Palo Alto HSR Committee Votes to Express ‘No Confidence’ in HSR and the Authority
Palo Alto’s City Council’s High Speed Rail Committee unanimously passed a resolution Thursday that declaring the Committee has no confidence in the high speed rail project and the California High Speed Rail Authority.
Councilman Larry Klein led the charge to pass the resolution. In opposing to high-speed rail and the authority, the resolution underlines Palo Alto’s issues with:
- Ridership estimates
- Project cost
- CAHSRA business plan
- City’s relationship with the Authority
- Community impact
Klein’s opposition seemed to rest largely with the Authority’s desire to build the high-speed rail project in a cost-effective manner, and its refusal to pay for burying trains in an expensive deep tunnel and or cut-and-cover trench.
HSRA is trying to do this on the cheap, ignoring the fact that this is something that will last 100 years or more. All doing it on the cheap means, though, is that you’re transferring the cost to someone else. You build the cheapest alternative, but the community picks up the cost, Klein said.
Klein claims that cost, while hard to quantify, will come in the form of decreased real estate values. Benefits, like improved auto/pedestrian flow, quieter trains, cleaner transportation modes and easy access to cities near and far went largely unmentioned by Klein.
Even Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt, who had some reservations about the no confidence resolution, seemed to also focus his criticism not on the idea of high-speed rail, but on the “process.”
When CEO van ark met with Larry and my staff, he was going to come forward with a plan that would be a $43 billion plan in his mind. That’s the most money that they might have, so the idea that they’ll fund mitigation for cities is extremely unlikely.
They’re going to have a very tough time getting the $43 billion, and they’re not going to have a dime more than that. In summation, what all the cities have gone through have been led down a process that’s a facade.
For Palo Alto officials, a “facade” has meant a state authority not willing to spend billions extra to accommodate local concerns about high-speed rail.
In passing its resolution, Palo Alto officials are seeking to “decouple” the construction of a high-speed rail line from Caltrain electrification/grade separation project. Even elected officials that regularly criticize the CAHSRA and the high-speed rail project repeatedly expressed support for Caltrain.
Palo Alto needs to take a stand that Caltrain stops here, continues to stop here and increases its schedule, Councilwoman Nancy Shepard said.
So while city officials are all for Caltrain improvements — and the California High-Speed Rail project is the single-best way for Caltrain to get the funds to complete the project — the High Speed Rail Committee is pushing to separate the two projects.
The vote was unanimous, but Councilwoman Gail Price pointed out the logical problems with this flawed approach.
By taking such a strong position on the funding, we may be hurting Caltrain. We may be impacting Caltrain’s need to move forward. There needs to be a three-county bond measure that supports the needs of Caltrain.
She even went on to point to another city that had seen similar struggles about its desires to determine exactly how a major piece of transit infrastructure is built. Price pointed out that when BART planned to build an aerial viaduct through town, the city of Berkeley paid the cost of under-grounding the project.
Additionally, Price pointed out that it’s premature to oppose a project that is still early in the planning phase, especially as the city is waiting on a number of studies to gauge the impact of the project.
It prejudges all the resources that we are investigating right now. To keep those vital and meaningful, these statements get way out in front of where we need to be … while we don’t have the information we need.
Price seems to understand that, by formally opposing the project, the city is doing more harm than good.
If the city opposes the project, it’s going to make it more difficult for Palo Alto to ask neighboring cities (an idea Price floated) or federal officials for money to underground the project. Similarly, the city will be put in an awkward position if it decides to lobby for locating an HSR station in Palo Alto, while still opposing the project.
Regardless, the High Speed Rail Committee passed the resolution unanimously. It will go before the City Council for a vote on Sep. 13.
I hadn’t thought that Klein would be so foolish. He lives fairly near the tracks, but not near enough for it to seriously effect his property. He must be listening to the vocal opponents who do live close to the tracks, and to those who automatically oppose anything that smacks of change or development.
The strange thing about Palo Alto’s stance is that it simultaneously demands that the project not be done “on the cheap,” meanwhile decrying the high cost of the project and its flawed business plan. Palo Alto wants the gold plating that they deplore. This is an insinuation that the project cannot possibly be “done right”, and if the only other option is “not at all” then one is forced to the logical conclusion that this is really what they implicitly demand.
Palo Alto’s enviable affluence does not entitle it to any better mitigation than other cities. There’s nothing wrong with Palo Alto getting trenches, but if they are paid for by the CHSRA, then social justice dictates that Gilroy, or San Mateo, or Fresno, or Bakersfield, or San Bruno, or anybody else who asks, also get a state-funded trench. That will make the project infeasible, an outcome that very large political and financial forces will work to prevent.
In my view, Palo Alto is left with only two realistic options, neither of them very palatable: file a CEQA lawsuit in a last-ditch attempt to try to get the route changed back to Altamont (an iffy proposition for which there is only a very short window to act) or raise the necessary funds locally in order to build the trenched grade separations. That is where Palo Alto’s affluence may set it apart from other cities.
Immovable object, please meet overwhelming force.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Yep. That overview seems pretty much accurate to me. Although there is a third option, which is to try and kill the project altogether. That risks taking Caltrain down with it.
Clem Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Caltrain will be fine. The worst that could possibly happen to it is replacement with BART, which brings with it the same trouble with grade separations through PAMPA. HSR is mostly a proxy in the fight against grade separations.
While Caltrain is being turned into a political football, and may indeed not survive as a political entity, the peninsula rail commute has many bright days ahead of it, with or without HSR.
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 5:41 am
You’re dreaming. Caltrain can’t get the funds to operate the current schedule. They need to go electric to cut costs.
Opponents of Caltrain and public spending will use Palo Alto’s criticism of HSR to attack Caltrain. It makes no sense that HSR construction is a mismanaged waste of money but magically upgrading Caltrain or extending BART is logical and cost effective.
morris brown Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:18 am
When you read CalTrain’s electrification EIR you don’t come at all to the conclusion that it will cost less to operate the service. By their own words, much higher maintainence costs will more
than eat up the savings in lower costs to power the system.
CalTrain claims to have $600 million in funds in hand for electrification. Where does any
interest on those funds accumulate? At a 5 percent interest rate, ( pretty hard to get right now), that’s $30 million per year. If that could be diverted into operating costs, their funding problems would be solved.
Peter Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
That’s assuming that those funds are actually in the hands of Caltrain. If someone else is holding on to those funds until Caltrain is ready to commit them, then Caltrain wouldn’t get the interest.
StevieB Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
The funds are not a pile of cash sitting on the directors desk. Funds would need to accumulate from sales taxes and sales of bonds and by disbursement through the bureaucracy.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
They also evaporate when a more politically juiced boondoggle fronted by a more corrupt and locked-in contractor comes along.
Just for, oh, an example: the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority sells a transportation sales tax to all the cities of the south bay on the basis that there will be a whole grab bag of goodies for everybody, like light rail lines and bus lines and Caltrain electrification and all that jive.
But, gosh darn it, what do you know? All of a sudden the PBQD-designed PBQD-promoted PBQD-profiting BART line from Fremont to Santa Clara via San Jose turns out not to be $4 billion after all and wow, can you imagine that, but somehow the sales tax revenues aren’t all we said they would be, and gosh, the only possible thing we can do is cancel every other thing in the sales tax program and give all the money to PB and other very very special pals for BART. Sorry about that Caltrain electrification business. Too bad. Shit happens! Here’s a good line: maybe HSR will come along and pay for it! So there’s no problem after all! Cool!
And to pick another random example out of a hat: the San Francisco Transportation Authority sells a transportation sales tax to all of SF on the basis that there will be a whole grab bag of goodies for everybody, like light rail lines and bus lines and Caltrain electrification and all that jive.
But, gosh darn it, what do you know? All of a sudden the PBQD-designed PBQD-promoted PBQD-profiting Central Subway from nowhere to nowhere turns out not to be $1 billion after all and wow, can you imagine that, but somehow the sales tax revenues aren’t all we said they would be, and gosh, the only possible thing we can do is cancel lots of other thing in the sales tax program and give all the money to PB and pals for a worse than useless tunnel that will make Muni service slower, less reliable and more expensive. Shit happens! But no worry about that Caltrain electrification business, because, uh, HSR will fund it instead! Maybe. But that’s our story and we’re sticking to it. Until the next time we change the story.
morris brown Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
My more limited knowledge brings up the confiscation of the funds for the Dumbration
Rail line. I think around $400 million, which was scooped up by BART. TRANSDEF filed
a lawsuit to stop this, but lost.
StevieB Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
The Caltrain EIR costs are given using 2008 energy costs.
Electrification avoids the inevitable petroleum cost increases as world oil production decreases. The cost of gasoline in the US has doubled in the last 10 years and will only go up in the next 10 years.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Yes, for the determined anti-community-action set, the next step after, “We don’t need HSR, just fix Caltrain” is “Building a bells and whistles BRT is cheaper than electrifying Caltrain”, then “The ridership on a BRT won’t justify all the bells and whistles, make it a phony BRT that’s just a regular Limited Stops bus” to “only poor people ride buses, just a regular bus will do them.”
synonymouse Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am
At the rate we are going there won’t be enough money for ordinary slow bus service, let alone BRT. AC Transit is in the death spiral. Reduced subsidy levels, higher fares, lower passenger counts- this is the reality transit is going to be facing in the years to come. The US is a poorer country than it used to be and costs will need to be reduced to fit. Union compensation packages will go on a diet and high maintenance infrastructure will be on the chopping block. That’s part of the reason streetcars were replaced by buses(no track or ocs to maintain), why most railroads in the US have been cut to single track, and why the UP is downgrading the Feather River route. Every extra mile of track and wire costs money, especially when it’s way underutilized, a fact that public entities like BART have been routinely ignoring because they are on the taxpayer tit.
Speaking of BART, SF Chron is reporting that BART is routinely exceeeding 100dba and is a hazard to hearing. The CHSRA and PB-Palmdale should be easily able to exceed that benchmark with hollow core aerials and no resiliency in tracks, trucks and wheelsets as prescribed by the brutalist aesthetic and engineering mindset.
I came across an interesting posting that claimed BART wheel squeal on curves is being exacerbated by broad gauge, because the differential between the inner and outer rails is greater than with standard gauge.
Missiondweller Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“simultaneously demands that the project not be done “on the cheap,” meanwhile decrying the high cost of the project”
Exactly, the true goal is to stop HSR on the peninsula. PA has this self image as a quaint Norman Rockwell town. They remember how they stopped BART before and are trying to replicate that “victory”. The only problem is that this time it wasn’t a county vote, it was statewide. I see no plausible way of them stopping this project, but of coarse they’ll keep trying, wasting time and resources.
In SF, the ground is being broken on the new Transbay Terminal with an additional $400 million for a trainbox. No way do they stop the line at San Jose.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
In SF, the ground is being broken on the new Transbay Terminal with an additional $400 million for a trainbox. No way do they stop the line at San Jose.
New York City had a billion dollar tunnel under the East River that sat there, unused for 30 years….. Still don’t use half of it.
Tony D. Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
And your point AD12800? Do you really think Newsom, Feinstein and Pelosi are going to allow HSR to end in SJ just because of tiny, whiny-ass PA? YEAH RIGHT!
Alon Levy Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:09 am
I think the point is that TBT’s cost and operating constraints pale in comparison to those of East Side Access. San Francisco spends a billion dollars on a kilometer of new commuter train subway; New York spends four.
Reality Check Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
@Missiondweller: Palo Alto never “stopped BART.”
mike Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
This is an insinuation that the project cannot possibly be “done right”, and if the only other option is “not at all” then one is forced to the logical conclusion that this is really what they implicitly demand.
Yup, though as we saw recently, even the “not at all” option is “unacceptable” to them, since they cannot condone any significant expansion of service (Caltrain or HSR) without accompanying grade separations. In other words, the only acceptable outcome is for Palo Alto to receive $1 billion of infrastructure and everyone else gets nothing else except the bare minimum. Sounds great!
Drunk Engineer Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:35 am
No, there is a third option: the no-build alternative. The CHSRA has never demonstrated a realistic operating plan requiring 4-tracks everywhere along the Peninsula. Granted, not an ideal solution, but leaving some stretches of track “as-is” along parts of the Caltrain route is not the end of the world.
John mcNary Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
The no build alternative is no legal, not practical, and not going to happen.
joe Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I would like a device to peer into the alternative universe where HSR opponents get their wish and subsequently choke on auto fumes and diesel rail.
Meanwhile, San Jose, as the terminus for HSR draws away high tech business and jobs.
PA is a cute city but the location and infrastructure draw jobs which prop up property values.
SF once rebuked Oakland’s offer to unify. Then the transcontinental rail road was built and ended in Oakland.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
You heard it here folks: political jurisdiction trumps hypsography and hydrology!
If only SF had voted with Oakland to “unify” then the SF Bay would be no barrier to the all important transcontinental railroad from reaching a gigantic container terminal surrounding the SF Ferry Building.
Verily, Palo Alto shall sink beneath the waves of iniquity while San José, Capital of Silicon Valley, a city set upon a hill, shines as a light unto the world.
Nathanael Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Oddly enough, you think you’re being sarcastic, but you’re largely right. Why are there so many bridges and tunnels from Manhattan to Long Island? Because of the governmental unification of Manhattan and Brooklyn/Queens. Look up the history. The lack of governmental unification with New Jersey is the main reason there are so many fewer crossings from Manhattan to Jersey….
Alon Levy Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 5:43 am
Surely, the fact that the Hudson River is nearly twice as wide as the East River should count for something.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
leaving some stretches of track “as-is” along parts of the Caltrain route is not the end of the world.
12 trains an hour during rush hour isn’t an unreasonable amount of trains to imagine running.
That means some of the grade crossings will be closed 24 times an hour during rush hour. That won’t be acceptable in many ways. “No build” is not a viable alternative.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Caltrain+HSR combined isn’t going to be 12 trains per direction per hour for at least 20 years, if ever. Look at the real world, for God’s sake! (Hint: LA isn’t Tokyo, nor is SF remotely in the ballpark of Barcelona. Nor for that matter is Palo Alto even in the same ballpark as Berkeley in terms of transit demand.)
Max 8tph long distance (HS) plus regional (Caltrain) will more than suffice for a decade after HSR links SF and LA: this is absolutely guaranteed by real train use between real city pairs and real suburbs in the real world.
That leaves plenty of time to undertake a careful and targeted and strategic build out of infrastructure to match slowly increasing real service needs … rather than solely matching the desire of contractors to maximize construction budgets.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
And in 2030 how much is going to cost to build the grade separations they don’t build in 2015?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
And in 2030 how much is it going to build the Fresno-Sacramento or LA-Anaheim or LA-San Diego sections that couldn’t be undertaken earlier because they pissed away billions on suburban high cost quadruple track that ended up being unused for 20 years, all the time carrying crushing debt loads for the construction bonds?
One of the notable features of the Planet Adirondack (a small town in France) is the absence of our primitive Earthling notions of cost effectiveness, depreciation, carrying cost, interest cost, and especially opportunity cost.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
High speed track between Fresno and Bakersfield without connecting to LA or SF, should be about as popular as the current San Joaquin service.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
If would cost either more or less – it’s unknown. The reason it could be lower is that once HSR starts running, political support for continuing the project will soar, making it easier to push through elevated grade separations. In addition, the Peninsula will already be familiar both with elevated grade separations, in other Peninsula suburbs, and with HSR and electrified commuter trains; the realization that the trains are not as noisy as diesel clunkers will increase support for elevated grade separations further.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
I’d hazard a guess that it would cost more. It’s harder to work around a busy railroad, it’s going to be busier in 2030.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Ah yes. busy railroads. Always a challenge.
Nathanael Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
16 times per hour is still pretty bad for grade crossing closures, Richard. And as you know it is cheaper in the long run to do the civils for four tracks now than to do any civil engineering work which will have to be *redone*.
Leaving parts of the line alone for now is perfectly reasonable, assuming that those aren’t “important” or busy grade crossings. If they are, well, the separation should probably be done.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
That’s a whole whopping 8 minutes out of the hour. Even on a major arterials that would be no big deal. In this case, almost all the crossings are residential collectors (the main arterials are already grade-separated).
Or to put another way: if by some miracle Caltrain came into extra operating funds allowing an extra 4 TPH to be added to the commute-hour schedule, nobody would be clammoring to grade-separate Church St.
Robert Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
The parents of kids who committed suicide from Gunn high school probably care. Grade separation is safer.
Traditionally the city of Palo Alto would have had to pay for this grade separation, but with HSR somebody else will finally be paying to stop these tragic deaths from happening.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Yep. I think grade seps are one major reason why so many people in Palo Alto support HSR.
Spokker Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:08 am
The value of a human life is not infinite. Certainly, the value of a suicidal life is close to zero. Grade crossings are justifiable at certain speeds, certain frequencies and certain densities. They are not standard features. Preventing suicide alone does not justify building millions of dollars worth of grade separations. Spending millions does not justify preventing the occasional mentally deranged teenager from mucking up the tracks for a few hours because their brain broke.
I feel that the value of a suicidal Palo Alto teenager’s life has increased because it serves your agenda.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
At what combinations of speed, frequencies and densities do grade separations return greater value than their cost?
Spokker Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Hell if I know. The entire Peninsula should probably be grade separated. I simply wish to contain the idea that all rail lines should be grade separated, no questions asked.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
30 seconds for the gates to come down, the train pass and have the gates come up is wildly optimistic.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Nathanael, you can’t get me to argue that at-grade rail-road or pedestrian-rail crossings are in any way acceptable in the long term.
The issue is what is the best way to spend money today (four track grade separations in Palo Alto? Three level Diridon Panglactic? San Bruno Caltrain-”designed” clusterfuck? LA-Anaheim? Underground station in Millbrae?) in order to achieve the best economic, social, environmental and safety outcomes over the long run.
Everything can’t be done at once, and money is far from unlimited, so where and how best to spend money progressively to provide the most benefit and to deliver the most useful and popular and useable pieces of the project in well-managed and well-defined stages?
Added to this is the indisputable fact that Caltrain/CHSRA don’t just want to over-build gold-plated over-sized structures that won’t be needed for 20 years or more — it’s that they want to build gold-plated turds that are obviously the wrong thing today and will be even worse obstacles 20 years in the future. (Did somebody mention Millbrae Station already? Transbay?) Doing nothing, making do and waiting until real service demands real infrastructure for capacity improvement is really cheap compared to undoing what these sub-simians get up to. (Did somebody mention Millbrae Station already?)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
You are assuming that there will be some sort or revelation in 2017 and they start building cost effective infrastructure. If what they’ve done in the past is an indicator why would doing things in 2030 be any better?
The real issue is with the overpasses over the 4 at grade street crossings in Palo Alto. The other issues are an attempt to give a broader basis to the unfavorable appearance of their narrow self centered preference for building the rail line below ground.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Yeah, if the Authority decided tomorrow to trench through PAMPA, most of the opposition from the City Councils would evaporate overnight. Those who would lose a couple of feet of their properties would still be whining no matter what. And then there are busy-bodies like Morris Brown who won’t be ever happy with anything until, well, they pass away.
PA’s decision = YAWWWNNN….Next topic!
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
agree in spades
One should read the original documents if you want a real perspective.
Klein’s Draft proposal to the sub-committee is at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37005033
What the sub-committee voted unanimously to approve and send to full council is at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37005031
Debate of the Klein resolution took the whole 90 minutes of the meeting.
Klein before the Nov 2008 election was perhaps the most pro-hsr member of council. He has turned 180 against the project now, for reasons he states.
Gail Price is a member of council that was elected with heavy support of the unions; she supports all union causes. She certainly tried to kill off this proposal, but in the end took what was put forward.
As the local Daily Post newspaper in its headline said, PA committee passes watered down version of the Klein resolution.
Belmont, Atherton and Burlingame have passes anti HSR resolutions of one sort of another. Menlo Park, will take one up shortly. Redwood City is not happy, and San Mateo is also upset.
Litigation is certain — in fact Stuart Flashman, the attorney who files and won the original lawsuit, stated that was going to happened, if the Authority certified the EIR, which they did.
Why people keep putting forth the death of CalTrain is HSR fails is beyond me. Quite the opposite would seem to be the case. HSr will become a complete competitor to CalTrain’s baby bullet, which CalTrain claims has saved their very existence. What is much more likely is the demise of CalTrain for gonig further and further into deficit operations if HSR becomes operational on the peninsula.
In any case, as duly noted on other blogs, especially Clem’s, the chances of the peninsula getting HSR any time soon are very very small.
Peter Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Weren’t lawsuits obvious, anyway? As long as the project is going forward, lawsuits will be brought.
Nathanael Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
No matter how meritless, all major construction projects these days seem to attract lawsuits.
Clem Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I only noted that the chances of the peninsula hitting the ARRA + HSIPR jackpot the first time around (in a winner-take-all statewide competition among four sections of the HSR project) are very very small. However, there will be many more rounds of funding, and the chances of the peninsula getting HSR by 2020 are quite high.
morris brown Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Your optimism about “many more rounds of funding” will not be fulfilled.
The Authority has promised private equity as the third leg of the funding scheme. It is nowhere to
be found.
Florida, which was “way behind” California 2 years ago, has sprung “way ahead” now. Their much less ambitious project will without a doubt be the first to operate. The country will be looking at that project to see if HSR has a future in this country.
Eric M Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:14 am
I beg to differ. China has repeatedly said they would help fund the CA project. The HSRA has not made any agreements with them yet and no need too. We are still in the engineering phase.
Quit choosing to ignore the facts Morris!!
dave Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:34 am
“The Authority has promised private equity as the third leg of the funding scheme. It is nowhere to be found.”
What the H do you think the $10B China was offering was? The federal part of funding?
“Your optimism about “many more rounds of funding” will not be fulfilled.”
Why? Because you said so? It’s was clear months back that HSR funding was coming in small chunks within the next few years. Nothing new.
Clem Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Until the federal government commits to a clear funding timeline (about 3 billion per year to construct California HSR), private equity won’t commit. It is not surprising that the third leg of the funding scheme requires the second leg to be in place first. This second leg will not be in place until a new federal transportation funding bill is passed with a significant slice of HSR funding.
Then we might see if your pessimism is justified.
dave Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I don’t know how they should fear HSR competing with baby bullet service, it’s not like they make a profit anyway. Caltrain’s dependent on subsidized service and if HSR does take over baby bullet service, I’m sure they are happy that citizens are getting fast, effective, efficient rail service despite them not being able to run it. If another private company can take over and turn a profit in their own way, hey better for PCJPB they don’t have to subsidize it any longer and Peninsula residents still get rail service.
dave Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
They could also just have a private company, perhaps the same one who ends up running CA HSR and lease the ROW to that company and not get their hands dirty? Maybe better for all of us, then we save that Caltrain dedicated money and put it to other public transportation?
Reality Check Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 12:04 am
@dave: What “Caltrain dedicated money” are you referring to? Unlike BART, Caltrain lacks any dedicated funding sources (such as a dedicated slice of sales or property tax).
dave Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Sorry, dedicated was the wrong word. Doesn’t exist as of yet.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 8:27 am
No, then they take advantage of the ability to focus on on simple two speed local and express schedule with a regular clockface schedule, faster transit and lower operating speeds to get more transport provided with the subsidy they are able to provide.
There would be enough suits catching a Caltrain to get to a HSR station for the Baby Bullet to hold onto their subsidy … more suits altogether riding Caltrain, given net service improvements, if not necessarily more suit-miles.
The Palo Alto “No Confidence” Draft Resolution states ——–
“And the Authority’s cost estimates do not include the cost of necessary land acquisitions”.
The CHSRA 2009 business plan includes 2.892 billion for Right-of- Way Capital Costs. Aren’t Right-of-Way Capital Costs the same as “cost of necessary land acquisitions”?
I am no accountant and I find it hard to believe that Palo Alto would have screwed up their resolution like this; but if they did, then they need to do one of two things:
1. Rewrite the resolution, take their time and “get it right.”
2.Or, better yet, use the 2.892 billion that they didn’t think was there as an excuse to drop the resolution entirely.
Spokker Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Pass a resolution right or not at all.
Walter Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:20 am
HAHAHA. Score one for Spokker.
Victor Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Oh how true, Spokker that’s a good one indeed.
They where never trying to work with the Authority, they were simply waiting patiently for their tunnel. Then the Supplimental Alternatives Analysis comes out eliminating their tunnel so all hell breaks lose in their eyes. Now we are supposed to think that the Authority is the bad guy when Palo Alto won’t even try to make an aerial or at grade work? They are not even trying, how are we supposed to sympathize for them?
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 6th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Because, it is the big bad government taking away people’s land for a mega project that will go overbudget, destroy their communities, cause environmental damage and of course ruin their lives They do not need any sympathy at all.
Just put this on the Atherton press page, and a variation at Palo Alto:
Dear Beata’
I’m glad you take care of your older friends. I have and continue to do the same, although it has not been in the driving mode (it has been shoveling snow and mowing grass). However, I’m afraid you’re mistaken in thinking driving is not subsidized.
In 2008 (last year for which statistics are currently available), this country, as a whole (Federal, state, and local governments), spent over $182 billion on roads, but only collected a bit over $94 billion in fuel taxes and tolls ($84.9 billion and $9.3 billion respectively). The $88 billion difference, spread over the approximatly 174.5 billion gallons of motor fuel sold that year, works out to a bit over 50 cents per gallon. This is on top of whatever you are paying now.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf21.cfm
All this material comes from a USDOT website called “Highway Statistics.” Curiously, for all the statistical information there (and the site is a gold mine of information!), the subsidy cost I just mentioned above is not in it; you have to work it out yourself between the two tables listed above.
General link:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.cfm
Now, if we had an honest accounting, the additional 50 cents per gallon would be bad enough to pay on top of, say, $3.00 per gallon, but there are other costs, such as deferred maintenance, poor design and compromise in construction standards due to limited available funding, and external costs such as air pollution, unrecovered accident costs, and, at least until recently, a couple of oil wars.
My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that gasoline in this country really costs about $7 to $8 per gallon, and I’m conservative. There are others who estimate the cost to be as high as $15 per gallon. (You’ll have to do an internet search for the “true cost of gasoline” to find out more about this, due to the limited ability of this page to relay links, otherwise I would have a couple for you.) You–we–are paying that $7 or whatever now, hidden in our income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, insurance costs, and so on.
This comes back to several of the questions in the original post. How do we get off the oil diet, particularly in transportation? How do we pay for roads when cars use little or no fuel as such, or, in other words, how do we divorce road revenue from fuel consumption? How do we come up with answers to the other questions?
Finally, I know a lot of the concern about rail and grade seperation in Palo Alto and other places is about the potential of noise and other nuisance factors. Believe me, it will not be what so many naysayers claim.
Now, in the interests of disclosure, I’ve got to admit I’m a rail enthusiast, or as some others would say in less flattering terms, a “foamer” or “train geek.” Having said that, I am also quite familiar with railroads, and have spent time about them, including steam roads; I’ve even lent a hand (for an impromptu two hours or so) to a steam locomotive overhaul. We have commuter and Amtrak service where I live, plus freight trains, including heavy coal trains over a mile long (with their corresponding returning empty trains). Like your own, these are all diesel powered and oil burning, except the steam heritage roads, which have locomotives that burn coal and spit much of it out the stack, where much of it comes down as hot, sand-like cinders around the third car in the train (guess how I know this).
A notable exeption, however, is the Amtrak service north of Washington, DC. This is the Northeast Corridor, or NEC, and is the former main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which was converted to electric operation in the 1930s. I’ve had the chance to see some of those trains whiz past stations on the line at well over 100 mph. Besides the visual speed (which is frightening the first time you see it), what was most impressive was how quiet the trains were compared to the diesel and steam trains I was more familiar with. I can easily imagine the possibility of one of these things sneaking up on you if you were on the tracks, and the engineer didn’t see you in time to give a warning blast on the horn.
I will also mention that Palo Alto and other places would have good company if you got the electric HSR line built. Another line, also Amtrak operated, is the Keystone Corridor in Pennsylvania. Again, this is a former line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, running west from Philadelphia to Harrisburg (state capitol). It was also electrified in the 1930s, and recently upgraded to 110 mph operation. This line goes through what are called “Main Line” communities west of Philadelphia, which are some of the richest places in the state; the Paoli Local is an institution for those moneybags commuters. It doesn’t sound like something to hurt property values!
Amazingly, this same semi-high speed route also goes through some of the prettiest farming country you ever saw, and this country, in the vicinity of Lancaster, Pa., is worked by old-order Amish people with horses! (This was the setting for a film called “Witness.”) Also on the line are a sweet-smelling chocolate factory in Elizabethtown (Mars), an 1880s era station with a great steel canopy over the tracks at Harrisburg, and a working interchange (ironically, for freight only) with the steam-powered Strasburg Rail Road (yes, that’s the way its corporate name is spelled).
To you and all, I welcome you aboard the train.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for the info on highway subsidies. It is clear that trains even the intercity ones that are currently subsidized have better farebox recovery ratios than roadways. The Pacific Surfliner is in the range of 60-70% farebox recovery. Vancouver’s West Coast Express is almost making a profit with their service for commuter rail. Just pack 1,000 commuters per train, have it be the best option, and people will come.
Nathanael Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Nice, thorough piece, Lubic. You and I agree on a lot (clearly we’ve done similar research) even if your nostalgia extends to steam trains while mine points to interurbans and streetcars. ;-)
I think a lot of people in California have no experience with “main line” trains powered by AC overhead. Perhaps this is why LA is making arguably excessive extensions of their “light rail” and why the Bay Area is obsessed with BART, rather than both areas understanding that AC overhead mainline trains give most of the same benefits cheaper.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 7th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Thanks, Nathaniel, and I’m back on the Palo Alto page again with another response to the people there; you might want to check that out.
And did you get to check out the Western Railroad Museum? That outfit looks like one you would appreciate!
I’m also on this page, as J3a-614. Enjoy!
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30037
General link:
http://www.rypn.org/
To the Western Railway Museum in Solano County:
http://wrm.org/
Item of note; you may have noticed in the past that I’ve mentioned an electric interurban that raced an airplane in a publicity stunt in 1930. Even against what was likely not the fastest airplane around, this race required a trolley car to run for miles at 97 mph. One of those cars is at this museum, although in the paint of a later owner. Talk about a super trolley!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_and_Lake_Erie_Railroad
A glimpse of how it was on the Sacramento Northern:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eX46F6-M08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfx3D3dDE3k&feature=related
Generational comments in historic preservation:
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29906&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=generations+nimbys
Have fun!
I’m beginning to think the rest of the state would be way better off if this city just mysteriously vaporized off into the aether one night. Do they really want to be the most hated city in California? Do they really want to be the city that destroys one of the best things California has going for it?
Maybe they are really that selfish and just don’t care. Maybe it really is a city of uncaring sociopaths that society would be better off without. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Spokker Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 6:24 am
“Do they really want to be the most hated city in California?”
How do you figure that? Most people I talk to don’t really care about this project and aren’t really aware of it.
Those that are aware of it hate it. They hate it with a passion. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to espouse any amount of support for this project in my day to day conversations without finding myself on the receiving end of some heavy vitriol.
They don’t necessarily hate this specific project (the most passionate opponents I come into contact with don’t know much about it), but they hate any amount of spending right now. If I say, “Oh, I just think it will be a great way to travel and spur economic activity and blah blah blah.” they react as if I just assaulted their grandmother and say I’m irresponsible.
This implication that California residents would “hate” Palo Alto for obstructing the high speed rail project is pretty naive on your part. There’s still a debate across the state. Support is not 100%. It’s still 50/50 if I had to guess.
morris brown Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Spokker — it is so refreshing to hear a supporter like yourself make comments like those above.
Palo Alto is a university town; a large percentage of its residents are well read and informed. so for awhile they were lulled into supporting Prop 1A, when they didn’t have the facts, only talk from the likes of Rod Diridon and Judge Kopp.
When reality set in, their mood changed drastically.
As for across the State, Prop 1A passed by 53 – 47 in round numbers. Certainly on the peninsula where over 60% voted in favor, it has swung the other way. Thee is simply no way this prop would pass if it were on the ballot today. Why they realized they couldn’t pass a much need water proposition in this election year.
synonymouse Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:15 am
The loss of support is the reason why every effort will be made by PB-Palmdale to to prevent a revote. The underlying problem problem is a political shift which is only beginning to come to the surface. The “left” and the “green” movement has been co-opted by development interests. Feinstein, with her big money ties, is the poster girl of this subterfuge. The Pelosi machine is now as hawkish on population growth as the Vatican. Both establishment parties have bought into unlimited and unending urbanization.
Eventually the “liberals” will recognize that “green” and the anthill society are incompatible. Malthus, not Boehner or Feinstein or Gordon Gecko, will be vindicated over time.
StevieB Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:29 am
The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century is law and will remain law. Nothing came of your request in April that the peninsula cities make an effort to revoke the law. They realized that an effort at repeal would fail.
Spokker Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
You’ve twisted my comments a little bit, morris. The people I have been talking to do not necessarily care about Palo Alto, but spending in general. In good times, they would probably support the project. These are the montarists who believe Krugal is a shit-spewing maniac.
I’d say support/opposition is still 50/50 on the Peninsula too, but that’s only a guess. The difference between you and I is that I recognize that it is a guess. You seem so sure but it’s intellectually dishonest. Without a re-vote, we wouldn’t know for sure.
morris brown Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I agree without a re-vote, we wouldn’t know for sure. Just as we don’t know that 43 million passengers will ever use the HSR rail line by 2035, at this present time.
But, I would hope you would agree, that politicians get into office and stay there only with popular support of the voters who elect them.
So in Menlo Park, there are 5 candidates running for the 3 available seats. All 5 are against this project as proposed. Five Cities on the peninsula have or about to have taken actions to oppose the project in one form or another. Other cities also looking to do likewise.
So would this lead one to believe that there is now more support for the project than 2 years ago? The CHSRA would indeed have you believe that — claiming from their PR firm’s sponsored push poll that support for the project has grown to over 70%.
So I don’t at all see this as being intellectually dishonest. It is a reflection on the changes I note above. Your own personal observations would seem to bear this out as well.
Why are we still stuck at this? Skip Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park, just build the track where there’s nothing in between: San Jose-Fresno-Bakersfield. Then just erect a sign at each end saying “we’d like to continue onwards to SF and LA but….” to shame the NIMBYs that they’re blocking progress.