More Fallout from the Bay Area Council Letter
The SF Chronicle wrote about the Bay Area Council’s letter to the Peninsula Cities Coalition. I’m quoted in the Andrew Ross article:
Robert Cruickshank, chairman of Californians for High Speed Rail (www.ca4hsr.org), citing the Bay Area Council’s 275 corporate members, said he found Wunderman’s letter “extremely significant, coming from an organization that represents the Bay Area’s and the state’s largest employers. It shows the PCC needs to be more constructive on the issues it raises.
Jim Wunderman of the BAC is also quoted in Ross’s very good overview of the situation:
The last straw for Wunderman was a July 6 statement issued by the group demanding the rail authority “take a step back and resolve troublesome issues with high speed rail before proceeding with the project. High speed rail should be built right or not at all,” it said.
The statement also called for “local communities (to) be empowered in the decision-making process” – including how the rail lines are to be routed, regardless of cost – and to be “given sufficient time to evaluate proposed alternatives and environmental impacts.”
High-speed rail supporters say this would put the San Francisco-San Jose leg, at the very least, on semi-permanent hold, and perhaps kill the statewide project outright. Prolonged second-guessing could also prompt Sacramento and Washington to reconsider their multibillion-dollar funding commitments to the project in these cash-strapped times.
“These folks are smart enough to understand that delay is good enough to kill the project,” Wunderman said in an interview. “Time is not our friend on this.”
That part about “high speed rail supporters say” refers to the longer conversation Ross and I had over the phone yesterday. Right now our primary concern as HSR supporters isn’t the PCC, but Congress. If the PCC is going around calling for the project to be slowed or stopped, then it undermines the overall case Californians are making for the federal government to fully fund HSR. And it doesn’t help the PCC’s own cause – if they want a tunnel, for example, they’ll need Congress to help fund it. The PCC would do well to take a less adversarial tone and work more constructively to ensure HSR is built in a way that everyone can live with.
Meanwhile, PCC member Menlo Park is having a city council election this November. Two candidates are some of the leading anti-HSR voices in the city: Russell Peterson and Mike Brady have both announced their candidacy for the council. Reports continue to swirl that HSR backers who live on Stone Pine Lane, home to many of the Menlo Park HSR critics, are having a hard time getting their voices heard by city officials.
It seems like we might be approaching a tipping point on the Peninsula. Powerful new voices are calling for a more constructive approach to move forward on the Peninsula rail corridor to both improve Caltrain and build HSR. Yet some still want to adopt a confrontational approach that risks the entire HSR project. We’ll see whether, as we all hope, constructiveness and collaboration win the day.
I don’t see any stick being used to motivate the entrenched cities. They’ll ruin the entire program and could care less.
There isn’t a “If HSR fails” alternative plan which deals with future traffic congestion by increasing metering on ramp for HW 101 which will backup traffic into the neighborhoods and route additional traffic onto secondary streets.
They can’t be forced but I’d love to see ways for the Bay Area, County and State gov’t could make these cities regret not cooperating.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
On spare the air day, shut down 280. Then they’ll wish they had better Caltrain service.
flowmotion Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
HSR has practically zero relevance to 101 traffic.
Folks hear need to unravel their internal ideological hairball where HSR -> better local transit -> more TOD -> magic happens -> everyone stops driving –> more magic –> suburban California suddenly resembles that college trip you took in Europe.
In reality, it takes to you LA or maybe Bakersfield, if you need to go there.
Walter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 2:00 am
How did Europe get like that? Was it when “magic happen[ed]?” Or during the “more magic” phase?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 5:18 am
It never did. The rural parts of Europe switched to cars; even in Switzerland, the rural party is against rail and for highways. The urban parts of Europe built good public transit in processes that spanned decades, and were also warier about demolishing neighborhoods to make room for freeways (making it easier to drive) and urban renewal projects (making people want to move away). This was all long before there was a single kilometer of HSR in Europe.
wu ming Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 6:52 am
HSR has stops in SF, SFO, mid-peninsula, SJ, and salinas. all 5 of those stops are on 101 unless my maps are wrong, and HSR will divert traffic off 101. while the majority of that diverted traffic will not be commuter traffic (although moreso the further down the peninsula one gets), less congestion is a good thing. and if they can manage to make some stations have cross-platform or easy walk transfers to caltrain, it will stimulate ridership on caltrain feeding into HSR stops, both for people heading into the city or to catch a flight at SFO, as well as those heading for parts south (or for central valley or socal riders coming into the bay area).
i don’t get how you can pretend it’ll have no impact on traffic flows, when you’ve got 5 stops in the area, on 101 no less, and every other HSR in the world has led to a significant diversion of traffic off of roads and airplanes towards HSR and connecting transit.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Salinas? Do you mean Gilroy?
And no, every other HSR in the world has not led to significant diversion of commuter traffic. It’s led to significant diversion of intercity traffic. Check how many fast trains run between Odawara and Tokyo and how many slow trains.
wu ming Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
yeah, whoops. gilroy. my bad.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 8:07 am
As part of the environmental review, they actually looked at 101 traffic. If anything HSR was supposed to make it marginally worse. The explanation given was people driving to a station to take the train.
The Merc also ran a story on this:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_15672849?nclick_check=1
From the article:
“I was shocked at the tone of the letter, at the lack of understanding of our communities’ concerns,” Hill said in an interview. “Usually, when you write a letter, you try to know what you’re talking about, and this to me showed a lack of understanding of what the (five cities) have been trying to accomplish over the past year.”
Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, said in an interview Tuesday he also thought neither the BAC letter’s content nor its tone were helpful, and that the cities along the rail line had a right to worry about how the project could affect them.
Walter Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
When it comes to worrying about the effects of HSR on their communities, I agree. This project will affect dozens of residential communities statewide and they should be heard.
But it would be a much stronger argument for the PCC if these communities were actually trying to move the project along in an acceptable manner. Demanding a tunnel and refusing to pay for it doesn’t count. For that matter, can someone tell me what it is they “have been trying to accomplish over the past year,” as Hill said? Is the PCC engaging in constructive dialogue I’m not aware of?
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Their website still has at the front ‘High speed rail should be built right or not at all. By ‘right,’ we mean that the rail line should integrate into our communities without harming their current livability. The best design and community values, rather than finances, should determine the alignment.’
Until this statement is removed, I do not see any progress being made in terms of constructive dialogue. Unless we haven’t heard anything.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
They want gold plating done on what is and has always been a railroad…noise grade crossings ect ect..I have ridden Caltrain many times and most of the route is thru nothing that would be ruined by a safe and electrified system.. never mind that near by is El Camino with its 140 ftplus width and 24 hour traffic..NOO HSR will ruin these towns
YesonHSR Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Enough drama…this is not for the 10,000 time ..a freeway..its already there. A quality desgin can be achieved without all the fear and hype.HSR runs thru cities around the world ..we have plenty to look at
and chose from
Joe Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
And train tracks already divide their town.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:33 am
In fact, they create a physical barrier which would be removed with grade separations.
The San Jose Business Journal ran a story:
Bay Area Council chief knocks high-speed rail critics
YesonHSR Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
And they deserve it…
Finally a pro-HSR story that is getting some traction…
YesonHSR Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Well you see they are already ‘spinning” the story that they have been “attacked” No it does not matter that all kinds of insults have been thown at the project and some personal at that…No the little dears are playing the victims again…Wunderman is so right and tells it as it is.. and its the truth.
Robert, you don’t know anything about Menlo Park politics; don’t embarrass yourself. Enough said there.
Your statement:
“If the PCC is going around calling for the project to be slowed or stopped, then it undermines the overall case Californians are making for the federal government to fully fund HSR. And it doesn’t help the PCC’s own cause – if they want a tunnel, for example, they’ll need Congress to help fund it.”
indicates you are either ignoring what is now obvious or you haven’t been keeping up.
The memo from van Ark and the meeting last week clearly show that tunneling isn’t on the agenda — it never has been. van Ark several times stated, they were only costing above ground options. (others would be much more expensive as he put it). How much more clear can it be.
In the meantime, the Authority can now deal with similar problems arising more and more in the south.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_15678540
finally while I happen to be here, maybe sore of your readers might like to listen and read an interview with Dan Walters
link to audio 7.5 minutes and transcript
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/kalw/detail?blogid=189&entry_id=69213
There is a longer piece from KALW with this interview and Kopp on the internet as well.
Peter Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Didn’t we already talk about these interviews? Maybe if you paid any attention to the discussions, Morris, you would know that.
Walters’ interview is exactly what he accuses the Authority of: propaganda.
Case in point:
So, in other words, CA’s HSR “bullet train” system is designed like every other bullet train system in the world is? With different service levels? No shit, Walters. That’s how it’s meant to be done.
And again the BS about the ticket price compared with airlines. Because we all know that Southwest will be offering $49 one-way flights in 2020. Right.
We have. You just don’t like it.
And about the Pasadena Star article:
These things take time. They don’t come up with an alternative and immediately tell everyone who might possibly be affected by it of what they MIGHT study further. They don’t have the time or money to do so, or have all the details of the alignment worked out immediately. Doing so would be a colossal waste of money. I understand that people get frustrated and think that details are being withheld from them, but you can’t withhold OR provide details that you don’t have yet.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Apparently Walters has never heard of an express train.
Walter Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 2:04 am
These people don’t understand trains. Period. It is not “two systems.” This is not some dreamy European concept. The NY subway has express and local trains.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 2:13 am
Heck, even Caltrain has express trains.
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:40 am
Propaganda, that was used to construct freeways in Houston with posters depicting accident prone arterial streets where as freeways were safer and faster to drive on. The media is immediately jumping the gun because citizens don’t like government much. In their view, it is a huge project that will go over budget just like the Bay Bridge. They claim fares have gone up. How many flipping times do we have to say THESE ARE JUST SCENARIOS. THE ACTUAL COST IS TO BE DETERMINED!
If they want the answers their way, talk to the folks at the Reason Foundation, they’ll take you to the spin-zone.
Joey Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:44 am
Here we go. I-10. On a map. Right. There.
Spokker Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 12:50 am
In the memo, it is clear that they know of concerns over the different alignments. There was support for adding the I-10 for consideration on top of that.
“They didn’t tell us.” is nonsense. They got over 1,000 comments on it. Somehow people found out. They can’t listen to all 2 million residents of the San Gabriel Valley.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:15 am
If what Spokker says is true, then these “leaders” have failed to pay attention, or they are liars. Neither scenario speaks well for them.
I can understand what happened in Bakersfield, based on the comments the people from there said on this site. There is no such excuse for people in official positions, who have staff and others to tell them of things they may have missed in the mail, so to speak.
I’ve been told I’ve been too honest, and I’ve also been told I should learn to lie better. These comments were by friends who thought I got raw deal on a job dispute. I wonder if what they said was true. If so, then my parents brought me up wrong, at least in terms of dealing with the world as it actually is, which is dominated by crooks and dopes, all of whom have more power than I do.
Out of curiousity, how old are the politicians in the Peninsula area who are giving problems? Are most of them members of the “in-between” age group?
YesonHSR Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 7:37 am
NO..there was a note that trenching was still an option for ARRA ..thou its going to be the Valley or SoCal
The ABC TV news in San Francisco ran a segment August 5 on the conflict: Accusations heat up over Calif. high-speed rail
Well, took a look at the PCC website, and I liked the layout that looks like a Centralized Traffic Control board! Neat for a railfan like me! The pro-rail sites should have used such a layout.
As to content–took a look at a couple of animated videos showing the variations between at-grade, viaduct, retaining-wall fill, trench, and tunnel, and I wonder what the fuss is about. The supposedly horrible retaining-wall fill looks a lot like what you see in Baltimore and Philadelphia on the former Pennsylvania Railroad lines in the Northeast Corridor, especially as the architects decided to soften up the walls with ivy in the illustrations. What’s so horrible about that? Personally, I’d consider facing with stone for appearances, but in many ways in terms of relatively low maintenance and good earthquake resistance, this is the best choice.
Tunnels and trenches cost much more, and introduce drainage, maintenance, and gradient problems. I also would object as a passenger to riding in a gutter or a sewer; why do you think we quit living in caves so many thousands of years ago? So what do the excitable citizens want to do? Put us passengers down in a cave! I will grant that the PRR walls were not always loved either, and also that they predated electification.
I do have to admit I like the tree-lined look of the present right-of-way, and can imagine how it looked before in the glory days (remember, I’m this retro steam fan), but I also know you don’t want grade crossings, and it doesn’t look like you have the room to ramp the streets up over or down under the existing tracks.
The Compatabilty Blog has an interesting perspective on this from San Mateo:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/08/elevated-blight-in-san-mateo.html
For the record, comments about the new terminal in San Francisco; personally wish they had done something else, as I regard the existing terminal as historic (it was built to serve Key System trains), and the new one will have operating, curve, and maintenance issues that put this terminal in something of a handicap, at least in my opinion.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/08/05/transbay-terminal-demolition-set-to-begin-massive-new-center-will-prioritize-multimodal-access/
As it used to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhNDZV1uDUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTENtVL_WU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW8c1OpO54&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IKAIFBrt3M&feature=related
Have fun!