Once More, With Feeling: The Tracks Have to Go Somewhere
Over at KCET they have a story on Central Valley farmers who are still upset about proposed routing of HSR tracks. The story includes this photo essay, narrated by a Valley almond farmer:
The video is misleading in that it makes it appear the entire farm itself will be destroyed. It won’t be. Just as farmers nearby to Wasco – along Interstate 5 – have lived with a major transportation corridor that was built on a largely new alignment through farms, the almond growers and others can adapt too.
Of course, so too can smaller towns like Corcoran and Hanford, who have fought plans to run the HSR line through their cities and have demanded bypasses be built right through farmland. If farmers don’t like that, they should take it up with those cities, because as the title of the post reminds us, the tracks MUST go somewhere. Someone will be unhappy, whether it’s a city official or a farmer.
Unfortunately, instead of a spirit of collaboration, some farmers, like the almond grower, are heading right to legal action:
“There will be lawsuits,” said almond grower Keith Gardiner, who owns 3,300 acres of land in Wasco that sits directly in the path of one of the proposed routes. “If backed into a corner, yeah, we are going to come out swinging.”
Why? This is not the time to sue. The California High Speed Rail Authority seems genuinely interested in working with farmers and others in the Valley. Keep in mind that, again, the tracks do have to go somewhere. And they have to serve the needs of a 21st century population, meaning that if some farmers (or town residents) have to be inconvenienced so that California can get the best and most efficient train service possible, it shouldn’t be the end of the world.
Near Wasco, the debate revolves around whether the tracks will follow the BNSF line, as originally discussed, or whether they need to swing out into the farmland:
“For the most part, we couldn’t hug the [BNSF] rail because of the curves and the speed of the train,” said Rachel Wall, press secretary for the California High-Speed Rail Authority….
The Sierra Club has issued letters supporting the high-speed rail along the BNSF line. American Farmland Trust — a group that lobbies Congress on agricultural issues — also sent letters to the high-speed rail authority encouraging the board to go along the existing BNSF line.
The BNSF line is absolutely worth exploring – but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. And while tracks through a farm or orchard would certainly alter the use of the land, it doesn’t eliminate someone’s ability to keep producing almonds on 3,300 acres.
The almond grower isn’t a high speed rail opponent. And I’m not suggesting his concerns be ignored – they should be taken seriously. But if the best plan for the system involves going through his land, then that’s the route that ought to be chosen. It’s nothing personal.
Unfortunately others in the Valley aren’t even trying to resolve things and have already moved to opposition:
The California Farm Bureau Federation has come out against the rail. Public records show they have hired seven lobbyists in California, but filings on payments to lobbyists have not yet been made available. The California Farm Bureau Federation, which has 76,500 members spanning 56 counties in California, spent $330,000 lobbying Congress in 2010.
“To us, it doesn’t seem like the [train] should be a priority. Maybe for the future it is. Forty-three billion is just an incredible amount to be spending,” said Richard Matteis, administrator for the California Farm Bureau Federation.
This is a pretty clueless thing to be saying. Matteis has to know that not only did Californians approve the high speed train and funding for it in November 2008, they resoundingly rejected an anti-HSR gubernatorial candidate in favor of a strongly pro-HSR candidate. Jerry Brown’s 13-point victory over Meg Whitman should put to rest any claims that HSR is unpopular in California. Besides, with soaring gas prices, a state mired in high unemployment, and with the known and proven economic benefits of HSR, it absolutely should be – and is – a priority.
Matteis may not care about the future, but the rest of California does. If the California Farm Bureau wants to play a meaningful role in shaping the HSR project in the Valley, they would do well to move beyond this stance, which is easily mocked and ignored. They may think they can kill the train, but California isn’t Florida and it isn’t Wisconsin. High speed rail is going to be built in the Valley, and the California Farm Bureau doesn’t have anywhere near enough power or money to come close to stopping it.
As we’ve seen in places like Palo Alto, people living right next to the tracks sometimes get a bit irrational in their comments about the project:
Almond-grower Keith Gardiner says he actually supports high-speed rail, if it’s on existing transportation lines like Highway 99. But, he says if it cuts through his farmland, he wants California’s high-speed rail to face the same fate it has in other states.
“If [the High-Speed Rail Authority] doesn’t do it right here, there’s going to be such a barrage of negative publicity, high-speed rail may never recover or ever get funding to extend it either north or south,” said Gardiner.
Again, I sympathize with Gardiner, and I know it’d be easier for him if the tracks weren’t on his property. At the same time, it’s not the end of the world if they are, and Gardiner is just one guy; there are 37 million Californians who are looking at their future prosperity evaporating with high fuel prices – a majority of whom have twice voted for this project.
In the interests of helping Gardiner, he needs to realize that his concerns will not stop this project. Californians in the Bay Area and Southern California aren’t going to turn against the project if a few farmers get upset about where the tracks go. For the majority of Californians, affordable and fast travel is far more important than whether an almond grower is happy. That’s the hard truth that Gardiner and others need to understand. They just don’t have a lot of leverage here.
So the best answer seems to be to try and find a workable solution. If the tracks can’t always follow the BNSF line, then they should press for appropriate track design and mitigation to their property. But if they think they can kill the project if they don’t get an outcome they dislike…they’re simply mistaken. For their sake I hope they take a different approach.
Air Quality.
The EPA must regulate pollution levels and responsible farmers and their associations know they are impacted by air quality regulations. Farm equipment is not as clean burning as a auto and large point sources are already very clean.
HSR will reduce air pollution and improve air quality compared to automobile based traffic. It gives farmers more breathing room.
http://www.agweb.com/article/farmer-government_program_improves_california_air_quality/
“Using this program California farmers have replaced engines on 814 old tractors and other farm equipment in the past two years and reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 1,349 tons.
“To put this in perspective, these emission reductions are roughly equivalent to removing 408,000 cars from California highways,” said Burton. “Think about it. That many cars would stretch from Washington State to Mexico.”
This message from Central Valley farmers has been consistent since Medhi was the CEO. The bond measure which was passed by the voters had specific language saying the tracks would follow existing transportation corridors.
Since 2001 I have been involved in High Speed Rail and our area Merced County always included Ag at the table and the excutive directors of many of the Farm Buerau that I met had no problem with the concept of High Speed Rail. However, once this hybrid route or train to nowhere came out and was not vetted to those in Ag much of the good will was lost.
Also, when the A-1 alternative for the Central Valley was removed and then put back on the table many in the Ag community were worried. Finally no one on the authority board understands AG
isssues since the board is made up of non farmers. As someone who has worked with AG I can
tell you they are very bright and passionate about what they do. The authority board had the opportunity to hire the former secretary of Ag and blew it. The staff and board has no expertise in dealing with Ag. Since the majority of land being used is going through AG would it not be prudent to have somebody with Ag experience either on the Board or at a staff level?
I can tell you that AG currently is the only bright spot in this horrible economy and they have the finanical means to slow this project down. I know for a fact that Ag can be reasoned with but
the authority board and staff does not appear either to have the interest or wisdom to listen to what AG is saying.
I have always been a big supporter of this project but the showing in Madera by the authority staff was embarrasing to watch as a supporter of the project. Van Ark kept telling farmers he would answer there question but never did.
Two years ago this project had an incredible amount of good will but every day that goes by the good will is becoming less instead of increasing. I truly beleive the reason for this disconnect is you have a board who see Ag issues as something you can write a check for and the problem will go away. The money being offered to someone who farms permanent row crops vs. someone with a dairy is totally different. In fact if I was the authority staff I would continue to look at A-2 most of the land along this route which is Ag is zoned for dairy and this is one group of Ag folks that would gladly sell.
My feeling is the authority board and staff does not have the stomach to deal with U.P. otherwise that would be the route they would be using. I will tell you this if the staff came out an endorsed A-2 many of the Ag voices would come back out in support of the project.
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:38 pm
http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/aaqtf/Documents/200809_201008/200905_FresnoCA/12_Terry_AAQTF_200905.pdf
Air quality in the valley is not meeting US standards. The drive to improve farming equipment efficiency is part of the solution but transportation accounts for 42% of ozone forming (vs 20% for farmers) and 52% of particulate pollution.
AG can slow the project except that HSR doesn’t impact CA AG. HSR does not impact AG. It impacts a few farmers – while benefitting many more farmers with cleaner transportation and consequently cleaner air and less pressure on their practices.
Oh and they breath better air.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:43 pm
It’s not about “having the stomach” to deal with Union Pacific. They have all the cards and refuse to even play the game. UP has not been at all willing to work with the Authority on HSR, and not because of the Authority’s actions but because of UP’s own ideological stance. If the Valley Ag community wants the UP corridor back on the table, they need to push their Congressmen to demand it from UP.
Instead their Congressmen are busy representing out-of-state oil companies and wealthy right-wing donors, and don’t seem to care much what their constituents actually believe.
Castle Expert Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Robert , there are pinch points all over the routes touching Union Pacific and BNSF. Sooner or later you are going to have to use the U.P. right of way. Would it not be better to have this fight with U.P. sooner rather than later? As far as the congressional Repulbicans dealing with the U.P. lawyers, Congressman are B-leagures next to the attorney U.P. uses.
We shold be using our female U.S. senators , where is Barbara Boxer? Oh yeah she only comes to the valley to stop water projects. Perhaps Senator Feinstein would be of use.
The board and staff need to stick with what they sold the voters on “building it on existing transporation corridors”. Blaming Big Oil for why U.P. is not letting us use this alignement is a straw man’s argument. The proposed lines of the project are using U.P. right of ways throughout the state. Authority staff and Board need to “man-up” and publically take on U.P. Why not ask FRA for Help?
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Why would the congressional representatives of the Central Valley NOT support a UP alignment if it were the major view?
Any law the Senate passes to help acquire UP land would have to have the support of these helpless GOP representatives who apparently are so outclassed they can’t write legislation without the impacted industry lawyer’s help.
“We shold [sic] be using our female U.S. senators”
Why is the gender of our Senators worth mentioning?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:29 am
I’ve been pretty consistent on this blog that I am *all* for pushing hard to get UP to bend on their inane refusal to let HSR tracks anywhere near their own. This would make matters far easier in numerous places around the state.
But the Authority cannot do this on their own. They have no leverage at all without Congressional help. We need our Senators to help, and we need Central Valley members of Congress to help. But they won’t, because – and this point is key – those Republican members do not represent the Valley. They do not care about its constituents. They now represent big oil and the Koch Brothers, who have the power of life or death over their political careers.
That situation can be reversed, but it will take Valley farmers who have to be willing to make similar threats about the political future of those members of Congress if they don’t take on UP. Unfortunately too many in the California Farm Bureau seem to think there is a realistic option of just killing the train and moving on. That option is not actually on the table, and the California Farm Bureau is delusional if they believe it is.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:52 am
If the tax prop is defeated it is likely there will be a ripple effect on the hsr and we will see some major changes due to loss of funding.
The CHSRA bring nothing to the table that would be of benefit or interest to the UP. The hsr is just another government-generated headache for freight rail and the Santa Fe will come to recognize this too in due course
Jack Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Failure of the Tax Prop has nothing to to with prior obligated bond funds. There’s no facility for the state to change the purpose of prior decisions without sending it to the voters. With significant federal funding the chances of that happening are slim and none.
And before you chime in, Gov. Brown has no intention or desire to follow in the footsteps of crack pot peers.
Of course feeding trolls.. yada yada.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Wishful thinking. When it comes down to welfare and education vs. hsr who do you think willprevail politically? The Palmdale downsizing is already a sign of PB movement away from the hardline due to lack of money.
BTW, here’s another good reason for Tolmach-Tejon – it enables versatility in San Joaquin Valley route planning. It serves both the 99 and I-5 equally well. Once in place and in operation you may very well see a groundswell of support for an I-5 line, across the board, from all segment of the CV population, including Bakersfield and Fresno. It is best to follow popular opinion.
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 5:06 pm
It is best to follow popular opinion.
Practicing what you say might be a good idea. Anyway, if:
The Palmdale downsizing is already a sign of PB movement away from the hardline due to lack of money
then that would argue even more forcefully against an expensive Tejon alignment. But do keep digging that hole deeper; it’s ever so amusing.
As for serving I-5, following CA-58 west from Bakersfield also ‘serves’ I-5 as well, provided that your definition of ‘serve’ excludes any significant population. May as well keep heading west until you can pick up CA-101 around Paso Robles then head north.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:53 pm
“When it comes down to welfare and education vs. hsr who do you think will prevail politically?”
HSR. Look up 200 years of history please. I may not like it, but transport will win support over welfare and education any day of the week, any year.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:45 pm
It has a lot to do with the bonds. If the State is broke there will be no money to repay them. Either they will have too high an interest rate or the Treasurer will decide not to issue them at all.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
And why would the UP want a government operation up on top of them, impinging and constraining their every move and adding virtually unlimited liabilities. And all for zero amelioration, consideration or benefit. Warren Buffett is senile. The UP will eventually swallow up the Santa Fe.
Why you would want some potential vexatious litigants and connected trouble makers to sidle right up next to your property? Influence peddlers and kingfishes in their own mind like Kopp and Diridon.
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Yup, definitely senile.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Indeed, why would anyone want vexatious litigants like UP anywhere near their property?
VBobier Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Yes the farmers need to know that HSR is not the problem they face or their enemy, But their ally, With a growing population in the valley, It’s also the solution to a problem, Cause If HSR is not built on the SR99 alignment(or at all), Then either SR99 will have to be expanded or both the I5 and SR99 will have to be expanded and the two tracks carry a lot more people and take up a lot less room than expansion of one or both fwy/hwy routes will and/or do and could mean the difference in whether their crops arrive at the markets their intended to arrive at fresh or spoiled… And I know farmers do not like spoiled food crops, People at farmers markets and such do not buy spoiled food crops…
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Crossing UP at the pinch points can be done using powers vested by federal law for rail-over-rail crossings. It’s following UP for significant distances which requires either UP’s cooperation, Amtrak’s federal power to condemn railroad lines, or the STB’s willingness to contravene UP.
morris brown Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:53 pm
A very good way to understand what is going on in the Central valley would be to look at the video of the 3/17/2011 meeting with the Authority last week.
http://madera.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=16&clip_id=887
The opposition is huge and the AG community is tired of going to meetings, getting the “we are listening to you” and then having the Authority ignore what they were being told.
Here again we see the Authority ignoring yet another mandate of Prop 1A; that the train should run along or in existing transportation corridors.
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“Here again we see the Authority ignoring yet another mandate of Prop 1A; that the train should run along or in existing transportation corridors.”
…except in the Peninsula where it NIMBYs shay it shall NOT run along the Caltrain ROW.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:24 am
He can and does argue “but but but Route 101!” which is a transportation corridor
and he should be agitating as vigorously to get UP to negotiate. For instance, get UP to cooperate in downtown Fresno not only do you get HSR but you could, if you get UP and BNSF to cooperate, all of the through freight grade separated.
Eric M Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:40 am
Tell that to Nadia and Elizabeth at Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD). If they are so concerned about HSR, they should focus on this right now and not try to slowly kill the project little by little.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:27 am
Pacheco is an existing transportation corridor?
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:44 am
CA-152 , which is a pretty important route if you’re trying to get to the southern end of Silicon Valley from the Central Valley, or to the coast.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:49 am
Oh my goodness. Have you even been to Silicon Valley?
Joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:47 pm
WTF?
Despite being a narrow, dangerous route to/ from the central valley and San Jose, 152 commonly backs up for miles during holidays.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Narrow roads don’t need that much traffic to be backed up.
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Its a lot better now that Caltrans recently (2yrs ago now) fixed up the CA-152/CA-156 intersection; that was one of the main causes of the backups on the 2-lane section of CA-152.
Donk Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:29 am
“However, once this hybrid route or train to nowhere came out and was not vetted to those in Ag much of the good will was lost”
Are you seriously calling the Fresno-Bakersfield route the train to nowhere? Sorry but if Bakersfield is nowhere then so is Merced.
Jack Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:50 am
He’s just upset because the current construction plan puts Castle in last position on the HMF. He’ll apocalyptic when it goes to Fresno.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:06 am
yep, that’s my read.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:12 am
From my humble perspective….. this is a staffing issue. When original staff move on and they are replaced by a new crop of staff, even in the same organization, pre-existing work and agreements is sometimes forgotten and left behind. Not intentionally. I see this time and again. Big projects with multiple staffs are more susceptible, particularly at the management level.
Evan Snyder Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The March 17th Madera meeting was the first HSR meeting I’ve ever attended, and it was an eye opener. Here’s a little of what I saw and heard:
- There isn’t much love lost between the Ag interests in attendance and the Authority, it seems, in part because Ag perceives the Authority isn’t listening to its concerns and hasn’t listened from close to the get go. Too bad. Let’s hope we can do better into the future.
- Authority representatives, including the CEO, had few answers for the myriad of business/technical questions raised by Ag. Dividing a farm parcel is a very complex matter, from determining the true worth of a 20 year old orchard, to determining if and when a displaced water well can be replaced, to re-configuring a balanced irrigation and equipment access system that been 50 years in the making, to knowing when the loss of a small amount of grazing land renders a dairy farm financially inoperable, to minimizing the project’s impact on insect pollination patterns and aerial spraying approaches.
- There’s a consensus among many farmers on a preferred track route. They would be much more supportive of HSR if their preferred route would be used.
- When this rich and productive farmland is gone, it’s gone. Do we want to repeat in the Central Valley what we did in the Santa Clara Valley in the 1960s? It is true that before the silicon chip,
Santa Clara County was one of the richest and most productive fruit and vegetable producing regions in the world. Poof, it’s gone.
Of note, the meeting’s host, Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani, attended to Madera meeting via Skype. On the drive home, I was wondering what technologies will be available to us in 2030 which will further obviate our need to jump in a car, or on a plane or train, to go somewhere.
The Authority needs to flipping grow a pair to have California’s congressional delegation to negotiate with UP. Honestly, I would like to see the freight infrastructure become public again but continue the private operation aspect that companies own the vehicles but government runs and maintains the infrastructure.
All the above is probably a pipe dream given how reality is a PITA sometimes. I would ask the farmers if they would rather see a widened 99 or I-5 for cars? Would they like to pay tolls for those expansions and using them? That would certainly impact Ag due to a further increase in transportation costs already compounded by oil speculators.
I do not believe this is a one solution will fit all, but there needs to be cooperation and stuff done.
VBobier Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:50 am
Me too, Of course here in California I think We do control the FRR’s locomotives exhaust still, As in the amount of smog producing gases coming out of the exhaust, Tighten It until UP cries Uncle, It’s our air, If they won’t play ball, Make the stick hotter, Drive them towards cooperation w/HSR.
Sorry O/T: this video shows some pretty good supporters for FL HSR. Since it only has 7 views I think we should recognize it before it gets more stale. Even though FL HSR is dead, we can remember that not all Florida Citizens where against it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vTD-Bovgxc
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:54 am
I just took a look at this thing, and one of the things that strikes me is that with one exception, the oldest anyone looks to be is in their early 60s; this age group is typically (but not always) the youngest of the anti-rail protesters.
This generational factor continues to amaze me.
I wish it had more than 17 views, though.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:49 am
It is now up to 36 views….
Jim
Sure the tracks have to go somewhere, but it has to be placed in a location which minimizes impacts and increases benefits……Highway 99. The HSRA has placed very loose arguments that the 99 route has too many bends…you should see the current alignment, there are bends all over the place to miss each city along the way. Also they state they cannot follow the 99 or the UP, however they are generally following that route north of 99. We have asked the HSRA why they veered away from the 99 south of Fresno and all we can gather is they think there are too many bends. On a map it is fairly straights with just a few minor angle points. They also miss one of the largest and fastest growing cities in the Valley….Visalia. Visalia had a city owner site along the 99 for a station and supported the Rail. I firmly believe the alignments are being driven purely by designers in Sacramento with little to no understanding of the Central Valley or any regards to the regions wishes.
One farmer asked if the HSRA would honor the wishes of an area if all the local agencies and many business had built consensus on an alignment. VanArk never answered the question, I guess we can take is silence as a “no”.
If many of you would like to watch the Madera hearing it is posted on the Madera Supervisors webpage. You can view it yourself and see the absolute lack of responsiveness that the HSRA has. An audience member asked an invited French guest to give his opinion on a alignment in California, as he reached for the mic, he was asked to not answer the question by the hearing panel. Gee, was someone or some group trying to hide something? Please note that the HSRA was given a predetermined list of questions prior to the hearing. Many of the staff read directly from notes and when given a question not on the list, they seemed to dodge the question or simply ignored it.
Like I have stated on this blog many times. We have one opportunity to get this right, and we are off to a horrible start. Lack of transparency, lack of design integrity, and and overall lack of confidence is putting this project on the “wrong tracks” (sorry could not pass that one up).
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:14 pm
1) ” I firmly believe the alignments are being driven purely by designers in Sacramento with little to no understanding of the Central Valley or any regards to the regions wishes.”
News flash: Sacramento **is** in the central valley.
2) “An audience member asked an invited French guest to give his opinion on a alignment in California, as he reached for the mic, he was asked to not answer the question by the hearing panel. Gee, was someone or some group trying to hide something?”
Yes, they are hiding the irrelevant personal opinions of a foreign guest who has no business opining for the HSRA. And apparently the French have a good understanding of the local interests of the Central Valley. Sacramento, a city in the central valley, not so much.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:15 am
man, sac gets hit going and coming. to all the coastal types, it’s a big dumb cow town; to the central valley farmers, it’s an out-of-touch bastion of urban elitism. we can’t win for losing.
Wad Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
No, Wu, Sacramento’s not the cow town. That would be Vacaville, whose name literally means cow town.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:09 pm
yes, i know the joke. vacaville was actually named for manuel cabeza vaca, owner of the original spanish land grant rancho los putos, upon which vacaville was eventually built.
so vacaville really ought to be “cow head town.”
Wad Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 2:10 am
California also has the Stockton suburb of Lard, Green Sticks Ranch and Bag Lady Wetlands.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:11 pm
and no, spokker, it’s not rancho las putas. the local native american tribe was named putah, and so the spanish called them putos (after cracking up repeatedly, no doubt).
Joey Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:19 pm
South of Fresno had to do with UPRR vs BNSF, because BNSF is being cooperative. The decision was also made to avoid the BNSF alignment through downtown Hanford.
Off topic: It is reported that an employed manager of the the Greenmeadow Community Assoc. embezzled $70K from that organization. See http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=20478.
Elizabeth Alexis, prime critic of HSR finanacial affiars, is listed as the head of that organization!
Donk Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:34 am
That’s pretty classic. Too bad she wasn’t as busy crunching the numbers of her own organization as she was of the HSR program – maybe she would have actually found something meaningful for once.
mrcawfee Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:45 am
some guy stealing from an organization doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on the message of that organization.
Someone ripping you off shouldn’t be used to attack you.
Peter Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:05 am
True, but it’s quite ironic. Seems like the threats to the community are closer than they appear.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 am
Thank you. For the record, I am not the head of the organization or even on the board, although I do a lot of volunteer work. We are having a neighborhood meeting tonight so I expect to learn a lot more about what happened.
Rick Rong Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 am
Although she may not be a cheerleader for HSR, Elizabeth Alexis has contributed more to the serious discussion of HSR issues than anyone else who posts on this blog. Her comments, here and in other forums, are fact-based, unlike many of those posted by her critics. Since she is willing to support her conclusions with facts, she makes it possible for those who disagree with those conclusions to respond intelligently. Does this threaten some of you?
Lionel’s post, with which Donk and Peter seem so quickly to have embraced, is a case in point. A quick bit of internet research turns up the following description of her connection to the Greenmeadow Community Association: “Elizabeth Alexis, chair of Civic Affairs for the Greenmeadow Community Association, . . .” Many groups have committees, and to be the chair of a committee does not make one “the head of that organization,” as Lionel incorrectly states.
What is really “ironic,” to use Peter’s term, and “classic,” to use Donk’s, is the knee-jerk, ad hominem reactions generated by a fact-empty posting.
Donk Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
How is it not ironic and classic that someone so involved in cost controls finds that her own organization is being ripped off? It doesn’t matter if she is in charge of it or not. She is not in charge of the CAHSRA either.
Rick Rong Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Look, associations, just like legislatures and, in fact, like the HSRA, often develop a committee structure to share the work. The Greenwood Comm. Assoc. has eleven committees. It also has a board of directors, and if any group within an organizational structure is responsible to exercise oversight over the conduct of a manager, it is the board of directors. You cannot seriously expect every person involved in a committee to be exercising actual oversight over an employee. It would be grossly inefficient, especially when volunteers are involved. In addition to that, embezzlement is a crime that, almost by definition, occurs in secret. It does not automatically show up on the organization’s books and records, so even a board of directors will not necessarily find out the crime is being committed until later.
Look at it another way. I expect there are people who post comments to this blog that you believe are totally idiotic and in some cases at odds with the facts. Do you hold Robert Cruikshank responsible for them?
But all of that is really beside the point. Do you disagree with what I wrote in the first paragraph of my comment? That is what really matters. A mature discussion of an important proposed project should focus on the facts, not on personalities. Yet every so often, rather than point out some flaw in someone else’s reasoning or statement of fact, some people take what I think are cheap shots at those other people.
Donk Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:45 am
You are taking this way too seriously. Nobody is blaming her for the embezzlement.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
No, I think Clem was more informative.
Rick Rong Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:59 am
I agree that Clem is informative, and I should not have suggested that Elizabeth Alexis surpasses everyone else in that regard. I overstated it. Clem brings an incredible amount of fact and analysis to the discussion. Whether it receives the attention it deserves from those who are making the decisions concerning the project is another story.
I guess that when I posted my comment I forgot about Clem; so far as I can recall he hasn’t been the target of cheap shot personal attacks. But I appreciate your helping me remember how important a contribution he makes and for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge it.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Instead of your self-righteous schoolmarm critique of everyone who likes high-speed rail,, why don’t you post something about high speed rail and how it should be built .. of course thru the beautiful little peninsula…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Dude, that’s guilt by association, and it’s indefensible to hold Elizabeth responsible for it, even by implication or insinuation.
the protestations of san joaquin valley farmers would be a bit more compelling had they not spent the past several decades turning cropland into subdivisions, and selling water rights loudly defended as the very lifeline of california ag (and thus Your Food) to southern california developers for big bucks.
that doesn’t mean there’s not good reason to try and find accommodation or compromise whenever possible, and i’d be thrilled if the pols stepped it up and forced UP to stop being the stumbling block to everything in this state, but it’s hard to take the crocodile tears seriously. very few of these guys are small family farmers, san joaquin ag is huge big business.
HSR is about the least land-wasteful way to move lots of people across the state. as such, it’s the best of all options for ag interests, save those who just want the ROW to go through somebody else’s land.
Andy M. Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:30 am
It’s not just land use per-se. If your land is suddenly divided by an HSR line, that can make it less economic to work on. Rectangular fields lend themselves well to modern farming equipment. A diagonal line could cut that into triangles and trapezes. Also, there is the question of crossing the line to get to the land on the other side and if the under or overpasses are not where you want them that means long detours. All these issues can be resolved of course but farmers need to reassured that somebody is looking into it.
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:55 am
Submit a formal comment with the CAHSRA requesting that any negotiations with farmers around proposed ROWs that would split an existing parcel of land include suitable arrangements for the parcels to retain their preferred connections across the ROW, without depending on public roads and without significantly restricting the size of vehicles that can use said connections (which implies openings the same size as per interstate dimensions).
In some cases this will result in accessways being immediately adjacent to a public road and the CAHSR route utilising a bridge longer than the width of the road, and in other cases a bridge in the middle of the parcel.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
If it’s cheaper to buy the whole parcel, buy the whole parcel. Sell the half on one side to the adjoining farmer with Prop 13 assessment comparable to his current one. Sell the other side to that adjoining farmer with the same provisions. … probably much cheaper…. Or land swaps the farmer on west side takes over what was the farmer on the east side and vice versa. Not all of the solutions need millions of dollars of concrete and rebar.
datacruncher Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:21 am
The problem is grouping all SJV farmers together. Many of the farmers protesting are not located close to cities and never sold land to developers. There are also differences in the types and sizes of farms in different areas.
There are many small family farmers that might be impacted. The average farm size in Madera County is only about 375 acres, in Merced County it is about 340 acres. That is comparable to Iowa where the average farm is about 350 acres.
That is also different than the large corporate farms in the far south and west sides of the Valley. For example farms in Kern County average about 1475 acres and in the Westlands district nearer I-5 (far from the ROW) farms average about 2500 acres.
SJV farming roughly located north and east of Hanford up to Merced and Modesto is smaller/family and very different than the large corporate farms roughly south and west of Hanford. It is important we keep the distinctions.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Here in New York, we don’t consider those small family farms. Perhaps you should come east and find out how large a SMALL farm actually is.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
there are lots of small family farms and organic farms in CA that are way smaller than that as well. no need to fly across the country.
datacruncher Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:28 am
Its why I included the size comparison to Iowa, most people don’t say that state consists of corporate farms.
Depending upon the type of crops a farm of several hundred acres is a size that is usually family run in the west and midwest.
Roger Christensen Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:46 am
The San Joaquin Valley loses 20,000 acres a year to development.
Question: How many farm acres will be lost to HSR?
thatbruce Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 am
(virtual) back of the envelope calculations:
Using a 100 foot-wide alignment (which is extremely generous), over an arbitrary 240 mile route in the Central Valley (Bakersfield to Stockton plus fudging), 5280 feet per mile gives 126,720,000 square feet = 2,909 acres .
That’s 12 acres per route mile if that number looks big.
By comparison, there are 640 acres in one square mile, and thus 14,400,000 acres in the approximately 22,500 square miles that make up the ‘Central Valley’ (according to Wikipedia). Let’s use half of that for the section of the Central Valley through which the above arbitrary route goes (the San Joaquin Valley), and we get a percentage of 0.04% of the area of the southern Central Valley would be used by a CAHSR route between Bakersfield and Stockton.
This is similar to the percentage of land covered by any single transportation corridor going the same length, say I-5 or CA-99.
I would guess that 2,000 of those acres would actually be under cultivation, vs being in town, not under historical or present cultivation, or within the bounds of an existing transportation ROW.
( The question really needs to be set up in a proper GIS ).
Joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Factoid; the total impermeable surface area in the lower, continental US is approx the size of Ohio.
Roads, buildings parking lots, airports and etc.
NASA/usgs study.
datacruncher Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:19 pm
It needs to be in GIS with the actual routes and property boundaries to be of real use.
The problem is not just the total acres taken but the number of parcels split in two, feasible size of the remaining parcels on each side of the ROW, location of the access between the parcels for equipment movement, location of wells and irrigation equipment, etc.
Paralleling an existing corridor like 99 means parcels are not split, simply land taken for the ROW. But where they are following a new ROW means a different set of issues than simply the total amount of land.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 pm
On a greenfield route, parcels are practically always feasible on either side of the ROW. Consolidate them with the neighboring parcels, as someone pointed out above.
Unless you’ve done something really silly like paralleling SR-99 but 100 yards away or something dopey like that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:51 pm
You are in the ballpark. I seem to remember something on the Caltrain-HSR blog where Clem calculated that the whole Caltrain ROW is 700 acres. Nice round number 700 acres in 50 miles is 3500 acres in 250 miles. It would be somewhat less because the Caltrain ROW is wider than what would be needed in the Valley.
Aaron Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Roger, no one said a farmer is also not a business person. They sell land for development so people like you can have homes. It is under a negotiated sale and they can maximize dollars. It is under an agreed upon sales contract and for blocks of land that typically coincide with an entire ranch. The HSRA is forcing a new transportation corridor through farming that splits fields into small and large pieces, the purchaser will be taking the land not based on a negotiated value, but under threat of eminent domain and only for “fair market value” which is economically depressed. They are also doing all of this in violation of their original objective to stay in transportation corridors.
It must also be noted that if these people were interested in selling their land, they would have done it back in the boom of the early 2000′s. A few of the farming families north of my home have had their land in their family since the late 1800′s.
The HSR alignment belongs on a transportation corridor. HSRA is hiding behind bad decisions and engineering and it is foreseeable that this project is going to the colossal over expenditure. I wonder what the cost/benefit ratio is for this project.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I don’t know who “people like you” is supposed to mean, but people like me live in areas that haven’t been rural in 100+ years. People like me oppose sprawl, and oppose superhighways to nowhere that slice through agricultural areas and induce developers to buy up farmland.
Right now, CAHSR can go either in an “existing transportation corridor” – i.e. a rail ROW that goes through lots of small towns with grade crossings, which would subject people to the noise of 220 mph trains on elevated alignment – or go around the towns and acquire farmland. It’s one, the other, or not building the line. And it’s not your call, because there are interests in the state other than yours – including the small town residents on the way, the people paying for construction, and future users.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“people like you” is code for UnReal Americans. We all know that the only people who matter are Real Americans(tm)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Are the people, who have been in their homes since the 1800s, who are displaced by the alternatives, less disturbed by being displaced?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
*Cough* Whaaaat?
As you have to know, land is only valuable if it has water rights. In the 2000s, there was still not as big of disconnect as there is now between the housing supply and water supply. The Colorado was much higher than it was, and the judge hadn’t blocked access to the Delta. Farmers knew exactly what they were doing. If they could get exorbitant prices for their land, they sold out. If not they held onto to it, switched their crops around, and hoarded water.
Now the problem is that the almond and pistachio guys (like Stew Resnik) are making money, but even the low margin crops are making money too. That in theory pushes up the price for water, but a farmer who has land with water rights is not required to sell. However, if you get land tore up by the railroad, then you will have to take a lower price for the water because there’s not enough land anymore to use it all unless you build houses on it. (And if there’s HSR…that’s not likely)….
This isn’t 1984. Using a lawsuit to shape public policy is not in your best interest. It’s not just that the State can win, it’s that it will make it much easier for the Authority to assert legal authority in the future….
Elizabeth Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:26 pm
This suggests that one mitigation the CHSRA could do is buy the water rights associated with the ROW and turning area and give them to conservation groups. Otherwise, it sounds like a farmer would end up with excess water rights that they could sell that would encourage additional sprawl.
dfb Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:25 pm
The water question is much more muddled that just purchasing water rights or even purchasing the land. CHSRA will likely need to pay out to cover costs of infrastructure bonds as well as rerouting irrigation systems.
1) Not all affected farmers own water rights. In reality, a large percentage of the farmers affected likely contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project or California Department of Water Resources (DWR), State Water Project.
2) Land without water rights still has value in the Central Valley. This is because water distributed by the water projects reach most parts of the valley.
3) There is a major difference between water rights, which are property rights, and contract rights, which are controlled by the contract itself.
4) Water rights, the kind that are property, can and are sold regularly just as you would sell any piece of property such as a house or car. Those transfers are generally not controversial.
5) Contractual rights are just that, the right to receive the performance of the other party. The transfer of contractual rights may also transfer duties and obligations of the seller to the buyer. These duties and obligations potentially will be transferred to CHSRA.
6) DWR only contracts with the water districts, not individual farmers. The farmers have a secondary contract with the water district for a particular allocation of water. DWR contracts are online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/swpao/wsc.cfm I understand CVP contracts work similarly. This introduces one more party into any negotiations
7) Contracts can forbid or provide for transfers of contractual rights. They can also require consent of the other party. In this case, the farmers likely needed approval from the district to sell their allocation and perhaps even approval of DWR (I have not read their contracts,yet). This adds complexity to any deal that CHSRA needs to strike with farmers.
8) Water districts sell bonds to pay for water delivery systems within a water district. It then sets fees based on expected water sales to its farmers. Farmers losing significant portions of land or dropping out of the district will upset the water district’s revenue forecasts because those farmers will no longer pay those water delivery fees. It is also possible that the farmers contractually would still be on the hook to the water district despite taking no water deliveries for the portion taken by CHSRA or cut off from the main irrigation lines. This will add some cost to the project.
None of those issues are insurmountable or too big a problem in the long-run but it is something that CHSRA needs to take immediate steps to begin resolving.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:21 am
The land that CHSRA would seize through eminent domain has no inherent water right itself. The owner of the land meanwhile either has property or contract rights to water supplied by someone else, as dfb says. California and other parts of the Mexican Cession use what we call appropriative water rights, whereas in the East its an usufructuary right. What that basically means is that a landowner can package his or her water rights when they sell their land. If the land is all viable, and you have total flexibility in selling your water rights, then the property is going to get the highest value. If you lack flexibility, then the total value of your land (and how much you can put a lien against) falls. That’s why these farmers are fighting.
So the Authority can’t buy water rights associated with the land, because in the Central Valley those are completely separate. But one option could be to have cities purchases land for conservation and retire the water rights that the prior owner used for the land. That would move the remaining farmers ahead in title for water rights and help increase the value of the water still held by farmers.
dfb Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 am
Risenmessiah, that is largely wrong. A significant portion of the affected farmers do have actual water rights. California recognizes a number of different forms of water rights, including riparian rights (like most states back East and adjacent to waterways), appropriative water rights (first come, first right), pueblo rights (rights in a pueblo to all water in a watershed to accommodate growth), and rights reserved by the federal government (for nature or native Californian tribes). Some of the farmers along the San Joaquin River with water rights also get water from the Delta in return for allowing the CVP to retain and divert San Joaquin River water from Friant Dam. In addition, some of the water rights are held by the water districts that serve the farmers rather than the farmers. This all adds complexity of the water issues faced by CHSRA and the affected farmers. Again, not insurmountable but CHSRA neds to start working through the issues now if it wants to break ground next year.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Look at Elizabeth’s comment again. She’s under the impression that the CHSRA can just buy the water rights that are attached to land subject to eminent domain for the project. Its true that riparian rights can exist in California but I don’t see how they are possible in areas served only by irrigation.
You are right in that there’s a myraid of ways that a farmer might irrigate his land, and that even without the land there’s no guarantee he or she can just shop the water rights out.
What’s not being said here is that the assumption seems to be that farmland is the easiest place to build right now because its “open and undeveloped” in reality it’s the most valuable real estate in America these days because of growing demand for food internationally. Starting in the Valley is in some sense “doing it the hard way”.
Moreover, the land is going to be seized no matter what happens. Which is why cities, (which are expected to pony up money in the HSR business plan) should try and work with the Authority on this so that we don’t have a lot of rancor from lawsuits.
Dfb Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 2:52 am
Per acre farmland is much cheaper than land in abig city such as the SF Peninsula. The assumption that it is easier to build in farmland is accurate.
I was addressing general misunderstandings about water rifts and why they are an issue. Watt in Cali is complicated. To answer your question, rRiparian water rights holders along the San joaquin get irrigation water from the Delta in exchange for not exercising their riparian rights. Their water flows to farmers along the friant canal. Riparians also can irrigate the land surrounding the riparian waterway so have built systems to convey that water.
Here’s what I don’t get.
I’ve been living in Fresno for awhile, and I can’t remember a single word of opposition for the extension of highway 180….which involves acres and acres and acres of farm land. And unlike HSR, which will actually take people places, this new highway is literally connecting farms with other farms. The endpoint is the mountain….yes, people go to kings canyon national park…but enough to warrant a 4 lane divided highway? Hell no, especially because once you get to the mountain it has to go back to two lanes.
Ive actually begun posting pictures showing the amount of farmland being taken on my blog.
And seriously, not a single peep of opposition….at least none in the paper of record (Fresno Bee).
joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Why not pass the CA Farmland Preservation Act and lock up all this special farmland and protect it from HSR development and speculation forever?!
Wad Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Because the Act itself will backfire. If land values will rise, to the point where land is worth more than the productive crops produced from it, then farming will still be displaced.
The only way to preserve it as farmland is to produce exotic or exceptionally high value food products (think premium wine or Cowgirl cheese).
One other way farmland might be encouraged is through urban plantationing. This is how the Bay Area helped create the global wine industry. City money would come in and buy up farmland. The new city owners would own the land but leave most of the day-to-day operations to locals with the expertise.
You would see a married couple who’d buy out one of the Central Valley farmers. One person would take HSR and commute into SoCal or the Bay Area for their job, while the spouse would oversee the land. Unlike old-fashioned farming, the spouse would do little day-to-day work. Agriculture would be urbanized in the sense that services — computer software, labor, marketing and transportation — can be contracted out to companies that specialize in those fields.
joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
IMHO This land isn’t that valuable unless subsidized external water is supplied and the farming itself is not sustainable in the long term even with irrigation, salinization and dropping water table.
The preservation of farm land is a red herring in this case. It’s a battle for the few impacted – no different than when the roads were built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:45 pm
The way farmland preservation works in most places is that the farmer gets money to have the deed altered or the zoning or both or even more complex arrangements that can’t be altered easily. It’s forever farmland. Sorta like the Nature Conservancy does but instead of making the land wilderness it’s farmland. The land has no development value because it can’t be developed, you use it for farming or it goes back to it natural state.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Note that the easements held by the Nature Conservancy or equivalent can still be bought or seized by eminent domain for something like a railroad line.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:23 pm
And some of the Nature Conservancy easements up here allow “traditional use” which means farming and logging. They can’t come along and build McMansions on it.
The some of the people spreading concern are spreading it around because they don’t want a railroad next to the land they see McMansions on someday. I’ll be convinced they are truly concerned when they, even though their land isn’t directly impacted, offer their land up for farmland preservation.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:59 pm
fully funding the williamson act might do the same trick without needing new legislation.
You guys are pathetic. You act so elitist, like this man’s livelihood and family heritage can be snuffed out by a bunch of CAHSR engineers who don’t care to look at anything but the fastest route. The man is seeking answers from CAHSR and he gets nothing back from them, or outright incorrect information. As if he’s the first person to get misleading, incorrect, or just bad PR from CAHSR. You all wouldn’t be so cavalier with your statements like “it’s not the end of the world” or “he can adapt” or “he should learn to live with it” because voters approved this concept and pie in the sky ballot initiative. It’s easy being idealistic when your life isn’t on the line. The walls are closing in on you guys, and doesn’t it seem ironic that no matter where CAHSR starts talking their BS and PR, they always seem to upset everyone within earshot?
Spokker Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
If the US is known for anything, it’s for refusing to help farmers.
Not sure how elitist I am personally being. I am poor, fat, ugly and have no social skills. I’m the hard working and disenfranchised little guy looking for better transport options and a job.
See, we all have sob stories. Fuck this farmer and his problems and fuck my problems too. If the route is subpar then fine, but his shitty almonds have nothing to do with it.
joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Oh come on. The USDA and ARS exist to help farmers. There isn’t a better taken care of or more idolized special interest in the US of A.
CA farmers grow rice in the central valley with it’s high evaporative demand because of taxpayer subsidized water.
I like farming but come on.
Spokker Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:19 pm
I was being sarcastic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
you forgot to use the sarcasm font, if you don’t use the sarcasm font some people may miss it.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
The sarcasm warning was in the byline.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:22 pm
the rice is grown in a part of the central valley with seasonal flooding and heavy clay soils that don’t drain hardly at all, around and north of sacramento, that is perfect for rice farming. having that land in permanent paddies allows the area to manage those floodwaters so that they don’t bust levees and flood cities, by spreading it out. and quite frankly, up north there really isn’t a problem with excessive water use for the rice industry, because there’s an excess of water (that socal and the san joaquin keeps trying to buy up and pump south).
it’s the westlands cotton farmers and the like which are utterly unsustainable water hogs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Yes, thousands of people a day should have to sit in traffic or in a holding pattern over the airport so that a few people in the Central Valley don’t have to make some well compensated adjustments to their life.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“like this man’s livelihood and family heritage can be snuffed out”
It can’t be, not by HSR. Not unless he has some kind of specially shaped farm which is a long narrow strip running exactly the length and width of the planned HSR line.
These aren’t 5 acre or 40 acre farms we’re talking about.
I’ve said this before, but if I were a farmer I’m sure I’d be protesting, even if i was in favor of the project. Why? Because for a farmer his land is his livelihood and his income that will feed him and his family for many generations to come. If by protesting he can secure a batter deal, be it more compensation money or some other concession (eg, strategic location of over/underpasses, repairs to farm roads etc) then it is only logical to protest. Land purchase is probably the smallest part of overall costs so the CAHSR authority can afford to be generous and pay more compensation than the land is objectively worth. Remember that once construction starts, contractors are going to have to cooperate with farmers to gain land access, establish temporary bases etc. It’s better to have the farmers on your side.
Bobierto Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
I guess you’re right. Not that this would matter to those almond ranchers, but as a consumer I would rather eat produce grown next to train tracks than next to a freeway.
jim Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
And if I were a farmer, I’d be threatening lawsuits, too. In most cases, lawsuits are expensive and just lead to the same thing happening a bit more slowly. In the case of the Central Valley, though, some of the money is going to turn into a pumpkin in around 18 months if construction doesn’t start and construction can’t start until the NEPA/CEQA process is done and a lawsuit can delay that. CHSRA may well settle such a suit on whatever terms it can rather than see the ARRA money evaporate. At least it’s worth a try.
Moralizing about this is pointless.
VBobier Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:03 pm
That’s true, My recent ancestors before the year 1912 were farmers, Though not to My knowledge in California, My Brother was closer to being a farmer than anyone else in the family was in recent times. Although I’m not sure about the protesting bit, Some will sell if there is enough in It for them, As farm life isn’t exactly easy, Even today.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
depends on the farm. a lot of the people who own the farms hire farm laborers to do the hard work these days. they’re farmers like the guy who owns the factory is a factory worker.
Andy M. Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 am
I have some farming relatives and for them it is the love of the land that is most important. They don’t make much money from what they do but the farmhouse and the land has been in the family for generations and the very thought of losing bits of it would freak them out. I think that if you don’t understand that mindset, then you cannot negotiate successfully with farmers.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:44 am
Ask the farming relatives, since they love the land so much, if they are willing to sell the development rights for a farmland preservation program.
The alternatives to HSR will use more land. Ask them if those alternatives, which run the risk of using their land too, are somehow better.
Quite off topic, but interesting and fun anyway–a bit on high-speed rail connecting services, specifically trolleys, and with a twist.
The cars mentioned here are formerly from Washington, DC, and later found a second life in Europe. Rail historians and enthusiasts are wherever there are rails, through their efforts a precious few of these former American PCCs have been restored.
Interesting to see what we thoughtlessly threw away, and how I wish we had it back:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31075
As it used to be in DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfKgQ1APirI&feature=related
Eric M Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
In that second video, are the cars being pulled by underground cable? I don’t see the pantograph being used and the street looks as though it is set up for cable cars.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
There was a conductor in the vault under the street instead of cable. Something like an upside down third rail shoe collected the current.
Eric M Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for that. That is very interesting setup.
Forgive my newbie question, but what are exact arguments in favour and against
1) the preferred ROW in central valley
2) using the highway 99 corridor
3) using the I-5 corridor
Alon Levy Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
I-5 doesn’t serve Bakersfield and Fresno, so it’s a nonstarter.
CA 99 would in principle be better, but the actual route would follow the rail ROW, which is owned by UP, which refuses to allow new HSR tracks to be built next to its turf.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Tolmach-Tejon would entail connecting Bakersfield and Sylmar via Tejon.
But once in place branching north on I-5 proper could very well find a mandate in the San Joaquin Valley. It really is a function of the feasibility of using the median and existing overpasses. It could become a slam-dunk politically.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
It connects Bakersfield to LA at roughly half the frequency though I would speculate it would be at one third to one tenth the frequency. Frequency matters. It doesn’t connect Bakerfield to Fresno. COnnecting Bakersfield to Fresno matters.
Yes it would be a slam dunk politically. The people living in Fresno and Bakersfield are on this planet and would prefer that trains run where they live not 10, 20, 30 miles away out in remote farmland along I-5.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Frequency is a function of traffic. If the CHSRA’s ridership predictions turn out to be wildly optimistic(partly due to the retrograde, circuitous Detour)they won’t be able to run trains with lots of empty seats. That’s when that expensive extra 50 miles of underused but high maintenance double trackage will really hurt.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Why do you keep trolling with your talk of an unconstructable route?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Because he has fantasies of the long sleek trains sliding silently into the damp recesses of the enigmatic mountains, burrowing deeper and deeper until there’s a glimmer of light, then bursting into the brilliant sunshine with a loud whoosh.
synonymouse Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:54 am
“unconstructable” – talk about luddite.
Ask Herr Herrenknecht if Tejon is unconstructable.
The Santa Fe scheme apparently was a lot farther along than might be thought. According to a posting on the Altamont site the rr actually bought up key plots of land in the Gorman and Lebec areas. The California State RR Museum has the original plans but they have not been scanned. That would be helpful.
Timing is paramount here. My conjecture is that the proposed project came too late in history of American railroading – after the halcyon era when rail was paramount with no natural enemies/ The First World War was the watershed; before the American public was very into trains but afterward and particularly into the 20′s auto, trucks and roads were foremost in the mind of the average citizen. The Santa Fe likely and correctly figured that trucks were going to steal a large part of their business and that big rr infrastructure was a poor investment. The USRA may have had something to do with it as the railroads had discovered that nationalization was for real not just a threat from leftists.
I think the Moffatt Tunnel was one of the last big rail projects and it was started in 1922. Remember the Pennsy electrification was under government aegis.
VBobier Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:22 am
Or when an amateur designs a railroad and doesn’t know what He’s doing.
datacruncher Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Using the I-5 corridor replicates the mistake made by CalTrans in the 60s when it chose to bypass Fresno. Now the state is spending billions to upgrade 99 to handle traffic it never expected on the route between Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton. We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.
By 2050 California’s Dept of Finance estimates the county population will be:
Fresno County 1,928,411
compared to a few others:
San Mateo County 819,125
Alameda County 2,047,658
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/documents/P1_Press_Release_7-07.pdf
Better to plan to serve the Fresno area now instead of saying in 30 or 40 years we need tens of billions more to run a HSR line to it.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Meanwhile Detroit has lost 25% of its population. Who knows what the future has in store.
VBobier Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:25 am
The I5 freeway is doing three things, Serving as an overflow for the 99, serving as a detour for the LA to SF traffic and as a way to get produce to market by the local farmers.
synonymouse Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Is passing up Fresno ever a mistake?
“LA is just Fresno with bigger boobs.”
- Craig Ferguson
Aaron Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
The funny thing is the experts, the public, and the farmers generally look at 99 as achieving the straightest path between Fresno and Bakersfield and allowing a large, and potentially highly used station at the intersection of Highway 99 and 198. This station would allow direct access to 150,000 people in Visalia and close access to 50,000 from Tulare and 50,000 from Hanford. The only people not in favor of this route is HSRA. Any others want to chime in why the 99 is not a technically superior route?
Peter Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Oh, it is completely a technically superior route. It’s just not feasible due to the fact that UPRR will fight it tooth and nail. Given that we need to break ground on it by next September (or miss out on a LOT of federal money), changing the alignment now to 99 is not going to happen.
Peter Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Speaking of which, it’s perfectly possible that Hanford or Visalia will not receive a station at all. So where the tracks are routed between Fresno and Bakersfield would have no bearing on ridership.
joe Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I’m sorry, what was the _technical_ superior argument?
When I connect Fresno to Bakersfield I see a triangle, not a line, with Visalia as the third corner.
So its a longer distance between the two points and I bet dollars to donuts, more expensive to build.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Drawing an arrow straight ROW would be extraordinarily expensive and disruptive. There’s something that is moderately close to a straight line. The UP ROW. It’s arrow straight for miles and miles because it was laid out before there was any one out there in what was at the time wilderness. Since it’s an arrow straight row when they built a highway between the cities that had grown up around the railroad they ran it right next to the railroad ROW. The station for Visalia wouldn’t be in Visalia, it would be in the general vicinity of SR99 and 198, the UP ROW is feet away from SR99 there and arrow straight.
Aaron Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I apologize, I refer to the 99 and the UP route somewhat interchangeably. They follow each other very close. So Adirondacker I am assuming you see the benefit in the 99/UP corridor? Because Mr. Van Ark argues that there are too many bends in this alignment.
Peter Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I’m assuming that he’s referring to the number of bypasses they would have to construct in order to avoid blowing through every single town on the 99 or UP corridor at 220 mph. Each bypass would add more curves (and take out farmland). Fowler, Selma, Kingsburg, Tulare, Tipton, Pixley, Earlimart, Delano, McFarland, and that’s just between Fresno and Bakersfield. Also, consider how expensive it ws going to be if they DIDN’T bypass those towns and had to build aerials through each one. Shudder
JJJ Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Yup, all these little towns even have old passenger stations. If UP weren’t evil, AMtrak would run on that line and serve the most people.
But any line that doesnt stop would have to go all around these cities…..doesn’t it make more sense to have the straight line be west of 99 where nobody lives? (All the cities have grown east of the 99, for whatever reason).
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:55 pm
east of 99 is the zone where rivers coming down through the foothills from the sierra nevada hit the flat fertile alluvial soils of the central valley, providing easily irrigated farmland before CA built the aquaduct in the 60s. most of the central valley cities are either built in that border between foothills and valley, or else on major river junctions.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:10 pm
The railroad ROW that parallels SR99 is nearly straight from Bakersfield to Sacramento. It’s be a great place to put HSR, there’s few curves that might be a problem. The ROW SR99 occupies meanders, swoops, it has tight little curves for exit/entrance ramps. They aren’t interchangeable
I suspect if you ask Mr. VanArk “Is the SR99 corridor good?” he going to hear “Is the median of SR(( good” He’s going to say “No”, because it meanders, it swoops, it has tight little curves in it for exit and entrance ramps. I’d have to see the question and the answer to tell if I agree with him or not
VBobier Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:29 am
Well for HSR one needs either gentle curves or very straight ROW, ROW that is good enough for slow freight trains, Is not acceptable for very fast trains, Nor is sharing the same tracks, Unless one likes collisions between trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:50 am
How wide is the UP ROW? If it’s 100 feet wide there’s plenty of space for two tracks of freight and two tracks of HSR. Looking at satellite images it looks like it’s at least 100 feet wide. I tried to look at tax maps to confirm that but I couldn’t figure them out.
VBobier Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Now If Amtrak and the CHSRA could team up to make the UPRR cooperate and allow HSR, Amtrak supposedly has the power to condemn Railroads property.
synonymouse Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Get the Santa Fe to trade the UP some trackage it wants for the San Joaquin Valley line and then you can have your way with Warren Buffett.
Aaron Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:11 pm
If you ask a UP rep they will tell you 200′ if you ask people along the RR they will say 100′. I have run into this on a few projects i have worked on. The cross valley rail has the same problem. It is safe to say that they have a 100′ secured R/W and potentially 200′ in some places. I also believe that the HSRA could investigate elevating tracks through towns that have large corridors like Tulare that flank the UP. This would allow cross traffic and run it along the UP. I would also venture a guess that there is much more potential to keep larger sections of the track on the ground since you have large runs between potential obstacles.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:11 pm
As long as not buy your house isn’t it ??? fucakhammnn??
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Maby you should call the UP ..and ask them to OK your plan
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
You being they the expert should be able to find solutions instead of sitting there like a loudmouth whiny crybaby…
This is so much easier in China…. (sigh)
Alon Levy Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:50 pm
It really isn’t. In China, they build the line fully elevated, raising costs above those of the more competent first-world countries. In California, the reason they’re looking at a greenfield route with rural takings is that they’re trying to save costs by not ramming elevated HSR through towns.
wu ming Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
because of the funding, yes, but china has farmers protesting and in some cases delaying or killing infrastructure projects. it’s just not done through the legal system so much as through direct action, protests, riots, etc.
Peter Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Anyone notice how the extension to the Shanghai maglev hasn’t gotten underway? It was supposed to years ago. China has NIMBYs, too.
I’m sorry, but doesn’t CA 43 already bisect farmland into triangular pieces? Doesn’t the CA 43 bypass around Concoran also bisect some farmland into non-rectangular pieces? Doesn’t the CA 43 bypass around Hanford also bisect some farmland? What about CA 198 between west of Lemoore and east of Hanford?
If anything, farmers should be glad that the HSR route is sticking TO existing rights of way (BNSF) as much as it is, instead of plowing through everything in the most optimal way possible, to establish a nearly straight line between Fresno and Bakersfield.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:10 pm
It it bisects all the property… they wouldn’t care if it was a road or a housing development… that huge railway is going to ruin their life…. lame crybaby’s
(1) The population, taken together, of Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Francisco is 6.1 million. The population, taken together, of Palmdale, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Merced is 1.04 million. So if the railroad runs straight from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, bypassing the entire San Joaquin Valley towns, you get 6/7 of the potential passengers and save much, much money.
(2) This is a straight political project, and from a political point of view, before the election, the farmers asked HSRA if the route was going through their farms. No, said HSRA, we are going to run side-by-side with Union Pacific. In that case, said the farmers, we won’t oppose it.
The election safely over, HSRA took another look and, to their surprise, side-by-side with UP was looking very undoable. Going straight through the farms was looking much better. So they changed their mind. The farmers feel betrayed — and I must say, although the farm route is clearly preferable and the UP route may be actually unbuildable at any cost — I sympathize with them. They were snookered.
Peter Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Things change. That’s why we have to do environmental studies. It’s unfortunate that people feel they were “snookered,” but it’s a process, and especially with a project of this scope, the final project may look significantly different from what they planned in the beginning.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
You have this exactly right. (A real rarity hereabouts!)
A small clarification is that it wasn’t just the farm lobby who were sold this deliberate fiction: mush-brained “environmentalists” (the sort of dimwits who talk about Transit Oriented Development and lots of happy housing units immediately adjacent to a 350kmh ground level airline route, because, like, um, like, Peak Oil!) were also bought off with this tale. Because, like, um, existing transportation corridors will enable streetcar connectors and leverage the TOD infill potential of downtown Modesto and activate the urban fabric end accentutalize bicycle greenways or something, and because “greenfield” is always a bad word, and because, uh, Peak Oil!
The correct way to build the line and to serve most of the Central Valley cities — and served they must be eventually, for political, environmental and economic reasons — is either to compromise on peripheral “parkway stations” (as is done pretty much everywhere in the world, and remember kids, “compromise” isn’t a bad word, rather it indicates a passing acquaintance with reality) and/or to build less intrusive, cheaper, lower-speed and less heroically over-engineered loop lines branching off the high-speed bypassing trunk line. As has been repeatedly and obviously pointed out here, and not just by myself, 350kmh through cities is done nowhere in the world, for very good reasons.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
A whole lot of voters were snookered by Prop 1A.
The farmers’ concerns would be removed with the I-5 route but they would have to muster the resolve to face down the patronage machine that is the unmoved mover behind the CHSRA.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Except for all the land between I-5 and the station, where the people are…. Or doesn’t that count because the train would be moving more or less east-west instead of north-south? Ya know from I-5 to where the people are….
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
As Mr. Mahoney pointed most of the state’s population is concentrated in the Bay Area and the LA area. Upgrading the UP to 110 mph is pretty good for the Fresno north area. Fresno south to Bakersfield could be connected to the I-5 main north of Tejon.
Besides with I-5 Sac could be in on hsr from the outset, a big plus.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
And most of the state’s population, when they aren’t busy going to LA from SF or SF from LA want to go to places like Fresno and Bakersfield. Not a rest stop on I-5. And even more surprisingly there are people in Frenso or Bakersfield who want to go to SF or LA. And I know this may be shocking people in Frenso who want to go to Sacramento or Bakersfield.
Castle Expert Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Michael, your point is spot on accurate. When talking with Van Ark, Pringle and other Southern California board members they will tell you this is in fact the case. That is why if
you talk to older staff members who work with the authority they cannot look you in the eye.
Let’s face the bond measure says one thing but the board and staff is clearly favoring what Michael has articulated so clearly. The writing is already on the wall even Cathleen Galigani the author of the bond measure is no longer running for an office in her district she instead is running for Secretary of State.