Alan Lowenthal’s Latest Misleading Attack on HSR
By now it’s become clear that, despite his public claims, Senator Alan Lowenthal is not really a high speed rail supporter. He consistently undermines the project in the press with his misleading and baseless claims that HSR ridership stats “don’t pass the smell test” (a reference to his apparent belief that nobody will ever ride the trains).
This week Lowenthal has found a new angle of attack on the HSR project. He is making up a claim of “conflict of interest” against two members of the California High Speed Rail Authority board – Curt Pringle and Richard Katz – and is sponsoring a bill designed to kick them and all others who sit on a local transportation authority board off of the CHSRA board. This attack on the HSR project is not only baseless, but if it were to succeed, it would undermine the project and its all-important ability to effectively integrate with local transit systems. From the LA Times:
As the state’s $42-billion high-speed rail system draws closer to breaking ground, a key state lawmaker is calling for leadership changes that he says would prevent conflicts of interest but could expel two influential Southern California officials from the project’s board.
Sen. Alan Lowenthal, (D- Long Beach), who chairs the Senate transportation committee, is drafting legislation that would ban individuals who hold elected office or sit on local transportation boards from also serving as a director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
The proposal is aimed most immediately at two prominent Los Angeles and Orange County board members — Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and Richard Katz, board member of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
What’s behind this? There’s no real principle at work here. Instead there is a relatively minor dispute over the ARTIC station that Lowenthal, instead of seeking to resolve in private, is blowing up into an unnecessary controversy that could do much greater damage to passenger rail in California.
Triggering Lowenthal’s concern in part is a proposed deal — backed by Pringle — to use $200 million in high-speed rail money to complete a huge, canopied transportation center next to Angels Stadium of Anaheim at the southern terminus of the bullet train’s first phase.
Pringle, a former GOP assembly speaker, is chairman of the high-speed rail authority and director of the Orange County Transportation Authority board. Both the OCTA and Anaheim have been trying for decades to build the soaring, intermodal transportation hub.
But the deal was not envisioned under the voter-approved high-speed rail funding plan, Lowenthal said. And it would set a bad precedent of earmarking critically needed funds for local priorities before planning is even finalized for the high-speed rail project, he added.
Lowenthal is not being entirely accurate here. The voter-approved HSR plan, Prop 1A, did not go into specifics about which elements of the HSR project it would fund. It laid out the specific corridors, travel times that must be achieved, and rules by which the funds could be spent, but did not actually program that funding in any way.
Lowenthal wants to frame the ARTIC plans as being some later deal not intended by Prop 1A, but that is a misleading way to frame it, since Prop 1A explicitly enables funding to be used for stations. That includes ARTIC.
The LA Times goes on to discuss Lowenthal’s problems with Richard Katz:
His concerns also extend to Katz, who serves on both the MTA and Metrolink commuter rail boards as a Villaraigosa appointee. Both agencies are heavily involved in the bullet train project because they would share Union Station and various right-of-ways with high-speed trains.
Among other things, Katz has pushed for a potential track-sharing design suggested by the MTA — the lead funding agency of Metrolink — for the high-speed rail segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim . Track sharing could cut bullet train construction costs and help upgrade Metrolink track systems.
“There is a great benefit from the coordination from my roles at the MTA, Metrolink and high-speed rail authority,” Katz said.
Katz’s role in the track-sharing solution has been extremely positive for the HSR project and for the MTA, helping avert a damaging split and potentially providing a solution to using the LA-Anaheim corridor that saves money and makes local governments happy.
In short, Katz’s role proves the benefit to having members of local transportation agencies on the CHSRA board. They help integrate HSR into the existing transit networks, and act as brokers between a project that serves a statewide need and local agencies and systems that meet local needs.
Important Southern California political leaders understand this, and have criticized Lowenthal’s ill-conceived attack on the HSR project:
“I appreciate the senator’s concerns; he has raised lots of legitimate questions,” Katz said. “But he is taking a pretty big shotgun to something that is minor and can be easily resolved other ways.”
Their position is backed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who says policy makers serving with several transportation agencies can better understand high-speed rail as it relates to commuter rail, public transit and communities.
In addition, Lowenthal’s own role in the ARTIC dispute indicate his bill is totally unnecessary. After questioning Katz about the ARTIC plan at a Senate hearing in May, Katz agreed that Lowenthal had raised legitimate questions about the plan and the CHSRA has pulled it for further study.
That shows the existing process of legislative oversight works just fine – as does the existing process of the CHSRA board. Lowenthal raised concerns and they were addressed. There’s obviously no need for Lowenthal’s proposal, and given its damaging effect on passenger rail planning around the state, the proposal should be quickly abandoned.
Unfortunately, Lowenthal prefers to play the role of concern troll on HSR. Instead of helping strengthen the HSR project by providing legislative leadership to shepherd the project through the planning process, he seems to prefer to undermine the project – whether it’s through bills like this, or baseless statements attacking the project’s ridership proposals.
The HSR project is the most important infrastructure project undertaken in California in 50 years. We need to make sure we do it right – but we also need to make sure we do it. Alan Lowenthal should be taking a more supportive role toward the project, and abandon this “death by a thousand cuts” approach.
Like I said in the other post: Katz’s and Pringle’s advocacy for their hometowns isn’t a matter of transit agency board members having a conflict of interest, but simply one of politicians bringing home the bacon. Or in Katz’s case, one of bringing some sense into alignment planning.
I think Pringle has done well so far..As far as Artic what is the big deal its is goin gto be a major station for HSR…IF he cares so much about “moving the project along for the entire state” then he needs to make sure CHSRA has full funding not delayed by Nimby tactics and others
OT: Berkeley ridership will be presented at the July 8th BOD meeting – item 16 of 17. With all the various AAs plus the study – that is one full agenda!
TJPA up in SF competed successfully against CHSRA for a $400m slice of California’s ARRA grant. If OCTA is allowed to effectively do the same to fund its shiny ARTIC bauble, then pretty soon there won’t be any money left for laying new tracks to bring trains to those buildings.
Lawmakers spelled out all sorts of things in AB3034 but they forgot to define exactly what station infrastructure it would fund. CHSRA has always maintained it’s responsibility ends with the approaches, full-length platforms and pedestrian over- or underpasses to reach them. Evidently, SF, San Jose, Anaheim, Sacramento and (perhaps) San Diego are looking to the HSR project to pay for much more than that.
Lawmakers also failed to specify exactly what the $950m reserved for capital investments in “HSR feeder” services may be used for. Stuff like pedestrian transfer paths – including a new tunnel between SFTBT and BART – would best match the spirit of the law, but it’s more likely that the beneficiaries will invest the money in other ways that improve general commuter/regional service.
Fortunately, allowing cities to dip into prop 1A and federal HSR funds for nice stations is possible if some track construction can be avoided or at least made less costly. I’ve already addressed one possible solution approach for the SF peninsula in my Caltrain Firebird post.
In OC, reaching ARTIC rather than terminating in Fullerton means running HSR trains through Anaheim’s historic district. Sen. Lowenthal has apparently accepted that the LOSSAN corridor is already at full capacity, such that this short stretch would need to be controversially quad tracked. This is understandable, he’s a lawmaker, not a railway engineer. Closer to the truth, however, is that positive train control can substantially increase capacity on an existing dual track main line IFF combined with integrated timetable operations. This was in fact Mehdi Morshed’s original plan for that stretch. Note that there are no stations to worry about between Fullerton and Anaheim.
For planners, the biggest wrench in the works is FRA’s rule against mixed traffic. Amtrak PS cannot easily switch to non-compliant equipment. Nor can Metrolink as a whole, though it could redefine its one line between LA and OC counties such that it could be served with new non-compliant equipment.
Fortunately, the waiver FRA just granted Caltrain to mix its legacy diesel fleet plus UPRR with its new non-compliant electric fleet during a transition period points to a way out of this regulatory impasse. There are strings attached, but CHSRA will anyhow have to apply for a “rule of special applicability” to run its own trains at 220mph in the Central Valley. Given the Caltrain precedent, the incremental regulatory risk of expanding that rulemaking to include mixed traffic operations between Fullerton and Anaheim has just been massively reduced.
The biggest issue is that the Amtrak PS schedule is at UPRR’s tender mercies north of Moorpark. Signaling improvements only yield large capacity improvements if the trains run on time. Smaller improvements are possible if certain slots are left empty to accommodate potential delays for trains entering the shared section.
Extending the shared section north to LAUS would be possible in principle, if there are quad tracks at the intermediate Metrolink stations. I suspect that what Sen. Lowenthal really cares about most, beyond the risk of running out of funds before the HSR starter line is completed, is BNSF rail freight service to the LA/LB harbors. He’d like all passenger service on LOSSAN consolidated on a pair of new tracks to get it out of BNSF’s hair. In practice, that translates to running Amtrak PS and Metrolink’s LOSSAN service on what CHSRA currently thinks of as “the HSR tracks”, even though HSR trains aren’t slated to run at high speeds in that stretch. CHSRA isn’t thinking in terms of “passenger tracks”, it doesn’t want to share anything beyond the DTX tunnel in SF. Perhaps someone should burst its bureaucratic bubble.
The concept of brand-new tracks dedicated to HSR makes sense where speeds in excess of ~90mph are really called for at all times of day. Near the ends of the starter line, a passenger-only main line ought to be shared by HSR and legacy regional services. In a nutshell: less civil engineering, more integrated railway operations. Rail isn’t like roads at all, because traffic can be and is precisely managed. There are degrees of freedom that CHSRA isn’t leveraging, possibly because of FRA and CPUC red tape but more likely because its board and PB are close to the civil engineering industry.
Ergo, Sen. Lowenthal’s priority ought to be securing prop 1A funding for a small team of state and federal regulators based in Sacramento and dedicated to figuring out a path to making Caltrain’s waiver (i.e. exception) more broadly applicable – even though CHSRA isn’t even asking for such a path right now.
Final note: perversely, using prop 1A and/or federal funds for fancy stations actually forces cities, counties, the state and certain members of Congress to solidify their political commitment to fully fund the construction of the entire starter line as well. Prioritizing sexy stations over less sexy tracks is a risky strategy since Congressmen from other states could easily sour on the idea of funding architectural extravagance in California – unless, of course, they get to bring home similarly tasty cuts of bacon, whether for rail or other useful infrastructure. That wouldn’t really be a problem in the context of the federal budget – except for those two incredibly expensive and futile land wars in Asia, which are bringing the US uncomfortably close to a sovereign debt crisis in the 2015 time frame.
morris brown Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Rafael above writes
“TJPA up in SF competed successfully against CHSRA for a $400m slice of California’s ARRA grant. If OCTA is allowed to effectively do the same to fund its shiny ARTIC bauble, then pretty soon there won’t be any money left for laying new tracks to bring trains to those buildings.”
Precisely. Feinstein and Pelosi have successfully taken $400 million from the pot and directed it to the TBT — exactly what they promised to do — it is nothing more than an “earmark” for SF call it what you want.
However Rafael also writes:
“CHSRA has always maintained it’s responsibility ends with the approaches, full-length platforms and pedestrian over- or underpasses to reach them.”
This is not fact. Look at the ARRA funds applications and please note $50 million for the SJ “Diridon” station. Where is your evidence that CHSRA says they won’t pay to build stations?
So as the project seems to be falling apart, (look at CalTrain trying now to grab the federal money just to do electrification — major effort there to certify its dusty old EIR which can’t possibly be used satisfy CEQA requirements for HSR, since HSR was never studied in that EIR)
They are no all seem to be grabbing what pieces might of the now 1.9 billion still are lying on the table. Kudos to Lowenthal for making an effort to stop this…
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
An earmark, by definition, is an explicit award of federal funds to a specific project in federal legislation. Those are inappropriate because they amount (roughly) to the inverse of a bill of attainder: instead of explicitly discriminating against a person or group, earmarks discriminate in their favor.
In this case, Congress handed the money to the administration, in the case of the HSR funds to FRA. Bureaucrats there drew up rules on how grant applications should be structured, evaluated the submissions and made the awards. Did individual members of Congress try to lobby FRA on behalf of projects in their district? Probably, but that’s not at all the same thing as holding the passage of a bill up for ransom.
As for SJ Diridon, it’s a larger station so $50m would pay for multiple platforms and platform tracks plus the turnouts and the pedestrian infrastructure to access them. The entire station as currently conceived will probably cost several hundred million.
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Oh, and regarding Caltrain electrification. I agree that implementing with Caltrain’s plans just because the EIR is done would make sense only if the substations etc. as built can later be used to run both Caltrain and HSR. That means they may need to be rated for higher power than Caltrain had bargained for. Of course, it would make sense to split the design into phases, such that the transformers etc. needed for HSR don’t need to be actually purchased and installed until CHSRA is ready. Right now, it’s good enough if sufficient real estate is reserved for that.
The fact that Caltrain is getting electrification on the HSR project’s nickel at all is justified under the heading of “right of way acquisition”. PCJPB isn’t asking for cash but rather, for payment in kind.
The core problem is that the HSR project was twice delayed by the governor and is now several years behind TJPA’s and Caltrain’s schedules. Both of these agencies are trying to shoehorn HSR into their already-approved plans because there’s a deadline on spending ARRA funds, plus the region really does need construction jobs. Without ARRA and a recession, chances are TJPA and Caltrain would be more willing to go back to the drawing board to implement solutions that actually work well for them as well as CHSRA.
Basically, the administration and Congress decided to make some HSR funding available before CHSRA’s project was really mature enough, sending everybody into a mad scramble. Note that TJPA got its money directly from FRA, so CHSRA has zero say over how it is spent. Caltrain must get CHSRA to write it a check for early corridor electrification, so the latter agency could at least theoretically step on the brakes and force a redesign to avoid waste.
Meanwhile, CHSRA could transact a preliminary ROW acquisition deal giving the HSR project certain planning prerogatives in return for a lump sum. In particular, this should require Caltrain to leverage the off-the-shelf positive train control and traffic management solution that CHSRA will anyhow have to buy, with ETCS level 2 and ERTMS preferred. Lots of countries outside of Europe have adopted these technologies to avoid the pain and suffering of developing something very similar from scratch.
CBOSS’ spec says it will have some special features to improve grade crossing safety, something ETCS doesn’t address. Assuming the PAMPA cities don’t insists on a bored tunnel, the HSR project will fully grade separate not just the new tracks but the old ones as well (another payment in kind for the right of way). Between Santa Clara and the Monterey Hwy, there are only two remaining grade crossings: Auzerais Ave and W Virginia St (both near 280 in San Jose). Those are secondary crossings. Build ped/bike underpasses and close them to vehicular traffic.
Instead, just have CHSRA buy UPRR a couple of dozen in-cab boxes for its off-the-shelf system and provide training for the drivers. The boxes cost on the order $400k a pop, i.e. absolutely peanuts compared to the development cost and risk of CBOSS. Beyond the confines of PCJPB property, UPRR would be free to use whatever PTC solution it cooks up with the other Class I freight railroads on its own dime. Installing multiple incompatible signaling systems in a single locomotive cab and switching between them at well-defined locations while moving isn’t ideal, but it’s standard operating practice in Europe. UPRR will complain about not being able to run any one of its thousands of locomotives through San Jose and up to SF, but neither section is a really busy freight line so it would be ridiculous to make that a hard requirement.
Back to Caltrain: it would use aforementioned lump sum to plug the hole in its operating budget for a couple of years, buying time for sorely needed integrated planning. The quid pro quo would be a binding commitment from PCJPB to shoulder on a correspondingly larger share of the capital investment in the DTX tunnel a few years hence.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Auzerais Ave and W Virginia St (both near 280 in San Jose). Those are secondary crossings. Build ped/bike underpasses and close them to vehicular traffic.
You might want to consult with emergency services in San Jose before so cavalierly closing them. Especially Auzerais, close that and you’ve isolated a whole small neighborhood with only one way in and out, across a creek.
rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Fine, if it’s really that important to have redundant access, take one property and construct a little bridge between W Home St and Hannah St. Tons cheaper plus lower environmental impact than constructing an overpass for Auzerais.
The next big turning point will swing on the now almost certainly to be discredited, ridership analysis This is indeed on the agenda for the next CHSRA board meeting.
Then we have the November election, when for sure we get a new governor. If Jerry Brown loses, most likely, we shall see what Meg has to say about this boondoggle.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
He..wont..Boxer is going to win and HSR is going to be built…and for the billionth time Boondoggle is only in the mind of the NIMBYS and naysayers…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 9:44 am
A new ridership analysis was always likely, and it would certainly produce better numbers than a study dating to 2005. Be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.
Tony D. Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Sour grapes for loosing your pathetic frivolous lawsuit? Jerry or Meg, they won’t go against the people of this state.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
No his is next!!!!
HSRforCali Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I don’t see why you assume Meg is against the project based on the fact she’s conservative. Look at John Mica.
Peter Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Meg could turn out to be a Super-NIMBY simply based on the fact that she lives in Menlo Park.
Bianca Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Atherton. She lives in Atherton. And geography isn’t destiny, you know. There are lots of people in Palo Alto/Menlo Park who support HSR.
Like me.
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Bianca for Governor!
Bianca Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for that, but I think I’d rather stick this knitting needle in my eye than be Governor of California. :-)
Peter Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I’m sorry, I was mistaken. And I wasn’t accusing everyone who lives there of being a NIMBY. I just put Menlo Park and Republican together, which sort of added up to NIMBY. My apologies for slurring Menlo Park by associating her with the city.
This sort of attack bring up the bigger question;
What sort of state agencies really need governing boards and which just can be part of the Executive hierarchy/
It would seem like one way to address Lowenthal’s concerns is to offer a bill that would pull Metrolink and BART out of local government and into HSR. Then, amend the Board to five members who hail from the major planning regions: SCAG, SANDAG, ABAG, SACGOG, and the Central Valley….
Yup. High speed rail is not being built in a vacuum. It needs to work with regional rail to produce a state-wide rail system, not blithely ignore it’s needs. Caltrain is going to lose it’s overtakes so that HSR can have two exclusive rails all the way up the peninsula, whereas a bit of cooperation and coordination could preserve and expand Caltrain express services without impacting HSR operation.
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
PCJPB could insist on retaining the option of running express trains, but that would entail a much deeper level of integration on the operations side. However, that in turn would force Caltrain to modify or abandon already-approved plans for capital improvements. In addition to timetable integration, Caltrain would have to abandon CBOSS and piggyback onto the off-the-shelf signaling system CHSRA will purchase – most likely ETCS level 2 for PTC plus ERTMS for traffic management. That isn’t compatible with grade crossings, but HSR will eliminate those as well.
See my post Caltrain Firebird for details.
Clem Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Who said ERTMS was incompatible with grade crossings?
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
It was my impression that was Caltrain’s excuse for developing CBOSS rather than buying an off-the-shelf solution. Is that incorrect?
Peter Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Isn’t it more of an issue of them wanting to be compatible with Freight-PTC? After all, UPRR is their largest tenant. NOT.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
There are no grade crossings in Europe. Or Australia. Or India. Or China. Or Taiwan. Or South Korea. Or Saudi Arabia. (Actively imperilling our Israel.) Or New Zealand. Or Libya. Or Mexico. Or Argentina. Or Algeria. Or anywhere else that suffers under the iron fist of socialist train control.
You see, they have effete Euro-weenie level crossings, whereas we in God’s Own Country have manly gun-toting grade crossings.
I feel a few pre-emptive invasions coming on — screw the Security Council — in order to prevent the domino fall of more nations and to make the world safe for CBOSS.
thatbruce Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I thought it was a reflection of the level-headed planning processes used there ;).
Joey Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Forgive my ignorance but what defines a level crossing?
Peter Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
It’s the same as a grade crossing. Richard’s just being a prick again.
Some time last year, I emailed the Senator and asked whether or not he supported HSR. I never heard anything back.
Rafael Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
He’s said publicly that he does supports it, but he’d like to see the project managed differently. One of his pet peeves is that there’s a huge funding gap between what CHSRA is planning to build and what state voters have decided to fund. Ever the pessimist, Lowenthal is proceeding on the assumption that CHSRA won’t succeed in securing full funding. He desperately wants to avoid asking state voters for an additional bond measure to make up any shortfall.
This is part of why he wants CHSRA to prioritize LOSSAN and the SF peninsula rather than say, tunneling through the Tehachapis. In the event the money should run out before the starter line can be completed, the new tracks and related infrastructure could then at least be repurposed for legacy passenger rail services.
However, for that to actually be true, CHSRA would have to build these segments to support axle loads much higher than 17 metric tons. That means much beefier supports for aerials, beefier bridges across creeks (if applicable), beefier sleepers and rails. Vertical transition gradients have to be constrained to something like 2.2% for FRA-compatible legacy diesel gear operated Amtrak and Metrolink, whereas HSR can handle 3.5%. If a tunnel is indeed built between Fullerton and Anaheim ARTIC, its size and ventilation parameters would have to be compatible with Amtrak and Metrolink. Platform heights are another potential source of incompatibility.
All of this should be doable, but it’s not currently part of CHSRA’s concept for LOSSAN. Instead, PB is slowly tailoring the civil engineering specs of the additional tracks specifically to non-compliant bullet trains.
In the peninsula, Caltrain now has a green light to embark on the process of cutting over to non-compliant rolling stock. European self-propelled rolling stock usually runs on tracks with a 22.5 metric ton axle load limit, though it may well be light enough to run on tracks rated at just 17. The bigger issue is that CHSRA will be installing an off-the-shelf signaling and traffic management system (probably ETCS and ERTMS) on the new tracks, while Caltrain is developing an incompatible system called CBOSS.
I doubt Sen. Lowenthal is aware of these technical hurdles to re-purposing the HSR tracks IFF the project had to be suspended or abandoned after partial construction for lack of funding.
I have just come from my first HSR meeting in Gilroy. What a chaotic unhappy shockingly unorganized display of forced future intent that was. Maps were everywhere. Pictures of European rail systems through bucolic pasture lands were displayed to distract the attendees from the other scenes of horror, google photos of the HSR plowing through their pastures and houses and zzzzzzzinging through their antique style downtowns at 220mph.
Nobody was in charge of the meeting. Nobody took the lead in taking questions or giving any explanation. Representatives moved around the room and quietly held private conversations with
worried homeowners who would be displaced by the train and track. It was sickening.
I live and work in Gilroy but daily take two of my colleagues to the Caltrain to board the train for their return home in San Jose. Rarely are there are even five people waiting to use the train.
It has been how many years those trains have been in use? And they are almost always empty, every hour.
Who are you really building this HSR for? For the working poor people who do not own vehicles in California? For undocumented people who dont have licenses? Or is it for the “service folks” who cannot afford to live in the affluent cities they serve who will use these trains to commute to their jobs from the poorer communities they actually live in? For visitors from other countries so they can whisk from S.F to the Outlets in Gilroy and on to Disneyland in L.A? Or is this the brainchild of developers who wish to develop and bring infrastructure to areas of California now occupied by the some of the last remaining beautiful orchards and family ranches?
Who will use these trains really? It is a huge question? Certainly the construction workers hired to build it will not use it initially. They will drive their trucks and vans loaded with tools and machinery on our roads and freeways for years to come while this thing is under construction.
And where will these workers come from? Probably not from California. Big construction assignments will be given to whom?
Who will use these trains? Families? I think not. Politicians? Are they going to join the service folks on the train, sit alongside bus boys, waiters and house cleaners and sales girls? Are they going to sit next to possible terrorists on the train? Are these politicians take the shuttles now? Who will use these trains?
WHO WILL USE THE TRAINS?
WILL YOU?????
And speaking of terrorism, one president said terrorism is here to stay. IT IS NOT GOING AWAY.
So a terrorist attack on a train going 225mph is another future sadness we may expect.
I wish someone would take the time to explain the many benefits to me and help me see how this HSR is a good thing and why we should sacrifice our happiness and pay taxes and allow our properties to be destroyed and devalued.
Thank you for allowing me to express myself here. I am not a gifted speaker.
But I love California and I wish California well. I was born and raised here as were both my mother and father and grandparents, going all the way back to the 1880s. California soil is probably literally in my blood.
Dialogue is important. I was disappointed last night. I was hoping a representative from the HSR would stand up and assure us this is the best thing for California and not just for special interest.
But nobody did.
Worried in Old Town Gilroy
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
An interesting comment. I had hoped to make it up to the Gilroy meeting from Monterey last night, but had other commitments.
I pretty strongly disagree with almost everything you say. The basic response is that you are assuming the status quo will last forever, and are ignoring HSR’s proven successes around the world.
First, your point about the Caltrain to Gilroy service. It is not a valid comparison to HSR. The people riding HSR will be different than those currently taking Caltrain. Because HSR would be faster and running on its own tracks, it provides an entirely different and higher level of service to people who are trying to get to SF or LA – and many of those who board at Gilroy will be people like me who live in Monterey, or in Santa Cruz, or in Salinas. Your Gilroy station is our gateway to California, and how we’re bringing California to the Monterey Bay. So that’s another reason the ridership will be completely different from Caltrain.
Second, by the time HSR opens, gas prices will be at a level that it will be unaffordable for most Californians to get around this state – including to/from Gilroy, and to/from the Monterey Bay Area – by driving. You rant about “who will ride the trains?” when the answer is obvious: Californians will ride the trains.
You make the mistake of seeing something in front of you and assuming everything else is like it. Specifically, you see low ridership on Caltrain to Gilroy and assume it means nobody ever rides trains anywhere in California. That’s just not true. It’s a logical fallacy. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route is the nation’s second busiest intercity passenger rail route and is often packed on the weekends and at holidays. The Amtrak Capitol Corridor, from San Jose to Sacramento, is also a very popular train.
That alone suggests demand for intercity passenger rail – which is what California HSR will be – is already quite high. We know from evidence across the world that HSR has high ridership and does not require operating subsidies – including the Amtrak Acela in the Northeast Corridor.
You are making a major error, flying in the face of the evidence, when you claim nobody will ride this. The evidence is clear that a lot of people will ride it. Do you remember the high gas prices of the summer of 2008? Those days will return, and very soon. Already we’re at $3 per gallon, an unheard-of price until 2006.
Your claims of terrorism are absurd. There will be security precautions on the HSR trains, but you act as if it is guaranteed that terrorists will hit the CA HSR system. No HSR train has yet been targeted by terrorists, at least to my knowledge.
As to why we should pay taxes for this – because if we do not, we are consigning ourselves to poverty. California cannot have economic prosperity without high speed rail and other forms of mass transit. Again, you are pretending that we can just continue on as we are now, driving everywhere. We can’t. Gas prices will not be affordable in a few years’ time. We will save money by building HSR, and create new jobs that you will benefit from.
As to “sacrificing our happiness,” that’s what’s happening right now through our dependence on oil and on long commutes. You cannot seriously believe that someone who commutes 2 hours to work is happy. But with HSR, they can have a much faster commute, leaving more time with their families. California’s happiness is dependent on us being able to afford rapid travel around this state. Without HSR, that is not possible.
As to “properties being destroyed and devalued,” only a few properties will be bought. Everyone else’s property values will rise, especially those in proximity to an HSR station. Having an HSR station will be one of the best things that ever happened to Gilroy, bringing jobs, investment, and demand for housing near the station. If you own a home near the proposed station, you ought to be fighting to ensure this gets built. It will almost guarantee you a good property value for decades to come.
California soil is in my blood too, going back to the 1910s. And I can tell you that this project is essential to our future. We are doomed without it.
Of course, Californians already showed they agreed. Voters passed Prop 1A in November 2008. So the people have already spoken. Californians want high speed rail. It’s going to happen. I hope you will see its benefits and support it. If you don’t, we’re building it anyway. At least we tried to show you the truth.
Peter Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“No HSR train has yet been targeted by terrorists, at least to my knowledge.”
You’re forgetting the bomb on board the TGV by Carlos the Jackal (?), which basically did no major damage.
Peter Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Otherwise you’re pretty much right on point, IMHO.
Spokker Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Terrorism: They’d rather use planes than trains. If they are going to blow up a high speed train, they’ll do it in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Nobody wants to get into your knickers, Gilroy.
California Soil in the Blood: People who oppose this project in these smaller towns tend to really highlight how they are born and raised here, like it’s some sacrosanct quality that makes them untouchable. I have lived in California all my life and I too have unhealthy levels of soil in my bloodstream. I support the high speed rail project.
Hyperbole: It is sickening that we support freeway construction over all other forms of transportation! California is being RAPED by oil interests. See, we can use hyperbole too.
We just think HSR will stimulate commerce and become a better way to travel. Eminent domain is not tragic. Building rail isn’t sickening. Politics are annoying, more than anything else.
Peter Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Some meetings do in fact involve presentations with Q&A sessions. I haven’t been to one in Gilroy, but I have been to a couple in San Jose. Both of those started with an open-house format the way you describe, and then they had a presentation and Q&A, followed by another open-house session. If they do not have a lot of new information to present, they will likely just conduct an open-house.
Spokker Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I have been to a few. It begins as you described, an open house with picture boards and consultants standing around looking pretty. Then there is a presentation and then there is an opportunity for old people to yell at the CHSRA representatives.
The representatives do a horrible job at answering the questions. I could probably do better, though I wouldn’t be as diplomatic ;)
Spokker Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“It was sickening.”
Child molesters are sickening. You’re just talking about retarded local politics.
JoeinSF Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Re Susan J.’s comment about taking her colleagues to the Caltrain station in Gilroy to return home to San Jose from work:
“I live and work in Gilroy but daily take two of my colleagues to the Caltrain to board the train for their return home in San Jose. Rarely are there are even five people waiting to use the train.
It has been how many years those trains have been in use? And they are almost always empty, every hour.”
Unless she works a very long night shift, this is not possible. Caltrain runs only three trains northbound from Gilroy in the morning (departing Gilroy 6:07, 6:30 and 7:05 am), and three trains returning to Gilroy in the evening (arriving Gilroy 5:30, 7:07 and 7:47 pm). The service is timed for residents of Gilroy and other towns south of San Jose to commute into San Jose and the Peninsula.
There is a lot in Susan’s post to lead me to the conclusion that she is deluded or ignorant or both, but this cinches it.
thatbruce Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
@Susan J; You may also wish to direct your comments to the CAHSR Authority. If your experience of one of their outreach meetings (btw, did you stay for the whole session?) was so negative, then there is definitely room for improvement.
Nadia Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
@Susan J: FYI – this blog, while covering the California HSR project, is not officially affiliated with the project. I recommend contacting your city or county representatives and let them know about your experience. You should also contact the Project Management team for your segment (Ben Strumwasser or Dave Mansen) and let them know your impressions about what could have been improved. The more specific you can be, the better. You can also call 800-881-5799 and leave a message requesting information about the SJ to Merced Section.
YESonHSR Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Are you the one quoted in the Gilroy on line paper with all the doom and gloom reports???you sure sound like it..really enough of the drama
held private conversations with worried homeowners who would be displaced by the train and track.
When did they announce a route and what would be diplaced, if anything at all?
Peter Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
“held private conversations with worried homeowners who would be displaced by the train and track.”
What was it, a counseling session for the recently bereaved?
No one is losing their house any time soon, and we have no idea where the route is actually going to go.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Sounds like the Authority took the time to meet one on one with those homeowners to explain the truth about what is happening and where the route proposals stand. God forbid they take the time to actually talk directly to people who have concerns.