and become active supporters of HSR instead of being a supporter in name only.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I wouldn’t lump Lowenthal and Simitian into the same category here. Lowenthal hasn’t been supportive of HSR. Simitian has. Their positions, concerns, and overall approaches to the project are very different.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
My mistake.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 19th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Lowenthal is an odd bird..acting like high speed supporter..He is not..Why is he here at a HSR town metting in the BayArea? ?? maby brown/engel can answer that??
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 8:04 am
He’s not an HSR supporter.
Ah, Senate members, the “upper house” and very often “senior house” in our legislative bodies, and very often senior in age, too.
You’ve seen my comments about age patterns before. Do these guys fit the pattern? Does the State Auditor (and whoever wrote the report) fit the pattern?
Has anyone used the data I’ve sent about real highway costs? I think that material makes a pretty strong case for rail service in general–and does a good job of slamming the road, oil, and gas lobby. Sometimes you need to slam back.
Let me know if you need it reduced to sound bite form. I think I can get it down for you if you have trouble. Writing short can be much tougher than writing long.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Oh, it’s been used, alright. Even more damning figures are available: Texas DOT did an internal study that looked at revenues versus life cycle costs, and found that only the best-performing roads paid for half their costs. It was published in a newsletter in 2006 and made the rounds on parts of the transit blogosphere. The link’s dead now, after a few website moves. It only survives in cache form now.
The more I read about cahsrblog.com, the more depressed I become on why we’ll never get HSR in America.
I think I lost all hope. People in this country are just too stupid to get their act together and all it leads to is stall, stall and stall. I give up, at first I was excited to see HSR coming to CA, now I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
rafael Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 5:25 am
You need to develop some stamina if you’re an HSR supporter, Rome wasn’t built in a day. The state of California is a very deep fiscal hole, some have even compared it to Greece – though that’s overstating the case. Still, there’s a limit to how much additional debt the Golden State can afford to take on. There’s a lot of anxiety among state politicians that letting go of teachers is costing them more votes than proceeding with HSR on schedule will bring them. This is especially true if HSR can’t be completed on something close to schedule because there isn’t enough funding.
Still, it’s telling that they have in fact not put HSR on hold yet on the basis of the general ill health of the state budget, something AB3034 would allow them do. My interpretation is that there is still a lot of goodwill toward the project among lawmakers, they’re just terrified of the price tag. What’s needed is a commitment from the President and/or Congress that a whole lot more federal funding will become available over the coming years. Unfortunately, the fact that the US Senate continues to permit filibusters means the legislative agenda is clogged up.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 8:05 am
What rafael said.
HSR is going to happen in California. It’s just a matter of when. For all our sakes I hope the current plan goes forward as intended. But if the HSR deniers get their way and the project crashes, it will just be a temporary thing, and it will be revived within 10 years, especially as gas prices soar.
Dave Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
You need to grow some thick skin if you ever want to acheive anything at all in this world. I’ve grown to learn that if you want something, you need to fight for it and be able to brush off (dodge) the opponents to what you are doing. Beleive in what you want. HSR in my mind has come this far because of this blog, the people who visit it and comment on here is what has pushed this project forward.
The cycle on here is like anything else, it goes from positive to negative then positive, positive, negative. Up and down, but steadily going more up than down. If you can’t handle that, you might as well cover your eyes for the next few years.
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I disagree. There has been strong opposition in every country. I could tell you stories of small German villages who threatened to veto the construction. But once it was finished opponents will regret because those stations and the construction of rails and stations creates thousands of permanent jobs. The problem with the United States is the fact that high speed rail is a state initiative. Germany, Japan, France, Spain, China, all those countries got their funding right from the federal government, which obviously is more than a state can ever contribute. The federal government is also able to invest in sections and stations that wouldn’t pay off for decades, but benefit the society and the economy more.
But that’s no reason for pessimism. Once the first real high speed rail is up and running, several states will follow within a decade. The fact that California high speed rail will be a largely state-owned enterprise means billions of dollars in state revenue in the future.
What do these Senators have to gain by destroying HSR?
synonymouse Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 9:33 am
You have to destroy the village to save it. In this case the village is Prop 1A.
Tolmach is right overall.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 9:40 am
The concept is absurd. If the current HSR plan is destroyed it will be years before we build it, and when we do, the cost will be much higher. Further, Tolmach’s approach to HSR, to use it as a connection between SF and LA when in fact it needs to serve the major cities in between as well, is fundamentally flawed.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Repeating yourself over and over doesn’t make you or Tolmach any more right.
There is no reason why, in case of a delay, the current plans could not simply be shelved, to be reactivated when the political climate improves again. Look at Florida HSR.
Dave Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Tolmach’s HSR proposal is the only real boondoggle (I hate that word) if this project was ever, and currently it is not. HSR serving only SF and LA for a quick time, running in the middle of I-5 is the biggest waste in money for any project, replicates what airlines already do and is only of benefit to contractors. HSR as it is planned now is of real benefit, “killing multiple birds with one stone”. It does what Airline’s can’t, provide fast air type (SPEED) travel IN BETWEEN the destination on non fossil-fuel energy, with more confort and safety.
synonymouse Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
I couldn’t disagree more. You could argue 99 and you could argue Pacheco but the Tehachapis detour is pathetic. Not only is Tolmach correct but so is the UP.
The Tehachapis detour is Bechtel’s 21st century follow-up to its 20th century tour de force, BART’s Indian broad gauge.
Nathanael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 2:06 am
You remain a complete ignoramus. The Tehachapis route is dictated by geology. Are you a professional geologist with a specialty in tunnelling? If so please show your creds.
If you want to attack Bechtel et. al., attack them for the insanity in the Transbay Terminal approach, the Temple to Anaheim’s Ego, the continuous proposals for gigantic concrete viaducts anywhere and everywhere, the inability to come up with any form of shared use for any track, etc. There’s plenty of things to attack without being willfully ignorant.
synonymouse Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 9:49 am
Route mileage dictates the Tejon route. If you are not ready to deal with the engineering challenge of the Grapevine you are not ready for hsr.
Go UP.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 11:07 am
UP actually runs its trains via the Tehachapis. Could it be they have a clue and you don’t?
It’s not that Tejon Pass (aka the I-5 corridor via Grapevine) presents an insurmountable technical challenge to tunneling engineers. It’s that such a tunnel would inherently be far longer (= much more expensive) to construct and less safe to operate, both in terms of fire hazard and the Garlock and the San Andreas faults. Both would have to be crossed deep underground.
Now, USGS has estimated the probability for a major earthquake on the latter sometime in the next 30 years at something like 2/3, so it makes perfect sense to route HSR such that an affected train could be evacuated and the damage to the tracks repaired quickly. That means crossing the fault at grade, which the smaller gradients in Soledad Canyon do permit. In addition, the Garlock fault can be crossed at grade in the Tehachapis and Palmdale represents something of a captive market for HSR.
In other words, route mileage doesn’t dictate squat diddley. It’s just one of multiple factors that had to be considered in making this decision, your disdain for people who live anywhere but the Bay Area and SoCal notwithstanding. We’re building a railroad here, not a drop-in replacement for air travel within the state.
synonymouse Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
On the contrary, the majority of the voters were told that in effect the hsr would be “a drop-in replacement for air travel within the state”.
The history of surviving vs. abandoned railroads in the US shows that route mileage is indeed the defining factor. Direct always trumps. All of the escape routes from LA north are exposed to seismic risks. This project cries out for a big engineering solution and that is the Tejon tunnels. If Bechtel can’t or won’t do it, fire them and get someone who will. Like Herrenknecht.
Travis D Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:41 am
You know what’s strange? Bechtel is actually an accomplished company that has completed many huge and complicated construction projects. But to read on here you’d think they’ve never done anything right. What gives?
Also I should point out that so far the CAHSR plans are actually quite stingy with the viaducts compared to systems like Taiwan.
Off topic – I’m going to try to go to a scoping meeting for the San Diego Trolley Mid-Coast Corridor project. It will travel over much of the same right of way as HSR is likely to as it approaches San Diego. Also IF HSR ends up with a University City station, it will most likely connect with the trolley there. I’ve never been to a meeting like this – does anyone have any general advice regarding what to expect and/or comments to make? Thanks.
http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=250&fuseaction=projects.detail
Emma Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
They plan to revive the project? Those North County locals probabyl realized that students traveling with the trolley to college save thousands of dollars that would otherwise be spend on gas, car insurance, and maintenance Finally great news. Sorry I can’t help you on that one.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
If the Gardner meetings in San Jose for the HSR AAs are any measure, expect a lot of NIMBYs. People will want to know what exactly the impacts will be on them, even if the project isn’t advanced enough for such determinations, and they will want it tunnelled or not built at all.
Bobierto Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
As pointed out below it would follow the I-5 along the coast to UCSD, then serve the medical area and finally the office and shopping areas … near dense condo developments but not actually passing through any. Would be very hard for NIMBYs to make any case against it other than “we don’t want any of them there folks from tia-wanna having too easy access to La Jolla”. The link above has a link to a video that does a google earth flyover of the various proposed routes, indicating which parts would be elevated, which would be “below grade”.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I would ask how they plan to integrate their project with HSR if HSR wants to use that ROW. Ask if they are looking at track-sharing (if the trains are fast enough, but since it’s a “trolley” I guess the answer is no).
Joey Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Track sharing between HSR trains and San Diego’s streetcars (the Mid-Coast corridor is just an extension of San Diego’s existing system) is not really doable under any circumstances. You’ve got the speed difference, but don’t forget that the two systems will operate on completely different voltages.
Peter Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Right, totally forgot about the voltage difference.
rafael Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Unless something has changed, the project to extend the SD Trolley network up to University City actually leverages the I-5 median, which CHSRA isn’t considering because it’s quite steep. The propulsion systems of light rail vehicles are optimized for high torque (= rapid acceleration) at low speed, so they can climb steep gradients (as high as 12% in some cases). HSR motors are optimized for moderate torque at high RPM (= high power), which is why CHSRA picked 3.5% as the maximum gradient they are designing against. The alternatives CHSRA is considering in University City are new grade-separated tracks through Rose Canyon – which local NIMBYs are adamantly opposed to – or tunneling through the hill under the city – which would cost an arm and a leg and, put any station in the downtown area well below grade.
South of the I-8 corridor, SD Trolley already operates on tracks adjacent to the ones shared by BNSF, Amtrak and NCTD Coaster. There’s not enough room for additional HSR tracks at grade, plus they have to be grade separated anyhow. CHSRA’s plan is therefore to stack the HSR tracks above the existing ones in this stretch.
Ergo, your statement that the SD Trolley project and CHSRA are competing for the same ROW applies at most to a short section between I-8 and (roughly) CA-52.
Bobierto Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I thought that CHSRA wanted the route to cut over from I-15 via University City to I-5. Alternatives look at making that transition both further north and further south. But unless they end up taking the Qualcomm alternative, it would definitely follow the same congested ROW at least from the 8 to the 52. Personally I think HSR will end up following the 52 to the 5. There is definitely not room for 6 sets of tracks along Morena Blvd.
thatbruce Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
LRT alternative 1, which the SDMTS board recently voted to support, ‘proposes the extension of the LRT alignment north from OTTC to University City via the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and I-5 corridor to the UCSD West Campus and east along Voight Drive and Genesee Avenue to UTC’. The maps show it as only using I-5 north of Gilman. (Chapter 4 of the Draft Alternatives Report). Rafael, are you getting the longer I-5 mention from the various no-LRT alternatives covering extended bus operations?
The mid-coast corridor terminating at the University Towne Centre (UTC) works out for HSR if the University City station is below the Genesee Avenue bridge, as a LRT spur between UTC and HSR could be funded out of HSR funding. The alignment following the SDNR tracks for any distance is bad news though.
thatbruce Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Thinking about it, it actually might not be that bad if that section of the LRT line is built in the SDNR corridor, to HSR standards and using prop1a funds under the 3rd party clause. SDMTS gets a pretty nice alignment until phase 2 is nearing completion (10 years?) at a lower upfront cost to them, and CAHSRA gets a short showoff section to say ‘now wait until we really speed this up’.
When phase 2 gets off the ground, shift the LRT line to Morena blvd and/or I-5 median.
dejv Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Torque of three phase motor is given by its volume and power is torque times angular velocity. Both HS trains and LRVs minimize weight, so both tend to use low-torque high-rpm motors. The real difference is in braking. LRVs on steep slopes are limited by adhesion, so they exploit their high number of trucks by having a lot of track brakes. OTOH, HS trains run on less steep grades are limited by power, so they use extensively electrodynamic and eddy current brakes.
Without a good infrastructure, including HSR, we are definitely becoming a third world country, when we have to ask China and Japan for help in building HSR.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Japan is a third world country? Even for China, that’s arguably no longer the case.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:58 pm
No I think he meant WE as in the US.. Japan passed that long ago.
dejv Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 1:42 am
Just a nitpick – China have been second world coutry since Mao took power over it.