High-Speed Rail Advocacy at the Statewide Level – Is It Effective?
Occasionally, there are comments on this blog that question the effectiveness of the work of Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR), which advocates for high-speed rail (HSR) at the statewide level. As someone who has taken a leadership role within CA4HSR, I actually appreciate these challenges because I often ask myself the same question – is HSR advocacy at the state level effective? I am writing this blog entry because I think it is important to examine this question to provide encouragement to HSR supporters, who may at times, get discouraged by all the negative media, aggressive skeptics, etc.
In short I have concluded – based on our first year and half of advocacy plus the work we did prior to 2009 – that yes, on a whole, CA4HSR’s statewide approach has been effective and very helpful to the project. This conclusion has driven me to increase my commitment to the organization this year by agreeing to become Executive Director. However, measuring this effectiveness can be difficult at the statewide level of advocacy. Often our effectiveness is not obvious. Therefore, I have summarized a few ways I think our statewide approach has served the project, followed by suggestions for how the pro-HSR community in general, including many readers of this blog, can help increase the effectiveness of HSR advocacy in California.
First, from a bird’s eye perspective, just the existence of an organized statewide pro-HSR advocacy (i.e. CA4HSR) immensely helps the project. Just existing is more important that one might imagine. What do I mean by “just existing?” It says something to leaders around the state that citizens have devoted huge amounts of their personal time to organize a formal organization to advocate for the HSR project. Furthermore, the existence of a formal statewide organization provides visibility that would be difficult to achieve if pro-HSR efforts were just individual efforts in local areas (though I would love to see more of this kind of action; more on that later).
The formal organizing of CA4HSR has provided us a stronger platform to advocate for HSR, and opportunities to contribute pro-HSR statements to the public discourse in the media arena. We have been approached by Christian Science Monitor in a print debate, and have been quoted in numerous other media outlets such as San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury news, National Public Radio, etc. Additionally,we have been approached by two film makers to participate in documentaries on HSR as well.
This visibility has also reached beyond our state borders to national levels, as we have been approached by major transportation advocacy groups such as Transportation for America and American High Speed Rail Alliance to join their coalitions. Additionally, we were given speaking opportunities at RailPAC and NARP’s Steel Wheels Conference and USHSR Association’s conference at Universal City last year. Speaking at these conferences and having a voice within these coalitions has provided strong on-the-ground advocacy to continue pushing the Federal government to fund HSR. For example, while Transportation for America is an HSR supporter, they are advocating around many transportation issues. Through our participation, we continue to remind the Coalition that HSR is critical and that it must be kept front and center in their agenda. Though we are representing California’s HSR interest, we understand that our voice must be heard in Washington if we are to get the long-term, dedicated funding HSR needs from the Federal government.
Beyond the bird’s eye view of our effectiveness, we are also in-the-trenches as much as our resources allow for (and as we continue to grow, so will this type of work). In the midst of aggressive opponents, naysayers, project nitpickers, and a cynical media, who if left to their own without any counterweight, could cause the death of the HSR project by 10,000 cuts, we are here to remind our leaders and the public why this project is so critical and worth doing, despite all the challenges that doing such a massive project entails. How is this expressed? Let’s look at what CA4HSR was able to do to promote the value of project and fight critics in 2009 and 2010:
- We wrote op-eds and letters to the editor in support of HSR.
- We organized online letter campaigns (consisting of several hundred names) to remind State leaders that, yes, Californians still support the project they voted to fund in 2008.
- We attended and spoke at numerous hearings to convey Californians support for HSR, such as the one last year with Senator Boxer and Sec LaHood.
- We met numerous times with the staff of state and federal representatives, expressing the importance of HSR to our economy and environment. In fact we have begun to develop relationships with many staffers, which has been very useful in moving our agenda forward at the political level.
Beyond promoting the project generally, and reminding leaders Californians still support this project, we are also deeply engaged in providing analysis and comments on policy, planning, and design issues related to the specifics of the HSR project. Again, this is another area where measuring effectiveness can be difficult. In terms of policy and design issues, it is often hard to say, “because of us, this happened.” Nevertheless, I see incredible value in being a part of the overall dialogue. I strongly believe that going to public meetings, as well as our private meetings with various stakeholders does make a difference. Writing down our analysis or ideas for project improvements in our newsletter or in this blog, provides more thought to the project. One example I can think of is our hybrid proposal for the alignment if the line between Merced and Fresno (first proposed on this blog). I gave a handout of the proposal to the lead project engineer at a HSR open house in Merced one evening and he seemed genuinely interested. Now it appears that our proposal may be what actually gets built with a few tweaks and modifications. Now I can’t say how much our idea contributed to the Authority’s current thinking on this specific alignment choice. Maybe the Authority would have come to the same conclusion on their own, but maybe not. And this is just one of many examples of our policy and advocacy. Granted, we wish we could do more. It is frankly challenging to keep up with 10 simultaneous EIR planning processes. So we prioritize which ones to comment on. For example, we are planning to apply a heavy focus now on the Fresno to Bakersfield draft EIR, due to come out soon, because this is the first segment that will begin construction.
More specifically, I strongly believe our work on Peninsula issues has made some difference, even though this is the most challenging place to conduct advocacy. What we have been able to do, with limited grassroots resources, is to remind everyone that a majority of peninsula residents still support this project regardless of how loud and organized the opponents are. We did this by continuing to remind stakeholders about a 2010 Peninsula-specific poll (which was published in the San Mateo County Times) that showed continued overwhelming support for HSR. Additionally, we launched a Peninsula-based online letter pro-HSR writing a campaign. As a result, at a minimum, it gave pause to leaders on the Peninsula about their rhetoric and assumption that there was little or no support for HSR within their constituency. We believe that this has led to a subtle shift in tone from some leaders (though certainly not all). We will continue to remind everyone of this support.
Finally, one area I feel we do need improvement is organizing local supporters to do grassroots things like canvas commuter trains for support and get more HSR supporters to speak up by attending hearings and writing letters, etc. This is the hardest and most time-consuming activity especially since we represent the entire state. We attempted to meet this challenge by setting up a structure of local advocacy teams. However, this has been difficult in all honesty. I am convinced that the key here will be local supporters taking ownership of these groups. We can encourage local folks to set up local meetings and provide them information, etc. But ultimately it will be up to a core group of people in each local group to take charge and own the group. And this brings me to my final point. If you are a supporter of HSR, that’s great. But if you want to help this project succeed, I challenge folks to go beyond just reading and maybe commenting on this blog (though this does have value). I strongly encourage you to take direct action. Organize a meeting of supporters in your city and figure out what can be done to help the project (we can help with this), consider becoming a member of CA4HSR, and write one letter or make one phone call a month to a decision maker. It only takes two or three people to consistently remind their local, state, and federal representatives about the value of HSR to make a huge difference. Remember, most people are not very engaged, so if you chose to take direct action, your influence is far greater than you might think.
To close, we encourage folks to keep making suggestions and challenging CA4HSR to do better. Keep the comments coming if you feel there is a need. However, we may just ask you to help out!
What is the objective of this blog post? Is this about your organization, or this blog site? Are the two the same? If it was, I didn’t know that. I thought Robert C. started the site and then became active with Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR).
I think the blog site has been effective with day-lighting and discussing information. Particularly for the Bay Area and Peninsula. Kudos to that.
With regards to CA4HSR, areas of effectiveness to me would be the ones where there is something tangible to measure. Some things are not so tangible. Opinion pieces in the paper is great… I know it helps shape public perspective. So do the intermittent appearances on the radio or comments dropped in a newspaper article. Awareness.
Items that are tangible to me… are areas where HSR design decisions have been influenced. Alignment choices. Station site choices. If the alignment was inlfuenced by the suggested change as part of the initial alignment… great.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
@Brandon from San Diego Thanks for bring up your questions. First, let me clarify the relationship between CA4HSR and this blog. This blog is definintely still an independent blog managed by Robert Cruickshank and is not a blog of CA4HSR. Robert has authorized a few other people active in HSR advocacy, including myself, to be occassional contributors. Further, he has asked me and other contributers to increase our postings for awhile while he gets settled into his new job and living arrangements in Seattle. Therefore, there are going to be times that this blog covers the activies of the CA4HSR, of which Robert is still a board member. I hope this helps. Robert, feel free add in your own thoughts.
To your first question, the post was originally conceived in response to a recent comment (on a previous post) which critiques CA4HSR’ effectiveness. In writing the response, my main objectives were to convey a message of the importance of statewide advocacy and its effectiveness and to encourage folks to take the next step into advocacy.
thatbruce Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
referenced thread
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
To me, effectiveness is also relative to resources. I think CA4HSR, and this blog (which are related but are also NOT the same thing), have an impact that is disproportional to our resources. We’re all a band of volunteers with other demands on our time. I’d have loved nothing more than to spend my days doing HSR work, but I couldn’t.
Other orgs, like Midwest HSR, have been able to get funding early from HSR companies. We’re not able to do that since the companies want to stay out of the various issues that CA4HSR exists to get involved with, from route and alignment choices to station area planning.
I’d ask those who feel we can do better to also let us know what they are able to do to help. I generally agree with most of the suggestions offered, but we don’t always have the ability to implement them. We need more bodies.
Jerry Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 12:56 am
An excellent enlightening blog. I support HSR. I know very little about trains accept using them as a passenger. While in the US Army I’ve ridden the Japanese bullet. As a tourist I’ve ridden the Mag-Lev train in Shanghai and also fast trains in Europe. Also, I’ve ridden the Coast Starlight from San Jose to LA. Certainly a beautiful ride. But eleven hours to LA? Eleven hours? I’m really embarrassed and ashamed to say that as an American. Embarrassed to have seen a conductor get off a stopped train to manually throw a switch in order to pull into a siding to let another train pass. I’m certainly for the desperately needed improvements in the nation’s train infrastructure. This blog has provided information about trains and HSR which I never knew about. It certainly is an eye opening educational blog.
For example, train platform heights. Yes, in London I remember being told to, “Mind the Gap.” But I wasn’t aware that it could be such a problem for train compatibility here in the USA until I read about it on this blog. And every time I read about train platform heights on this blog I’m embarrassed again as an American. Because, one time I missed an earlier San Joaquin from Bakersfield to Emeryville and had to take the last train which goes to Sacramento and not Emeryville. That requires getting off Stockton and then an Amtrak bus ride to Emeryville.
Now for those of you not acquainted with Stockton it has TWO operating train stations. Stockton Gare de l’Est (ACE) and Stockton Gare du Sud (Amtrak). The last San Joaquin out of Bakersfield going north to Sacramento has no platform room to let people off in Stockton so it has to stop in the middle of an intersection, and passengers depart from just the one railroad car stopped at that intersection. In the middle of an intersection for Gawd’s sake. Talk about platform height. There was NO platform at all. Just an intersection. And to think this will only be corrected in Phase II of the HSR project still boggles my mind. Talk about being embarrassed as an American.
To Robert and Daniel, thanks for all of your good work with this blog and CA4HSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:33 am
But I wasn’t aware that it could be such a problem for train compatibility here in the USA until I read about it on this blog.
It’s a problem in California. Trains in the Northeast can go all over the Northeast and serve any high platform.
tjon Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 10:39 am
At least on the Northeast Corridor; some of the diesel-served NJTransit lines have low platforms on some stations.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am
And the same cars pull into high level platform stations, same platforms Acela uses.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
But, the Acela is the only one of those trains that’s high-platform only. The Regional has some low-platform stations, which means the trains have to be fitted with trapdoors. Together with the FRA regs, this is one of the special American problems making it hard to place train doors for easy access and egress.
tjon Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Does the Regional only have low platform stations on the Newport News / Lynchburg lines south of DC? Or are there also some on the Boston – DC corridor?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
At least one in Pennsylvania, SEPTA seems to be allergic to level boarding and many in Connecticut.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Midwest HSR was a good group, but they’ve sort of sunk into obscurity in terms of staying in the public eye, so I’m not at all sure what they’re up to. Pity they weren’t able to campaign effectively against that ass Walker in Wisconsin.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Then why dont you ask for more money from people that have it???
It’s quite clear that there are numerous things CA4HSR would like to do. However, when you’re running on a shoestring budget, there’s only so much you can do (although they’ve done plenty already). CA4HSR doesn’t enjoy the multiple generous donations similar to those of other groups, such as the Reason Foundation and Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.
James Fujita Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
or even TRAC. I would love to be able to print editorials and distribute dozens of copies to just about every train station in California.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I have read TRAC before. Some of their stuff is crap. That includes material from one of their authors that used to be in the rail profession.
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
We do have a goal of being able to start printing copies of newsletetters in the near future for distribution to train stations and to stakeholders all over the state. This will hopefully happen later this year. For now, we are really focused on producing frequent e-newsletters (monthly is our goal). These e-newsletters do get sent to stakeholders all around the state.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Have you ever approached one of these large foundations for financial support? I’m a member of the Californians for high-speed rail and there’s others on this board but we are smalltime supporters The big money that people like the Reason foundation and Cato get from their billionaire backers seems to drown out the positive people for high-speed rail in the mainstream media… some big donor support from forward-looking foundations that care about something like high-speed rail would go a long way to blunting the propaganda from the naysayers
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Unfortunately fossil-fuel-company-backed operations like Reason and Cato get a lot more money than foundations backed by sane, forward-looking companies, but there must be some forward-looking foundations out there, yeah….
YesonHSR Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Because they dont ask..I paid 250bucks for a patron membership…there is tons of money for the asking..they dont now how
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 9:17 am
FYI, we are pursuing larger funding sources. In fact, we have already received a very generous donation at the beginning of this year. As we continue to build up the organization (remember we just relaunched a little over a year ago), we anticipate more resources becoming available.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Who are your donors?
Daniel Krause Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 9:58 am
To-date, individuals.
It’s nice that you’re choosing tp spending your unpaid personal time to bolster the private sector rent seeking profits of PB et al.
Maybe your efforts on their behalf are effective, maybe not. (Based on 20 years of “public input”, I suspect the answer is “who cares?”.)
But I can say for sure that your efforts are certainly are not in the public interest.
Joey Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
In less abrasive terms, I would agree that general cheerleading of the HSR project, regardless of what bad decisions are being made/who is making them/who is benefitting from them is not in anyone’s best interest (except aforementioned decision makers).
I understand that this blog is more devoted to the politics of the project than the technical details, but if the decisions being made are truly as horrendous as many of us have come to believe, shouldn’t part of advocacy be trying to fix those issues?
Spokker Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Those horrendous decisions have to be made in order to make anybody of any influence or power interested in the project. Without those horrendous decisions, which translates into massive profits from overbuilt structures, the project won’t happen.
Those interested in a commonsense, rational project that’s in the public interest don’t have the power to make it happen.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Translation: Modern big businessmen are pirates who need to be bribed with excess profits; the notion of being a partner with their customers for mutual benefits has apparently gone away.
That’s a pretty extreme statement, but it seems true today. I would also be inclined to note that modern big businessmen are very risk-averse, with little true entrepreneurial spirit as exhibited by many of their predecessors.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
In America, a business enterprise is doing poorly when it is making a profit, just not enough profits. A lot of good things are not done because the profits aren’t high enough.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
At one time the best product. the one that offered the best value to the customer for the money, made the most profits. A classic example is the common Hershey candy bar. You can pay a lot more for better chocolate, but you run into diminishing returns on taste. You pay less, and the stuff is usually awful. The Hershey bar was and remains an excellent compromise in good taste and reasonable price. This used to be the genius of American business, ranging from candy bars to automobiles.
Today what makes the most profit is the best thing to sell. Note that this is not necessarily the same as the best product making the most profit.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Having eaten some middle-market Swiss and French chocolate brands, I refuse to view Hershey’s as chocolate. Just because it’s brown and has some sugar in it doesn’t make it actual chocolate, just like just because something is painted to look like a trolley doesn’t make it light rail.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
its true. They put the risk on someone else such as taxpayers as we saw this last time. The giant gaming scheme, use other peoples money, make the profit and run, and stick the taxpayers with the bill. and regulation is bad, unless its regulation that benefits a particular industry, then its ok. Just like all the money thats on the sidelines, that won’t go into the economy until the holders get what they want from the government. They hold the country hostage. One has to ask whether those who profit most from the american system, have any obligation back to it when need be.
jimsf Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
The politics of the project are what they are. It can’t and won’t ever be avoided. Its the same for every single issue facing the american people. Politics is all there is. Its what america is. YOu can’t get around that you can only work with it. Even the great american accomplishments of the past, that we sometime look up too as why then but not now, certainly had the very same politics at the time. We just aren’t privy to it. Was everyone gung ho for the gg bridge? the hoover dam? the central valley project, the moon landing, the gold rush, the westward movement, the industrial revolution, our involvement in ww2? I’m sure every one of those things, were steeped in politics, hotly debated, and sources of consternation for americans in those time.
Nathanael Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
You’re wrong, Richard. Practically *any* passenger train project in the US is in the public interest at this point, even a *bad* one, due to the massive, ludicrous wastage of money on roads, and the incredible, dangerous dependency of our society on gasoline-powered cars on roads. Every passenger rail project which gets built and operates provides a safety valve against the chaos which happens at every oil price spike.
Obviously we want to make it as good as we can, but dammit, a construction-company boondoggle which gets us OK intercity train service is a hell of a lot better than one which gets extra lanes on I-5. See below.
Dan S. Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Every post by Richard makes me more impressed with Robert’s patience. I go against one of my principles by replying to his post, but I’ll just go on record as being very highly aligned with CA4HSR’s positions personally. Who’s to say if they represent the “public interest” more than any other group? From RM’s perspective, we’ve got his opinion on the record. Thanks for that.
Agree with Nathanael. We can line someone’s pockets by supporting HSR or we can line someone’s pockets by not supporting HSR. I’d rather someone get undeservedly rich while we build a new transportation mode myself.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
That’s quite a false dichotomy. There are other choices besides “who do we write a blank check to?”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
But how do we get those other choices? I tried along those lines and failed miserably.
I know you face the frustration of this; I have to say I share it. But we seem to be powerless to get those other choices.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
The other choices in question are not to build infrastructure (not necessarily a bad idea), and not to build infrastructure pending deep changes in the regulatory structure (probably a very good idea). So far the biggest wastes are in highways – not just because they’re incompatible with air-breathing organisms but also because they’re the lion’s share of the white elephants – but the government’s response is to waste money on transit instead of to stop wasting money.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
After about 10 years of being engaged in online political/issue discussions, I’ve learned that not every comment requires a response. If Richard wants to rant, well, we all know where he stands.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
And you have the gall to edit my comments..and a HSR backer
thatbruce Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Despite his various rants, Richard hasn’t sworn in a way that triggers Robert’s sensibilities.
Peter Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
He has told him off a few times, though.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Can you ever say anything good about this project?? NOOO because you were FIRED …BY Parsons..right honey?
Jeff Carter Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 8:39 am
OK Mr. Self-righteous smartass, do you have any constructive ideas to offer besides ad hominem attacks? (Which BTW is the typical R. M. mo.)
Can we make the best of what we currently have?
Should we throw in the towel and start over?
How do we engage a true (European, Japanese) organization with actual HSR experience?
Maybe if the plan was to set ticket prices in order to maximize ridership, this project would be in the public interest. And then we could maximize all those environmental benefits everybody keeps talking about.
But this project is designed to generate profits for the private sector, which is fine. I’m a capitalist and all, but I’m not going to join or support a grassroots campaign to generate public support for such a project. It’d be like starting a grassroots campaign to drum up support for the iPhone.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
When did they set ticket prices? There’s two widely known scenarios, one that maximizes ridership with lower fares and one that maximizes revenue with higher fares but they haven’t decided which one they will use. Or set prices. Just vague references as percentage of typical airfares. No reason why they can’t use yeild management like other common carriers use to achieve both ends. Low ticket prices that maximize ridership along with high ticket prices that maximize revenue. ( Think 14 day advance purchase with no refund versus unrestricted fares )
James Fujita Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Differing levels of service will also affect the ticket prices.
Some people might be willing to pay more for a Superexpress Nozomi train that bypassed Bakersfield, Hanford and Fresno, while others would pay less for the Local express Kodama train which stopped at all of those places, plus Palmdale and Gilroy.
Direct Los Angeles to San Jose service should cost more than the all-stops or the limited stops train.
Spokker Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
The project is under enormous pressure to “pay for itself” and “turn a profit.” The public good gets thrown out the window when those are the goals.
James Fujita Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Japanese private railways turn a profit, and that includes public-private hybrids such as the Tokyo subway. Ticket prices are reasonable, although people in a hurry pay more than the average commuter. The public good is served.
Advocacy groups would be highly redundant in Japan, but all of their goals have been achieved. They have model railroads and “densha otaku” (train nerds) instead. Also, Densha Otoko.
James Fujita Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
p.s. rejoice in the Train nerd themed Akihabara hotel room.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 4:00 am
*shudder*
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Sometimes “pay for itself” and “turn a profit” are in the public interest. Slap a two dollar a gallon tax on gasoline and roads would “pay for themselves” and “turn a profit”
In addition to what is now recognized as the obvious “low-balling” of the construction cost for the project as revealed at the Feb. 1st Senate committee meeting, by Elizabeth Alexis, there were other noteworthy happenings.
As she noted, this information has been out there — all one had to do was sit down and really get all the numbers together.
Some segments of the Feb 1st committee meeting, have been posted on YouTube as Follows:
Ravi Mehta gave input on why the funds for the project should be cut off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VemXTAjMABo
Senator Simitian gave his appraisal of various actions of the board which he and other legislators didn’t appreciate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxfY28uZlQ
Simitian and Lowenthal objected more to actions of the Authority. (Simitian almos t blows his cork in this short segment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nslMiQQm-gw
Now I read here comments that so what if the project costs $70 billion, it still should be built. That will not happen. At some point, the legislature is going to have to face facts.
If anyone thinks this project is now the will of the majority of the voters of California, they have been living in a different world. How many voters in LA do you think are still in favor of this project when they see their tax dollars going to build a “train to nowhere” in the central valley. Furthermore, they aren’t even building a high speed rail system at this first go. No electrical, no rolling stock. They are just trying to suck up the Federal stimulus dollars.
The project keeps going from bad to worse.
(total viewing time about 10 minutes)
Peter Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I’m looking forward to both Lowenthal and Simitian being termed out in 2012. It will be good.
MGimbel Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Hey Morris, I hate to break it to you, but I live in LA, and I’m in favor of this project starting in the CV, as those around me are. By starting there, the CAHSRA will be able to build the most miles of track for the lowest cost. As my fellow Angelinos know, this project will continue construction north and south towards LA and SF simultaneously Don’t even try to assume you know what we think of the project down here. Support remains strong for this project, regardless of what you may think. Have you forgotten about that San Mateo Daily Journal poll already?
MGimbel Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
“as those around me are AS WELL.” Curse the incapability to edit…
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Agree in spades. The majority of folks I know in the LA area support this project and understand starting in the CV…. After a little education.
Well, here’s the alternative I guess.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/pico-286464-san-avenida.html
This $275 million dollar project would add a carpool lane on the I-5 between San Juan Creek Road and Avenida Pico in South Orange County.
The article doesn’t give mileage, but Google Maps shows about 5.5 miles. That puts the project at $50 million per mile for one lane of freeway. That may be a little more since they are including an interchange at Pico in this and I don’t know how much that costs.
The project is being paid for by Measure M, a half-cent sales tax for Orange County.
So how does it stack up as an alternative to rail construction?
political_incorrectness Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
For 80% per mile, you can lay down Shinkansen quality high speed track, and have more efficient capacity. It would be enough for a double track commuter rail probably.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 3:59 am
Hell, I’d lay down double track on the LOSSAN corridor, straighten the right of way, and bypass San Juan Capistrano to help down LA-SD down to 2 hours. That would basically reshape passenger rail in Southern California.
The most expensive part is the Miramar tunnels, but what the hell.
StevieB Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 2:37 am
A 5.5 mile car pool lane does not really fit the needs of intercity travelers in California. Do you forsee a car pool lane from Orange County to San Francisco?
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Intercity travel along I-5 is NOT the problem. Fiddle around with this. Change the “Live Traffic” box on the lower left to a weekday commute time.
I’m all for reducing the number of cars on the road through better public transportation systems. The most pressing areas in need of fixing are within localized regions, not I-5.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
This is the same old shell game that while roadworks always gets to be split up between intercity demands and local demands, and pressing needs to fix local streets is not allowed to bring intercity road building or maintenance to a halt, somehow intercity passenger rail has to justify itself that it is higher priority than local transport.
Except accept that framework, where intercity road does not have to justify itself against local transport needs while intercity passenger rail does, and California ends up with spending more money on intercity transport, instead of spending less money on intercity passenger rail.
Ben Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 5:40 am
This is just a small amount to the $4.1B required to widen I-5 in San Diego County. But I forgot, since automobiles run on oil and being stuck in congestion for hours on Southern California’s freeways is the most complete expression of personal freedom, the billions of dollars spent on roads/highways isn’t really a subsidy.
Plan to widen Interstate 5 moves ahead
San Diego Union-Tribune
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/10/plan-widen-interstate-5-moves-ahead/
Emma Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
You could call it a double standard. lt’s ridiculuos how a cost-effective program such as HSR has to be approved by the voter, is forced to be self-sufficient, and must be funded by private enterprise, but still faces criticism, while we build one 100% publicly-funded highway after another.
What a country.
Spokker Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Because the public is not necessarily benefiting from high speed rail. Those without cash will still be taking Greyhound, and it will be operating on the 100% publicly-funded highway.
Now if high speed rail were subsidized as roads are, maybe Manny from East LA could take the train to see his cousins in the Central Valley. But then you’d get complaints that high speed rail is being subsidized to give free rides to illegals (Manny is an American citizen in this scenario).
BruceMcF Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
So is this is arguing that low priced intercity transport is more important than local transport, to justify spending more on providing the additional intercity transport capacity rather than spending less on providing the additional intercity transport capacity?
Do you Californians really have the luxury of taking the more expensive option of extending the road and air travel systems, just because it requires less forward planning?
Spokker Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 12:53 am
Try convincing people that extending the road and air travel systems is the more expensive option. The opposition is saying that trains are going to bankrupt the state, and yet $50 million per mile for one lane of freeway is a good investment.
Wad Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The act of convincing people itself is of limited utility.
There’s a fascinating article in, of all places, Cracked.com. It’s meant to be in good humor, but the facts it brings up in this piece about how your own mind plays tricks on you, cites research.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18704_5-mind-blowing-ways-your-memory-plays-tricks-you.html
The most relevant item to this discussion is No. 5: Other People Can Manipulate Your Memory With Repetition
They call it the “Illusion of Truth” effect. We judge things to be true based on how often we hear them. We like familiarity, and repeating a lie often enough makes it familiar to us, the repetition making it fall right in with all of the things our memory tells us are true about the world. Every advertiser or propagandist knows this. Humans are social animals, and there is a primal part of us that still says, “If other members of the tribe who I feel close to believe this, there must be something to it.”
And no, simply showing us the correct information doesn’t fix it. Quite the opposite: research shows that once we’ve seized on an incorrect piece of information, exposure to the facts either doesn’t change what we think, or makes us even more likely to hold onto the false information.
There’s also a corollary to this. There is a large gap of information, and a few people are better at interpreting and acting on information than others. Ever hear of the 80-20 rule, aka the “law of the vital few?”
Imagine 20% of us are capable of discerning good information from bad, and making a rational choice. Well 80% don’t have that quality, and they’ll base their information on which way their herd is going. It’s easier and safer to go along with the herd than to go against it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 1:51 am
OK, that takes us back to the original question.
How do we get transportation alternatives that are better than cars, specifically this and other rail projects?
Wad Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Spokker, high-speed rail may end up putting Greyhound out of business, or departing California.
Greyhound is a major money-loser; it is what bankrupted Laidlaw when the then-Canadian Menace bought it more than a decade ago. Most of its travel is in bigger-city stations; Greyhound has been shedding small stations for years. It also receives subsidies from smaller cities to keep their lightly patronized bus stations.
HSR and Greyhound station-pair trips would be identical, and a higher-cost HSR ticket would still provide a better value. Plus, as a business case, HSR provides a level of productivity a bus could never match. A singe train can carry the same amount of people, with far fewer employees needed, than a dozen motorcoaches.
Greyhound will become further dependent on the demographic that has come to define intercity bus passengers. Now that airlines have become “Greyhound in the Sky,” Greyhound over the years has become “Con Air on wheels.”
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
The Greyhound-owned BoltBus seems to be successful at getting a different demographic – namely, hipsters who won’t ride Greyhound but are still too poor to ride Amtrak. (For all of Amtrak’s awfulness, I still wouldn’t ride Bolt or Megabus instead.)
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
in many cases, in california anyway, according to passengers, amtrak is cheaper than greyhound and a far cry from “awful”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
high-speed rail may end up putting Greyhound out of business, or departing California.
There’s lots of places that will never have train service that will still have people who can’t or won’t drive.
BruceMcF Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
And there are lots of places that will never have train service that will be faced with a much more convenient bus ride to a train station than taking the bus all the way to the main destinations.
The closest CAHSR station to the interstate route to Phoenix is going to have lots of transfer passengers.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
More likely, people from Phoenix would continue flying to California, until LA-Phoenix HSR opens.
Wad Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Personally, I am very concerned if Greyhound goes out of business.
Greyhound is the U.S.’s sole and last national intercity bus service. No other operator will be able to match the size or scale of the Greyhound network.
It will either go out of business, or a fate less worse by only a threadlike margin, nationalized and become Amtrak-ed.
The problem is, Greyhound is retreating to the places where it’s directly competitive with Amtrak service. Right now, Greyhound’s advantages are speed (bus trips are faster than Amtrak trips) and price (bus tickets are substantially cheaper).
High-speed rail will be at least three times as fast as highway transportation, but a ticket price likely somewhere less than three times the price point of other travel.
It will take most of Greyhound’s market.
jimsf Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
fares on greyhound in the 101 sf-la corridor match or exceed amtrak fares. Further, greyhounds lower fare is for a non refundable ticket. Amtrak tickets are fully exchangeable and refundable.
James Fujita Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
What’s so great about Greyhound that we would want to nationalize/ Amtrakize it?
Let “Chinatown buses”, Amtrak and HSR take what’s left of Greyhound’s market and be done with it.
Wad Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Greyhound is America’s last, best and final offer for intercity bus service. We’ve been through this with passenger rail and local passenger transportation. We not only lose the services, but also the knowledge of how to make them work.
It’s not so much “what’s so great” as it is preserving an endangered species.
Buses can get into far smaller markets than can rail, and especially high-speed rail. With HSR, you’re counting on living in proximity to a metropolitan area of 1 million or more.
Also, rail service is radial. Buses will be necessary to provide the “orbital”, or between-line, services if there isn’t sufficient ridership to maintain a web of rail lines.
James Fujita Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:45 am
okay, so assume we need intercity buses. Amtrak California (and Coach USA) already competes with Greyhound to a certain extent with the thruway buses.
Greyhound cried foul, and Amtrak must include a rail portion. except that there’s an exploitable loophole, and you can throw away the rail portion of your ticket and disappear.
eliminate the “must have a rail portion” rule, and the state could end up running anything that’s not covered by HSR or Amtrak California.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 12:56 am
What knowledge, Wad? Greyhound isn’t being competitive with anything; Megabus and Bolt compete, by offering service so crappy I still take Amtrak despite everything.
Wad Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Alon, it’s the knowledge of operating and managing an intercity bus service. Greyhound no longer has peers that can compete and help it innovate.
We don’t need an intercity bus “dark age” like what we’ve had for passenger rail and local passenger transit in the transition from private to public operation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Bolt is Greyhound with a different brand name slapped on the side.
Donk Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Hey Elizabeth, why don’t you go do your number crunching and senate committee meeting presentations for these projects. Or are you a hypocrite?
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
February 6th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
And guess which is more productive, Rail or a set of HOV lanes? Well, that would be rail.
Drastically off topic, other than that we are looking at a most impressive bridge and the electric railroad that runs over it, in China at a place called Beipanjiang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X98gQaw4yx8&feature=related
Another impressive bridge, in steel, Garabit in France:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwrpIs3AUQ4&feature=related
Simply impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz3Ft8C6X5Q&feature=related
Andre Peretti Reply:
February 7th, 2011 at 6:23 am
The Garabit viaduct was built by Gustave Eiffel in 1884. Nothing has ever equalled the elegance (and durability) of Eiffel bridges. They don’t obliterate natural beauty. They enhance it. Modern engineers still have lessons to learn from Eiffel.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Strongly agreed!
The perception I have is that there is not much HSR advocacy out there, nor accurate facts. On the other hand there is a mountain of anti-HSR rhetoric, fear mongering, lies, and misinformation; at least here on the Peninsula. There are numerous anti-HSR groups here spreading their despicable, self-serving, lies and misinformation. The frequent dispersal of the numerous, appalling, lies, eventually sways some of the unassuming public to their contemptuous side. These groups mask their fear mongering ideals under the guise of ‘doing HSR right’ or ‘responsibly’ or ‘saving’ the Peninsula cities from ‘destruction.’ Their version of doing HSR ‘right’ equates to HSR only in a tunnel, or not at all. They present HSR as an ugly 80 feet to 100+ feet wide ‘freeway’ that towers up to 60+ feet in the air over Peninsula towns, cutting down thousands of trees, and taking of thousands of homes and businesses. Sadly, my Burlingame City Council (as have many other City Councils on the Peninsula) has succumbed to all the fear mongering and has become disinterested in any constructive discussion of reasonable/practical options for HSR (and Caltrain).
Unfortunately the CHSRA doesn’t help much, as public relations seem to be lacking regarding HSR on the Peninsula. The CHSRA also seems to have little interest in cost containment. While they have taken a stand against ultra expensive tunnels, they are still promoting high cost aerial structures and some trenching/tunneling in areas where such structures are not necessary. Also in reading these blogs, (such as Clem’s ‘Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog’) I get a definite impression that there seems to be no interest in compatibility with other rail systems such as Caltrain. There are some brilliant suggestions in Clem’s blog but the political hierarchy (and CHSRA) is not paying attention.
Arthur Dent Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Seems you’re participating in a little fear mongering yourself of your so-called anti-HSR groups. Can you name a few of the ‘numerous groups’ that describe HSR as 60’ tall structures through the peninsula? (You’ll have to educate yourself on the 80-100’ widths.)
Two years ago you may have had a point about the amount of misinformation flying around, but that’s a typical outcome in the absence of hard data. For whatever reason (withholding or not knowing), the HSRA was – and still is – terrible at informing the public in a complete and honest way. In the absence of data, people tend to try to figure things out for themselves.
A year or two go by, and now we see a ‘truth is stranger than fiction’ phenomenon where the ‘do it right’ groups are clinging to the HSRA’s own data to bolster their views. There’s no need for these groups to imagine the worst-case scenario; the way the HSRA is planning this project is bad enough. For example, the latest aerial renderings which came out of your city were based on HSRA data. IIRC, they were discussed on Clem’s blog, or maybe it was here.
You bring up an interesting point, though. We remember the people on the fringe best. Just as you lump ‘numerous groups’ with describing 60’ structures through the peninsula (I’m still struggling to think of which groups that might be), guys like YESonHSR who make derogatory attacks on individuals with opposing views become unintended spokespeople for HSR. If proponents remain indifferent to his kind of rhetoric, answering the title to this thread will continue to be a struggle.
YesonHSR Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Please Dent… that’s the peninsula’s whole little game ..they are victims in everything about high-speed rail.. the NIMBYs are sure good at dishing names and miss truths .. give little of their own medicine back and they’ll cry about how they’re being abused… and I’m not the only one that feels this way..A whole lot in the Bay Area do..
Clem Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 10:25 am
They present HSR as an ugly 80 feet to 100+ feet wide ‘freeway’ that towers up to 60+ feet in the air over Peninsula towns
That’s not fear mongering, Jeff.
80-foot wide, 60-foot tall structures are most definitely being planned by the CHSRA, as a large and growing body of official technical documentation attests. Throughout Burlingame and San Mateo, the tracks would be raised 30 feet above where they sit today, with overhead catenary gantries towering another 40 feet above that. In San Carlos and Belmont, the existing berm would be replaced by a viaduct with rails a full 20 feet higher than they already are today, putting the tops of catenary masts closer to 80 feet above the surrounding grade. In all these cases, the four-track viaducts are clearly shown as being 78′ 6″ wide… close enough to 80 feet.
So, the advice you have for detractors is just as valid for supporters: never let your subjective opinion blind you to the cold hard facts.
Thanks for the clarification Clem. I have not seen nor studied the technical documents you refer to prior to now. Without a hard copy, it is not so easy to get the full view of HSR and thoroughly study the technical issues. I have only seen depictions of HSR presented by the HSRA at community meetings held during the last year or two. The photo simulations produced by the HSRA were more like the one you show on your Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog regarding Burlingame and photo simulations showing European HSR systems on nice looking arched viaducts. Your blog also shows the monstrosity produced by ‘Don’t Railroad Us’ and this or similar versions of HSR has been used by other anti-HSR groups such as ‘Highspeedboondoggle,’ ‘Community Coalition On High Speed Rail,’ and Burlingame City Council. I heard two stories regarding Belmont, one from Bob Doty that the HSRA asked Belmont what they wanted and the HSRA drew up plans accordingly. I was also told by a community activist that Belmont Public Works had worked up plans showing HSR elevated 20 feet above the current Caltrain tracks; this is becoming way too convoluted.
Centenary poles that are 40 feet high? Why?? When they only need to be 25-30 feet above the tracks?
The bottom line is that an elevated structure 30 feet above the current tracks in Burlingame/San Mateo is quite unnecessary other than making HSR as costly (i.e. profitable) as possible. The stretch of ROW from the southern end of Burlingame to Downtown San Mateo does present a challenge as the ROW narrows down for a mile or two.
The option of raising the tracks and lowering the cross streets as was done in Belmont/San Carlos, and Laurie Meadows/42nd in San Mateo is a reasonable compromise, an opportunity that has not been rationally explored.
BTW, the Belmont/San Carlos Grade separation was the subject of similar heated debate, some 10-15 years ago, so much so, that it was put on the ballot and approved by the voters. We heard the same arguments about elevated tracks destroying the neighborhood, disrupting businesses and homes, yet Belmont and San Carlos have not self destructed and businesses have not been destroyed. Belmont and San Carlos are thriving communities even with the grade separation, the naysayers were proven wrong.
I have previously, on this blog; pointed out the Hillcrest grade Separation in Millbrae (which goes under the tracks) does not block driveways for 400 feet from the track centerline as some, including the CHSRA have claimed. This type of grade separation is another option that has not been logically studied.
I have not seen nor studied the technical documents you refer to prior to now. Without a hard copy, it is not so easy to get the full view of HSR and thoroughly study the technical issues.
You can get anything you want from Alice’s Restaurant.
Technical Memos are on their menu.